Love of causality and argumentation

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.

The Beloved Subject does not use sophisms and pseudo-arguments to “win” in a (dispute) conversation. On the contrary, this kind of argumentation generates strong aversion, because it reveals false intentions. Convincing arguments are for example those arguments that are causal for a circumstance. It has to be stable and thus beneficial for coherence and one could also say for “salutogenesis” (health-promoting). But this is not consciously done with the aim of health promotion, but simply because of a deep aversion to illogical and deceitful argumentation or against stupidity. This deep aversion stems from pain at the “abuse” of language for the wrong purposes. There are many types of arguments that are not conducive to causality. See also:

Types of Arguments

What exactly would this be? It would be, for example, the creation of a presumption or tradition to reinforce a position one has (“one has always done it this way”, “but she gets vegan food at home anyway, so she can eat meat here”). It is meant as an escape from an awkward situation. She would like to go deeper and learn more about the other person. But then she is confronted with this defence, which questions the sense of intimacy of the previous one, because it turns out that the other person creates distance by putting himself in the position of an uninvolved person and pushing a wall between the contact. This wall is concrete here: the false argument. Consciously or unconsciously, it feels to the Beloved Subject like a conflict in communication, because it invokes, for example, higher powers (higher than the exchange they have with each other), or symbolizes a dissatisfaction with the demands the Beloved Subject has on communication (intense), which may then be expressed passively-aggressively in such a way that the person actually thinks: “I don’t care if she eats vegan food at home. I just do it that way”, but does not express this openly, for example because of fear of rejection. Because of the authenticity of the Beloved Subject in relation to contact, this withdrawal of the other is a damage to the whole. She wants to look at the world and the other precisely and false arguments create false premises on which to create future dangerous situations when it later becomes obvious that something built up was not stable (never was stable). She dislikes political correctness, because this too is a revelation of the other person that he puts himself under the “umbrella” of a higher morality to which he subordinates his own actions (externally controlled).

If the lover then evades the subject in such a way, unannounced (without asking) in an ongoing discussion, he reveals this disloyalty, because this is also such a statement about the fact that the contact has lost coherence and is no longer with the right intentions. It then also shows that he has not the same interest in the contact. But primarily that the other person is afraid of the meaningful exchange and has taken a way out of a (for him) awkward situation. So if it becomes apparent in the discussion that the other person is setting something up for himself, or also: if someone lets himself be easily distracted from his opinion/attitude (flag in the wind) and thus reveals that he possibly does not yet know himself, or reveals through his evasion that he has not understood the Beloved Subject (despite many explanations), or misjudges it (judging it as a destabilizing factor, never really getting to know himself, but remaining an outsider and judging observer). The beloved subject suffers from senselessness and loss of meaning, which arises when beautiful exchange is invalidated and sinks into meaninglessness (when, for example, the other person shows how the other person really is), because an apparently stable foundation reveals itself as “more appearance than reality”: “wasting time and collecting frustration”. She notices unusual things and is interested in finding out more about them and it is extremely stressful when the other person reveals that he is not able to meaningfully present (communicate) himself to the outside world, or he subsequently undermines his own position, which he originally presented to her in a meaningful way, by revealing this snapshot as untrue.

She shows that it is not possible to look for a guilty party where the connections are more complex. She thinks, for example, that the mental constitution of a person has genetic causes or is the result of life experiences and that one could blame the mental constitution if one is absolutely looking for a guilty party. The restriction of freedoms merely because of double standards is for her also a threat to the sense of meaning as such. For the prohibition of an activity merely because of possible abuse is an assumption towards free human beings that they themselves do not know what is in their interest (for example, the demonisation of drugs, as it is spread in the social discourse in public). The denial of the existence of such facts that have already proven to be true in the world of the Beloved Subject leads to a disturbance of the meaningfulness in contact. For example, the denial of the existence of stupid people for reasons of political correctness. It is often misunderstood and then, for example, something negative is imputed to it (“don’t be so derogatory about XY…”), but she does not do this, which you could learn from her if you ask more questions. She does not insult anybody. However, her attitude is mostly devalued and misunderstood by most people (by “Common Sense”), because most people are not interested in the true intentions, motives of their fellow men, but are satisfied with a simple value judgement.

Being open, honest and straightforward is conducive to Koheränz. If the lover (in love) gives free rein to his emotions and finds himself in distress and tries to take refuge in arbitrariness, he will not notice that he is defending and devaluing the contact because he has perceived it as a threat himself. If one “maintains one’s attitude” then one dares to make one’s attitude/opinion public without being afraid of being “rejected” for it. The Beloved Subject keeps a cool head even in agitated situations and this is also necessary in order not to get muddled up behind arbitrariness, if you want to open up to the other person in order to show them what kind of person you are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *