Disclaimer: what I have understood here may be faulty and should be discussed and questioned in dialogue with the Beloved Subject. In this respect it is only what I have understood and may not correspond to reality in everything. However, I hope that I have correctly recognized the key points, otherwise it would be a pity.
When exchanging arbitrary things, it is difficult for the Beloved Subject to recognize a value in this kind of exchange. Small talk, for example, often contains arbitrary things in which one talks about the weather, work, “How are things?” and thus the word “conversation” is often omnipresent, because it is a kind of exchange in which one makes oneself equal and common with the other. One is on the same level and there is the unspoken fact that you belong to each other, because you enter into a kind of contract or admission with the other, making yourself common with him and thus tolerating him. It is the impossibility of accepting another first, even though one does not know him yet. That you make yourself in common with them and thus put your own dignity aside to symbolize that you first accept them, even before they have proven themselves worthy.
“Neither of us likes the fact that it is raining today: we have something in common because of it”, or “whats up?” So people with all these statements say: “you are one of us too, participate in our level”. So you can also assume that they reveal to be stupid. Stupid in the sense that they don’t understand the triviality of these arbitrary things and they are not interested in not bothering the Beloved Subject with such trivialities, because: if they love, they would do well. Or else: they are not capable of it (doing well), which is not acceptable.
Talking about rubbish and nonsense, on the other hand, can be quite meaningful, if it has a personal component, with which one can really get to know the other person (from his essence). The exchange of arbitrary things is a red flag, with which one reproaches the Beloved Subject with the negative sign that things are already quite okay and good anyway, even without seeing the other person as he or she really is.
Meaningless and redundant talk, which is implicitly clear anyway, like: “the sky is blue” with which a lover wants to say: “look, I am here” and which, however, takes away the value of the meaning of the exchange, because it is completely arbitrary and anyone else could say it that way without being aware of the singularity that precisely the lover could have towards the beloved subject. It does not advance the topic through which one can get to know each other.
If someone simply wants to lump thoughts together, this is not conducive to meaningfulness, because it does not connect any threads to a chain of meaningfulness, but leaves a hullabaloo of arbitrary things, through which it is not possible to really recognize the attitude/opinion of the other person.
To bring only empty phrases and empty words creates empty talk, because it is too often revealed that such people have no sense of their own, but that they are building up something (often also out of selfish interest – whatever). The attitude/opinion of stupid people is a conglomerate of opinions of others. It is therefore also absurd, for example, to bring quotations just to show off and not to make a point that advances the topic and thus the sense of the actual conversation that is taking place.
Small talk is not a catalyst for deeper discussions. It is not as if one first has to exchange arbitrary things with each other in order to create the basis for a meaningful dialogue. Also, opinions are something substantial and do not depend on the form of the day. It is thus the statement of the Beloved Subject: “No, we do not need the arbitrary things in order to be able to construct sensuousness from them”.
The beloved subject considers people to be stupid who are not able to reflect abstractly or to conduct a meaningful dialogue.
It also falls into this notch when the other person makes meaningless statements as a diplomatic way out of an awkward situation. Statements like: “Cheesecake is yellow”, “Religious affiliations are always problematic”. It is revealed with this that the other person wants to escape from the meaningfulness, but this is not the affront or the problem with it, but the pain of the nonsense and the revelation of the resulting inability of further contact.
The interest and the ability to meaningfulness is an important prerequisite for a conversation in which one can get to know the other person. This is how the beloved subject sees it. So it is important here that an attitude/opinion is cultivated and that the conversations can therefore also have a meaning, because one can get to know each other. Where arbitrary things are exchanged, it becomes clear that the other person cannot be a suitable counterpart for the exchange, because he does not stand for anything specific.
She wants people to show their true colours and to be aware of what they say and how it affects the audience. She doesn’t like it that way when someone makes statements where he is not fully aware of how they have an effect. She doesn’t like it when people use language thoughtlessly, or when the person speaking has to be told first how his or her speech has been received by the other person. Statements such as “I’m going to eat now”, for example, contain implicit messages such as: “you are not important enough to me to postpone my meal for you for half an hour, and I won’t ask any more questions, but just sign off as if this way of communicating between us was already okay (as if we were already so close that it would be appropriate)”.
If the exchange is to be appropriate to the course of events, it is meaningful. Coquetry or other sprinklings can interfere with such an exchange, while at another time one would certainly tolerate or enjoy it. Symbolically, such an exchange would therefore be like the clash of interweaving, as in knitting or crocheting, for example. One would not hang a thread in the completely wrong place during this activity. So it would be incomprehensible (incoherent) and revelatory if the other person decided in a sensual exchange to intersperse nonsense, since he/she would thus sabotage the activity as such.
Meaningfulness as something substantial. A place to get to know each other and the prerequisite for playful teaching and learning of mutual appreciation in exchange. Without sensuousness this place cannot exist, because then everything is the same. . The meaningful decision not to let oneself be dragged down from one’s own position of dignity by the afflictions of the senseless. There are many of those who are not interested in sensual exchange, but who pursue their own agenda and ignore these ideals (“a quick path to the goal”).Meaningfulness must be defended, because arbitrariness is omnipresent and not a special state; we all fall back into it when we “let ourselves go”. So: “maintain one’s posture”.