First of all, my models are not academic, they are a reflection on a word-trip in the 1980’s followed by working internationally ever since. I have tried to summarize my personal observations and structure them, of course one cannot observe everything and I used contemplation as a method to fill the gaps. Contemplation dissolves questions rather than that it directly specifically answers them.
Your positioning of spirituality differs from mine, in my opinion it should be treated separately because it represent another horizon and enriches the spectrum as a separate lens. In my vision, rational is comparable with a mathematical point, emotional with a line and spirituality with space. Spiritual is by the way no synonym for religious in my context, fishermen waiting for a fish to be caught are in a spiritual process according to my models.
The three differ in their orientation, whereas the rational is self-focused, the emotional is focused (reciprocally) on the other, and spiritual communication transcends this level by a non-directed universal focus on the total. Timing-wise this leads to fast and efficient in case of rational survival, to variable timing in case of sharing an emotional temperature and waiting for the right moment of consensus as a spiritual mechanism. In my observation, business-wise, this reflects planning, improvisation and strategy.
In respect to information dominance I observed that people are somehow lazy. Although people in principle posses three tools, depending on the cultural context, they try to solve all communication with one method, and first after that one fails, they start using a second. The third one becomes mostly disconnected because the three are representing different timings, which are not compatible. The problem with the failure of the first one is that others must recognize this communication-wise, which implies an obligatory (cultural) choice between the second and the third option. By the way, everything in my models is rather a balance of forces and therefore not absolute, it is a sum of events.
Still, the three dimensions define in my opinion the relationship with oneself (rational), with everyone one knows (emotional) and with the unknown (spiritual attitude) and if one of them is disconnected, this becomes visible as a “weak” point of a culture.
I agree that generating noise is partially the source of cultural change and in this respect my models are fully dynamic. However, noise also embeds the risk of establishing non-understanding parallel societies and such level of misunderstanding often leads to conflict. This can in a situation of dialog be prevented by developing mutual understanding, but non-violent interaction is key here.
It is difficult to describe space from the human line perspective; words are often not precise enough. (Therefore I use three angles of view synonyms for every process in my models). My observation is that politeness or silence is used as a method to individually step back and to wait for consensus. This is rather a collective expectation than an individual decision and a result of adaptation to the society.
One can try to reduce most communication to a chain of rational events, but the outcome is more than the sum of these events in my opinion and deserves to be looked upon from as much as different angels as possible.
