HumanApparatus
Member 163
6 entries
18306 views

 RSS
Claudia Gallardo (F)
Los Angeles, US
Immortal since Jun 2, 2007
Uplinks: 0, Generation 1
  • Affiliated
    •  /  
  • Invited
    •  /  
  • Descended
    • Recently commented on
    From HumanApparatus
    The Homo Mechanicus
    From HumanApparatus
    Perception
    From HumanApparatus
    Monica
    From josh
    The Photosynth Experience
    From HumanApparatus
    Good energy
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From HumanApparatus's personal cargo

    Good energy


    Good energy to all of you.

    This is a very naive post. I usually do a lot of research on a subject that interests me, from vagal reflex to Britney's performance but this time the subject of good energy/bad energy comes to my mind. I don't need to do research...the truth is that I don't want to. Because it is something very basic yet very complicated, there's not one single area in which the concept of energy or opposites doesn't apply. It can get very messy to explain it.

    Since childhood I've heard stories where the bad witch creates a potion or spell to harm somebody, only to discover that by some law of the universe all the harm she intended for another person, comes back to her; seven times more powerful. I don't remember the name of the story, and maybe it was something my grandma came up with.

    In something so basic and ridiculous as that story as example, let me say: If there is a bad witch, so there must be a "good witch" or a good side or a good energy.
    The bad witch can be called "bad" because she is not good. And the other witch or side can be called "good" because it's not bad. From there I understand that those two concepts give meaning to each other. So the existence of both is absolutely necessary for the world to work.

    Well, I've been asking myself the question, Which one is stronger? Good or Bad?
    In human interactions, which one is stronger? A cheery person in a room? Or the one that tries to make our lives miserable?
    In biotechnology, Are there more things that make our lives better? or Are there more things that could destroy us?

    I want to think that good is stronger. But again, it all depends on the context.

    Mon, Sep 17, 2007  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
    4 comments
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    Comments:


    josh     Tue, Sep 18, 2007  Permanent link
    its easier to destroy than to create. easier to hate than love. easier to fear than accept.

    Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other's eyes for an instant?

    — Henry David Thoreau
    HumanApparatus     Tue, Sep 18, 2007  Permanent link
    As everything in the world becomes easier, faster... everybody takes the path of least resistance, I wonder if there's a bigger opportunity for destruction and hate in the world. Again, it could be a very pessimistic view of the future...I would like to think about it in micro: we as an unit can change the whole energy, we cannot change the rest of the people and the course of nature, but we can definitely change our own energy; which is already a very difficult task.

    I think your phrase by Thoreau is very accurate. Unfortunately, it is a miracle yet to happen, I sometimes feel most people don't really care that they share a world with other people and do not seem interested in the feelings or well being of others even if they are close to them. Fortunately, every time somebody/something creates good energy in me, I feel it as my own wonderful miracle, and I know somehow I will give it back.
    folkert     Tue, Sep 18, 2007  Permanent link
    Nice picture. I agree on the notion that there has to be a balance of positive and negative energy in order to maintain a stable situation in every part of reality. I also agree with you that it is a bit naive to call things "good" and "bad". I don't think such things exist. No one is ever intentionally malicious for the sole reason of doing harm. Even when this seems to be the case there will be a trace back to a dysfunctional childhood, psychological difficulties, underexposure, substance abuse, genetic shortcomings, a simple misunderstanding, cultural confusion, class divides, sun spots, whatever. In the end, reality seems to me much more objective than "good" or "bad"—we use these words to assign emotional values to things that are either wanted or not wanted in our personal lives and particular situations. Lastly, I also agree with you that a lot of people are so preoccupied with themselves that they forget to see the world through each other's eyes. It's a good reminder. For me, the notion of the objectivity of reality is a great consolation to pretty much all of these things.

    Img: balance of positive and negative energy, to be metaphorized into every part of the universe, macro & micro.

    painting with life     Wed, Sep 19, 2007  Permanent link
    Curious discussion. I don't find it easier to love or to hate. I don't find it easier to create or destroy. There exists destructive love and creative hate; or better said: creative intention and destructive intention. Or even better classified: good intention and evil intention. These two classifications, good and evil, follow us or guide us through every conscious decision we make. Whatever intention underlies these decisions belongs wholly to our consciousness. In the moment of decision, we can intend to be good, or intend to be evil, but that decision to be good or evil is ours.

    No one is ever going to take that away from me. No matter where I end up in life (with the exception of being brain dead), I will still have the ability to decide for the sake of goodness or the sake of evil. I beseech anyone to try to take it away.

    Every time we make the decision to act, we are rebounding absorbed energy. According to physical laws, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred. In this physical way, good and bad energy must inherently be balanced.

    But is the energy of human intention truly quantifiable? Friction, heat, nuclear, etc. energy can all be measured in literal quantifiable ways. The energy of human intention is abstruse, how do you quantify it? Psychologists have tried for ages to capture the human mind in a quantifiable way, and we still have very little understanding of it.

    There is something else in play here. There is more intention for joyful existence than a suffering one. The inertia of human energy is towards survival. Survival cannot escape being handcuffed to good intention (even if it may be pulling bad intention along behind it). The metaphor of good intention leading us while dragging bad intention behind us fits with joyful existence.

    As long as good intention leads us to our decisions, we will echo good energy, and thusly propagate joy while convalescing suffering. It is our duty to follow this mantra to ensure joyful survival of the species regardless of whether something is more or less difficult.







    Our world mirrored upon itself sure looks joyful.
     
          Cancel