Chapter32 Identity of Shame, Implicit Rule to be Close

All of judgment of us what is abnormal, what is normal is left to any individual persons, general theorem doesn’t exist. Namely factor to decide a properness to an action is reliable to a situation, its character of situation is assorted in any individual persons’ subject.
But at a part, we can’t judge it’s truth but it’s like truth that in the meaning we jump into the pool, at judging a goodness of an action, obviously we need a closeness to close friends each other can permit the same action, in the process to be close each other, any actions or sayings mustn’t be apparent, paraphrasing it, judgment to what timing to confess any shameful things to close friend or a mind concept not to need to confess or judgment if we confess shameful matter to him or her, he or she is so close friend then it’s not so trouble or not is reliable to each individual characters. Namely there’s difference in shameful object self or contents’ difference.
In companies to hold the same taste in sex, each other can’t be so shy in the point of sexual taste. But it can be so after getting to be close each other. Of course it can be applied to any other matters but sex. General morals, political opinions, vision of human relation, or judgment to individual character too.
Namely in matters about anything, we are apt not to tell true mind if we can’t get the true mind of communication partners in thinking, what part is near, what part is apart. Then if we individually have abnormal taste in sex, having an idea not to tell anyone is dependent to another idea that we want to be seen by other people as normal not abnormal.
But that kind of anxiety can be applied in anything but sex. For example contents to get study proposition, ability, faculty is the things to do any students a peer pressure, with anxious idea that I have a delay or gap among any other students. They are set toward other persons.
But if getting to be close each other is getting rid of those anxiety, individual cognition in judgment to hold ruler measuring what domain of contents or timing to confess shameful matters to friends makes a intentional posture toward any other persons except myself at each moments to face.
And I infer that we almost judge the best way to keep company with somebody not to confess everything rapidly each other. Why do we do so?
The reason to do so is that we have shame in evading rapid confession to get a gradation to reach the goal to know each other different things to be interested in.
Namely not to hasten to do so is the consensus to acknowledge each different hobby or interest. At the matter of fact we each hold different standard what to confess from the first time to meet, or to ask. Then to ask each other what each ones have each different standard to ask is the care to each other not to make unpleasant other one.
Then we can say that we shouldn’t say “let’s drink together”, or” are you interested in pornography”, or but at a special case we should do so frankly with a brave as its way has merit.
The possession of the care to know the communication partner can be close to each other is equal to admit each other a shameful existence. Or we have the different standard to think what question is the thing to be frowned at asking by each other probably according to the different process to be raised. Namely what thing is shameful or not can’t be generalized among any persons.
Then inversely it’s individually different to judge ~is what, to be ~is necessary, to be ~ is common sense, its judgment can’t be generalized, its truth’s rampancy in a good meaning in society is my ideal state in society as my view to judge individual value vision in a partner to converse with, despite of knowing completely different value vision in its person, as the person to understand mutually. Then I get happiness when I discover the same vision in a conversation partners.
It’s a little bit different from compatible live and let live strategy in a theory that human-beings are the evil entity. It’s simply a mutual verification or confirmation not to intervene mutual things to do individually.
Compatible strategy in to live and let live is business intention, and not a different revel judgment to have individual intimacy.
But it’s so general to say that we can be harmed when we have a posture to evade any mentions to the person we face or meet about something we feel danger as the subject in conversation. And its content to evade or refrain from talking is unexpectedly often the matter we should talk, more than the matter we shouldn’t talk in distorted, biased posture we make. But for avoiding its demerit, we might talk mutually what we shouldn’t talk so deeper or what we should talk frankly more than we’ve done. It’s only way to take advantage of our conversation to know the stance or vision each other.
Paraphrasing it, with a way to quest core problem daring to be in early time after meeting someone with a trust to the conversation partner, verifying each other mutual stance to mention frankly or not to mention so frankly refraining from talking too much about some problems is the best way to escaping from mutual misunderstandings or unneeded friction. Namely if we get to know mutual common field we each hold in mind as the own position, we can at least elude unexpected disillusion or dissatisfaction, discontent. Namely in a vision that we can see that rapid confirmation to each other of fundamental stance in mind can joint together a not meaningless sending of messages, seeking after is the sole effect for us in conversation, it’s only the best care for each other in communication, we can say.
Therefore identity of shame isn’t what to be confessed, with an action to verify mutual individual strategy in mind as we can get to know we hold in mind mutually, reversely we can say that what we can be close together is equal to verify objects to feel shame or contents to be with shame in deep mind as we have secretly. Namely intimacy can be composed in judgment to what to be seen or what to be unseen by a conversation partner for each other.
Then seeing in early time after meeting together that we should see both what to be seen and what to be unseen to each differently in mind can be said an implicit rule for each other.