Watzlawick’s Axioms of Communication

July 12, 2021 AURELIS Syllabus, Communication No Comments

… in relation to AURELIS.

Paul Watzlawick (1921 – 2007) has been one of the best-known thinkers about communication. His central tenet was that a lot of communication is carried on below the level of consciousness. It happens automatically.

I put his five ‘axioms of communication’ in a table and comment on them from an AURELIS standpoint, not in the sense of a ‘discussion’ but as what they spontaneously make me think of when musing about them. Would Watzlawick have agreed?

WATZLAWICKAURELIS
Axiom 1: “One cannot not communicate.”The deeper self is always present and active, in many ways at once: in ‘parallel processing’.
Axiom 2: “Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is, therefore, a meta-communication.”Apart from the ‘relationship,’ many other elements play significant roles in a multidimensional happening. One can never consciously grasp this complexity.
Axiom 3: “The nature of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the partners’ communication procedures.” The punctuation can be distinct as well as very subtle, even so very important. In a kind of meditative communication, one can be attentive to this, attaining ‘deep-to-deep communication,’ which may be very motivating and pleasurable.
Axiom 4: “Human communication involves both digital and analogic modalities.”Here also: multidimensionally analog. The difference between ‘digital’ and this is also the difference between ‘meaning’ and ‘deep meaning’, very much related to the difference between ego and deeper self.
Axiom 5: “Inter-human communication procedures are either symmetric or complementary, depending on whether the relationship of the partners is based on differences or parity.”Here we disagree slightly: I don’t think that the power game should be central. There are many ways in which relationships may or may not be symmetrical. A more important one to me would be pure longing (versus frustration).

A frequent criticism of Watzlawick has been that his theories would be tough to put into practice. I think this criticism only makes sense when one starts with “I want to do this.” The point is: ‘you’ should not do this from a purely conscious standpoint. Watzlawick transcended the borders of the ‘I.’ To me, it’s an invitation to act from the total self. This is a meditative way and thus very related to an ‘Aurelian’ communication. To grasp this is important to understand the aims of both worlds (Watzlawick and AURELIS).

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Goal of Lisa Coaching

Every Lisa coaching session – as well as string of sessions – is part of a path towards healing from the inside. From goal to broader The goal of Lisa coaching [see: “Lisa“] starts at the beginning. This is, validating the outspoken goal of the user. Then, with user consent, going somewhat deeper into this Read the full article…

Nobody Wins In Argumentation

So make sure you have a common goal with the necessary depth. In deep dialogue, everyone wins. In this case, the most important thing is to have a common goal. So make sure you have a common goal. A goal is like a mountain. When the other person is on another mountain, and you pull him off Read the full article…

What is ‘Depth’?

An AURELIS coach always reaches for depth in his coaching. There is an ongoing commitment to depth. Superficial – deep We talk about ‘superficial’ versus ‘deep’ attention, or ‘superficial’ versus ‘deep’ meaning, or ‘superficial’ versus ‘deep’ emotions. And of course: in the syllabus, you continually encounter the term ‘the deeper self.’ So what is depth? That Read the full article…

Translate »