Physics recognizes the types of energy which can be measured impersonally using physical instruments. These include
Thermal, or heat energy
however all of these can be reduced ultimately to the same underlying principle, which has to do with the capacity to cause changes in matter.
Ultimately, if we ever want to reconcile our own participation in the universe without resorting to an assumption of solipsistic simulation, then we will have to integrate our own consciousness with physics. These types of energy, rather than being literally extended ‘out there’ in space are felt ‘in here’ as ‘intended’ states. These are much different than the space-collapsed representations of energy as they are inherently subjective and vary from species to species, substance to substance, and individual to individual.
In this way, interior ‘energy’ is figurative, not a literal soul-stuff, phlogiston, elan vital, etc, but rather exactly what you know them to be yourself:
Where literal energy can be measured precisely and quantitatively as ‘more or less’, figurative energy can only me measured qualitatively as ‘high or low’ in the sense of ‘superior and inferior’. We use of names and gestures to remind each other of these qualities directly, without the use of a universal index of generic units. This is our human spectrum of what is ultimately a completely other side of the cosmos than what can be addressed with physics or mathematics.
In my understanding there are different scales, like octaves of qualitative ‘energy’ themes (categories of participation and experience):
sub-personal or under-signifying
The syntax of these words and your ability to make sense of them fall into this range. On this level of description, these words are a string of ASCII characters, or high-contrast optical loops and lines.
personal or signifying
These sentences are English prose written intentionally to convey the meaning of particular ideas, The way that I write them invites a particular range of interpretation, however each audience will receive a different kind of message, depending on who they are, their attitude at the moment, their history of understanding, knowledge of English, etc. This is more subtle and nuanced than the sub-personal range, in that there is some ambiguity in the communication. For instance:
What is this stuff?
can be voiced as
WHAT is this stuff?
What IS this stuff?
What is THIS stuff?
What is this STUFF?
What IS THIS stuff?
When we want to get rid of this ambiguity, we might tern to legal or technical writing in an effort to bring an under-signifying level of clarity to personal communication. This sacrifices the lyrical sense of language in favor of authoritative constraint.
super-signifying or over-personal
“Everything happens for a reason”. Does it? Some people feel that way at times and most people have felt that way at one time or another. Luck, fate, destiny. Did you just happen to read this, is it a coincidence?
In this range, we lose deterministic anchoring almost completely, but we gain inspiration and meaning if we are open to it. It can be dangerous as well, drawing the open mind into foolish delusions, apophenia, pareidolia, supersitions, etc.