Wholeness stands as one of the most contested and generative terms in the depth-psychological lexicon, functioning simultaneously as a clinical goal, a metaphysical postulate, and a spiritual aspiration. In the Jungian mainstream, wholeness designates the telos of individuation: the integration of conscious and unconscious contents, of shadow and persona, of anima/animus and ego, into a coherent, if never fully achieved, psychological totality organized around the Self. Jung’s own formulations insist that wholeness is approached rather than attained — one moves toward it, as Dennett carefully notes, since complete integration of unconscious content remains impossible. This directional rather than terminal understanding distinguishes analytical psychology sharply from theological notions of salvation or redemption, with which it is frequently confused. Critical voices within the post-Jungian tradition — Hillman most prominently, Guggenbuhl-Craig as well — challenge the monotheistic cast of wholeness-as-unity, arguing that it suppresses the psyche’s irreducible multiplicity and pathologizes legitimate incompleteness. Beyond clinical psychology, the term radiates outward into cosmological speculation (Rudhyar’s holistic astrology, Ponte and Schafer’s quantum background), addiction spirituality (Grof, Peterson, Dennett), and neurophilosophy (McGilchrist’s hemispheric Gestalten). The persistent tension between wholeness as integration of opposites and wholeness as surrender to a transpersonal field remains the animating problematic of the corpus.