This is a bit hard to explain so here's an example:
Colors are interesting. They stimulate organisms in inexplicable ways. Like, why does red infuriate bulls? Or why does blue tranquilize humans? And that's not all. To us a single color can represent different emotions, sometimes contrasting ones. [I want to announce I'm using blue as an example again] it relates to trust and serenity, but also to coldness, sadness, and lack of emotion.
What word/phrase is the most appropriate?
For example, the aforementioned colour blue can also...
Where aforementioned might be a good word to use.
I would rearrange the sentences to give blue the center stage toward the end:
Colors are interesting. They stimulate organisms in inexplicable ways. A single color can represent different emotions to us, sometimes contrasting ones. Red infuriates bulls. Blue tranquilizes humans [...]
Why not just rephrase/recall the reference that you want to expand upon.
Why does blue tranquilize humans? And that's not all. A single color can represent different emotions, sometimes simultaneously. [here I want to use blue as an example again]." Blue not only soothes us but ...
And that's not all. To us a single color can represent different emotions, sometimes contrasting ones. If we look back at blue, we see it relates to trust and serenity, but also to coldness, sadness, lack of emotion and vulgarity
The vulgarity I tagged on for free. See the expressions: blue movies/films; blue jokes and turning the air blue
If the OP is looking for a shorter, more concise way for referring then may I suggest re.
And that's not all. To us a single color can represent different emotions, sometimes contrasting ones. Re blue, it relates to etc.
I don't thing repeating a reference to blue is the rough spot in your formulation. It's the restatement, in different words, of an attribute of blue ( tranquility = trust and serenity) that you only just stated two sentences earlier.
Take this example:
- Jim and John are doctors. They live active lives. Jim likes to golf.
- Jim and John are doctors. They live active lives. Jim practices medicine and he likes to golf.
- Jim and John are doctors. They live active lives. Jim, mentioned previously, practices medicine and he likes to golf.
- Jim and John are doctors. They live active lives. Jim not only practices medicine, he also likes to golf.
You should see that case 1 is succinct and quite readable without distraction or loss of meaning. Mentioning Jim twice had no deleterious effect.
It's easy to see that case 2 repeats a fact about Jim twice in a short span. (I don't want to quibble about it being more specific in the second mention.)
Case 3 points to the fact that Jim was mentioned previously. It's awkward, and taking out the remark about our the previous mention gives case 1, which is readable.
Case 4 makes use of the back reference, not to the subject, Jim, but to an attribute about Jim. It is overly wordy, not succinct, making it difficult to read. (If the reader has to pause and ask why a formulation was used, then it's distracting.) Written with the phrase "not only", this back reference can be taken to emphasize Jim's ability to handle two activities at once in his life. But is it really a point worth emphasizing?
Maybe in your example, it is a point worth emphasizing. It appears to be THE point you are emphasizing, as introduced in the next-to-last sentence:
Why does red infuriate bulls? Or why does blue tranquilize humans? And that's not all. To us a single color can represent different emotions, sometimes contrasting ones. Not only does blue relate to trust and serenity; it also relates to coldness, sadness, and lack of emotion.
