Thanks for your comment. Yes, it makes sense to me, but I am coming from a very different tradition of thought. I would characterize your thought as primarily within the tradition of perennial philosophy. My own thought is more related to Anglo-American analytical philosophy, albeit with generous borrowings from continental thought, especially phenomenology.

I am more interested in getting to formal definitions of concepts like “essence” and “nothing.” Moreover, my “big picture” view is strictly naturalistic, so while I will sometimes try to address “all,” I would probably do it either by way of, say, Quine’s essay “On What There Is” or by means of cosmology and big history.

When I do deal with archetypal symbols such as you have mentioned — sun, Mother Earth, male, female, etc. — I do so by way of a more-or-less academic approach to mythology, as I attempted to do in my essay, “The Archetypal Age and the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness.”

Best wishes,

Nick