spirits
what is more decadent (or crazy) than analyzing phantoms?
at first glance neither their physical nor their metaphysical existence seem to work out, but let us construct an argument.
I was led to look into the scheme of creation where I had used the word ghost, and following this logic: urge = ghost = dark energy = incomprehensible switch. in creation I had “ghosts” everywhere so now I am seeking to eliminate, analyze and refine, defining in what the ghosts consist.
where does the spirit world fit in with genesis? was it created at the same time? if it is necessary, or possible, to include spirit in the metaphysics of creation. and also look at whether spirit could be the cause, or by-product of creation. there is a certain beauty to the notion of a spark of life (a spiritual spark) and spirit as the finality of evolution.
we can set off on this adventure with a common definition of spirit: “a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body.” (Wiki) but as we will see in the course of the argument, spirit cannot exist as a separate entity, unless it is reduced to being simply an urge or surge, in either case, not spirit, by definition.
can spirit exist in the interstices between being and nothingness? not likely because there is nothing intermediate in any of the acts of creation – there either is or isn’t, no half-life, and one can’t use spirit as an argument for half-life, because that is what we are trying to prove. so we see no instances of half creation.
or should we search for something else entirely, a “spirit world” (neither of being, nor nothingness) But then it would exist and so by definition it would be a part of existence. wood fairies, and my favorite, a brook fairy, and her dappled color, picked up from the shadows.
could spirits exist on the cuff, the cusp, of something, taking energy from one side and form from the other, and really not “existing” in either?
there is also the problem of interaction, between the spirit, which is not material, and the material – or between the insubstantial and substantial. here we also enter into a well known metaphysical quandary: the “interaction problem” in the philosophy of mind. I quote Wikipedia: “This is a problem for non-physical entities as posited by dualism: by what mechanism, exactly, do they interact with physical entities, and how can they do so? Interaction with physical systems requires physical properties which a non-physical entity does not possess.” the mind, having the body as energy source, can engender spirit; the mind, conscious of the spirit or spirits created, can more or less freely focus, distinguish, select, alter the spirits; reacting to, or interacting with them, pursuing their influence, etc.
and here we come to another much debated metaphysical question: the question of free will: we can imagine a continuum as such: brain – mind – spirit. in the terms of materialistic determinism as we move towards the spirit terminal we gain freedom as agents, free choice. we can also imagine the continuum as being of time where at some point consciousness begins to appear, and then creative consciousness. here there is free will: propositions bubble up, to be altered, accepted or rejected, to be acted on or not, with nothing but a fluke of fate.
generally I would dismiss the idea of spirits, either corporeal or disembodied, as figments of imagination. even as imaginary their value shouldn’t be discounted: reality would be much more dreary without them. I love fairies. “Various animals have also been described as fairies. Sometimes this is the result of shape shifting on the part of the fairy.” (Wiki) I love shape shifting. but it would use a lot of energy.
even if one allows that they can somehow derive energy from somewhere, there is the problem of form, to limit, define and contain that energy. in my imagination the least coherent and yet capable of form would be a particle cloud, still far from the insubstantial properties of a ghost, still far from forming a support for mind. a cloud is nowhere articulate in any degree.
that we as living beings can have spirits, as emanations of ourselves, I cannot deny; we have the energy source, the body, and the containment, the mind. Spirit is “an incorporeal but ubiquitous, non-quantifiable substance or energy present individually in all living things.” “The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality.“ “a spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of a living being.” (Wiki) in this sense matter acts as a substrate. energy interacts with matter and engenders spirit. we give the spirits life. once the living entity dies there is no more energy for spirit; it dies as well. but it could still “live” as part of a collective memory (in my opinion gradually losing consistency and identity), a “meme” (memes as cultural analogues to genes) (Wiki) that is passed on. our spirits can “ignite”the memory, open up passages within the collective usually only open in dreams, or with the aid of a shaman or psychic. our imaginative senses project on reality, animating it with our spirits. so we can say an illuminating consciousness. enliven. that is another way of putting it – the effect. a projection of ourselves, for example if we sense a tree spirit, how can we know if what we sense is absolutely subjective or objective, or a mixture of both.
we can then say that all supernatural phenomena have a natural cause in living beings. or even should that cause be dark energy and matter, and a mysterious unpredictable switch – very convenient and very quantum, and still natural. dark matter and energy can be used to explain a lot of things, like the little ghosts running around in my living room. a quantum wobble, warble.
a very pretty naiad (diaphanous and mysterious) is nudging me: that isn’t the argument. the argument is whether a corporeal spirit can exist as a separate entity, in and of itself. or as a disembodied spirit, again, in and of itself. we think of wood nymphs as being at least to some degree substantial, and not insubstantial, at least not completely.
in one definition of spirit it is equated with the essence (see Wiki) or the spark of an existing entity. a spark cannot determine. an essence, if it consisted of something, could determine, but that essence has yet to be found and defined – and again there is the problem of form, even abstract, as in say, geometry, or any other form of abstraction, unless transcendence. there could exist a transmigration, sublimation to a spirit world, a form and an energy there. but that form and energy are as yet undiscovered. much as I like the concept of essence, it was devised before the atomic explanation of matter was discovered, and now I think no longer valid.
there might exist some sort of energy. but I don’t see how it could possibly be defined as an individual entity with distinct memories, identity. Or in the interstices between being and nothingness there could conceivably exist a switch on the source, a sort of binary array, but again without definition. and the switch would be as immaterial and mysterious as that of creation.
and the logic returns to transmigration or sublimation: to where or to what? between being and nothingness does not suffice, not for the spirits as we think we know them. simply for this hypothetical spirit to register events one can imagine the structure that would be needed, as complex as our living minds. again none of this is possible with spirit as we understand it. and however that where of the spirit world could be the spirits would still need to get from there to here, to manifest themselves from there to here, and so I think this thread has come to a dead-end: no spirit world.
“Describing in philosophical terms what a non-physical entity actually is (or would be) can prove problematic. A convenient example of what constitutes a non-physical entity is a ghost” (Wiki) take the case of the ghost of Hamlet’s father. how does it speak to Hamlet? it no longer has vocal chords. it supposedly partakes of the “spirit world”. For Hamlet, and the spectators, to hear it vibrations must travel through the air and affect our ears. even if one could imagine some sort of mechanism that would translate the will in the spirit world to effects in the material world, how would Hamlet’s father’s ghost know how to use it, or learn how to use it, as we learn to use our vocal chords. or take the example of a ghost that can pass through walls. if there were anything at all, any substance to the ghost, it would be like walking into a wall with a sheet on.
and so it comes to this: if we take ourselves, our energy and our imaginations, out of the spiritual equation, there are no separate spiritual entities. they would lack any or all of the following: material substrate, energy, definition, volition, articulation, coherence, their very creation and a raison d’être (reason for being). or they cannot be insubstantial enough, or they are too insubstantial.
as for spirit being the spark of existence or the spark of life, it wouldn’t be spirit as I have defined and discussed it; rather an urge, or surge, a declic, or any of the other terms I used with creation.
still there is dark energy and matter and the quantum trigger thing, but without having anything tangible in physics, metaphysics is shy to venture. maybe in some far-off future physics could shed some new light on the matter…
until then I am consoled in knowing that our imaginations are so powerful we can see fairies dancing in the woods, naiads hovering over springs, ghosts flitting from room to room. our spirits can conjure, and it seems, even act, in a reality colored, altered by our projections, sympathies, desires…
and at the very least all life has spirit, that weaves and breathes in and through nature and our dreams, likely splashing out with taunts and whispers, refracting rays of sunlight, or crystal rain, or moonbeams. so you can’t tell if it is your spirit or theirs that you see and feel, so sweetly. I suppose it must be reciprocal; it certainly seems so when I am out and about and everything seems like an enchanted forest, or town, or road, or path. what I love most are the pretty little fairies that talk and laugh as light as a feather. and take my hand and lead me round with sparkling eyes and kisses. can’t tell, and wouldn’t say if we’re in love or just pretending to be so.
May 31, 2014