Spirit(s) (page 2)

Deputy Dog

Nark

Does this make sense? Spirit= a noncorporeal identity of consciousness

quietlyleaving

I think there is scope for modern religion to reinterpret and re-present 'spirit' and 'spirituality' so that we don't lose the inspiriation aspect of those concepts.

I like the phrase potential for transformation which seem to be suggested by what breath and breather/ruah/psyche significates

How about -- a perspective that views "breath" as not simply air being expelled through respiration but as breath that stays in you and keeps you breathing, something that keeps you alive, something that is unseen but can have power like the blowing wind, and something that leaves death in its wake when it finally leaves a person. Because breath is unseen and has power to bring life (as only creatures with breath are alive), it is easy to think of it as a living entity in its own right.

The modern concept, of course, is rather different.

VoidEater

what you understand by that word

I let the word "spirit" have different meanings depending on context. When a poet speaks about spirit, they may be talking about emotion. When a scientist talks about spirit, they may be talking about principle. When the typical religious talks about spirit, they usually mean noncorporeal creatures of energy. Colloquially, that's what I take it to mean.

If taken to mean the human soul, I would say it may mean the ineffable animating force that makes "living" distinct from "nonliving".

If spoken of in giving life a kind of cosmic perspective, it may more precisely refer to that experience of existence sometimes called "Being".

Narkissos

Thanks for the great replies (and please keep them coming)

nvr's witty comment (btw, the French word for "spirit," esprit, also stands for "mind" and "wit," which probably complicates the issue even further in my own... mind) brings us to one central problem I believe. Clearly some sense of "spirit" is still around in everyday speech -- but no longer as a live metaphor (to borrow from Ricoeur's terminology) as it used to be. When it is no longer rooted in a "concrete" or "realistic" sense (even if imaginary) a metaphor dies and becomes just another abstract notion. To us, I feel, "spirit" as nvr used it is only a synonym of "attitude" (another dead metaphor) and is no longer perceived as "figurative" for the lack of a valid "literal" sense... Or, to refer to VoidEater's broader semantic analysis, the different senses of the word are more and more disconnected and that reverses the classical task of the poet: he now has to create concreteness from the abstract.

The many replies connecting "spirits" (in a "realistic"/imaginary sense) primarily with the mystery of life and death (Tyrone, Sirona, Leolaia) are very interesting because they bring us back to one probable original setting of the notion (which is also, much likely, one of the main sources of the diverse phenomenon we call "religion"), upstream of the development of a pantheon of gods in elaborate polytheistic mythology, and (a fortiori) upstream of the "Biblical invention" of "God," "angels" and "Satan". "Spirits" in that sense belong to popular superstition (cf. jaguarbass' story which shows it is not entirely lost at that level) rather than mythological construction. From a sociological perspective, it's a word (and notion) of the poor, ordinary people, expressing their emotional perceptions of life and death rather than constructing a consistent "worldview" (which is rather the "pre-scientific" concern of the priestly and sage casts around the centers of political power). Imo, BTS's and DD's definitions (resorting to the "supra-natural" or "non-corporeal" categories which are not exactly "Biblical" btw) rather belong to the latter.

Doofdaddy's reference to Jung (one of the rare "modern thinkers" to take "spirits" seriously) is something of a middle ground I guess. His neo-mythology of "archetypes" and "collective unconscious" is, in a sense, a naturalistic attempt at building a consistent anthropology, from a scientific (some would say pseudo-scientific) perspective, but at least he pays heed to what most dismiss -- the way average people express their uncanny experiences (including dreams, visions, intuitions, etc.). Strangely (or not) he seems to be better digged in the English-speaking world than continental Europe these days.

Lovelylil's Biblical analysis and quietlyleaving's provocative attempt at "translation" both highlight the reasons for one of the basic clashes of the "spirit(ual)(istic)" approach(es) of reality with the modern mindset I suppose: "literal" or "figurative" spirits, as "influences," questionour dogma (or should I say myth) of individual freedom and responsibility (as "free moral agents," for instance). And ironically, this dogma, I believe, is partly (and indirectly) a consequence of Christianity: we are free inasmuch as we cast "spirits" out, because the crucified and risen Christ conquers all powers of alienation, etc. In the N.T. it was not yet independent freedom since the elect were deemed as shifting from one "spiritual" influence to another (filled by the Holy Spirit, Christ lives in me, etc., which are still formulas of "spirit possession"). But it paved the way to our concept of freedom from any "spirit" -- which from another perspective may sound as an apology of emptiness. (Cf. Matthew 12:43ff which can be read in a pessimistic way: the house perhaps should but cannot stay empty. Not far from the gist of OTWO's post as I read it.)

Slim, as ever you saw where I was heading at (as if you didn't know). In the back of my mind was Derrida's comment that structuralism taught us to understand the world as "a field deserted by (or devoid of) its forces" -- which was certainly not the case of previous Marxism or existentialism. That was the philosophical death blow to the modern avatars of "spirits" -- but spirits have a long history of surviving death, haven't they?

Deputy Dog

Nark

Imo, BTS's and DD's definitions (resorting to the "supra-natural" or "non-corporeal" categories which are not exactly "Biblical" btw) rather belong to the latter.

I just thought I'd leave the breath of life out of it. So you think the bible teaches spirit literally means breath? You're not leaving us much wiggle room are you.

quietlyleaving

hmm..perhaps I'm not understanding your reply Narkissos but I wasn't linking transformation to Jesus Christ but to the literal chemical transformations that occur during breathing and in each cell and in that way enabling life. I thought it was interesting the way spirit/breathing/chemical reactions and combustion that takes place to produce energy are so intimately linked - sugars are transformed into life giving energy. So in our scientific age 'spirit' can be seen to be very closely linked to life transforming and renewing itself which imo does not seem to be very different from some aspects of what the ancients intuitively sensed about spirit.

quietlyleaving

DD

I just thought I'd leave the breath of life out of it. So you think the bible teaches spirit literally means breath? You're not leaving us much wiggle room are you.

Nark didn't intimate the above - I did.

Deputy Dog

q l

I wasn't reffering to your post, in fact I didn't see it.

This is what I was talking about.

non-corporeal" categories which are not exactly "Biblical" btw

Narkissos

So you think the bible teaches spirit literally means breath?

Not at all! I just think that (as Leolaia explained) breath, along with wind, are the basic physical phenomena from which the notion of "spirit" originally emerges. But from that point the notion goes through a complex series of developments, before, within and after the "Bible" texts, though it never loses its connection with the concrete sense of "breath" and "wind" (cf. John 3:8 or 20:22 for instance).

Spirit(s)

Share this