Unexpectedly, and generalising broadly, I preferred Blind Date to Second Date. In the second part I felt the responders tended to be submissive to what they were responding to, in the first part they were more equal partners, even if neither knew in what. A dialogue – answers to questions that hadn’t been asked, questions asked that were answered by other questions – that even if it wasn’t quite in sync (though surprisingly often it was) felt more interesting than the more tidily in-sync second part. I liked being tugged both ways at once. Thank you, all.
Thank you Charles. Also rather surprisingly I feel the same. Generally, I am suspicious of things which have been put together at random with the expectation that this will create meaning or dialogue. Mostly because there are no two things which could fail to do so, prompting the question: so what? To what purpose? It is, in itself, too easy. The original purpose of the Blind Date was to establish a kind of control group in this experiment in cross-disciplinary dialogue. But I found myself astonished by the levels of detailed synchronicity among the blind daters leading me to two… Read more »