Symbols, unlike signs, represent the familiar-unfamiliar distinction within the familiar world

Evidence

Symbols are not signs, pointing to something else. They presuppose the difference between familiar and unfamiliar and they operate in such a way as to enable the re-entry of this difference into the familiar. In other words, symbols represent the distinction between familiar and unfamiliar within the familiar world. They are forms of self-reference using the self-reference of form. In fact, symbols have developed as the successors of myth, replacing it first by symbolic interpretation and later by pure symbolism. — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 1350

Categorization

• DEFINE: Precise definition of ‘symbol’ (vs. sign, tracing to its Greek root symbolon vs. diabolon) central to Luhmann’s framework.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 1350
• XREF: connects to: Deciphering hieroglyphs was facilitated by the coexistence of pictorial and phonetic symbols. — Neil MacGregor, A History of the World in 100 Objects, 551; Visual iconic signs are more universally readable than linguistic signs.; Stereotypes collapse complex differences into condensed essence-defining signs (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Deciphering hieroglyphs was facilitated by the coexistence of pictorial and phonetic symbols. #exemplifies (0.72) — Neil MacGregor, A History of the World in 100 Objects, 551
• Visual iconic signs are more universally readable than linguistic signs. #complicates (0.72)