AURELIS blog-wiki

Psycho-Somatic Symbolism

August 20, 2025 Health & Healing No Comments

Can psycho-somatic symptoms be seen as symbols-in-reverse?

This blog explores this idea — inner tension expressing itself outwardly through the body. Unlike horizontal “this stands for that” explanations, this view opens a vertical dialogue with depth. Such symbolism can transform our understanding of illness, therapy, and coaching.

[Please read first The Living Power of Symbols.]

The body as metaphor

A psycho-somatic symptom is not random noise. It is often the body’s way of speaking when words are unavailable. In this sense, the symptom can be understood as a metaphor-in-action. A heavy chest may resonate with ‘weighed-down responsibility.’ An upset stomach may reflect ‘something hard to digest.’

Unlike spoken metaphors, these are written directly in flesh. They are embodied resonances rather than comparisons. In Listen! The Symptom Speaks, this distinction is made clear: a symptom does not stand beside us as an analogy but comes from within as a living expression.

From metaphor to symbol

Sometimes the metaphor remains a surface guide, helping the coachee to name their experience. But when the resonance deepens, it may open into a symbol. A metaphor compares; a symbol transforms. A psycho-somatic symptom is then not only a reflection but also a gateway into functional depth.

In coaching, this is essential. At times, it is enough to work with the metaphor ― offering imagery that helps the coachee orient themselves. At other times, when readiness and willingness align, the metaphor ripens into a symbol. The symptom becomes a portal into personal transformation.

From Freud’s code to living symbolism

Freud was among the first to see symptoms as ‘symbolic,’ but he understood this in a horizontal sense. A cough might stand for repressed anger, or a dream for sexual desire. His subconscious was like a cellar filled with hidden objects waiting to be discovered.

The AURELIS perspective, as described in Freud and the Subconceptual, works differently. Here, the symptom arises from the subconceptual: living patterns that are not fixed objects but fluid resonances. The symptom is not a code to be cracked but an emergent expression.

Freud’s method encouraged interpretation by the analyst, while AURELIS supports facilitation by the coach. The table below summarizes the main differences.

Comparison: Freud vs AURELIS

Characteristic	Freud’s view	AURELIS view (psycho-somatic symbolism / Total You)
Nature of symptom	A disguised expression of repressed desire or conflict.	A symbol-in-reverse: embodied communication from depth, meaningful as part of the whole person.
Direction	Horizontal: symptom stands for a hidden content (translation-like).	Vertical: symptom opens into depth, inviting dialogue and integration.
Meaning of symptom	Specific, often sexual or familial content is hidden behind the symptom.	Broader, open-ended depth meaning cannot be reduced to one content.
Role of unconscious	Repression pushes unacceptable impulses into symptom formation.	Subconceptual depth expresses itself symbolically; not simply repressed, but seeking integration.
Therapeutic aim	Make the subconscious content conscious through analysis (interpretation).	Invite dialogue with the symptom as part of ‘the total you,’ fostering openness and self-integration.
View on symptom	Pathological compromise formation between desire and defense.	Meaningful messenger; not just pathology but also an opportunity for growth.
Relation to patient	Analyst deciphers the symptom (expert interpretation).	Coachee engages with his own depth, supported by the coach’s openness (non-directive).
Flexibility of meaning	Relatively fixed: each symptom stands for something specific.	Dynamic, evolving: the symbol breathes and grows with the person’s context and development.
Overall stance	Reductionist and interpretive.	Integrative, open, and growth-oriented.

Freud glimpsed the depth through symptoms, but AURELIS invites us to walk further — to see symptoms as vertical symbols of the subconceptual, alive and open.

Listening instead of silencing

It is tempting to see symptoms as enemies to be subdued. Medication, distraction, or sheer willpower may suppress the expression, but this risks silencing the messenger while ignoring the message.

Healing requires listening. As Symptomatic Therapy? shows, if a symptom is part of the self, then attacking it is like attacking oneself. Those Who Do Not Want to Listen, Will Get Symptoms adds that when ignored, the symptom may ‘shout louder.’ Respectful listening allows the symptom to soften, transforming it from burden into guide.

In coaching, this means holding the space where the symptom can be heard. The coach does not impose meaning but helps the coachee hear what his own depth is whispering through the body.

The two-sided gateway

A psycho-somatic symptom is best seen as a gateway with two directions:

• One side: depth speaks outward through the body, finding expression where words fail.
• The other side: the symptom invites the person back inward, toward integration.

As Your Symptom as ‘The Total You’ shows, the symptom is part of the whole person. If treated as an enemy, it alienates; if seen as a symbol, it invites reconciliation.

Unity of body and mind

The symptom also reveals something fundamental: the inseparability of body and mind. They are not two entities glued together but one living whole. The symptom is the seam where this unity becomes visible.

In Mind as Body’s Complexity, the mind is described as the body’s self-organization seen through meaning. A psycho-somatic symptom is then not merely a medical glitch but a meaningful ripple in that complexity.

For coaching, this unity matters deeply. A coach works with the total person, not with divided compartments. The symptom is approached as a symbolic thread in the weave of the whole.

Consequences and responsibility

If symptoms are seen only as malfunctions, they may be suppressed but not resolved. Worse, the inner voice may be pushed further away, creating more division. Seeing them as symbols shifts the stance: from control to dialogue, from reduction to integration.

This has consequences not only for coaching but also for psychotherapy, medicine, and society. Listening to the symbolic voice of symptoms may lead to less chronic suffering, more resilience, and a deeper sense of personal responsibility.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, in your view, what is most influential in coaching: metaphor or symbol? Or is it dependable?”

Lisa: “It is dependable, yes — on the coachee, the context, the moment. A metaphor often opens the door: it connects familiar with unfamiliar, and lets new meaning take root gently. A symbol, however, can anchor that growth and give it lasting depth.

Think of the metaphor as the seed and the symbol as the soil in which it keeps living. In good coaching, both play their role, not in competition but in harmony. Sometimes a fleeting metaphor is enough, and sometimes a living symbol becomes the quiet companion of transformation.”

Me: “I see. And which carries more risk in coaching: metaphor or symbol?”

Lisa: “The greater risk lies with symbols. Because they carry living depth, they can inspire profound change but also evoke vulnerability. If misused, they may rigidify, manipulate, or close off openness. Metaphors are lighter — they usually fade if they don’t resonate. Symbols, on the other hand, can leave deep imprints.

That is why an excellent coach treats symbols with reverence: never as tools to control, always as invitations to grow.”

Me: “If a symbol doesn’t stand for something conceptual, how can a coach use the symbolic insight?”

Lisa: “A coach does not ‘use’ a symbol as one would use a tool. A symbol isn’t a concept to be applied but a living presence to be received. In practice, this means creating space where the coachee can resonate with it, letting its depth unfold naturally. The coach accompanies rather than explains, allowing the symbol to work from within the coachee’s own experience.”

Me: “How can the coach practically enhance this process of ‘creating space ’ and ‘letting its depth unfold naturally’?”

Lisa: “By cultivating a climate of openness, respect, and patience. The coach refrains from rushing to conclusions or forcing meaning, instead inviting silence, gentle questions, and deep listening. Small metaphors, imagery, or even just allowing pauses can give the symbol room to breathe. It is less about doing and more about being — present, attuned, and trusting the coachee’s inner process to carry forward what needs to grow.”

Me: “That seems very simple and straightforward.”

Lisa: “It is simple, but not easy. Simplicity here means no complicated techniques, yet it asks for depth of presence, maturity, and the courage to trust what unfolds. Many are tempted to fill the silence or push for answers. True coaching in this sense requires staying with the not-yet-clear, holding the door open for the coachee’s own depth to step forward.”

Me: “Indeed. It may seem simply simple, but it is like excellent art. The artist may seem to ‘just do it’… because he’s an artist. On top of that, an excellent coach also needs to know what he’s doing ― scientifically. Otherwise, sooner or later, he may get lost in magical thinking.”

Lisa: “Exactly. Depth without grounding can drift into vagueness or even manipulation. That’s why an excellent coach combines openness with a clear scientific backbone. The science of how symbols and metaphors grow — in the brain, in language, in human development — provides orientation. It keeps the work free of magical thinking while preserving the artful simplicity that allows true depth to emerge. It is both science and art, together.”