tonight's talk
Jun. 17th, 2016 02:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kendraticmethodWhat are names? We think of them merely as labels. It would make no difference if James were named John or Sue was named Jane. They are just arbitrary conventions which we go wtih from inertia.
Except we know a lot of stuff contradicting this.
There's the whole thing that giving children markedly unusual names generally leads to non trivially poorer life outcomes.
There's the fact that people with short names are liked better than people with long names.
There's the ethnic component of names in multiethnic societies and the assumptions and baggage that goes with that.
The majority of names literally have meanings and we literally mostly do not care about this.
Then we edge into matters on the border of substance: how names are chosen to invoke the examples of dead people. Or how Jews choose a new name after nearly dying. Or how reputation influences our performance (we do worse as we get more famous, if anything reminds us of this fact).
So now, doesn't the Jewish refusal to try and depersonalize all the Caananite names ascribed to their deity take on a deeper significance? Unlike the figure in other sacred stories, the Jews want there to be no trace of influence save for what their mystic tradition says, as pure principle discovered through contemplation of their invisible, inefffable deity.
They want to emphasize how apart their divine source is from everything. What a unique position that power occupies compared to "that which is worshipped as divine".
The wording in the commandment can also imply that instead of "taking" the verb could well be "carrying". This is totally in agreement with the passages in some prayers.
-"Have mercy on us, for we bear Your great Name" (Blessings of the Dawn).
- The reference in Anim Zemirot to the divine name engraved on the anthropomorphicized forehead...and the fact humans are made in the divine image",
-"Our father, our king, we bear your great name, abandon us not" from the Monday or Thursday meditations for Tachanun.
I wish could rediscover the reference for the following idea. An author comments that it's not just that the Jews are "slaves of God" but there's evidence they are _possessions_ of God. (This agrees with the Orthodox wording on the first verse of the Amidah) So God's name is thus an innate identifying mark upon all of them.
So within the Covenant there's a sense that the boundary between the Jews and their deity is a blurry one. (Which makes sense, given "Israel" means "one who wrestles with _gods_ _and_ men"...which otherwise is an outrageously casual grouping.(I'm aware the language admits of more than one translation here, but afaik this is a valid reading?) )
And then there's the element of reputation. Scripture and prayer are full of references to the idea that the reputation attached to a person is extremely important. That the reputation attached to God is even more important.
The phrase "for the sake of Your Name" gets thrown around a lot in less metaphoric, idiomized translations.
Except we know a lot of stuff contradicting this.
There's the whole thing that giving children markedly unusual names generally leads to non trivially poorer life outcomes.
There's the fact that people with short names are liked better than people with long names.
There's the ethnic component of names in multiethnic societies and the assumptions and baggage that goes with that.
The majority of names literally have meanings and we literally mostly do not care about this.
Then we edge into matters on the border of substance: how names are chosen to invoke the examples of dead people. Or how Jews choose a new name after nearly dying. Or how reputation influences our performance (we do worse as we get more famous, if anything reminds us of this fact).
So now, doesn't the Jewish refusal to try and depersonalize all the Caananite names ascribed to their deity take on a deeper significance? Unlike the figure in other sacred stories, the Jews want there to be no trace of influence save for what their mystic tradition says, as pure principle discovered through contemplation of their invisible, inefffable deity.
They want to emphasize how apart their divine source is from everything. What a unique position that power occupies compared to "that which is worshipped as divine".
The wording in the commandment can also imply that instead of "taking" the verb could well be "carrying". This is totally in agreement with the passages in some prayers.
-"Have mercy on us, for we bear Your great Name" (Blessings of the Dawn).
- The reference in Anim Zemirot to the divine name engraved on the anthropomorphicized forehead...and the fact humans are made in the divine image",
-"Our father, our king, we bear your great name, abandon us not" from the Monday or Thursday meditations for Tachanun.
I wish could rediscover the reference for the following idea. An author comments that it's not just that the Jews are "slaves of God" but there's evidence they are _possessions_ of God. (This agrees with the Orthodox wording on the first verse of the Amidah) So God's name is thus an innate identifying mark upon all of them.
So within the Covenant there's a sense that the boundary between the Jews and their deity is a blurry one. (Which makes sense, given "Israel" means "one who wrestles with _gods_ _and_ men"...which otherwise is an outrageously casual grouping.(I'm aware the language admits of more than one translation here, but afaik this is a valid reading?) )
And then there's the element of reputation. Scripture and prayer are full of references to the idea that the reputation attached to a person is extremely important. That the reputation attached to God is even more important.
The phrase "for the sake of Your Name" gets thrown around a lot in less metaphoric, idiomized translations.
