![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
The Purpose of Communication
I don’t know what this guy is smoking, but whatever it is, I want some of it. Carlos just knocked another one out of the park in the comments to a previous post:
at uni i had to do a paper on the purpose of communication, and all the theories i could find had the same old “shared meaning” and “meaningful dialogue” stuff. That’s all good, but i was into conspiracy and psyops at the time and i thought it was amazing that nobody considered that the purpose of communication could be deliberate deception.
i had to ask myself, what is the most fundamental purpose of communication that includes both its honest and dishonest forms?
i was watching my dog playing with other dogs at the beach when it hit me: the purpose of communication is to provoke a response.
and since you can’t know (in full at least, you can have a best guess) what the response will be, then all communication is a question.
it really works as a practical theory. it shifts one’s focus to the intended outcome of communication, and all one needs to consider regarding the communication itself is how effectively it serves that intent.
so when you communicate you say “what response am i trying to provoke?” and when someone communicates to you, you ask yourself “what do they want from me?” and you get to choose how you respond.
That bit about the dogs really sinks this metaphor home for me. One of the favorite games that dogs will play in the park is the old “come chase me” game. One dog goes up to another, makes a funny pose or gesture to try to provoke the other dog, and keeps doing it until the target dog takes the bait and runs after the antagonizer. The communication simply becomes: “Do you want to play?” or else takes the command form: “Let’s play. Accept or decline.” And then the target dog simply adheres to or strays from the antagonizer’s intent.
Man, I love this theory of Carlos’. It really puts a million different things I’ve been thinking about into perspective. Marketing is one: Marketing might be described, according to the description of Carlos, as a more “pure” form of communication, because it is totally focused on achieving a specific response. It seems to me that marketing boils down to a three part (with an option fourth) question:
- How do you motivate someone to action?
- How do you present the action so they can successfully accomplish it?
- How can you measure or track that success?
- How do you send them back to the beginning of the loop (step 1, possibly with a redefined action)?
In number 4 above, the meta-action you’re trying to motivate them towards is to continue to respond to your communications, and never leave the loop. More on this as it develops. Any thoughts?
- Perfectly Imperfect Communication
- Parasitic Computing
- Phatic Communique
- Terrorism & Theatrical Violence
- Evolution & Purpose
- Prev: Religion Vs. Spirituality
- Next: Reader Response Criticism
August 18th, 2005 at 12:48 am
how do you motivate someone to action? align that action with thier values…the higher the better.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:52 am
How do you uncover their values? How do you rank the relative “height” or core importance of them? How do you effectively link or align action to these core values?
August 18th, 2005 at 3:15 am
On the above note of Tim to aistair, most marketing is based on psychographics, statistics, and test groups. Social means and symbolism is their language for deliberating communication with individuals’ values. They may not get every individual they want, but it’s easy to go after stereotypes and generalisations.
As for communication, I really dig the above post. I would take it one sterp further and define communication as, yes, a question, in the hope of a response to maintain a dialogue with oneself.
I just got in, so I am not going to draw this out, but it’s my notion that we all maintain social dialogue in order to better understand ourselves on the sole level. Yes, any act on my part is in hope of a reaction in order to put my actions into a relative perspective. Without others’ reactions, I have no definiton of myself.
I know, I know… one can argue for self-wort, meditation, and enlightenment rather than the endless thrust of being a part of the social mirror. But if everyone could find enlightenment so easy, they wouldn’t be on this site in the first place, is my guess.
We communicate to know ourselves. And really… marketing is a form of dialogue no different. Brand names count on it, they depend on our need to define ourselves “individually,” to stroke the ego, to continuously work on figuring out our context, story, journey — who am I?
August 18th, 2005 at 4:39 am
Yes but!
I have a hunch this is all very unnatural as of now. Not to say marketing and anticipated behavior hasn’t been refined. But what is to become of all the gaps? Do we really want to fill in every last prediction with ratios and best guesses? What ever happened to wandering or navigating around the manifestations of the consolidization of individualism?
As for myself, I do not want to “motivate” anyone to any “action”. I think we must demotivate towards an act of anti-action. I have no idea what this means. None whatsoever. But I think feeling our way around in the dark is far preferable to ever succumbing to the seduction of marketing.
August 18th, 2005 at 11:27 am
I know what you’re saying, but I think you’re getting hung up on negative connotations of the word “marketing”. Really, all marketing is is a type of communication, focused exclusively on manifesting intention (a la magick, conscious design, etc).
It’s all well and good not to want to coerce people into doing anything. I’m not advocating that here. But it seems silly to me to ignore how communication works when your goal is to communicate. As a writer, I can only spend so much time fumbling around in the dark before people lose sight of what it is that I’m saying or where I’m going (this nazi meme post is a good example - I started out with a half-baked idea, and suddenly people were veering all over the map, and none of it really helped further my original intention or made much sense to me). I certainly want my work to be exploratory, but never at the cost of coherence or intention. Marketing appeals to me because it is honed and focused, and concentrates itself on perfecting one’s craft.
And you do want to motivate people to action with your communication, or else you wouldn’t be doing any of this. If nothing else, your writing intends to motivate yourself to action.
August 18th, 2005 at 11:31 am
My brother makes this same point all the time. I tend to think it’s an extravert’s approach to the world and to the self. Seeing the self as reflected in others. Not that we introverts don’t do that, but the focus isn’t really there.
Except for me, because it’s my website! Ha! But really though, I get what you’re saying. And I have to admit that spending so much time sharing and bouncing ideas off other people has hugely helped me to understand my self and my place in the world.
August 18th, 2005 at 11:49 am
jk, surely you’re aware that by communicating you’ve just provoked a response, and intentionally at that?. your actions belie your words.
and just as surely i will not succumb to the seduction of your marketing. and by that i mean i’m just not buying your idea.
tim used marketing as just one possible application of the original concept.
keep your eye on the ball
so you don’t like marketing, that’s cool, what else you got?
August 18th, 2005 at 11:51 am
sorry, posted without refreshing page, missed other comments.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
this reminds me so much of semiotics. the more i think about it, so much of what we’re talking about here is grounded in semiotics– might be an interesting trail to follow. i especially enjoy umberto eco’s writings on the subject. like check this out, from his “A Theory of Semiotics”:
here’s a great lil’ online intro to semiotics:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html
August 18th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
How do you uncover their values? How do you rank the relative “height” or core importance of them? How do you effectively link or align action to these core values?
one on one the task uncovering a persons values is a process of inquiry. many people are initially uncertain of thier values. they may know that they love thier wife or know it`s important to drive a black sports car but until a person works it out by literally writing all thier values down in terms of relationships, religion, likes and dislikes, job, money, ethics, etc. they wont really know themselves.
values are powerful motivators and can be a surprise in where they sit in relation to each other. you may love your wife but it may come as a surprise that the colour of your car is such a powerful element of value that it interferes in your value judgement when it comes to allowing your wife some say in that choice.
i use value inquiry in my work to help people know thier own strengths and weaknesses and where they are at odds with thier own values when they attempt things in thier lives. the internal struggle with values is terribly limiting and can be virtually unconcious to someone when they attempt changes, are failing and don`t know why. in terms of linking or aligning action to values, that is a personal choice and tends to be an automatic result of the placement and understanding of one`s values. when values are rearranged the actions tend to change in direct reaction to the adjustment.
regarding sales and marketing; all we do, at all points in our interaction with others, is to sell ourselves. otherwise we would be sociopaths. the constant checks and balances of selling ourselves to others is the glue that holds communities together. a consensus marketplace of acceptance.
i will leave the obvious distortion of these values in the media to conjecture. but suffice to say that they love to play with the hierarchy of our values and therefore our actions.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
This makes me think of a lot of things:
Artaud had a similar theory - i forget what he called it but he wanted his plays to engulf the audience so that the line between audience and spectator was erased
butthe idea is that the piece writing play whatever does not exist in isolation but it is the audience or reader who brings it to life
August 18th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
the true measure of communcation is in the response it generates. as a communicator, if you don`t like the response you get, change the communication. unless your ego prevents the flexibility needed to change. though as i write this i realise that if you believe strongly enough in what you are communicating that you feel the content is unchangeable then your only recourse is to detatch from the response you get to your communication.
August 18th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
I used to think just that, but now I realize that if you’re communicating something and nobody’s responding, then that means you’re not communicating. If what you want is not a response but certainty about an idea, then don’t communicate.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
but many ideologues have made a career out of thier ideas.history is full of examples. hitler said much about big lies being accepted as truth by the masses.itis almost as if people are crying out for the big lie as opposed to the quiet truth.
i do believe as a cornerstone of my work that people are the true judge of what you are saying. i owe my clients the ability to pay attention to thier responses.it is for thier benifit, after all.
August 18th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
I put the “scare quotes” around “motivate” and “action” to kind of sum up how vague I think “marketing” should stay. In other words, like Tim points out, yes I am hung up on the negative connotations of “marketing”. True enough, I doubt I am approaching this issue with all cylinders firing — probably just making shit up until it makes the most sense to me. So, for some reason it makes more sense to delineate the terms “communication” and “marketing” as communication tends to jibe with voluntary discourse, while marketing seems to be an ends in search of a means.
In my ideal world, I think it preferable to provide personal example or loose templates if you will, to those you are seeking to commune with, rather than extolling “truth” in a time that truth is just as relative as one’s personal opinion. I’m not saying truth is impossible to find, but that “marketing” a route to truth or a brand of truth is just as likely to backfire. Seekers should be set free, free perhaps to do a little DIY marketing themselves, but free nonetheless to aimlessly wander should the urge hit. Marketing seems to invariably entail a hierarchy and hierarchy is what I personally reject. Thus the “anti-marketing” of which I have no idea the meaning of — which to me seems the point. Let the dead bury the dead etc, we ain’t goin’ along.
I’m sick of disagreeing with people politically, philosophically, ethically etc. (not you carlos or Tim or anybody else — this shit here is fun!). I want to see a natural trend towards deprogramming — getting down to the bare essentials of who and what we are. I think this leaves plenty of room for communication, but marketing? Unless this is just a semantic difference I’m picking up (and not fathoming fully) — fuck the marketing. . .
August 18th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Well, to be perfectly honest, that’s exactly what I’m thinking about. How do I take the ideas I’m always playing with and communicate them to people in such a way as will allow me to make a living from it, but without subjecting people to stupid games or manipulation.
So you can say “fuck marketing” all you want (and on one level I agree wholeheartedly), but that doesn’t help me solidify any ideas into reality about how to move forward. It just keeps me where I’ve been. And don’t get me wrong, where I’ve been is great, but how great would it be to be compensated for all the time I put into this stuff?
August 18th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Yeah, that’s a tough nut to crack Tim. Which is why I don’t believe we are truly arguing here. Nor would I take it that should you turn some formatting corner, you’d suddenly be lapped up into the “Evil Empire”. I believe what you do here is “DIY” — needless to say.
Best advice I got is this. Thanks good ole’ Bad Religion. They always come through in a pinch!:
August 18th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
if you want to make money the marketplace there are rules, and a big one is to be different enough to stand out from all the other tim bouchers with thier publishing contracts and distribution networks and so on. resenting the status quo of the market place will do nothing but guarantee failure. not all successful products are a scam. not all producers of successful products are scammers.
marketing of ideas is the same as the marketing of other products.it is development, testing and roll-out.
the most successful deliverers of spiritual work are the deepak chopras and ken wilbers. once you get by the cult of personality you see the marketing methods that you have to adhere to in order to get paid, which is the only reason to publish (unless you are an ego slave.).these people succeed not because thier ideas are greater than others but that they attend to thier business model and act professionally. the media is a vast industry hungry for new products and services provided by people like you and me.it eats the weak and ill prepared. it rewards the stronger and educated with money and fame. what you do with it is your business.
the stupid games and manipulation are an opinion about the industry that may limit you in what you wish to accomplish. if you could be more precise as to which games and manipulation you are refering to i can be more precise in my comments.
i will stand by my assertion that you must manipulate the industry just as it manipulates you. the exchange of value in the marketplace is that and that alone. to get hung up on the deeper meaning and ethics of it will destroy any hope you have of getting paid. your success doesn`t mean you will become some media asshole with limos and a press agent informing people of your ideas while you hang out with movie stars, unless you want to, and who am i to judge if that`s what you want. that`s for a different kind of asshole.
your objective is to get paid for your ideas, so you have to be objective about your approach instead of buying the sophomoric view that there is some inherent evil in marketing. bill hicks obsessed on that one and it probably made his agent cringe knowing he was biting the hand that fed him to be pure to his art. it was funny,mind you. it comes back to your value structure regarding your publishing career. what is more important to you, payment for good writing or some ethical position regarding the resentment felt for manipulation and stupid games?
is not “occult investigator” a publicity stunt to some?
August 18th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
Alistair, those comments really more reflected my view previous to this. I’m merely trying to forge a bridge between what I used to think and what I know is no longer useful in order for me to move forward. I plan full well to manipulate the industry as you said
Amen, that’s what I’ve been realizing not just about the marketplace, but about life in general. I’ve spent so much energy being rebellious up until now that I thought it was who/what I was. But now that I no longer feel that, I’m seeking to find some better way to explain and encapsulate it which also allows me to take what I’ve learned do something with it
August 18th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
Also, I like what you implied above: that when you have an objective in mind, you have to be objective in terms of how you go about accomplishing it.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:11 am
it is important to make the distinction between object and subject when we are planning our next move. there are so many metaphors contained within that last phrase that it is easy to get caught up in the brilliance of it but keeping the objective in mind is the only way to succeed. we always hit the last thing we look at. the eye need to be trained in the art of scrutiny. the eye of the hawk comes to mind here, seeing a mouse in a field half a mile away. he needs to eat so he looks as he flys. god created these environments and arrangements between hunter and prey for some perverse reason but he was good enough to make the rules consistant. when the going gets tough it is some comfort to realise this and make adjustments accordingly. the hawk sometimes misses the mouse and the little guy scurries down his hole until the winged death passes by. the hawk never for one minute forgets that he is a hawk though and stays on task, even if he has to scream fuck outloud to remind himself of that fact. and on he flys, ever looking.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:54 am
http://www.repeatwhiletrue.com/scrapbook/?p=27
August 19th, 2005 at 4:35 am
I just want to bring something up. I mean, honestly I mean, nothing by it.
But here we are talking about what Tim should do. How Tim should conduct himself online. What the next step is in Tim’s online presence — A presence I hope endures for as long as I live to care.
Tim, you’re making all the right moves already. You’ve drawn untold numbers of people to your site, you toil to transcend the pathetic boundaries of oblivious division and you’re perfectly open about all of it. I don’t have any idea what kind of emotional toll or gain this must be for you, but it is nevertheless, remarkable. The shit you churn out, the openmindedness, the honesty, the opinion, your relentless humanity is motherfucking astonishing. You’re doing everything right.
Keep going amigo! You’re collecting allies and your allies meanwhile are forging other fronts on the open-source/open-ended “religion” movement. I personally wouldn’t worry right now what kind of future you have in it insofar as the collapsing future goes. You clearly will transcend whatever it is that happens next. You are, as of now, a tremendous source of open, psychic energy. Let it run its course.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Thanks, JK. That means a whole lot to me.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Interesting points.
One key thing I don’t see about marketing is that marketing is always a broadcast.
Do you really want to broadcast?
Wouldn’t a dialogue me bore appropriate.
Don’t just make your readers respond, but have the good grace to respond deeply to
your readers. (Which I think you do, and do well:)
Rather than using marketing as your model, would seduction be a more appropriate model? Seduction almost always appears to be a dialogue.
In terms of the idea of communication as the provocation of a response, you might want to read some of these…
A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guattari, esp. chapter 4 - Postulates of lingistics (V heavy going, but rewarding, considers communication as order, or command)
Or…
Neal stephenson’s Snow Crash, for this ideas on language as command, the tower of babel, and the sumerian language.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:42 am
Yes, I want to broadcast. What do you think this website is? Anyway, I don’t really think marketing necessarily has anything to do with a broadcast. I think marketing is simply an invitation to take part in a story. Or check out the Cluetrain Manifesto for markets viewed as conversations. Marketing is also useful to me as a model because I want to make money. Why reinvent the wheel by making up a bunch of other terms to describe it? Why shy away from my goal? It’s simply not incompatible with communicating in a deep, meaningful and even personal way.
August 22nd, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Ok, if you need to make money off this site, then fair enough.
(My attention span is short these days, so I missed your eariler reply in the same vein.)
From what I’ve heard, the cluetrain manifesto sounds like an exceedingly good place to start.
One final point….
I’ve been looking into why marketing seems to me inappropriate to your journal…
I realised that I read you posts mainly as questions (explicit, or implicit).
So, I have to ask:
Is this intentional?
Is the journal really your product. What is/could be (Writings? Consultations?)?
Is your intent to learn or to teach?
If your intent is to learn is it possible to learn from people, while at the same time making money from them? Is it right to do so?
Sorry, too many questions, but I’m not at all sure where you’re coming from and going to… but they are interesing places
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:23 pm
The journal is what it is. It’s me exploring, learning, asking questions. What I want to market is probably books that are more focused and topical. Why can’t questions or conversations make money? There’s nothing immoral about making money, especially not from something I love and which other people seem to thoroughly enjoy. I used to think there was, but I’m getting over that. Anyway, the questions you’re asking are the right questions - the one I’ve been asking two. I don’t totally have the answers yet, but I’m coming gradually towards them.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:11 am
[…] Here’s a personal example. My recent Google search on: what is the purpose of communication (no quotes) lead me to a blog post by Tim Boucher titled “The Purpose of Communication” written in 2005. One of Tim’s readers, Carlos, added an amazingly comment to the post: “…the purpose of communication is to provoke a response. And since you can’t know (in full at least, you can have a best guess) what the response will be, then all communication is a question.” […]