To write, or better, to let the inscription happen without any delays after the praxis or in between the praxis is at the core of my method of writing. As if confirming first to myself that something did indeed happen and that this happening continues in the act of writing. Owing to the instant act of writing, there exists the possibility to ascertain perceived sensations that otherwise would be forgotten.
To dive into the reality of writing without the interference of speech pushes one to face one’s experiences and to contemplate them before they are shared with others in speaking. A spatiality is being created that encourages a particular rhythm of words and the fluency of the movement of the hand. Fragments of thoughts and sensations arrive without effort. And at times, after speaking about them aloud, words become meaningful since they are being listened to by others.
The shared silent moments in writing are appealing. Not to know what the writing will become, not to know the content of the writing by the others. Something is concealed and present. The common writing sessions that are separate from the silence sessions create a particular magnetic atmosphere that lasts for several hours. A withdrawal into writing takes place and still the connection to the others and to the theme is maintained. Talking in between, clarifying and questioning, brings patches of air into the room. The proximity of the others supports and encourages a writing without censorship (which will happen later) to appear. Separation and connectedness, support and surrender to the unfolding writing. Writing alone is different, anxiety and hesitation easily enter it. In writing the world is exposed to me as I am to the world – and silence makes that connection even more revealing.
However, sharing privacy in writing is puzzling. Does my way of writing change? Do I write more in order to communicate a writing that might be understandable? What happens to the silence in corporeality, after all writing about it is impossible? As the lived silence of corporeality withdraws from words, is writing about it a betrayal?
What is my posture in relation to words today? To hang on to them in order to know something, somehow? Perhaps, instead of searching for meanings, the turn should be toward nonsense where sense awakes. To leave empty spaces that might hinder the effort of possession? And to forget oneself, to forget what is being done and undone, to disappear, to discard, and to be lost in between the lines. Silence spills over, leaving nothing to express by the known I. And yet, nothing is sure, perhaps the more distant I become from silence, the better it can be what is. As Maurice Blanchot states, we desire silence because of its impossibility. As I write these lines now alone, if only I could trust language like I trust the unfolding happening during the sessions, there might be a possibility for silence to enter into the words, in between the words. If only I could leave effort aside, since silence is the underlying source that cannot be grasped or forced to appear. That might help in maintaining the ownmost nature of silence, but what about communication?
I am falling and falling without landing, since the gap between writing and the actions of moving or being still are insurmountable. The difference between experience and language does not fade away, one can only write around, about, things. Lived experience cannot be translated. Could it be possible to write like one breathes? Today this writing exhausts me, this act of arranging words in a row and trying to make sense with them in order to communicate feels like a betrayal of silence and the experienced moments in our sessions. Drowning in the quicksand of words. Being trapped in the need of communication, yet silence as the entirety of words no longer needs words.
The next step to follow, to discuss and write together, and particularly to use the pronoun 'we'. To move from the singular voice to the plural entailed a dramatic change. Before this was undertaken there were numerous discussions: who are 'we' and how are the agreements done. As Simone Weil has written, “It is necessary not to be ‘myself’, still less to be ‘ourselves’.” Thus, using the plural voice does not mean speaking with a unitary voice and using ‘I’ does not hopefully merely refer to personal matters since the notion of silence tears and questions the borders of the known ‘I’. However, the shift to the pronoun 'we' in our discussion was exhausting to me. Our different personalities, histories, and views on theory collided. In this sense, the notion of silence enabled and provoked noise to emerge – and I have become louder in order to defend my views.