Silence as an Uncertainty Communicational Inductor

The study explores the silence as communicational element and as autonomous message; also, highlights its specificity as an inductor of uncertainty. Thesis that silence radiating uncertainties is proved by using the comparative method and procedures of natural logic and erotetic logic. From the comparison between word and silence follows some characteristic notes of silence: a) the silence is an element without accredited code (there is not a coherent and usable code of silence); b) mostly silence is not only element of communication, but autonomous message; c) the fact that peace is a property of nature and the silence is intentional human element; d) the fact that silence is no speech, logos, discourse, it is an incomplete and expressive "language"; e) that silence is the most important communicational element and uncertainty message inductor.


INTRODUCTION
What, before all, man brings in the universe is not the word, is not the silence, is not the knowing. Man brings the meaning in the universe and gives a sense to the world. The fundamental human world is an environment of meanings. The first thing he perceives in the universe is noise. Man is born into a huge and relentless noise. Matter is uncontrollably loud, boisterous energy is uncontrollable. The only key element in the universe, multi-verse, which in terms of noise is controllable is information, is communication. S. Zizek considers that "The primordial fact is not Silence (waiting to be broken by the divine word) but the noise, the confuse murmur of the Real in which there is not yet distinction between a figure and its background. The first creative act is therefore to create silence" (Zizek, 2006, p. 224). Silence is a difficult thing. However, people communicate through silence.
Silence is a matter of non-verbal meaning. Silence is communication (Khan, 1963), is a strategic communication element: "silence, as a non verbal communication, is a strategic way of communicating and a precise series of meanings refers to this modality" (Penna & Mocci, 2005). Silence is an item without code and speaks in a infinity of codes. Look thrown silence stimulates language to speak gaze (Lis & Bajdor, 2013;Craft & Davis, 2013). Any question answering silence, like a mirror in question code. Significant speaking, silence is liquid: in the form of code that we think of it; and much more, it radiates multiple meanings: Silence is a multifaceted, yet generally unappreciated, component of human communication, both in meaning and function" ( (Jensen, 1973;Bruneau & Satoshi, 1988;Bilmes, 1994) and needs a pre-word to define the silence itself. Man silent installs.
Over a thousand years of language training, man has developed silence. Language and silence are two countries that are shaping stones each (Jaworski, 1997; Kenny, 2011). In a form or another, language appears whenever he comes with his specific silence. As demonstrated C. Kenny "Silence manifests in many forms (…). Cultural, religious, and sociological" (Kenny, 2011, p. 69). Between language and silence, we record (in writing civilization started in European culture and civilization of ancient Greek) a level separation: silence climbed status autonomous message, while the only remaining element word message. A single word is not a message, a single silence is a message. When the conversation stops and installs the silence, the Greek says, "Hermes is crossing" (Vernant, 1995, p. 193).

HERMES, SILENCE, CROSSING, MESSAGE
Hermes is, in principle, the message god. Silence means Hermes crossing. The message God brings the silence. On the other hand, the message God carries an unknown message. When he goes, the speech is silent. As to be the silence an interruption of the conversation so that the break to bring thought to gathering ideas into a message? Is Hermes crossing only to diversify the speech by a silence? Is bring it just the message of the conversation? Is carrying it the exact message we are? These questions do not have, daily, an answer than themselves and the idea of being placed.
Hermes is always the carrier of a message (see also Holgate, 201;Capurro, 2011). But Hermes is, also him, "bifrons": he brings a message and complementary, brings his own message or the message that is himself. That Hermes carries two messages: the message to bring and the message in fact of messenger who is recognized as messenger. As is built our world, it obliges the two messages: an explicit message (message due) and a default message (message provided involuntarily by mere presence). A "release into the abyss" of the message carried by Hermes is even Hermes. Hermes has more power than the message whose duty he brings. Those who receive the message, first receive Hermes. This receiving become expectation having denotes a resignation. Always expected, yet never disappointing, Hermes is part of lived destiny. The silence experience is a message of a Hermes who doesn't leave any message.
This center of semantic download called Hermes is established as permanent expectation. One of the messages of his crossing is silent. The message of not constant existence, the silence is saturated of the Hermes crossing message. The Hermes crossing message instantly develops a crossing of the discourse in silent. Hermes annihilates the speech and establishes the possibility of the message. In fact, he mobilizes right the message that the possibility of a message is a message and not just message. The Hermes's crossing is, moreover, a frustration.
Always waited with joy that is frustrated by itself expectation consummation, once come Hermes brings something unexpected: the expectation is disappointed. The brought message is another message. Like any room leads into another room and would mean that the gap that separates them is at the remoteness limit of the away word, so thus a brought message will be, once known, a remote message. The known and the desired are part of two orders of different frustration. Hermes is always disappointing. By his crossing, the silence is Volume 24 impregnated with a message of which is not missing frustration and disappointment (Motoi, 2009;Georgescu, 2009). Expected gladly, once come, he brings disappointment. Hermes brings the message that he himself is. Hermes is the message that he brings. What can be said about Hermes is about message. Aspired message coincides with the brought message. Hermes knows what message to bring. Aspired message is just the message brought by Hermes. The knowing of the message makes the message to not be anymore satisfactory. By knowing, the message loses its non-frustrating and ex-deceptive innocence. Even if we create the most beautiful messages, as soon as they were aware and once they came to us, they would not be aspired messages anymore. And the perfect messages disappoint. In the silent of Hermes crossing are gathered all the suffering that can acknowledge a message.
Silence is crossed by numerous passes. But not the crossing of Hermes intersects us with the silence. The silence of his crossing is the repose that makes to structure the message.
If the message always comes after, then the essence post factual of the message will involve also the silence. Hermes brings silence, but he doesn't carry it. The owner and the carrier of silence is the speech. Regarding silence, Hermes is a powerless. He misses the silence as message when through its crossing, creates the silent through which cross. The silence is not necessary to discharge him of the duty to provide the message. The message that Hermes brings is not the essence of Hermes: he is not the producer.
Therefore, the crossing of Hermes stores two messages: one expected and disappointing, ultimately, and another unexpected and always gentle, generous, grateful of the other and open for reciprocity. The first message is the message that Hermes brings. The second message is the default message of his crossing. The first is produced and transferred, i.e. explicitly, the second is suscitated and happened on the silence fund. The crossing makes the silence to be explosive. The communication deflagration takes place by passing the implicit in explicit. The explicit message brought by Hermes is accompanied by a default message generated by his crossing.
In speech or silence, Hermes is the one who entrusting the messages makes them delayed. Hermes brings messages which preexist to bringing. That message is ontological delayed, already.
The essence of "delay-ing" of the message and the essence of "late-ive" of the philosophy is associated in the message as in an ideal. Only existential message of essential purity is the philosophical message. Here Hermes is at his home, he may evolve in the plenitude of his availabilities: as propagator of verbal and taciturn messages. Hermes has no choice: he brings expected and disappointing message that can accomplish more than the silence.
The silence leads us to the man. In absence of being there is no silence, the more a peace and repose. The silence is installed where is missing the spirit. It is constituted as a concealment status of the human behind of not speaking. Through it is made visible the abstinence. It appears as an asceticism of the word, as an abstinence. Silence comes as a spiritual exercise. Silence is silent so as not to give away as silence. Trying not to say anything, it just says itself. The silence can be voluntary or involuntary. Its absolute, to that itself the word carries, calls for ignoring the intentionality. If it remained closed in lexeme, the silence would not exist. But it exists as a great effort, as a spiritual effort.

THE TIME OF SILENCE
It is mentioned here the status of silence in the Pythagoras's school. Right from the start, young people who came to learn were examined after physiognomy. That one who was investigated by him and found capable, was immediately accepted for instruction and "it was prescribed a certain time of silence" (Dumitriu, 1974, p. 42). The silent one was listening to what others say; he was not allowed to ask if they do not sufficiently understand and also not to comment on what he had heard. The silence time does not take to anyone less than two years. Those who were on this road of silence and listening were called auditors. Once they learned the hardest things -silence and listeningthey also start to become scholarly in this kind of silence, then were allowed to speak, to ask, to write what they had heard. Pythagoras proceeds gradually in his philosophy. This philosophy contained indeed, a cleansing, a mystagogy and a contemplation. Thus were removed false opinions and prejudices (Zeligs, 1955;Baker, 1961;Le Breton, 2001).

THE PLACE AND THE SOURCE OF SILENCE
The silence can come from three directions. It is either substitute of the speech, or a form of the speech, or is the general fund from which emerge the speech.
a) The thesis of the alternation silence -speech. The silence can be drawn from speech. The end of the speech establishes the inexpressible. Now it can action without words. The discourse gives up to action. The cogitative spirit is hiding and plotting. The silence comes as obligation or as project. The silence -obligation is planning a revenge. The silent man is thinking for something. An inertness of the words is heard in silence. The obligation rests on a denial and promotes a redemptive that does not want to give itself away. It lies in words and rinse in peace. This is the silence what has one's revenge. A paid silence moves in waiting. It is released when it intervenes. He ceased to speak, but keeps the secret of distrust in absence of the words. It strikes without joy, without gentleness and without condescension. Silenceobligation is silent unphilosophical. It soaks of a lack of speech tension. Thus, is defined only as the interval between two speeches. A silence like this is just waiting to speech. The obligation to be silent denotes that the background is the speech, and the silence is the relief . The rest is silence, says Hamlet.
b) The thesis of the silence as a particular case of speech. E. Coşeiru retains the silence among the elements of speech; his thesis is that speech is more comprehensive than the language, because it includes also its own circumstances. Language does not possess this circumstantial size. In addition, the speech includes also the nonverbal behaviors: behavior, gestures, facial expressions, including the silence (Coşeriu, 1988, p. 1). In contrast to the silence-obligation, which is also a voluntary silence, the silence-state is looming. It occurs as a statutory speech event. The world order is represented by the silence, the speech comes as an uncontrolled surprise. In this case, the speech misses to be a particular case of silence. On a background of peace, tranquility, calm, rises a speech to make the connection between two silences. It is not neglected anything, because anyway everything falls into silence. The speech between two silences is a small bridge that falls easily. In such a silence situation, the words are required. No matter who says them because the opening is justified in the failure of the silence. The gold of the lack of the speech is not the gold of the absence of the words. Who is silent does not exist, but who is silent knows (Otovescu-Frăsie & Motoi, 2010; Volume 24 Georgescu, 2010). The speech is a pause of the silence, it is not a riposte. The speech does not represent an answer, because between two speeches the distance is so great, that the idea of response is itself a form of silence. No answer to anyone. Each dies alone, said A. Huxley. Each speaks a previous silence and a subsequent silence. An inertness rises in every such of silence. A speaking stuffiness is built on silence. Now silence gives away in speech. Each speaks alone. The philosophical message intimates, insinuates, assumes that after speaking has to begin the cogitation. In Anton Dumitriu's opinion (1984, p.7), originally, in ancient Greece, the goal of philosophy was "to achieve a certain state, a way of being". Gradually, this goal has transformed, it was invested as a 'way of saying, but without losing the initial ideal". Become a way of saying, philosophy found himself face to face with the idea to not say: to be silent. On this way, the silence took advantage and became philosophem. Beyond of the philosophy discovery fact as antonym of telling philosophy there is something in the direction of the pre knowing brings the word that designates the action to say. "Talking" in Greek is called "legein". Following now A. Dumitriu, we must emphasize that the word has three meanings: 1) to fall asleep, to stay inactive, 2) to collect, 3) to speak. Meanings marks that "a certain activity remains inactive, in that to collect can be reached the speech, which means that there is a sorting that the language makes to form verbal expressions (...) we have here the silent and the unseen"(1984, p. 106). The Greek word "to speak" lies the silence ( c) The thesis of the silence as background of speech appearance "We speak on the background of the silence" shows J.-P. Sartre (2000, p. 77). In the side of our word is not another word. The silence is possible and also refused. The movement of the discourse is in opposition. By silence the speech is canceled. The man has two choices in life: the silence and the speech. His acts are performed in permanently stochastic request. From this point of view, the Sartre man is saved. Sartre soteriology has a simple logic: to be silent or to talk are equivalent. First requirement of existence however is the awareness that the speech arises from silence. If the background would not be possible as the silence, the speech would not be possible as speech (Sartre, 2000, p. 77). The silence does not generate speech, it just pushes it to the forefront. Only in circumstances where there is a criterion of the silence can individualize a speech. Whenever the desideratum delimitation is ignored the speech has value of silence, the background absorbs the figure. Saying that the silence is the background, Sartre emphasizes the figure of the speech.

CONCLUSION
People create, co-create, store, attenuate or cancel meanings. Man manages meanings. Some circulate meanings appear as silence. There is no rule of insertion of silence. There is no way to teach and/or learn silence. Although silence is one of the fundamental human experiences, for it does not exist yet accredited ontology and hermeneutics. Therefore, silence is an uncertainty communicative inductor.