 In recent literature, a number of questions have arisen about Hartmann’s theory of stratification. One concerns the borderline between psychological and spiritual strata. Hartmann himself acknowledges that the distinction between the psychological and the spiritual levels is problematic. Hartmann vacillates as to the delimitations of what is properly psychological. He assigns language, consciousness, and foresight alternatively to the psychological level or to the personal level of the spirit. He even claims that the same acts of consciousness pertain to both psychic and spiritual being and that only an exact clarification of the phenomenon of mental acts may solve the aporia. Some authors have attempted to clarify these relations (Scognamiglio 2011), while others have pointed out that the overall architecture of the theory of strata of reality, or the relations among the biological, the psychological and spiritual levels, may need to be revised. Put briefly, if the psychological level ends up including what psychology and cognitive sciences acknowledge as psychological phenomena, the dividing line between the psychological and the spiritual levels should be located elsewhere, and what Hartmann calls personal spirit will become the higher layer of the psychological level. The reorganization suggested enables construction of an entirely different architecture of the three levels, one that passes from a strictly linear organization (one level after the other) to a non-linear, “triangular” architecture, which would be a major departure from Hartmann’s original framework (Poli 2001; for other proposals, see Kleineberg 2016, Dziadkowiec 2011).