Has anyone else ever felt trapped between speaking and silence? Or is it just me being weird?
When I speak, I am engaging with my knowledge. I’m processing my raw experience and abstract observations into concrete structured insights which I can verbalise later. Without verbalisation, any realisation is just an abstract floating entity which can neither be retrieved nor be further analysed.
However, beyond an arbitrary boundary I’ve noticed speaking ceases to help. There is a line, subjective, moving, hard to locate in real time, past which the same process flips from clarifying to contaminating. Once the initial useful connections are made, continued speaking starts looping back over familiar neural pathways.
Also, verbalisation isn’t neutral. Speaking narrows the possible future options for us.
>The moment I articulate a thought, I am choosing a frame, a direction, a set of implications. It collapses the broader possibility space into a single articulated path.
Silence on the other hand, can preserve your present clarity at the cost of stagnation. It preserves your present clarity. It allows you to maintain a non-localized stable awareness and doesn’t add noise. However, it doesn’t add any value either.
Once you anchor yourself to a witness no-doing state, you basically are now sitting idle. Hoping for something to happen. Your progress is now fate driven since you no longer get to choose and pursue.
I feel this more like an “an impotent witness zone“
- You keep the baseline clarity.
- You cannot analyse further (analysis requires selection and therefore speaking).
- You cannot choose a path (choice requires narrowing, therefore speaking).
It’s such a mind-boggling stuff to even share with anyone.
I’ve conflicts I can’t word, and the moment I say it I’m no longer the one who asked.