Context and Juice

I woke up early and opened Ariel and wrote a comment on Mark's blog and then i went back to sleep. I dreamt about being ahead of the game in my day, which is usually unusaual for me. My day, however, was a career in a mung of the San Francisco Mission District and downtown LosAngeles. Seeing that i was ahead of the game i decided to go out in the city and look for a place to eat breakfast. Out there, walking in the city in my slippers, in my dream, it occurred to me that the emotional juice of the context of a thought, does not travel with the logical content of the thought. In other words when you are in one context you will not feel the emotional juice of another context. Thing is that may well bear on the the situation which happens when one context is transmitted from one person to another via successful communication.

Then just now it has occured to me that the trasaction meaning of a communication usually carries the juice.

Comments

Mark de LA says

Kewl - you have just accessed the art of rhetoric M = f(ethos,pathos,logos) where rhetoric is the ancient term for the art of communication. Art usually works where words (logos) may fail.

btw, where M = meaning in the response your communication gives back to you.

Seth says

Well i am going here with the prmise that the logical context of a communication my well be indepenant and separate from the juce meaning of the communication. I called the latter thing "transaction meaning", but your term, "M" is referring, me thinks, to the same thing. The point is that there are actually two meanings of most communications ... they may or may not be aligned.

So that the common meme, "meaning in the response your communication gives back to you", is talking about just part of the meaning. Then too there are 4 parts to the meaning of any communication ...

	speaker	listener
logical	speaker's logical context	listener's logical context
transaction	speaker's emotional context	listener's emotional context

Mark de LA says

Yep, still wrapped up in logos - kinda boring - no juice, no understanding & almost a contradiction of what I said the communication is a function 3 variables (channels, maybe):

M = f(ethos,pathos,logos)

If one is not getting the response one wants with logos, look in the other two channels less used.

Mark de LA says

in F2Fcommunication, i.e. visual channel is on, some have also used the function:

M = f(words, tonality , body language) ≈ f(7%, 35%, 58%)

While words (logos) are normally presumed to be more precise in communication than say feelings, who can communicate an exact feeling to another except perhaps while fucking? It should be notable that popular songs & music must communicate something universal while interpreted in each individual case shades of difference.

Mark de LA says

If we had a wider palette of emoticons we could communicate both the written word (logos) & some of the emotion (pathos). As it is they are not better than the words & limit the vocabulary of emotions to ~36 flavors & combinations thereof.

Mark de LA says

How about a language completely in emoticons with perhaps 1000 of them to play with ? (a round number for the words in ming)

Seth says

Einai 2014-04-06 09:09:50 17257

Yep, still wrapped up in logos - kinda boring - no juice, no understanding & almost a contradiction of what I said the communication is a function 3 variables (channels, maybe):

M = f(ethos,pathos,logos)

If one is not getting the response one wants with logos, look in the other two channels less used.

well i think i may have guessed what you are saying.

you assume that i am communicating with you to get back a specific result
you assume that your ethos, pathos, logos channels are always informing about the same thing
you are telling me that some of my channels here are functioning inadequately

However i do not make assumptions 1 & 2.

My analysis: Refer to my diagram above ... there is no ethos, pathos, or logos dimensions there at all. Were i to put that into my model, I would need to talk of 12 perhaps independent contexts, not 4. Specifically, I am saying that my juice and your pathos are not necessarily referring to the same part of the communication. Rather there can be juice (emotion) in the transaction meaning (both side's) and also juice in the logical meaning (both sides) ... and er, not necessarily the same juice.

So above is how the logical meaning of your last communication connected with my logical context over here. Quite honestly that is what i heard logically ... after studying it for some time. Now logically i may well have made some errors or some of my logical context may already be switched relative to yours. We won't know unless you logically listen to what i said and compare it to your own logical understanding and can grock the actual differences.

However, i hear the transactional meaning of your message quite differently. I hear that your intention here is to teach me how to persuade using your three channels artfully. And you are judging that i am doing it badly.

My transaction back to you is to assure you that i am not trying to persuade you at all. Remember my model of communication is just to successfully transfer context from my mind to your mind. It is not usually intended to force it to fit over there. In fact, and please believe me when i say this, usually i am more interested in how your being will respond to hearing my context without any confusion in language. I do respect your being as otherness to me ... and don't expect it to respond the same to some context as i do.

Seth says

and obviously your comments following the one to which i responded in detail above confirm that my understanding of what you said was accurate.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-04-06 10:41:12 17257

Einai 2014-04-06 09:09:50 17257

Yep, still wrapped up in logos - kinda boring - no juice, no understanding & almost a contradiction of what I said the communication is a function 3 variables (channels, maybe):

M = f(ethos,pathos,logos)

If one is not getting the response one wants with logos, look in the other two channels less used.

well i think i may have guessed what you are saying.

you assume that i am communicating with you to get back a specific result
you assume that your ethos, pathos, logos channels are always informing about the same thing
you are telling me that some of my channels here are functioning inadequately

However i do not make assumptions 1 & 2.

Yeah! I spaced out on this one too many words which give me a WTF feeling - missed my shit entirely as far as I was interested. Enjoy the juice. Tastes a bit of RWG as well.

nb. Your assumptions about my assumptions are bad assumptions when viewed by me.

Mark de LA says

BTW, everyone has a purpose when they communicate. As a matter of fact everyone has a purpose for doing whatever they do - that's basic psychology 101.

Mark de LA says

Check out the train of will .... you should be able to find the cause & purpose behind each boxcar.

Seth says

Einai 2014-04-06 16:53:47 17257

BTW, everyone has a purpose when they communicate. As a matter of fact everyone has a purpose for doing whatever they do - that's basic psychology 101.

yep people have purposes when they communicate ... it is not always to persuade. that is a particular purpose.

frequently people are just being social. sometimes they are trying to accomplish a common prupose. sometimes the goal is to find out what situations obtain. if we specialize our model of communication only for what is important for persuasion, then we miss out on what is important for the other kinds of communication.

So my primary observation here, that the emotional juice of the context of a thought, does not travel with the logical content of the thought, was designed to fit in with your mobius strip model ... where context form one side travels to the other ... er from you to me ... but we see that what has juice on your side, will not necessarily have juice on the other. Your right in saying that should the author dramatize and artuflly integrate his juice with the message, then it has a better chance of enticing the same juice over there. Yep quite right. but then it depends on what kind of juice the author is really trying to get. If it is his own pride, and the content of the message has nothing to do with that pride, then it is not likely to connect when it gets to the other side of the mobius strip.

Sorry, to say some of this stuff without being ambiguous, does take a few words.

Seth says

source: mark
Fascinate yourself with your own juice. I gave another clue - not a family argument but more like a theme & exercise GW promotes quite frequently related to crossing the threshhold. All you are really saying to me is that time changes perspective & point of view. Who knew?

Yep time ... and er ... subjective mind changes .... and er ... the people feeling it change. don't forget those other important elements that i am putting in the equation.
And, yes, i'm glad you, as well as I, noticed that is should not be controversial

.

Apparently, however, that simple, uncontroversial observation does not elicit the same juice in you as it does in me. Who knew?

Seth says

...

source: mark
I gave another clue - [] a theme & exercise GW promotes quite frequently related to crossing the threshhold.

... i surmise you were refering to

which ... er ... me thinks is saying just about the same thing, sans mysticism, as i the theme of my item here is saying

.

However i am ... adding ... the idea that it is not, as GW put it, the thought that changed ... but rather the thinker.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-04-07 10:17:23 17257

...

source: mark
I gave another clue - [] a theme & exercise GW promotes quite frequently related to crossing the threshhold.

... i surmise you were refering to

which ... er ... me thinks is saying just about the same thing, sans mysticism, as i the theme of my item here is saying

.

However i am ... adding ... the idea that it is not, as GW put it, the thought that changed ... but rather the thinker.

more like neither. Other input shows up as in a dream.

Seth says

Einai 2014-04-07 08:48:03 17257

seth 2014-04-07 07:50:55 17257

Incidentally the independence of juice from content can be demonstrated quite easily just within one person. Get all juiced up about some thing, doesn't matter where it came from, then get a good night's sleep, see if the very same content of the thing garners the same juice. Is there really any surprise that when it travels from one mind to a quite different one that it will feel quite different?

That just proves that things metamorphose over night. See P.1857
of the Tai Shu commentaries to take the experience beyond the trivial.

i suspect that GW wrote that document in relationship to some argument that happened in the family. i wonder what it was ... do you by any chance know ... if you do, then we could revisit the content and see if the same juice obtains

.

i really don't want to trivialize this juicy shift as only metamorphose overnight. it happens all the time with me in many many situations. in fact i use the phenomena. i salt some context somewhere (like even here) then re-eximine it when i am in ... er ... a different mind. the difference gives me some clue as to what the context really means apart from my own juices in the matter. now this might just be something that i am good at ... or seen differently it might just be that my own being is inconsistent and fluctuates too much ... but that is unimportant. what is important is that feeling the juice is independent of the the context that got it flowing. the juice is not the content. the content is not the juice. being objective re a context is being able to separate it from your juice in the matter. a trivial and not really controversial observation really. strange, though, how often we forget it ... especially when its your context and my juice, or my context and your juice, eh?

Seth says

Einai 2014-04-07 08:59:04 17257

Yep, communication seems to be quite wide & broad in forms of expression. Facebook shows us that vanity is indeed a purpose. Mostly here in fbi we are communicating in the written word, emoteys & pictures; but mostly written language. Juice is the Pathos content I usually talk about. Persuasion enters the picture when argument (not necessarily bad) shows up. Argument can show up when the rwg is triggered by what the other says in a conversation. I don't think pride is much of a factor except perhaps in oratory & award ceremonies unless one considers the occult & the function of Lucifer.

Yes, juice is the pathos ... i do believe we are using that term the same way ... and yes i got both of those terms from you

.

Now i am introducing the idea that we can look at juice in a bit more detail. Examine the complete nature of this juice. When I do that i noticed that this juice does not just hang out in the air independent of other things that we know about. So i like to think of it more like {JuiceX felt about Y by Z}.

I introduced the word "pride" just because it cropped up in my dreams this morning. A specific lady was telling me that the different juices we were feeling might well be just our different prides ... or lack thereof.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-04-07 09:58:46 17257

.

Apparently, however, that simple, uncontroversial observation does not elicit the same juice in you as it does in me. Who knew?

Yeah! My dislike of the word juice in this context notwithstanding, the so what? bubble bursts in.

A much more interesting context to examine for me is how to improve the listening as PR, Erhard & others have defined it?

Seth says

source: mark
A much more interesting context to examine for me is how to improve the listening as PR, Erhard & others have defined it?

sure

. Maybe listen for the content connecting it to your mind, listen also for your juice related to it, ..... then listen to the content as calculated how it is connected to the other mind, and listen also to how it was juicy there. 4 things to listen for (see above). some of those can certainly be ignored some times ... other times they become a integral and important part of the communication.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-04-07 10:30:19 17257

source: mark
A much more interesting context to examine for me is how to improve the listening as PR, Erhard & others have defined it?

sure

Yeah, that would be your listening for the proposal, eh? Still all seth, all the time.

Seth says

Einai 2014-04-07 10:20:44 17257

seth 2014-04-07 10:17:23 17257

...

source: mark
I gave another clue - [] a theme & exercise GW promotes quite frequently related to crossing the threshhold.

... i surmise you were refering to

which ... er ... me thinks is saying just about the same thing, sans mysticism, as i the theme of my item here is saying

.

However i am ... adding ... the idea that it is not, as GW put it, the thought that changed ... but rather the thinker.

more like neither. Other input shows up as in a dream.

you mean neither the thought or the thinker changes. Yet if other input shows up in the dream ... which it certainly does ... then that other input adds to the context that the thinker held while thinking the thought ... er, that thinker changed.

Here seems to me that your juice was one of correcting me ... yet your content just elaborated my example.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-04-07 10:36:23 17257

Einai 2014-04-07 10:20:44 17257

seth 2014-04-07 10:17:23 17257

...

source: mark
I gave another clue - [] a theme & exercise GW promotes quite frequently related to crossing the threshhold.

... i surmise you were refering to

which ... er ... me thinks is saying just about the same thing, sans mysticism, as i the theme of my item here is saying

.

However i am ... adding ... the idea that it is not, as GW put it, the thought that changed ... but rather the thinker.

more like neither. Other input shows up as in a dream.

Putting ketchup on a turd does not change the turd nor the eater but leaves the moment with more to taste.

Seth says

Einai 2014-04-07 10:31:57 17257

seth 2014-04-07 10:30:19 17257

source: mark
A much more interesting context to examine for me is how to improve the listening as PR, Erhard & others have defined it?

sure

Yeah, that would be your listening for the proposal, eh? Still all seth, all the time.

huh? i'm also listening to you ... your content as it relates to this ... and your juice as it relates to yourself (er as much of that as i can presume - admittedly i dont do a very good job there). And yes certainly i am focusing on this here topic.

What are you saying really? That i should perhaps switch topics and travel on your mystic trip ... lots of mark juice there for you ... none for me.

Seth says

Einai 2014-04-07 10:41:16 17257

seth 2014-04-07 10:36:23 17257

Einai 2014-04-07 10:20:44 17257

seth 2014-04-07 10:17:23 17257

...

source: mark
I gave another clue - [] a theme & exercise GW promotes quite frequently related to crossing the threshhold.

... i surmise you were refering to

which ... er ... me thinks is saying just about the same thing, sans mysticism, as i the theme of my item here is saying

.

However i am ... adding ... the idea that it is not, as GW put it, the thought that changed ... but rather the thinker.

more like neither. Other input shows up as in a dream.

Putting ketchup on a turd does not change the turd nor the eater but leaves the moment with more to taste.

well,

, sorry i can't detect any content here about my topic ... except just perhaps yet another example of your changing the topic from some context to your juice on that topic. But ... surprise, surpise , i will not be eating your shit here.

Seth says

Einai 2014-04-07 10:56:11 17257

seth 2014-04-07 10:43:08 17257

Einai 2014-04-07 10:31:57 17257

seth 2014-04-07 10:30:19 17257

source: mark
A much more interesting context to examine for me is how to improve the listening as PR, Erhard & others have defined it?

sure

Yeah, that would be your listening for the proposal, eh? Still all seth, all the time.

See below or above on the turd thing & maybe notice it is still about your stuff & little listening to mine. All Seth, all the time or radio station KSETH . Anything not talking about your idea is off topic, eh? I am losing interest. I do have my own topics to play with. This is the basic challenge apparently being declined.

ZZzz..

Well focus is focus ... and that does mean staying on the same topic ... in this case my topic. You actually contributed a lot ... strange you don't seem to hear that part of it. What is not supposed to be here is your juice about me ... or about yourself. That really does not belong here ... it distracts from this topic ... except as it can be used as a example of what is happening.

I am just here trying to become aware of the elements that contribute to being objective. Pathos and juice are elements of being subjective. ... and that in the context of communication between different minds.

Anyway thanks for contributing.

Seth says
In reaction to mark’s “Your instant mismatch seems pretty consistent” from RWG Nuances (comment 55874).

Objective Meaning: if you say, “it is 1”, and i believe it is “2.54”, then the difference is probably that you are measuring in inches and me in centimeters … that in general our minds are so different that at least one of us needs to understand the others ontology enough to translate, or we will be in continual disagreement. When the matter at hand is not about either of us ourselves, but rather something outside of each of us, then i think i do act to get the translation working, or just let it remain unresolved.

Transaction Meaning: But other things happen beyond an objective disagreement … especially when the matter at hand is either you or i … or has been made to be about you or i by one of our beliefs. That is where, “the meaning of a communication is the effect it makes” kicks in. Then, of course i must play the game … i claim i play the game relative to the #texture of the #mosaic … but i am no saint … automatic reactions kick in … yet by past experience, i realize that if i avoid the automatic knee jerk i usually learn more and get deeper into the matter at hand.

#TransactionMeaning or #DialogueMeaning versus #ObjectiveMeaning

Mark de LA says

I’ll stick with this characterization – much better. ! Hide it if you get it

My first characterization of the meaning of your communication is the response you get was to say, in your case if I am communicating with you & you are being an asshole then all the responses i get will be shitty.

Seth says
i think you mean: if i am being shitty, then the responses you give will be shitty too. In other words your response, habitual or not, will be to mirror mine. Well, by definition, that is a loop … is it not?

Mark de LA says
Nope! Read the sentence literally.

The Meaning of your communication is the response you get

If i communicate with an asshole I will get the kind of response an asshole makes; regardless of what I intended or meant. Q.E.D … that is the problem with the NLP truism.

Seth says

ok, i get that what you said above was the meaning of this meme you published.

However it does not match with my understanding of, “The Meaning of your communication is the response you get”.

So i am at loss to hear what you are really saying in this context.

Mark de LA says
Tsk tsk … you may never know.

Seth says
#btw living in a #texture of #dissonance has a feeling to it … a qualia to it. I remember markdescribing how it felt to hear GW and Virgin fight all the time and I remember how it made me feel. Playing to synchronizing with others just feels better than #RW play.

Mark de LA says
Perhaps and maybe you actually believe & think that !

Seth says
i do.

Context and Juice

Tags

Comments

See Also