- Joined
- Aug 17, 2023
- Messages
- 2,992
- Reaction score
- 3,708
- Awards
- 16
I just watched a Steve Coogan rant (in 24-Hour Party People) about how "negative energy" is pseudo-scientific horseshite. I suppose it is fair to ask whether there's really any need to style energy "negative" when all I mean is that there's energy that's knocking the jelly out of my doughnut. Case in point, if I take a walk in the wrong part of Gaza, the projectile with which the Israelite doth smite me will have slightly less than 1,000 ft/lbs of energy at 100 meters. Any impact will indeed be negative for me, but the energy is just energy. And from Izzy's POV, the impact might well seem positive.
So talking about positive energy or negative energy seems to me a mystification. One confuses his judgments with the nature of the phenomenon he is judging. If I just acknowledge there is energy, I get shut of he need to expel negative energy. It would seem I can assimilate it in line with my own needs and capacities. Or simply deflect or dodge it. Not because of any inherent character in the energy; just because of the intent with which it was sent my way.
Am I missing something?
So talking about positive energy or negative energy seems to me a mystification. One confuses his judgments with the nature of the phenomenon he is judging. If I just acknowledge there is energy, I get shut of he need to expel negative energy. It would seem I can assimilate it in line with my own needs and capacities. Or simply deflect or dodge it. Not because of any inherent character in the energy; just because of the intent with which it was sent my way.
Am I missing something?