*The encounter with what exceeds modeling.* Nature is always larger than any model of it — not as a contingent limitation of undeveloped minds but as what finite modeling within Nature structurally consists in. Any account must locate the religious response at the encounter with this excess rather than at a separate supernatural reality. The structural requirement is that the account derive the religious response from what finite modeling within Nature consists in: the reach noticing its own boundary, which is whenever the reach is deep enough to notice anything at all.

*Wondering as the structural phenomenon.* The encounter is not a percept (no sensory channel for it), not a hypothesis (no claim yet made), but a wondering held open as a question: whether anything lies beyond what the reach can model. Any account must accommodate this structural shape rather than treating spirituality as either ordinary perception or ordinary belief. The structural requirement is that the account derive the wondering from what reach does at the depth where it can notice its own boundary as a boundary and ask about what lies past it.

*Default rather than rare.* The encounter is the default condition of being a person at sufficient depth, not the province of mystics or specially trained adepts. Any account must accommodate the universality rather than treating spirituality as exceptional. The structural requirement is that the account derive the spiritual response from features of self-modeling at sufficient depth, with the wondering available whenever the reach notices its own boundary.

*Depth-graded distribution.* Forms of the encounter run across non-human lineages — elephants at bones, chimpanzees at waterfalls, corvids at the dead. What human spirituality adds is not the encounter but the recursion that takes the encounter as an object. Any account must accommodate the depth gradient rather than restricting spirituality to species-specific human behavior. The structural requirement is that the account distinguish the *encounter* (widespread at sufficient depth) from the *recursion that takes the encounter as an object* (specific to human-level recursive depth) from *religion in the developed sense* (requiring the conceptual and linguistic apparatus that gives the recursion durable form).

*Vocabulary-bound articulation.* What varies across individuals, cultures, and traditions is not whether the encounter happens but what vocabulary gets applied to it. Any account must accommodate this distinction rather than treating cross-cultural variation as evidence of the encounter's unreality. The structural requirement is that the account distinguish the reach (accurate, in each case responsive to what exceeds modeling) from the metaphysics (each tradition's best available articulation, never adequate to what was being touched).

*Coherence with the historical-critical record.* The arc of theological abstraction — from bodied local deities embedded in pantheons to incorporeal absolutes — is well-documented in the best-studied case (the Hebrew Bible) and parallels the Eurasian "axial age" pattern across non-interacting cultures. Any account must accommodate the arc and explain its shape rather than treating theological development as random or arbitrary. The structural requirement is that the account derive the arc from recursion-depth-driven abstraction: as models deepen, the deity is abstracted toward the limits the recursion can support; convergence at scale reflects depth-of-vocabulary effects rather than cultural contact.

*Asymmetry of the arc.* The arc is asymmetric: once the deity has been moved out of the body, no later layer puts it cleanly back; subsequent vocabularies refine the abstraction or react against it. Any account must accommodate the irreversibility rather than treating theological development as fully reversible. The structural requirement is that the account derive the asymmetry from the recursion-ratchet feature: deeper recursive vocabulary builds on what previous recursion produced, with each layer commenting on rather than displacing what came before.

*Apophatic counter-currents.* After the abstraction terminus, the encounter is no longer accessible through the official vocabulary, and apophatic counter-currents (Pseudo-Dionysius, Eckhart, Sufi *fana*, Advaita's *neti neti*, Zen of the unspoken) emerge to re-locate the encounter inside the experiencing subject. Any account must accommodate these counter-currents rather than treating them as eccentric byways. The structural requirement is that the account derive the apophatic turn from the structural fact that the abstraction's reach has stopped registering what the encounter was responding to, with apophasis as the correction.

*Coherence with the inversion.* With Chapters 6–7 foreclosing the upward exit — no supernatural source, no realm beyond Nature — any account of spirituality must support a religious response that survives the foreclosure rather than collapsing into either atheist dismissal or covert supernaturalism. The structural requirement is that the account locate spirituality's source in Nature's structural depth: the encounter with what exceeds finite modeling is an encounter with Nature itself, not with anything outside it.

*Stylistic discipline at the structural level.* The diction notes the cluster-root carries from the 2026-05-15 audit (preserved through the restructure) should remain available. Any account must preserve the stylistic devices that have proved essential rather than letting them fall in revision. The structural requirement is editorial: keep what has tested as carrying weight.

Taken together these requirements name what an adequate account of spirituality has to carry: the encounter with what exceeds modeling, wondering as the structural phenomenon, default rather than rare distribution, depth-graded distribution, vocabulary-bound articulation, coherence with the historical-critical record, the asymmetry of the abstraction arc, apophatic counter-currents, coherence with the inversion, and stylistic preservation through revision. The framework [§8.14](<8.14 Spirituality.md>) defends meets each.


---

← [8.14.1 What is Disputed](<8.14.1 What is Disputed.md>) | [8.14.3 What is Predicted](<8.14.3 What is Predicted.md>) →
