The Logic of the measure of measurelessness may be said to be silence. It has more depth than the logic of conceptual precision that is based on black-boxed and marked boundaries held in dialectical opposition. Silence is boundless and measureless. Everything seems to reside in it. Conceptual framework thinks chiefly within fixed boundaries. It is concise and precise The logic of silence that we are trying to talk about is one of presence and not one of absence. It is one that stays comfortable with open thinking and not one that is dependent on closed thinking that is closing us. We may call it a logic of hyphenation. It brackets the principle of contradiction and opens our thinking to embrace wider possibilities rather than thinking reductively between closed boundaries of either/ or. Either or is oppositional or dialectical thinking. To think the measure of the measureless, we have to embrace dialogical thinking that is open and one that opens us to the world.
The logic of silence does not need opposition to define its conceptual framework. It does not think from absence. The concept is not what it is not. it is not its absence. In fact absence to such thinking becomes presence. what we embrace is the logic of boundless thinking. The conceptual tools of the boundless logic of silence are one that affirms existence without opposing it to non-existence. Thus the notion: poor does not have to be defined as not-rich. Poor is different and does not have to be put on a common platform as the opposite of rich so as to think it adequately. The concept, poor is complete and adequate. It does not have to be defined by the absence or what it is not. The logic of silence is one of the logic of affirmation and not one of negation. It is a logic of yes and is continuously yessing holding everything into hyphenated dynamic interrelations. It is one that keeps us into what Levinas indicates as being in the saying rather than the closed and bound said. This means the logic of silence is a logic of excess and as such is transgressive. It is not limited to the play of two poles opened by either/ or structure of our thinking. It is one of affirmation that holds together into an open chaosmotic condition. The logic of silence that we have stated over here is one that opens us to possibilities rendered impossible by our closed either/ or thinking. Hence is other thinking different from the familiar frontal thinking.
The logic of silence is a logic of free play. The play is dialogical and not one that is closed and dialectical. Either/ or thinking opens only dialectical thinking, while dialogical thinking opens possibilities to lead to the unimaginable leaps of consciousness. It does not measure anything conceptually in opposition but holds all concepts into free play. This means the outcomes of the application of this logic are always in the coming. It thus stays in the promise. It is always in the saying and does not fix itself in the closed said. We close the conceptual framework through their strict semiotization. The logic of silence is asemiotic at levels. It challenges us to shift from the semantic or meaning governed hermeneutics that is based on the principle of contradiction and excluded middle. The logic of silence is the hermeneutics of production. It produces novel modes of thinking and being in the world. This is why we have the challenge to measure something or a concept by opposing it to what it is not. Unfortunately, frontal thinking conditioned dialectical thinking makes us think that our measureless notion is actually felt measured by opposing it to what it is deemed as not. This means a concept becomes what its binary other is not.
In this context, we have to mark the difference from the logic of silence that is silencing. It may be called the silencing silence and such is negative and is linked to structures of either/ or thinking. The logic of silence is silent silence. It is affirming and positive silence that keeps everything in a dynamic harmony that may open us to several leaps of consciousness. We have to contest the silencing silence while having the challenge to affirm positive silent silence. The reign of dialectical logic is killing the meaningful affirmative silence. We indeed have the challenge to recover the silence that is affirming that think in modes that will enable us to affirm humans, all forms of life and the cosmos.