Avesalom Podvodny. Series “Communicatica” Part 1 GRAMMAR OF COMMUNICATION Preface. Psychology of Communication. Introduction. Communication and Modalities: Basic Concepts. Chapter 1. Semantic Archetype: Background, Meaning, and Style. Chapter 2. Dyadic Archetype: Yang and Yin. Chapter 3. Dialectical Archetype: Creation, Fulfillment, Dissolution. Preface Psychology of Communication Relevance. What are the highest archetypes? What are modalities and higher modalities? Communication and higher modalities? The problem of communication. Who is this course for? Roots and novelty. Exercises for mastering modalities: theory and practice.
> Higher modalities and psychotherapy. Course objectives. Possible outcomes. Relevance. How much does the ability to communicate—and, above all, the ability to correctly understand a partner and clearly express one’s thoughts and intentions—matter to a modern person? Probably much more than it did for people in the past, let alone the century before last, and even more so than for someone from the second half of the 20th century. This applies first and foremost to people whose profession is directly related to communication and managing others, especially large groups. One can try hard to convey one’s thoughts, ideas, or plans to a close subordinate—but how can one be sure that this subordinate will pass this information on to their subordinates without distortion, and they to theirs? One can be absolutely certain of one thing: distortions along this path are inevitable; however, with effort, their nature can be anticipated and accounted for.
The peculiarity of our time and the emerging civilization is that the burden on the mental bodies of social individuals—on the mind, intellect, and mental processes of all people, and especially those in the social elite (of any kind) who in one way or another manage others—has sharply increased again. In today’s world, social success is no longer enough to rely solely on charisma and personal will—one must also learn to skillfully translate them into different languages understood by various people and groups. If the past era left individual sages the chance to nurture their ideas for decades without worrying about their social adaptation—when the right people would come and take them themselves—the future era, it seems, no longer leaves such a niche: now an idea must not only be conceived and formed but also presented in a form that is clear, comprehensible, and, at the very least, accessible to those who need to understand it.
Furthermore, the number of contacts required to successfully implement any significant action plan has increased significantly in our time and will continue to grow. It is clear that only those programs will succeed whose leaders (and even rank-and-file performers) can choose an effective approach from a multitude of possible options. To do this, one must be able to quickly establish contact with different people and conduct numerous complex negotiations—complex in terms of information, emotion, and energy—and, based on the diverse information received during these negotiations, make the right decision.
In other words, in the author’s view, only those groups will successfully exist and function in the future that, on the one hand, are psychologically unified and comfortable for their employees, and on the other, are sufficiently (and benevolently) open to the external social environment. This applies to small and large groups, formal and informal, from families to ethnic groups, from small firms to large transnational corporations.
On the other hand, daily experience shows that all people and all groups are very different, understand the same words in very different ways, pay attention to and interpret nonverbal nuances of communication differently, and evaluate its context in very different ways. Too much in communication bypasses the words, standard gestures, and consciousness of the participants in various dialogues—but not their subconscious or their leading egregores. Therefore, if we want to learn how to adequately communicate with our own (and others’) subconscious, as well as with the subconscious of different groups, we must first master their language—and, in the author’s view, this is primarily the language of higher archetypes and their modalities.
What are the highest archetypes?
The word “archetype” comes from Greek and translates as “prototype” or “primordial image”—a subtle model common to many similar objects (or phenomena) that gave rise to them. A higher archetype is, so to speak, an archetype of archetypes, a model so subtle and abstract that nothing exists above it—its “parent” is the Absolute itself. The search for and description of higher archetypes is the domain of philosophy, while the description of the manifestations of various (including high and higher) archetypes in human psychology is the domain of depth psychology, which saw intensive development in the 20th century, primarily in the works of C. Jung, S. Grof, and J. Houston.
The main reason for psychologists—both theorists and practitioners—interest in archetypes is that they are associated with the primary types of psychic energy, or the energy of the human soul; moreover, the deep structure of the subconscious, which remains practically unexplored to this day, tends to reveal itself to researchers through archetypal symbols.
Higher archetypes include, for example, Yang (the masculine principle) and Yin (the feminine principle), the Local and Global archetypes, and the archetypes of Creation, Fulfillment, and Dissolution.
The psychological paradox associated with higher archetypes is that, on the one hand, they symbolize the most subtle and profound types of psychic energy, residing in the psyche and subconscious in the most secret and protected area, while on the other, they manifest very openly in a person’s immediate life, in qualities and features of their behavior that usually do not attract attention but are very significant both for the person themselves and for those around them.
Therefore, by carefully observing and analyzing human behavior—even the most ordinary—psychologists can gain the most important information about the balance of archetypal energies deep within the psyche. And by systematically and consciously managing modalities in their lives, a person gains the ability to indirectly but very effectively influence the deep processes of their inner world.
What are modalities and higher modalities?
Communication experience clearly shows that focusing solely on the direct content of words (one’s own and the partner’s) is insufficient—no less, and often much more, significance is given to various additional factors, such as the current situation, the expectations of the partners, their (often unspoken) goals, as well as intonations, gestures, and facial expressions. In any significant communication situation, a person is concerned not only with the direct meaning of the spoken phrases but also with various qualitative characteristics, or modalities, of the behavior of the communication participants.
Modalities used in behavior and, in particular, in communication can vary—for example, a person may speak quickly or slowly, be silent or talkative, attentive or inattentive, tolerant or intolerant of others’ opinions, and all these and other qualities—silence, talkativeness, etc.—are modalities of human behavior. However, from a psychological point of view, the greatest interest lies in the modalities of behavior that are directly related to the deep structures of the human subconscious—they are a kind of foundation of the psyche. These modalities are called higher modalities and reflect the activity of the corresponding higher archetypes in individual psychology.
Higher modalities include, for example, the Yang and Yin modalities, as well as the Local and Global. You can communicate with a person by pressing them in a Yang way or enchanting them in a Yin way; you can speak locally, i.e., about specific details, or globally, discussing issues in general.
Communication and higher modalities.
One of the most common communication problems is the lack of any clear categories to describe it. Today, there is no system of concepts and rules in which one could, first, realize that something is going wrong in this communication situation, second, understand who or what is to blame, and third, find a way to fix it. As an attempt to change this sad state of “communicatica”—a science of human communication that does not yet exist—the author has made some efforts, the starting point for which was concepts and categories lying in an area seemingly very distant from communication problems—namely, in the field of the philosophical foundations of astrology. It turned out that, despite their extreme abstraction, the higher archetypes underlying astrology are also, apparently, at the foundation of human psychology, manifesting in everyday behavior in the form of corresponding modalities—that is, certain features of their speech, facial expressions, gestures, intonations, etc.
At first glance, these qualities seem almost imperceptible. However, it quickly becomes clear that this is not the case—each person has their own favorite, habitual modalities in their behavior, and changing them to alternative ones is not easy at all. From a psychological point of view, the choice in each specific case of one or another modality is far from a minor matter, and the resistance a person encounters when trying to act “against” the will of their subconscious is often difficult to explain solely by force of habit. It seems that the energies of higher archetypes activated when using the corresponding modalities are sharp weapons for the psyche, the keys to mastering which lie very deep and are costly.
The problem of communication.
In the author’s opinion, the problem of communication as such does not exist. Usually, a person who complains of loneliness, stiffness in interactions with others, an inability to correctly understand a partner, or to clearly express their own thoughts and intentions—who, in short, has what they call obstacles to adequate communication—has a clear subconscious reluctance to communicate with other people, in particular, to deeply perceive them, adapt to them, and generally deal with them at all.
The reasons for such a subconscious unwillingness to communicate with others can vary: simple egoism, childhood or adolescent psychological trauma, a deep conviction that nothing good can be expected from other people, and so on. Any of these reasons is enough to create obstacles for a person in communication. Will a book on the art of communication help such a person? Can one learn communication techniques without first overcoming a deep subconscious aversion to this activity? The author is convinced that this is very unlikely: from a dry root, there is no chance of growing a fresh green sprout.
Who is this course for?
It is intended, first and foremost, for a reader who loves and knows how to communicate with different people, and this communication constitutes a significant, if not the main, part of their life and profession—but at the same time, they are not entirely satisfied with their communications and feel that many essential subtleties of communication elude them, and they regret this. Furthermore, they understand that communication is a subtle matter and can only be formalized (i.e., described precisely) to a limited extent, and its understanding is a creative and practical process.
In addition, the author addresses this book, which is essentially more of a workbook than a textbook, to all those who love the Russian language and want to learn to use it perfectly. Probably, everyone at some point in their life has experienced a deep satisfaction from finding the right words in a conversation or letter, as well as a sense of envy toward those who can express their thoughts, feelings, and states unusually aptly, expressively, and concisely. However, few realize that such an ability is not only (and not so much) an innate gift but also the result of prolonged effort, and diligent practice of the exercises proposed by the author will undoubtedly advance the reader in the art of active mastery of their native language.
Roots and novelty.
The book offered to the reader is an original practical development based on the author’s research into higher archetypes, reflected in the books *Esoteric Astrology*, *The Veil of Maya, or Tales for Neurotics*, *Higher Archetypes: An Experience of Psychological Research*, and *Psychology for Astrologers*. In constructing their concept of communication and natural psychotherapy, the author drew on certain concepts from modern Western psychology introduced by C. Jung, E. Berne, F. Perls, M. Erickson, J. Houston, and other psychologists and psychotherapists.
The books in the *Communicatica* series can be viewed from different perspectives. At their core, they are intended to improve the reader’s communication skills, primarily to expand their social perception and enhance their self-expression in social situations, especially in pair and group communication. However, the process of communication is very important for human psychology as a whole, so improving communication skills inevitably leads to psychocorrection, sometimes to a very deep degree. Thus, learning communication can be seen as a special method of psychotherapy, which has advantages over many other psychotherapeutic methods, the first of which is the ability to conduct natural indirect therapy, avoiding direct interaction with conscious and subconscious psychotraumatic material, both current and past.
Exercises for mastering modalities: theory and practice.
This book is based on the author’s experience from conducting numerous seminars with various participants, united only by one common trait: a desire to learn to better understand their partners and to express their feelings, thoughts, desires, and intentions—including the most subtle and difficult to articulate—more accurately and clearly to those around them. It turned out that the language of higher modalities is a complex but very convenient tool for solving these problems.
There are significant differences in the description (and mastery) of higher archetypes and the corresponding modalities. A higher archetype is a philosophical category described, if necessary, in quite abstract terms; at the same time, its modality is a manifestation of the energy of the archetype in a person’s inner or outer life, and therefore it must be something concrete and tangible, as well as (at least partially) controllable by the person’s will.
The author has devoted a series of their books to describing higher archetypes as philosophical categories, and familiarity with them will undoubtedly benefit the student. However, in the book offered to the reader’s attention, the author’s main focus is not so much on archetypes as philosophical categories but on their manifestations in human communication—that is, on the corresponding modalities of human behavior. Of course, it is impossible to master or improve the art of communication alone—and therefore, alongside theoretical material and individual tasks, the book provides a large number of group and pair exercises. By performing these, the student can master the art of diagnosing and using higher modalities.
Experience shows that modalities are best mastered by a group of 6–15 people who meet regularly (at least once a week) for sessions where pair and group exercises are performed, including role-playing various scenarios. At each session, a leader (who may change from session to session) plays a central role; this person prepares the session topic in advance, outlines its plan, and organizes the session.
Higher modalities and psychotherapy.
At first glance, studying higher modalities has little to do with psychotherapy—no more than studying any foreign language. However, practice shows that this is not the case, and mastering unfamiliar and “uncomfortable” simple and (especially) complex and multifaceted modalities does not go unnoticed by a person’s subconscious: deep processes begin within them, sometimes accompanied by the realization of previously hidden problems, but more often (without any special awareness) they are simply filtered out in the course of classes. Students who practice these exercises consistently and for a long time (a year or more) almost always perceive them positively; for example, it is often heard that the student gains great psychological support and stability, becomes calmer, more tolerant of others, begins to understand them better, and (without any special effort) gains greater respect or love from relatives, friends, and colleagues.
Can higher modalities be used for psychotherapy? In the author’s opinion, yes, absolutely, and such therapy has significant advantages, including being very gentle on the psyche; however, this psychotherapy should still be conducted by a specialist psychotherapist. On the other hand, a student mastering higher modalities does not need to be a spontaneous or professional psychotherapist; it is quite enough if they do so out of love for the art of communication and with the goal of learning to better understand those around them and interact with them more adequately. Their specific psychological and social problems are better not to be addressed directly during the study of the material.
Course objectives.
The book offered to the reader is a practical guide to studying the modalities of higher archetypes, or, more briefly, higher modalities. It was conceived by the author as a tool with which an interested reader in practical psychology can learn, on the one hand, to better understand themselves and others, and on the other, to express their feelings, thoughts, and intentions more accurately and perfectly.
However, these goals are only the beginning. Any professional communicator—whether by profession a psychotherapist, lawyer, playwright, director, businessman, CEO, teacher, or diplomat of any level—will be able to find direct applications of higher modalities in their profession, and later even be surprised at how they managed without them before.
Possible outcomes.
As side effects of prolonged (a year or more) study of higher modalities, the following are characteristic:
– The student begins to feel much more confident in all communicative situations; in particular, they discover opportunities for maneuver where they previously saw only forced moves;
– The student’s level of understanding of the people around them increases; in particular, they realize that much of what they previously perceived as inappropriate, foolish, or inadequate behavior from others is actually nothing more than a form of expression and self-expression inherent in and organic to them. As a result, the student’s tolerance toward people and social phenomena grows, and they begin to enjoy greater love from those around them;
– The student’s attention to the people and situations around them increases significantly (since they master a language that is largely adequate for describing them), making these situations more interesting and meaningful; the question of how to “kill time” during forced communication with an uninteresting partner or in a meaningless situation often disappears. In many cases, the student can say much more to those around them about their problems, especially communicative ones;
– The student’s social potential increases: those around them begin to treat them with respect, listen to their words, and more easily submit to their will; on the other hand, their will less often goes against the will and subconscious attitudes of others. The student becomes (when necessary) much more diplomatic, tactful, sincere, and direct; their natural charm and sociability grow;
– The student’s ability to express themselves in all communication situations increases; self-expression becomes less psychologically dangerous for them. Their creative potential in professional and amateur spheres grows;
– The student’s psychological and social resilience increases; they feel that each new modality they master is an additional “leg” firmly planted in the social field;
– The student rethinks many of their narrow external social and internal family situations, discovering in them much greater degrees of freedom and manageability than they previously suspected; many previously unsolvable problems resolve themselves or reveal paths to their solution. In particular, the student finds “keys” and methods of interaction with people and situations that previously seemed fundamentally impossible;
– In their inner world, the student gains great support from the archetypes they have mastered, which become their loyal friends, a kind of very high “roof” that imperceptibly weakens or completely neutralizes the power of many of their inner enemies. The student begins to understand the subtle mechanisms of self-destruction (both internal and external) and masters the keys to solving such internal problems, the roots of which are either inaccessible to them or no longer relevant to their resolution.
However, as Uncle Remus said, cakes are much tastier to taste than to hear about, so the author stops here and invites the reader, in the course of mastering the exercises below, to independently evaluate their (and their own) obvious and hidden flaws and advantages.
With respect,
Avesalom Podvodny
COMMUNICATION AND MODALITIES: Basic Concepts
Universal archetypes: overview.
Communication: transmissions and replies.
Protagonist and partner.
Modality.
Higher and humanitarian modalities.
Related and heterogeneous modalities.
Syntonic and antitonic replies.
Modality markers.
Types of markers: weak, accentuating, and emphasizing.
Cognitive and stylistic markers.
Own and synastric modalities.
Monotone and ambitonal transmissions.
Synastric markers.
Simple and complex modalities.
Complex syntonic and complex antitonic replies.
Submodalities and complex modalities.
Transposition of complex modality.
Complementarity.
Pure, mixed, and overloaded transmissions.
Ambivalent transmissions.
General and intermediate modalities of long transmissions.
Formulas of modal transitions.
Universal archetypes: overview.
Let us begin with the main characters of the book: these are archetypes (universal patterns) of the psyche that always exist not individually but in family groups or clans. Families of related archetypes are called universal archetypes. In this book, we will examine the following universal archetypes: Dyadic, Triadic, Holistic, Logistical, Esoteric, Dialectical, Kabbalistic, Evolutionary, as well as Semantic and Psychological; all of them are higher except for the last two. These archetypes (to varying degrees of detail) are examined in the author’s books listed below. The reader is not formally expected to have detailed knowledge of the material in these books, but familiarity with them will facilitate the completion of many exercises.
The Dyadic archetype consists of two higher archetypes: the Yang and Yin archetypes (the masculine and feminine principles in Chinese philosophy). These archetypes are described in the book *Higher Archetypes: An Experience of Psychological Research*.
The Dialectical archetype consists of three archetypes: Creation, Fulfillment, and Dissolution. These archetypes are described in the book *Higher Archetypes: An Experience of Psychological Research*.
The Triadic archetype consists of three higher archetypes: Synthetic, Qualitative, and Subjective. These archetypes are described in the book *The Veil of Maya, or Tales for Neurotics*.
The Holistic archetype consists of two higher archetypes: Global and Local. These archetypes are described in the author’s book *Higher Archetypes: An Experience of Psychological Research*.
The Logistical archetype consists of two higher archetypes: Symbolic and Contentual. It is described in the book *Psychology for Astrologers* (Lecture 6).
The Esoteric archetype consists of four higher archetypes: the archetype of the Subtle Plane, the archetype of the Dense Plane, the archetype of the Eastern Channel, and the archetype of the Western Channel. These archetypes are described in the book *Esoteric Astrology*.
The Kabbalistic archetype consists of seven archetypes corresponding to the subtle planes: the Atmic, Buddhic, Causal, Mental, Astral, Etheric, and Physical archetypes. These archetypes are described in the books *Reversed Occultism, or The Tale of the Thin Seven* (Chapters 6 and 9) and *The Subtle Bodies* (series *Kabbalistic Astrology*, Part 1).
The Evolutionary archetype consists of seven archetypes corresponding to evolutionary levels: the archetypes of Muladhara, Svadhisthana, Manipura, Anahata, Vishuddha, Ajna, and Sahasrara. These archetypes are described in the books *Reversed Occultism, or The Tale of the Thin Seven* (Ch. 9) and *The Veil of Maya, or Tales for Neurotics*.
The following two universal archetypes are not higher but are very important for the communication process and psychological applications (hence their names). The Semantic archetype consists of three: the Background archetype (or situational archetype), the Cognitive archetype (directly meaningful), and the Stylistic archetype. These archetypes are introduced (under slightly different names) in the book *Psychology for Astrologers* (series *Psychology and Astrology*, Part 1, Lecture 7). The Psychological archetype consists of four: the archetypes of the Inner World, the Outer World, Outer Expression, and Inner Perception. These archetypes are described in the book *Archetypes of the Psyche* (series *Psychology and Astrology*, Part 4, Lectures 3, 4, and 5).
Communication: transmissions and replies.
Communication is a process in which it is not easy to distinguish individual elements and structures. However, as a first approximation, it can be described as a sequential exchange of information-energy quanta between participants, which the well-known American psychologist Eric Berne calls “transactions”; this word is a calque from English *transaction*, which roughly translates as “directed influence.” From the author’s point of view, the term *transmission* is more appropriate, and it will be used below to denote the verbal and nonverbal content that one partner transmits to another during communication—within the limits set by the second partner’s replies.
Below, a *reply* refers to the verbal component of a transmission; it can consist of exclamations, phrases, or sometimes entire long monologues. Thus, typical pair communication is a sequential exchange of transmissions, but at the verbal level—replies. However, in reality, communication is always something much greater than a purely intellectual exchange of content embedded in words, and a significant part of this book is devoted to revealing this thesis.
Protagonist and partner.
For convenience of presentation, we will call the main character of any dialogue the *protagonist*, and their interlocutor the *partner*. In examples and sketches where these roles are not explicitly indicated, the protagonist is considered to be the participant who delivers the first reply or the first mentioned character in the description of the scene. In addition, the author of any single reply is also called the protagonist.
Modality.
The activation of a given archetype in the psyche always corresponds to a certain modification of human behavior: it acquires a quality, or *modality*, corresponding to that archetype. For example, the activation of the Yin archetype in the psyche corresponds to the appearance of a Yin modality in a person’s behavior (and, in particular, in their transmissions).
An important psychological fact is that in their own and others’ transmissions, a person subconsciously attributes (within each universal archetype!) one or another modality and orients themselves toward it as a psychologically significant factor.
Higher and humanitarian modalities.
Modalities corresponding to the highest archetypes are called *higher*; examples include the Yin, Yang, Local, and Global modalities. Modalities related to the Communicative and Psychological archetypes (for example, cognitive, stylistic, outer, and inner) are not higher—they, along with some others, belong to *humanitarian modalities*.
Related and heterogeneous modalities.
A modality is *related* to a given modality if it belongs to the same universal archetype. For example, the Yang modality is related to the Yin modality. *Heterogeneous* modalities are those that belong to different universal archetypes; for example, the Yin and Global modalities are heterogeneous.
Syntonic and antitonic replies.
When the protagonist addresses the partner, they indicate a certain modality in their transmission. In their reply, the partner can use the same modality (within the given universal archetype), and then their reply is called *syntonic*, or a related one, and then their reply is called *antitonic*. For example, the protagonist asks:
— How are you doing, Protase?
Within the Dialectical archetype, this question is in the modality of fulfillment. Therefore, a dialectically syntonic reply will also sound in the modality of fulfillment:
— I’m doing well, Veronica!
And a dialectically antitonic reply might sound, for example, in the modality of dissolution:
— I am succumbing to the decline of my being, my dear.
Modality markers.
A modality can be indicated in a person’s behavior in various ways. Often, special markers—unique to a given modality—are used for this purpose: specific signs, words, phrases, gestures, and other expressive means that allow this modality to be distinguished within the family of related ones. For example, one of the common markers of the Yang modality is the imperative mood:
— Come here! (Yang)
A common marker of the Yin modality is the passive voice:
— I was an attractive force that overpowered me. (Yin)
— I had a dream. (Yin)
Another example of a Yin marker is adverbs denoting a person’s or other object’s state, for example:
— I’m cold. (Yin)
— I feel good. (Yin)
Characteristic markers of the modality of creation are the words *suddenly*, *abruptly*, *unexpectedly*:
— And suddenly it became clear to me. (Creation)
Frequent markers of the Global modality are words like *all*, *in general*, *entirely*, *we*, *altogether*, the use of plurals:
— And we are all already here. (Global)
Markers of the Local modality are words like *piece*, *part*, *point*, *fragment*, for example:
— The North Pole is a coveted point on the Earth’s surface. (Local)
Types of markers: weak, accentuating, and emphasizing.
The modality of a transmission can be indicated with varying degrees of expressiveness: it can sound like a slight hint, be accentuated, or specially emphasized. Accordingly, markers are distinguished as *weak*, *accentuating*, and *emphasizing* (strong).
A weak marker determines the modality of a transmission without markers of related modalities.
An accentuating marker indicates this modality as such.
An emphasizing marker not only indicates this modality but also contrasts it with related ones.
For example, a weak modal marker is the presence in a reply of a non-key concept that was not in the previous conversation:
— And have you tried to resign yourself?
An accentuating modal marker is the introduction into the conversation of a new key concept:
— There’s an idea to go to the mountains.
An emphasizing modal marker is the introduction into the conversation of a new proper name:
— Meet Manepha: this is my friend Pafnuty!
Cognitive and stylistic markers.
A marker can indicate a modality directly—in which case it is called *cognitive*—or through stylistic features of speech, intonation, and gestures of the protagonist, and in this case it is called *stylistic*.
An example of a cognitive Yang marker is the imperative mood of speech:
— Come with me, Aglaia!
An example of a stylistic Yang marker is the commanding intonation of speech and a direct gaze at the partner:
— (in a commanding tone, looking directly into the eyes) Come!
Own and synastric modalities.
Often in a transmission, in addition to its own modality, it is indicated (directly or indirectly) in which modality the partner’s reply should sound. This modality of the reply is called the *synastric modality* of this transmission.
For example, in the transmission:
— (on the phone) We are all already at Veronica’s, and where are you—at home or at work? (Local; local)
the own modality is Local, and the synastric modality is also Local.
In the transmission:
— And you, Egor, would do better to relax and be quiet. (Yang; Yin)
the own modality is Yang, and the synastric modality is Yin.
Monotone and ambitonal transmissions.
A transmission in which (within the given universal archetype) the own and synastric modalities coincide is called *monotone*; if these modalities are different, the transmission is called *ambitonal*.
For example, the transmission:
— Parfen, be more specific. (Global; Local)
has an own Global modality and a synastric Local modality, so it is holistically ambitonal.
The transmission:
— How nice it would be if we sat quietly, just listening to the music of nature. (Yin; Yin)
has both own and synastric Yin modalities, so it is dyadically monotone.
Synastric markers.
Modal markers designed to indicate to the partner in which modality they should respond are called *synastric*. For example, the word *where* in a question addressed to a partner implies a Local modality of response (“Where in our zoo is the deer enclosure?”) and is therefore a Local synastric marker. The word *decide* in the phrase:
— Well, decide already—are you going to the zoo or not!
implies a Yang modality of the partner’s reaction and is therefore a Yang synastric marker.
Simple and complex modalities.
Modalities of higher archetypes are a kind of basic building blocks of communication; in the further presentation, they are often referred to as *simple modalities*. Heterogeneous simple modalities in human behavior are often combined with one another; in this case, we speak of *complex modalities*. Thus, a complex modality is the superimposition of two or more heterogeneous simple modalities on each other. In the formula of a complex modality, the simple modalities that compose it are written separated by hyphens, for example: *yang-loc* (read: Yang-Local modality), or *creat-yin-glob* (read: Creative-Yin-Global modality).
Examples:
— Inessa, bring me a piece of pie. (Yang-Local)
— And suddenly we all felt so good together! (Creation-Yin-Global)
Complex syntonic and complex antitonic replies.
If two (or more) universal archetypes are considered in the framework, then syntonicity of the reply implies syntonicity in each of the modalities under consideration—and the same requirement applies to an antitonic reply.
For example, consider the protagonist’s reply:
— Ryurik, come to the right window. (Yang-Local)
Within the Dyadic archetype, this transmission has a Yang modality, and within the Holistic archetype, it has a Local modality. Therefore, a dyadically-holistically syntonic reply should also have the Yang-Local modality, for example:
— And what, Virginia, have I bored you at the table? (Yang-Local)
A dyadically-holistically antitonic reply in this case should have the Yin-Global modality:
— Yes, I understand: disposition is the main thing. (Yin-Global)
Submodalities and complex modalities.
Homogeneous simple modalities can combine with one another, forming a complex modality. In this case, one of them is the main one, and the other is auxiliary, serving as a kind of overtone or nuance that is added to the main modality and colors it—but does not cancel it out. This second (auxiliary) modality is called a *submodality* in this case. Thus, a complex modality is constructed as follows: a modality of a universal archetype is taken as the main one, and then it is refined by a related modality; the latter is called the submodality and, in the formula of the complex modality, is placed in parentheses, for example: *yin(yang)* or *yang(yang)*.
In speech, complex modalities are pronounced as follows: *yin(yang)*—”Yin sub-Yang modality,” or simply “Yin-Yang modality.”
Examples of replies in complex modalities:
— Sit down, Nicodemus, and make yourself at home! (yang(yin))
— You will see Catherine in the room on the right, on the blue sofa by the window. (loc(loc))
It is important to understand that in a complex modality, the submodality never cancels out the main modality but only adds its own nuance to it. The main modality characterizes the transmission as a whole (its basic situation), while the submodality gives its development (clarification) or an additional accent.
Transposition of complex modality.
*Transposition* refers to the transformation of a complex modality in which the main modality and submodality change places, i.e., the main modality becomes the submodality and vice versa. For example, as a result of transposition, the modality *yin(yang)* becomes *yang(yin)*.
— Sit down, Nicodemus, on this sofa, and make yourself at home! (yang(yin))
— It would be very pleasant for me, Nicodemus, if you would sit on this sofa. (yin(yang))
Externally, transmissions with mutually transposed modalities may look similar, but psychologically they differ fundamentally.
Complementarity.
We owe the term “complementarity” to the famous American psychologist Eric Berne; in English, it means “addition.” However, below this word is used in a broader sense: the complementarity of a partner’s transmission (within the given universal archetype) means the correspondence of its modality to the expectations of the protagonist (expressed directly or indirectly in their last transmission), i.e., following the synastric markers of their transmission. Thus, a partner’s reply transmission is complementary if its modality matches the synastric modality of the protagonist’s previous transmission.
Complementarity of a reply means that a person is following the unwritten and mostly unconscious laws of communication, making interaction with them convenient for the partner (though this does not guarantee agreement on the essential issues discussed). If, however, the reply does not correspond to the protagonist’s expectations (expressed in direct or indirect synastric markers) in terms of the modalities that are significant for the inquiry, it is called *non-complementary*.
For example, consider the following dialogue. On September 1, a first-grader returns from school. His mother asks him:
— Well, did you like school in general?
— The bun had tasteless jam.
This reply is holistically non-complementary: the mother asks for an assessment in the Global modality (this is openly indicated by the global synastric marker *in general*), but receives a Local reply, which will likely not satisfy her.
Pure, mixed, and overloaded transmissions.
A transmission in which (within the given universal archetype) there are markers of only one modality is called *pure*. Otherwise, i.e., when a transmission contains markers of two or more related modalities, it is called *mixed*, and determining its modality is sometimes not so easy. Moreover, different people may disagree on this, placing different accents and interpreting the external situation differently.
Example of a purely Yang transmission:
— (looking directly into the eyes, firmly) Go, Paramon!
Example of a dyadically mixed transmission:
— (looking directly into the partner’s eyes, in an accusatory tone) It would have been very good, Erastus, if one of us had apologized to the other!
A mixed transmission in which two or more related modalities are represented by accentuating or emphasizing markers is called *overloaded*. It is often perceived by the partner as psychologically heavy, and it is not entirely clear to them how to understand the protagonist and how to respond. The modality of an overloaded transmission is objectively difficult to determine, and usually the protagonist and partner do so as best they can (or as their subconscious dict
