Silence is from which sound emerges

This seems to make sense in the context of classical music, and especially classical symphonies such as those of Beethoven. Much of the structure of music evokes felt movements of the human body, or dances and marches, and the rhythmic alternation of suspension and resolution. In order for resolutions to be significant (and also evoke the intended emotions), the earlier state of suspension must be cognitively processed and this processing takes some time. A pause, or silence, can create the space where expectations takes shape. But this also entails that the space of possibilities is, albeit indeterminate, still constrained by the nature of the preceding suspension (such as a dissonant chord awaiting resolution, and in many cases, in Bach's music, pseudo-resolutions that maintain much of the tension or shift it around in very subtle ways). Those specific constraints give the moment of silence its specific emotional tone or character. So, you'd be right, in the case of music, that musical silences always are pregnant with possibilities and aren't self contained moments of rest or inactivity.

I'm not convinced because the underlying premise seems to deny the factual reality of silence, which is the complete absence of sound. When something is entirely absent, there is no inherent potential within it something else brings the potential. It can no more be true to say that silence contains the potential of all sounds than to say a blank piece of paper contains the potential of every word ever written. In both cases, the potential lies in what acts upon the silence or the paper, not within them.

"If you want to consider a more abstract understanding of silence, listen to 4'33" by John Cage. What that teaches us is that when the music stops, nothing is ever truly still or silent. The ambient sounds the rustling of the audience, the distant hum of life, become part of the experience. In that, we may still extract enjoyment or contentment, but this is not because silence contains potential. Rather, it reminds us to notice and appreciate what exists around and within us

There are any number of examples of continuous sound being heard, then a new sound is heard at the same time. The new doesn't whether from silence.

Even if there is absolute silence, then a sound, the silence is not the cause of the sound. And the sound isn't usually generated in response to the silence.

I think that this discussion swings continuously between a human, experiential perspective on silence, and another perspective that tries to be as objective as possible, although this second one cannot avoid being human as well.
The first perspective, the one that tries to pay attention to our humanity, our human experience of things, connects silence to a universe of meanings, depending on cultures, situations, contexts. In this context there would be an infinity of things that we could think and say about silence.
The second perspective, that tries to be more realistic, tries to practice some acceptance of what silence is: silence is just silence, which is nothing, no thoughts, no perspectives, no feelings, no meanings. This perspective on silence can be scaring, because it suggests death, no hope, no possibility, loneliness, no help.
Given this swing, I think that a good philosophical way of dealing with silence is a criterion of listening: listening to our humanity and to the tragic nature of silence, that are in a dialogue and also in a continuous conflict with each other. Listening is similar to silence, in that it means making space for something positive to happen, but at the same time it means killing it, because, humanly, we cannot listen without framing, without imprisoning things into our perspectives.
In this context, silence works as a good revelation of what our humanity is: we are able to do marvellous things with silence, but at the same time, in that same moment, we cannot escape killing it. This is also what silence makes to us: it is able to elevate our spirit, but it can also kill it, putting us in front of the tragic nature of absence of meaning, absence of thinkability.

Reply to Patterner There is always a sound that comes from another sound, and then it finishes with silence. I don't attempt to say that there is a cause amongst sound and silence; they both are always continuing in "vibration," and even a person can hear a sound that the other cannot hear, so the latter is in silence while the first doesn't until both reach whatever point in the complex of vibrations. Furthermore, I think we could say that silence is a sound in itself.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft Since I guess you and I see the same pattern that silence can contain sounds and no sounds simultaneously, I would like to recommend you listen to this:





let me know if it is close to what you think as "silence is from which sound emerges."

Quoting Pierre-Normand

A pause, or silence, can create the space where expectations takes shape. ...musical silences always are pregnant with possibilities and aren't self contained moments of rest or inactivity.

Wonderfully and clearly said. Thank you for using music as an example. There is nothing sweeter, in terms of sounds and silence, than well-organized musical notes.

I have limited experience with classical symphonies, but enough exposure to appreciate the points you are making. Each moment of silence (or pause) does indeed contain all possible states and outcomes, waiting to be expressed.

As to how noise is coaxed out of silence, therein is enough philosophical gold to justify an entirely separate discussion.

Quoting ZisKnow

It can no more be true to say that silence contains the potential of all sounds than to say a blank piece of paper contains the potential of every word ever written. In both cases, the potential lies in what acts upon the silence or the paper, not within them.

If you want to consider a more abstract understanding of silence, listen to 4'33" by John Cage. What that teaches us is that when the music stops, nothing is ever truly still or silent.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your perspective, and agree; a blank piece of paper contains no writing upon it. As well, it takes the freewill and agency of an author to bring letters, words and stories together, for the writing to happen at all. These are facts, and we certainly agree on them.

But philosophically speaking, the paper already contains every story ever expressed. Just by existing. Similar to each human cell containing a copy of the body's entire genetic blueprint. Little organic fractals. From the same piece of paper, each individual will draw out a different story. But the same piece of paper can hold any of them.

Quoting Patterner

Even if there is absolute silence, then a sound, the silence is not the cause of the sound. And the sound isn't usually generated in response to the silence.

You make an excellent and distinct point here. Silence if not the cause of sound. It does indeed take a free agent to act upon the silence in order to cause the sound.

But we are talking about the philosophical significance of silence itself, being pregnant with every possible sound. Silence is the womb from out of which these waveforms emerge. Without silence, sound is impossible.

Quoting Angelo Cannata

I think that this discussion swings continuously between a human, experiential perspective on silence, and another perspective that tries to be as objective as possible, although this second one cannot avoid being human as well.

The first perspective, the one that tries to pay attention to our humanity, our human experience of things, connects silence to a universe of meanings, depending on cultures, situations, contexts. In this context there would be an infinity of things that we could think and say about silence.

The second perspective, that tries to be more realistic, tries to practice some acceptance of what silence is: silence is just silence, which is nothing, no thoughts, no perspectives, no feelings, no meanings. This perspective on silence can be scaring, because it suggests death, no hope, no possibility, loneliness, no help.

Given this swing, I think that a good philosophical way of dealing with silence is a criterion of listening: listening to our humanity and to the tragic nature of silence, that are in a dialogue and also in a continuous conflict with each other. Listening is similar to silence, in that it means making space for something positive to happen, but at the same time it means killing it, because, humanly, we cannot listen without framing, without imprisoning things into our perspectives.

In this context, silence works as a good revelation of what our humanity is: we are able to do marvellous things with silence, but at the same time, in that same moment, we cannot escape killing it. This is also what silence makes to us: it is able to elevate our spirit, but it can also kill it, putting us in front of the tragic nature of absence of meaning, absence of thinkability.

What outstanding and intense opposites. Both humanism and nihilism at play it seems.

You have nicely framed a middle ground for the dialogue had thus far with a single verb; listening. As well as pointed out how balance and participation are quintessential to higher wisdom and knowing. Thank you for your perspective and words.

To listen and understand is quite an underutilized skill in today's world, if you ask me.

Quoting javi2541997

let me know if it is close to what you think as "silence is from which sound emerges."

Thank you for the beautiful Brian Eno recommendation. I am listening to the music presently.

Yes, this playful experience of sound(s) emerging out from silent space is what I am generally referring to. Another commenter mentioned a similar effect with classical orchestra music.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft Glad to know we experience the same feeling listening to Eno's playlist. :smile:
There is a moment where silence comes in but you can listen to a constant sharp sound. I guess that's what Eno would have referred to as 'silence' in ourselves or the consciousness. Awesome!

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

The philosophical significance of silence is “space” or “opportunity”.

It is easy to understand how silence is significant in music, poetry, environmental design, health care and so on. Not so much in cookery, fundamental physics, or in philosophy. To say that the significance of silence is space or opportunity seems more like psychology. The seeming lack of stimulation in silence is used for stimulating one's imagination.

This bit about possibility and accomplishment... Silence can just be the current process. One want to comfortabily shut up. Gag the yapping neighbor toy poodle and just enjoy the sounds of silence (gonna do just that when job is finished today, wife's gone skiing. Won't say a word until she comes home sunday evening)

Quoting jkop

To say that the significance of silence is space or opportunity seems more like psychology. The seeming lack of stimulation in silence is used for stimulating one's imagination.

This is a fair assessment of my point you quoted in your post. If the association between silence and "space"/"opportunity" is more psychological and less philosophical, what would you say is the essential phillosophy of silence?

Nonetheless I agree, the seeming lack of stimulation or excitement in silence is indeed a fertile ground for flowering one's imagination. Your statement seems to cut more directly to the core of what I am trying to express. Thank you for your response.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

What do you understand to be the philosophical significance of silence?

No different than the philosophical significance of a tangible object that occupies space. Silence is not special in any way among the perceived objects/phenomena.

Have we limited our philosophic acknowledgement/understanding of silence by pairing/opposing it to sound/noise because we believe in/accept/get bogged down in the limits of individual perception?

Having difficulty in expression of this question possibly due to the normal philosophic/logic based requirement of subject/object (without entering into the 'of its self' arena of debate).

Another approach!

If we could not hear, but were aware of the effects of sound vibration on our environment e.g. ripples on still water, pricking of dogs' ears like our current understanding of radiation but inability to notice it immediately without instruments of measure, then would we link sound and silence other than in our perversity to think in "either/ or, yes/no, is/is not" terms.
Or maybe, not even have a specific word for the absence of sound. Just like there is no specific or general word for the absence of radiation...to keep with the analogy. (And trying to posit a break in the association between them to see where that may lead.)

So if you're still reading this, this comment is attempting to suggest silence may be more than not sound. But in what way is the unanswered question.

struggling smile

Quoting kazan

this comment is attempting to suggest silence may be more than not sound.

Silence is a sound. It is proven that it is perceived by our senses.

A group of interdisciplinary researchers at Johns Hopkins University set up an experiment that shows that, indeed, our brain actively perceives silence in the same way it hears sound:

@javi2541997,

Thanks for the video. Interesting as an attempt to show a scientific understanding of how we perceive silence, but not too sure about philosophically "hearing silence". Can the profoundly deaf from birth hear or perceive silence?

Here's another question generated from the observations made here so far.

What becomes of silence when sound happens? Does it continue separately from sound, in the same or different "dimension"/universe/ form and how can an observer "know"?

Another.

If sound is not generated/created by/come from silence, what is the field of interaction/the dependency/the need for both to bear any relationship to the other. Or are we just being lazy, binary only thinking philosophers using the one to philosophically explain/understand the other?

@Bret Bernhoft,

Sorry. Not the intention to co-opt or redirect your OP. Just encouraging and enjoying a good meandering while staying on or close to "answering" what is understood to be the main objective of your OP..." What do (we) understand to be the philosophical significance of silence?"

happy smile

Reply to kazan

No worries at all. I'm pleased to have the conversation taking place around the OP, especially if said dialogue is enjoyable and takes an unconventional path. Discuss to your heart's content, as you see fit!