Watzlawick’s Axioms of Communication
… 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?
| WATZLAWICK | AURELIS |
| 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).
Related Posts
Mindfulness, Lights and Glow
One can understand ‘mindfulness’ in two different ways, which are distinguishable from each other in the metaphor of the ‘lights’ and the ‘behind the glow.’ These two ways are even opposed at this critical point, although they are two poles that also flow into each other. • mindfulness with primary attention to the lights The underlying Read the full article…
Somatisation and De-Somatisation
The movement from that which shows itself somatically to the same that now shows itself mentally. People can ‘feel with their bodies’ = somatization. This also means that if (physical) symptoms are loosened, people may become aware of feelings more psychologically. This gives the impression that these feelings are appearing only now, but they were Read the full article…
Banned from the ‘Garden of Eden’
EVERY feeling of ‘being sinful’ is the translation of a feeling of not opening. See the flower bud metaphor in e-booklet 2. Inner Dissociation The Biblical original sin lies in ‘eating the apple,’ this is: reaching a state of self-consciousness and therefore also seeing oneself, one’s nakedness. But at the same time, it also lies Read the full article…