Σύμβολου: An attempt toward the early origins, 2 Giuseppe Iurato University of Palermo, IT E-mail:
[email protected] Abstract. In continuation of what has been said in the first part of this two-part paper, herein we present further considerations on symbolism, reconsider some related psychodynamic case reports with some possible variants about their interpretations, and will apply what is said to some further speculations on mathematical symbolism and thought. In this second part, we continue with the numeration of the first part Σύμβολου, 1. 5. On symbolism: further considerations 5.1. On sign and symbol. Following Harré, Lamb and Mecacci (1983), in psychology, a sign is considered to have a symbolic nature when we are not interested in its referential meaning but, rather, in the content borne by it, whose communicative aim, being a psychological factor, could be unconscious. In the psychological context, the symbol should be considered in a different manner to the sign, and the content should be considered in a different way to the referent, the latter being correlated to the sign through the reference relationship, whereas the content is correlated to the symbol through the unconscious component of the former. All that is in agreement with the Jungian theory of symbolism according to which reference and use of signs of direct thought should be ascribed to the action of conscious thought, whereas symbols should be attributed to the joint and inseparable action of conscious and unconscious thought.1 Moreover, according to these authors, there is a strict connection between the symbolic usage of signs and altered states of consciousness, the latter being seen as more desirable because they allow us to bypass the ordinary vigil (often unpleasant and anxiogenic organization of the Ego.