Most of us, given a choice between chaos and naming, between catastrophe and cliché, would choose naming. Most of us see this as a zero sum game—as if there were no third place to be: something without a name is commonly thought not to exist.
From the whole reading this part seems to me interesting as well as a little bit confusing. The four choices author gave us between "chaos and naming, catastrophe and cliche" should have connection between each other and author did not explain what is the connection and why would he choose these four options. In addition, I did not like that author gave choices that "most of us" will choose, as well as he gave the choice for "us". I think in this part he did not want to go into details and wrote everything generally. The question I am left in this part is: if something without a name is commonly thought not to exist, then how do you now about this "something" if it does not exist?