[This essay is linked to, though entirely independent of, idiotic investigation the 2nd.]
At first glance, it is just as puzzling to speak about silence as it is to speak about colourlessness, shapelessness, thoughtlessness, the quantity zero, of nothing, and of the many other instances of supposed ‘emptiness’––not to mention emptiness itself; yet though all of these instances, being inbuilt language-puzzles, resist being understood,silence seems to me to be amongst the least readily understandable.
Of course, we usually say things like
- He remained silent throughout
- She refused to break her vow of silence
- I need silence
- Silence in the hall!
Indeed, we often resent silence on impassioned issues like love, betrayal and discovery; we are demanding of explanations and transparency, and our interrogation is often so continuous, so ruthless and merciless, that it is no wonder that at the end of the day we simply want a little ‘peace and quiet’.
This evidence suggests that we understand silence well enough.
But then, what do I mean when I say that silence is the least readily understandable?
To be clear, I have one kind of silence in mind: when a person does not speak, when their voice will not or cannot express their thoughts to others.
We find in this sense of silence a clue to answering our question:
It is a thing that resists being said, and how are we to understand a thing not said?
This might seem to bring us back to yet another form of emptiness: a not-said.
But that is not my intention so much as it is to find out how we are to understand the act of (self/other) silencing.
It is not a matter of a puzzling negative content, like the ones listed above, which resist all understanding; rather, silence in speech is most puzzling because, despite its emptiness, it can still be understood.
- A look can tell us what one is thinking.
- We know from a sign that a person wishes to delay the conversation.
- Early in the morning, fading conversation is a sign that one fell asleep.
What unites these examples is the common ground that they all appeal to:
Human beings read each other in this way.
Yet this is no earth-shattering news.
But it is here that we understand what is really troubling about silence:
that it is so easily interpreted! Didn’t we just ask how a not-said can be understood? Let alone so easily!
It might be that there are times during which what is held in silence is not readily understood; when someone’s silent behavior does not find sympathetic interpretation. Such gifts are not easily received, or received at all for that matter.
(Surely, there is a danger here of over-glorification; truly, what can’t be said might simply be a case of a poorly thought out idea: a gift that cannot give because it can’t.)
But imagine a person that fails to understand the hints and signs that are easily interpreted by others. Such a person is an idiot, no doubt; but it is well worth asking the following question:
If this person doesn’t understand what is common, then what might be expressed by theirdeeds, their questions, their actions, their feelings?
(Notwithstanding the possibility of pure stupidity.)
Of this silence we have no easy interpretation because they have none of ours.
At such ruptures, silence is best.
idiotic investigations 