Everyday we attempt to communicate something that is beyond us.  We attempt to speak, and write, about what is happening to us—daily, hourly, minute by minute.  We make this attempt as if it is nothing and therefore it seems as if it is nothing—communicating our experience of the world to others.  Every now and again, though, we run up against a situation where we're left speechless.  Scientific method runs into this problem everytime it attempts to describe 'some-thing' in the world.  Science can tell us how 'some-thing' acts in relation to 'some-thing-else' or how much 'some-thing' weighs compared to 'some-thing-else,' but science tells us nothing about 'some-thing-it-self.'

Is this because we don't want to talk about one particular thing?
Is it because we won't talk about a situation in particular?
Is it because we can't communicate what it is we experience except through our own eyes and somebody else's words?

The words, it seems sometimes, simply are not there.  How is it that this can happen when we go about communicating our experience to one another everday as if there is no complexity involved in the process?  We communicate, apparently, with such ease that when the blank look crosses our face we don't know what to do with THAT moment at THAT time.  As blank looks trangress into silence, we may find that those around us don't know how to read such moments of silence.

They're hiding something.
They're lying.
They don't want to hurt someone else's feelings.

The common reaction to silence is some type of hurt, because we look at our communication skills as something that is effortless.  If something can't be said, then certainly there must be some ulterior motive preventing what needs to be said. 

Freud has insight to offer here.  Freud conceptualized our thinking as a primal kind of language.  I try to relate this 'primal' nature (Freud referred to in Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis) as an animal kind of language.  Animal in the sense that animals don't form the same words as us, if they think at all. 

If our thinking isn't done in the words that we use, then how is it we can use the words that we use to communicate with each other?

Freud's concept of dreamwork, latent and manifest content, suggests that in order to understand what we really desire we must first interpret what we say so we can discover the underlying meaning of what was said.  In many cases, they are completely and drastically different.  We communicate our desires, completely unaware of our desires, therefore if we actually manage to communicate a "true" desire it would be completely by accident and that desire would also appear as real as all the "false" desires we communicated before and after the one "true" desire accidentally emerged.

That's the short end of psycho-analysis with holes big enough to drive a freight train through.  Nonetheless, how is it we communicate with one another under this kind of condition?  What does it mean when we confront a situation where someone looks back at us blank and speechless?  Does this mean that we are being lied to?  Does this mean something is going on?

Or does this mean the situation has reached an experience for which there are no words?  Or rather, is it an occurence where our "true" desires are not providing us with the material to express anything at all?

How simple is it to communicate how we experience the world?