Hi,

I'm still working on this phonoaesthetic schema for naming planets. I have a sort of fundamental ontological question. It is this: Might my aim be to reflect sensory human experience, or to show what exists logically? I'll try to explain what I mean with an example not to be taken as particularly significant..

Let's say a planet is notable for being hot. Let's call it Planet "Heat". "Heat" is a word that just sounds sizzling when it's pronounced. Now let's say another is Planet "Cold". "Cold" to my ear sounds cutting and draining. These words both reflect to some degree an immediate sensation and possibly action resulting from contacting something very hot or very cold respectively.

Now let's think about the actual phenomena. It is often said that cold is just the absence of heat - molecular kinetics. It could be as easily said that molecular kinetics is the absence of molecular stability, but that just doesn't sound as true to experience. We expect things stationary until disturbed. We see kinetic energy as additional to a common and predictable zero state.

So, following this convention, instead of Planet Cold, we will say Planet No-Heat. Let's say the sound "No" is representative of a negative void. In that case, No-Heat means "void from emanating molecular kinetics". What we have lost is the immediate sensation of "Cold", and in its place we are actually instantiating its opposite, "Heat", as we negate it.

So, what do you think: Planet "Cold" or Planet "No-Heat"? And what about for other concepts?