What if spirituality is the basic structure of all living things? Spirituality here does not mean religious belief systems or subjective inner feelings. Rather, it refers to a fundamental dimension of reality in which relationships, meaning, and consciousness are structure-forming principles. It is therefore not an additional interpretation, but rather a rational expression of the original constitution of all living things – a structurally unavoidable dimension.
Higgs field. Resistance
that is necessary for
mass to arise.
Invisible space
that gives particles their identity.
The crack through creation
is therefore a fundamental condition
for difference, movement,
relationship, becoming.
The moment when the one
opened itself to b r e a T h e,
loving to become many.
If spirituality is the fundamental structure of all living things, then consciousness would not be a late by-product of complex matter, but a fundamental characteristic of reality itself. Every particle, every cell, every system would carry within itself aspects of inner experience, of relationship to the world, in varying depths and complexities.
(Note: I am aware that with this text I am touching on a sensitive interface between rational science and a spiritual understanding of the world that is still viewed with skepticism in many academic circles. Not because it is wrong, but because it preempts our habitual language and thinking. You will find comments on this and references below.)
What we describe as matter would not be independent of mind, but rather its form of expression. Natural laws would not be mechanical processes, but structures of a deeper spiritual order unfolding in a diversity of forms.
Development – from the evolution of biological species to social and cultural change – would not only have an external, functional dimension, but also an internal one: the striving for consciousness, differentiation, and integration.
Separation – between particles, organisms, humans – would not be the essence of things, but a necessary step on the path to relationship and mutual recognition. Every form of individuality would be an invitation to connect rather than a demarcation.
Science would have to rethink its concepts of objectivity and subjectivity. For objective knowledge would not be a separation from the subjective, but the conscious, reflective participation of a living mind that encounters itself in the world.
Then therapy would not only be the repair of damaged functionality, but above all part of a biopsychosocial-creative-spiritual understanding of development – as an accompaniment to a deeply self-evident process: the reintegration of hidden wholeness that is inherent in every human being, every creature.
Education would not primarily mean the accumulation of knowledge, but rather the development of an inner ability to recognize and shape meaning, context, and vitality.
Technology would not simply be a means of mastering and conquering the world, but could be shaped as conscious cooperation with the creative forces of nature – in the service of sustainable coexistence.
Ethics would also be transformed: responsibility to respect and promote life in all its manifestations would arise not from external laws, but from the experience of deep connectedness.
Then religions, sciences, and arts would not be separate spheres, but different expressions of the same reality: the living interpenetration of spirit and matter, meaning and form, love and becoming.
Every breath would be part of a being and having in which the One unfolds itself again and again in diverse ways in order to recognize and celebrate itself in relationship.
If spirituality is understood neither as belief nor as feeling or metaphysical option, but as the fundamental structure of all living things, then relationship is not a construct, resonance is not a technique, openness is not a deliberate act, and self-perception and perception of others are not projections. Rather, they are ontological givens.
Relationship is always already there, beyond transference, need, or analysis. For being is always relationship, life is always resonance – and consciousness is always co-being.
Notes on this text:
Some people will find the above text deeply resonant. Especially those who feel that the old divisions between “mind” and “matter,” “subjectivity” and “objectivity,” “therapy” and “spirituality” are no longer viable. Experience from numerous conversations shows that they will feel understood by this text. This is also because I try to offer a language that builds bridges.
Others will be irritated. Not because I am writing nonsense :-), but because I am implicitly challenging the foundations of their thinking. For scientists, for example, the statement that matter is an expression of spirit may seem like a metaphysical imposition. This is especially true if they lack a connection to systemic or depth psychology theory. Well, that can be changed (not by me, but by them).
A third group of readers will misunderstand me. Some will quickly dismiss me as “esoteric” simply because of the term “spirituality.” This is especially true if they read superficially and are unfamiliar with the context of my work and, above all, with me. Well, that’s a risk – but not a fatal one. Because I’m just saying something that’s my own. Something that belongs only to itself. That’s valuable in a scientific system that is increasingly longing for transdisciplinary impulses.
Sure, I polarize too. But not because I want to provoke. Rather, because I have a different basic assumption about reality – probably from an early age, although I haven’t been able to put it into words until now. But that’s not a disadvantage; it’s necessary. It opens up spaces in which science can develop further. And that, of course, requires courage and the ability to integrate.
A side note – but not an insignificant one: the fact that this text is written by a woman may be irrelevant in an ideal world. In the real world, however, it is not without significance. I write as a human being. And yet I am read – consciously or unconsciously – as a woman. Not because I define myself by gender, but because I operate in a system that reads gender into my writing. This is not a complaint. It is an observation. Perhaps also an invitation: to hear what lies beyond the attribution.
Food for thought – for anyone looking for connection:
• Ulrike Streck-Plath: Seelenfutter (Food for the Soul) book series https://usplive.de/seelenfutter-buchreihe/ (“Seelenfutter” stands for texts that combine spiritual anthropology, systemic reflection, and therapeutic depth – beyond religious dogma or esoteric clichés.)
• Eckhard Frick: Called or Not Called. Spirituality in Psychotherapy
• Arno Gruen: The Madness of Normality
• Otto F. Kernberg: Limits of Understanding
• Niklas Luhmann: Social Systems
• Roger Penrose: The Shadow of the Mind
• Hartmut Rosa: Resonance. A Sociology of World Relations
This selection is not intended as evidence, but as an invitation: to delve deeper, to disagree, to resonate. Its focus is not theory, but lived experience expressed in reflective language.
Further information (currently only available in German): https://kunstitut.de/