Field trip rumbling 1

I will try to do this backwards, if at all. This is the part where I should phrase the reflective nature of the following words, ponder on the inevitability of time’s lessons and, consequently provide an insightful calibration of my understanding of Istanbul and where did I fit in it. I’m not fully convinced this is possible, or even necessary.
Right now, my impressions and memories seem to hinge on the most recent hours, the final ones, where all was presentation, production of slides, quick analysis and strategy. And looking back, during those hours there wasn’t that much Istanbul, to be honest; it was some sort of faded backdrop to that overpowering beast that is academic rigour. When transformation became the key word of the process, you knew it had some limitations…I mean, transformation could be anything, anywhere, its meaning determined a lot by convenience and chance. So for me, transformation was best represented in those strange hours where we transitioned from trying to honestly understand that absurdly fascinating city, to, once again, resorting back to our old student ways: evaluating proper language, designing slide diagramming, projecting answers to the limited information we had in our hands.
This division remains my biggest personal struggle. How do we shift from being perceptive to a situation to producing information so solemnly encased in academic parameters? There is something in that implicit calculation that sterilizes the bulk of our impressions into yet another structured analysis fit for the ensuing discussions but somewhat lacking of the richness of improvisation. Thank goodness for this group, which remains convinced that these presentations deserve the chance of being a bit illogical.
I think our presentation was very good, still with a lot to be done, and yet for different reasons its appreciation got entangled in another discussion. This, as we are told, is what reality is about, stakeholders making a case for themselves, actors appropriating arguments, feedback being biased and calculated. And then the words, the faces, the arguments, seem to blur from the context, and the discussion becomes a dialogue or dispute that could be anywhere (by changing those keywords that give the context), that we have already heard, that we should expect in the future. For all I know, this was exactly as expected, and for some reason, this was a bit of a letdown. The presentation was what I thought it was going to be, and the "feedback" afterwards too. Nothing unplanned, everything under control. Even that final discussion fit into the countless predictions of what to expect at such gatherings. And just like that we had the universal goodbye, thanks-to-all and be-in-touch. Fieldtrip over.