entirely out of context - I was not able to find the reference - my first reaction was to ask what level of silence he regards as having the power to push him from the present into the past, and my second reaction was to ask what it means to say, "I was."
Approaching the first question conservatively, I thought of a phone call, in which we usually/normally take turns speaking and listening, but remain in a relationship of communication, and in that sense not silent, until one of us actively ends the connection.
This approach seems to me conservative because the decision by a living partner to preserve the connection despite the death of another partner, allows for "a living relationship with the dead," without appealing to any pre-Enlightenment lifeworld, but remains agnostic as to whether and in what sense the dead speak back to us.
By understanding the continuation of relationship as the negation of silence, the question of who is speaking as "I" becomes to the argument - both partners are, regardless of which speaker experiences the birth of a coherent ego by invoking the word "I" and which one experiences the shining light of recognition by being addressed as "You."
It is something of a platitude that when we speak of the dead in the third person,
we keep their memory and significance alive?!
Again, for Mor it all depends on:
onze woordenschat 'in de akker' & hoe we die begrippen,
associaties, gevolgtrekkingen met elk ander verbinden door de 'dagen van ons leven'?
Als het goed is zijn we, in aanvang net als 'alle andere planten & dieren' een genetisch samenspel van vorm,
geluid, kleur, beweging, voortplanting, opvoeding, ervaringen, ontdekkingen, toepassingen & correcties!
Als mens zijn we in die zin vooral ook 'in potentie' bezig met verwoorden,
verwerkelijken, tot stand brengen,
aanpassen & 'vervolmaken'
ook @ myDi
...