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.
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 meannig.
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.