Its not their particular name. It's their inconsistency in using it.
I think previous iterations of existence use names to transfer karmic information for individuals, but we're now at the point that the system is understood well enough by the systemised to game the system itself.
I often wonder about the importance of naming things. Its also a key problem in Computer Science.
Namespacing is useful up to a point. Value can change depending on context.
In the first season of The Crown they make you notice that the Queen double 'Elizabeth'ed herself.
But if the value the name had no longer applies given the actions of the namee carrying out other actions instead, is the name still meaningful or valid or just historically valid or muddled?
I think there's more going on here than you think.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up - I didn't research/clarify enough before posting. My apologies to you and them.
I'm so worried about them shuffling names around to suit circumstances I err'd on the wrong side. As an outcast (Australian) trying to look in from far away its frightfully confusing. I mean there's that Saxe-Coburg thing for a start...
'Boris' still annoys the crap out of me though. Does the UK also have an 'actor' as its prime minister? Is he intentionally mishandling umbrella's or not? At least Ronald Reagan was already 'out' as an actor.
I deserved the downvotes, but I have learned.
My point about naming things is still completely valid though. It's hard to have the 'right amount of name' without causing confusion.
I think previous iterations of existence use names to transfer karmic information for individuals, but we're now at the point that the system is understood well enough by the systemised to game the system itself.
I often wonder about the importance of naming things. Its also a key problem in Computer Science.
Namespacing is useful up to a point. Value can change depending on context.
In the first season of The Crown they make you notice that the Queen double 'Elizabeth'ed herself.
But if the value the name had no longer applies given the actions of the namee carrying out other actions instead, is the name still meaningful or valid or just historically valid or muddled?
I think there's more going on here than you think.