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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I put his five \u2018axioms of communication\u2019 in a table and comment on them from an AURELIS standpoint, not in the sense of a \u2018discussion\u2019 but as what they spontaneously make me think of when musing about them. Would Watzlawick have agreed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cI<\/u><\/em><\/strong> want to do this.\u201d The point is: \u2018you\u2019 should not do this from a purely conscious standpoint. Watzlawick transcended the borders of the \u2018I.\u2019 To me, it\u2019s an invitation to act from the total self. This is a meditative way and thus very related to an \u2018Aurelian\u2019 communication. To grasp this is important to understand the aims of both worlds (Watzlawick and AURELIS).<\/p>\nWATZLAWICK<\/strong><\/td> AURELIS<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Axiom 1<\/a>: “One cannot not communicate.”<\/td> The deeper self is always present and active, in many ways at once: in \u2018parallel processing\u2019.<\/td><\/tr> Axiom 2<\/a>: “Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is, therefore, a meta-communication.”<\/td> Apart from the \u2018relationship,\u2019 many other elements play significant roles in a multidimensional happening. One can never consciously grasp this complexity.<\/td><\/tr> Axiom 3<\/a>: “The nature of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the partners’ communication procedures.” <\/td> 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 \u2018deep-to-deep communication,\u2019 which may be very motivating and pleasurable.<\/td><\/tr> Axiom 4<\/a>: “Human communication involves both digital and analogic modalities.”<\/td> Here also: multidimensionally<\/em> analog. The difference between \u2018digital\u2019 and this is also the difference between \u2018meaning\u2019 and \u2018deep meaning\u2019, very much related to the difference between ego and deeper self.<\/td><\/tr> Axiom 5<\/a>: “Inter-human communication procedures are either symmetric or complementary, depending on whether the relationship of the partners is based on differences or parity.”<\/td> Here we disagree slightly: I don\u2019t 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).<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n