I’ve been think a lot lately about the word ‘spirit’ and the way it is used these days.
One meaning, though abstract, points to something along the lines of ‘motivation’ or ‘enthusiasm’, as in “He’s a spirited young fellow, isn’t he?” or “They’ve finally broken his spirit.”
Using the word that way isn’t all that controversial. We easily take it as a metaphor for some aspect of personality that we all recognize but can’t exactly quantify.
We don’t know what it is, but we know it when we see it.
We also speak of ‘spirits’ as referring to entities that lack physical bodies–beings like ghosts, nature spirits, sprites, fairies, and other mythical creatures that inhabit that strange world north of matter and south of imagination.
People who believe in spirits are suspect in our culture, even though we know that almost every culture that has preceded our own, and even many cultures that are contemporary with our own, all consider the spiritual nature of reality to be self-evident.
Our own culture does not agree, and the price of admission to our culture is renunciation of that kind of thinking–or, failing full renunciation, of at least confining such irrational belief within the strictures of some brand of religion–quietly if possible.
Spirit can also refer to the distilled physical essence of some form of matter, as in ‘mineral spirits’, or paint remover. The starch from grain or other plant life can be turned to sugar and distilled to its most potent essence as alcohol.
We all know this can be done.
People who drink spirits do so to experience a mildly pleasant form of altered consciousness. Drink more spirits and the pleasantness of the experience falls away. Drink too much and unconsciousness and even death can follow.
Sigmund Freud’s colleague and rival, Carl Jung, believed that alcoholics are drawn to spirits (alcohol) because they at some deeper level are starved for Spirit–a highly symbolic, universal version of the small ‘s’ metaphor for that personal spark or inner fire inside each individual.
Spirit with capital ‘S’ is what drove Freud and Jung apart.
Freud thought that Jung was sublimating death and sex into something more palatable.
Jung thought Freud was missing something essential to human nature in his drive to make his psychological theories a direct byproduct of the physical body, and and in so doing make them acceptable to mainstream science and modern medicine.
Freud wanted to be a neurologist, but even though his work was brilliant, he was denied Viennese credentials. Freud was a Jew. No Jew had ever been admitted to the university of Vienna as teacher and researcher, and 19th century Vienna wasn’t about to start with Dr. Freud.
Jung, the son of an authoritarian Christian minister, was drawn to Freud’s theories as a way out from under the crushing burden of his father’s theology. But, though Jung did ultimately reject the heavy-handed manner of his religious background, he could not go so far as to submit to Freud’s material reductionism.
So the two men, who would appear to the casual reader to be much more alike than different, parted on historically bitter terms.
Over one hundred years later, we are still having this essential argument:
Is life and consciousness about the flight from the material constraints of sex and death?
Or are sex and death merely the material faces of a deeper spiritual reality?
Strange as it may sound, both sides of this argument represent the remnants of a four hundred year old religious fight.
In my next post, I’ll talk about the fight, as well as why we are still dealing with the fallout four centuries later.









