"Correct" and "Reaching" Are Different Things — Designing Context, Timing, and Temperature

An email sent in conviction that "this is a correct finding" does not reach at all. The same words, delivered at a different timing, through a different medium, at a different temperature, draw an entirely different response — a strangeness everyone in the field of regulatory review has encountered at least once. The correctness was indeed there. But it did not reach. The quality of reaching moves by a different logic than correctness. What this volume treats is that different logic — the proposition that communication that reaches can be designed. McLuhan, Jakobson, Zeami, Aristotle, Sen no Rikyū, Bohm, and Dōgen — seven traditions show that design in different words.

01The Distance Between Correctness and Reaching

"Correct" is the quality of judgement; "reaching" is the quality of relation. The former is decided by fact, evidence, and logic. The latter is decided by context, relation, and timing. For the same case, the two move on entirely different axes of evaluation.

In the pharmaceutical field, a technically flawless finding can draw out the maximum defence of the receiver. Conversely, a technically gentler finding can draw out the deeper realisation of the receiver. What makes the difference is not the correctness of the content but the design of the "vehicle" that carries the correctness. This volume assembles that design of the vehicle in light of seven traditions.

02McLuhan, "the Medium Is the Message" — The Medium Changes the Meaning

The Canadian media researcher Marshall McLuhan (1911–1980), in Understanding Media (1964), put forward a proposition that renewed communication theory.

"The medium is the message. The influence each medium has on society and human cognition is deeper than the content the medium carries." — Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media (1964)

What McLuhan shows is the fact that the same content, when carried by a different medium, is received as a different message. To deliver a regulatory finding in a face-to-face conversation, in a paper document, by email, on Slack, or in a Teams meeting before everyone — even with the same content, the meaning received differs decisively.

The choice of medium is as important as the choice of message. Face-to-face conveys temperature easily. Paper conveys form and weight. Email carries record. Chat carries immediacy and lightness. An utterance before a meeting carries the additional force of public witness. Which medium is chosen is, as much as what is said, the expression of intent.

03Jakobson's Communication Model — Context, Addresser, Addressee, Code, Contact

The Russian-born linguist Roman Jakobson (1896–1982), in a 1960 paper, organised communication into a model of six elements: addresser, addressee, message, context, code, contact. Each, he taught, has a corresponding linguistic function.

"Communication is not the transmission of the message itself. The message has meaning within the web of context, code, and contact shared between addresser and addressee." — paraphrase of Jakobson, "Linguistics and Poetics" (1960)

Jakobson's implication is this. Even the same message, when the quality of context, code, and contact differs, is received as entirely different meaning. Reviewer and requester frequently use the same words in different codes (interpretations of technical vocabulary) and different contexts (the operational concerns each carries). "This is correct" by itself does not cross the gap of code and context. The design of reaching is also the work of temporarily aligning code and context.

04Zeami's Jo-Ha-Kyū — The Rhythm of Timing

From the Eastern tradition, the most delicate theory of timing. The Muromachi Noh actor Zeami (c. 1363 – c. 1443), in Fūshikaden (c. 1400), formalised the three-stage rhythm of jo-ha-kyū (序破急) for the progression of performance.

Jo-ha-kyū is the foundational rhythm of every art. In jo compose the heart; in ha gather force; in kyū bring to close. When these three are disordered, neither art nor transmission stands.
— gist of Zeami, Fūshikaden

Jo-ha-kyū is not only the matter of Noh or court music. A single conversation, a single email, a single correction request also has the rhythm of jo-ha-kyū. If one starts suddenly from "ha" (the main matter), the other is startled and enters defence. Placing one line of "jo" (confirmation of relation and context) changes how the "ha" that follows arrives. Without "kyū" (close, connection to the next action), the transmission ends incomplete.

In the pharmaceutical field, many people enter the correction request directly from the finding (ha). Zeami's wisdom has, over six centuries, backed the effect of holding one beat at the "jo" of jo-ha-kyū. "Thank you as always"; "your handling of the last matter was a great help" — these are not ritual but the function of "jo."

05Aristotle's "Pathos / Logos / Ethos" — The Three Elements of Temperature

The ancient Greek Aristotle (384–322 BCE), in Rhetoric (late 4th c. BCE), divided persuasion that reaches into three elements: logos (logic), pathos (feeling), ethos (character, trust).

What Aristotle shows is that communication that reaches requires all three elements to be in place. Pushing with logos alone (correctness alone) weakens pathos and ethos, and in the end the message does not reach. In the pharmaceutical field, when a technically correct finding does not reach, frequently either pathos (empathy for the other's situation) or ethos (trust accumulated in the relationship) is short. Before strengthening logos, inspect pathos and ethos — this is the wisdom Aristotle has left for 2,400 years.

06Sen no Rikyū's "Ichigo Ichie" — Dialogue as a Place That Occurs Once

At the core of the tea ceremony perfected by the Sengoku–Azuchi–Momoyama tea master Sen no Rikyū (1522–1591) is the proposition of ichigo ichie (一期一会). The phrase became famous through Ii Naosuke's Chanoyu Ichie Shū (1858), but the spirit Rikyū embodied is the same.

Ichigo ichie — receive this place now, with the whole body, as the once-in-a-lifetime encounter it is.
— the foundational spirit of the tea ceremony, systematised in Ii Naosuke, Chanoyu Ichie Shū (1858)

Ichigo ichie is not a romantic metaphor. Read as a theory of communication, it has an extremely practical implication. The dialogue happening before one right now is a place that occurs once and will never be reproduced under the same conditions. Therefore, deliver what should be delivered now, here, with care. The moment one thinks "it can be carried over to next time," the density of communication drops.

In the field of regulatory review, while postponing — "I'll say it at the next meeting"; "by email, in detail, later" — one can lose the very timing in which to deliver. The spirit of ichigo ichie brings into the field the discipline of delivering what should be delivered now, at the appropriate temperature, now.

07Bohm's Dialogue — Co-Inquiry Beyond Discussion

The twentieth-century theoretical physicist David Bohm (1917–1992), in his late On Dialogue (1996), distinguished discussion and dialogue.

"The etymology of 'discussion' is 'to break apart' (the same root as percussion, concussion). It is the form of breaking the positions of the other apart and deciding a winner. 'Dialogue' derives from the Greek dia ('through') + logos ('meaning'). It is the form in which meaning flows through the 'between' of the two." — paraphrase of David Bohm, On Dialogue (1996)

What Bohm shows is that communication that reaches frequently requires not discussion but dialogue. In discussion that continues to assert "I am right, the other is wrong," meaning does not flow. When each temporarily suspends their own premise and tries together to discover meaning, meaning begins to flow through the "between" of both.

In the pharmaceutical field, even in the scene of issuing a correction, merely bringing the posture of dialogue in for a moment can change things. Not "my finding is correct, please correct it" (discussion) but "I read this section in this way. What is your intent?" (dialogue). With the same content, the quality of meaning that flows is different.

08Dōgen's "Nikon" — The Onceness of Here and Now

One more from the East. The founder of Sōtō Zen, Dōgen (1200–1253), in Shōbōgenzō, set out the singular concept of time nikon (而今). A way of grasping "now" not as a "now" relativised by past and future, but as the absolute "now itself."

"Being-time" means that being and time are not two. To be is to be now. Time is to be now. Nikon — now, here — is the source of all time.
— gist of Dōgen, Shōbōgenzō, "Uji"

Let us apply Dōgen's nikon to communication. The words exchanged with the other "now" before one are not a preparation for past or future but in themselves a single completed cosmos. Treat the present utterance not as a preparation for the future, but as a present utterance complete in itself. The sincerity placed in that moment is conveyed to the other just as it is. In the pharmaceutical field, when one chooses words for a superior's evaluation or for a later negotiation, that calculation is transparent to the other. The spirit of nikon reminds us that sincerity, in the end, reaches more deeply than calculation.

09Design of Context, Timing, and Temperature in the Pharmaceutical Field

Let us bring the abstract down to the field. Taking the scene of a reviewer issuing one correction request, let us combine the design practices pointed to by the seven traditions.

10Four Designs of Communication That Reaches

To bring the same place to which the seven traditions pointed down into daily practice, four designs are set here.

"Correct" is the quality of judgement; "reaching" is the quality of relation. The two, for the same case, move by entirely different logics. McLuhan, Jakobson, Zeami, Aristotle, Sen no Rikyū, Bohm, Dōgen — seven traditions pointed, in different words, to the same place. Communication that reaches can be designed. Medium, rhythm, temperature, posture of dialogue — these are not innate gifts but techniques that can be consciously composed.

"I said the correct thing. Why did it not reach?" — when you feel this, look back. Was the medium right? Was the rhythm of jo-ha-kyū in order? Were pathos and ethos in place? Was it dialogue, not discussion? Four questions change the quality of the next transmission.