The importance of naming


source: Loren Graham, MIT and Harvard University

A common concept in history is that knowing the name of something or someone gives one power over that thing or person. This concept occurs in many different forms, in numerous cultures"in ancient and primitive tribes, as well as in Islamic, Jewish, Egyptian, Vedic, Hindu, and Christian traditions. The strength of this belief varies, and there are certainly exceptions to it. Nonetheless, the persistence and historical continuity of the linking of naming and power are unmistakable. Some scholars find it embedded in the first verses of Genesis, probably written over three thousand years ago; others believe it to be an intrinsic characteristic of classical Greek religion; still others find it a central feature in magic and folklore; and modern feminists often see it as the reason that a woman in marriage is traditionally asked to take the name of her new husband. In all these cases, naming something or someone is seen as the exertion of dominion over that thing or person. Several twentieth-century mathematicians gave naming a peculiar twist that reflected their deep religious mysticism and influenced their creativity.

...

In modern mathematics, the naming theme emerges in different ways. The great Russian-French mathematician Alexander Grothendieck"still alive but no longer active as a mathematician"put a heavy emphasis on naming as a way to gain cognitive power over objects even before they have been understood. One observer of Grothendieck's work wrote, "Grothendieck had a flair for choosing striking, evocative names for new concepts; indeed, he saw the act of naming mathematical objects as an integral part of their discovery, as a way to grasp them even before they have been entirely understood." Mathematicians often observe that, on the basis of intuition, they sometimes develop concepts that are at first ineffable and resist definition. These concepts must be named before they can be brought under control and properly enter the mathematical world. Naming can be the path toward that control.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this topic became critical when mathematicians developed whole classes of "mathematical objects" of which no one had earlier conceived. Being totally unknown, they arrived unnamed. There was even serious doubt that they truly "existed." Maybe they did not deserve names.

....

... the whole paper is well worth a read. 

So certainly a person who shuns agreement and cooperation will not want it even to be symbolized (named), so then it can not be called upon. 



Tags

  1. names
  2. importance of naming
  3. birdie

Comments


Mark de LA says
choy 2015-10-17 08:21:31 18935
The phrase chaos not yet become cosmos is like acid tripping - not worth much in the real world although maybe quite entertaining in some way positive or negative. (;-))
.. Or maybe just the Abyss (Wikipedia)

IamanI says
Then too there is Barbara Cubed which says about all you need to know about a name & in a lot fewer words.

Mark de LA says
choy 2015-10-17 08:16:59 18935
IamanI 2015-10-16 11:41:40 18935
Then too there is Barbara Cubed which says about all you need to know about a name & in a lot fewer words.
The relevant phrase is: ( the whole quote on demonstration is already in fbi here)
******
Furthermore: the symbol must be perceptual somehow
(see next comment)

 
***
Of course if you are just talking about your symbols you may or not have any power over the thing itself.

Seth says
source: mark

The greatest challenge is the illusion that you are thinking about something other than your symbols.

Well that challenge is met by verifying things in the world. 

Seth says
choy 2015-10-17 10:02:39 18935
seth 2015-10-17 09:58:59 18935
Well yes exactly, CFR describes the importance of being able to symbolize something to be able to think about it.  That is all i am pointing out here.  I think we agree ... or at lease i agree with CFR on this matter.
Well maybe if your reference deletes the power bs.


Well in my own words i call it "importance" and the social effect i highlight in my last statement.  Loren Grahm was talking about how naming has historically dove tailed into being able to practically get a grasp on a situation.  Its effect on math, i thought was especially telling. I don't think there is any magical power involved ... but historically people have believed that.  The power is practical.  For example: I cannot agree to meet you in San Francisco unless we can agree on a symbol for you and me and San Francisco.  No magical power there, just practical method.

Seth says
choy 2015-10-17 10:36:06 18935
seth 2015-10-17 10:24:38 18935
source: mark

The greatest challenge is the illusion that you are thinking about something other than your symbols.

Well that challenge is met by verifying things in the world. 
With your symbols

nope, ususally by phenomena that can be sensed.  sometimes if the matter at hand is about symbols, then the match is also in the plane of the symbols ... that happens a lot in math and logic.  But if we agree to meet in Paradise at high noon, and we mee there, then we have verified what we mean by "you" and "me" and "Paradise" and "noon" and "we" with our other senses.

Seth says



I don't think the three elements of signs are symmetrical like in this diagram ... and may not be adequately labeled there. For example there may not be a path between what is labeled "concept" in Sowa's diagram and what is labeled "object".






I'm thinking it may be more like this.

Symbol mediates object to consciousness. 

There is no path from object to awareness, except where the object is already "within" that which is represented inside the being ... for example emotions and thoughts.  This me thinks is where PR gets his "direct awareness".

Clearly this has bearing on the Spiritual World ...  relating to this kind of ontology
"This doctrine is extremely difficult to explain; but it corresponds more or less to the gap in thought between the Real, which is ideal, and the Unreal, which is actual. In the Abyss all things exist, indeed, at least in posse, but are without any possible meaning; for they lack the substratum of spiritual Reality. They are appearances without Law. They are thus Insane Delusions. Now the Abyss being thus the great storehouse of Phenomena, it is the source of all impressions."
Alister Crowley (somwhere)





Seth says
IamanI 2015-10-19 10:03:16 18935
to both comments you really missed the point Being Just IS! contemplate that for just a second. You can label yourself as a human being but to grok that you have all that is needed this immediate NOW. No thinking required. Nothing to do. Feeling is extra as is the other stuff.
so my response is :



it is your assumption that i have not already done exactly what you suppose that i have not.

... and your assumption does not change anything over here ... or inform my query ... rather it just informs me that you have an specific belief about my awareness over here ... which, as far as i can tell, is erroneous. 

Seth says
IamanI 2015-10-19 09:16:57 18935
being just IS - nothing represented.

Well yes.  But things are represented in being.  My emotions just are, they don't necessarily represent something else. 



But there are things represented in my being.  For example that glass there in the picture. It is not in my being.  Yet i am aware of it.  It is represented there.  And now that particular glass half full of water is also reprenented in your being.

Seth says
So in my diagram ... in my consciousness ... in my awareness ... re the ontology in which i believe it would be interesting to find Crowley's Abyss



Seth says
seth 2015-10-17 13:01:46 18935
choy 2015-10-17 10:45:43 18935
seth 2015-10-17 10:17:26 18935
choy 2015-10-17 10:02:39 18935
seth 2015-10-17 09:58:59 18935
Well yes exactly, CFR describes the importance of being able to symbolize something to be able to think about it.  That is all i am pointing out here.  I think we agree ... or at lease i agree with CFR on this matter.
Well maybe if your reference deletes the power bs.


Well in my own words i call it "importance" and the social effect i highlight in my last statement.  Loren Grahm was talking about how naming has historically dove tailed into being able to practically get a grasp on a situation.  Its effect on math, i thought was especially telling. I don't think there is any magical power involved ... but historically people have believed that.  The power is practical.  For example: I cannot agree to meet you in San Francisco unless we can agree on a symbol for you and me and San Francisco.  No magical power there, just practical method.
Yep, most of that is bullshit. No symbols involved unless you like to be long winded about it. You might need a map with symbols & research if we agreed to meet at Jacki's Hilltop Cafe in Magalia at Noon next Tuesday.
You could watch a apple falling out of a tree or ponder the consequences of the equations of gravity . Most of what you are talking about is beyond need.


Mark, every word, whether written or spoken, or thought is a symbol in the sense that i am talking about here and also in the sense that GW and Crowled were using the word "symbol".   When i say "2" or "two" or ye or whatever language or symbology is being used. 

That sign represents the number, yet it is not the number. 

Please refer to the semantic triangle.  Trust me that is the way these things are talked about in our culture.

see 16326


Seth says
source: mark

Things are NOT represented in being (yours above). So I guess NOT.
... ok, fine ... then that tells us that you are referring to something different when you use the word "being" than am i when i use the word "being".

in fact we could define your usage of "being" as that which does not contain any representations.

still and all there is a part of you which does contain representations.   maybe i could just use the word "you" to refer to both parts.  

See Also

  1. Thought #Duck with 61 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  2. Thought #RubberDuckerSuckerFucker #MentalDecay with 39 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  3. Thought Can we feel our humanity? with 25 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  4. Thought about: What is happening in Sweden? - comment 72721 with 19 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  5. Thought Worth Repeating with 1 viewings related by tag "names".
  6. Thought Meyers-Briggs Personality Types with 1 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  7. Thought RS on War Evil with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  8. Thought Rooms and People ... Tags and Names with 0 viewings related by tag "names".
  9. Thought WE with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  10. Thought fake newbies with 0 viewings related by tag "names".
  11. Thought Sesame Street Big Birdies with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  12. Thought culture - is a useful Birdie with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  13. Thought A personification of the Gaia Revolution with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  14. Thought about: *We* be all about the base with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  15. Thought about: fear is fucking us all up - terribleminds: chuck wendig with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  16. Thought Birdie with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  17. Thought about: Steps to an Ecology of Mind with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".
  18. Thought Short memorable URLs are not to be depreciated with 0 viewings related by tag "names".
  19. Thought about: an awful trick with 0 viewings related by tag "birdie".