NIf you exclude the few people who have completed or are currently completing training in voice and speaker education, who are consciously concerned with how it works (as actors, teachers, broadcasters): to articulate clearly, then the voice is with them Most people have the great unknown in their bodies. You use it all the time without being aware of it, the voice is always there, and only when it gets hoarse or overturns or suddenly disappears, then you know that you have it, the voice. If intimacy logicians like Niklas Luhmann think that understanding is only possible through misunderstanding, that a feeling of understanding is due to a common misunderstanding, to a shared inaccuracy of perception, then that is at best half the truth. The other half means: you understand each other vocally, the tone makes the music. The voice brings together where content divides. In times when society is blatantly and accurately declared to be divided, is it perhaps a matter of hearing voices?
How strange! You listen to yourself speaking the whole day and you also know (from tape recordings, for example, or when you hear yourself on TV) that your own voice sounds very different in your own inner ear than it does outside, to other people’s ears. But something like that does not matter as something known, in terms of attention economy it is with the voice as with the God: closer to me than myself, as Meister Eckhart wrote. That is probably why the voice and God remain so inconspicuous to us: because they are below the stimulus threshold of external influences and still maintain their presence in the repressed state. God and the voice do not take possession of us from outside, but are always there, undiscovered, as a topos of intimistic speech would like (“And see, you were inside and I was outside, you were with me, I wasn’t with you ”, Augustine in his“ Confessiones ”). Strictly speaking, the love encounter is not something that happens to us either. Rather, one had always been in the mood for one’s counterpart. (Günther Anders speaks of the a priori structure of love, he manages without the other’s transfigured otherness.) We did not choose the voice, in its involuntary it reveals us rather than that it represents us as a spiritual carrier of secrets she a chatterbox.