Then what is a “design” if not a “conceptual form” (or “concept of the form”)?
And the “principle of the behavior” is merely the description, a mental thought of the relationships.
So I don’t see how either of those could not be “mental”.
Yes, that’s right becuse they could be “mental” but - for me - that isn’t enough to be the “best” definition, although … 
In German the English word “design” has become a loanword: “Design” - for example used in the word composition “Internet-Designer” (“internet designer”). Do you know what internet designer means? “Design” actually means in German “Gestaltung”. “Designer” actually means in German “Gestalter”. For example: a “Raumgestalter” means a “designer” (“Gestalter”) of a “room” (“Raum”), thus what you call an “interior decorator” or “interior designer”. The first word association I have when I hear or read the word “design” is not “spirit” - I can guarantee you.
The creator of the universe - in premodern times there was no doubt that it was God - is sometimes also called “designer”.
But “the design” (not “the designer”) is “the form” itself, the idea in the mind into which to “mold the environment - gestalt”. In ancient times, especially with Plato, the form itself (if perfect) was considered “a divine entity”. A perfect square was a divine entity. And many used the word “spirit” to refer to those entities, whether forms of living entities or not.
For years, I have stated that the word “spirit” gets conflated between “perfect forms” and “actual behaviors”. In scriptures, it is used both ways. An “angel” in Catholicism is “an idea” or “thought”, similar to Platonic entities. But a “spirit” is an action, often brought about by a thought. Often God is referred to as “the highest angel”, meaning the greatest, all-encompassing thought/idea. People trying to find and form that “highest thought” into society is what has caused a great, great deal of serious trouble, especially when they conceive the highest thought to be one requiring the killing of many people (as the science-secularists do today). When their idea requires the murder of a great many people, they say, “God commanded it”, meaning merely that the idea requires it in order to be manifest.
So to me, the greater issue isn’t one of who is using which words, but rather the aspiration of them trying to arrange for the highest idea being the governance of Man, the Ubermensch. Those are the “Godwannabes” because their highest ideal always insists that THEY are on top dictating to everyone else (if they even allow anyone else to live at all). Secularists prefer using a machine to be that dictator controlling or manipulating the thoughts of all people so as to be their “perfect ideal governor” = “God” or “Man(ager)”. But look who is programming their machine.
To you, does “zero physical existence” also mean “zero existence at all”? I remind you: According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. That which has “zero existence” could have a “spiritual” existence.
If we want to talk reasonably, we must first agree on the words (logemes, lexemes) that we use, thus we must define.
If we say “‘the design’ (not ‘the designer’) is ‘the form’ itself, the idea in the mind into which to ‘mold the environment - gestalt’”, then it is okay, so that we can use it in connection with “spirit”, although the word “design” has also a different meaning.
It isn’t my business to correct every word that has been formed and ambiguously conflated. “Spirit” is not a word that RM:AO uses (much like force and mass). I can explain some of the confusion that has come about concerning many words, but they are not “my” words.
RM:AO is about actual existence, actual affects. Some of the common words that people have created and use fit well. Some do not fit very well. Some words fit only if you use them in one of their multiple meanings. I don’t really care. How other people choose to use and misuse their words is their business.
I can tell from how people use their word “spirit”, that they are often talking about one of two things and seldom distinguish which one they are talking about. Due to that, there is a lot of confusion amongst the people. As I explained before, the word “spirit” has two common usages. One is referring to concepts or ideas. The other is referring to actual physical flow, “energy”. And sometimes they are referring to the concept of a particular flowing.
In RM:AO, I chose, for convenience, to merely allow for a “conceptual realm of existence” and a “physical realm of existence”. The conceptual realm was for the Platonic entities - concepts, independent of physical existence. Plato and others declared in their ontology, that such entities have “always existed”. I don’t really care if you choose to say that they have “always existed” or not. If a concept is not being physically represented, it is having no affect. It can be thought of as a “potential existence void of opportunity”.
The conceptual realm is actually the special case of the physical realm wherein the essence of something (its concept) has been reduced to zero physical presence, yet the concept still “exists”. The conceptual realm is the extreme pole of reduced physicality.
If you had 5 apples in a basket and took one out at a time, you would be reducing the physical presence of the concept called “apple”. When you got down to zero apples, you no longer have any physical presence, but you still have the concept. The concept is still in your mind and has a physical presence there as the concept alone, without actual physical form, merely definition (understanding of the description).
But even without any minds at all, Platonic ontology declares that the concept still “exists”. RM:AO declares that “it only exists within the conceptual realm”, meaning that it has no physical affect although has conceptual affect (the concept of a straight line, for example, affects the concept of a square and triangle).
But the truth is, I don’t really care whether it is said to “exist” or not. Rational metaphysics is called “rational” because it is for addressing achievable goals. Whether something exists yet has no affect at all, is not something RM:AO cares about. A concept within a mind affects that mind and that mind affects that body, thus has physical existence. The possibility of the future existence of a concept is itself a physical existence if it is thought about. A possible existence is, in effect, a “negative presence” or a “hole to be filled”. The “hole” exists in the same way that an electron exists. An electron is a bundle of positive absence, or “reduced existence” from the ambient.
Well, if you want to just use a single definition that is most compatible with me, “spirit” refers to physical motion or behavior and “concept” refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume.
It seems to be a translation problem. “Spirit” as the common translated German word “Geist” also “refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”. “Concept” as the common translated German word “Begriff” („Konzept“, „Idee“) also “refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”. So if I translate those two words - “spirit” and “concept” -, I always get “those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”.
Howsoever, do you agree with me that there are material and non-material forms of existence?
Oh, I see. 
Like I said, the word “spirit” has become ambiguous, so let’s just leave that word out and use either “energy” for the essence of any movement and “behavior” for any particular form or type of movement.
I can agree to that. RM:AO allows for a “physical realm of existence” (or “material”) and also a “conceptual realm of existence”. And understand that as the material existence reduces to zero, it approaches the conceptual realm. They share a border at “zero physical existence”.
Ambiguous. Oh, I see.
And there are merely this two realms, because accordong to RM:AO “absolutely zero” does not exist, so a zero realm does also not exist.
Yes, that border of “absolute zero” can never be breached. It is non-existence. Concepts have nothing to do with time or distance. For a concept to become a physical reality, it doesn’t “cross the border”, but rather a physical potential (“situation”) must independently arise such as to form the concept within the physical realm. At that point the concept is a “physical state”.
Principles (“laws”) have that same issue because a principle is merely a special case of a concept. For a principle to physically exist, a situation must arise that constitutes a physical state to represent the principle otherwise the principle has no physical representation and remains independent of time and distance. A “political state” is an example.
So the whole spiritual part of life - for eaxmple principles, “laws”, rules, ideas, and all the other special cases of a concept - would have to remain in the spiritual / conceptual / energetic realm of existence and can’t reach the other realm, the physical / material realm, if a physical potential (as the situation) hadn’t occured.
Well, there you go using the “s” word again after we agreed not to.
The conceptual realm and energy don’t mix. Energy is of the physical realm.
But yes, the potential must arise for a conceptual entity to appear in the physical world. The devil cannot enter your home if you don’t leave the door open to him. A three headed elephant cannot be born into the world if the DNA is not altered into something that would produce a three headed elephant.
Sorry, I worded that very poorly.
I meant to say, “All physical things have more than absolute zero effect upon physical things, but ONLY through time.”
Here you said that I should use the word “energy” instead of “spirit”:
Here you said “spirit” and “energy” don’t mix:
The conceptual realm has no movement or changing = concepts or ideas.
The physical realm is for all movement or changing = energy or behavior.
If the word “spirit” has really “become ambiguous”, then it should also not refer “to the physical realm”. In this case “ambiguous” means that the reference is not clear, thus there is no refernce to both the conceptual realm and the physical realm.
That is why I said, let’s just not use it. When a word has become ambiguous, using it merely leads to more confusion and chaos. Clarity is important.
I think the Greek word „nous“, the German words „Geist“, „Vernunft“, „Verstand“, „Intellekt“, „Idealität“, „Ideal(e)“, „Idee“, „Begriff“, „Vorstellung“, „Konzept“, „Plan“, and others describe very well what you mean by „conceptual realm“. Strangely but according to what you said, the English word „spirit“ doesn’t fit very well, although its German translation is usually „Geist“. Nevertheless, I should prefer to follow your advice and avoid as much as possible the word „spirit“ when it comes to the „conceptual realm“.
„Nous“: „Vernunft“, „Geist“, „Denkkraft“, „Einsicht“.
„Vernunft“: „reason“.
„Geist“: „spirit“, „mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „esprit“, „genie“, „intelligence“, „intellect“, „apprehension“, „brain“, „sense“, „genius“.
„Denkkraft“: „think(ing) strength“.
„Einsicht“: „insight“ „inspection“, „intelligence“.
„Verstand“: „understanding“, „intelligence“, „intellect“, „brains“.
„Intellekt“: „intellect“.
„Idealität“: „ideality“.
„Ideal(e)“: „ideal(s)“.
„Idee“: „idea“.
„Begriff“: „concept“, „definition“, „term“, „idea“, „notion“, „conception“.
„Vorstellung“: „imagination“, „representaion“, „idea“, „conception“.
„Konzept“: „concept“, „conception“, „draft“, „draught“.
„Plan“: „plan“, „map“, „programme“, „project“, „schedule“, „scheme“.
Realize that all I am saying is that because the word “spirit” gets used to mean two different things without making it clear which the author intends, I would prefer to not use the word when talking about very exacting things such as RM:AO. The word can be misleading.
Something to think about concerning the concept of “force” as it is used in physics is that the concept is what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance” and didn’t agree with it. The Newtonian concept of forces, attraction and repulsion, was that two bodies with absolutely nothing between them, would attract or repel each other depending on their mass and/or charge potential. That actually requires “magic” because it is implying that each body is being affected by another far away without anything between or touching either body.
This is another example of empirical evidence being misleading. The empirical evidence is that the two bodies respond to each other and yet it can clearly be seen that absolutely nothing is between them. Of course the truth is that just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. That is why logic is required beyond the physical evidence. And that logic is called “metaphysics”.
And that is why I say that “forces” don’t actually exist. They are an aberrant effect of the gradient affectance field that is between the two bodies causing the bodies to behave with respect to the other. They bodies migrate with respect to their immediate surroundings. They don’t sense the presence of the distant body. If you modify that field, the bodies will respond accordingly regardless of any other body that might be around.
Both Newtonian physics and Einstein’s Relativity are merely illusions that provided for better predictions than what they had before. But a method for predicting is not a law of the universe, merely a short-cut tool with which to get a little closer to knowing what is going to happen even if you have no idea as to why.
RM:AO is all about “Why?” - the “Meta-physics”, the Logic.
Throughout his adult life Goethe, for example, fought Newton’s physics.