The term ‘Matter’ occupies a vast and contested terrain within the depth-psychology corpus, ranging from Plotinus’s Neoplatonic ontology—where Matter is the formless, passive receptacle of Ideal-Forms, itself neither primary nor real in any robust sense—to Aurobindo’s integral vision, in which Matter is revealed as a condensed form of Spirit, and Consciousness is the true substrate from which material appearance descends. McGilchrist approaches the problem from the philosophy of mind and contemporary physics, arguing that matter ‘evanesces’ under rational scrutiny, dissolving the materialist ground upon which mind was supposed to rest. Simondon intervenes with a process-philosophical account, insisting that the hylomorphic schema misrepresents the relation of matter and form by rendering matter passive: in reality, matter is the bearer of active potentialities. Pauli, writing at the intersection of physics and philosophy, records the Einsteinian dissolution of the matter-energy boundary, demonstrating that even light now qualifies as matter. Berry, in the archetypal register, signals that psyche is as deeply implicated in matter as in spirit, and that literalism—not materiality itself—is the true obstacle. Taken together, these voices reveal that ‘Matter’ in depth-psychological discourse is never simply the inert physical substrate of common sense; it is perpetually haunted by its relation to Form, Spirit, Consciousness, and Soul.