The term ‘Imago’ carries at least three distinct registers across the depth-psychology corpus, and the scholarly reader must navigate their tensions with care. In its most technically Jungian deployment—exemplified in Murray Stein’s extended meditations on adult transformation—the imago designates the emergent psychic form that a personality achieves through metamorphosis: not a fixed portrait but a living structural pattern, analogous to the butterfly’s final instar, that crystallizes from the pressure of transformative experience, intimate relationship, and archetypal necessity. Here the imago is ontogenetic, teleological, and deeply impersonal even as it is uniquely individual. A second register, traceable to Jung’s early analytic writings and to Freudian inheritance, treats imago as a parental introject—specifically the father-imago or mother-imago—lodged in the unconscious as a regressive attractor that distorts perception of real persons through projection. This psychoanalytic usage frames the imago as obstacle rather than telos. A third, more recent deployment appears in relational and somatic therapies (Hendrix’s Imago dialogue, Winhall’s felt-sense integration), where the term is appropriated to name the relational template shaping partner selection and interpersonal safety. Alongside these clinical registers, Corbin’s Neoplatonic trajectory—Imago set in juxtaposition with Magia—introduces a cosmological dimension in which the image is the very medium of creative divine action. These strands rarely speak to one another directly; the concordance reveals how one term can bear simultaneously developmental, projective, relational, and theophanic weight.