Being Communicative

Background: This particular framework was of less interest to me than the Principal Typology to follow. I have known for so long, reasons now lost, that the Typology was about ways of using language to communicate—and of great significance. By contrast, I found it hard to know how this Tree was going to function in advance. How would it help? What would it reveal that was illuminating? In the usual way, however, what commenced as arduous and boring (because my effort was cursory and I was reluctant to get involved) became exciting, fascinating and revealing. It was worth it in the end. It always is. I don't claim this account is error-free, but I am fairly confident that I have got the general gist correct and it is good enough to be improved.

The elements of communication affect each other: that much is surely obvious. It was noted that L7-openness and L6-meaning together organized and drove the creation and use of L5-terms, L4-symbols and the other lower level entities.

Now we must focus on such influence in a more detailed way. The goal and expected benefit from this inquiry lies in:

making our deliberate communications more effective.

If I know more about what I am doing as I craft or experience a communicative event, I should be in a stronger position.

In clarifying influences amongst elements/levels in a THEE Hierarchy, there is a standard way to proceed. The steps below follow that way for the levels of Communication.

What is this Tree Framework About?

«Step 1: Determine a formal name for the Tree (as a single entity) as soon as you can—often it is difficult.»

I can confirm that naming was difficult here. The issue seemed to resolve itself as I developed clarity about a communicative event. So my initial name was the «Framework for Being Communicative».

However, researches in the Architecture Room have led to the conclusion that Trees are best named in terms of their internal duality. For Communication-PH5K, this led to the proposition that the Tree is a model of An Intentional Expression.

The Intrinsic Tension

«Step 2: Determine the dynamic duality intrinsic to the entity [in this case: «being communicative» or «intentionally expressing oneself»]. Clarify the polarity in a variety of situations—usually there are many broadly similar names for each pole.

This should be easier: just avoid thinking in static or concrete terms that ties the element to a physical thing. The element is a personal function: i.e. it has a purpose that defines its essence.
Example:

We can convert the function/element to a dynamic form by imagining ourselves in a conversation or argument—and reflect on the pressures in regard to it:

● "how do I or others signal or signify or create meanings?"

● “what happens inside me (and others) when using a symbol or a term?"

Think ...

... and then check my proposed answer.

Originally posted: 8-Nov-2013. Last updated: 14-Mar-2016.