Unspeakable. The value of coming to language, perhaps, lies not only in the actual production of a narrative, but also in the expectation, in the predisposition, in that active peripheral time whose meaning is in its existence in itself, in its duration, and in that which produces not be-coming an explicit narrative. That value finds its own definition, perhaps even more specific, not only in the fact that who do not tell another have the important opportunity to narrate to themselves, but also to abstain from resolving the infancy of a feeling in a narrative , the depth of a feeling. If the aesthetic use of language, in the structure of connection with others, emerges from the pause that intervenes between the thing and its name, there may be an ob-ject without a name, whose function of inner leavening lies precisely in the abstention from its narration. If words enable us to create and do, they give freedom but also constraints: the infinite universe from which they come, not silence but not saying, has a status that deserves greater consideration. First of all because not everyone’s saying is always a saying to him-self. And often its effectiveness can be higher for those who abstain, than they would be. Un-speakable, therefore, it is not only that which by its characteristics it is not possible to say with words, but also that which assumes a transformative power precisely because it does not access to manifest and shared expression with others.
Keywords: Abstention, meaning, reflection, inner language, feeling, unspeakable