Reality needed to be permissive for a few moments. I wanted to observe an event and could only do so in my imagination. The hotel room where the interview took place would remain a mystery to me, or would it? I’ve watched the conversation online several times. Two men probably in their fifties, the one being interviewed wearing a tie, met in what appeared to be a comfortable hotel room, to talk about psychoanalysis and neuroscience, or what has become to be called neuropsychoanalysis. What was so exciting about a journalist and a psychoanalyst speaking about the mind? I trained to become a journalist. I know how to ask questions so that people say what they would prefer not to. The interview, the conversation, which I’ve watched online, and which I believe took place in Prague in 2013 during the annual congress of the International Psychoanalytic Association, reminded me of listening to one of my grandfathers when he and my grandmother would visit us. I remember him as being able to talk about complex subjects in a simple way, which my training in journalism taught me is not easy to accomplish. The psychoanalyst and neuroscientist who was interviewed in Prague seemed to speak that way. He reminded me of my grandfather. I imagined myself in that hotel room in Prague, invisible to both participants, and the psychoanalyst said that “we study subjective experience.” Subjectivity came alive to me, in my imagination, as I pictured myself listening to words and sentences about how the mind works. I was having a subjective experience, or it was happening to me. My unconscious and I were communicating with each other, which as a writer I feel makes me a more creative person. Thanks to my imagination, or to my unconscious mind, I’ve experienced two versions of that interview, one in reality, which I’ve watched online, and the other, which has come to me on its own.