When different biographies meet each other, we confront an extraordinary situation, about which we are often in need to be learned.
In spite of our social character that can be easily learned through acquiring a set of social norms, the interlaced biographies send us to the extraordinary experience of not thinking and feeling only for our own sake.
There is well known that love as a supreme form of interlaced biographies cannot be learned and also that a set of norms for love in fact destroys it. However, hardly a man can be accustomed with the idea of living an extraordinary experience without setting it as a matter of learning and, in this way, as a fairly common experience. Most of religions testify about the efforts of man to confine the extraordinary to norms that can be learned and become common facts.
As regards the experience of interlaced biographies, a common means to diminish its uncommon character is to imagine it as a form of conversation. The conversation is the most usual way of dealing with others. It purports to put the people together, even if they are not in agreement, though only their words undertake the duty of creating a common life.
We come to know that the model of conversation is an inappropriate way of treating interlaced biographies when they separate. Whereas a conversation ends with the feeling of prevailing over the interlocutor, with the shame of being defeated, or with the calm of being in agreement, when someone retreats his biography from any relation and does this especially through death, there remains only the sense of grief. The grief for being obliged to live farther only your own biography as you always do in your common life. The lost one ceases to be present as an abandoned interlocutor. He is totally absent from our common experience of talking and such absence becomes again the source of an extraordinary experience.