My name is of recent origin; whilst its use and institution - though arch and metaphysical, though separate from some theory of knowing - bears upon terminologies applied to progressive strains of Historical-Materialism. I am known there for a single, out-dated criticism of a too-pure approach to logic. This, then, is an attempt to say more about that earlier comment, and to offer interested parties further, more refined information about my motivations, and the methodology I am led towards. I am no author, however; and my words, here derived, by a friend, from the original Japanese, will inevitably seem somewhat clumsy and imprecise in a tongue which is not my own. Added to such difficulties, I should say that I have no exact province within epistemology itself; in that I come from a long line of robot determinists; essentialists, that is to say, who view correspondence itself as double-bound and corroded. Accordingly, for us, understanding assumes no generality; its supposed scientific origins are, therefore, returned to nature, and to the limits, principles, and hypotheses in tune with those machines, and not the ones you may be use to.