Title: Formal versus Magical Usage in the Naming of Deities

Summary: In this article, we will examine the merits of a formalist understanding of deity names, under which the names are seen as being but arbitary labels applied as a matter of cultural convention, as opposed to what might be termed a "magical" or "magickal" understanding, as espoused by certain self-styled "Kemetics", under which these names are considered to have an absolute, cultural context-free validity. The latter understanding is seen to be questionable at best, an expression of a naive geocentric fixation, in light of man's limited place in the Universe.

Note: This should not be taken as an attempt to discredit the Ancient Egyptian notion of the "ren", the so-called "true names" of the netjeru, but rather a rebuttal to the notions that the ren may sensibly be equated with the popular name of the netjeru (*) and that the popular name enjoys absolute validity.

Click here to continue.

(*) netjer : a word meaning one of the deities of ancient Egypt, sometimes translated as "god" or "goddess", though this is not entirely satisfactory because : 1. some (such as those in the House of Netjer) view the netjeru (plural of netjer) as being different aspects of a single deity (Netjer), and the case can be made that such a view was to be found in ancient Egypt and 2. like the Japanese word "Kami", "netjer" seems to cover more than one level of dignity, being more inclusive than the word "god", the pharoah being given a title that some would translate as "good god", while those we would think of as deities go by the title translated by Budge as "great god".