Homeostatic regulation occupies a foundational position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a biological imperative, a neurophysiological architecture, and — most provocatively in the hands of Damasio — the very ground from which mind, feeling, and culture emerge. Damasio argues most comprehensively that homeostasis is not a passive thermostat-like mechanism but an active, value-laden process whose evolutionary priority precedes even genetic machinery; feelings, on this account, are the subjective face of homeostatic states, rendering what would otherwise be invisible biochemical transactions phenomenally available to the organism. Porges situates homeostatic regulation within a hierarchical polyvagal framework, where physiological homeostasis (Level I) constitutes the developmental substrate on which emotional, social, and cognitive regulation are subsequently constructed. Craig maps the lamina I and brainstem circuitry through which interoceptive signals subserve homeostatic maintenance, grounding the concept in precise neuroanatomy. Khalsa extends the framework computationally, proposing that hierarchical Bayesian inference unifies interoception with homeostatic and allostatic control — and that psychiatric disorders represent chronic perturbations of this system. Schore identifies the prefrontal-orbital system as a central mechanism of homeostatic regulation in the developing self, linking dyadic attachment experience to the neurobiological architecture of self-regulation. The key tension across these voices concerns the scope of the concept: whether homeostasis designates narrow physiological set-point maintenance or a dynamic, culturally elaborated striving toward optimal life conditions.