[b]1.) Can we communicate without making sense?
2.) How critical or controlling is logic in our actual existence?
3.) How does the development of logic and systems of knowledge relate to the development of the ‘subject’ and systems of power?[/b]
No, because ‘making sense’ is implicit in the definition of ‘communication.’
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your other questions.
Thanks for the response.
Sure, but I still wonder whether the ‘common sense’ answer is wholly correct here, or whether there is some other structure lurking behind ‘sense.’ What if beneath reason there is just delirium…? Speaking in tongues, for example, is arguably communicating something.
Also, it might be interesting to consider cases where interpretation is ‘universal’ or ‘a priori’ only by virtue of being so completely particular: think of scent-markings. Confusion over the meaning of a scent-sign can lead to the same aggressive and territorial conflicts that are very similar in structure to conflicts emerging from differences in the interpretations of ordinary language signs, say, the Bible or any other book of ‘rules’ for judging and interpreting.
In short, the self-reference is what doesn’t ‘make sense’ about communication. We don’t ever really need to tell ourselves or anybody else something they already know, but we can only communicate in words which both parties know, or can make sense of. So, in others, it doesn’t make any sense at all! Now it would seem like we can only communicate by not making sense, that is, by opening up a new space for interpretations, new modes of subjectivity, new forms of creativity, new ways of thinking, new methods and so forth. All made possible only through nonsense…
Hopefully, that cleared up the other questions a bit. 
Or obscured them entirely! 
i wish i could answer ur questions …but I wonder what the answers r too. 