[41] spatial concept; then it is used as metaphor^a. This is only a preliminary introduction into the main problem, in order to get rid of confusing connotations. We come now to the symbolic form of signification, and must remove further confusions. The greatest confusion, which almost cannot be removed, is the confusion between sign and symbol. Words are signs^b, they are direct signs grasping something directly which can be found in the context of time and space. And even if they are used metaphorically, they are still used directly. But symbols^c are NOT direct. Now language has done great harm to the understanding of man's spiritual life by not distinguishing signs and symbols clearly enough. We speak of mathematical and logical symbols, but mathematical and logical signs are signs and not symbols! If they are called symbols, then the term symbol is devaluated, it has lost its genuine power. So I would be happy if I could transform again this linguistic confusion into a pure distinction between the realm of sign and symbol. I am afraid it is impossible. I am afraid that the mathematicians and symbolic logicians will use the word "symbol" all the time, happily, ever since it was used the first time, because it sounds much better! But if we cannot change this trend, we must at least make a distinction. There are some attempts to make distinctions. Some people--for instance my friend Professor [John Herman] Randall^d at Columbia University, with whom I had a few "distinctions" about this already! [smiling], distinguishes "reflective" symbols, which I call "signs^e," and then "intuitive" symbols. Now, however we do it, I sometimes call these "sign-symbols," and not in contrast to genuine symbols. Genuine symbols^f appear in the following realms: in all the arts, in politics, in history (historical intuition), and in religion. There we have genuine symbols, and not only sign-symbols, or reflective symbols. So I make a compromise because I am not almighty, but I would like to be almighty very often, not in order to change the word itself, but in order to change the linguistic confusions in philosophy and theology--in theology not less than in philosophy. But even this little bit of almightiness is not at my disposal! So I can only try to help clear up the situation. And it is very important to do this with respect to sign and symbol. Let us now try to do this from the point of view of symbols^g generally, and later on go into the problem of religious symbols. Both signs and symbols have one