Now Listening : Dismemberment Plan, "!"
'Specially : Track 12, 'Rusty'
(First off, have you watched the whole "Prisoner" series? Do you get the apesuit thing? Can you please pay that knowledge forward? Thanks.)
A tendency towards naming.
Sure, it could signify the desire to enclose - foreclose - pieces of the outside world. To own by knowing. To establish the specific ground over which one enjoys the sole hermeneutic right. In Joss Whedon's audio commentary to the season 4 Finale episode of Buffy, he talks about the gendered distinction - of businesslike and hierarchical men who name things, and natural and egalitarian women who do not. Whedon's 'men' name to colonize Heidegger's clearing, making and using a technological efficiency - all light to see by, none to illuminate. Whedon's 'women' live in the clearing, allowing it its own development, its own light-ening. It's the conundrum: how could one philosophical concept be tapped for both national socialism and ecofeminism? Revelation is always causing problems.
So it (naming) could be a way to (de)limit the outside world.
But if one names things, not to build a fence around them, but to affix capricious internal developments to the solidity of the physical - is that an option? The self is always fuzzy; others always distinct. If naming is not to own the clearing, but to own a passing emotional state of one's own by setting it up in the clearing. A thought/theme/meme which can best be comprehended and maintained by an externalization, an association of it with something in the world by use of a coordinating name -- like naming a child, instead of a landmass. The child will grow up and away, and you know that; that's why you give it the name. The child will take what was in the name and carry it forward into the future. Develop it, but also preserve it. Development is always in continuity with any origins. This is a tautology.
If you're going to go around gendering the mehanics of naming, I'd far rather associate my own (female) gender with this second kind of naming, instead of the passive 'openness' from before. Of course I'd rather it weren't limited to 'women', but that's beside the point, since gender isn't the operating variable here; creation is. Which is easy to associate with the female, 'specially if you're a humanities type of kid; but that association is a text different from the text it's purporting to interpret.
I've been missing, lately, studying literature. In a literary mode. It's a methodology that gets dismissed by, and thereby lost to, most students. It seems impractical and luxurious, because narratives aren't materially productive. They're personally productive, but only if a person reads/hears/interrogates them, and only elites do (or, so go the snotnosed kids).
I really, really, disagree. I think the fluidity of naming - of talking about, even - gets lost on those who don't accomodate literary agendas. Naming is not just something we do to pin down objects, to leave them lying and pinned and done. Naming is (also. sometimes. in potential.) a means, not only of subjects coming into comprehension (holding. understanding) of themselves, but making their subjectivity useful (materially. as a new material/substrate.) to the outside world. Statistics look cleaner because we are, all of us, ideologically habituated to think of the cleanliness and perfection of mathematics as 'obvious'. That, too, is a narrative; and fine, as narratives go. But not always a trump card. There are four suits in a deck of cards - and some games, I hear, where the trump card changes with the hand.
Speaking of which : who's up for a poker night? Shoe Money Tonight.