What does someone’s name actually mean – not just to the person, or to friends, family, colleagues, but in the greater picture, to the universe? What energetic programming do we put into something when we give it a name?


We put labels on everything in order to identify where or what they represent in our space. We understand there is a commonality to the identity of objects, yet the same object could have different names according to our nationality, race, upbringing, language and so on. The standard Westerner knows what “ice” is, yet to someone in Arctic climes whose life is influenced and perhaps dependent upon it he would have perhaps 15 or 20 different names for different types of ice.


It is scientifically proven that at the merest essence of existence, the quantum level, matter ceases to act as a particle and behave more like a wave or frequency. Masaru Emoto demonstrated the effect our words have on frozen water molecules – harsh words created a fractured pattern, loving ones showed a balanced and nurtured one. 


Chemically, our bodies are comprised of up to 60% water. What are we doing to our children then if we are always calling them such things as trouble, tubby, skinny, weirdy and so on, even as terms of endearment? We, and indeed the subject, may find it amusing but are we not instilling into that person’s psyche and genetic structure the attributes of those words?  Conversely, by calling our children “big man”, “angel” and so on could we be creating some form of internal conflict if they are neither big nor angelic? By doing the figurative Lion King thing, holding up our child and proclaiming to the world this is the heir to the throne, are we in fact painting a target on the back of the child we love?


What effect, too, do first names and surnames have on our chemistry? “Johnson” for example originally meant that person was the son of John. The Scottish “McGregor” originally signified that person was the son of Gregor. Other nationalities utilise the parent’s surname as the child’s first name. Convention has a bride taking the husband’s surname after getting married. All this seems to imply ownership of the child by the parent, the wife by the husband, and therefore requires obedience or compliance to that "superior” person’s beliefs or teachings. It is the basis of the tribe, which at one level provides security and protection yet at another may restrict exploration or thinking “outside the box”. The tribe member who therefore chooses to investigate outside of these dictates may then be outcast as a threat to the status quo.


At the more esoteric level, our physical names we are given may also run contrary to our soul names or soul purpose. What conflicting programmes are therefore in place between the genetic body and the soul? Our soul’s purpose may be as a healer, yet we may have a family genetic of being a butcher – how do we reconcile the two?


For a number of years, increasing numbers of people have chosen to change their names to better suit how they view themselves. This gives them ownership of their being, responsibility for their prosperity and hopefully comfort and balance in their quest for the greater good.


Perhaps names we give our children should be only temporary. Perhaps we should rather encourage them when ready to proclaim loudly and clearly from the heart who they really are. And perhaps we should be really thoughtful and a lot more careful about the effect our language, and our thoughts, have upon the fellow inhabitants of our little planet.


© Kim Bright,  June 2020

Well, here we are already nearly half way through the year.  As we gradually emerge from our enforced hibernation during all the nasties, hopefully the rest of the year is full of the good things after we have been able to reflect upon the "old ways" which have been shown to be obsolete.

Here are some thoughts from our own quiet times...