From Robert Norton and David Brenders “Laws of Interaction” Table 11.1, p. 227, in Communication & Consequences, Erlbaum Associates, 1996:
“A person fills in premises in a way that makes sense to the self.” sounds like a Gadfly to me.
“A person accepts the validity of messages from the other.” sounds co-Relational to me.
“Past [exegetical] premises structure present understanding.” sounds Institutional to me.
“Idiosyncratic [maybe poly-synergetic is what was intended here?] understanding enhances the capacity to create an enthymematic [probably “empathic” is more accessible to a wider audience] response.” could sound like a Negotiator’s resonance-evolving trend.
If that mutual mapping seems about right, then, following along with Norton and Brenders, the second half of this prime-octave regenerative structure toward co-evolutionary polycultural communication would fill out something like:
“Sufficiently similar connections allow pragmatic [positive-active resolving] consequences.” Noticing new (gadfly) potential resolutions.
“The strategic communicator uses what the self [ego-identity] idiosyncratically [poly-synergetically?] knows.” Investing in eisegetical risk-taking, correlationally (co-relational) intended disclosure.
“The strategic communicator thrives on new information.” Positive Reiteration regeneratively trends toward newly incarnating (emergent institutional incorporating) evolutionary formation.
“The strategic communicator[s] [co]controls the enthymematic [co-empathic evolutionary] process.” Diastatic-emergent regenerative eco-fusion, inclusive of full population diversity (co-negotiated, co-mentored) as a positive discernment value.
Norton & Brenders next go to a new level of successfully communicating in highly complex environments, difficult issues, my own additions in brackets: “IX. [Polypathic] Complexity [CoArising] Complex knowledge facilitates enthymematic [empathic polyculturing] control [positive regenerational order, sequence, development, natural evolution, incarnation, grace, karma].
I believe that both the Santos-Lang (www.grinfree.com) and the Norton and Brenders evolutionary stage theories of regenerative discernment through collective deep-empathic learning would benefit by adding the word bicameral to the Laws of Interaction, because I believe the same stage-trends appear whether we are talking about an individual’s health/therapy discernment for their Interior Bicameral Landscape, or referencing a group or community’s regeneratively willed and intended discernment for our co-created Exterior BiCameral Landscape; but that is an even more universal canvas of informational evolution and dialectical potentiality.