What is the difference, Ms Kelly, between a sign and a representation? One might think that saying,
Any ordinary object is a sign if it represents some other >> object for its self or for some other object as a signer to some >> effect. All objects are fated by representation to be signs and >> to determine signs, and further to be assigned or reassigned as >> iconic or indexic or symbolic signs of other objects, all by the >> evolutionary process of telic design. >> > is tantamount to saying, "a representation represents something represented". This strikes me as uninformative. Could you please clarify? On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Frances Kelly <[email protected]>wrote: > Frances to imago Asthetik and others... > Any ordinary object is a sign if it represents some other > object for its self or for some other object as a signer to some > effect. All objects are fated by representation to be signs and > to determine signs, and further to be assigned or reassigned as > iconic or indexic or symbolic signs of other objects, all by the > evolutionary process of telic design. The agent of design however > is not some mystical entity like a god, but is a dispositional > tendency for evolving objects to act innately or habitually in > certain ways that sign situations demand of them. > Any ordinary object found or held to be a sign of art is an > extraordinary work that has the "power" in its form to reflect > worthy aesthetic values and to evoke intense aesthetic responses > of an emotional or practical or intellectual kind that are > worthwhile both individually and communally. If the substantive > form of the work is empowered in this reflective and evocative > way, then the work "has" an aesthetic form and "is" an aesthetic > object. The agent of design driving an object to be a sign of art > and a work of art is therefore some formal enforced empowerment. > > imago Asthetik partly writes... > I was under the impression that a reasonable definition stated > the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of a term > (For example, "X is a sign if and only if conditions a, b, c, etc > are met" where 'a,' 'b,' and 'c' identify necessary properties of > the definiendum). She fails to provide a definition. Further, if > she has a specific notion in mind, it should not be difficult to > provide a definition, rather refer us to an unspecified set of > texts (angoamerican realist pragmatism). In fact, it would be far > more helpful to have a list of texts to consult, or a > philosopher's name (other than Peirce, who was not strictly > speaking a > pragmatist).
