Good morning, everybody. Happy Easter to use to Van Mullen. You from Free Domain here to discuss

whatever is on your mind, philosophically speaking, and giving you notes, updates, thoughts,

and insights. So, I had a conversation with someone the other day,

this is like just straight-up philosophy stuff. So had a conversation with someone the other day

about a marriage. And they were having a lot of conflict. And one of the things that I

mentioned or wanted to raise to his sort of thoughts and attention was the idea that you

cannot negotiate implicit contracts. You cannot negotiate implicit contracts.

You cannot negotiate implicit contracts.

So if you have, let's say, consistent disagreements with a friend or a spouse or something like that, then you need to take the rules of engagement, the rules of the conflict,

you need to take those and make them explicit

so that you can get some kind of agreement on how to navigate disagreements and disputes.

So if you're in a relationship where, let's say, the woman, when she's upset, she storms around, little, slams, drawers, and so on.

And that makes you kind of nervous, and then you end up appeasing and so on.

Well, I think, I mean, sort of my advice in general is to have the rules in relationships as explicit and conscious as possible.

That goes like 99% of the way towards resolving,

or at least having clarity about how the issues can be resolved.

You know, we always say in philosophy that defining your terms is really important, right? You

really can't have a debate without defining your terms clearly. Otherwise, you end up just

manipulating language and sophistry and so on. And really, it's the same thing in relationships

when you have conflicts of what you want to do is you want to take the rules

that you want to have followed and make them explicit. Now, you can negotiate about the rules,

of course, right? But without a conscious conversation about the rules in a relationship,

...