This notion is cyclically repeated in this ongoing conversation [John Paul
could probably tell us how often, when and by whom]:
>> Communication depends upon the RECEIVER, not the SENDER.
This formulation implies that the message is a packet of meaning that
travels from the sender to the receiver, thus:
SENDER --> [MESSAGE] --> )RECEIVER
and that "communication" occurs when the receiver has correctly decoded
A different formulation has been advanced in this conversation, which
conforms more closely to the way I think about this, namely that the
message is a CONSEQUENCE of an interaction between the sender and the
receiver (and their environment). In this formulation, the sender may act
by initiating "communication", and the meaning arises (emerges?) out of
This looks like a different way to say the same thing, but in my view it
is a very similar way of saying something that is profoundly different.
To help grasp what I mean when describing this difference, I would suggest
saving this posting and all the postings that follow in this "new" thread
for the next 21 days, and then re-reading the batch.
Jack Hirschfeld Doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore? email@example.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>