That is not the aim but a consequence of the method. I have had time to think through how to communicate the "problems" (whatever they are) and it seems the only effective approach is to run through "everything" in chronological order. The challenge is that on a timeline some memories seem to be out of order and it is not possible to capture everything. I have omitted explanations for why I was at the lab as often as I was hoping it is not pertinent to today's issue. That aside..

Part 2 is short but profound:

After the lab Mo once saw Jill working in a local store where a cordial exchange was unavoidable - edited for brevity. Jack moved overseas. Each time Mo opened a new social media account Jack would appear, and the only news Jack told Mo is that Jack & Jill were in a long distance relationship - with a reminder to not speak with Jill. From there on the couple faded into the recesses of Mo’s memories.

However, the lab had played a pivotal role in Mo’s life. It is where he wrote his dissertation and for a good number of years Mo would sporadically recall being in the lab. From those recollections Mo would recall Jack (who had been a friend in the lab), and from those recollections Mo would recall Jill (who had been around almost as much as Jack), and then Mo would hope they are okay and close the memory.

Apparently humans do not actually forget anything. When we cannot recall something what has actually happened is that the neural connection to a memory is temporarily inaccessible, and all those connections are prioritised by importance. Dementia patients might lose their prioritisation and recall very old memories in random order.

On a separate matter, my view is that in historical or philosophical interpretation there is no right or wrong, such that to my mind any two people should be able to disagree without too much upset - even Republicans and Democrats can get along.

“If you really think that way then I cannot live with you!” - as suddenly as that Mo knew he had lost a disagreement with his fiancee. Mo needed to think fast, so Mo locked himself in his bathroom.

The first complete thought that popped out of Mo’s racing mind was, “Why can’t Mia be more like Jill!” Mo felt his body turn a wrong temperature and sat down. Mo’s second thought was, “Why did I think of Jill?”

Back in the lab Mo had followed many varied Jack & Jill disagreements across random topics. Sometimes Mo calculated a position, sometimes not, sometimes Mo contributed, and mostly Mo stayed silent - for the most part Mo reserved his energy for his own disagreements. Mo had not contributed to Jack & Jills version of this same disagreement because it was an argument in which Mo silently agreed that Jill was right and Jack was wrong.

Mo conceded to himself Jill was perfect for countless reasons, and did not understand how that helps solve his immediate problem in which it will not be long until Mia is demanding he unlock his bathroom door.

Mo calculated he could accept Mia’s threat and break up, then find someone more like Jill - then calculated that would fail because Mia and Jill are similar, and nobody is going to exactly clone Jill so any future relationship would break off as soon as a significant difference is discovered. Mo then calculated that he could break up with Mia and seek out Jill - then calculated that would likely fail because he believes (or hopes) she is oversees happily married to Jack. Mo calculated his best option was to dump his philosophical position because it was not a position used daily and all relationships will stay as-is. Unfortunately Mo cannot now remember what the disagreement was, or what position he needs to take in the event that the disagreement returns!

Mo has always considered relationships sacrosanct and does not break them easily. The decision to surrender and apologise for having an opinion is profound for many reasons. On one hand it is compatible with Mo's views on protecting relationships. On the other hand it is not comparable to Mo agreeing to paint a wall in a colour he dislikes. The philosophical point cannot be recalled but Mo believes it was a point of view, not something scientifically right or wrong like the result of a Newtonian speed calculation, and possibly a core personality construct. In other words it is not something Mo would have backed down on if there were a credible alternative to doing so.

Part 3 picks up from what happened the next morning... there might be 5 parts to this story to get to present day. In the meantime, please comment on any points where Mo could have chosen a better path.