💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › john-zerzan-silence.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:40:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Silence Author: John Zerzan Date: 2007 Language: en Topics: anti-civ, art, Green Anarchy, Green Anarchy #25, silence, presence Source: Retrieved on March 19th, 2009 from http://www.greenanarchy.org Notes: Published in Green Anarchy issue 25 — Spring/Summer 2008
Silence used to be, to varying degrees, a means of isolation. Now it is
the absence of silence that works to render today’s world empty and
isolating. Its reserves have been invaded and depleted. The Machine
marches globally forward and silence is the dwindling place where noise
has not yet penetrated.
Civilization is a conspiracy of noise, designed to cover up the
uncomfortable silences. The silence-honoring Wittgenstein understood the
loss of our relationship with it. The unsilent present is a time of
evaporating attention spans, erosion of critical thinking, and a
lessened capacity for deeply felt experiences. Silence, like darkness,
is hard to come by; but mind and spirit need its sustenance.
Certainly there are many and varied sides to silence. There are imposed
or voluntary silences of fear, grief, conformity, complicity (e.g. the
AIDS-awareness “Silence=Death” formulation), which are often
interrelated states. And nature has been progressively silenced, as
documented in Rachel Carson’s prophetic Silent Spring. Nature cannot be
definitively silenced, however, which perhaps goes a long way in
explaining why some feel it must be destroyed. “There has been a
silencing of nature, including our own nature,” concluded Heidegger,[1]
and we need to let this silence, as silence, speak. It still does so
often, after all, speak louder than words.
There will be no liberation of humans without the resurrection of the
natural world, and silence is very pertinent to this assertion. The
great silence of the universe engenders a silent awe, which the Roman
Lucretius meditated upon in the 1^(st) century BCE: “First of all,
contemplate the clear, pure color of the sky, and all it contains within
it: the stars wandering everywhere, the moon, the sun and its light with
its incomparable brilliance. If all these objects appeared to mortals
today for the first time, if they appeared to their eyes suddenly and
unexpectedly, what could one cite that would be more marvelous than this
totality, and whose existence man’s imagination would less have dared to
conceive?”[2]
Down to earth, nature is filled with silences. The alternation of the
seasons is the rhythm of silence; at night silence descends over the
planet, though much less so now. The parts of nature resemble great
reserves of silence. Max Picard’s description is almost a poem: “The
forest is like a great reservoir of silence out of which the silence
trickles in a thin, slow stream and fills the air with its brightness.
The mountain, the lake, the fields, the sky — they all seem to be
waiting for a sign to empty their silence onto the things of noise in
the cities of men.”[3]
Silence is “not the mere absence of something else.”[4] In fact, our
longings turn toward that dimension, its associations and implications.
Behind the appeals for silence lies the wish for a perceptual and
cultural new beginning.
Zen teaches that “silence never varies....”[5] But our focus may be
improved if we turn away from the universalizing placelessness of late
modernity. Silence is no doubt culturally specific, and is thus
experienced variously. Nevertheless, as Picard argues, it can confront
us with the “original beginnings of all things,”[6] and presents objects
to us directly and immediately. Silence is primary, summoning presence
to itself; so it’s a connection to the realm of origin.
In the industrially-based technosphere, the Machine has almost succeeded
in banishing quietude. A natural history of silence is needed for this
endangered species. Modernity deafens. The noise, like technology, must
never retreat — and never does.
For Picard, nothing has changed human character so much as the loss of
silence.[7] Thoreau called silence “our inviolable asylum,” an
indispensable refuge that must be defended.[8] Silence is necessary
against the mounting sound. It’s feared by manipulative mass culture,
from which it remains apart, a means of resistance precisely because it
does not belong to this world. Many things can still be heard against
the background of silence; thus a way is opened, a way for autonomy and
imagining.
“Sense opens up in silence,” wrote Jean-Luc Nancy.[9] It is to be
approached and experienced bodily, inseparably from the world, in the
silent core of the self. It can highlight our embodiment, a qualitative
step away from the hallmark machines that work so resolutely to
disembody us. Silence can be a great aid in unblocking ourselves from
the prevailing, addictive information sickness at loose in society.[10]
It offers us the place to be present to ourselves, to come to grips with
who we are. Present to the real depth of the world in an increasingly
thin, flattened technoscape.
The record of philosophy vis-Ă -vis silence is generally dismal, as good
a gauge as any to its overall failure. Socrates judged silence to be a
realm of nonsense, while Aristotle claimed that being silent caused
flatulence.[11] At the same time, however, Raoul Mortley could see a
“growing dissatisfaction with the use of words,” “an enormous increase
in the language of silence” in classical Greece.[12]
Much later, Pascal was terrified by the “silence of the universe,”[13]
and Hegel clearly felt that what could not be spoken was simply the
untrue, that silence was a deficiency to be overcome. Schopenhauer and
Nietzsche both emphasized the prerequisite value of solitude, diverging
from anti-silence Hegel, among others.
Deservedly well known is a commentary on Odysseus and the Sirens (from
Homer’s Odyssey) by Horkheimer and Adorno. They depict the Sirens’
effort to sidetrack Odysseus from his journey as that of Eros trying to
stay the forces of repressive civilization. Kafka felt that silence
would have been a more irresistible means than singing.[14]
“Phenomenology begins in silence,” according to Herbert Spiegelberg.[15]
To put phenomena or objects somehow first, before ideational
constructions, was its founding notion. Or as Heidegger had it, there is
a thinking deeper and more rigorous than the conceptual, and part of
this involves a primordial link between silence and understanding.[16]
Postmodernism, and Derrida in particular, deny the widespread awareness
of the inadequacy of language, asserting that gaps of silence in
discourse, for example, are barriers to meaning and power. In fact,
Derrida strongly castigates “the violence of primitive and prelogical
silence,” denouncing silence as a nihilist enemy of thought.[17] Such
strenuous antipathy demonstrates Derrida’s deafness to presence and
grace, and the threat silence poses to someone for whom the symbolic is
everything. Wittgenstein understood that something pervades everything
sayable, something which is itself unsayable. This is the sense of his
well-known last line of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: “Of that
which one cannot speak, one should remain silent.”[18]
Can silence be considered, approached, without reification, in the here
and now? I think it can be an open, strengthening way of knowing, a
generative condition. Silence can also be a dimension of fear, grief —
even of madness and suicide. In fact, it is quite difficult to reify
silence, to freeze it into any one non-living thing. At times the
reality we interrogate is mute; an index of the depth of the still
present silence? Wonder may be the question that best gives answers,
silently and deeply.
“Silence is so accurate,” said Mark Rothko,[19] a line that has
intrigued me for years. Too often we disrupt silence, only to voice some
detail that misses an overall sense of what we are part of, and how many
ways there are to destroy it. In the Antarctica winter of 1933, Richard
Byrd recorded: “Took my daily walk at 4PM... I paused to listen to the
silence...the day was dying, the night being born — but with great
peace. Here were imponderable processes and forces of the cosmos,
harmonious and soundless.”[20] How much is revealed in silence through
the depths and mysteries of living nature. Annie Dillard also provides a
fine response to the din: “At a certain point you say to the woods, to
the sea, to the mountains, to the world, Now I am ready. Now I will stop
and be wholly attentive. You empty yourself and wait, listening.”[21]
It is not only the natural world that is accessible via silence. Cioran
indicated the secrets in the silence of things, deciding that “All
objects have a language which we can decipher only in total
silence.”[22] David Michael Levin’s The Body’s Recollection of Being
counsels us to “learn to think through the body...we should listen in
silence to our bodily felt experience.”[23] And in the interpersonal
sphere, silence is a result of empathy and being understood, without
words much more profoundly than otherwise.
Native Americans seem to have always placed great value on silence and
direct experience, and in indigenous cultures in general, silence
denotes respect and self-effacement. It is at the core of the Vision
Quest, the solitary period of fasting and closeness to the earth to
discover one’s life path and purpose. Inuit Norman Hallendy assigns more
insight to the silent state of awareness called inuinaqtuk than to
dreaming.[24] Native healers very often stress silence as an aid to
serenity and hope, while stillness is required for success in the hunt.
These needs for attentiveness and quiet may well have been key sources
of indigenous appreciation of silence.
Silence reaches back to presence and original community, before the
symbolic compromised both silence and presence. It predates what Levinas
called “the unity of representation,”[25] that always works to silence
the silence and replace it with the homelessness of symbolic structures.
The Latin root for silence, silere, to say nothing, is related to
sinere, to allow to be in a place. We are drawn to those places where
language falls most often, and most crucially, silent. The later
Heidegger appreciated the realm of silence, as did Hölderlin, one of
Heidegger’s important reference points, especially in his Late
Hymns.[26] The insatiable longing that Hölderlin expressed so powerfully
related not only to an original, silent wholeness, but also to his
growing comprehension that language must always admit its origin in
loss.
A century and a half later, Samuel Beckett made use of silence as an
alternative to language. In Krapp’s Last Tape and elsewhere, the idea
that all language is an excess of language is strongly on offer. Beckett
complains that “in the forest of symbols” there is never quiet, and
longs to break through the veil of language to silence.[27] Northrup
Frye found the purpose of Beckett’s work “to lie in nothing other than
the restoration of silence.”[28]
Our most embodied, alive-to-this-earth selves realize best the limits of
language and indeed, the failure of the project of representation. In
this state it is easiest to understand the exhaustion of language, and
the fact that we are always a word’s length from immediacy. Kafka
commented on this in “In the Penal Colony,” where the printing press
doubled as an instrument of torture. For Thoreau, “as the truest society
approaches always nearer to solitude, so the most excellent speech
finally falls into silence.”[29] Conversely, mass society banishes the
chance of autonomy, just as it forecloses on silence.
Hölderlin imagined that language draws us into time, but it is silence
that holds out against it. Time increases in silence; it appears not to
flow, but to abide. Various temporalities seem close to losing their
barriers; past, present, future less divided. But silence is a variable
fabric, not a uniformity or an abstraction. Its quality is never far
from its context, just as it is the field of the non-mediated. Unlike
time, which has for so long been a measure of estrangement, silence
cannot be spatialized or converted into a medium of exchange. This is
why it can be a refuge from time’s incessancy. Gurnemanz, near the
opening of Wagner’s Parsifal, sings “Here time becomes space.” Silence
avoids this primary dynamic of domination.
So here we are, with the Machine engulfing us in its various assaults on
silence and so much else, intruding deeply. The note North Americans
spontaneously hum or sing is B-natural, which is the corresponding tone
of our 60 cycles per second alternating current electricity. (In Europe,
G-sharp is “naturally” sung, matching that continent’s 50 cycles per
second AC electricity.) In the globalizing, homogenizing Noise Zone we
may soon be further harmonized. Pico Ayer refers to “my growing sense of
a world that’s singing the same song in a hundred accents all at
once.”[30]
We need a refusal of the roar of standardization, its information-noise
and harried, surface “communication” modes. A No to the unrelenting,
colonizing penetrability of non-silence, pushing into every non-place.
The rising racket measures, by decibel up-ticks and its polluting reach,
the degrading mass world — Don DeLillo’s White Noise.
Silence is a rebuke to all this, and a zone for reconstituting
ourselves. It gathers in nature, and can help us gather ourselves for
the battles that will end debasement. Silence as a powerful tool of
resistance, the unheard note that might precede insurrection. It was,
for example, what slave masters feared most.[31] In various Asian
spiritual traditions, the muni, vowed to silence, is the person of
greatest capacity and independence — the one who does not need a master
for enlightenment.[32]
The deepest passions are nurtured in silent ways and depths. How else is
respect for the dead most signally expressed, intense love best
transmitted, our profoundest thoughts and visions experienced, the
unspoiled world most directly savored? In this grief-stricken world,
according to Max Horkheimer, we “become more innocent” through
grief.[33] And perhaps more open to silence — as comfort, ally, and
stronghold.
Â
[1] Martin Heidegger, What is a Thing? (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company,
1967), p. 288.
[2] Quoted in Pierre Hadot, The Veil of Isis, translated by Michael Chan
(Cambridge, MA: Bellknap Press, 2000), pp 212–213.
[3] Max Picard, The World of Silence (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company,
1952), p. 139.
[4] Bernard P. Dauenhauer, Silence: the Phenomenon and Its Ontological
Significance (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980), p. vii.
[5] Chang Chung-Yuan, Original Teachings of Ch’an Buddhism (New York:
Vintage, 1971), p. 12.
[6] Picard, op.cit., p. 22.
[7] Ibid., p. 221.
[8] Henry David Thoreau, “A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers,”
in The Works of Thoreau, edited by Henry Seidel Canby (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1946), p. 241.
[9] Jean-Luc Nancy, Listening, translated by Charlotte Mandell (New
York: Fordham University Press, 2007), p. 26.
[10] I first encountered this term in Ted Mooney’s novel, Easy Travel to
Other Planets (New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1981).
[11] Aristotle, Works of Aristotle, translated by S. Forster, Vol. VII,
Problemata (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), p. 896, lines 20–26.
[12] Raoul Mortley, From Word to Silence I (Bonn: Hanstein, 1986), p.
110.
[13] Blaise Pascal, Pensées, edited by Phillipe Seller (Paris: Bordas,
1991), p. 256.
[14] Franz Kafka, Parables, cited in George Steiner, Language and
Silence (New York: Atheneum, 1967), p. 54.
[15] Herbert Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, Vol. Two (The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969), p. 693.
[16] Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism,” Basic Writings (San
Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1992), p. 258.
[17] Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, translated by Alan Bass
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 130.
[18] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London:
Routledge, 1974), p. 89.
[19] Quoted in James E. B. Breslin, Rothko: A Biography (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 387.
[20] Quoted in Hannah Merker, Listening (New York: HarperCollins, 1994),
p. 127.
[21] Annie Dillard, Teaching a Stone to Talk (New York: HarperPerennial,
1982), pp 89–90.
[22]
E. M. Cioran, Tears and Saints, translated by Ilinca Zarifopol-Johnson
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), p. 53.
[23] David Michael Levin, The Body’s Recollection of Being (Boston:
Routledge, 1985), pp 60–61.
[24] Norman Hallendy, Inuksuit: Silent Messengers of the Arctic
(Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre, 2000), pp 84–85.
[25] Emmanuel Levinas, Proper Names, translated by Michael B. Smith
(Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1996), p. 4.
[26] Emery Edward George, Hölderlin’s “Ars Poetica”: A Part-Rigorous
Analysis of Information Structure in the Late Hymns (The Hague: Mouton,
1973), pp 308, 363, 367.
[27] Samuel Beckett, “German letter” dated 9 July 1937, in C.J. Ackerley
and S.E. Gontorski, The Grove Companion to Samuel Beckett (New York:
Grove Press, 2004), p. 221.
[28] Northrup Frye, “The Nightmare Life in Death,” in J.D. O’Hara,
editor, Twentieth Century Interpretations of Malloy, Malone Dies, and
The Unnamable (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970), p. 34.
[29] Thoreau, op.cit., p. 241.
[30] Pico Ayer, The Global Soul (New York: Knopf, 2000), p. 271.
[31] Mark M. Smith, Listening to Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel
Hill: The University of North Carolina Press), p. 68. See also Thomas
Merton, The Strange Islands (New York: New Directions, 1957);
specifically, this passage from “The Tower of Babel: A Morality”:
Leader: Who is He? Captain: His name is Silence. Leader: Useless! Throw
him out! Let Silence be crucified!
[32] Alex Wayman, “Two traditions of India — truth and silence,”
Philosophy East and West 24 (October 1974), pp 389–403.
[33] Max Horkheimer, Dawn and Decline: Notes 1926–1931 and 1950–1969
(New York: Seabury Press, 1978), p. 140.