In my mind, lets say i'm creating a relationship of forms and colors that never existed before in my mind or anywhere else. A new design of a common thing. ab
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 9:19:04 AM Subject: Re: representation In a message dated 1/31/11 11:33:06 AM, [email protected] writes: > If I present something I create in my mind, that would > be a representation, would it not? > ab > Three things. When you say 'present', what do you have in mind? If you imagine an image of a unicorn, do you call that "presenting" the image in your mind? I'm just trying to clarify here. There's no absolute "should" or "shouldn't" about what you call things. (One might argue there's a relative should or shouldn't. For example, if you're talking to a shepherd in the Andes, you "shouldn't" call things by their "names" in Swedish. But that's only if you want to be understood.) Let's say by "create in your mind" you "mean" the image in your mind is unique, unthought of until you thought of it. By that standard, the image of the unicorn is not created in your mind, though you may still want to say that just by conjuring up that image you are "presenting" in your mind. Third, and this is the important point, neither you nor I has a clear notion of what's behind your use of 'a representation' there. You have an image in your mind, but why do you say it "represents" something? Because it in some way resembles something? Suppose it's of a statue you haven't materially sculpted yet. It seems somewhat strange to say your image resembles something that does't exist. More strangely, perhaps, you may say it now "represents" a now-non-existent material thing that you are going to fashion in the future. But what is that saying beyond that one day you are going to sculpt something the retinal image of which will "look like" the image you're now imagining? What, precisely, is 'represents' meant to convey beyond 'resembles'? I'm not asking you to to clarify all this stuff. I'm just trying to convey how blurry our notion of "represents" is in the mind, all our minds. Roughly speaking, 'resembles' can be defended as a non-nesting-doll word, but 'represents' can't.
