- 254
- 118
Yes, and since that perception does not literally change the properties of the object, it does not qualify for cm1.But here's the thing. This is what Jungian Archetypes do, the things that are based off them are fundamentally different due to them being interpreted differently from the stuff that partakes into them (hence why it's "subjective"), reason why they appear as very different between different societies/cultures, hence why the massive differences despite being based on the same thing.
Bill just finds those worthless because these things aren't a bother to him, but how he describes it is definitely something that is a thing, and he seems to associate concept with meaning anyways there.