I must misunderstand conversations, then! I would assume that in order for a conversation to occur, there must be a two-way exchange of information (however trivial that information may be, relatively speaking): if the information only goes in one direction, then it's more like a lecture than a conversation; and if there is no transfer of information at all, then I'm not even sure what it is. (A waste of time?)

But if a god is changeless, then they are unable to receive information of any kind (for the reason Sallustius and you describe), which means that we're not conversing. Perhaps they are speaking, but it would have to be a one-way transfer of information, right?

This implies to me that the gods are so far beyond comprehension (indeed, beyond comprehensibility) that I'm not even sure I can begin to make sense of them. (Though perhaps we'll see once we're a bit further into the text!) Certainly, the gods we're talking about don't fit my model for "gods" (which I suppose I have always assumed to be "vast people"). This harkens back to the conversation above, what are those Common Conceptions people had back in Sallustius' time? I assume this means they had a very different understanding of what the word "god" meant than I do?

In any case, I'm very thankful for the lower orders of beings who I can at least interact with! They may not be "gods" in Sallustius' sense, but I am not sure how I would be sustained without them!