I have thought a while further about how to be in dialogue...

If it was about the fact that you wanted to help a friend during the Nazi era who was to be court-martialed by them, and you knew one of the leading generals, then you would only be able to help your friend if you met the general with peace in your heart and there was something about him that you appreciated. Any flattery, any hypocrisy would be seen through immediately and only if one receives authentic kindness from the other will he want to give it back and grant a request for help. No bribery, no ingratiation, no threat will tempt someone to be kind, but on the contrary, will make him think that he is right in his view of people and that they are all weak and lying.

If you meet someone who is trying to oppress you and you use the same method and stand up to him, you are even better at oppression than he is, then the following will happen: He will submit to you and compensate for his frustration with your victory over him in other ways. He will hate you for this, but for this hatred he will seek weaker ones to take his imaginary loss out on.

Consensus in this context means finding a match that reflects the least of all possible inner resistance. Also called pain. Both parties then separate in the certainty of having found the best of all solutions. Instead of feeling powerless, a sense of self-efficacy is formed.

This is by no means one of the most difficult tasks a person can face. If it were easy to find consensus, we would do it all the time. It's easy to agree with Buddies, it's easy to pretend that we agree with each other.

For you to believe that I'm not up to anything against you, you can only rely on your past experiences. It requires trust that what I tell you and how I meet you can be perceived by you as peaceful. But if you think that a human being is not capable of this, that is, that every human being is to be distrusted per se, you deprive yourself of the possibility of having a contrary experience.

If I detect even a hint of hostility in your speech to me, and you receive such hostility from me, and we both stick to thinking like this, this dialogue will prove to be useless. Since I assume that you do not hold a leading political or economic office and I do not either, it is not relevant for this current exchange what we think of the external conditions and processes, but what we think of each other at the moment. To the extent that peace or war is perceived by us as only over our heads, but we ourselves are too insignificant to make a contribution, this too is without any helpful value on our part.

That is my view.