On the Art of Conversation

I love overhearing snippets of conversation that exist almost entirely of cliches and colloquialisms - 'at the end of the day, when all is said and done, it is for the best.' The art of making language utterly meaningless. But wait, let me check the definition of 'conversation' as provided by the mighty dictionary.com: 'informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc., by spoken words; oral communication between persons; talk; colloquy.' I suppose I could argue that a chat littered with the likes of 'at the end of the day' is a chat that is not grounded in thought, and therefore I can make the statement that such conversations are not really conversations at all.
The dictionary seems pretty firm on the idea that a conversation only takes place when it is a form of 'oral communication'. What, then, is the definition for the exchange of words that takes place on any of the various instant messaging internet systems? All the times I have nattered away on the likes of MSN, that wasn't conversation?
If I could be bothered to google it, I could tell you what is the considered percentage for 'non-verbal communication' when having a face-to-face chat, but for now I'll just acknowledge its existence and furthermore its importance. Probably particularly true in reference to me - I'm apparently incapable of hiding my genuine reaction to anything said. But does the indisputable importance of this non-verbal communcation necessarily negate conversations that take place without it? Of course not. I cite blind people as an example there.
Blind people, however, obviously have the advantage of being able to hear the inflections in a voice that can reveal as much regarding the speaker's opinion as the words they are using. And deaf people have the benefit of being able to see expressions and emphasis that can be placed in the smooth or agitated movements of communicating hands.
I have an answer for everything - of course. So a blind and deaf person cannot have 'conversation'? Is that what you are thinking? I will refer to the most famous example - Helen Keller - in order to continue presenting my case. (And besides, it gives me the opportunity to throw in one of my favourite quotes here: 'The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt within the heart.') More relevant, however, is her point regarding literature, and I think it is safe for me to define literature here as 'the written word'. Keller said that, 'Literature is my Utopia. Here I am not disenfranchised. No barrier of the senses shuts me out from the sweet, gracious discourses of my book friends. They talk to me without embarrassment or awkwardness.'
On this basis, it is arguable that to be able to engage in a chat on instant messenger could be the epitome of conversation. I can discuss subjects with friends that I would feel awkward raising in a face-to-face situation; I can take time to form a response and delete and re-phrase as required; the merits are endless, in fact, and I wont list them all because if you haven't agreed with me so far then I can't see you starting now. The obvious disadvantage, of course, is that words can be misinterpreted - without the visual aid of the raised eyebrow and the slight smile, it is difficult to tell, unless you know a person particularly well, whether or not they are serious with their comments. Now that I think about it, instant messenger is probably ideal for an autistic person, as they are saved the potential awkwardness of not picking up on social and visual cues.
Right now, according to the dictionary.com definition, I'm not getting much 'conversation'. I'd have to argue otherwise. In the first case, I have my books - they present ideas to me, they alter my thoughts and emotions, they make me feel part of a world. And in the second case, thanks to MSN and Skype, I have interactive conversations. Sometimes I can talk about the fact I am eating toast dripping with butter; other times I can catch up with the gossip; maybe I'll discuss my views on using animals in medical experiments. Some are trivial exchanges; others are inspiring. I do know that a part of me is involved in all these conversations, that the words I type are in some way related to me and who I am. They will reflect one of my moods, my feelings at the time. Surely the Art of Conversation is the ability to include a part of yourself, and not merely to exchange the pleasantries society requires.
Maybe my obsession with the perfect arrangement of written words is the real reason I'm arguing the merits of instant messenger 'conversations'. At least I'm not alone, however. I'm in good company. Thoreau seems to think a lot of the written word as well, and I'll let him finish this posting for me. I'm sure if he'd seen the technological age, he'd have allowed me the obvious exchange of 'written' for 'typed' in IM conversations.
'A written word is the choicest of relics. It is something at once more intimate with us and more universal than any other work of art. It is the work of art nearest to life itself.'