tags: pole published on:
A silence can be demanded and a silence can be imposed. Either way the effect is same. Silence is can be as thick and uncomfortable as speech. We are not talking about the Buddhist kind of silence that demands a suspension of all communication. We are talking just about the cessation of the use of language. Eyes can talk, if they can talk. Other forms of communication can also continue to play out.
We are advocating the use of silence for communication and the use of language only for dramatic effect. By turning the relationship between these two states around, we want to change the quality of noise that we are subjected to. Instead of the noise emerging from the friction of reading deluded and commonplace text, we want noise to emerge from the awkwardness and discomfort in silences. The level of noise in an environment and the degree to which it manages to submerge us in a daze is the quality of the noise. This ratio between these two entities is essential to know. Noise means the information that is so oblique that it further requires us to mount a parsing operation on it to be able to grasp anything. Noise is not undesirable. It is the source of all insignificant content. And insignificant content is always rich in information that offers material for parsing. What is to be found after parsing? Maybe something that can help us find the pattern that unlocks the noise as a pattern and access it as a language-of-a-kind.
This language-of-a-kind only bears similarity with language because it has a syntax. But it differs from language because it does not either have a fixed vocabulary or rules of construction. Pattern recognition can never be contained within the idea of a fixed whole because neither the grain in the plasma of noise is finite or known nor the total number of eventual patterns.
Through a net,
Only light can pass.
Cast this net
and catch nothing.
Abandon it and
access the drift
and the float.
This holding back from scoring the dexterity through language is a characteristic that requires a link with the future. This linked future is the time when the limitations of language will be too great to ignore and will become the single biggest challenge to surmount. The ability to impose a common language that is still a language will be difficult. The only possible common language will be something that is universal to the level that it doesn't just connect us with all humans but all the beings of the universe. The Tower of Babel will disappear and leave in its place a ground for conflict that is based more closely on actually referenced communicative threads and not inaccurate translations.
We will all become better actors.
And that will only expand our capacity to deal with situations.
Every act of translation, effects the argument in a reductive way. Eventually nothing gets through. The silence gets lost. The negative space of the expression that we were banking on gets lost and only dead words stick to the memory. All efforts to parse this memory for meaning are futile because this parsing yields nothing and eventually projects this blankness on the source. How can anything be flat and devoid of the itch of articulate itself? How can there ever be a blank?