Didn't run the video, so if this is central to your question what I say here may be impertinence.

We are born into this world complete strangers to it. But, usually, find ourselves in the care of those so completely inured to its terms that they cannot imagine strangeness so complete. Between the complete stranger to and the complete and facile denizen of the world a drama ensues. But it is a drama in which the only possible terms of expression, or sharing anything at all of it, is to diminish that strangeness to lesser differences we call ideas, terms, words. This is, of course, contradictory. Our only idea of difference so complete we have no term of it is a lessened difference we feel empowered to treat as the same. Even as sameness as such. Leibniz's "indiscernibles" is an attempt to secure this nonsensical sleight of mind as the foundation of analysis. It makes no sense to navigate reality by simply denying the stranger, the engine of it all, any place in it. Words are the bathwater of the real, but those who valorize analysis enshrine the bathwater and throw out the stranger the engine of the real is.

No, we do not learn who we are by becoming strangers. But we do engage in a drama lessening that strangeness but failing of the real. That failure of being real moves amongst us as a dynamic to our terms of which each of us is critically participant and, in an important sense, the most completing term. The character of the stranger come to the world through each of us is the most articulate term the engine of meaning is. But this articulation of the worth of time is too compete, too completely the stranger to the lessened differences supposed to name it, to be an enduring term of it. That is, what is too worthy, too much what worth is, cannot be endured. Cannot be an enduring term. And so, we lessen the difference to a term more enduring. But in so doing we valorize the unchanging and pretend language is made up of determinate samenesses. But, if this seems to suggest all we can say is distortion and lie, if the drama we engage in does indeed alter the terms of that distortion and lie, and does so in the very throes of a competent commitment to its terms, then the articulation of the stranger each of us is to that commitment is the reality of that commitment, its real meaning. Silence is no answer to the riddle. Failing, failing to establish enduring terms of being real, as the rigorous prerequisite to the articulate changes that come to those terms, is the only articulate, and most articulate, term of being real.

Children may babble or even spout individual words, but when they really begin to speak it is sudden and surprisingly articulate. And we don't teach them. Chomsky uses this fact as proof of his thesis that analysis is "wired-in". But what it really means is that the child only really talks when it has become fully naturalized and committed to the lessening of differences as a way of enduring our failure to articulate the stranger the worth of time is. Sociologists have scoured the world for examples of primitive or 'evolving' speech (a sort of "missing link" of language) and though they have found curiosities (like odd color schemes or language without tense) they have not found anything that could fairly be called a primitive language. But this only means that language is always born full-grown, as the naturalization of the stranger to the world and the complete banishing of anything so complete as the stranger come into this world we are at birth.

qui tacet consentire videtur — TheMadFool

Actually a maxim of law--silence implies consent where a person in good faith would speak.

Silencium Universi (The Great Silence) — TheMadFool

A practice of certain Christian religious orders--after Compline (end of the day prayers), speech is forbidden.

What silence signifies depends on context.

What silence signifies depends on context. — Ciceronianus

The problem is silence is ambiguous - it, as you seem to be aware, sometimes means something and at other times means nothing. So, if no one is saying anything, either they're not saying anything or they are.

Indeed, as babies, languageless, we are alien to a world that has thousands upon thousands of languages - from the chemical scents of ants to the poetry of Shakespeare. In essence, we come into this world as, even if not deaf or blind, mutes i.e. the first thing we have to "say" is nothing at all unless you consider a baby's first cry as symbolic, linguistically, of its innate understanding of what this world into which it's born will be like - suffering manifested in all its macabre glory - and so babies cry in anticipation of the pain it'll have to endure through life.

So, two important facts about strangers (babies):

1. They cry
2. They're silent

I offered a hypothesis as to why babies cry (acknowledgement of one of Buddhism's 4 noble truths viz. life is suffering) @schopenhauer1

The question is why are they silent?

Between what is said and not meant, and what is meant and not said, most of love is lost. — Khalil Gibran

My initial reaction to your post was :zip:

Unsaid

The term "unsaid" refers what is not explicitly stated, what is hidden and/or implied in the speech of an individual or a group of people.

The unsaid may be the product of intimidation; of a mulling over of thought; or of bafflement in the face of the inexpressible. — Wikipedia

There is no escaping ambiguity. If you think you've reached the end of it you need to think again, and keep talking. We cannot outstrip the deficit of understanding and clarity in anything we say.

If polar oppositions are a functional tool in reason, the most encompassing polarity is that between strangeness and familiarity. Between the overwhelming impossibility of saying anything real and the entrenched addiction to facile hearing of words and reading of signs. The stranger is the subject, the facile attribution is the predicate. That's just how it works. Forget that, or, worse, deliberately exclude it, and language is just vapor.

There is no escaping ambiguity. If you think you've reached the end of it you need to think again, and keep talking. We cannot outstrip the deficit of understanding and clarity in anything we say.

If polar oppositions are a functional tool in reason, the most encompassing polarity is that between strangeness and familiarity. Between the overwhelming impossibility of saying anything real and the entrenched addiction to facile hearing of words and reading of signs. The stranger is the subject, the facile attribution is the predicate. That's just how it works. Forget that, or, worse, deliberately exclude it, and language is just vapor. — Gary M Washburn

Wu Wei! :up: Not speaking by speaking!

The problem is silence is ambiguous - it, as you seem to be aware, sometimes means something and at other times means nothing. So, if no one is saying anything, either they're not saying anything or they are. — TheMadFool

It seems to be ascribed meaning when it is noted. In other words, when it's unexpected, as in the case where a response is either anticipated or desired.

It's the whole point. The addiction of facile semiosis, or natural language, is that the stranger we are to what we think we mean is kept at bay and only emerges in the lessened terms of estrangement we encounter in every exchange. But that estrangement is the engine of all the other addictive terms of facile speech. And if the discipline of engaging in that speech entails a kind of rigor in sustaining that facile performance of it and access to it, lessening the estrangement always haunting it, then the dynamic of that rigor (emotion) and that haunting (the completeness of estrangement) is the real story of language.

It seems to be ascribed meaning when it is noted. In other words, when it's unexpected, as in the case where a response is either anticipated or desired — Ciceronianus

I see. We could look at it that way I suppose. Silence as an unanticipated response to a query of some kind.

What I would like to ask though is how Khaby Lame's, how shall I put it?, realization that "the best way was not to speak" in order that he may, "reach as many people as possible" and other situations where one encounters meaningful silence compare/relate to each other?

It's the whole point. The addiction of facile semiosis, or natural language, is that the stranger we are to what we think we mean is kept at bay and only emerges in the lessened terms of estrangement we encounter in every exchange. But that estrangement is the engine of all the other addictive terms of facile speech. And if the discipline of engaging in that speech entails a kind of rigor in sustaining that facile performance of it and access to it, lessening the estrangement always haunting it, then the dynamic of that rigor (emotion) and that haunting (the completeness of estrangement) is the real story of language. — Gary M Washburn

I get you. Wu wei! Thank you.

I don't hear words but I see a lot of body language, which I believe to be a universal form of communication. Human bodies speak volumes, and unlike their owners, they're usually very truthful.

I don't hear words but I see a lot of body language, which I believe to be a universal form of communication. Human bodies speak volumes, and unlike their owners, they're usually very truthful. — Vince

The type of gesture came by chance, but the silence didn't. I thought of a way to reach as many people as possible. And the best way was not to speak. — Khaby Lame

What kinda gestures are aliens making across intergalactic space? Are gestures themselves of limited utility given how alien biology may differ from our own? How can life perform a gesture that betrays its existence?

SETI

Voyager Golden Record

Arecibo Message

Earth's Radio Bubble

Silence: No one is broadcasting OR everyone is broadcasting SILENCE.

If the former, we maybe alone or aliens are technologically backward or aliens are using a different form of communication or...

If the latter, math is probably not the right choice, as a language, to communicate in i.e. math maybe a very primitive way of looking at the world.

How can we tell the difference between meaningless silence and meaningful silence?

What kinda gestures are aliens making across intergalactic space? Are gestures themselves of limited utility given how alien biology may differ from our own? How can life perform a gesture that betrays its existence? — TheMadFool

I said "form of communication" because body language is not technically a language, and "universal" was meant to apply to known life forms.

I just learned a word, kinesics, "the interpretation of body motion communication such as facial expressions and gestures, nonverbal behavior related to movement of any part of the body or the body as a whole. The equivalent popular culture term is body language", according to Wikipedia.

I like to expand the definition of body language beyond visual cues. Bodies can communicate information with sounds, whether they're simple or complex. There's also olfactive communication, and ultimately physical contact.
So if you have troubles telling an alien you mean business, just kick him in the butt, once you've found it.

I said "form of communication" because body language is not technically a language, and "universal" was meant to apply to known life forms. — Vince

Why? What is the definition of language?

I just learned a word, kinesics, "the interpretation of body motion communication such as facial expressions and gestures, nonverbal behavior related to movement of any part of the body or the body as a whole. The equivalent popular culture term is body language", according to Wikipedia — Vince

:ok: Khaby Lame uses gestures as I made a point of mentioning. He says that he wants to reach out to as many people as possible and that meant, for him, he was not to utter a single word. Why?

I like to expand the definition of body language beyond visual cues. Bodies can communicate information with sounds, whether they're simple or complex. There's also olfactive communication, and ultimately physical contact.
So if you have troubles telling an alien you mean business, just kick him in the butt, once you've found it. — Vince

Yes, there are many kinds of communication. The question is how does Khaby Lame's tactic/strategy fit in with your observation?

Why? What is the definition of language? — TheMadFool

I believe language applies to complex forms of communication that use words, syntax and are able to express the most abstract thoughts.

He says that he wants to reach out to as many people as possible and that meant, for him, he was not to utter a single word. Why? — TheMadFool

The obvious answer that comes to mind is that the persons he's trying to reach don't all speak the same language.

The question is how does Khaby Lame's tactic/strategy fit in with your observation? — TheMadFool

He's simply doing silent comedy with the classic deadpan face. He's exposing stupidity by other means than using words.

I believe language applies to complex forms of communication that use words, syntax and are able to express the most abstract thoughts. — Vince

Gestures can have syntax: :yawn: :point: TheMadFool

I'm probably off the mark but natural languages seem to possess flexible syntax which, if we think about it, is synonymous with no syntax (poetry).

Abstract thought? :chin: You know how it's possible to use a smartphone even if you have zero knowledge about the inner workings and complexities of one. Language maybe similar. We rely on abstractions to render the sentence, "this car is worth the money" but it (the sentence) itself seems to be concrete.

Here's an abstraction for you: a # b = (a × b) + a
Here's the concrete instance: 1 # 2 = (1 × 2) + 1 = 3

In other words, abstraction seems to be simply a step we have to make, grudgingly, to get our hands on the prize (the concrete).

Khaby Lame seems to have intuited that language (abstraction or no abstraction) just wasn't going to cut it. The problem is probably not in the abstractions themselves but with language - words are arbitrary in that there really is no logical necessity e.g. there exists no reason why the clear, cool liquid we drink, use to cook, and bathe in should be called "water".

Given this is so, interstellar communication with aliens can only be about aspectsof reality that's universal or common to all life all over the universe (math? physics? chemistry?). This so that the language can decoded to get to the message.

I get you. Wu wei! Thank you. — TheMadFool

Is this meant dismissively? You seem to think language is a one-way street. It's not the content of our assertions that engenders meaning, it is the drama that ensues that alters our terms. If that alteration is the product of a rigorous process meant to conserve our terms, then the generated change cannot be less rigorous than the attempt at conservation of terms. And if the exchange is reciprocal the change is more shared between interlocutors than the original terms of assertion are the property of each alone. That is, we cannot know what we are saying until we know each other. The meaning of terms is intimated, not explicated.

Is this meant dismissively? You seem to think language is a one-way street. It's not the content of our assertions that engenders meaning, it is the drama that ensues that alters our terms. If that alteration is the product of a rigorous process meant to conserve our terms, then the generated change cannot be less rigorous than the attempt at conservation of terms. And if the exchange is reciprocal the change is more shared between interlocutors than the original terms of assertion are the property of each alone. That is, we cannot know what we are saying until we know each other. The meaning of terms is intimated, not explicated — Gary M Washburn

Not so, It was a compliment. You wrote, how many now?, at a minimum 5 medium-length paragraphs and yet you were like a chopper - hovering over important issues in language but never really touching down. It's quite impossible to deduce what it is exactly that you wish to convey. Perhaps you need to be more specific or maybe fix some points of reference that others like me (novice here) would be familiar with before you bring up esoteric concepts in language. I dunno!

Actually, I'm asking you to think smaller, not bigger. I'm not even challenging conventional wisdom about how reason works. Merely that there is a limit. That limit is that the infinitesimal cannot be deemed negligible without cost. That cost is the synthetic term. Everything. All that meaning is. If we must start with the familiar to find the stranger, in ourselves and each other, but require complete conservation of all terms relevant to a rational progression, then ignorance is enforce upon us. But if estrangement from that continuity of terms is the most rigorous product of that commitment to it, then we can only meet ourselves and each other as that estrangement. That is, the change in ourselves we each bring to the moment of that estrangement of the continuity if terms is met as a contrariety as much to that continuity as to each other. We make ourselves a community in contrariety to conventional terms is a character of change that itself has no term that can ever become convention, but is symmetrically opposed between us. That symmetry would, and in some ways does, become itself a kind of edifice of conventional terms, but is thwarted by the simple case that any continued exchanges are not only already modified by the moment we share, in the character of that community we make ourselves there, but, so altered from the body of terms antecedent to it, and so disparate in the character each of us is in it, that the moment of estrangement that then ensues cannot be symmetrically related to its antecedent. The stranger does not augment mechanically, but grows organically. Each moment as unprecedented as bewilderment always is, but each moment more contrary to the limit of reason than to who we are together at that limit. But if you have not a clue what this means, I don't see how you can expect me to supply all of them. And, as you might say, I am without a clue too. Yes, we do need to suppose our terms are synchronized some to begin to speak, but to limit ourselves to that throws out the project of speech wholesale.

How small a thing is it that we differ? How small a thing can we afford to make it before silence does prevail? If the smallest thing of all, the tiniest difference we can possibly hope to neglect at the end of rigor, is all the differing we are capable of articulating fully and competently, then it damn well behooves us to relish the moment of it, for the rest is babble. Only as that moment do we recognize ourselves and each other. And, of that moment, do we only recognize ourselves through each other, as the symmetry of difference each is there to the garbage we always carry with us to discourse.

Time is the characterology of change. All ideas devolve from the drama of this. But there is no language, nor any term in any language, that can bring us as near that characterology as the moment of estrangement, from the terms of enduring time language always is, that we share as we vie with each other not to differ from the terms we feel we must continually and without beginning be familiar with. And so, we diminish the stranger to a limited term, but ultimately find the stranger is always who we really are. And the least term of that estrangement is always more comprehensive, and comprehensively real, than the limiting of it. Ideas are not structural units than can be assembled into edifices of 'justified' ignorance and run through mechanistic rituals of induction. We can and do rely on an ability to do this, but ignore the wilderness as the final and least term of that ignorance at our peril. The peril not only of losing our way ahead, but of losing the meaning of our origin. But if you attribute some vague sweeping intent on my part you're not paying attention. Nothing could be more precisely delineated than that moment where bewilderment is proved our differing with each other more united us than any supposed synchrony of terms. Of that moment we each recognize the worth each brings to the differing of all terms that, structurally, enforce ignorance and neglect of that worth. If for you language is a construct you really are bereft of clues. The worth of human effort in all this is the whole story. That effort is not a term at all. There is no clue I can give you.

Actually, I'm asking you to think smaller, not bigger. I'm not even challenging conventional wisdom about how reason works. Merely that there is a limit. That limit is that the infinitesimal cannot be deemed negligible without cost. That cost is the synthetic term. Everything. All that meaning is. If we must start with the familiar to find the stranger, in ourselves and each other, but require complete conservation of all terms relevant to a rational progression, then ignorance is enforce upon us. But if estrangement from that continuity of terms is the most rigorous product of that commitment to it, then we can only meet ourselves and each other as that estrangement. That is, the change in ourselves we each bring to the moment of that estrangement of the continuity if terms is met as a contrariety as much to that continuity as to each other. We make ourselves a community in contrariety to conventional terms is a character of change that itself has no term that can ever become convention, but is symmetrically opposed between us. That symmetry would, and in some ways does, become itself a kind of edifice of conventional terms, but is thwarted by the simple case that any continued exchanges are not only already modified by the moment we share, in the character of that community we make ourselves there, but, so altered from the body of terms antecedent to it, and so disparate in the character each of us is in it, that the moment of estrangement that then ensues cannot be symmetrically related to its antecedent. The stranger does not augment mechanically, but grows organically. Each moment as unprecedented as bewilderment always is, but each moment more contrary to the limit of reason than to who we are together at that limit. But if you have not a clue what this means, I don't see how you can expect me to supply all of them. And, as you might say, I am without a clue too. Yes, we do need to suppose our terms are synchronized some to begin to speak, but to limit ourselves to that throws out the project of speech wholesale.

How small a thing is it that we differ? How small a thing can we afford to make it before silence does prevail? If the smallest thing of all, the tiniest difference we can possibly hope to neglect at the end of rigor, is all the differing we are capable of articulating fully and competently, then it damn well behooves us to relish the moment of it, for the rest is babble. Only as that moment do we recognize ourselves and each other. And, of that moment, do we only recognize ourselves through each other, as the symmetry of difference each is there to the garbage we always carry with us to discourse.

Time is the characterology of change. All ideas devolve from the drama of this. But there is no language, nor any term in any language, that can bring us as near that characterology as the moment of estrangement, from the terms of enduring time language always is, that we share as we vie with each other not to differ from the terms we feel we must continually and without beginning be familiar with. And so, we diminish the stranger to a limited term, but ultimately find the stranger is always who we really are. And the least term of that estrangement is always more comprehensive, and comprehensively real, than the limiting of it. Ideas are not structural units than can be assembled into edifices of 'justified' ignorance and run through mechanistic rituals of induction. We can and do rely on an ability to do this, but ignore the wilderness as the final and least term of that ignorance at our peril. The peril not only of losing our way ahead, but of losing the meaning of our origin. But if you attribute some vague sweeping intent on my part you're not paying attention. Nothing could be more precisely delineated than that moment where bewilderment is proved our differing with each other more united us than any supposed synchrony of terms. Of that moment we each recognize the worth each brings to the differing of all terms that, structurally, enforce ignorance and neglect of that worth. If for you language is a construct you really are bereft of clues. The worth of human effort in all this is the whole story. That effort is not a term at all. There is no clue I can give you. — Gary M Washburn

You've changed your tune I see. :up: