Etymologies old and new
Aug. 15th, 2025 12:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
idonttakethislightly posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
conceptuality"Text" derives from the Latin word "texere";, meaning "to weave"- proving that there's a long history of associating threads with thoughts. Following that metaphor, you take individual thoughts and weave them into a text(ile). It's an interesting image- but personally, my conceptuality works less with the metaphor of weaving (threads crisscrossed to make fabric) and more with twining (threads wrapped around each other to make thicker threads.)
Under the cut, find a lot of etymological rumination, some explanation of how my keystone represents my worldview, and eventually my answer togossamer_musings's prompt for us to suggest alternative names for new conceptfolk vocabulary.
(CW: mentions of Christianity)
As a person, I have many smaller threads that make up my overall self. Some threads are memories of where I've been, some are lessons or skills I've learned over time, some are relationships that have shaped who I am.
Words aren't so different, really. "Text" has a memory- looking it up on etymonline.com, I learned that it traveled from Latin to French to English. "Text" has learned lessons- it used to specifically mean "Gospels" or "Scripture", but Western society has moved past the attitude that only books worth making were Christian, and "text" has shifted its focus to keep up with the times. "Text" has learned new skills as well, and learned fast- apparently the first recorded use of "texting someone" was 2005, but by now that usage sounds natural and effortless.
And "text" has relationships too- it connects with other words to create entirely new concepts. "Text" and "book" were introduced long ago and teamed up to make "textbook", which means something else than just "a book containing text". Also, "text" is unlikely friends with "picture", in that "I'll text you that picture" doesn't make any literal sense- but in our modern world, "texting pictures" is such a useful idea that it makes perfect sense in context. (Con-text.)
All this to say that every word is a thread, and every thread is a rich, complex bundle of other threads... so much of the world exists just below perception. But on some level, I think the connections are there, and they matter. Some people (like me) hear words like "textile" and "texture" and their inner voice immediately blurts out, "Wait, like text?" Most people don't surface that to consciousness, but I think (or I'd like to think) the shared sounds echo somewhere deep inside them, creating a thread of relationship, no matter how thin.
And now I can explain why I especially appreciate Julian's prompt, "Propose alternative names for any of the new vocabulary, if you can think of any. Let’s see which stick!" As I showed with "text", the true complexities of language get buried over time as words become commonplace. But as you're coining a word (or maybe spinning it? Twining meanings together?) it's all still fresh. You're working with all those complexities right at the surface, closer to it all than you tend to be otherwise.
It's fascinating! It's also complicated and finicky, especially when you're trying to weave in use cases you personally have not lived. So I think it's great that Julian's put forth aer definitions as starting points for conversation. Here's my personal reactions- though of course, if the original post here was just the first word in the conversation, this is only the next.
I like these as words! They're simple, straightforward, and easy to make sense of. The defintion is very general and abstract though- I understand the advantages of avoiding specific examples in a definition itself, but it really helped me understand when people started sharing their examples of conceptuality. I guess that's a project for the ongoing community though, not the definition itself, so I'd say the definition works as-is.
I don't have strong feelings about how you're using those three words, but that's because I don't connect to any one of them. When you said it could either be a trinary or an opening to even more frameworks, I'm strongly on the side of "even more frameworks". My framework is- my worldview, my understanding of meaning-making, is entirely based in the thread metaphor. I am a thread, but from my perspective, everyone and everything is a thread. If I am "alternately human", it's less about who I am, and more about my model of reality, or maybe my reality-modeling process. (I'm actually not sure that I have a truly non-normative reality model, but reasonably confident that I have a lot to learn from other conceptfolk, and hopeful that I have something to share.)
Anyway. There is precedent, in orthohuman culture, for thinking about your worldview/reality model. "Core values", "root metaphor", "framework", and even "worldview" itself are ways people approach that topic. I don't have a strong attachment to any of those in particular, but if anyone else likes one of those, or has other ideas, I'm all ears.
I'm more accustomed to using "embodiment" to mean "your somatic experience of having a body and your (dis)identification with those experiences," rather than "the choices you make to express your keystone and channel its energy into the world". It's a word with a lot of potential meanings though, and the making-choices version is certainly one of them! So it's not a word that resonates with me immediately, but I can see myself adapting and getting comfortable with it.
"Concepttype" just feels awkward to me- the double "tt" makes it a weird word to type and speak. I like "keystone" a lot better- it sounds nicer, plus it has some metaphorical resonance- and I think it works perfectly well as a replacement in all the places where you've written "concepttype".
For "keystone"- I like how you emphasize the idea of an organizing principle. That aligns well with how I feel, and also seems to fit a lot of what others said during the panel. Domain, lens, and role are also great ways to think about a keystone, and it'd be cool to see those elaborated on to the extent that keystones as organizing principles were.
This was my absolute favorite part of the essay because it's a perfect description of something I've experienced so many times, and never seen spoken about before. The description is excellent, the naming is excellent, no notes.
No, I'm not shutting up yet. One more thing- I've been thinking about how I could rework these coinings (twinings!) to fit neatly into my conceptual threadness. Not necessarily for communication purposes- I'm happy to use shared vocabulary talking to others, I think that's useful. But for my own sake, as someone whose conceptuality is a worldview, I'm finding it interesting to try and translate the concepts as a form of self reflection. What I've got so far:
Anyway! Those are my thoughts. Again, I'm excited to hear if anyone else has thoughts about the language Julian proposed- in case you can't tell, this is exactly my kind of thing.
Under the cut, find a lot of etymological rumination, some explanation of how my keystone represents my worldview, and eventually my answer to
gossamer_musings's prompt for us to suggest alternative names for new conceptfolk vocabulary.(CW: mentions of Christianity)
As a person, I have many smaller threads that make up my overall self. Some threads are memories of where I've been, some are lessons or skills I've learned over time, some are relationships that have shaped who I am.
Words aren't so different, really. "Text" has a memory- looking it up on etymonline.com, I learned that it traveled from Latin to French to English. "Text" has learned lessons- it used to specifically mean "Gospels" or "Scripture", but Western society has moved past the attitude that only books worth making were Christian, and "text" has shifted its focus to keep up with the times. "Text" has learned new skills as well, and learned fast- apparently the first recorded use of "texting someone" was 2005, but by now that usage sounds natural and effortless.
And "text" has relationships too- it connects with other words to create entirely new concepts. "Text" and "book" were introduced long ago and teamed up to make "textbook", which means something else than just "a book containing text". Also, "text" is unlikely friends with "picture", in that "I'll text you that picture" doesn't make any literal sense- but in our modern world, "texting pictures" is such a useful idea that it makes perfect sense in context. (Con-text.)
All this to say that every word is a thread, and every thread is a rich, complex bundle of other threads... so much of the world exists just below perception. But on some level, I think the connections are there, and they matter. Some people (like me) hear words like "textile" and "texture" and their inner voice immediately blurts out, "Wait, like text?" Most people don't surface that to consciousness, but I think (or I'd like to think) the shared sounds echo somewhere deep inside them, creating a thread of relationship, no matter how thin.
And now I can explain why I especially appreciate Julian's prompt, "Propose alternative names for any of the new vocabulary, if you can think of any. Let’s see which stick!" As I showed with "text", the true complexities of language get buried over time as words become commonplace. But as you're coining a word (or maybe spinning it? Twining meanings together?) it's all still fresh. You're working with all those complexities right at the surface, closer to it all than you tend to be otherwise.
It's fascinating! It's also complicated and finicky, especially when you're trying to weave in use cases you personally have not lived. So I think it's great that Julian's put forth aer definitions as starting points for conversation. Here's my personal reactions- though of course, if the original post here was just the first word in the conversation, this is only the next.
Conceptuality/conceptfolk
I like these as words! They're simple, straightforward, and easy to make sense of. The defintion is very general and abstract though- I understand the advantages of avoiding specific examples in a definition itself, but it really helped me understand when people started sharing their examples of conceptuality. I guess that's a project for the ongoing community though, not the definition itself, so I'd say the definition works as-is.
Metaphorical/sentimental/literal alterhumanity
I don't have strong feelings about how you're using those three words, but that's because I don't connect to any one of them. When you said it could either be a trinary or an opening to even more frameworks, I'm strongly on the side of "even more frameworks". My framework is- my worldview, my understanding of meaning-making, is entirely based in the thread metaphor. I am a thread, but from my perspective, everyone and everything is a thread. If I am "alternately human", it's less about who I am, and more about my model of reality, or maybe my reality-modeling process. (I'm actually not sure that I have a truly non-normative reality model, but reasonably confident that I have a lot to learn from other conceptfolk, and hopeful that I have something to share.)
Anyway. There is precedent, in orthohuman culture, for thinking about your worldview/reality model. "Core values", "root metaphor", "framework", and even "worldview" itself are ways people approach that topic. I don't have a strong attachment to any of those in particular, but if anyone else likes one of those, or has other ideas, I'm all ears.
Embodiment
I'm more accustomed to using "embodiment" to mean "your somatic experience of having a body and your (dis)identification with those experiences," rather than "the choices you make to express your keystone and channel its energy into the world". It's a word with a lot of potential meanings though, and the making-choices version is certainly one of them! So it's not a word that resonates with me immediately, but I can see myself adapting and getting comfortable with it.
Keystone and concepttype
"Concepttype" just feels awkward to me- the double "tt" makes it a weird word to type and speak. I like "keystone" a lot better- it sounds nicer, plus it has some metaphorical resonance- and I think it works perfectly well as a replacement in all the places where you've written "concepttype".
For "keystone"- I like how you emphasize the idea of an organizing principle. That aligns well with how I feel, and also seems to fit a lot of what others said during the panel. Domain, lens, and role are also great ways to think about a keystone, and it'd be cool to see those elaborated on to the extent that keystones as organizing principles were.
Conceptual starvation
This was my absolute favorite part of the essay because it's a perfect description of something I've experienced so many times, and never seen spoken about before. The description is excellent, the naming is excellent, no notes.
Final thoughts
No, I'm not shutting up yet. One more thing- I've been thinking about how I could rework these coinings (twinings!) to fit neatly into my conceptual threadness. Not necessarily for communication purposes- I'm happy to use shared vocabulary talking to others, I think that's useful. But for my own sake, as someone whose conceptuality is a worldview, I'm finding it interesting to try and translate the concepts as a form of self reflection. What I've got so far:
- Keystone = Throughline. The big overall thread made up of all the little details of myself. Individual threads might weave and tangle, but there's an overall defined direction.
- Conceptual hunger = "hanging by a thread" or "threadbare" or "about to snap" or something like that. You know, how a thread wears down over time and gets thin and fragile. I need new threads to weave into my identity, but if I can't find them, it starts to break me down.
Anyway! Those are my thoughts. Again, I'm excited to hear if anyone else has thoughts about the language Julian proposed- in case you can't tell, this is exactly my kind of thing.
This is EXCELLENT
Date: 2025-08-16 07:22 pm (UTC)Regarding conceptuality: truthfully, as there is no community, it is difficult to define conceptuality in a non-abstract way. If you'd like examples of who might fit under the term, but that's not quite what you're asking for. I think, if and while this community grows, we can craft a better definition together. But at it's core, conceptuality is like fictionality, the quality of being or having a conceptual experience.
Regarding the trinary: please add more words! These were mostly tools to get away from the definition of otherkin/therianthropy being to identify as something, and otherheartedness meaning to identify with something. Seeing as conceptfolk may fit neither of those categories, as may other people, I wanted to propose a reframing that didn't lock people into a specific mode of being, but rather functioned as tools to analyze their alterhumanity with.
Embodiment: The specific reason I chose this word is that I am often dissociated, and in moments of connection with my keystone I feel more embodied and real than I usually do. So it was intentionally done. To me, embodiment--in this context--is the ongoing process, as well as the moments, of being/becoming more real/more myself.
Keystone and concepttype: I'm not a fan of concepttype myself, but this is drawn from broader community language, the closest example being my fictotype and my fictomere. I think the distinction is useful for those who have a concepttype and a keystone distinct from it. This is true for me. I would say my concepttypes are dragon and storyteller, while my keystone is illumination. For others, this may be one and the same, but the terminology is flexible exactly for this reason.
I chose 'keystone' as the term for the organizing principle of someone's conceptuality because of its definition in architecture. A keystone is the highest central stone of an arch, without which the whole thing would come crumbling down. I love this, not only because it emphasizes the centrality of the keystone, but also because it creates a doorway through which to walk.
In my original esssay, I actually favoured the word 'lodestone' for this concept, which is a type of early compass. Throughline, compass, north star, guiding light, lense--all good words. I would favour having a common one in use in communal writings, but also choosing a word that makes sense for you specifically. Throughline is a great example, and I really love how relevant it is to your conceptuality!
All in all, I love your endeavour to shape the vocabulary I set out to make more sense to you. I think more people should do so. I chose the words that make sense to me as community words, because I could not think of anything better (for my situation).
Re: This is EXCELLENT
Date: 2025-08-16 09:45 pm (UTC)I like what you said about how the literal, sentimental, metaphorical terms were meant to give people tools for analysis, rather than locking them into one mode. Seeing those words as possible lenses, not exclusive boxes, gives me context I needed to understand some things I'd heard people at the Othercon panel say about using multiple of those terms at different times. (I've been really big into the idea of words as "Lenses Not Boxes" recently- I got it from social media here and it's been rolling around my head ever since.)
At the time I wrote this post, I think I'd missed or overlooked the part of your essay where you explain the difference between your concepttypes and your keystone. Looking back, it seems like your concepttypes (storyteller, draconic, possibly phytanthrope) are nouns/beings/entities, and your keystone (illumination) is a verb/purpose/practice? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting, of course! But now that I think about it, I feel like a noun/verb kind of distinction might be useful for me whether it's applicable to you or not.
Re: This is EXCELLENT
Date: 2025-08-19 04:05 pm (UTC)The noun/verb distinction is indeed useful for me. I hesitate to apply it to everyone, so we'll see how the language evolves, but it was intentionally done. What kind of distinction would be useful to you?
Re: This is EXCELLENT
Date: 2025-08-19 08:18 pm (UTC)Noun/verb are a useful distinction to me, but I think you're right that applying "noun is concepttype, verb is keystone" across the board is kind of an imposition. I do feel like "noun" and "verb" as the terms themselves are kind of lackluster, and they're just really common words that people might not realize are specialized terminology. I don't have any ideas what words I'd prefer, but I'll keep thinking about it, and it would be great to hear anyone else's ideas if you have them!