Nomenclature and identity.

[Not half- but whole!]

I am in the process of writing a novel. It is centered on the idea of identity, nomenclature, and perception. I am mired in some details and thought I would bounce about some of the concepts to see what perspectives might be out there. A preemptive thanks to all those that share their thoughts and opinions..

 

1. Does terminology (eg nomenclature) influence identity? For example, The title of my work is Bye-Bye Pluto, based on Pluto's demotion from planetary status. Does this shift fundamentally alter what Pluto is/was?

I feel that identity is essentially static for inanimate objects. It gets a bit trickier for animate objects, which leads to the second question.

 

2. Along the same lines, does perception alter identity? Is identity defined by the group or the individual?

 

This is where i begin to wander and waver on ideas. Identity seems to be taught or passed down almost like memes. With reasonably high accuracy in reproduction (a chair today is most likely a chair to a Roman). I delve into the sanity issue, where my protagonist is perceived as insane, while actually the events that he is experiencing are actually occurring. Does the group identification of the individual come into meaning or is it the individual's?

[LJP07]

 

1. Does terminology (eg nomenclature) influence identity? For example, The title of my work is Bye-Bye Pluto, based on Pluto's demotion from planetary status. Does this shift fundamentally alter what Pluto is/was?

I feel that identity is essentially static for inanimate objects. It gets a bit trickier for animate objects, which leads to the second question.

 

2. Along the same lines, does perception alter identity? Is identity defined by the group or the individual?

 

This is where i begin to wander and waver on ideas. Identity seems to be taught or passed down almost like memes. With reasonably high accuracy in reproduction (a chair today is most likely a chair to a Roman). I delve into the sanity issue, where my protagonist is perceived as insane, while actually the events that he is experiencing are actually occurring. Does the group identification of the individual come into meaning or is it the individual's?

 

As regards Pluto's demotion, it does affect it in terms of literature in that articles must be re-written to identify Pluto as being a non-planetary body. Of course though, it hasn't changed what Pluto is or was, it depends on what people you ask. For example, Greek people into Mythology will not read into the demotion most likely and will still treat it as a worthy planet due to the mythological associations Pluto has had, similar to Roman mythology and their planets in question.

 

From the people I have spoken to, they all believe that Pluto should not have been demoted and they claim " They will still treat it as a planet ", this doesn't affect Pluto therefore, only the literary context that astronomers have put on it to just change the main status of it. I agree that identity does remain static for inanimate objects because they have long-term historical contexts that would be very difficult to just orally remove.

 

Nomenclature does affect objects to a certain extent although as usual, I think it depends on a number of factors:

 

(i) What is the object?

(ii) Is it animate or inanimate?

(iii) What Cultural Context does it inhabit?

(iv) Does it have deep historical roots?

(v) How does it affect people overall if any, their values and opinions?

 

I don't think you can have a definitive answer but a wide-ranging perspective on it. Me personally won't be affected by any terminology "attached" because I have my own personal values and opinions that are above but certainly not exclusive in everyones mind. Alternatively, there may be people who "follow the rules" so to speak and have absolutely no attachment with the object so will be affected overall although depending on the object it may be in the majority or minority as usual. So terminology in my opinion doesn't have a major effect on peoples opinion, as people regard their own opinion higher than any other authority.

 

Regarding the second question, it's the peoples own view that counts. If you had 10,000 people, and 5,000 believed in one outcome/belief, 3,500 believed in a similar outcome/belief and 1,500 had a completely different opinion, the group forms a wall of 8,500 which is perceived as a group although there are only 3 possible reasonable outcomes so individual opinion appears to group although it's actually individual. These beliefs/outcomes will reproduce in families and will be passed on and become accepted with society, the example being the chair as you have mentioned.

 

Good questions though.