Today I received a question for a reader. Below is a copy of that question, and my response to her is below the copy of the question, about how money is energy…
Question sent by reader:
Many of the metaphysical teachers say that money is energy. As a student of metaphysics, I have learnt that everything is made up of energy, i.e. automobiles, human beings, water, tables chairs etc. A couple of metaphysical teachers describe money as an idea or a concept. What came to my mind is that money seems to come in different formats.
For instance – I’m guessing on this – if America wanted to obtain oil from another country, it is possible that in exchange for the oil, America may have supplied the other country in question with American-made clothes, electronic devices etc., in exchange for the oil, rather than having paid for the oil with dollars and cents.
Since money is described as a medium of exchange, then I am assuming that the merchandise that America may have supplied that country with in order to obtain the oil is itself another form of money. Correct me if I’m wrong. Another example may be two children. One child has a Kit-Kat bar and another child has a handful of toffees. The first child trades the Kitk-Kat bar with the other child for the toffees; so I’ m guessing that the chocolate bar in question is a form or currency or money. Am I getting it so far?
I was reading an article about money being energy. I was told that the different-coloured slips of paper or the coins which people obsess over are not actually money but SYMBOLS of money.
This is where I got stumped. What do metaphysical teachers mean by that? I am having some trouble wrapping my head around that theory.
My response to that question:
What is money? Money is, any “good” that is widely used and accepted in transactions involving the transfer of goods and services from one person to another. Economists differentiate among three different types of money: ‘commodity money‘, ‘fiat money‘, and ‘bank money‘.
‘Commodity money‘ is a good whose value serves as the value of money. Gold coins are an example of commodity money. In most countries, commodity money has been replaced with fiat money.
‘Fiat money‘ is a good, the value of which is less than the value it represents as money. Dollar bills are an example of fiat money because their value as slips of printed paper is less than their value as money.
‘Bank money‘ consists of the book credit that banks extend to their depositors. Transactions made using checks drawn on deposits held at banks involve the use of bank money. [Source]
I certainly don’t have “answers”, simply my own perceptions & opinions. So, here goes!
Before “money”, the trading of like valued goods was common place. Money is is a conscious & social agreement on measuring value. We made it up! That’s why it has energy and why it is symbolism of energy, rather that something “real”. It has our emotions attached, based on past experiences – whether in our personal life, or historic, over thousands of years.
Sure, the colored notes and coins are tangible objects and carry their own intrinsic energy. However, the fact that we named/labeled those objects “money”, means that over time we associate other energies to the object, extra to the intrinsic energy of the objects themselves.
If enough of us agree, we can “make up” something else to “be money”, and have that be universally accepted. [See also] No accident then, that the term ‘fiat‘ derives from the Latin fiat: “let it be done”/”it shall be”.
I’m not religious, however the conversation about the “energy of money” does make me think of a parable in the Bible:
Mark 12: 41-44 “And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”
The “flow of energy” emanating from her gift could have been perceived as greater than that of those who might have given a higher amount, because her money was sourced from a “smaller pot” and was not “disposable income”. Like cooking a meal, we can do that begrudgingly or make the meal with an intention of giving a loving gift. The end result could be completely different because of the intentions and energy flow from “the cook”.
I’ve known of life coaches who will charge their fee based on percentage of income of the person being coached, rather than a set fee. It emphasizes the personal investment contributed to the agreement & therefore heightens perceived value of the coaching. It increases a person’s level of commitment & willingness to act, or to play a bigger “game” with the coach. The coach too will sense having a greater obligation to their client when the fee being paid is just outside of “comfort zone”.
Near the bottom of this site you’ll see a “Picasso story” cartoon, and just above that, 3 scenarios. That explains the idea of energy exchange a little better also.
You might want to write to someone like Robert and ask their view. It appears that he has spent more time thinking about the subject and done a lot of research into the “spiritual” side of “the money conversation”.
There are also a couple of excellent conversations to read at SpiritofMaat
I’ve given you a lot of reading with those links included above, and hopefully some of those texts might give you a view which will empower your relationship to money or expand your thoughts in relationship to money.
PLUS check out a few free gifts from my friends…