Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To see papers related to the one you are viewing…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are articles or videos related to the one you are viewing, you will see a related papers icon next to the title, like this: RelatedPapers32Final3For example:

2015-11-06_09h28_31

Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are related (including the current one). Related papers may be papers which are commentaries, responses to commentaries, erratum, and videos discussing the paper. Since they are not part of the original source material, they are added by PEP editorial staff, and may not be marked as such in every possible case.

 

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Gordon, R. (1967). Symbols: Content and Process. J. Anal. Psychol., 12(1):23-34.

(1967). Journal of Analytical Psychology, 12(1):23-34

Symbols: Content and Process

Rosemary Gordon

Introduction

The Ideas that I want to explore in this paper have been prepared, so I feel, by two papers published in this Journal which, at first sight, may not seem to be in any way connected. I am referring to the paper by Jackson on ‘Symbol formation and the delusional transference’, and to Edinger's paper, ‘Trinity and quaternity’.

Jackson dealt specifically with problems concerning the symbolic process, with its development and its pathology. Edinger in his paper argued persuasively that an archetype of trinity exists as an independent psychic theme, that it symbolizes process and growth and that it is juxtaposed, but complementary, to the archetype of the quaternity, the latter expressing content, structure and wholeness. Edinger contended that any genuine insight into psychic reality requires the representation not only of the ‘four’, but also of the ‘three’, and he demanded, rightfully I think, that we be more alert and more respectful to trinitarian symbolism. His argument seems to me valid not only for the psyche as a whole, but also for any of its particular functions.

Is it really just a coincidence that the figure ‘four’ should, in the past, have been emphasized by Jungians at the expense of the figure ‘three’, while the study of symbolism has been confined, almost exclusively, to a concern with symbolic content rather than symbolic process?

You may now understand why I have coupled Jackson's and Edinger's papers. Both, it seems to me, have given shape, and therewith further impetus, to a development in analytical psychology which is taking place as a compensation to an earlier and too one-sided interest in structures and contents.

In this paper I hope to discuss some of the features of the symbolic process, a process which Jung ([1916]) named the transcendent function; and later he referred to the uniting function of the symbol or simply ‘uniting symbols’ (Jung, 1941 and 1951).

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.