Completion occupies a remarkable range of registers within the depth-psychology corpus: cosmological, linguistic, clinical, and symbolic. In the I Ching tradition — mediated principally through Wilhelm/Baynes and Ritsema/Karcher — Completion appears as a paired dialectic: hexagram 63 (Chi Chi, After Completion) and hexagram 64 (Wei Chi, Before Completion) together articulate the paradox that achieved order is simultaneously the threshold of renewed disorder. This is among the richest structural tensions in the canon: the only hexagram in which all lines stand in their proper places is also the one most obviously unstable, poised on the edge of dissolution. In the Homeric-linguistic tradition, explored by Autenrieth and Benveniste, completion belongs to a cluster of Greek and Indo-European roots — telos, krainein, anuein — that embed the concept within divine sanction, sovereign authorization, and cosmic fulfillment rather than mere human accomplishment. Zhuangzi’s Taoist corpus complicates the idea further, treating completeness and impairment as mutually constitutive rather than opposed. The depth-psychological dimension proper — individuation as a movement toward wholeness — is adumbrated in Spiegelman’s reading of the Oxherding Pictures, where circular return to ordinary life on a richer level of consciousness figures completion not as terminus but as enriched re-entry. The clinical literature (Levine, Payne, Heller) reframes completion as the discharge of arrested biological sequences, returning the traumatized organism to the interrupted arc of its own self-protective response. Across these traditions, Completion is consistently relational, paradoxical, and processual rather than final.