Wordless Wonder

By: Jonathan Seidel

Speech is the mechanism to communicate but is the exoteric expression for the deeper esoteric experience. Speech is that veil that aids the experience. It supercharges mutuality while voiding the true nature of the mutual experience. Speech is regulated and absolved of its deeper purpose. 

The a priori encounter is the experience. It is the sublime sensation latching onto man. The loss of wonder and fascination necessitates speech as that medium. Speech is the second level. It is necessary but not for experience. A genuine encounter is silent respect. Dignity to the other in joy. Smiling to one another without a care in the world. No words no comments. Just being present with one another. The tranquility of presence unities the mutual effort. A comforting tone to the mood.     

 

The presence is assured in beseeching camaraderie to the encounter. The unity in relational acknowledgement furthers the experience. It is the moment of realisation. A recognition of the other in the spatial proximity. Communication reaches new heights in the primal realm. A realm so long ignored and rummaged through. People move straight to talking before even marking the primacy. The experience is the moment of encounter but it quickly muddles into conversation. Conversation breaks the experience with jargon. The encounter isn’t at its peak of connection. Dialogue takes away from the linkage between the two sides. 

Speech is a distraction from the genuine encounter. Yet it may also do the opposite. Speech brings two closer through deep questions. It may bring about the deepest intimacy but there is a special experiential primacy. The level of a priori experience is not on the intimate level but it is on the connecting phase. The formal invite is through acknowledgement. The experience is the silent reflection of the mutuality. The spark of connection is relishing in each other’s presence. The surface level presence is not shallow but personal dignity. Speech overtakes this dignity and pushes through to the logos. To speak to overcome the dreaded silence. To make noise in a voided atmosphere. 

There is a difference between the intimacy felt after conversation. The knowledge attained churns into an emotive closeness but this misses the experiential marker. The point is facing the other on neutral ground. A lack of closeness does persist without further knowledge. It is not the goal of every encounter. The technological advancement has placed knowledge consumption at the forefront of requirements. To sit silently comforted by the presence of the other. With no compulsion to break the stillness. A moment of serenity, temporary but beautiful. A meditative focus on the other in its elevated ethos. Knowledge is secondary to the experience. It is the concentrated effort to fully acknowledge the other. 

It is an a priori ethical basis to being. The other is across the table. The genuine experience is the wondrous encounter with the other. The awe of this moment encourages the gathering of knowledge. Yet the experience alters the trajectory of knowledge attainment. It is to have a good time, to enjoy the encounter. The experience heightens the fascination with meeting others. It transcends the limitations of the other for a serene measure of concentration. Emotional standing is empowered by this meditative silence. the point of connection is the experiential link. It is not just finding similar hobbies but the emotive spirit linking the two conversationalists. The moral accord perceives the equal being in tandem. 

The experience is even greater in post-knowledge encounters. After the intimacy is sparked the experience is not over. Knowledge leads to a feeling but it is lacking in the absoluteness. The experience recognises the other separated from and  with the knowledge. Knowledge parts the significance of the experiential encounter. It creates biases and categories for others. It places people in boxes. Knowledge is a quasi-enemy to knowledge. There is though an elevated experience with an advanced feeling for the other. The silence succeeding intimate exchange bolsters the encounter. The experience is heightened by a preconceived knowledge that need time to reflect. The presence with the other is particularly powerful in the moment of emotional connection. 

Knowledge is not always a hinderance. The logos is measurable to the experiential focus. It adds to the relationship between the two but it is not the primal figure of connection. Speech takes over as a necessary method. Speech need not become a one-man-band. There is a time to talk and a time to hush. Silent during the encounter reverberating the experience. The experience can only manifest with intentional feasibility. The duration of speech overtakes silent internalisation. It is an endless motor. A boxing match jab for jab. The depth encounter is a result of quiet connection. A bold stillness and focus externally. Talk to connect not to mumble.  

Silent Treatment

By: Jonathan Seidel

We speak to communicate and become engrossed in a singular experiential method. The sole way of connection is through the words. This all too wrong. We can experience by mere conversation. It is the sounds spoken that spark experience. 

Communication is more than speech. Speech is verbal annunciation but a medium through connection. It is mode of informative transmission but is surface level communication. Conversation imbues agendas and manipulation. Whether in good faith or not, words are a form of delegation. They promote meaning through interpretation. Speech is a marker of lacking experience. Speech steals that experience through sound making. The focus is on the words we say not on the experience we feel. We lose sight of the encounter in the dialogical flow. We talk and discuss all the while looking past each other. 

We speak but do not listen. We are too eager to reply that we end up speaking past one another. The irony is the dialogue is two monologues. Asides with audience participation. A student interrupting the teacher’s lesson. It is not a moment of equals but of imbalance. Trying to dominate the other with words. Choosing the genre and filing precious opinions on the others. It is not mutual consent but a barraging mirage. Even in a mutual space, the desire to respond and feeling to interject overpowers the other. The speaker is overwhelmed by an aggressive interrupter. The listener’s points need to be made and he takes charge. With this interjection the speaker loses his train of thought moving to a divergent strand in the conversation. This rupture is manifested by egoism. 

The dialogical rupture is a moment of arrogance. The rupture signifies one’s feeling of self-importance. My points are more important at this moment. It is not an offensive intention but it becomes an egregious act. It forbids the conversation from heading in one direction and moves it to another track. The original destination is voided to oblivion. The rupture continues smoothly but it is off course. The new path has a new destiny, one unintentional from the conversational origin. Man’s greed and pride intercepts the conversational flow. The speaker’s fluidity is halted and moved back into place. It is a encounter by the listener’s fervent language. The listener responds to the speaker’s words but he stuns the speaker in his tracks. The speaker must regroup but this offence strikes discord in the experiential moulding. 

The experience is welded with silence. Internalising each and every word coherently. Not just hearing the speaker but listening carefully. Actively partaking in the experience. Verbal response is unnecessary. Activity does not require sounds, it requires engagement. Body language and emotional intent is firmly reasonable. Though these latter factors may affect the speaker’s flow, it is a sharper less rupturing idea. It is a less blunt rejection of the speaker. Listening is a silent manifestation of interest. Disinterest is permitted but make it clear. Passive intent is disheartening and demoting. The engaged listener stares into the cold eyes of the speaker. Focused and intrigued by the speaker’s voice. His words are filled with prowess and zeal. Words carry emotion and meaning. To listen fully is to attain the full capacity of the rhetoric. In a sense internalising the meta-level. 

The listener can only achieve this feet in silence. Speech is a commodity but a central facet of human life. Silence is but a temporary measure in the life of man. It is a time of meditation and introspection. Yet these moments of reflection are guided by growth intentions. Speech focuses on the external while silence focuses on the internal. Silence does mean utter void. It means the nullification of sounds in the air. Speech is never ceased. Silence is to speak to the self. To talk to one’s body and ponder about personal development. Reflection needs internal speech. Communication is completed through voice but it done calmly and slowly. Silence is self-concentration and existential expression. The listener is silent but he speaks to himself about the information transmitted. Speech is never turned off, it is manifested internally to focus externally. 

The brain is always working and responding internally to the speaker. The moment of reception energises the mind to manufacture a proper response. It is not extensive pondering but a quick rationalisation. The external is mitigated for the internal to operate efficiently. The speaker is preoccupied talking. His speech lacks internal dialogue. He must stop to speak internally. Gathering his thoughts is a moment of internal conversation. External speech does not contain conscious internal speech. A pause is the only merit to re-energising the internal discussion. The flow of conversation is instinctive. It does not relay the condensed deductive version. It is spitballing. A careless method of speech. Pauses reinvigorate a cyclical dialogue to coherently express the ideas. Self-awareness better empowers speech fluidity. 

The speaker’s external indulgence leaves the experience. The experience is for the silent. The emotive factors only heighten for the silent. The speaker is manifesting the experience onto others unable to feel himself. He is bringing others into his domain but does not sense the power of his words. His words are only captivated in the listener’s response. The other’s interest and fascination pulls the speaker into the experience. The words affect the listener while the body language affects the speaker. The speaker preaches while the listener indulges. Mutuality springs in the encounter. Gazing at one another and focused. It is beyond words. They are medium but are not the purpose. The mechanism not the moment. Speech charges interest while listening inspires pride. A partnership of a deep experience washed by routine expression.