Gestalt theory permits disallowment of – without excluding – the desire to define a human "essence". In the process of apprehending the field – a meditative experience for me – one may gain access to cosmic inclusivity, an experience of profound "spiritual" importance. But I do not find it necessary or fetching to create a separate spiritual nature, to define experience in terms of soulful or religious constructs. In fact, I am rather unimpressed by people who let themselves off the existential hook by creating additional conditions. I am more impressed by the courageous folks who deal with the basic givens – death, meaningless, aloneness, responsibility, freedom, etc. – more directly. Existence is enough for me; why muddle it with essence?
And I have no rejective response to those who love Jesus or think that nirvana is something that happens to ascetics in India. I love listening to their absurd (to me) rationalizations. The fact that I expect to dissolve into the full and impersonal FIELD has, actually, nothing to do with current intersubjectivities. The fact that I am already dissolved in the full and impersonal FIELD has nothing to do with current figures of love. I love Kierkegaard. Doesn’t mean I have to put on a frock and go preach to the choir. I love my friend Justin. Doesn’t mean I have to go to Mass with him.
I re-read the quotation. Turns out, we're talking about the same thing!
Well, this sounds like a Gestalt alternative to spirituality. I hope not. Gestalt theory is metatheoretical; it is only additionally concerned with the human experience. I hope this gets some rejective responses!