The term ‘even’ as it appears across the depth-psychology corpus functions less as a subject of sustained theoretical elaboration than as a logical and rhetorical intensifier marking the outer boundary of a claim — the furthest reach of inclusion, the limit case that tests a principle. In Augustine, ‘even’ marks God’s presence in memory beyond expected precincts; in Dōgen, it signals that the most resistant minds are drawn toward goodness; in Hollis, it names the radical self-otherness required for authentic individuation. Hillman deploys it to stretch the sacred into profane zones — even Priapos, even pornography, belong to the divine economy. Estés uses it to mark the survival of soul under maximum deprivation. Across the corpus, ‘even’ consistently performs the same philosophical labor: it extends a principle to cases where resistance is greatest, thereby stress-testing the generality of a claim. Whether in mystical theology, Jungian psychology, or contemplative ethics, the rhetorical use of ‘even’ signals that the author regards some limiting case as essential evidence rather than mere exception. The term thus indexes the scope and audacity of a given theoretical commitment, revealing where thinkers believe their frameworks must hold if they are to hold at all.