A: Okay man, right now I'm talking to you, right, but I mean I'm not really saying anything, you know, I'm just trying to make it seem like we're really having a conversation
A: I mean if you just see one guy sitting there alone it's like...but if there's two guys, right, that are talking
A: ...then it's cool because they obviously have some kind of, I guess, point of interest. Right now we're just getting that down. Say something back.
A: It's like, I read this review of 2001, cant remember who wrote it, but the guy was saying how...okay, you know how there's really no big dialogue in the movie?
A: Well like, he was saying that most of the time when people are talking in that movie, it's just to show people talking. Like it doesn't move the plot or anything, it's just kind of the idea.
B: Kind of interesting. So the conversations aren't for exposition; they just create a kind of iconic idea of communication.
C: Are you guys having one of those metaconversations?
C: One of those self-referential conversations.
A: You know about them?
B: Wait, no.
B: We were talking about 2001. The conversation started off as self-referential like you said, but then it changed.
A: I thought we were just trying to keep it going.
C: So you're saying the conversation evolved.
B: It seemed to be, yes.
B: But then you jumped in and altered the conversation's dynamic. It went from an extrapolation of the original, to use your term, meta-conversation, to a conversation about the nature of the original conversation.
C: Is that a distinction?
B: Well, of course. Before your intervention, the conversation had arguably turned into a legitimate conversation, that is, a verbal exchange of ideas facilitating genuine communication; but then you subverted that possibility by reverting to talking about the nature of the conversation.
A: What's your name?
C: Okay, I see your point, but the current conversation has that expression of ideas too. I think it's still developing.
B: We're talking about the conversation, though.
B: It's become self-referential again. Before when we were talking about 2001, that was a legitimate conversation. Right now, we're having a metaconversation.
A: So, have you seen 2001?
C: Your argument's flawed. We're talking now about the conversation you guys were having before I joined in. We're not talking about the current conversation, therefore the current conversation is not a metaconversation.
B: That's because when you joined in you changed its course.
C: You admit the conversation has evolved after all; it's not the dead end you thought I made it.
B: The first conversation didn't end; it was just continued.
C: If that's true, then my presence in the conversation didn't affect its course as a conversation developing from a metaconversation to a regular conversation. If it was a separate conversation, then this conversation isn't a metaconversation because it refers to a previous conversation, not itself. Logically, you've contradicted yourself.
B: So you think, but by discussing whether or not the current conversation is a metaconversation, it's been turned into one by referring to itself.
A: So yeah,
A: I liked the part in 2001 where that computer flipped the fuck out and took everyone out.
A: Alyssa, what are you doing this weekend?