„Now we make the fantastic assumption that Rome is not a human dwelling place, but a psychic being of similarly long and rich past. In which therefore nothing, which had once come into being, has perished, in which besides the last phase of development also all earlier ones still continue to exist.[...]Obviously, there is no sense in spinning out this fantasy further; it leads to the unimaginable, even to the absurd. If we want to represent the historical succession spatially, it can only happen by a juxtaposition in space; the same space does not tolerate two different fillings. Our attempt seems to be an idle gimmick; it has only one justification; it shows us how far we are from coping with the peculiarities of the life of the soul by vivid representation.“ The problem of representation addressed by Freud can perhaps be overcome by an efficient use of growing data sets. Physical relics are in this context just to be considered equally as physical, meta- physical and digital data. This does not assume substitutability, merely the need for equal consideration. This metadata appears to be tied to the physical object and is energetically exchanged between the object and the human consciousness unit. This exchange is and most likely will be sustained only in a physical context. Thus, it is important to allocate a physical space with a physical relic to really understand it, to may read all the data. This read metadata acts as a trigger of the individual or shared memory pool. This process, of building knowledge by reading data and responding to data through subjective triggers seems existential to human life, to consciousness. This must be precisely the idea behind a new idea of collection. The possibility of experiencing the interaction between in- dividual memory and data (externalized through processes) that reminds us mutually of who we are as a community - the task of approaching the representation of the „peculiarity of the life of the soul.“