Philosophy Now Forum

The Problem of Nominality


To designate a system by the proper name of its progenitor is to reinstate a nominal history that has never quite belonged to nominality.

We are forced then to return to the meaning of the name: a spontaneous, formal, arbitrary operation that is careful to ensure the eradication of "residues" , "traces", "gestures" of a non-nominal parallel or Alterity.

Alterity allows the nominal limit to conveniently attach itself to its occulted wave or channel. In other words, the sovereign name of all reigning systems- Pentagons and Pentagrams, "Hegelianism", "epistemology", etc- is the sign or de-signation where the name-less allows itself to be erased.Yet we remain- as always- in the sea without water, canals of indecipherability.

1.)We can view the progenitor as The son of the given system or method, ("The Hegelian system" , etc) in the sense that he "receives" its unique configurations.

2.) This son is to the same degree the "giver" or producer of this system, i.e its father.

3.) The name or naming occults the fact that there is none- at least not in the Originary sense where a name would coordinate the sealed and perfectly knowable circuit of knowledge, enclosed within its specific nominal limit?

Nominality recoursing itself to a zero-set, blanks, whites, that cancel out all of the moments of becoming, re-instituting them, and forgetting the anterior mode that authorizes its movements?

The name therefore fails to de-limit not only the collection of signs that constitute a given system, identity, or address, but it equally guises and endarkens its symmetrical inverse: the non-nominal abyss or other-nominality.

Alterity, (that is) broken away from the nomininal at the very moment of inscription, is hence unable to fully sublate itself into the procession of references, sets, nomen, manifestations,deities, and all the complex and opposing terms spawned from this lexicon.

What you wrote seems interesting. I only have a BA in philosophy so my confusion might be due to a lack of knowledge. However, I graduated with a B+ average. I learned to read a text,translate it into working man's english,write my answer in working man's english ,translate that into academic language and then turn that in.
I discovered that many things that sound profound, when translated into working man's english are facile. For example," Political alienation is predicated upon economic stratification " simply means that poor people lack political power.
As I said at the top of this post what you wrote seems interesting. However, I am having a problem fully comprehending. Perhaps, you could write a working man's version?
PS; Please forgive any sloppy grammar. I have big fat fingers and am using a tablet.

raw_thought wrote:What you wrote seems interesting. I only have a BA in philosophy so my confusion might be due to a lack of knowledge. However, I graduated with a B+ average. I learned to read a text,translate it into working man's english,write my answer in working man's english ,translate that into academic language and then turn that in.
I discovered that many things that sound profound, when translated into working man's english are facile. For example," Political alienation is predicated upon economic stratification " simply means that poor people lack political power.
As I said at the top of this post what you wrote seems interesting. However, I am having a problem fully comprehending. Perhaps, you could write a working man's version?
PS; Please forgive any sloppy grammar. I have big fat fingers and am using a tablet.

His language consists of hegelisms. There is a flaw in the english language that doesn't adequately serve the purposes of deep talk or consciousness talk.

In short, we can only really enter this text if we are already on its track or path.

For the "key" to its "cryptic" nature resides in certain historical moments since Derrida and Heidegger, moments that are profound, diffuse and massive

Montgomery77 wrote: To designate a system by the proper name of its progenitor is to reinstate a nominal history that has never quite belonged to nominality.

You can't re-instate something until after it's been enstated and deposed. Designating a system by the name of its progenitor is Phase 1. Demonstrate Phases 2 and 3, and then we can decide about the nominal history and establish its ownership.

Once we've done that to everyone's satisfaction, we can move on to your more abstruse points.

Skip wrote:

Montgomery77 wrote: To designate a system by the proper name of its progenitor is to reinstate a nominal history that has never quite belonged to nominality.

You can't re-instate something until after it's been enstated and deposed. Designating a system by the name of its progenitor is Phase 1. Demonstrate Phases 2 and 3, and then we can decide about the nominal history and establish its ownership.

Once we've done that to everyone's satisfaction, we can move on to your more abstruse points.

Yes, I too have constant re-course to grammar and syntax. I sometimes simplify my language to save us from a total "Montgomery" reading of nominality- but if we must :

we can indeed speak of de-instating or hyper-stating other "history of naming "( the opening, "true name of god" in the empty spaces, Aletheia, trace) that follows an extreme logic in the slanted nucleus or outside-border of historical, seminal, Originary "naming".

Explosions of the concept "nomen", "phase" (n)ONE, foundation, core, progenitor ,etc- "founded" upon this phase (n)one where "names name not".
The other phases, no longer sure of themselves, are phased out into this (n)one (note: both "one" and none) phase that requires a new type of analysis or "study of that which does not occur"(Nontology)

Speaking of names I find the shape of the runes quite intriguing. For example "S" is a Smooth, Sexy, Sensual and Seductive Sine wave. H is a Hard Bargain, the Hearth, the Heart, a Place a Point to call Home, Henry is a He, Heaven and Hell, does Hook Make a Mother's Moving Song Feel Fun and Grounded?

Oh. Well, that's clear as mud. As you were.

I think that Montgomery is saying that meaning =puns.
That was a working man's translation of his academese.

Humans are a primitive people. We rely on metaphors to explain the unexplainable. Without extremes, many people could not understand any kind of morality at all. Sickening really. Thus we get this fake utopia of false morality simply because people do not experience the extremes and the parables of their idiocy.

"A proper name is a word that answers the purpose of showing what thing it is that we are talking about, but not of telling anything about it"
John Stuart Mill, in " A system of logic" ( 1,ii.5)

The relationship between the signified and the signifier is arbitrary
Derrida.

Where is the problem?

The problem is that that shows that words are meaningless. Note there is a difference between meaning and purpose. Words serve a purpose.

I think that for Mill proper names were not descriptive enough. That's what I gather from the quote used earlier.

Nominating holds massive political power.
In the UK we have a new Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn (JC), who is on the left politically similar to Bernie Sanders in the USA.
And although he has massive public support, and a record majority of support amongst the membership and supporters, the MP in Parliament are behind the times and still have the values of Tony Blair.
The Media have decided to nominate JC as 'the left-wing leader of the Labour Party", and his MPs who are rebelling as "Moderates".
In this way the right wing press have attempted to set the agenda by defining them by their own rubric.

In truth JC's policies are what I would call centrist, and propose little more than some government investment, taking back control of utilities, and to attempt to chase people for tax to close the £120 billion that is avoided and evaded.

There have been moves to nominate the David Cameron the current PM as the "right-wing PM, for the sake of balance.