Orientation to Communication

It is certain that communication can get quite complicated, and analysing it can be confusing. It is no surprise that numerous academic disciplines are involved. However, we have the advantage of a commitment to observation and a method that starts with simplification.

We can grip firmly to certain fundamentals that make communication a phenomenon included within THEE:

On the one hand: 

• any message is a sharable objective reality i.e. -social.

On the other hand:

• the meaning of the message (whether for the sender or the receiver) is a personal subjective reality i.e. psycho-(logical).

So communication lies fair and square within psychosocial reality. That means it must be part of THEE.

Being part of THEE means it is amenable to our particular form of common-sense inquiry. As more is learned through this inquiry, the structure of communication will become more complicated.

Much to do with communication may be deceptive or obscure, and much may operate unconsciously. Whatever communication is like, we must and will surely bring clarity to bear on its forms and processes. It takes commitment.

Machine Terminology

In discussing Communication, the all-too-common use of machine-type terms like «encode» and «decode» just confuses. The exception is when «coding» is psychosocially apt e.g. for Morse signaling, or computer programming, or espionage work.  To stay grounded in THEE inquiry, it is important to use language that is part of the way we actually think and function.

This inquiry is in its infancy and I expect teething troubles due to exposing ideas before their full maturity. Initially, all that was posted was this introduction section. Now the Primary Hierarchy is posted too. It contains the elements that make up the simplest communicative event. Much more will be posted in due course.

I try to cater to the two types of visitor, and beg the indulgence of the third type:

For the arts-oriented, humanities-oriented, literature-oriented, emotional-awareness type of visitor, there is the evolutionary story , specially created to give you the feel of what this framework will be about.

For the rational, scientific, hard-headed, positivist type of visitor, there is an abstract specification of 10 inquiring challenges that will be addressed as opportunity and pressures permit.

I'm sorry, but there can be nothing for the physics-dedicated, biology-dedicated, mathematics-based, AI-dedicated or convention-bound scientist. Much, even everything, may be intolerable for you on this site. However, it is open to you to consciously adjust your vision to what works for you in everyday life.

Communication frameworks will be developed and posted as the various challenges are met over the years to come.

Assistance from all is welcomed, now and in the future.

Communication and language sometimes seem to be the mystery of all mysteries. It's hard to get a fix on the meaning of words like meaning. But we do not have to do that here: we do something else. We identify phenomena (via functions and properties) and then try to find a word that conveys the nature of each phenomenon. People can reasonably disagree about the best choice of name, and I envisage particular difficulties in this THEE-topic. Read more about naming.

You can read more about the background to this inquiry. Essentially, very early (in the late 1970's) I discovered that work and communication were probably tightly linked. I soon realized that there are many kinds of work that are developed around different ways of communicating.

The topic was then left until the late 1990's, when I looked at the issues again in relation to biotechnology and Internet technology companies. The final and continuing burst of interest has been associated with TOP, which is itself an exercise in communication.

This THEE-Satellite aims to produce a simple lucid and practical understanding of communication and the use of language in social life.

The inquiry takes the usual step-by-step approach—and everyone should feel free to question or criticize as we proceed. Because we are communicating and using language to grasp what language and communication are, we must expect some confusion along the way.

The THEE approach has worked well elsewhere—surely it will serve us well here if we do our best. With patience and goodwill, I believe we can do it.

Meaning emerged from doing, when doing became deliberate. So meaning stems from intention.

But everything stemmed from that original effort to «make sense» of something (i.e. the stimuli) in order to hold and pursue purposes effectively.

So the essence of general intelligence is the ability to predict based on making sense of what is happening.

The extent to which each individual can make sense of the stimuli that endlessly surround him and pour into him, turns out to be the main differentiating factor in individual capability.

This insight will help us understand work and its organization.

Get yourself oriented in a comfortable way:

• Enjoy a story about the evolution of language.
• Examine the social background to this inquiry and why it now has priority.
• Look at well-meaning advice to be careful with background reading.
• Then start at whatever topic in the Table of Contents interests or intrigues you.

• See where COMMUNICATION lies within THEE.
• If you are technically or scientifically inclined or wish to get a head-start, ten inquiring challenges have been identified with diagrams and puzzles that will need to be worked out.
• Start with the smallest element that is still communication—Stimuli-L1 in the Primary Hiearchy—and work your way up systematically.