I always felt that actions were a secondary representation of an emotion, just as speech was a secondary representation of thought. The speaker has something in their mind; words were found to express that thought. The effectiveness of the words should not be a parameter of evaluation for the thought. Likewise, intention plays a primary role to understand the truth of an emotion.
This kind of a schematic in regard to emotion, will speak of a comparative approach. Actions frame a method to express our emotion, and their effectiveness is a step towards the truth involved in our intention. Sometimes, our actions are a poor representation of our emotion, the farther we are away from the person, the less we are understood. If we compare relation to a statement in literature, the philosophical bases of an emotion and a relation provide perhaps the most elaborate critique of the logocentrism involved.
For a relation, it should not be a forceful communication of the essential truth, since understanding and respect for each other should come from within. All communication, be it spoken or written, merely convey fragments that might help one acknowledge the inner truth one already has, thus respecting each other. Similarly, spoken and written words might convey not only thoughts but also are in themselves a kind of practice, and actually following the practice will lead to understanding.
Let us appreciate the linguistic behavior of the statement : Relation.
