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 arbitrary things are exchanged, it is difficult for the beloved subject to recognize a value in this kind of exchange. Small talk, for example, often contains such arbitrary things, in which one talks about the weather, work, “How are things?” and thus the word “entertainment” 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 one belongs to one another, because one enters into a kind of contract or admission with the other, making oneself common with him and thus tolerating him. It is the impossibility of accepting another first, even though one doesn’t know him yet. To make oneself in common with the other and thus put one’s own dignity aside to symbolize that one first accepts the other before he proves himself worthy of it.
“Neither of us find it nice that it is raining today: we have something in common because of it,” or “how are you doing?” This is how people say with all such statements: “you are one of us too, participate on our level”. So you can also assume that they reveal to be stupid. Stupid in the sense that they do not understand the triviality of these arbitrary things, nor are they interested in not bothering the Beloved Subject with such trivialities, because: if they love, they would do Or else, they are not able to do so, which does not go out.
Talking about garbage 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 always also a red flag with which one holds out the negative sign to the Beloved Subject that things are already quite okay and good anyway, even without seeing the other person as he or she really is.
Non-meaning and redundant, which is implicitly clear anyway, such as: “the sky is blue” with which a lover wants to say, “look, I am here” and which, however, takes away the value of the meaningfulness of the exchange, for it is completely arbitrary and anyone else could say it in this way, without one becoming aware of the peculiarity which just the lover could have toward the Beloved Subject. It does not advance the subject on 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 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.
Bringing only empty phrases and platitudes creates empty talk, because it reveals itself too often that such people have no sense of their own, but rather they assemble 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 nonsense, for example, to bring quotations just to brag about them and not to make a point that advances the topic and thus the sense of the actual conversation taking place.
Small talk is not a catalyst for more in-depth discussions. It is not as if one first has to exchange arbitrary things with each other in order to create the foundation 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 sensuality from them”.
The beloved subject considers people stupid who are not able to reflect abstractly or to conduct a sensual dialogue.
It also falls into this notch, if the other person brings meaningless statements as a diplomatic way out of a tricky situation. Statements like: “Cheesecake is yellow”, “Religious affiliations are always problematic”. It reveals itself hereby, 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 make sense is an important basic requirement 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, since 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 or she does not stand for anything specific.
She wants people to show their colors and to be aware of what they say and how it works. She doesn’t like it if someone makes statements in which 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 how his or her words have 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 don’t ask any further questions, but simply 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 sensual. Coquetry or other sprinklings can interfere with such an exchange, while at another time one would quite tolerate or enjoy it. Symbolically, such an exchange would therefore be like the clash of interweavings, 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 revealing, if the other person would decide to intersperse nonsense in a sensual exchange, since he would thus sabotage the activity as such.
Sensuality as something substantial. A place to get to know each other and the prerequisite for playfully teaching and learning mutual appreciation in exchange. Without sensuousness, this place cannot exist, because then everything is the same. “But this is getting too colorful for me now”. The meaningful decision not to let oneself be pulled 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 fast path to the goal”). Sensuality must be defended, because arbitrariness is omnipresent and not a special state; we all fall back into it when we “let ourselves go”. So, “preserve attitude”.