1) Naming (something) is {creating} a [copy of something]. 2) The copy has an independent existence.

Just realized 2 things:
1) Naming (something) is {creating} a [copy of something].
The concept of “copy” is broad and a bit vague.
An identical copy can perfectly substitute in nearly every way except usually age. But age can be faked as it’s “wear and tear” and a snapshot in time can be copied. A famous example of a custom Chinese suit maker that for a price will perfectly copy a favorite old suit, right down to the wear patterns in the elbows. Even there it’s a functionally perfect copy – at a certain SCALE (the one the wearer paid for).
A photocopy or a photograph, drawing or video/film is a surface copy, good at capturing surface features as expressed by color and shading differences and the appearance of outlines at a particular moment from a particular view, with video/film able to express that more times and put together in a sequence that can show surface changes.
These are maps of “something”. The copy-of-something is a map. A map is a copy.
You can also create a model, out of moving objects (where a smaller copy works in 3D) or on a computer (where a numeric simulation of a kind is displayed on a flat screen, similar to a movie/video) or in description (where it works in imagination) and in those cases, a simplification of the inner motions of the “something” are often copied, with some copies also copying surface appearances with mechanics inside, some only surface appearances, some only a copy of purported mechanics.
A dictionary / glossary of terms is an example of description models, where a model copy is created in your imagination from the words used to define (definition, outline, circumscribe, objectify) it.
2) The copy has an independent existence.
The copy does NOT have to fully resemble or be tied to the original once it is created.
In fact, it often (perhaps usually) takes a LOT of work to attempt to synchronize an original with any kind of its copy.
The aspect that clicked in is the ALMOST fully independent existence of the copies.
Even with ‘words’, which are at a level where the ‘material’ its constructed of is of the same substance, you can say “Something=Name-A” and right from the start they are already not fully copies. Even if’s “NameA=NameA”, they have a difference of position that you can distinguish them from each other if you like: it’s just missing in “NameA=NameA”:
NameA[LeftOf=], NameA[RightOf=]
You can _say_ they are the same, which we do with names quite often. But if you can refer to them distinctly from each other, they are not the same.
So, naming creates a model that is distinct from that which it is naming.
We may say “it is just a label – would a rose by any other name still smell as sweet?” and it’s a fine philosophy. I recommend it.
But since words can turn into plans
and plans can turn into procedures
and procedures can turn into motor actions,
naming creating a copy with a life of its own can be physically dangerous, particularly when the model created in the imagination by the naming is felt as a threat by the imaginer
Just realized:
1) Naming (something) is {creating} a [copy of something].
2) The copy has an independent existence.
This can be dangerous, particularly when the model (copy) created in the imagination is seen to be a threat by the imaginer.
Naming is powerful. Because naming can turn into plans. Plans into procedures. Procedures into motor actions.
It is a copy being acted with, but what starts as a phantom becomes enacted.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seven × = 49

Leave a Reply