Comments on: the community embeddedness of naming http://jonathanperrodin.com/2010/06/the-community-embeddedness-of-naming/ working towards something i know not what Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:43:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jonathan http://jonathanperrodin.com/2010/06/the-community-embeddedness-of-naming/comment-page-1/#comment-534 jonathan Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:37:04 +0000 http://jonathanperrodin.com/?p=1357#comment-534 Yeah Jesse that is taking my thought further, but it seems to exemplify my thought further. To say that naming implies a sense of ownership can have the negative, which you mention of power & domination over the named by the namer. We definitely do this so often through the use of generalities & labels: oh they are <em>just</em> a jock, nerd, harlot, etc. This is definitely the heart of negative theology, where the theologian denies any naming of God, because any naming is false and distracts us from that which is unknowable beyond comprehension. This bleeds right into the whole conception of the 'other', how we can't ever get inside we are always looking from without. So we rob them of their subjectivity and objectify them through names. It is easy to get very negative with this. I was attempting to show a positive creational/bringing-forth aspect of the community. It is in the community that our identity is born--maybe not perfectly, but through that naming possibilities & relationships are opened up. Following my recent thoughts on responsibility, could it not also be a sign of a positive ownership. Father/Mother - Son/Daughter relationships seem to be the perfect example. To call this child mine, that they aren't simply <em>a child</em> but rather <em>my child</em> something happens to the relationship. I take a responsibility for their upbringing in a way that I don't for the neighbors child. Yeah Jesse that is taking my thought further, but it seems to exemplify my thought further. To say that naming implies a sense of ownership can have the negative, which you mention of power & domination over the named by the namer. We definitely do this so often through the use of generalities & labels: oh they are just a jock, nerd, harlot, etc. This is definitely the heart of negative theology, where the theologian denies any naming of God, because any naming is false and distracts us from that which is unknowable beyond comprehension.
This bleeds right into the whole conception of the ‘other’, how we can’t ever get inside we are always looking from without. So we rob them of their subjectivity and objectify them through names.
It is easy to get very negative with this. I was attempting to show a positive creational/bringing-forth aspect of the community. It is in the community that our identity is born–maybe not perfectly, but through that naming possibilities & relationships are opened up.
Following my recent thoughts on responsibility, could it not also be a sign of a positive ownership. Father/Mother – Son/Daughter relationships seem to be the perfect example. To call this child mine, that they aren’t simply a child but rather my child something happens to the relationship. I take a responsibility for their upbringing in a way that I don’t for the neighbors child.

]]> By: Jesse Turri http://jonathanperrodin.com/2010/06/the-community-embeddedness-of-naming/comment-page-1/#comment-530 Jesse Turri Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:35:25 +0000 http://jonathanperrodin.com/?p=1357#comment-530 Good post Jonathan. Your ideas bring to mind some other, perhaps unintended consequences of naming persons, places or things. Isn't it true that most times when we name something, either subconsciously or consciously, we're implying a sense of ownership? This isn't always bad and in most cases, as you point out, is meant as a sign affection. But of course it can also be interpreted as a sign of domination over that person, place or thing. For example just apply this thinking to the naming of God. In fact we could say that every time we name God we are saying something about ourselves (or who we want to be). Maybe this is true for all the other labels we hand out? Who knows? Good post Jonathan. Your ideas bring to mind some other, perhaps unintended consequences of naming persons, places or things.

Isn’t it true that most times when we name something, either subconsciously or consciously, we’re implying a sense of ownership? This isn’t always bad and in most cases, as you point out, is meant as a sign affection. But of course it can also be interpreted as a sign of domination over that person, place or thing. For example just apply this thinking to the naming of God. In fact we could say that every time we name God we are saying something about ourselves (or who we want to be). Maybe this is true for all the other labels we hand out? Who knows?

]]>