On the need for 'logical-consistency' as a need within the NVC (Non-Violent Communication):
I have been thinking about the possibility of including 'logical consistency' to the needs for an NVC framework, and while I feel that the desire for such logical consistency is important to me, there are some difficulties when applying such as a need within an NVC framework.
First, when looking for the universality of the need, I think we could find more evidence that there is greater universality for a need for 'cognitive dissonance' as I think we could find cognitive-dissonance to a far greater degree in persons, than logical-consistency. A need for logical consistency may fail the test for universality.
Secondly, imagine two NVC philosophers disagreeing; they both could contend that the reasoning of the other, did not meet their needs for logical consistency; which would seem to imply a contradiction. Which, itself, would fail the test of logical consistency.
Perhaps a better way to phrase the alleged need for 'logical consistency' would be to make the observation, for deductive reasoning: "We are not in agreement as to the premises of that reasoning." OR "We are not in agreement as to the validity of that reasoning"
For inductive reasoning, the observation might be stated: "We are not in agreement as to the relevancy of the evidence." OR "We are not in agreement as to the causal relationship of the matter" OR "We are not in agreement as to the reasonableness of the conclusion, as it has been inferred by the evidence"