Dear sirs and madams,
While I was wishing to start to tell the history of conversation types from this post, it occurred to me that recounting dry historical facts must surely be a very boring business not only for the readers but also for myself. For this reason I have decided that I may drop this idea (at lea.st for some time) and start relating this story, the same story, in a somewhat different way.
The more I think the more certain I am this is the only way this story can be told. The narrative I choose is an axiomatic one. We all know there was that emptiness before all things began, before somebody said there be light. You may call it big bang if you like. Then that emptiness was fiercely burning. That sort of emptiness which is in fact not emptiness we can feel when you hear (pardon me for this banality) when we hear Horowitz. Even he played Star-Spangled Banner. It was there. But there are also other moments, more (or as?) transparent moments, for example when he plays Scarlatti...
We are not going to tell that story (genesis or music). It is far, far more modest story, a much quieter story, though nevertheless it will also talk about the beginning: and neither will it talk about the ending since it is a story which is continuing. And you know what it is about. And so --- because all things scientific will proceed through dialogue, it is about a dialogue which comes out of a dialogue and the truthfulness of the matter itself may only reside in these conversations, carried out over chats in workshops in low voice and mail exchanges --- perhaps it may not become as axiomatic as I intend it to be. But may it take any form it can under this humble narrator. We shall start tomorrow.
Yours truly,
kohei
