By continuing a tradition of interdisciplinary dialogue that merges psychoanalytic and psychodynamic principles, with the philosophy of contemporary physics, this presentation highlights emerging conceptual structures that serve to broaden and deepen the prevalent scientific framework, especially as regard the tacit dimension of human experience and therapeutic encounters. The presentation will appeal to those interested in cutting edge approaches to psychoanalytic theory and practice, and with an appreciation for philosophy and poetry. Eugene Gendlin indeed called psychotherapy a kind of “bad poetry”, since it entails a struggle for language. Psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion and physicist David Bohm were both undoubtedly aware of this problem. There are aspects of experience that are not reducible to conceptual and linear description. Below the manifest reality, consisting of distinctions and segmentations, there is an underlying “ineffable” domain which is not directly accessible empirically. But because this domain is subject to experience it influences what it means to be human on the explicate or manifest level. From distinct angles, Bion and Bohm, both recognized that the wholeness of nature, including human becoming, rests on a fundamental principle of complementarity. Dialectical oppositions are co-presents and form a whole. To describe this ongoing interplay, Bohm used the term holomovement and the analogy of the implicate and explicate order, where, through a process of participation, potentials are brought into actuality and “unfold meaning”. Similarly, Bion describes the quest of becoming more oneself in psychoanalysis, as an interplay of O (ontology) and K (epistemology), where transformations in O (potential or being dimension) emerges from the experience (rather than the intellectual understanding) of K (knowing dimension). In therapy this entails a tripartite process of goal-directed agency versus resonant participation, and where the relation of the infinite and the finite, the implicate and explicate, relates back to the participants in the therapeutic dyad, generating what I call the “therapeutic third”. The third, in this view, pertains to a realm between client and therapist that extends beyond the intersubjective model to the ontological and transpersonal.