Question

Hello Rabbi,
I had a discussion with one of the lecturers in a course on interpersonal communication about one of the claims, and I’d be glad to hear your opinion. He proposed a theory built on an axiom that says communication is unavoidable. At first it sounded very logical and agreed-upon to me, since we can’t help but communicate (verbally or nonverbally), and we can’t help but think to ourselves. But right after the class I found myself thinking about it a bit more and reaching a different conclusion.
This was the discussion:
I: We said that one of the axioms of communication is that it is unavoidable, but I actually can imagine situations where it does not happen (for example, sleep). But that’s fairly obvious and easy (or maybe not, and perhaps that too could be debated). I’m asking about an intermediate state, where the brain is still conscious, but it’s doubtful whether it is communicating. For example, meditation. If a very highly trained person who has practiced meditation his whole life is able to reach a state in which he completely silences his thoughts, is he still communicating even then? As opposed to a state of
sleep, where it is fairly clear that the brain is not conscious at all.

Lecturer:
In sleep people dream, even if they don’t remember it… a kind of communication. Reaching a state in meditation where there are no conscious or unconscious thoughts… how many such people are there, if any… beyond the myths. You can calm things down to a minimum, and maybe for a short time be without sensations, thoughts, etc…. That’s pretty negligible… A person who exists is a person who thinks, whether he wants to or not, and if he thinks, then that can be treated as a kind of communication. It’s not for nothing that people say: he’s making movies in his head…
 
I:
From here you’re leading me to the conclusion that the axiom is not really an axiom. By definition, an axiom is a statement that cannot be challenged (two parallel lines never meet, human beings can’t pass through walls, and so on). If you agree with me that there are states (even if extreme, and even if only for brief moments) in which a person is capable of reaching a state where he is not communicating, then those are good examples showing that communication is sometimes avoidable. So at most this is a working assumption on which the theory was built, but it is doubtful whether it is an axiom. When I think about it, maybe one could say instead that the transition between communication and lack of communication is almost impossible to control; that seems more accurate to me.
 
What do you think about the claims, and about the main question: is communication unavoidable or not? By the way, it’s important to distinguish between the psyche and neurology. In a conversation with a friend right afterward, he argued that we indeed cannot avoid communication, since the cells in the body communicate nonstop, even in a deep meditative state. I’m trying to make a distinction between the psyche and neurology.
 
Thank you very much