Monday, June 20, 2016

Names To Build & Destroy (Naming of Parts)


A long time ago, man gave names to all the animals and Bob Dylan sang about it. Then he, that is, the man, was named Ish, and she, the woman, was named Ishah. Then he named many other things, murdering and making as he went. He decided to build a tower to heaven but ended up with too many tongues, and had to name all those things again. And again and again.

It was self-evident even in the days of Noah that you had to give things names if you were going to make them. It was also kind of obvious, although they didn't really talk about it, that you could destroy already-made things by making up other names. You could use names to break things into pieces, or at least to stop them from doing what they were made to do.

As the apprentice coder said, "Suppose I have a struct list, and I want to provide a 'constructor' and a 'destructor' function. Is there an established naming convention that is predominant in the real world?"



Well, as far as structing goes, you can name to construct or name to destruct. That's how naming works.

The name of the slain man of Israel, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri the son of Salu, chief of a father's house belonging to the Simeonites. And the name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi the daughter of Zur, who was the tribal head of a father's house in Midian. (Years ago I wrote a poem set in the day Zimri was killed and archived it here.)

Today, instead of Nimrod Mighty Hunter Before The Lord or Zimri son of Salu, we have this is not a pipe, and we have Freud, although Freud has not been good enough at his own game to stay relevant. I met a real freudian the other day. Seriously. Like in real life. First time, as far as I know. This remarkable event made me think of this video, because my secret wishes influence my judgments of freudians. Today what passes for thinking is simply labeling things. This is that is complex thought.


Bulverism is not only the logical fallacy of explaining that someone is wrong by explaining that they want to believe what they believe. It is the art and fallacy of labeling, of naming just a part, or labeling another thing, or mislabeling the thing, of bringing out a donkey in a lion's skin and calling it Aslan. By the way, you only believe in the donkey because you need to believe in a god.

According to Henry Reed, who lost the romance in the same war Randall Jarrell did, yesterday we had daily cleaning and today we have naming of parts.

Today we have naming of parts. Yesterday, 
We had daily cleaning. And tomorrow morning, 
We shall have what to do after firing. But today, 
Today we have naming of parts. Japonica 
Glistens like coral in all the neighboring gardens, 
And today we have naming of parts. 

This is the lower sling swivel. And this 
Is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see, 
When you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel, 
Which in your case you have not got. The branches 
Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures, 
Which in our case we have not got.

This is the beginning of the end. This is naming to break apart. The fulfillment of the lower sling swivel can be found in its name. It is the lower sling swivel. But if we fixate on the naming of parts, we begin to lose our own names. We might even begin to believe that a lower sling swivel has a life and a purpose on its own, all alone, all all alone, when in fact it is meant to live in community with the piling swivel, the bolt, and the trigger guard.

Acronyms are names that destroy. The makers of ideas never make up acronyms or shorthand for their profound ideas. That is left to the detractors and dismissers, who prefer to name the parts, and not the whole.

Incest is Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA). The (GSA) is important. (GSA) makes it indisputably a thing, and a thing that breaks incest. Incest can never be the same thing is was before GSA came along; the name was made to break the thing.

Can you believe I haven't used the word reification yet.

Here's a link to a Genetic Sexual Attraction story. The headline: "A Woman Describes Her Sexual Relationship With Her Estranged Father". The byline: "Genetic Sexual Attraction is a phenomenon more prevalent than you'd think. Science of Us found one woman's story". The crown jewel: "We are so similar so it’s so easy to sexually please each other. For example, we both hate neck-biting." The moral of the story: "The entire interview is very, very much worth reading. It’s uncomfortable — but it’ll make you consider just why that is."

This is not that. This is that. This is not incest, it is not rape. This is two adults, two grown-ups, two individuals, just making the decisions that will make them happy. It is two parts that in the old context would never be inserted into each other taking ownership of their names. One is a bolt, the other a lower sling swivel. Those are the names that matter. The name "rifle" matters no longer in the naming of parts. Nor does incest. It's called Genetic Sexual Attraction, and your mind must let go of old names and engage, yes, truly
engage in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of the name:
the ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular name
Genetic Sexual Attraction.

But what does it mean? What is GSA? What is NAMBLA? What is LGBQ? What is LGBQT+? Something effanineffable, and you are remarkably insensitive not to grant the effanineffable truth. I engaged in rapt contemplation, and I am ready to identify the label, the name. I identify as Genetically & Sexually Attracted. This is the way love wins.

What is love? It is a part. Like a penis, or a heart.

Sometimes you are a penis, or a heart, at which point you cease to be man. But almost no one is just a penis. Most males are a combination of parts, penis, heart, kidneys, liver, house, dog, wife, kids. This is just naming of parts. It is not the man. There is no man.

He can leave his wife and his children, his house and his dog. They are not part of him, they other parts of other things. His name will not allow them to be part of him. He was never a vital piece of a bolt-action rifle. All along he was always simply a bolt. That is all anyone ever is, a simple piece.

It is enough that neither of us likes neck-biting. In fact, the fact that neither of us likes neck-biting is all we have in this world. We were not made for a thing, still less were we made man and woman for a thing. There is no reason for this, except perhaps to masturbate together before we die.

And why would you be so cruel as to wish to deny me that? I told you that I am only a part. I am naming the part, and that named part is all I am. I am not a man. I am a gay man. No, I am a female man. No, rather, I am a woman. Or part of me is. The important part. And this makes sense, because we are parts. My penis is a part. My womanhood is a part. My job is a part. My identity is a part. If this seems nebulous, that is the way of the ineffable effable effanineffable naming of parts.

"I am a man" is a meaningless statement. "A man" means nothing. The idea that the sum of parts was greater than the whole is gone. But once "man" meant things. A man was never simply a male. A man was never simply a father. A man was never simply a worker. A man was a man, and was many things.

But the destroyers named all the parts, and we served created things instead of the creators. (Let us not even bring the Creator into this; we have not only worshiped men, we have worshiped things men made.) Created things are constructs. Everyone in all of time knew that, but no one in history had any problem with it until people tried to make constructs work as gods. Now we are named apart. When we are slaughtered, we are queer lives, not human lives, because human means nothing now. We have named it apart.

Christians have names. The world is charged with meaning. Felix is a name, and it means "happy", "blessed". We name up. We name to build. Because you have fought with God and with man and have won. Because I will make you the father of many nations. Because she was the mother of all the living. Because he will save the people from all their sins. Christians name things, too, but all the names are supposed to take things to where they're going.

And, in fact, all the names do take things to where they're going. Which is why we must not use satanic names, wordly names. Man gave names to all the animals. Then he fell. Then Man came again, and this time he was perfect. And he and his people are naming all the things and dragging them to the end of all things. Naming is part of baptism and we must baptize the world. We must speak with the Water of Life. We must speak baptism and gospel, and the world must hate us for it. A man is not simply a man, but a man certainly is a man. And we must proclaim the good news of the Perfect Man, whom God has exalted and given a name that is above all names, even if the world kills us for it.

We cannot allow ourselves to talk like the naming of parts is true. We must talk like the Kingdom of Heaven is here and real, and that the new Adam is busy naming all things new and true.


No comments:

Post a Comment