Comments on: Watzlawick’s 5 axioms http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/2008/06/08/watzlawicks-5-axioms/ Design Anthropology & Experience Design Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:27:12 +0100 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: p http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/2008/06/08/watzlawicks-5-axioms/comment-page-1/#comment-2161 p Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:27:12 +0000 http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/?p=72#comment-2161 Toto, in fact, as you are saying, if you have no "receiver", then there's no communication... so it is not communication... Watzlawick is talking about communication... not about some event that is not communication... right? Toto, in fact, as you are saying, if you have no “receiver”, then there’s no communication… so it is not communication…

Watzlawick is talking about communication… not about some event that is not communication… right?

]]> By: admin http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/2008/06/08/watzlawicks-5-axioms/comment-page-1/#comment-932 admin Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:10:24 +0000 http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/?p=72#comment-932 I see your point. Our different opinions derive from a different concept of 'communication'. In my idea, Watzlawick's axiom points out that everything can be intepreted as communication, because the receiver is the final judge of what is and what is not communication for him/herself. I see your point. Our different opinions derive from a different concept of ‘communication’. In my idea, Watzlawick’s axiom points out that everything can be intepreted as communication, because the receiver is the final judge of what is and what is not communication for him/herself.

]]> By: Toto http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/2008/06/08/watzlawicks-5-axioms/comment-page-1/#comment-931 Toto Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:14:31 +0000 http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/?p=72#comment-931 I think Watzlawick's first axiom is incorrect. First of all if one tries to communicate it is only communication if the receiver responds to it. If the receiver is not able to interpret the sensed phenomena there is no communication. If there is something like communication the inversion is not "One cannot not communicate", but "One can anti communicate". Hence, no communication sits between communication and anti communication. Anti communication is the form of communication that annihilates communication, resulting in non communication. An example of annihilating communication is for example professionally used by politicians. Repetitive alternating between communicating and anti communicating the net result is non communication. Useful for such communication is the use of Weasel Words. I think Watzlawick’s first axiom is incorrect. First of all if one tries to communicate it is only communication if the receiver responds to it. If the receiver is not able to interpret the sensed phenomena there is no communication. If there is something like communication the inversion is not “One cannot not communicate”, but “One can anti communicate”. Hence, no communication sits between communication and anti communication.
Anti communication is the form of communication that annihilates communication, resulting in non communication.
An example of annihilating communication is for example professionally used by politicians. Repetitive alternating between communicating and anti communicating the net result is non communication. Useful for such communication is the use of Weasel Words.

]]>