Okay. But the word embodiment feels a little problematic to me, because it suggests that the psyche is first of another dimension, and then it becomes “embodied.” It seems to me that this flesh is a psyche, that the body is already psyche. That, in some sense, matter is already spirit. The word matter, when we listen with our animal ears, sounds pretty much the same as mater (or mother) yes? It’s largely the same word. Both mater and matter are related to matrix, the ancient Greek word for womb. There is a sense in which matter is the womb of all things. The more conventional notion that matter is inert until it’s animated by spirit seems a fairly flawed notion (and a vaguely sexist one, akin to the idea that “mater,” or mothers generally, are inert or inanimate). Similarly with the body and the psyche. I’m unable to think of the body as an inert or empty vessel, nor of the psyche as some insubstantial fluff that at some moment decides to enter a body and become embodied. Isn’t psyche already bodily, doesn’t psyche have sensuous qualities from the get go?

Yet our language, today, doesn’t offer many clear ways to speak of these matters. What’s your sense of it?

∆ David Abram | DAMERY, PATRICIA, and David Abram. “The Environmental Crisis and the Psyche: A Conversation with David Abram and Patricia Damery.” Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche, vol. 7, no. 1, [Taylor & Francis, Ltd., C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco], 2013, pp. 104–19, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26596525.