Brown symposium 33

I liked this symposium in theory more than I did in practice. Conversation itself is an unexplored goldmine for debate. Generally, this is something radically opposed to the culture which we inhabit. We rarely speak to one another, let alone speak about speaking. Bringing people together in public gatherings for conversation seems like a simple enough idea, and yet it is an activity rarely practiced in this country. Ultimately, conversation is a slow medium to move through, and indeed, this was visible during the symposium. Topics are brought up, then dropped without response. Circular logic goes unquestioned. Conversants become too anecdotal and subjective. There are many potential problems with conversation, but of course, there are benefits. The most obvious of these seems to be the multiplicity of perspective. If allowed, it tends to be thorough as a result. And this point is connected to much about the parallels of democracy and culture, brought up at the symposium—particularly in the slowness of the process. Beyond that, however, there is the simple fact that conversation is all we actually have. This seems to parallel a common theme in our cohort, in the role of language on understanding. Ultimately, we understand through language (if we can’t describe something in language we can’t know it), which is medium which is itself constructed with at least two individuals in mind. In this sense, to not converse is to not practice how we understand—an odd and worrisome proposition indeed. (On a personal note, this reminds me of when I was little and my parents would ask, “How was school,” to hear, “Good.”—indicative of a lack of practice).
As for the actual content discussed, I thought much if it was fairly rehashed. Much of what was reached seemed fairly paradigmatic, and often decent points were brought up and ignored, while illogical propositions were investigated. It is understandable that the topic, “Science, Art and Religion,” was left fairly broad, as to not limit conversation. However, a more narrowed scope was needed to provoke conversation. We were left to merely scratch the surface, yet again going over old scraps of material as opposed to unearthing something new. One problem was that there was no microphone on the balcony. This would have been an easy problem to fix, giving many students a voice. The panelists physically entering the audience was a bit over the top. It was a nice idea, but it seemed unnatural, like we had nothing to focus on. Thinking on this, it still seems like a valid point (a stage is nice to focus on, and should be filled), but at the same time, perhaps such discomfort was more culturally conditioned than we think to give credit. As a culture, we are not used to engaging in conversation publicly. There is a fair exception in the effects of the ivory tower of academia, but this is precisely the problem. Conversation is not seen as something “practical,” and “everyday.” This primarily seems to be because the everyday moves at a speed too fast for conversation to keep up. Sitting at a restaurant, you are taking the seat for the next bill—asshole. You don’t spend time eating, speaking over interests-- you eat quickly because you have better things to do with your time. Sticking around at the end of a meal for relaxing debate is not considered. Perhaps this culture is not entirely dead, Starbucks providing a useful, well-priced commodity for a change, in the form of street-side talk. Fostering such atmospheres is unquestionably beneficial, reminding us of what should be valued, as opposed to valuing them blindly, and most importantly, that we ourselves create these values.