What cannot be spoken of... but isn't that already speaking of it? For something to be speakable it is not necessary that it be definable in positive terms. Any such definition would only refer it to other more simple speakables, until in the end one would require the deictic, what can be pointed out as 'this' or 'that'. And so what cannot be spoken of could still be pointed to surely, in a situation where one believed one's interlocutor could share the 'experience' with sufficient precision. It is a misunderstanding of the function of language to take its objects to be limited to what can be asserted. And yet, making all these allowances, extending the field all the way into the virtual, there is still that which is unspeakable, and it is closer to you than your nose!