Our word "spirit" comes from the Latin word "spiritus" which means "breath". Some related words are aspire, inspire, expire, and respiration.
We modern Westerners often associate breath with air. We assume that air is an inanimate thing, oxygen, one of the elements in the periodic table. We assume air is a passive thing and that we are active, living instigators of its movement. We believe we animate the air when we breathe in, draw it into our lungs, breathe out and sigh, speak, or blow out candles. Is this the only way to view our breath? What happens when we examine this assumption?
Breath, spirit, implies a breather. Could it be that our breath is not ours but another's? Could it be that breath lives independently of us, comes from outside of us, flows into our nostrils, mouth and lungs and gives us life? Perhaps breath, spirit, is the instigator of our breathing, and we are its passive recipients. Perhaps we are breathed, spirited, rather than those who breathe. Perhaps this is so for all who breathe: animals, plants, and others.
When I imagine my breathe, my spirit, as belonging to another and only borrowed by me, I see breath differently. I see it as that which animates me. A breath not mine enlivens me. It is my life-giver, my life-sustainer.
When I imagine my breath, my spirit, as belonging to another and only borrowed by me, I see myself differently. Rather than having breath, a spirit, I am breathed, spirited. I am totally dependent on the spirit that breathes in and out of me.
Being totally dependent on the spirit that breathes in and out of me, my appreciation of breath deepens. It inspires me. I value the breath that breathes me. I owe it my life. I give it a worth I did not give it when I viewed it as a an inanimate thing that I breathed. I worship the spirit that breathes in and animates me and all the living.
Given my new view of breath, spirit, how can I continue to conspire with others against the breath on which our life depends? How can I poison it with air-borne pollutants? When I poison the breath we all breathe I poison myself and all who breathe. When I pollute the breath that breathes in me I pollute the spirit that animates all the living.
After reading this i will no longer use chemical sprays in the air i breathe.
ReplyDeleteI am bothered by the idea of “purity” in the air we breathe.
ReplyDeleteI agree that air pollutants are a bad thing. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this position. We humans have been taking the natural things in our biosphere and creating artificial substances whose effects we do not fully understand before releasing them into our biosphere. This must stop.
We must learn to be far more patient with the slow pace of human scientific understanding and far more conservative in what we release into our biosphere. Now there would be a great and genuine usefulness for a truly conservative political party! Would they not glory in stopping those perfidious liberals from spewing their lab-and-factory-created trash into God’s natural atmosphere? :-)
We must also make a tremendous effort to sequester the harmful things we have already released - to stuff the things we know are bad back into our Pandora’s Box of human creativity and innovation and close it up tight.
That said, we humans evolved to live the bulk of our lives outside. But modern human children and adults often grow up in and live the bulk of their lives inside, breathing the carefully filtered “pure” air in our homes, our cars, and our workplaces - and this has been very much to our detriment. There is a growing body of scientific proof that it is due to a lack of exposure to the normal elements of outside unfiltered air, water, earth, and living beings that so many humans are growing up with a huge array of allergies and autoimmunity issues.
We live so much inside because we have come to believe that we are safer there, away from all the impurities of the natural world, and all the dangers of our fellow creatures (especially our fellow human creatures). But our immune systems evolved to need “challenge” to fully develop, grow into full strength and beauty, and thrive. Breathing unfiltered outside air exposes us to exactly the right sort of challenges we need - micro particles of dirt, pollens, bits of organic matter, bacteria, germs, viruses, animal dander. Sometimes our immune systems struggle with what we inhale and we’ll get sick, but after recovering, we are stronger.
But now we see that as each generation spends more and more time in carefully filtered so-called “pure” inside environments, we are weakening our body’s own defenses. As a form of preventative health care, we must come to see that this modern idea of purity is harmful and give it up, and send ourselves and our children outside, to breathe in impure unfiltered air, to play in dirt and grass, to touch other living beings and wrestle with dogs and pet and cuddle and hold and touch other unclean, impure, but natural life forms. For it is only by keeping ourselves more fully connected to the natural impure biosphere of this planet that we can achieve our own natural full potential.
Adults should do this and teach our children to do it also: learn to love long walks outside, play games outside together, garden, raise outdoor animals, go camping. We might also gain along the way a valuable spiritual practice of feeling more at one with the larger living universe.
Hello Monica! I'm so glad you were able to post your comment. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
DeleteThis is where I become a bit fuzzy, and so I am directing this comment here. The prior blog gives me a working definition of “that which animates”. I understood this in the context that it can be applied to all that is in the universe—loosely animal, vegetable, or mineral. Everything is comprised from a common set of elements, i.e. carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., in differing combinations. Without animation, everything is merely a lump of inert chemicals. And yet, something--call it spirit, call it life force, call it animation--infuses and inhabits all that is.
ReplyDeleteSpirit as “that which animates” completes the picture. It turns the lump into something alive. This transformation is alchemical to me; the true meaning of mystery. What it is not is religious, sacred or holy in the traditional sense of those words.
Each alive, animated creature possesses its own energy signature. Some of those signatures are readily readable by the human senses; some are not. Because I cannot sense the signature does not mean there is a lack of animation.
In this piece, if I understand correctly, you begin to equate spirit with breath, or wind—what could be considered as the active or animate components of air. Yes, this is perhaps obvious for animals, humans included, who can for the most part clearly be seen to respirate. For me, it’s less obviously so for fish, who intake oxygen in a different manner, even less obviously so for plants, and not at all obvious for rocks or crystals. I suppose an argument can be made that wind animates plants by visibly moving them around—I think of wind in the trees, and the sensory vision this creates.
So what strikes me is that there are other “animators” as well—animators that create that spark. And still I see “that which animates” as something more. Once animated by breath, or something else, does not the living thing find animation in other places? Perhaps I stray from animation to enthusiasm.
Again, if I understand correctly, you are taking breath and making it an active rather than a passive animator. It comes from somewhere separate from those it animates, and goes somewhere when expelled. And yet, is it possible that those who breathe are both breather and breathed?
Are there other animators/spirits besides breath that bring the inanimate to life? If so, how would you describe them? Or is it your perspective that breath animates some in ways that are not discernible to human senses? I get that sense when you write about “the spirit that breathes in and animates me and all the living.”
Your writing triggers many, many thoughts for me. I guess what I’m trying to say is that “that which animates” makes sense to me as a definition for spirit. “That which breathes” seems less complete.
Sara, thanks for your penetrating questions. I'll do my best to give some tentative answers and also ask some questions of you.
DeleteYou wrote: Without animation, everything is merely a lump of inert chemicals. And yet, something--call it spirit, call it life force, call it animation--infuses and inhabits all that is.
My response: Do you adhere to a dualistic view of reality in which there are inert chemicals and a separate spirit or life-force? If so, you hold the view of the vast majority in Western cultures. It is a view that has yet to explain how it is possible for spirit to animate inert matter? Put differently, how is it possible for something that is not physical to animate something physical?
In my view there is no such thing as "inert chemicals". In my view everything is animated, alive, spirited, and breathing. So, rather than viewing reality as consisting of two fundamental things, matter and spirit, in which some are animated and others are inert I see everything as spirited, animated and alive in varying degrees.
------------------------------
You wrote: In this piece, if I understand correctly, you begin to equate spirit with breath, or wind—what could be considered as the active or animate components of air.
My response: Yes, I equate spirit with breath. Breath, wind is the original meaning of spiritus. A quick review of several different languages shows that humans all over this planet since time immemorial have equated breath and wind with that which animates and makes alive.
Are you suggesting that fish, plants and crystals do not breathe in any sense of the word? Are you suggesting that wind and rocks do not interact, that rocks are inert and do not move and change during the course of their existence?
In my view, which is limited to what I can see myself and learn from others, everything on this planet is in one way or another animated by breath and/or wind.
-----------------------------------
You wrote: So what strikes me is that there are other “animators” as well—animators that create that spark.
My response: Would you please say more about the other animator you see? Please identify some specifics for me to consider.
Also, what is "that spark" to which you refer?
------------------------------------
Again, if I understand correctly, you are taking breath and making it an active rather than a passive animator. It comes from somewhere separate from those it animates, and goes somewhere when expelled. And yet,
-----------------------------------
You wrote: is it possible that those who breathe are both breather and breathed?
My response: Yes, however I think that without spirit we humans would not be breathers. In other words, I think being breathed, spirited, is prior to breathing.
-----------------------------------
You wrote: Are there other animators/spirits besides breath that bring the inanimate to life? If so, how would you describe them?
My response: I do not recognize other animators other than spirit/breath/wind. By definition spirit is that which animates.
-----------------------------------
You wrote: Or is it your perspective that breath animates some in ways that are not discernible to human senses?
My response: I think that our human field of perception is relatively limited and that there is much going on that is outside our field of perception.
---------------------------------
You wrote: I guess what I’m trying to say is that “that which animates” makes sense to me as a definition for spirit. “That which breathes” seems less complete.
My response: In my view breath/ wind is spirit, that which animates. It's okay that we see it differently.
Hi Mark. Thanks for taking the time to respond so completely to my comments. Your answers helped me better understand your perspective. Your response also helped me see that I didn’t do a good job of explaining my own perspective. Please allow me to try again.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, I didn’t do a good job with what you have identified as a dualistic perspective. I would NEVER say that some are alive and some are not. Like you, I see everything that is as animate, alive and pulsing. What I tried to convey is that spirit is life and life is spirit—without spirit, all would be inanimate. With spirit, all are alive. So to answer one of your questions, no, in my mind I don’t adhere to a dualistic view of reality. Let me reiterate—everything is alive.
However I admit to some personal ambiguity about what I’ll call “manufactured” or “made” items. I find myself questioning, for example, if a sofa or a computer are animate. This is something I am still working through—a place where I can argue both sides.
Again, if I understand you correctly, even the elements of the periodic chart are animate—is that right? From your perspective then, manufactured or made items are indeed animate, yes?
I defer to your knowledge regarding word origins and how human languages have equated breath and wind with that which animates or makes alive. I wish I had a clearer understanding of how earlier humans saw this in the context of what does not breathe as we do. I was not suggesting that neither fish nor plants breathe, only that it’s different from how we breathe.
As a crystal healer, I work with stones all the time. I know without doubt that they are animate. I know without doubt that they grow and change, albeit differently than we do. Each is unique, as we are. I know that wind can wear away rock and change its shape; however wind can’t change its essence. Insofar as I know, wind affects the external. Is wind what makes stones animate? Do stones breathe? Honestly, I don’t know what spirits a rock or a crystal; I only know that it is spirited.
I can’t give you specifics of other possible animators. I wish I could. I simply consider that there might be something else other than breath. What I meant by “spark” is spirit. I certainly agree that the human field of perception is limited, and that there is much that we do not perceive with our senses. The whole of the energy spectrum is one such.
Despite how you have elaborated, I continue to struggle with equating spirit to breath, breath to spirit, and I wish I could be more articulate about why.
Sara, thanks for clarifying your perspective. Yes, our views are works in progress rather than finished products. Part fo what you're still working on is the tension between being an animist and questioning that computers and sofas are animated. In my view, to be human is to not have all the answers. I think there is wosdom in finding peace in ambiguity and not knowing. Persoanlly, I've stopped struggling and found peace in wondering and uncertainty.
DeleteSince my last response, I have been giving a great deal of thought to the question of other possible animators besides breath or wind. Initially I couldn’t supply any for you to consider. However, the more I’ve thought about this, I’ve come up with several ideas on which I’d like your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThe first of these is sound. This occurred to me as I considered the work of Masaru Emoto in his book, “The Hidden Messages in Water”. Emoto describes experiments where he exposes crystallizing water to different forms of music, each of which produced a different visual result in snowflakes. I can interpret that as the sound waves animating the snowflakes. And all that is contains water to some degree, which is what seemingly responded to these sound vibrations.
The second is energy itself, or perhaps energetic vibration might be a better way to phrase it. This occurred to me as I further considered my work with crystals. Everything carries a unique energetic or vibrational signature, and this made me wonder if the energy itself wasn’t somehow responsible for the animation I detect in the stones with which I work. The concept of energy as animator also plays itself out when I consider how rocks/stones are formed, which often involves thermodynamics, exposing the resulting stones to high degrees of vibrational energy.
A third possibility is that of the notion of harmony or resonance. I’m not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, however there is a scientific theory that suggests that all experience is held together by this factor. Resonance is the mysterious force that controls how subatomic particles bond to one another, creating oneness out of matter and energy.
It seems possible to me that there could be more than one animator, at work on different aspects of all that is. My thinking on these is not well developed, however this is what occurred as I considered and reconsidered your question.
Indeed I enjoy the ambiguity, and don't suspect that I will ever have "the answers" to all of the questions I have. It intrigues me to consider all of the possibilities.
Sara, excellent post! You put a lot of thought into what you wrote and make some excellent and convincing points to consider. Thank you! I want to reflect more before I respond any further.
DeleteHere are some preliminary thoughts in response to you comment:
Delete1. As much as I like Emoto's work, it lacks credibility in the wider scientific community. That aside his work also included speaking different words into water and attaching written words to glasses containing water. Music, spoken words, written words are all associated with breath, extensions of it in a sense. I don't know that the tests happened in a breathless environment. Breath cannot be completely ruled out in his work.
2. It is easy for me to associate vibration with breath. However, a real challenge for my perspective is a vacuum. It is difficult for me to connect spirit with a vacuum.
3. It is also easy for me to connect breath and resonance.
These are just preliminary responses. Returning to the mian points of my blog entry above. My main point was to challenge the notions that air is inanimate and passive and the assumption that we are the intiators of our own breathing. Whether or not there are other possible animators is also an interesting thing to wonder about. You made a good case for the possiblitiy that there are.