• Vegafjord demcon@lemmy.ml
    2·
    17 days ago

    To relight is to stop using one word and start using another word.

    It plays on the idea that we can be enlightened about something like nationalism, but that we reckognize that this enlightenment is miscoloring our world, and so we ought to remove this word from our language. However, oftentimes it is not possible to simply remove a word, because it is a word that is used to refer to real world phenomenas, and so we have to find another word that can replace the miscoloring word.

    In this deem, we have unlighted nation and enlightened root, thus relighting away from nation towards root. Think of it like a spotlight that is moved from one word to the other.

    • Juice@midwest.social
      2·
      16 days ago

      Okay…thats helpful. Now do “root” and “upholding the heart of walldoms”. If you don’t mind

      • Vegafjord demcon@lemmy.ml
        2·
        16 days ago

        The “we” are those who are part of an conversational process in determining whether a word is appropriate or not. I’m mainly working in the norwegian language, but experimenting with transferring these images into english.

        With regards to language, I’m sprouted by esperanto which is a language that makes it very easy to understand and make our own words. I’m also sprouted by nynorsk, ivar Aasen and høgnorsk which are traditions within norwegian to make words more poetic.

        One of the guiding beliefs behind my work is that words changes how we relate to our world.

        The goodness of a word

        The way I’m determining whether a word is good is twofold, that which makes it poetic, and that which makes it healthy.

        poetic

        The reason why poetic words are valued by me is for several reasons. They makes learning easier, makes the words easier to spread, makes emotions come accross much more easily, and encourages guardianship for the language.

        Here are the points I follow to make sure the words becomes poetic:

        • Openness - That it is easy to understand the components of a word. A word that is open would be for deem “understand”, because english speakers knows what both “under” and “stand” means. The word “religion” would have less openness because it is not so known that it comes from latin “re”, “leg”, meaning to read again.
        • Soul - That the word is using clear images that maps well upon reality.
        • Flexibility - That the word can be applied even in situations that we did not initially concider. A word like “rich” can be used to denote that somebody has a lot of money, but also that there is abundance of life, or that there is a lot of vitamins.
        • Creation - That the word encourages creation of new words and concepts. I like to reframe “isms” towards “frame” because that way the discovery process feels less boxed in; You could say more intersectional.
        • Merge - The word should merge into the structure of the language culture.

        Healthiness

        This is about understanding how a word is coloring our world, and to what degree it steers us towards our dezired societies. This process is painted by subjectivity, and so what might seem like a compelling argument for some may not be for others.

        A few guiding points to understand whether a word is healthy or not:

        • Is it de-humanizing? Does it take away the humanity of a group of people? Is the word appropriating a culture?
        • Is it cold? Does it prevent us from personal growth? A word like “noob” is a derogatory term for somebody beginning to learn about something, this could be relighted towards “beginner”, but I like to relight it towards “sprout” because that word makes us think of ourselves as plants.
        • Is it leeching? Does the word encourage destructive behaviour? The word “value creation” in context of increasing production, makes us think of overproduction as a good thing although it is killing Gaja.
        • Is it strengthening might? A word like “leader” encourages hierarchical thinking, so relighting it towards a horizontal word would be better. In norwegian the word “los” would be appropriate because it is somebody who is non-coercively helping. That is not to say that leader should be weeded out of our language, but rather that in everyday context, it would be more appropriate to use horizontal words.
        • Does the word divide us up? The normalization of nation-states makes us normalize the nationframe, which makes us think that we are in competition with our neighbors.

        On the flip side we can express these points as their opposites, whether a word is following:

        • Humanity. That we value men over might and machine.
        • Bloom. That we look upon ourselves as growing beings that strive for growth.
        • Samlife: That we live with nature, not against it.
        • Demight: That we take stance against might and machine.
        • Samhold: That we strive for upholding eachother and

        https://slrpnk.net/post/36226957

        • Juice@midwest.social
          2·
          16 days ago

          Thanks for the detailed run-down! You have a very practical application of language construction, and I appreciate your work with this, it’s interesting to me, since I write quite a bit, often trying to communicate social theory to people without a background in social theory. This leads me to do a lot of stuff like taking a passage from late 19th, early 20th c. and then rewriting it in easier language, concisely explain core concepts, demystify clunky philosophy words like “epistemology”, etc., so I’m def familiar with some aspects of “relighting” I think. I don’t usually make up new words for things, but i see some similar considerations between our processes. Just maybe where you start recontexualizing other words into new practical application, I’ll break it up conceptually, using simpler words.

      • Vegafjord demcon@lemmy.ml
        21·
        16 days ago

        When somebody claims authority over an geographic area; The authorities and that which it subjugates is the walldom. The heart of the walldom is where the authorities lies.

        Roots are our sense of origin. The roots are unlike nations not connected to walldoms. One may regard their roots as from where their parents are from. So one could say that a person has roots in Norway and Germany for instance.

        • Juice@midwest.social
          1·
          16 days ago

          Thanks. Where are you getting this from? Or is this your own set of theories? Do you have writing somewhere?

          I edited my comment and then it got kinda long and took a while to finish and now I forget what my original post was. Probably just the first paragraph.

          • GiorgioPerlasca@lemmy.mlOP
            2·
            16 days ago

            The source

            I am not the user you where interacting with, but these ideas can be found in Carl Schmitt in his work The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.

            This is because The Nomos of the Earth provides his most comprehensive exploration of how sovereign authority and geographic space are legally and historically intertwined. The previous comments are about authority’s spatial claim, and this book is precisely where Schmitt develops that idea at length.

            An important fact to know about Carl Schmitt follows:

            In 1933, Schmitt joined the Nazi Party and used his legal and political theories to provide ideological justification for the regime. He held various positions on Nazi councils, including the Prussian State Council and the Academy for German Law, and served as president of the National Socialist Association of Legal Professionals.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

            A counterpoint

            Perhaps the most pointed philosophical counterpoint to the text’s use of “roots” comes from the work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, which was later applied to national identity by the philosopher Édouard Glissant. His seminal work Poetics of Relation has been used by scholars across the world to understand the rapid transformation of a multicultural world.

            They critique the root as a metaphor for a singular, vertical, and exclusionary origin. Glissant argues that nations shouldn’t speak of having “roots,” as this implies one unique ancestral heritage.

            Instead, he champions the image of the rhizome (a plant with a network of interconnected, horizontal roots) because it better captures a multicultural reality where identity is not fixed but is a dynamic, relational, and non-hierarchical network.

            Where the text’s concept of “roots” traces a lineage back to a point of origin, the rhizome celebrates the connections made in the present.

            • Juice@midwest.social
              3·
              16 days ago

              Thank you! I’ve read a little Deleuze, and I have a comrade who bases a lot of their views on Anti-Oedipus and ATP. I’m familiar with the rhizome, but its role as a criticism of “the root” is new, compelling.

              Def appreciate the references, I’ll try and find these sources and acquaint myself with them.