Blackstrap Lake |
Obviously, there's a lot more to
conversation than the words that are spoken. You put yourself in the
company of friends and you can safely assume that there will be
conversation, although the range of topics is unpredictable. Maybe
the point is not the topic but the interaction, like a friendly game
of tennis. One serves, the other returns, repeat, repeat.
Too much non-interaction feels awkward
and we all have the experience of “groping for a topic” when the
silence gets uncomfortably long. You can't play tennis without a
ball. It would look stupid.
All around the country men are going to
coffee in the mornings—some in the afternoons and evenings as well.
They obviously don't need the coffee; they've got coffee at home.
It's conversation that's the real need here, especially for retired
folk who no longer have a regular workplace where a full quota of
interaction used to happen routinely. A bit of tennis is what's
wanted.
Although the topics may not be the
important components of coffee or party conversation, the choices
aren't insignificant either. If you've little knowledge of machinery
and the dialogue seems always to wander toward engine displacement,
transmission lubricants and horsepower, you very soon begin to feel
like you're on the tennis court without a racquet.
Someone speculated that conversation
falls into three categories. In descending order of quality are
conversations about ideas, things and people. Engagement in ideas,
then, is the highest order. Gossip the lowest. A somewhat elitist
view of the world, others would say, but there's merit to the concept
in that idea conversations are more likely to include everyone around
the restaurant table or in the living room.
As an example, take ideas about how we
design our houses. Everyone lives in a house, must maintain it and
deal with its idiosyncrasies. Talking about the best doorknobs
available, though, is a “things” conversation; debating whether
or not we generally build our houses too large is an “ideas”
conversation. Exchanging information on how poorly the Jones maintain
their yard is a “people” topic. It's easy to see that idea-dialogue provides scope for imagination and invention; the other
topics may seem mundane in comparison. The last one may even prove
destructive.
Thing is, we generally end up in groups
that are conversationally compatible, individuals that share common
interests, that naturally veer toward topics in which all can
participate. Groups in which attention is paid to ensuring that
everyone has a racquet.
Should the art of conversation be a
school subject? History tells us that Cleopatra was a persuasive
conversationalist, fluent in six languages, a student of history and
culture and oratory. Alexandrian education was not so much
job-oriented as it was geared to personal development. In a time when
Roman women were chattels for trading, she so adeptly won Roman
emperor Caesar to her cause that she was able not only to bed him but
to bring his battalions to her aid.
Alexandria was obviously not Rome.
Because in the end, it's a
satisfactory, rewarding, uplifting interaction that we came for. Isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment