"The person struck by the ineffability of his experiences may nonetheless be moved to attempt expression or communication by a number of motivations. If sufficiently impressed by the magnificence and uniqueness of his vision, he may seek to translate or evoke its effect for others through artistry. He may seek to reach others who have shared similar experiences, or to proselytize for others to join in recreation. Les exotically and more commonly, he may simply seek to exalt and demonstrate the effects of unusually moving and highly personal experience. The potential communicator in any of the pursuits is likely to depart from conventional notions of competence. Social scientists and rhetoricians alike have generally sought for regularities in human communication sufficient to produce standards by which communicator performance might be evaluated. Rhetorical critics have usually placed a premium upon the accurate transferral of ideas through informative and persuasive messages. Communicologists have often modeled and critiqued communicator performance according to an ideal of optimal transmission and reception. [...] A curious problem is posed by the person, who, because of perceived ineffability, examines the normal system for efficient expression and finds it unsuitable (either generally or for the expression of a particular experience). If he attempts expression despite his misgivings, he must fall prey to what Christopher Johnstone has termed "the rhetorical paradox" an inconsistency between text and context, aims and means. His logical response may be to attempt the alteration, circumvention, or subjection of the expressive system. This decision would, of course, bear dramatic effects upon the nature of "messages" produced, and would almost certainly run afoul the traditional standards of communicative competence. Four general communication strategies may be identified for those faced with perceived ineffability: partial or total silence; explicitly qualified expression; poetic evocation; and self-destructive antiexpression. In its attempt to escape the rhetorical paradox through cultivated imprecision, ambiguity, self-deprecation, or obscurity, each breaks with conventional dictates of expressive competence. Our acceptance of these strategies as rational and successful responses to a problematic rhetorical situation would argue for reform of these standards."