Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:40:45 +0100
From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: silence/impossible




Don

I was looking initially to think whether it was possible to suggest 
philosophically, silence as resistence - Eric in a sense got closet to 
it - but I suppose that only a hegalian understanding seems to produce 
an acceptable understanding. I am thinking of the early moment of the 
originality of the Hegalian system, that through the power of the 
negative, through negation - the unspoken and the unspeakable no longer 
produces a continuity. In this sense the refusal to speak and thus 
silence can be thought as, becomes the last moment of resistence. Though 
this is not how eric presented silence in his notes...

regards
steve

Don Socha wrote:

>Steve, something else about seeing silence as acquiescence: 
>because the latter term litterally means to consent without 
>protest and stems from the latin to 'quiescere' (do you hear 
>the word 'quiet' in there?) or to be at rest, and therefore 
>may be said to require at least relative silence or 'restful 
>acceptance,' how could the opposite not be true?  How could 
>anyone silent not be considered acquiescent? 
>
>If A=B then B must =A, right?   
>
>As for Blanchot and Beckett, surely you see by now that their 
>writing about silence, however 'loudly' or prolifically, need 
>in no way take away from the quality of their insights 
>regarding the subject.  Because someone, like zen buddhists, 
>for another example, discontinue the pratice of silence in 
>order to write about it, does not mean that what they have to 
>say is therefore irrelevant.  
>
>At any rate, I'm also writing now to point out the 
>possibility that silence and acquiescence have been partners 
>for a lot longer than the 1920's.  Instead, the one 
>necessarily implies the other as much perhaps as water 
>implies wetness, for lack of a better example.  
>
>More precisely, if you don't speak out, you're considered 
>okay; if you're not okay, then you had better speak out, 
>otherwise things may very well get a lot worse for you.  I'm 
>sure that even the most dedicated cynic understands the logic 
>there. 
>
>Another thing I'm wondering about, however, is what you mean 
>when you say that 'the silence of unproblematic communication 
>is impossible.'  
>
>As Geof has pointed out, such 'communication' cannot occur 
>without silencing 'the third man,' so to speak.  
>
>Perhaps you meant to say that 'the silence of problematic 
>communication is impossible'?  
>
>Or is it there a form of 'impossibility' you wish to signal 
>(a la Bataille?) as a perhaps important though too rarely 
>spoken of possibility? 
>
>All that's best, 
>Don     
>
>  
>
>>Don/All
>>
>>Interesting that you bring up Blanchot and Beckett - Besides 
>>    
>>
>neither of 
>  
>
>>them can be considered as 'silent' to much noise, too many 
>>    
>>
>texts. 
>  
>
>>Considering that the silence I was thinking of was related 
>>    
>>
>to the 
>  
>
>>normative belief that silence is an acceptance of the 
>>    
>>
>dominant hegemony. 
>  
>
>>Related to my current experiences of the stop the war 
>>    
>>
>campaign in the 
>  
>
>>Spectacle silence is understood as a means of assigning the 
>>    
>>
>silent 
>  
>
>>person a status as a supporter of the war.
>>
>>But I was not strictly speaking considering this - rather I 
>>    
>>
>was thinking 
>  
>
>>that 'silence' as acqiesence emerged at around the same time 
>>    
>>
>as the 
>  
>
>>spectacle - which i'd date as around the great crisis of 
>>    
>>
>1926-29 - at 
>  
>
>>this point in the history of 20th C things changed 
>>    
>>
>dramatically. 
>  
>
>>Perhaps silence as acquiesence becomes normal at the same 
>>    
>>
>time as the 
>  
>
>>sound film appears (those who are silent become simply 
>>    
>>
>extras) - but 
>  
>
>>more accurately it is better to think, to understand it, 
>>    
>>
>because of the 
>  
>
>>nearly universal franchise that emerges at that time and the 
>>    
>>
>place where 
>  
>
>>silence becomes interpreted as agreement and acceptance of 
>>    
>>
>the 
>  
>
>>correctness of the representatives in the parlimentary 
>>    
>>
>democracies...
>  
>
>>Personally i prefer noise, the chaotic interference of white 
>>    
>>
>noise,  to 
>  
>
>>the silence of unproblematic communication - which is 
>>    
>>
>impossible
>  
>
>>regards
>>steve
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

HTML VERSION:

Steve, something else about seeing silence as acquiescence: 
because the latter term litterally means to consent without 
protest and stems from the latin to 'quiescere' (do you hear 
the word 'quiet' in there?) or to be at rest, and therefore 
may be said to require at least relative silence or 'restful 
acceptance,' how could the opposite not be true?  How could 
anyone silent not be considered acquiescent? 

If A=B then B must =A, right?   

As for Blanchot and Beckett, surely you see by now that their 
writing about silence, however 'loudly' or prolifically, need 
in no way take away from the quality of their insights 
regarding the subject.  Because someone, like zen buddhists, 
for another example, discontinue the pratice of silence in 
order to write about it, does not mean that what they have to 
say is therefore irrelevant.  

At any rate, I'm also writing now to point out the 
possibility that silence and acquiescence have been partners 
for a lot longer than the 1920's.  Instead, the one 
necessarily implies the other as much perhaps as water 
implies wetness, for lack of a better example.  

More precisely, if you don't speak out, you're considered 
okay; if you're not okay, then you had better speak out, 
otherwise things may very well get a lot worse for you.  I'm 
sure that even the most dedicated cynic understands the logic 
there. 

Another thing I'm wondering about, however, is what you mean 
when you say that 'the silence of unproblematic communication 
is impossible.'  

As Geof has pointed out, such 'communication' cannot occur 
without silencing 'the third man,' so to speak.  

Perhaps you meant to say that 'the silence of problematic 
communication is impossible'?  

Or is it there a form of 'impossibility' you wish to signal 
(a la Bataille?) as a perhaps important though too rarely 
spoken of possibility? 

All that's best, 
Don     

  

Don/All

Interesting that you bring up Blanchot and Beckett - Besides 
    

neither of 
  

them can be considered as 'silent' to much noise, too many 
    

texts. 
  

Considering that the silence I was thinking of was related 
    

to the 
  

normative belief that silence is an acceptance of the 
    

dominant hegemony. 
  

Related to my current experiences of the stop the war 
    

campaign in the 
  

Spectacle silence is understood as a means of assigning the 
    

silent 
  

person a status as a supporter of the war.

But I was not strictly speaking considering this - rather I 
    

was thinking 
  

that 'silence' as acqiesence emerged at around the same time 
    

as the 
  

spectacle - which i'd date as around the great crisis of 
    

1926-29 - at 
  

this point in the history of 20th C things changed 
    

dramatically. 
  

Perhaps silence as acquiesence becomes normal at the same 
    

time as the 
  

sound film appears (those who are silent become simply 
    

extras) - but 
  

more accurately it is better to think, to understand it, 
    

because of the 
  

nearly universal franchise that emerges at that time and the 
    

place where 
  

silence becomes interpreted as agreement and acceptance of 
    

the 
  

correctness of the representatives in the parlimentary 
    

democracies...
  

Personally i prefer noise, the chaotic interference of white 
    

noise,  to 
  

the silence of unproblematic communication - which is 
    

impossible
  

regards
steve