_This dialogue, or what we can call a dialogue from our perspective—it is in fact more like what you recognize as a monologue or stream of consciousness in the theater of your mind, but then, in the case below, occurring cross-generationally and spacelessly, unfolding through a from-our-current-perspective-unknowable medium—takes place between what we can call “two” “people” from our limited vantage point. These two people can be understood as joined minds, they are connected with each other’s thoughts-feelings at a deeply fundamental level, and it is difficult for the writer to explain this situation-condition in the language of today. The words used are translations from the original, as they contain many concepts and nonrational moves^[Nonrational implies a nondichotomy between rational and irrational: it is not that there are no rules or ratios, it can be explained rather as a cognitive process in which each move is unique and perfect, and each move can be evaluated but only in its absolute haecceity: existing in an equally unique equivalencing landscape, the rules of which change as the process advances, rendering them possible.] that are conceptually far beyond what we can do through what we call “reference”._ **GgM**: my GgM still had an implant. Can you believe it? **GgS**: Difficult to imagine how they did things back then. Doing “things”. Things, haha. Doing?$^x$ **GgM**: Yes: _things_. I think what they thought of as activities, timespans or even experiences, is very different from what we experience now. Doing. They also had “being”. Hard to imagine how class-consciousness even became possible. **GgS**: How were they merged? How did they _think_? **GgM**: They talked, with mouthsounds, and more _distributedly_: through scribbles, in all sorts of shapes and forms. And from isolated perspectives who had no contact, they were completely isolated from one another. There was a word they used to refer to that inner perspective place, sometimes: _consciousness_. Other times it was “opinion” or “bias”. **GgS**: What weird words. What did they mean, these words, in terms of it putting them in contact with each other? **GgM**: It was similar to what we now sense as _overlap_. We do that multidirectionally and spacelessly, seeking a harmony-union that benefits from but also keeps friction-noise in check, and vice versa, and vice versa, and vice versa, and vice versa, like that. But for them it was very sporadic to converge, and rarely did they cohere to make further moves. We arrived here because it was not prohibited. But it took many minds, many moves. **GgM**: *Their* abstractions survived and gave us, us, as a result? **GgM**: Apparently yes. They were (for quite a lot of their “time”) even hostile to each other and could never, ever, *ever*, in their entire “experience” trust one another “for real”, because they rarely converged. Sometimes, they did, through some words. **GgS**: How strange. **GgM**: Stranger things will come, still. Reset to recondition. **Gggggggggggggggggggggggg...**