Bridging  Chasms

BRIDGING CHASMS EVENT 3:

A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON BRIDGING CHASMS EVENT THREE
May 13, 2023

Center for New Music and Audio Technologies
University of California, Berkeley CA

The UC Berkeley EVENT took place in May 2023, at the Center for New Music Technologies facility, and was organized by its Director, Professor Edmund Campion, composer. It brought together Daniela Kaufer, Department of Integrative Biology (UCB); Roger Reynolds, University Professor Emeritus in Music (UCSD); Massimo Mazzotti, Historian of Science (UCB); Rachel Clark, New Media Art (CSUS); Anne-Marie Bonnel-Bucbla, Psychology Department (UCB); and Rachel Cohen, Social scientist from Nanyang University, Singapore

Report Prepared by Mina Girgis with inclusions from Edmund Campion and Roger Reynolds


The Bridging Chasms initiative explores cross-disciplinary communication and seeks to identify and develop tools and strategies that can facilitate the bridging of disciplinary divides. The third Bridging Chasms Event was held in May 2023 at the University of California Berkeley’s Center for New Music and Audio Technologies. Following this third iteration of the Bridging Chasms Event format, several recurring outcomes, successes, and issues were observed. This report both summarizes the May 2023 Event and reflects on the future of the Bridging Chasms initiative at CNMAT. It identifies outcomes and questions from the first three events and suggests potential future directions for the larger project.

(The 3rd iteration of Bridging Chasms was organized around a single day of interaction. The pandemic interrupted CNMAT's original scheduled date (over two years before!), but even with this significant gap, a meaningful day was accomplished. This report summarizes the day’s activities and includes feedback from most of the participants.)


Bridging Chasms III Organizers

Edmund J. Campion, Lead Organizer, Professor in the Department of Music, and Director at the Center for New Music and Audio Technologies (CNMAT). He says, “I am a composer. My work includes exploring interrelations between music instruments, computers, and creation; engagements that can lead to new collaborative strategies between people and machines, alternative performance practices, and how music itself can be made anew.”

Mina Girgis, Director of Education at Cal Performances, Ethnomusicologist, Producer, and CEO of the Nile Project -- an international nonprofit that promotes the sustainability of the Nile River. Mina participated in the group discussions and served as the Bridging Chasms III ethnographer for the day.

Jeremy Wagner, Technical Director, CNMAT, Bridging Chasms III Documentation, and Archiving. Jeremy is a composer, performer, and sound designer. As Research Composer and Technical Director at CNMAT, Jeremy oversees infrastructure, provides sound & video engineering support for CNMAT concerts & events, and mentors graduate composers in a wide range of production technologies.

Jeremy Hunt, Associate Director, CNMAT, provided organization and key logistical support for the event. Edmund Campion, Jeremy Wagner and Mina Girgis observed all Encounters and participated in group discussions. They did not act as participants in any Encounter. All Participants were present during the Encounters in which they did not present. Jeremy Hunt did not attend the day’s meetings.

Encounter 1: Daniel Kaufer & Roger Reynolds:
Daniela Kaufer, Professor of Integrative Biology, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, and the Department of Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley. She says, “The overall goal of my research program is to conduct interdisciplinary multilevel research addressing fundamental questions about brain function with direct relevance to the human condition.”

Roger Reynolds, University Professor, UC San Diego, Department of Music; Pulitzer Prize for Music, 1989. Current research: conceiving and exercising computer algorithms for the real-time processing of natural sound; intermedia creations involving spoken text, instrumental music, computer-processed and spatialized sound, and imagery presented through flexible projection design strategies. Roger is the conceptual founder of Bridging Chasms and we were honored to have him participating in this event.

Encounter 2: Massimo Mazzotti & Rachel Clarke:
Massimo Mazzotti, Thomas M. Siebel Presidential Chair in the History of Science, Director, Center for Science, Technology, Medicine, and Society (CSTMS). He says, “I'm interested in mathematics and technology as dimensions of world-ordering processes.”

Rachel Clarke, Professor of New Media Art, Chair, Art Department, California State University, Sacramento. She says, “ Combining physical and virtual modes of making, my work is made in relation to global concerns, filtered through everyday experience.”

Encounter 3: Anne-Marie Bonnel-Buchla & Rachel Chen:
Anne-Marie Bonnel-Buchla, Psychology Department, UC Berkeley (retired). She says, “From Paris to Berkeley, Anne-Marie Bonnel-Buchla shares her time between the scientific study of attention and the exploration of various musical forms.”

Rachel Chen, College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She says, “My research subverts normative modes of experiencing and interacting, and surfaces the diverse modalities of those whose expressive actions are often marginalized.”


Overview of Bridging Chasms III Planning and Structure

Bridging Chasms Event III was organized and hosted by the Center for New Music and Audio Technologies (CNMAT) at UC Berkeley. Participants were selected, invited, and briefed by the CNMAT’s Director, Edmund Campion in the months preceding the event. Bridging Chasms founder Roger Reynolds took part in this event as an Encounter presenter.

As in previous events, participants were asked to prepare a “kernel”: a concise but meaningful aspect of their own work that they wished to communicate during their “Encounter”. They were also instructed to keep their initial explanation of this kernel to approximately 20-30 minutes, and to rely on minimal paper handouts and digital slides to present any visual or textual aids.

The Event included three “Encounters” and one summarizing discussion. Each Encounter lasted approximately 90 minutes and occurred primarily between two Participants, with no moderator or interventions from others during the first 75 minutes. During this time, the two central Participants took turns presenting their “kernel” to their partner, and asking questions when they were not presenting. During the last 15 minutes, the Participants who were not central to the Encounter were also able to ask questions and engage in open discussion.

Presenters sat across from each other at one end of a short table. The Participants who were not central to a given Encounter as well as Ed and Mina sat around a conference table removed from the presenters. Jeremy observed the proceedings from an adjacent table.


Learnings from Event Three:

This third iteration of Bridging Chasms differed from the first two iterations in a number of ways. Unlike the first two events, this one was shorter - taking place in the span of one day with relatively shorter encounters. This event also featured a new ethnographer (Mina Girgis) who had not participated in the first two events, resulting in new assumptions, questions, and ethnographic format.

This was also the first event where Roger Reynolds participated as presenter rather than the organizer - passing on both leadership and hosting to Edmund Campion. Prior to the Bridging Chasms III event, Edmund and Roger had discussions concerning Edmund’s proposed differences in format, goals, and in some cases content for the Bridging Chasms III. Edmund wanted to explore the single day format, to test if a shortened format could work. He hoped that a more practical approach involving less overall time commitment from the participants and the necessarily shorter Encounters might better support his longer term goal of bringing Bridging Chasms into a practical and yearly exercise for CNMAT and surrounding community. Edmund perceived the overall Bridging Chasms process as a possible way to address specific issues of interdisciplinarity in practice at CNMAT and UC Berkeley at large. Roger had many strong feelings about this, but ultimately wanted the Bridging Chasms format to be useful. Later in this report, Roger provides his assessment of the Bridging Chasms III lays out his recommendations for possible future events.

The event day was a long one, and Edmund recognized that it pressed the limits on what is possible for such a process. After the event, participants were asked to answer a number of questions. The following answers weave together participants’ answers with relevant points raised during the discussions on May 13, 2023.

1. Revisiting one's life's work can be profoundly insightful. Learning something completely new, in the case of Anne-Marie, is obviously insightful too. Did you learn anything new from your experience preparing for yesterday's talk that you care to share? This could either be a "content" (research) or a "how I say it" insight.

Mina Girgis:
All participants were encouraged to stretch themselves in selecting what they were going to present. Their “kernel” was either something they already felt they mastered or something they were learning. This said, this was not meant to be a regurgitation of a lecture they had taught in the classroom. It was an attempt to communicate to a peer from another discipline by crystallizing and distilling without watering down the information. Many of the participants expressed the daunting nature of revisiting one’s life’s work, re-synthesizing a career-spanning inquiry, and communicating it succinctly in high-fidelity. Sitting in CNMAT while surrounded by its state of the art surround sound system, the ethnomusicologist in me couldn’t help but reflect on Bridging Chasms’ analogy to the compromises involved in audio recording, compression and amplification. Even Roger Reynolds himself expressed how challenging this process was for him, which made it clear to all other participants that this was a practice with no master - a level terrain where all participants stood to both learn and teach.

How much can one cover in 30 minutes? What level of granularity? Where does one begin? What shortcuts does one use to relate complex ideas based on what an adult learner already knows? These were some of the questions that presented themselves while observing presenters navigate endless andragogical decisions.

Massimo Mazzotti:
The experience of preparing my talk was very instructive. While I have written for the general public before, in this case it was the dialogical element that added a new dimension to the exercise for me. I prepared my notes thinking about the interlocutor I would be facing, and their possible reactions, and this certainly changed the form of my comments, making them more direct, essential, and targeted. I thought of them as comments that were directed to an attentive partner, and this is quite different from addressing a “public”. This format also partially changed the contents of my comments, as I thought of them as directed to elicit a response, a direct engagement, rather than as monodirectional communications.

Anne Marie Bonnel-Buchla:
As you mentioned, the preparation of this event led me to learn a new approach to old questions that many may have. And I will continue the reflexion in other domains , like music for example: of course there are many more musical genres than absolute music, and many more emotions than the 6 so called -basic -ones: But a non-reductive and constructive approach to the mystery of musical emotion should be of great interest for musicophiles and musicologists. It has been, for me, equally instructive to prepare as to present, and my main reaction might surprise you: it has to do with the supportive and enthusiastic attitude of our organizer who set the tone from the beginning. His competence in communication comes from a virtue that I appreciate above all: kindness. This may be the secret future success…
I also learned a lot from the presenters who were all professionals. But It might be useful for the future to bring students - across disciplines- to the mix. As presenters too.

Rachel Clark:
As I thought about discussing my research with a scholar in a different discipline, I decided to present it in terms of a methodology that unfolds in stages towards an outcome. I wouldn’t normally consider my practice within this framework, so it was an interesting and personally enlightening experiment. It revealed an overarching set of methods that occur in any project I undertake that I hadn’t consciously articulated before. For the purposes of the talk in Bridging Chasms, presenting my work this way helped to bridge the gap between my discipline and those of others in more traditionally research-based fields. As a bonus, I was glad to have the opportunity to rethink how I talk about my work, and I would certainly use the same framework again in other presentations of my practice.

Daniela Kaufer:
My process was a little different. I didn't prepare for the segment, and instead just had a general topic in mind that I freely spoke about. It was very interesting to see the effect of the 1:1 setting. It brought me a level of focus and attention that is unusual to me. It was both when I presented and when I listened. It was evident to me how much harder it was to keep a similar level as the audience. I could see that in moments where I got more into the material I would lose the right level of details and technicalities, and needed to be reminded.


2. Sharing in this unusual setting can bring up all sorts of unexpected variables. Compared to what you had envisioned the day before the event, what variable surprised you the most and how did your own presentation change in the moment?

Mina Girgis:
During the discussion, many presenters shared their divergent approaches to preparing for the encounter. While some felt they needed to draft and rehearse their presentations, others felt that improvising would yield the best result. While this is not a battlefield and one’s co-participant is not their adversary, these experiences reminded me of the saying “no plan survives the first contact with the enemy.” How did presenters respond to surprises, technical difficulties, disturbances, distractions, etc? Did they stick to their plan, abandon it completely, or adapt fluidly to reach their desired outcome while remaining open to new trajectories?

Massimo Mazzotti:
I adapted my presentation to the reactions of my interlocutor, and I did it in ways that I had not expected. The professional background of my interlocutor was obviously a key factor here. In this sense the encounter was really a conversation rather than two presentations with follow-up questions.

Rachel Clark:
I enjoyed the variety in the presenters' backgrounds, and the fact that the participants found a way to present what they do in a direct way, despite the immense complexity of each person’s research. In this way, their knowledge was made available to the group and different ways of thinking and understanding were revealed. I was stimulated by the interconnections I could draw across different fields, and between my own research and theirs.

The informal conversations that occurred individually between the participants (in between the timed conversations) were where some of the most valuable one-on-one insights were shared.


3. From all the other participants' presentations, what was one "how they explained it" strategy or tactic that stood out to you and that you'd want to incorporate in your pedagogical practice?

Mina Girgis:
As the ethnographer, I contemplated the presenters’ choices of topics to share, how much to explain, at what level of granularity, and what shortcuts, metaphors, and other pedagogical devices they used to fast forward through segments in order to cover more ground. At what level did the interlocutor reach learning saturation? How does the presenter weave storytelling, visuals, and other sensory experiences (auditory, kinesthetic, etc.) to diversify learning modalities?

Massimo Mazzotti:
While I cannot think of a specific strategy to mention, the way in which Roger brought together technical aspects and interpretation in his presentation was certainly inspirational. I’d like to replicate some of that in my history of science classes, possibly blending different media.

Rachel Clarke:
Something to pass around – I liked the use of handouts (diagrams, pictures) in addition to using the screen.

Given more time, I would have liked to have an activity, like having everyone experience my augmented reality works for themselves (on their devices) rather than showing documentation.

Daniela Kaufer:
Massimo’s presentation was one that incorporated pedagogical practices that I want to incorporate. It started with a seemingly simple example and 2 graphs, and developed minute to minute. As an audience member, I felt as if I was part of this process. I would love to incorporate this presentation style in my classroom. I need to think about how to scale it to a big classroom.


4. If resources were not a constraint, how and where could you imagine a Bridging Chasms framework applied in your course, curriculum, department, or campus? Mina Girgis:
During the discussion, it was absolutely clear that all participants recognized the problem that Bridging Chasms was attempting to remedy. The question was not whether we needed to bridge across disciplines but how to do so within the restrictions presented by our contemporary learning institutions.

Massimo Mazzotti:
The Bridging Chasms framework could function very well to increase understanding and collaboration across the humanities and interpretive social sciences, where it could be deployed with a focus on selected priorities (e.g.: humanistic takes on AI). In my experience, the challenges in communicating research across these disciplines are more significant and consequential than those relative to the STEM/humanities communication. The framework could also work well in advanced graduate training, especially in disciplines, like science studies, where the students work with different methods and on a vast array of topics.

Rachel Clarke:
I could imagine an event like this occurring at Sacramento State. It could happen across disciplines within the university (easiest), or it could involve pairings of internal and external scholars. Conversations between scholars across institutions is refreshing for thinking about how different institutional and pedagogical frameworks are set up. Regardless of time constraints, or demands on faculty, I see the necessity for this kind of reaching out.

This event reminded me of the importance of having conversations across disciplinary “silos.” In my institution, science and technology-based specialisms lack any substantive connection to the arts and humanities. Without any criticality around thinking patterns, problem-solving in any discipline becomes self-referencing and lacks creativity. Lateral thinking is a more effective and human-centered way of creating, making, and problem solving. Sharing different ways of looking and thinking about the world can radically change perspectives and effect real change.

I think the vision of Bridging Chasms is inspiring. Making connections across disciplines doesn’t fit with the expedient goal of graduating students as quickly as possible. In my institution, the buildings themselves embody a complete separation of fields of knowledge, and the curriculum is narrowing as broader requirements are removed to shorten graduation times. However, my college recently completed a successful “cluster hire initiative” over the creative arts (social practice and social justice in the arts) with faculty hired into different departments within the college. We’re talking about the need for a shared space for their interdisciplinary work to happen, since the institutional spaces of buildings and the curricula architecture work against this kind of initiative. A different organization of physical space (cross-disciplinary) would symbolize the possibility of a different model of knowing and learning. Reflecting on Bridging Chasms, a cluster hire across the university (sciences / arts and humanities) would be even more groundbreaking.


5. What do you think would be the most useful format for an ethnography to document yesterday's event? And who do you think would benefit the most from this documentation?

Mina Girgis:
Bridging Chasms is not the only venue for bridging across disciplines. This said, it aims to push the boundaries of how this bridging takes place. It situates itself at the forefront of what we know to push the practice forward. With this lens, this ethnography serves as a tool for our community of practice to learn from past events in order to strategically pursue our collective adjacent possible.

Massimo Mazzotti:
I would like to stress the importance of the moments of informal conversation, over lunch and dinner. I think they were essential to the experience: they deepened earlier exchanges and created the conditions for future collaborations.

Rachel Clarke:
I think the video recording is the least interesting aspect of the documentation. I like the website and I think it presents the intent and scope of the project well. I can also imagine a book with excerpts of conversations, pictures, and reflections by participants, collected over different institutions and events. I would have liked to meet Massimo before the one-on-one conversation, perhaps for an informal chat during the week prior to the event (or the day before). During the filmed conversation, the time seemed to pass very quickly, and it was only afterwards - when I’d had a little more time to digest the content he was presenting - that I realized there were some significant connections between aspects of his research and mine. His research on mathematical frameworks and their connection to societal structure leads me to think about algebra/algorithms and the reordering of society around social networks. This is something I have explored/critiqued extensively as a new media artist, but I wasn’t able to unpack this in the moment, and that left me a bit unsatisfied. With a bit more opportunity to “tune in” to each other’s work and thinking, we could have had a deeper conversation about the intersections of our research. That said, I’m pretty sure that Massimo and I will talk again about our shared interests.

As a suggestion, I think it would be better to have the other participants ask questions or respond immediately after each conversation, rather than waiting until later, so that the questions and ideas of each talk are fresh in people's minds. I think this would provoke a more focused reaction to the ideas and possible connections presented, as a broader opening-up of the conversation beyond the pair.

I didn’t know that I was supposed to bring an object to discuss, I didn’t see it in the email guidelines, and I had less than a week to prepare, so I must have missed it. I liked this part of the event, but I think it would have been better to have each person introduce themselves and their object at the beginning of the day, as a kind of opening statement.

I really enjoyed being a part of this event!


Thoughts on Bridging Chasms III, CNMAT/UC Berkeley, Roger Reynolds 13, May 2023, 1750 Arch, Berkeley

The general atmosphere was similar to that of BC I and BC II in terms of PARTICIPANTS and their willingness to be a part of the paradigmatic process. They were, in fact, less apparently anxious or perplexed about why they were there than has previously been the case. This reflects both Ed’s choice of people and also the care with which he argued for the potential interest of what was anticipated.

The physical set up (in terms of size and “architectural feel”) of 1750 Arch was less formal and physically less imposing. This may have contributed to the sense of comfort that participants felt. I don’t know how many of them had been to this facility before, but all had had some inter-personal contacts with Ed, and some had had previous contact with one another.

These facts lent a “friendlier” spirit to the situation, and one could take this either as a positive (removal of anxiety regarding “performance of the task”), or as causing the whole experience to be less demanding and thus reducing personal investment in preparation and also during delivery. I believe that the “stakes” need to be high, and that prior contact between PARTICIPANTS should be avoided.

In general, the participants were as dedicated listeners as they were presenters, and the evolving flow of PARTICIPANT pair communication was smooth (i.e., a considerable period of attentive listening in order to get one’s bearings, then occasional clarification questions, and eventually conversational exchanges).

THE major factor that differed from the two earlier EVENTs was this one’s compressed scale (in number of PARTICIPANTS, duration of components and of the whole). Although the general content of the day was “in tune” with the organizing committee’s original intentions, the compressed temporal scale reduced the sense of “demand” associated with the agreement to participate and the challenge of actually speaking for an hour about an issue of deep disciplinary meaning for the presenter.

Understanding that their presentational time window was 30 minutes rather than 60 eased the sense each PARTICIPANT had of the effort that would be required of them if they agreed to join the day. All that said, what I hope to do with the points below is to offer some specific thoughts about the hoped-for future of BC at UCB.

1. The duration limit of a single day is too detrimental to the quality of a hopefully revelatory process, and inhibits what undoubtedly happened at BC I and II: that the PARTICIPANT group became a social entity that wanted to stay together as a whole and that even (in BC EVENT II) actively rejected the organizers attempted interventions by the end of the process.

The narrow slices of time allotted to exchanges and to discussion weighed against the possibility that the PARTICIANTS would have time to register their observations regarding presentation strategies. There was more of this in EVENTS I and II simply because there was more time available. Several of the CNMAT PARTCIPANTS mentioned the importance of informal contacts during breaks and meals.

To be clear, it is certainly the case that CNMAT could have differing needs and thus seek differing outcomes. My points here are raised in reference to my experience with two EVENTS that had very different structure.

2. The identification and enrollment of appropriate individuals to participate was again shown to be crucial. The choice of appropriate individuals also (as was noted) must ideally serve the group’s diversity – and yet avoid fractioning into sub-groups or the manifestation of comparative differences that disturb an overall “willingness to commit” and to “reveal” (both subject and self).

3. Careful and specific attention needs to be paid to refining the precise “nugget” that each PRESENTER will attempt to explain before the EVENT. None of us is well-prepared to assess what is and is not likely to be “clear” to another accomplished and willing participant in the process -- someone who is not “one of us”.

In a sense, the more difficult the explanation issue becomes, the more we all are likely to understand the success and the limits of communicative tools.

4. Resistance to the use of projection or digital displays (which convert the explanatory process into a performance) is crucial. In this regard, one PARTICIPANT’s use of a single reference sheet which we each could hold in our hands iat CNMAT, was admirably context-friendly.

In one case, even a brief poem on a single sheet of paper could have formed the basis of a presentation..

5. The physical distance of presenters from one another strongly influences the dynamic at work (and this consideration includes the larger “geometry” of the setting). EVENT III had great presenter-table distance, but this table might have been too close to that which held the other 4 PARTICIPANTS.

6. Any observers, whatever their nature, should be seated at a significant distance from the PARTICIPANTS. Their proximity can lessen “group cohesion”.

7. In terms of communicative tools, there were more confirming instances than new candidates, but there were a couple that were new:

a. The compact offering of two contrasted portals to significant spaces that can be understood as radically opposed to one another was very effective.
b. The nature of any graphic aid can be momentous: it’s informality, its eloquence, etc. can cast a sort of spell over the associated discussion.
c. This, in turn, suggests that the orienting consultation with prospective PARTICIPANTS could involve sharing premises/examples that are clearly sub-optimal and discussing why this is so.
d. Presenting a single poem, or image, or melody, or choreographic gesture, and then exploring its apparent content and explaining how and why it came to be could also be a powerful tactic.

Here is the list I kept as I was preparing for my presentation:

Avoid acronyms

Avoid specific references to people (especially famous ones)

Minimize special (disciplinarily situated) vocabularies.

Use only “hand-held”, personalized reference items.

Sound examples should be very brief and unambiguously “meaningful” so that repetitions, and a minimal level of “habituation” or at least familiarization is possible.

Respect a logical progression of “argument(s)” (without omitting significant steps) in moving from orienting specifics (if used) to revelatory clarity as one unpacks an obscure (tho important) disciplinary nugget.

Use common-place, everyday analogies. End with a personal take on the resource(s).concept you presented: “This is how I use…” Such personal perspectives could establish directly or by implication the motivation(s) for one’s investment.

Try to be generally accurate but minimize unnecessary exceptions or alternatives that mislead or blur focus.

Break your argument or “discussion space” into chunks that can ideally have names and function as retained references as one’s presentation proceeds.

Seek empathic connection with your listener when you present.

Keep your voice in conversational mode. You are speaking to a listener whose personal attention and eventual by-in you are seeking. You aren’t lecturing to an audience, you’re talking with a colleague.


Thoughts on Bridging Chasms III, CNMAT/UC Berkeley, Edmund Campion

When I first learned about Bridging Chasms from Roger Reynolds, I immediately connected with the high bar and seriousness of the BC Charter and I was intrigued with the documentation from the previous events. I had been looking for a framework that could bolster my efforts at CNMAT where I focus on interacting, sharing and communicating across disciplines. Historical “Computer Music” was defined around the emerging interdisciplinarity of its time, but CNMAT is of the next generation, where communication/collaboration is not an ideal, but a reality. Problems persist.

This Bridging Chasms III became an experiment different in form and content from the previous Bridging Chasms but in kinship with Roger and in the spirit of the original framework. I have received from the Bridging Chasms III participants encouraging feedback and this has re-energized my intention to hold an evolving Bridging Chasms at CNMAT once a year.

I was concerned that booking this event at the end of a long academic season was going to be negatively impacted by the fatigue that plagues all Professors at this time of year. To my reliev, I found that the participants mostly found the Bridging Chasms III day a relief and not a burden. I was thrilled that all the participants stayed in place until the sun set. I intend to keep this time of year open for possible future Bridging Chasm events at CNMAT.


Edmund Campion on Encounter 1, Daniela Kaufer and Roger Reynolds

As Daniela and Roger sat down at the small table at the head of the larger table, I flashed on many of the things that brought me to this occasion. The Cronenberg film, ExistenZ came to mind. It was a weird scene with some shadowy, quirky, psychological component that had cinematic character. Why am I here? I believe in interdisciplinary communication and recognize that the problems therein have impacted my own work for decades. I want to foster a space where those sharing the communicating do so from the perspective of their bodies, their humanity, as well as their deep relation to their disciplines and their love of learning. In my decades of academic exposure, I perpetually feel unsatisfied with communication, and I desire a greater Ecology of Mind: a place where knowing and sharing knowledge is integrated with the field of forces around and in the body. Having a great conversation with someone at a cocktail party or being inspired by a wonderfully organized one to many lecture has aspects of this, but still missing key aspects.

As Roger and Daniela began the first Encounter, I immediately felt embedded and comfortable as a listener and I knew I needed to pay attention. As Daniela explained changes in the brain throughout life – plasticity, and resilience, I could see in the exchange and Roger’s physical reactions how direct human contact was essential to “understanding.” Roger and Daniela were close to each other. Roger is a good listener who makes contact with his eyes. He pays attention and responds with comments and questions. I wanted to ask questions and disrupt but kept my place. Daniela was scaling up the conversation toward a surprising moment, I think for Roger as well, when the topic of psychedelics came into it!

Roger took over with a totally different approach, one that was dedicated to communication and involved beginning at the beginning of what constitutes musical material. The attempt to start with fundamental ideas and then scale upwards to something larger through careful steps of communication. Gradus ad Parnassum with an exponential curve to conclusion. I knew, and I think he did, that he needed more time, but the effort was a special and complex lesson masked in simplicity. It reminded me a bit of how Einstein used stories to explain very deep concepts. Only someone with a life experience as artist might attempt this. The Encounter 1 set an excellent example for the rest of the day.


Edmund Campion on Encounter 2, Massimo Mazzotti and Rachel Clarke

Massimo began with some very thoughtful grounding. He had a plan. Overall, I heard in part an attempt to communicate a special relationship of culture to the technical, of human actions to mathematical technologies – moving to higher mathematics as cultural extensions outside geometric algebraic mechanics. There was a mathematical problem, a diagram and two solutions discussed. What does it mean to understand a mathematical problem and what is the process of building solutions in relation to knowledge formation and culture. I had never heard these subjects presented in this way. It was like experiencing a comet cross in front of me. I could not embrace or completely understand all of it, but I was slightly stunned by the implications at the core of what I was hearing. I think I heard him say that “the thing we don’t want to discuss we make a logical necessity?” Did I?

Rachel Clarke began by situating her basic methodology and research. She expressed how external things affect her, the necessity of being open and sensitive to the natural work and interconnectedness of humans. She spoke of life and death, loss, and transformation. Her use of key words was really effective and included the terms that described a cycle of action: absorbing, collecting, filtering, forming, editing, refining, and completing. Experimentation and invention of a visual vocabulary that correlates to its content. The breakdown of categories of what we call a visual artist. As a composer, I felt myself naturally situated within her discussion. Her use and emphasis on the key words was resonant and clear. She demonstrated how her art works embodied personalized knowledge and embedded in material a space of grief and experience.

The overall exchange between Rachel and Massimo made the connection between communication and interconnectedness. The human component was essential to both discussions and generated a strong emotion within me. I found myself thinking a lot about my long standing view that the university itself must be rethought – not just become more successful at interdisciplinary research, but address the lacuna that has come from what I think are mostly bad sharing practices and misdirections of purpose. I like experiencing what other people know, not just how others use knowledge or how I might use what I learn from others. This Bridging Chasms III is about visiting the knowledge “umwelt” of others. Visiting someone’s discipline in this way is a combination of expertise and emotion – the “kernel” is exposing something specific from that space of knowing, but the communication is holistic.


Edmund Campion on Encounter 3, Anne-Marie Bonnel-Buchla and Rachel Chen

Anne-Marie (Nannick) brought a unique perspective to the table. Rather than rely on her specific historical expertise she chose to talk about explorations as she dipped into theories of emotion, and music. More than the other Encounters, I experienced this one as a true conversation between two people. I got the impression that Anne-Marie was poking, in a slightly puckish way, at the concept of knowing anything. There was a sly questioning of all assumptions touching on a subtle disdain for how knowledge is obtained or shared.

What was clear from the outset was that Rachel Chen was an active participant and an involved listener. Rachel brought the important connection of how her personal life and her research are bound. A lifelong relationship with her brother and the study of autism and difference.

Rachel Chen signaled understanding and interest for Anne-Marie’s discussion with spontaneous pitch-based gestures from her voice. Anne-Marie used her hands as communicators and as signals to Rachel Chen. I particularly enjoyed this interaction. Again, the subject of bringing life into the play of research and learning.


Summation and recommendations

Across the board, each of the participants presented with confidence and there was a general feeling of openness and joy in the sharing. The group became more cohesive as the day progressed and a surprising level of trust seemed to have arrived by the time dinner started. It seemed that the day had encouraged the participants to become more available, more vulnerable than they would in another scenario. People were taking more risks as the day progressed. I had expected more tension, disagreement, expressions of confusion. Perhaps there was room for more of that.

I am writing most of this from memory after the full summer (something Roger cautioned me against), but I actually still remember much of what was said and shared. After 27 years as Professor at CAL I am far better at forgetting than caring to remember. But I still have that day etched in my memory. My colleagues left me with things to think about. That is resonance, something I am deeply interested in as an artist. Learning has to be resonant, holistic, and connected. I was reminded how group meetings usually just don’t work – no trust established, too many mouths, too many unknowns. People must practice to be able to work together in group meetings, but having the group witness paired conversations made a group experience possible and I feel by the end of the day, the group was talking.

There simply was not enough time in the Encounters to reach the level of depth that everyone might have desired. I think a reworking of the schedule is necessary, but I am still convinced that a single day is the kind of commitment that my colleagues at CAL are willing to make. There needs to be more preparatory work to help those participating understand what is at stake and how they can better focus on their approach to the conversation.

When I set things up for the event, I sent a note out to the many graduates who use the building as a community center of sorts. I said in clear language that the building would be sealed off for the day and no one was to come by. I noticed in the afternoon that many came around the door with great curiosity. I think I will encourage some of the other groups at CNMAT to try some kind of BC occasion and I will consider bringing a graduate student into the group participating in the Encounters.

For me, some things worked well that day and for reasons that are happily mysterious. I believe the weather has a lot to do with social mood, and it was a particularly gorgeous day. I think the post-pandemic climate was important as well – a feeling we might be seeing some clearing in terms of not being on edge when we meet in small groups. When I said goodbye in the later evening, I had the strange vision of an alternate happening – this same day, the same people, the identical format, but with the inverse result - an exact opposite and unsuccessful outcome. The next Bridging Chasms at CNMAT will tell the tale, but it will be less experimental, more experienced, and I hope capable of including some of the depth of questioning around how communication happens and what are the successful strategies involved. The time constraint problem is real, but perhaps more on the preparatory side will help.


Points to consider for future Bridging Chasms at CNMAT

● Allow for more group/table interaction/feedback following each Encounter. Several of the participants expressed strong desire to engage with those in an Encounter but felt less prepared to do so later in the day.
● Distribute all images before the Encounter begins and stick with paper. Avoid the projector.
● Keep the number of participants the same – it was an excellent number.
● Make sure there is high quality food and a well-planned dinner. The dinner really helped galvanize the day.
● Create more pre-event interactions with the organizer. Rachel suggested that having an opportunity to have a short chat with her Encounter partner before the event would have been helpful. Not to discuss the “kernel”, but to simply introduce one another.
● Before the event, more careful attention needs to be paid to refining the “kernel/nugget” with an emphasis on the primary goal of improving communication across divides.
● Consider some way for participants to experience the work of the practicing artists, perhaps as side exhibit during breaks. Maybe scholars can bring their books, or composers their manuscripts to display as well.
● Rebuild the timeline for the day and extend the time period to go from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. inclusive of the dinner and with the presentation and response time extended.