I would say that his theory of representation has to be capable of
articulating that distinction or there is something wrong with it, but I don't
think that it is to be looked for merely in the distinction between the dyadic
and the triadic but rather in something to do with the different functions
being performed by icons, indices, and symbols, and that the distancing or
detachment you are concerned with is to be understood especially in connection
with the understanding of the symbol as involving an "imputed" quality. What
this says is, I think, that we do not interpret a symbol as a symbol unless we
are aware both that the replica we are interpreting is one thing and that what
it means is something other than that, namely, the entity we imagine in virtue
of its occurrence. Explicating that will in turn involve appeal to the
functioning of a quality functioning as an icon of something the replica
indexes.
Dear Joe,
Thanks for the thoughtful and suggestive
reply. I'm looking forward to thinking about it during the coming
week. In the meantime here are some initial impressions just
by way of saying thanks -- One, I very much like the idea of
expanding the issue to include the icon. I think you are right that the
phenomenon of observation (for the lack of a better word) is one of
representation and involves all three categories. And yes as
well to the suggestion of looking at the notion of imputation. I take
"imputation" as another word for representation. To impute is to represent the
sign for what it is -- the functional mode of being.
Pretending, playing, taking an "as if" stance and the like -- all
examples of the process of representation or seeing the world triadicly.
I'm not looking to introduce something new. It's more like
housekeeping -- trying to tidy up some notions, put all the same
color socks together and separate the things to do list from the
things themselves.
Also hope to pick up Black Elk's contemplative book
from Amazon. Watching the news these days one hungers for just such
an account. Current world events are upsetting
enough in their own right, but it's the hectoring account of them that is
truly driving me crazy. Cherry picking the facts and premises to
fit a preconceived conclusion -- on both sides of the political
spectrum.
More later after I've had more time to digest your
post and the comments for Martin and Arnold.
Thanks again,
Jim
Piat
