This paper is concerned with conversation aesthetics in post-war Lebanon, specifically with what I have been calling “impossible conversations.” How can different opinions, perspectives and memories co-exist without obliterating each other? Since 1943, the year of the country’s independence, Lebanon’s official history curriculum has hardly been updated. This absence, combined with the legacy of scattered historical conflicts, and an amnesty after the major 1975-1990 civil war (dates which are disputed) that absolved all political crimes, has engendered what some scholars have termed “historical amnesia.” In contrast to this absence of history, Lebanon has a lively political arena, with 100 active political parties, each re-writing a history that suits its party’s interests. All of these factors have led to a societal disaffection, an alienation of political and social others, and a dismissal of opposing or contrasting perspectives. In order to get at the question of conversation aesthetics, I will present “??? ???????” or “We Are History,” a polyphonic project I have developed, which resides online as well as in booths in public spaces across Lebanon. “We Are History” invites people to listen to automated montages of oral histories of people who have lived through 1943 to today presented as constructed conversations. This undertaking aims to provide a common discourse in order to have important conversations about what is missing, what can be agreed upon, and how to proceed next. These constructed conversations are built from monologues, contributed to the website. After these viewings, participants are then invited to share their own stories. Each newly contributed story is added to the archive, and tagged with its transcript which enables the interface to incorporate newly added video interviews into the pool concerning the event discussed, thereby changing the versions of conversations previously compiled. Conversation aesthetics is a concern for impossible conversations that are a result of three intertwined situations: years of disagreement, contradicting beliefs about the past and current conditions that prevent the occurrence of these conversations, thereby dubbed impossible. I use it to describe a computational approach to studying conversations in Lebanon around traumatic events, their meanings and the system of principles within which they operate, in order to get at a theory and practice of finding conversations where they do not exist, with a close examination of the conversation’s medium’s effect on the conversation and vice-versa.