The Symbolic World
families · amplification

relation family

amplification

assigned, not verified What this family covers, what it fails to cover, and every relation string in the graph that lands in it. A family is assigned: two models read the definitions document and named the same kind of relation, or a person ruled where they did not. Verified is the other layer: a quote checked letter-exact against its paragraph and judged by a model of a different family. That was already done before any of this began.

1 assigned relations 1 effective relation strings 2 queued items carry a string this family covers 0 declared pairs
graph-wide: 1669 assigned · 354 awaiting a ruling · 65 no family · 3 text undecided · 2091 relations

Definition

Quoted from docs/FAMILY_DEFINITIONS.md v0.7.2, family 6. The atlas quotes that document; it never paraphrases it.

A parallel adduced to widen the interpretive basis of an image — "the use of mythic, historical and cultural parallels … metaphorical, never literal" (Samuels, Shorter & Plaut, A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis, pp. 16–17) — BY WHOEVER adduces it (agent-neutral per rule 3; 28 of the 43 amplified-by edges carry reported or quoted voice, so an agent-bound definition would contradict the data and pre-decide E11).

Boundary: correspondence asserts a relation between the terms; amplification adduces material to read an image by. An edge lands here only when the quote asserts the adducing act itself (v0.7, ruling 1): a quote asserting signification, synonymy or naming ("signifies", "is a synonym for", "is the traditional name for") classifies by that content relation, whatever the relation string says — the same precedence attribution already holds over surface verbs. The external check measured the old string-following practice at 0/3 against the reference literature, with both independent reference authors rendering every sampled amplified-by edge as a content relation; the 43 amplified-by edges queue for a two-arm re-run under v0.7. The layer: amplification field is a hand-built annotation on the material, NOT a family assignment and never a tiebreak — see the layer-tag boundary rule above, which the 2026-08-10 sitting installed in place of the reading it retired. It tags 41 of the 43 amplified-by edges (lapis amplified-by shulamite 14 §185 and prima-materia amplified-by isis 14 §16 lack the tag — a layer repair item) plus 9 symbolizes, 2 symbolized-by, 2 parallels, and 3 singletons: 57 edges over seven strings, which is why one string splits across families — and why the tag itself splits across families too.

Relation strings that land here

illustrates 1

The number beside a string is how many relations carry it. 1 of these strings occurs exactly once. The tail is the informative part: a string used once usually carried its own qualifier in the sentence it came from. A string can appear under more than one family, and does: assignment is made to an edge in its paragraph, never to a string in the abstract.

seeds: the examples the definition names

pending a ruling: items carrying a string this family covers

The alchemical opus (opus alchymicum) illustrates Individuation CW 9ii §418
arms-disagree
Faust (Goethe) illustrates The shadow CW 9i §513
arms-disagree

These are edges whose two model arms did not agree, or whose agreement the calibrated gate disputed. Carrying a string this family covers is not the same as belonging here; the ruling has not been made.

Checked against readers of Jung

Checked against 8 works of scholarship: across the sample, 8 of 16 treated items agreed with our family. This family: 0/3 agreed, 3/3 disagreed, 0/3 split, 0 not treated.the whole table
familyagreesdisagreessplitnot treated
archetypal-identity (incl. 26)0/31/32/32
correspondence (incl. 27)2/31/30/32
symbolization3/30/30/31
doctrinal-attribution1/21/20/21
amplification0/33/30/30
controls (personif., union)2/20/20/20
All8/166/162/166

A row this small is the items themselves; no rate over a handful of items carries precision worth reporting. The check asked which kind of relation a reader of the literature would say Jung asserts, not whether Jung's claim is true, which the verification chain had already asked of the paragraph. The disagreements stand beside the agreements because hiding them would make the table an argument rather than a record. Full worksheets: docs/experiments/external_validity_2026-08/.

Agreement is not endorsement: no scholar reviewed this vocabulary, and the sample is small enough to name in a sentence.

receipts counts read from seed.json sha256:9dc668bfff36 via web/family-map.mjs;
definition and seeds quoted from docs/FAMILY_DEFINITIONS.md v0.7.2;
external-validity row from docs/experiments/external_validity_2026-08/results.json (report v3, closed 2026-08-12);
built 2026-09-05

These families are this project's classification. They are calibrated inside this repository, checked once against outside scholarship on a small sample, and endorsed by nobody. What the layer records is how we sorted relations Jung wrote: a map of assertions, not a reading of him.