An Ecology of Spirits

Introduction

In this essay I seek to explore my personal metaphysics whichuses ecology as the basic system for understanding existence on both invisibleand visible planes. This is deeply rooted in the druidic concept of the gnosisof nature, which is a basic tenet of the Ancient Order of Druids in America(AODA) and its religious arm, the Gnostic Celtic Church (GCC). It holds thatknowledge and insight about the underlying reality of life – and specificallyspiritual truths – can be attained from careful study of the natural world.This includes seasonal cycles, biological processes, morphological andbehavioral characteristics, and holistic ecological systems. This has been aprimary hermeneutic principle of my own path and is one of the ways in which mypractice and perspective shares roots with the Druid Revival tradition.

First, I will seek to define the two primary building blocksof my theory: what is an ecosystem and what are spirits. Exploration of eachtopic yields its own particular insights and reveals assumptions, potentialtruths, and areas of ambiguity or obstacles to understanding. The goal withthese sections is to explore these areas and summarize my conclusions or lackthereof. These will then be synthesized in the following section whichdescribes what an ecological metaphysics looks like. Finally, there is anexamination of the implications of such a worldview in terms of ethics,practice, and placement within the wider pagan theological context.

Before beginning these explorations, however, I think it appropriatethat I describe my own positionality. As with many post-moderns, I feel itnecessary to relate my own identity and call out its influence on my thoughts,feelings, and experiences. These powerfully shape my perspective and thereforeare directly relevant to the development of my personal metaphysics and ergothis paper. Not only does one’s background influence what baseline assumptionsand values one might have, it also describes the parameters against which onemay struggle, rebel, or define oneself in contrast with – which is equallyimportant in tracking an individual’s particular worldview’s development. I amno exception. But I do not believe this means that one’s worldview is thereforeentirely subjective and ipso facto meaningless, rather I believe thatjust as a plant grows with a certain genetic code in certain environmentalconditions, it is always itself and bears a truth in the world shaped by thosefactors. One’s faith may be unusual for your environment or ancestry, but itdoes not mean that it is less valid as it springs forth from engagement withthe world just as all others do.

My story begins in a family of devout Protestant Christiansliving in Louisville, Kentucky, USA. I was born with a congenital heart defectand had life-saving surgery at the age of six months. A few years later, wemoved to Lusaka, Zambia to act as missionaries. Zambia, however, being alreadya largely Christian nation, meant that my parents worked in a Baptist seminaryin the capital. At this point my experience with and love for diverse culturesand languages began and even after moving back to the states, my parentsencouraged a multilingual and multicultural environment and identified us asChristians first, global citizens next, and Americans last. This sense offaith, universalism, and rootlessness all informed my early formation ofidentity as a teenager and young adult and heavily influenced the life path Iwould choose.

I eventually left the Christian religion, during a verypainful process in high school, after questioning two core issues: its stanceon homosexuality and its exclusionary dogma. The first was personally impactful,since I was coming out, and the second did not fit with my global outlook – howcould Buddhists who lived an equally devout if Jesus-free life be condemned tohell? By the time I left for college, I was a de facto agnostic atheistand took a break from thinking about the big questions for several years.However, in 2010 when I was on a balcony in Bangkok, I had a conversion momentand was awoken to the reality of the breeze on my face and suddenly the wholeworld of nature around me seemed to be beckoning. So began my journey into paganhoodand a long, meandering path that eventually led me to the AODA and Druidry.Along the way, I have opened up the world of plant medicine, learned the basicsof animal communication, studied with the chaos magicians, immersed myself inthe ancient Mediterranean magic of the late Classical period, and studiedBritish traditional witchcraft.

Over time, my metaphysics has taken the shape of an ecosystemof the visible and invisible that is interrelated and forever changing just asour ecosystems here on Earth. So that is the first concept we will explore.

Ecosystems

An ecosystem is a group of living organisms that cohabitateand relate to one another in a given area, ecoregion, or biome. The totalnetwork of relationships encompasses not only plants, animals, and fungi butalso “non-living” things such as rocks, weather patterns, soil, and evenartificial buildings such as human houses or termite mounds. Biologicalinteractions go both ways in all instances – just as the amount of sun impactsa plant’s ability to grow, the shade that plant casts creates a micro-climateunderneath its leaves that may foster or inhibit certain other organisms. Thesheer complexity of this fractal pattern of ecosystems within ecosystems iswhat makes ecology one of the most difficult and daunting sciences.

From a druidic perspective, it is probably impossible tooverstate the importance of using ecosystems as our primary lens for viewingthe natural world, but this is a view shared by many environmental scientists,as well. For instance, the interaction between human pollution and marshlands,invasive species and local agricultural output, or the rise and fall ofepidemics are all greatly aided by understanding the web of relationshipsbetween animal, plant, and environment. In each case, the hidden relationshipsoften yield incredible insight when examined carefully. For example: it wasdiscovered that swamps and marshes help to cleanse water of toxins which hasbenefits not only on the natural environment but actually results in lessstrain on local water treatment plants. Disease vectors – usually animals – arehighly dependent on local ecological conditions so when the oaks are having amast year – a time of plenty – this actually increases the risk of Lyme diseasein humans due to the cascade effect of more deer being around who carry tickswhich carry the disease. Ecology is full of such relationships that are notnecessarily obvious or intuitive but make sense once discovered and explained.

One of the key concepts in ecology is that each member of anecosystem has a particular role and set of relationships that have knock-oneffects on other members. Some classic examples are decomposer, consumer,producer, or predator. Some are dependent relationships and some are dependedupon, but all impact each other. Keystone members have a dense web of these orhold a critical path of relationships which means that a change in theirpopulation or quality can cause dramatic changes to the ecosystem – up tocollapse. An example of this might be when an apex predator is removed from anecosystem which leads to an overpopulation of certain consumer species thatleads to drastic reduction in producers. This can cause an ecosystem toactually change from one form to another as different plant species come todominate and the initial food produced is not enough to support the populationof consumers and predators leading to population decline or relocation –thereby impacting neighboring ecosystems, as well. Another example might beenvironmental: pollution may alter the soil’s ability to hold nutrients whichaffects the microorganisms and plantlife, which causes a chain reactioneventually affecting every member of the ecosystem’s population or behavior.

Another key concept in ecology is that of native versusnonnative species. A ‘native’ species is one that is indigenous to anecosystem; however, this term is problematic as ecosystems change over time andnatural changes in abiotic factors may change migratory patterns, optimalgrowth conditions, etc. This means that when discussing the nativity of aspecies, it is necessary to also have time or another factor as a qualifyingparameter. That being said, typically the use of native versus nonnative incommon parlance refers to whether the introduction of a species has aspecifically anthropogenic origin or not, since ecosystems are being rapidlychanged due to human interference beyond what would be expected by the slowerchanges of environment over time.

So, an ecosystem is a complex web of relationships rooted intime and place and can be a useful way to understand interdependence across andbetween an environment and its inhabitants.

Spirits

The concept of a “spirit” is simultaneously one of the mostwidely accepted and widely contested in the world. Their nature, number,purpose, and location are debated endlessly in theology and philosophy and eachculture usually has a prevailing, structured understanding of spirits. Ratherthan conduct an exhaustive comparative exercise in the concept of spiritsacross cultures, I will focus here on the concept as it is most commonlyemployed in contemporary neopagan circles – though there are important variationseven within that group that I may not touch on.

From the pagan perspective, a spirit is an invisible being oranimating force that may or may not be embodied and is generally conceived ofas intelligent – that is, able to relate to other spirits or beings in a wayroughly analogous to the way in which animals (especially humans) interact.This communication is often via human speech, typically heard within the mindduring visualization, meditation, prayer, or dreaming. However, just asimportant is spirit communication via signs which may take the form ofsynchronicities, divination, thoughts, or feelings. Spirits are also held to beable to influence the visible world, either by acting directly on people andobjects or by indirectly influencing embodied creatures to enact their will.

“Spirit” is a broad term and although usually differentiatedfrom divinities, in practice there is often more of a continuum of qualitiesrather than a hard distinction between gods and spirits. The primary contrasttypically comes from their scope and agency: a tree spirit that lives within anindividual tree may have some power and be able to appear and converse withother beings, but the god of trees might be conceptualized as having someauthority, knowledge, or influence over all such trees and their spirits. Oftengods may act as representatives, stewards, or parent-rulers of a class or typeof being or dynamic – be they visible or invisible, e.g. the god of storms[natural phenomenon], goddess of love [dynamic or abstraction], or god offaeries [class of spirit].  

There is occasionally a conflation between energy or magicand spirits, but I would argue that these are actually separate concepts.Spirits may be made of energy, but the particular expression of energy as aspirit implies that it has become conscious and therefore has personhood, whichI don’t believe can be said for all states of energy. This also usually impliessome stability or permanence as well as autonomy. Magical energy otherwise istypically conceptualized as a current that can move or gather but is most oftenacted upon rather than acting of its own volition – though there are differingbeliefs on this point. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this essay, I will bedistinguishing between what we druids call nwyfre and spirits, thoughthe one may be tied or related to the other. A spirit may weave nwyfreor be woven from it, but once it has become a spirit, it is a class of being –not an impersonal force.

In many traditions there is a developmental teleology ofspirits, that is to say: spirits must or should progress through various phasesor incarnations with an ultimate goal of achieving a final state conceptualizedas a transformation or a relocation. An example of transformation might be theelevation of a spirit to godhood or the merging of a spirit with the vastmonist source, (thereby losing its individuality). A primary example ofrelocation might be the Christian doctrine of heaven, where spirits ceaseincarnating and instead relocate to a spiritual realm thought of as existing“above” the material realm. These are not always exclusive concepts, either.For instance, the modern druid tradition speaks of moving through abred andgwynfydd by a system of spiritual refinement (reincarnation) and finally– potentially – joining the infinity of divinity in the final circle of ceugant.

So, a spirit is a consciousness and likely can be thought ofas made of nwyfre or in some way related to it. It has a subtle body,but may also be embodied in material form. All of reality is made up of acombination of dense matter and subtle spirit in varying combinations /degrees.

Ecologyas Metaphysics

What, then, is an ecological metaphysics? How does oneconceptualize the spirit world as an ecosystem? The first thing this does, inmy perspective, is eliminate a linear, developmental view of a spirit andinstead reframe it as a spiritual lifecycle. A spirit may start as a bitof energy flowing through the ether before eventually getting caught up in alarger current – or it may do the reverse, and spin out from a larger currentand become conscious. Alternatively, it could be incarnated in the body of a humanand then later come back as a rock or a tree – or perhaps, it gets embedded ina non-physical aspect of the world and is a guiding ancestor. Right away,instead of looking at linear progression, a spirit’s life (assumed here to beessentially eternal, just as energy is never eliminated but changes form orstate) has a multitude if not an infinitude of options as it transitions fromone stage to another. It can reincarnate, return to source, grow to become aspirit of greater power, or several other possibilities – including gettingstuck in various undesirable metaphysical locations.

As you can see from the above examples, in this theory, thevisible and invisible worlds are inextricably linked and constantlyinterpermeated. Although there are some realms or states that are permanently invisible,the basic building blocks of realityare matter and spirit. This falls in line with the animism explored andexpounded upon by the great modern druid philosopher Emma Restall Orr:consciousness and physicality are part of every single atom and quantum particle.Spirit and matter are inextricable, but they may be subtler or heavier inexpression. She goes further to describe a metaphysics of process, in which allof reality is as a great rushing river with eddies and whirlpools, currents andstreams representing the temporary emergence of the distinct consciousnessesand bodies that populate our world. This is certainly a useful way of viewingreality, and I think it is supportive of, or at least not exclusive to, the ecosystemmodel, which also posits continual changes of state and transfer of energy fromone being to another. Spirit can easily move from fungus to eagle – or take alateral path into abiotic (I won’t say inanimate) forms, or exit the grosslymaterial and become part of the winds. Or one can go even further and crossback into the invisible world – only to later come back as a poltergeist or abadger.

This may soundchaotic, and in some sense, I believe it is. But there are rules. Rules in thesense that there are natural laws – corporeal and incorporeal – that govern howsouls and bodies grow, develop, die, and transform. These are taught in thesciences – esoteric and exoteric – and describe the fundamental laws of magic,thermodynamics, trophic systems, and religion. I believe one of the primaryfactors in determining what happens to a spirit as it moves from one phase toanother are its relationships with other spirits – especially those withgreater agency. I say ‘agency,’ because this is not about a traditionalhierarchy either of the sovereign or of the emanationist kinds. This is aboutvarying configurations of figurative and literal size, quality, and power – andtherefore agency in the world. Just as a human is to an ant, so a god may be tothe spirit of an individual belladonna plant. And some of these deities seem toinfluence the liminal spaces that all beings pass through. Thus, they have influenceor control over whether a spirit is incarnated, reincarnated, or given a newrole within the system. I say that the relationships are key because it doesnot seem to all depend on any single one of these deities, but rather differentparts of the all-encompassing ecosystem of existence are under governance byvarious such spirits, (who may even vie for influence and expand or recede overtime). In other words, there is no top to the pyramid; this is not a unipolarworld – we live in a multipolar and pluralist metaphysical space that allowsfor multiple “chief” gods with their own territories – be those geographically,categorically, or otherwise defined.

Finally, if thespiritual world is an ecosystem embedded within and around the physical worldthen we can more easily understand why religions – and perhaps even spiritual“facts” – might change over time. If each faith has at least at some pointgenuine spirit contact at its root, then why is there such diversity? Insteadof understanding this from a perennialist point of view (though this may beanother valid viewpoint), we can view it as the natural diversity within avibrant ecosystem. Indeed, these different spirits, magical traditions, and“laws” would be viewed as the outcomes of apex deities and their cascadinginfluence down the metaphysical food chain. When massive – or key – changes areintroduced to a spiritual ecosystem you can see enormous – and sometimesdevastating effects which translate into the fading or even extinction of somespirits and the growth of others. But this also fights against supremacist andmoralistic views of such changes and instead sees these changes as happening inlong cycles that will eventually end in the ecosystem changing again. This isneither good nor bad, but rather a neutral process that is the outcome of thesum total of spiritual and physical actors within the system. We each play ourrole – and that may be to fight tooth and nail for our chosen or fated apexdeity or local land spirits, but it does not mean that we are uniquelyrighteous in doing so. Each actor plays a key role in the overall system – bethey producer or parasite, predator or terrain.

So, an ecologicalmetaphysics views the spiritual underpinnings of our world to be essentially asystem of relationships that shift along multiple axes at any given time and donot have a fixed destination or singular forward thrust.

Implications

What implications does this have for one’s worldview? I’vealready discussed a few: (1) A rejection of a linear model of spiritualprogression or goals and acknowledgement that even after attaining a desiredstate change, a spirit may subsequently enter an entirely new mini ecosystem. (2)An acceptance of multiple powerful spirits or gods that thereby influence theirrespective metaphysical ecoregions within the complete oecosystema mundi andthat may also overlap territories substantially, thereby creating the complexnetwork of interconnected spiritual systems that include all aspects of humanand nonhuman spiritual life. (3) A rejection of a dualism between the spiritualand the physical; both are considered to be always present to a greater orlesser degree and to feed into the same ecology.

It should be clear, that this is a deeply animist,polytheist, and pantheist worldview. It encompasses all of these theologicalpositions as each describe a different aspect of the metaphysical reality. One,all things are inspirited and alive – caught in an eternal (?) cycle ofbecoming and transforming. Two, the gods (and other spirits) are many andmultiple. They range across time, space, and dimensions exerting theirinfluence on the world in a complex network of overlapping spheres. Three, allexistence – the world or universe – is divine. Divinity is not separate fromreality. Although there is unity, that is no more real than the diversity anddifference contained within. The many are one, and the one are many.

To reiterate a theme from before, the plurality does not meanthat all of one’s spiritual actions or beliefs are meaningless. Rather, each isa part of the ecosystem in which you find yourself. We may be the kudzu, ordung beetle, or the reintroduced wolf, but we have our part to play in thecycle of creation and destruction and the spiral dance of movement through timeand space. Just as the politics of conservatism and progressivism are forevertoing and froing, rising and falling in life, so too are the magical ebbs andflows in the world. Taken purely from a theological standpoint: at some pointthe polytheists reign supreme, at another the monotheists; later perhaps theatheists take charge but eventually the animists will likely rise again and soon. There is no one true path, but each has a function – even if that functionis destructive. As we druids know, often an epidemic or natural disaster willcome in when a system is imbalanced and reset the scales, which actually allowsfor new life to thrive again.

As an interesting aside, the recent book The Dawn ofEverything by Davids Graeber & Wengrow brings this sort of multi-polar,non-linear perspective into the study of human (pre)history. Similar to thedominant religious narratives that tend to be quite linear and teleological –the grand narrative of human history is also usually told as a steady marchfrom primitivism to modernity. Graeber and Wengrow challenge this and point outthat the archeological evidence actually shows that hunters and gatherers, agriculturalists,pastoralists, and everything in between have actually shared time and space forthousands of years – and sometimes a group of people may begin farming and thenabandon it in favor of returning to nomadic lifestyles. Many stone age peoplesseem to have had both egalitarian and monarchic social structures eithersimultaneously or even seasonally. Reality is far more complex and dynamic thanwe give it credit for, and I think this is a nice echo of my argument for anon-linear, non-progressivist metaphysics as we can see the same sort of systemplaying out in human cultural history.

Back to the topic at hand, it also does not mean that we haveto love every part of the system; it is perfectly natural to have instinctualor principled enemies and friends. A human does not necessarily love amosquito, even if they are helpful pollinators, because they are also parasitesat a certain point of their lifecycle. Although some may be on a path ofuniversal love due to the teachings of their soul or spirit guide, others mayhave certain lines of exclusion or even hostility that they will (or must)draw. You do not have to agree with either position. Each of us follows our ownfated path which includes our temperament, practice, embodiment, andpositionality. If we pull this back into a druid revivalist lens, then thisaligns neatly with the rule of awen: we must each follow our owninspiration, our own inner vocation in this life. One is not better thananother’s – even if they are at odds. Each is valid and may even lead one awayfrom the values that druids profess, but we respect that those who oppose usare on their own fated path and that is correct for them. In my view, perhapseven using the term “correct” may be inaccurate: it just is. And we eachfulfill our fate – which may please some gods and foil the plans of others.

Conclusion

Earlier I stated that this worldview rejects a dualismbetween the visible and invisible, but by that very statement it lists only twothings, implying a duality. Druids resist a simple duality, so what, then, isthe third part that breaks the polarity? It is the whole: the spiritual and thephysical together create being or existence. And the druid prayercalls upon the love of all existences, again calling back to the rule of awenand the ecosystem’s view that even the most destructive member of the systemhas a part to play. Following this train of thought, it is possible for even acompletely invisible god to be touched by the smell of incense because on somelevel, the god, too is made of matter – just refined to its subtlest form.While a massive boulder might be matter at its densest, even that boulder mayhave within it a spark of consciousness and thus be engaged with spiritually.This is a thoroughly animist worldview but not only does it ensoul the physicalworld, it incarnates the spiritual. There is no sublime realm wholly apart fromour mundane world; all of the world is one.

This worldview is very clearly missing an ethical or moralstance, or rather, it takes an extreme relativism – though not nihilism. Thatmay be difficult – especially for those that seek guidance from theirmetaphysics. I believe those guidelines are still possible, but they are notinherent, immutable truths, rather they are ways of behaving and engaging withthe world that bring you into alignment and harmony with some spirits – andwill bring you out of alignment with others. We all have that choice to make,just as we make choices in our human relationships, and over time may be ledcloser or further from various spirits or gods. Those of us following a druidpath may privilege the perspective of land spirits, the Earth, or our spiritualand blood ancestors. This will lead us to certain conclusions regarding theimportance of right relationship, the benefits of certain ritual, and a trustin the rule of awen. That is right and good for those of us following thispath. But that does not mean we could not follow another – or that fundamentalistChristians have misunderstood something essential about life. They haveunderstood what they need to understand to be in alignment with their owndeity(ies). Just because a mudskipper sees the world with certain limitationsdoes not mean its perspective is inaccurate, it is useful for its own lifepath.

As a druid, I am aligning myself with certain spirits.Explicitly, I am dedicating myself to service to Gaia, our Earth, and amdedicated as a deacon and soon – I hope – a priest of the Moon herself. Thereare other spirits and gods with whom I have relationships and agreements, aswell. This means that I am taking their perspectives and values as my own, orat least in harmony with my own. This will lead me to privilege certain ethicalcriteria over others and make certain moral decisions to live my life withintegrity. Broadly, this will ally my life’s work with those who are working(and perhaps fighting) towards healing and unifying the Earth; bridging the gapbetween humans and nonhumans, and sharing the wisdom of Gaia and the gods withmy fellow humans who have lost that connection. Again, although I feel thisstrongly – I feel these things to be critical and to reflect my life’s purposeon a deep, soul level – I still don’t believe that I am in possession of theonly correct moral position. It’s just that it’s my (and my groups’)position. My role to play in the great game and web of life.

Coming back to the assertion that this pluralist perspectiveis not nihilistic, I want to spend some time explaining why I believe that tobe the case. First, it does not negate that our beliefs or actions have anyeffect or import. Instead, it states that each of us are constantly influencingand being influenced by the world around us – visible and invisible. We areintegral parts of the ecosystem and each of our actions have untold ripplesacross the threads binding us all together. This worldview also allows foragency within circumstance. That is to say, we have the fate of our birth andthe fate of our guided path – for it is folly to think that beings with greateragency than ours do not manipulate and constrain our choices – but we also haveour own ability to choose within those constraints. Just as a pigeon may befated to be born feral in a human city, each individual has choices to make thatguide its life within those constraints. And the pigeon’s gods will aid orhinder that individual accordingly. So doing a spell is not meaningless justbecause there is fate, but we might be fated to cast that spell and many otheroutcomes may be contingent on it outside of our own little lives.

Finally, I think this worldview, as demonstrated throughoutthis essay, is thoroughly druidic. It is supportive of nearly all of the majordruid outlooks and – though it may not entirely align with the druid revivalistdoctrine on the soul as it moves through the three circles of creation – it hasa place for even that thread within its wider web. Building on the combinedwisdom and theory learned from key pagans, philosophers, and animists, I have attemptedto put together a metaphysics that is coherent and takes as its primaryfoundation the gnosis of nature. This is both intuitive to me and seems tosolve many theological problems such as the multitude of religions, efficacy ofwildly different magical systems, and change of spiritual experiences in populationsover time and place. Certainly, it may bring its own problems, but they areones that I can accept. Nature is messy. But there is an underlying order andthat is reflected in my ecology of spirits.

‍