This paper, the second part of a two-part essay, continues to examine the anthropological category of "world" and its metaphysical implications. It argues for the continued heuristic value of the concept of worldview, suggesting that transcendence is inherent in personal ontogenesis and is not limited to specific cultures or ontologies. The author draws on St. Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological Proof of God's existence to develop a comparative theory of personhood, emphasizing the importance of understanding transcendence within the process of "worlding," which involves the relationality and holism of the mental. The paper also discusses the evolution of anthropological approaches, from midcentury interpretivism to contemporary polydivinistic perspectives, and critiques the dichotomies between godless and godforsaken positions. It highlights the need for anthropologists to embrace a polydivinistic stance, recognizing the plurality of sacreds and the importance of receptivity to the sacred in contemporary ethnographic engagement. The author concludes by proposing a return to Collingwood's philosophy of history and the Ontological Proof to address the challenges of transcendentality and to develop a more inclusive and sophisticated understanding of human experience.This paper, the second part of a two-part essay, continues to examine the anthropological category of "world" and its metaphysical implications. It argues for the continued heuristic value of the concept of worldview, suggesting that transcendence is inherent in personal ontogenesis and is not limited to specific cultures or ontologies. The author draws on St. Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological Proof of God's existence to develop a comparative theory of personhood, emphasizing the importance of understanding transcendence within the process of "worlding," which involves the relationality and holism of the mental. The paper also discusses the evolution of anthropological approaches, from midcentury interpretivism to contemporary polydivinistic perspectives, and critiques the dichotomies between godless and godforsaken positions. It highlights the need for anthropologists to embrace a polydivinistic stance, recognizing the plurality of sacreds and the importance of receptivity to the sacred in contemporary ethnographic engagement. The author concludes by proposing a return to Collingwood's philosophy of history and the Ontological Proof to address the challenges of transcendentality and to develop a more inclusive and sophisticated understanding of human experience.