Talking discharges the speaker.What we expect from speaking is that the interlocutor assumes our subject.We expect the interlocutor to take the load off us completely and share as much weight as he can lift, even if it is not on his shoulders.If this were not so, we would not feel the need to talk and we would not be able to relax after the talk.Conversation is at one end of the conversation, at the other end is relaxation.Talking discharges the speaker.What we expect from speaking is that the interlocutor assumes our subject.We expect the interlocutor to take the load off us completely and share as much weight as he can lift, even if it is not on his shoulders.If this were not so, we would not feel the need to talk and we would not be able to relax after the talk.So, we are talking to disturb and pass our discomfort, to make it transitive(?) By enlarging and spreading our discomfort;What will we gain from this, what will our interlocutor gain?In my opinion, the answer is clear: the relaxing part of the speech is on us, the face of being disturbed.It should be so that after the speech is over, the speaker becomes lighter, and the person who listens/loads becomes heavy.In fact, both the speaker and the listener are in the comfort zone;The issue that affects one positively and the other negatively is the "subject".Let's ask again: Is there a way to relax the listener as much as the speaker wants to relax?Can we look at the subject in terms of relaxing and relieving alone?to relax;Does it include issues such as shedding their worms, closing their eyes and opening their mouths, saying whatever comes to their tongue?While the tone of voice, gesture and facial expressions are at one end of the relaxation, do they also have elements of disturbing?Is it good to be confronted by a speaker who says, 'I'm here to annoy you?The more we repeat something, the more we relax or listen?We see that talking opens up a lot of questions.There are such subjects that we can not both relax and comfort them by talking about them.It is this type of speech that most disturbs us when we are dealing with it.Take, for example, talking about his illness in the presence of a patient.Promise;even if the diagnosis, treatment, medicine, doctor returned in the context of the cure found by those who had the disease before;Is the prolongation and repetition of such a conversation something that comforts the patient?Otherwise, in the presence of the patient, without using these concepts, without talking about his illness, treatment or course of the disease;Does talking from the creek from above comfort him?Wouldn't the visitor boost the patient's morale by talking about his acquaintances and friends who were cured of a similar disease?Talking during treatmentBy uploading more information in the presence of someone suffering from the disease, are we helping treatment?Although I have my own answer, I will not include these answers.It is certain that talking about the disease itself has not been seen as a cure.It cannot be said that silence/not speaking has a therapeutic result.In any case, the subject gathers us around itself and settles into our language.Because in reality, in reality only it exists.What would we do without the multifaceted subject of relaxation, comfort and discomfort?Does everyone need to relax, not to relax, but to the subject?We said, "Sometimes we relax, sometimes we relax" by talking.If we are talking, there is someone who will speak when we are silent, interrupt us in the middle, and object, which is the main speech.This time, the addressee pours his poison and pours out what is on his skirts.It seems to me that it happens to the "subject" that happens in the meantime."Who cares about it?"Did you say?You are telling the truth.The important thing is to relax and relax.So let's not go without asking.I wonder if the important thing is not to relax, but to relax?This is also worth asking.In a hadith it is said, "There is no comfort in the world. Or the world is not a place of comfort."Although comfort comes from rest, there is rest for human beings, but this is only for a limited period of time.In pursuit of the uncreatedThose who seek comfort must be chasing something that does not exist in the world, that it has not been created.And since mankind cannot accept this, it must be clinging to the "issue" as a remedy.Can we say then?The subject is indispensable for us.The point is not to relax, not to relax;is the subject.We can't do without a topic.We can't talk without a topic.Now I am changing what I wrote from top to bottom.Replace "speak" with "write-read".Has there been a change in what the article wanted to say/message?How has it changed?I wonder if the author wrote while speaking;Does he speak while writing?I'd like to open a new sub-topic for what I've written so far about talking.Among the speakers, only politicians do not burden the listener, they do not.Because politicians speak to get the weight of the people.They promise to save the audience, the public/voters from all problems.The listener is expected to believe and support the speaker.The more the politicians speak 'heavy' for the dissidents, the 'lighter' the partisan audience.His heart is cold.To be honest, talking is a double-edged sword for politicians.He has to speak every day, and every speech will be original, therapeutic, and in a way that pushes opposition into a corner.Hard work...