Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:07:18 -0500
From: Don Socha <socha1de-AT-cmich.edu>
Subject: Re: silence


Steve writes: 

>so then in what circumstances is silence non-consensual?

A wonderful question and suited to a Beckett or Blanchot.

I disagree, but am silent.  Therefore you don't know I 
disagree, or you choose to ignore the possiblity that I 
might: ignorance in any case.  

Does it help to acknowledge silence that is pervasive?  That 
may be said to encompass both what is and what is not said, 
both what is and is not consented to? 

You're looking for a more defiant sort of silence.  

One can be found, perhaps, in thinking of Serres' 'third man' 
or 'excluded middle,' that which stands outside any and all 
commerce between ourselves and 'others.'    

Clear, unproblematic communication is of course a form of 
imposed silence, the silencing of noises, the avoidance of 
obstacles that would interfere with the smooth transmission 
of any message.  

And when we agree with one another we are, in effect, 
silencing possible exceptions.  

But to the extent that 'another world is possible,' such 
exceptions must always be seen to exist.  

Isn't possibility itself non-consensual silence?  Isn't 
fecundity?  Nature?  The cosmos?  or anywhere a difference 
waits to be made manifest, clarified, and so 
constrained?        

Every act, I would argue, is both consensual and resistant.  
To maintain silence both is and is not to act.  

But of course, I haven't said a thing.  

play in good courage, 
Don Socha