I like that idea. It would capture a spiritual essence. What would the most effective form of this essence be? I might think it would be one that can associate with many important other spiritual essences. Since humans can express themselves in many visceral ways we understand - cutting, negating, etc - it might be anthropomorphic. But then, humans cannot without abandoning their native abilities for machinery physically swim like dolphins, or cut like woodpeckers, or dance like a mimic octopus. So maybe higher animals are the best candidates. Or maybe abstract concepts (as opposed to animals) are clearest and most complete. Then there are the nonliving physical forms - tools - a connection between the living world and the concept. Maybe the forms should balance some or all of these. Completeness, unification, and immediate understanding all seem important in giving meaning.

But when does naming an object for a concept or a set of living creatures demean the concept or creatures? Some people would be honored to have a disease or a bacteria named for them, some wouldn't. Would the feelings of those people matter? [addition:] Do concepts matter, or not matter, in a similar way to the feelings of persons?