Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘paper’ appears not as a unified theoretical concept but as a term whose significance ranges across several distinct registers. Most prominently, it designates the material substrate that made the card-divination tradition possible: historians of Tarot such as Place, Greer, and Jodorowsky treat paper’s Chinese invention and slow westward diffusion as the enabling condition for the emergence of printed cards and, ultimately, the Tarot as a psychological instrument. Seaford, approaching from the philosophy of money, identifies paper as the paradigm case of pure token money — valuable only through imposed sign, not inherent worth — a formulation that resonates with depth-psychological reflections on symbolic versus literal value. Easwaran extends this semiotic logic into the language of shraddha, arguing that paper currency functions through collective faith in a shared symbol, making the collapse of monetary trust analogous to the collapse of spiritual conviction. A third register, less symbolically charged but methodologically significant, is the scholarly paper as a vehicle of theoretical transmission: Klein’s editorial apparatus, Hogenson’s evolutionary-psychology argument, Stein’s commentary on Jung’s ‘Review of the Complex Theory,’ and Pauli’s physics papers all invoke ‘paper’ in this sense. McGilchrist uses the term descriptively in art-historical captions. The term thus maps a trajectory from material substrate to semiotic token to institutional genre — each register touching questions of symbol, sign, and the transmission of meaning that lie at the heart of depth-psychological inquiry.