A symbol is an authentic sign since its true constitution calls for the participation of an interpretant in it to be completed. His theory is described as being an “abstraction from psychology,” and the categories that he developed are ideal for use in the area of depth psychology. This hermeneutical leap is likely to be translated into clinical psychology as long as the process of making a transposition, which always involves a reinterpretation of these categories for the purpose of their application, is followed.
The symbol in Sigmund Freud
A distinction may be made between psychoanalysis and analytical psychology when it is considered in relation to the study of symbols in dynamic psychology and the symbol that they serve. This distinction can be made by looking at the sources of meaning. The etymology of the term symbol for Freud refers to an object that is meaningful when the two sides where the origin was divided are reunited; from the Greek (= with, together) and βαλλω (= jet): put together. This procedure of reuniting held significance in ancient times, signifying acknowledgment and belonging, similar to the relationship between a slave and his master or the bond between families.
In point of fact, this aspect of the symbol’s psychoanalytic meaning is still present, both now and in the past. Freud’s investigations progressed to the point where he could reference evidence suggesting the origin of hysterical symptoms was not always related to a painful experience of sexual form. Therefore, the sickness was more likely caused by a sexual representation in infancy, with the psychological fact serving as the actual event itself. Freud developed the equation symptom = mnestic symbol when he was working on the case of Elisabeth von R. (1892). This was done so that he could better manage the situation. When it comes to psychoanalysis, a symbol is the same thing as a representation of something, and because the object in question is inaccessible, it only shows up symbolically in the form of symptomatology. The urge to come into awareness and the incapacity to do so while maintaining their real character prompted the need to analyze the equivalency owing to the delay. Such representations would suffer from the removal of latent contents, which is a direct effect of their inacceptability. Freud proposes that the symbol, in its capacity as a phylogenetic inheritance, is incorporated into the construction of a symbolic function that may be traced to ontogeny. It “may note the semantic significance of Freud which lowers the symbol “sign of primary instinctual processes” in accordance with the necessity for reductive natural sciences referred by the rigorous methodology. [T]he rigorous methodology [is] referenced by the rigorous methodology.
Platone, in his work Convivio, describes a symbol as “a fragment of the total man, strained towards a missing wholeness, but recalled by the incompleteness of the perception of the current situation.” Every man is a symbol. By making a distinction between a symbol and a sign, Jung may be able to partially escape from the causal order and the deterministic natural science in order to move toward the meanings of the plan. This is precisely the phenomenological human science that is based on the idea that a symbol contains its meaning within itself: The symbol may be thought of as an expression.
The knowledge of limits becomes contact with the Shadow and with the critics of the unconsciousness; it leads to the discovery of the real psychic dimensions, revealing a positive form of an aspect of the Self that is so feared, as it happens by exploring the different aspects of Anima and Animus and showing the relation with the emotional experience experimented with the parent of the opposite sex. In many different cultures, it is often personified in the form of a bisexual creature to represent the fusion of masculine and feminine qualities, the coming together of polar opposites.
Either the Self has its shadow side and may be an illusion, which can manifest itself as megalomania and pride, as well as in the blindness that comes from religious rituals. Jolande Jacobi raises our awareness of how vital it is to investigate the symbols that appear in dreams as part of the psychoanalytic process. She views these images as a symbolization of the genuine treasures that are presented to consciousness in order to provide an opportunity for the maturation of the individual. It is suggested that the Self is an emergent thing that arises from existing dynamics in a complex system. This system contains the psychological traits of the newborn, the purposeful traits of the caregiver, and the symbols of the cultural traits that govern development. Thus, the symbol may be seen to function as a distinct and significant address of autonomy, constituting a component of a dynamic system.
Symbol for Freud
According to Freudian psychology, In line with the explanatory-reductive requirement, Freud assimilates the symbol to the sign by using the common element of cross-reference as the basis. He does this so that the sign may be seen as a sign of the fundamental instinctual processes.
It would be the steadfast guarantee of a straight sending between the different representatives.
This makes possible the establishment of a direct relationship between representations that are not acceptable.
Because there is a consistent and easily discernible link between the symbol and the represented, the symbol is a part of the signs. This is why the signs include the symbol. By combining representation and symbol, it adheres to the logic of the phrase “aliquid stat pro aliquo.” When the two pieces that caused them to be split in the first place are brought back together, it takes on a new significance. It would come via symbolic expressions such as illnesses, acts that are absent, and jokes in order to get an understanding of the representations. The symbolic conception utilizes the attributes of the equation, which are as follows:
Symptom = mnemic symbol. After having passed through a person’s awareness, the symbols are presented as if they were personal experiences. The sole presence of archaic residues would be required for the symbolizations to be considered to have phylogenetic factors.
