• Vegafjord demcon@lemmy.ml
      2·
      7 hours 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·
        4 hours ago

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

        Might use some help with your use of the word enlightenment, you mean kind of like a light, like how light changes the appearances of matter, an idea like nationalism is cast upon our direct experience I follow what you’re saying about “we aught to remove a word” and finding a new word to replace an old word. Which is all very abstract, I’m not sure who “we” are that is in the position to start making up words, and educating on their meanings. Also there’s always the possibility, probably the inevitability, that these new words will be used against us. Like how the word “woke”, a left wing concept, was turned around on us by the capitalists and the media. Which means, matters of language are not about words but about power. Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony is deeply rooted in the study of language, namely the Florentine dialect and its spread throughout Italy during the Italian Risorgiamento in the mid - late 1800s.

        Coming back to the simile of a spotlight,alls a good comparison that illustrates sort of what I’m talking about, and can be extended in lots of interesting ways. Like, in order to shine a spotlight, you need to have a spotlight, and you need to have power. Light has a source so it is relevant who controls it. I don’t think you missed this per se, but considerations of language and meaning are purely practical.

        • Vegafjord demcon@lemmy.ml
          2·
          5 hours 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·
            4 hours 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·
              1 hour 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.