There is more 'cut and paste' on that Tony. Johari's Window was a classic. Roughly, hundreds of models collapse to: 1. There is the person you see and know as yourself 2. There is the person others see and know 3. There is what you don't know about yourself. 4. There is what others don't know about you.
All this tends to have a therapy-personal-growth context. What has interested me is why we don't (generally) live in a therapy-growth world and find it so hard to communicate with each other. This has long had a kind of detective context for me, in that the barriers extend way beyond what group therapy reveals. Even in such you get the person others can think if nothing positive to say about and such as transference and counter-transference. There is that point too, when personal development becomes the que sera chant in Wax Tailor or simply about the psychopath manipulating others. Classic language conflict might be: 1. he fancies me and wants to be all over me 2. not with someone else's. This is only the start, as both may be very confused on what they are really feeling, in denial, lying and so on. .And what might a person mean given what is differently said in different contexts, on different positions on the delusion scale? 1. I see the light. 2. (interpretation) 'you are using the oldest religious sales dodge on me. 3. No - the light bulb over there is on 1. we will use quantitative easing to rejuvenate the world economy 2. (interpretation) bullshit, you are going to give more money to the rich and have no idea what a rejuvenated economy would be for ordinary folk 3. (interpretation) you are a commie Getting at what is really meant also includes the attempts by speakers to appeal to audiences, persuade, coerce, speak in a context of fear of instruments of terror. 1. of course I am a Christian 2. please put the red hot poker away 3. we won't know if you are telling the truth until we use the poker 4. how very Christian of you old chap One can wonder whether (Labov was a classic) education does much more than form 'language drones' too. Gabby unearthed some in Bremen yesterday. Goffman found classics in the British Civil Service. Today is yesterday's tomorrow, so I should be bullied in responding to "Gabby". This is tough because I am well bored with Big Sister and the policewoman from yesterday's horse is coming round with her dog for a walk up Hutton Roofs. So if I did say anything, would I mean it? Is there an actual "Gabby" to receive the pearls? One of the ones I construct, would already know I have meant. I would love to see her deconstruction of "Bremen", but she pulls apart an (admittedly distractively grouchy at times) old man. Did I mean that on Bremen? Or do I really not want to know and have boxed off the topic forever, knowing I have given "Gabby" something she can deprive me of and hence be sure we will never see what I didn't want but lied that I did? It's tough Tony. I think you would know I'm genuinely grateful for introducing me to Wax tailor with none of the above stuff attached. Such gems are perhaps all we can extract from much "conversation", yet think on my interpretation of Wax. I felt it as a statistical language. It would be interesting (to me) if you could explain this "meaning". I have a vague understanding I can flesh out a bit. The police lady is here. She has taken rather a lot of trouble with her appearance for a dog walk. What could it all mean! On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 1:26:59 AM UTC, facilitator wrote: > > Yes to all exactly. > > This partly how I question terminology used and often ask for > clarification of words and meanings. I don't really want to know what a > person has said. I can hear that. I want to know what a person means. > > A woman once said of, I believe, Winston Churchill: "Sir I believe you are > drunk" "Yes Madam, I am". "But you are ugly and in the morning I will be > sober". > > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
