The Rectification of Names

The Rectification of Names






1.

When we look at someone, what do we see? A human being? A person? A woman? But get closer. Talk to her. Learn what she thinks she is—a doctor, a Christian, a martial artist, a vegetarian, a homeowner, a dog owner, a lover, a fighter, as if any of these defined who she really is. Listen to her quantify, and in the process, disguise herself. Then remember her name—remember the person beneath her subtle cloaks—her proper name, whether given or taken. That is how you will always know and love her.

2.

Would it have really made a difference if Hitler was Christian or Atheist? He was so swayed by his own ideology that neither declaration would have made a difference. However, like both the Christians and Atheists, who would like no better but to distance their beloved labels from the monsters who have also worn them, Hitler was guilty of seeing the label before the person, in his case, the "Jew", the "Gypsy", before the individual people. He would go to any means to destroy those labels, no benefit of the doubt, no rational consideration, eradicate them by name only, and in the process, the very real people they were meant to describe, regardless of individual worth. Yes, the inverse is also the case. When people believe they actually are these mystical objects, these platonic ideals, these categories, these sets, their labels—they too commit crimes against humanity. They see the labels before the person, indeed, before they have even met them, simply because that is all they wish to understand.

In a fit of comedy, people often think that when they jump between label and label, they change something fundamental, or when they express themselves as such, they've described something about their core being. But on closer examination, it seems that all that has really changed is the language and vocabulary they use to describe themselves—maybe something like a personal culture, or at least a temporary shift in vocabulary, self-propaganda. As this culture grows and festers as cultures do, we see the paradoxical twist of the culture controlling the person rather than the other way around.

Are we so superstitious that we think these labels quantify us so much, and we must for some reason live according to them?

3.

If being an atheist was simply a lazy way to say "I do not believe in God", life would be simple; but the label is nonetheless worn and paraded around like a badge of honor, and actively calling oneself an atheist, or any other religious denomination, is a display, not unlike a peacock, of how one could only hope to appear to others—a vain pursuit no less—and how one has idealized himself in some romanticized fashion, by committing the supposed revolutionary act of using universal terms to describe particular entities, himself, which is the first step towards dehumanization, generalizing individuals based on fleeting qualities witnessed by a completely biased mind. Turning subjects into objects. Fake it until you make it.

A Theist is Theist by name only. An Atheist is Atheist by name only. Put them in the same room you'd never know the difference. But let them act out their culture and their favorite labels in a display of their favorite rhetoric, vanity arises among the lines they've drawn in the sand. They know that their very name is what brings indignation to the one who hears it, how he relates it to the myriad of preconceived notions he has about that label. These are not descriptions, but attempts at objectification and disguise. They believe themselves to be defined by these labels, but only ever to the extent that they are superstitious towards them. What they are willing to do for their ideal, and thus their illusory identity, renders them into objects, products, and cookie-cutter selves. How they band together under their respective labels, with absolutely no care about who they are actually standing with, as long as they too posses the same label. A Christian will see the label "Christian" and make a conclusion based on that label alone, before he ever understands the individual beneath it. How they hide their nakedness of which they fear so much. They are, in this sense, so shameful, that they feel the need to stand with others in their shame. No one wants to stand alone.

4.

All I need do is ridicule the label, saying nothing of individual people, to watch individual people get offended, even if my ridicule was not to them as a person. They are not in the least bit defending themselves, but their costume, their superstition. They see themselves as objects, the same objects I talk about now, yet take it to personal heart. Speak ill of atheists, and be attacked by atheists, as if some fundamental similarity courses through each of their veins; but what is only shared beneath this or any herd mentality, is the name only.

5.

Nets are for catching fish; after one gets the fish, one forgets the net. Traps are for catching rabbits; after one gets the rabbit, one forgets the trap. Words are for getting meaning; after one gets the meaning, one forgets the words. Where can I find people who have forgotten words, and have a word with them?

— Zhuangzi

The Rectification of Names is the Confucian idea of returning the subject to the subject. It imagines that in order to face reality, to deal with it and ourselves properly, we should return the objectified subjects to their proper names; strip them of their masks and costumes to see who they really are beneath all the decoration; to go back to the reality of the matter through the web of language and misunderstanding that stands before it; to break from the cocoon the butterfly or the moth or whatever lies beneath it no matter what appears; for when we remain underneath these webs we allow ourselves to die a thousand deaths, where perhaps we should die only once.

What reveals a person is not how others process them, but how they process themselves. You can never hide from yourself, and the labels you use will always reflect that. Isn't there a saying...ah, yes: when you judge others, you are in fact defining yourself.

Thank you for yet another critical evaluation of language and its properties as a reflective device.

reply to post by Aphorism

It imagines that in order to face reality, to deal with it and ourselves properly, we should return the objectified subjects to their proper names; strip them of their masks and costumes to see who they really are beneath all the decoration; to go back to the reality of the matter through the web of language and misunderstanding that stands before it; to break from the cocoon the butterfly or the moth or whatever lies beneath it no matter what appears; for when we remain underneath these webs we allow ourselves to die a thousand deaths, where perhaps we should die only once.

Mm.
Profound.
So, if I might ask: what is/are/have been your mask(s) and costume(s)?
Or are you immune to that all-too-human tendency? I know I have worn many. As I get older, I tuck them away.

The moth from the cocoon; the butterfly from the chrysalis....it's metamorphosis. I believe the same happens with souls, from lifetime to lifetime.
Until we're done.....
is it not better that we try to unpeel our own selves, without regard to misshapen wings...than to wait for exterior circumstances to facilitate/expedite the transformation?
It takes a long time and a lot of work, either way.

Everything needs a label

reply to post by Aphorism


All belief systems are forms of control, the naming of them is putting a moniker to an associated collective idealism or a collective tribe / herd. Sometimes for the sake of good sometimes not for good.

The associated psychology has been used in the exploitation of humanity to the brink of destruction, it is the stuff of fear and wars when used negatively and the stuff of safety and peace when used constructively.

The intention behind the labelling is the essential determining factor.

For example, it is wise to advise those that one cares about to avoid those collectively known as ''nazis'', which is constructive labelling.

Other labelling might be less constructive, such as ''non conformist'', ''drop out'', ''conspiracy theorist'' etc for example.

Ideas such as Euclidean, creationist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Communist, Fascist, Liberal, Conservative, Nationalist, ethnic and racial identities, to believing in science, governments and identifying with areas such as cities, countries etc. are all ways of grouping as a collective, sometimes because of individual belief, mostly because of birth and geographical location.

Humanity, whilst having certain tech and knowledge of psychology still hasn't broken free of the shackles of tribalism and identity, yet.

This is probably because identity defines a commonality that, in many ways is natural and a natural means of defense. It is wise not to trust those of beliefs that might vary to those acceptable to ones own belief systems.

For example, the accepted social norms and laws of the land vary with each country, it is wise to be wary of those holding beliefs of another collective that varies to that which is known and accepted.

Though sometimes collective labeling has been brought by egotism and the desire for power by those controlling masses and has exploited humanity in the process.

Until humanity unites under the same ethics and ideals, which involves stripping down that which they hold as their current ideals and agreeing on a set of universal rules, which isn't about to happen, yet anyway, it appears, then getting on as collective ideals will have to do for now.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


I find that our masks and costumes tell a story no less true than the birthday suit lurking underneath. They speak of dreams and fears, doubts and hopes, scars and triumphs. I liken our disguises to a trophy room, where our various efforts and stumbles are made clear for those with the eyes to read.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I liken our disguises to a trophy room, where our various efforts and stumbles are made clear for those with the eyes to read.

Brilliantly expressed.
Just not all people have the eyes to read them.

We are an amalgamation of our various every experience x every thought x every circumstance.....
and although memory is not a reliable guide, it is certainly the stuff of our individual personalities.

Rectification via rectalization of gross objects?
Lovely subject.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs

So, if I might ask: what is/are/have been your mask(s) and costume(s)?
Or are you immune to that all-too-human tendency? I know I have worn many. As I get older, I tuck them away.

I have a costume around me at all times. It shifts and changes according to who I think I am at any given moment. At this point in my life I'm at my given name, and refer to myself by my given name, rather than any particular label.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I find that our masks and costumes tell a story no less true than the birthday suit lurking underneath. They speak of dreams and fears, doubts and hopes, scars and triumphs. I liken our disguises to a trophy room, where our various efforts and stumbles are made clear for those with the eyes to read.

If I could agree with something it would be this statement you've made. Our masks and costumes is art in its purest form. Well said.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


That's quite a fair analysis.

What, in your opinion, is the point of grouping members of a species into a collective according to their beliefs?

Aphorism
reply to post by BuzzyWigs

 

So, if I might ask: what is/are/have been your mask(s) and costume(s)?
Or are you immune to that all-too-human tendency? I know I have worn many. As I get older, I tuck them away.

I have a costume around me at all times. It shifts and changes according to who I think I am at any given moment. At this point in my life I'm at my given name, and refer to myself by my given name, rather than any particular label.

Ha. Ironic. Your name is "definition" and yet you argue against the necessity of labels.

reply to post by Aphorism


I guess the point of grouping together those of a belief system is a natural way of distinguishing groups, things have names for good purpose, and if it weren't for the nouns identifying objects, people, places etc humanity wouldn't have evolved anywhere near as much as it has. Specific details such as names for things are essential to language and function.

Try taking the nouns and descriptive words from any conversation, however banal.

''Look, over there to the South, that building next to the tall tree, adjacent to the Church, that's the restaurant where they sell the great bread, my family eats there every Thursday.''

''Look, over there to the ? that ? next to the ?? adjacent to the ?, that's the ? where they sell the great ?, my ? eats there every ?.''

Words describing groups are just nouns naming a known quantity, known belief, known groups and are just as natural as other nouns.

Yes sometimes nouns come with baggage but hey ho, it's how it is, we have a choice of which words we use and the intonation it comes with, for example ''the #tard'' or ''the idiot'', the ''bible basher'' or the ''Christian''.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Ha. Ironic. Your name is "definition" and yet you argue against the necessity of labels.

Well I'm speaking about the name that was given to me when I was born. I'm not sure where you get "definition" from.

Aphorism
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Ha. Ironic. Your name is "definition" and yet you argue against the necessity of labels.

Well I'm speaking about the name that was given to me when I was born. I'm not sure where you get "definition" from.

You're not?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

I guess the point of grouping together those of a belief system is a natural way of distinguishing groups, things have names for good purpose, and if it weren't for the nouns identifying objects, people, places etc humanity wouldn't have evolved anywhere near as much as it has. Specific details such as names for things are essential to language and function.

My argument was not to say "don't give names to things", but to name things according to what they are in actuality. When we call someone a Christian, we aren't identifying the person, a unique subject with its own thoughts and beliefs, but that we are identifying our own perception of him as an object in our experience.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You're not?

en.wikipedia.org...

I wasn't aware you spoke Greek. I used the english form of the word.

AfterInfinity

Ha. Ironic. Your name is "definition" and yet you argue against the necessity of labels.

Ha. Ironic. Your name is unimportant and your method here is telling.

Aphorism
noun
a terse saying embodying a general truth, or astute observation, as “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

AfterInfinity
You're not?

en.wikipedia.org...

Just curious why you would go to Wiki to define a word...

“For things to reveal themselves to us we need to be ready to abandon our views about them.”
― Thích Nhất Hạnh

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu...