Now it seems like we’re quibbling over definitions and labels. At the base of it, there is the intellect and there are the emotions, unified under one being. The spirit is simply what we call the emotions getting the better of the intellect. It is no real thing, and we could call it this or that. You seem to be advancing some sort of materialism that denies all immaterial substances. What I speak of here doesn’t claim anything immaterial. We could call it the biological, neurological, etc composition or what have you that exists within that dictates whether we will be more “emotional” or more “rational.” As an observer of these qualities, the “spirit” is a name for the emotions and the intellect producing some idea given their configuration with respect to one another.
A weak spirit would, as I am considering it, be someone who is suffering from depression or forms of stress disorder. We cannot automatically deem all things frisky in nature to be good. Chaos does not necessarily entail “happiness, free spirit, etc”.
A “free spirit” as you seem to be thinking does too have a certain relation, within herself, of her intellect and emotions governing each other.
The problem with using that definition for freedom is that it becomes a meaningless (or at least ineffective, useless, or arcane) term. What you’re describing is essentially nonexistence: with nothing to interact with, nothing happens.
You’re thinking like a scientist - that the only thing that exists is the physical world. There is another existence that I am aware of, that I experience daily - the greater part of who/what I am. That existence interacts with everything, is a causal factor in everything that happens. With open-minded curiosity that existence reveals itself. With close-minded ridicule it never will. There are more details at my blog (if you are curious).