RWG Nuances - comment 64533

Propre maître says ...
#LOL … just came across this. Quite frankly almost none of this has to do with Michael Hadley’s original treatment. Most of this is related to the convoluted loops Mark has personally constructed to maintain safety and stability in his reality while still treating people the way he does … i.e. not adapting until the response he gets is what he was looking for. This allows it all to be someone else’s fault instead of  “The meaning of your communication is the result you get”. This way, he can define the meaning, and if the response does not match, its not Mark’s fault at all, it is just the Right Wrong Game.  

You could actually call this MRRG (Mark’s Really Right Game)  

True story, just saying.

Tags

  1. RWGAutomaticity

Comments


Si says
You could actually call this whole concept of defining right and wrong simply No Fault Communication. Once one starts down that path, everything undesirable becomes “part of that ugly game” and no one has to take responsibility any more for actually, and simply, communicating. You can just add more things to the list when you don’t get the result you want.

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

Si says
I really actually do think that. It was an epiphany that came to me when I came across your growing list, and saw that the last null one was about me. It’s a list that you can continue to grow as things happen to you … instead of doing something different in your communication when the result is not what you thought it should have been.

Mark de LA says
Not clear are advocating or opposing your bolded No Fault Communication? 

Si says
I think this is also related to the “discussions on words” that mostly Mark and Seth are having. It is seeming that Mark believes that communication “is a standard”, has a definition and a system. If one follows the standard, then one is communicating. If then others don’t get it, or miss the point, then it is either their fault for not using the system and not trying to understand, or maybe a problem with the system. It is not the fault of the communicator if the communicator is following the system well.

Is that about right?

Si says
I actually don’t advocate or oppose much. And am not in this case. It’s just an epiphany about the nature of all of this communication talk that has been happening here.

Mark de LA says
Well, the thought of #No-Fault-Communication  sounded like an interesting experiment, but it sounded like in the end you took it away. There are several techniques somewhere in my writing about achieving such one of which is going contra to the automaticity of such #RWGAutomaticity (one would have to acknowledge it exists first I think) & respect & acknowledge the others’ value.

Si says

Si says
Seems to me it could go either way, yep. I don’t think it is probably a holy grail in communication or anything, either way, just another way to have a perspective and make a distinction.