The term ‘diagram’ occupies a revealing liminal position in the depth-psychology corpus: it functions simultaneously as pedagogical instrument, symbolic object, and ritual artifact. Within Jungian typology, the diagram serves as a schematic notation of psychic structure — most explicitly in Jung’s own lectures, where concentric-circle representations of the ego-complex and its functions are deployed to spatialize what is otherwise invisible. Beebe extends this tradition, using numbered diagrams of function-positions and their archetypal correlates to propose that the architecture of the psyche can be mapped as a set of hierarchically organized, archetypally governed positions. Siegel, working from neuropsychological premises, introduces the ‘three-P diagram’ as a probability model of consciousness, bringing a computational vocabulary to bear on domains depth psychology long treated symbolically. The ACA recovery literature mobilizes the family-of-origin diagram as a clinical-therapeutic tool for uncovering generational dysfunction — a use that is phenomenologically close to the Jungian genealogy of complexes, though procedurally distinct. Daoist sacral diagrams (talismans, cosmic maps) represented in Kohn’s scholarship constitute a separate but resonant tradition: the ritual diagram is not merely illustrative but operative, a vehicle for projecting the practitioner into cosmic process. Edinger’s scholarly apparatus — producing his own diagrams of the Sefirotic Tree, the tetractys, and alchemical stages — demonstrates the persistent Jungian conviction that psychic processes can and must be schematized to become communicable. Across traditions, the diagram names both a limit and an aspiration of psychological representation.