When I talk/type to you, whoever you are, I am talking to a hundred billion stand-alone info-processing mini-brains inside your skull. We call them (us) neurons, but it's just us, the Nameless microscopic life-forms, hiding out inside our skulls.
So, when I talk to you - whether it's the external you (the not-Pavel) or you (the myriads of neurons inside of "me," other than the one who is now talking), - I understand that in this Neural Pow-Wow, there's bound to be a difference in opinion. Each neuron has its own point-of-view, so the resistance is inevitable.
So, when I talk to you - my other neurons - or to you - other folks' neurons - I am addressing a profoundly uncooperative audience, an audience that wishes to speak more so than to listen. And the reason why is because to listen is to obey. Yes, this equivalence is reflected in the etymology of the terms - to listen is to audit and to obey is to audit. (See the entry on "obey" from Etymonline down below, for your reference.).
So, when I am talking to the yinz that are part of my own neural pow-wow or to you (neural) guys (to neural y'all-s inside yinz' skulls), I am trying to get this neural collective to behave in accordance with the wishes of one single neuron. That's a lofty aspiration. Each of us is an unruly Neural Veche (a medieval Slavic popular assembly) - things get out of control. That's my point - when each of us is a neural plurality, cognitive-affective-behavioral mayhem is inevitable.
late 13c., from Old French obeir "obey, be obedient, do one's duty" (12c.), from Latin obedire, oboedire "obey, be subject, serve; pay attention to, give ear," literally "listen to," from ob "to" (see ob-) + audire "listen, hear" (see audience).