


I am fresh back from attending two diametrically different conferences. The first being the Nonduality and Science conference held in Marin County, CA. The second being the annual SPEP (Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy)/SPHS (Society for Phenomenology and Human Science) conference (generally known as continental philosophy) held this last week (21st-25th) in D.C./Arlington and hosted by George Mason University.
The first thing I have to say, is that the differences couldn’t have been more apparent. At the Nonduality conference, where I volunteered and attended several sessions, there was the usual California pluralistic feel. Eclectic, sometimes strange, and always interesting. Regardless, there were presentations and workshops that I’ve come to regard as standard for the style of conferences in spirituality and consciousness.
Conversely, the SPEP conference was an eye-opener for me. I have never been to a conference where every single presenter (with the exception of a handful of people) simply read the paper that they had prepared. That is, they READ their paper outloud and then discussed it afterwards. From my point of view, this is not presenting or connecting with the audience but merely reading outloud what I could have read myself. Granted, the papers were quite good and there were some incredibly interesting points being made, but if you are not familiar with the particular area of specialization being presented, then the risk of feeling lost, frustrated, and confused is high. Indeed, that is the whole point, I thought, of presenting: to bring your ideas to a wider audience, even if that audience is not familiar with your area of interest. That is to say, the ways things are done in philosophy is ENTIRELY different from the way things are done in psychology and the other consciousness-oriented conferences I have been to. It is a completely different style that I found to be difficult to reconcile.
I don’t want to disrespect the brilliance of the people at SPEP and the hard work that they have obviously put into their papers, but I must say that if I had read the papers being presented I probably would have understood most of it. However, listening to someone present in a rather monotone and unengaging way meant that much of what I heard was simply jibberish, which is unfortunate, because I know that there are brilliant ideas and works being presented (which is why it is so frustrating). (As a caveat, some of the more established scholars gave VERY engaging presentations of their papers while reading them verbatim, so it is possible to do it well).
There were only a handful of powerpoint presentations, most went analogue/old-school (sans powerpoint or multimedia).
What I am trying to say is that philosophy is inherently complex and detail-oriented. It is not easy to understand and even if you have a PhD in the stuff, it seemed that there are so many traditions and perspectives and philosophies out there that the likelihood of understanding everything that was being said is very low, unless you’ve come to hear someone present in your area of expertise. In particular, I felt sympathy for all those people who were either just getting into philosophy or who come from different fields who merely wanted to expose themselves to new perspectives, many of whom I met and colluded with me the fact that they were having a hard time understanding it all. From a social psychology point of view, this is a problem.
Regardless, I had an amazing time. I met some incredible people and engaging in lively discussions on a whole range of issues. I also, incidentally, proud to announce that I have managed to get formally involved in SPHS on an organizational level, having just been elected to be the new “board member-at-large” for the next two years at SPHS thanks to Gary Backhaus (and Michael Barber), members of my committee. SPHS is comprised of the bulk of the most brilliant and prolific scholars in phenomenology and, in particular the works of Husserl and Schutz, among other areas too numerous to mention).
I should also mention that I presented my dissertation research as well. I was told to NOT simply read from my paper but to actually give a presentation, so that is what I did. I found that this had mixed results for this crowd. Overall, it seemed to go well, all things considered. Debate is the name of the game and having your ideas challenged and defending them is certainly a particular specialization in philosophy, which I think is great, as long as it is done respectfully.
Nonetheless, it was incredibly formative and priceless in terms of practice and exposure as I develop my experience and knowledge as a scholar. I love philosophy and especially love phenomenology. I can’t wait for next year’s SPEP/SPHS conference in Montreal.
