The Word "Negative" Revisited – On Semantic Erosion, Moral Relativism, and Spiritual Delusion

Negatieve = schadelijke krachten overwinnen leidt tot spirituele = morele groei

There are words whose meaning barely changes, and words whose charge shifts silently. "Negative" belongs to the latter category. What was once a descriptive term for something that is resistant, harmful, or morally disruptive has today become primarily a social judgment on who disrupts the atmosphere.

This shift may seem banal, but it's anything but. When we systematically avoid labeling things as "negative" out of fear of causing discomfort, we, as a society, lose our ability to discern . We forget the difference between what is harmful and what is simply hard to stomach.

Negative as a moral category – on linguistic flattening and spiritual delusion

The meaning of the word "negative" has shifted over the past decades from a substantive qualification to a social judgment. Where "negative" once referred to actual harm, malice, or moral undermining , it is now primarily used to describe social discomfort . A critical remark, an analysis of abuse of power, or an expression of grief is quickly labeled "negative"—not because it is unethical, but because it disrupts the peace of the group.

This shift is not innocent. It changes the function of language: what was once morally necessary to address injustice or falsehood is now considered socially undesirable . It's not the content, but the tone that determines what's acceptable. It's not the truth that counts, but the listener's comfort.

That this erosion of meaning also entails spiritual disruption is all the more evident when compared to the esoteric traditions. In the classical literature of the mystery schools —theosophy, gnosticism, hermeticism, anthroposophy—"negative" had moral and metaphysical significance . It did not refer to emotions like anger or doubt, but to active forces that keep people from awareness, truth, and connection.

These negative influences were often personified by entities such as Lucifer (illusion, seduction) and Ahriman (rigidity, materialism). They disturbed not the atmosphere, but the inner compass .

✦ To be negative is: not to feel, but to destroy

In these traditions, the path to inner freedom is not a matter of thinking light and avoiding darkness, but of consciously confronting that which disrupts, misleads, or destroys . Being negative, then, does not mean being gloomy, speaking critically, or stating a difficult truth. Being negative means exerting a force that hinders the development of soul and community —for example, through corruption, cynicism, or spiritual shallowness .

In that light, identifying "negative" tendencies—such as moral decay, shadow politics, or untruthfulness—is not negative behavior, but an act of discernment and awareness . What we often label as disruptive behavior today is, within these traditions, precisely an essential part of spiritual work.

Those who fail to recognize these negative forces remain their playthings. Those who do point them out are often sanctioned today — not for what they say, but because it disrupts the illusion .

Semantic erosion as a symptom of moral relativism

What we see in everyday language today—the labeling of discomfort as "negative"—is an example of semantic erosion : words lose their distinctive power. And as soon as that happens, collective moral thinking also loses its edge .

The consequences are visible:

• destructive behaviors are tolerated as long as they are packaged kindly;

• critics of such behaviors are labeled as negative or toxic;

• truth loses its language, and with it its legitimacy.

When “negative” no longer refers to malicious behavior but to the discomfort that arises from naming it, we lose not only our ethical vocabulary but also our spiritual compass .

A culture of conflict avoidance

The shift from "negative" as a moral category to social-emotional sensitivity points to something larger: a society that prioritizes conflict avoidance over integrity . We are increasingly unwilling to engage in uncomfortable conversations and increasingly inclined to sanction those who dare.

In that context, "staying positive" isn't a sign of wisdom, but of conditioning. A reflex to maintain the facade of harmony, at the expense of truth, justice, and morality.

Conclusion: Back to discernment

Words have power. And whoever changes their meaning also changes the boundaries of what can be said. Redefining 'negative' to mean "undesirable behavior" instead of a harmful force not only leads to linguistic poverty, but also to social and spiritual erosion .

So let us revalue the word "negative": Not as a rejection of the person who says something, but as a designation of that which threatens our integrity—personally, socially, and spiritually.

Until we regain that clarity, the shadow remains out of sight. And without shadow, there is no true enlightenment.