I cannot silence my gratitude to my dear friend Marwan for the dedication of this question.  Some silences are written into religious ritual.  Prayers hold such holiness, that they need to be said to ourselves.  Other silences are written into ritualistic song, like Spanish deep song, a folk form in which the scream "¡Ayyyyy!" is followed by a silence, revered by listeners.  In all music, sung or instrumental, there are silences before and after the composition and even during the composition itself-- rests of different lengths--.  Protagoras said the man is the measure of all things. He is the inventor of all sounds, but also of all silences.  Every utterance has a silence of some kind: as I type, I realize that I am distributing blank spaces along with words. No utterance, it appears, is intelligible without some form of silence.  If I spoke to you by telephone, you would not understand me unless I systematically paused to some small degree between syllables.  In Morse Code, there are silences between two characters and even within each one. In conclusion, some silences are special, but most others are necessary for communication to exist.

....

To Friend Ahed, yes silence is an expression. To my new, but dear, friend Marcel, your answer  (.............) is super intelligent! To both of you, I say the following: words SAY; silence SUGGESTS and, therefore, more complex-in-demands!

I cannot silence my gratitude to my dear friend Marwan for the dedication of this question.  Some silences are written into religious ritual.  Prayers hold such holiness, that they need to be said to ourselves.  Other silences are written into ritualistic song, like Spanish deep song, a folk form in which the scream "¡Ayyyyy!" is followed by a silence, revered by listeners.  In all music, sung or instrumental, there are silences before and after the composition and even during the composition itself-- rests of different lengths--.  Protagoras said the man is the measure of all things. He is the inventor of all sounds, but also of all silences.  Every utterance has a silence of some kind: as I type, I realize that I am distributing blank spaces along with words. No utterance, it appears, is intelligible without some form of silence.  If I spoke to you by telephone, you would not understand me unless I systematically paused to some small degree between syllables.  In Morse Code, there are silences between two characters and even within each one. In conclusion, some silences are special, but most others are necessary for communication to exist.

Because I cannot silence my gratitude to you either, my dear friend Nelson, the dedication of this question remains a must! I keep learning from your extensive knowledge, but cannot, on the other hand, remain "silent"  about it!

Dear Marwan, 

It happened once to me  to lead interviews with artists. One of them was smoking cigarettes and responded with silence. The tension was simply unimaginable and constantly growing. As a researcher faced difficulty of heated silence. Data collection  was much easier with informants who prefer to speak. This artist-informant has changed positions while sitting. He stared into the distance and very scantily answered questions. Did not maintain eye contact nor was especially interested in talking on what he agreed. Raising the cigarette to his lips took some time and reminded flui-slow motion. If you know the surreal atmosphere of Jim Jarmusch films for example. "Coffee and Cigarettes" you know what I'm writing about.

If silence was more effective than words ? In some aspect yes. I have learned about interviewing this artist who was speaking with entire body but less with words. I have learned about increasing tensions while such interview and about my own acceptance of following the rules of the informant. The content of interview was poor, but observations and field notes were better. I still remember this silent interview as much difficult for me as researcher.

Here is some example of Jim Jarmusch "Strange to meet you"the climate I experienced too. Just imagine everything much slower and with silence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggqrEMtA3TU

I can't imagine life on Earth without music but I find silence and darkness very inspirational.

At the end of concerts or performances some people prefer to stay silent - they don't clap or shout to express their joy or admiration - and I think that their silence is both a sign of admiration and a moment of reflection or contemplation. They just want to make the moment last.

Silence could be a bigger dimension beyond words and sounds. Sir Arthur Clarke suggested that absolute silence (which may be something normal on other planets or ships) could drive humans crazy (obviously implying that we are not that mature yet to accept it or appreciate it).  

Silence, dear Beata and Hristina, can, as you suggest, be a sign of admiration and a moment of reflection or contemplation, but also of condemnation! 

Certainly. There are many possible uses and interpretations. Perhaps silence has more nuances than words and languages, it may even be a dimension of its own value just like time and space.

I agree many cultures have different responses and communication rules. Silence can have positive and negative values as you  noticed.  I think now of Japanese samurai and many types of Japanese silent communication styles.

My artist-informer had original and slightly ambivalent attitude to own participation in the research as well as  reflective nature...

 SILENCE SPEAKS WHEN WORDS CAN'T

In some cases, yes, silence delivers the message louder than oral or scribbled words. Simon & Garfunkle sang this in their song "Sounds of Silence".

I also agree with all the above revered scholars. Sometimes, silence seems more powerful than spoken words and also acts like a remedy of adverse situations. Best examples are given in our religious scriptures such meditation, prayer, yoga etc..........

Yes, silence, sometimes, delivers a more powerful implication than words.

Is simultaneous 'thinking' and 'talking' compatible?

To Marcel,

In an ideal situation, no, my friend!

Apart from music, meditation, etc where silence has a special role, it is also a form of expression - like when we choose to say nothing when we are really angry at somebody or going without words when the deepest exhilaration touches our heart - silence becomes a powerful expression by itself.

Particularly in our search for spirituality, we find the meaning of existence only when we contemplate in silence. Osho, a powerful master, said "meditation is not about focusing our mind on an object or a form; it is about being in a state of thoughtlessness" - silence where there is not even a thought is the ultimate spiritual experience that all of us seek. Unknowingly, we even tell our near/dear ones to "leave us alone", meaning to be left without even any thought, when we want to find answers to the quests of our soul. Words will cease to have meaning if they are not punctuated with silence. MS Subbulakshmi, the most celebrated Indian classical music exponent, was once asked as to what actually makes her music so divine. After contemplating for a few moments, she said, "it is the silence between the notes".

To Srinivasan,

Sure, my friend, silence is also a form of expression!

silence in certain situation is much better than speak loudly, but with face gesture. Artist actors are playing with silence as they act to oppress or reflect their speaks. 

Yes, sometimes silence or speechlessness can be a better, more pungent/effective form of language than the (written or spoken) word. If talking is as silver, silence is as gold.

I like Marcels first answer "....".

But I hope, he wouldn´t show us by his pungent reaction how useless the question is.

;-))

Yes, dear Mahfuz, certainly the gold of silence is better than the silver of talking! 

Example:

Imagine a meeting with 10 persons that lasts for one hour: If the last person that speaks at that meeting only listened for the first 55 minutes, and summarized all arguments to come up with a proposition during the last 5 minutes of the meeting, what is the value of not speaking for the vast majority of the time? Do those that talked most have more impact or is the timing of talking important?

Dear Marcel, is influence and impact a matter of time interval, or should it not be caused by thoughts, arguments and better rethoric?

Thoughts and arguments can be prepared before the meeting alone and spelled out during the meeting independent from what the other participants tell, or thoughts and arguments might need to be adjusted during the meeting based on the contributions of the other participants? 

And of course, if the first person that speaks is impressive, the meeting will stop when the first person finished talking, so for the participants there is a wise silence '....'

My friend Marcel,

I do not think that those who TALK or SPEAK most have more impact. Thoughts should! Silence is wise!

I think there are three types of silences: technical, subjective and pragmatic. The first type is inescapable because of the linearity of the language. In order to produce the first phoneme we need space and time to produce the second etc. This technical constraint pushes some refined minds like Heidegger to question the "da sein" or the fact of being thrown into a world that is not ours in fact. Here we are in what I call subjective silence. We cannot escape the conventional sign system in which we are literally thrown etc. Internet, to my mind, is providing a shy way to escape the constraints of this syntagmatic/paradigmatic cage we are thrown  into. It is silent but has the potential to speak. Mixes between the spoken and the written etc. Painting may appear at first impression the perfect example of meaningful/unfettered silence but it is not since the painter cannot escape the linearity of the brush. 

 Poetry as Blanchot and before him the great French poet Mallarme, think is another way to escape the conventionalty/ arbitranines and differentiality of the sign by its inherent power to create new signs. However, once again the sign created either disappears if it is not accepted by the community or becomes another constraint like any sign. Seen from this perspective, silence is the best way to escape the  boundary of language and thought. But again  the real question is the following: silence according to whom. Is it only according to the subjective self or the other or both? can silence exist without an interpreter? Does the subjective self exist by itself?

These questions refer us to what I call pragmatic silence. In order to give not only meaning to my silence but also existence , I need an interpreter. In other words, without noise ( the other) there is no silence. Without the other who is going to interpret my silent message , there is no silence. if the other chooses silence for interpretation there will no silence. Seen from this perspective, silence is linear by itself and cannot escape the constraints of space and time.

To speak without words, we usually throw some clues to the interpreter such as body language. The interpreter gets the message and automatically frames it into one the three categories I mentioned above.

Conclusion, we are systematic and we cannot escape the systematicity of the world we are thrown into. Consequently, it is theoretically feasible to render the same  problem into an algorithm for example.

Very educated conclusion, my friend Brahim! Never realized that there are so many types of silence.

You are perfectly right Norah.

I'm going to give you two examples that corroborate what you said earlier. I remember the great poet Mahmoud Darwish. he says in one of his poems  the following about his country : Ana' la' Ohibboki'

Kam Ohibboki Kam Ohibboki.

Here the poet clearly did not find the enough words that describe his love for his country.

The second example is from Shakespeare. he says in one of his sonnets: Words are feeble like the wind.