Frances and list: The passage Jim found runs as follows:
"It is usually admitted that there are two classes of mental representation, Immediate Representations or Sensations and Mediate Representations or Conceptions." In the context in which that occurs, Peirce goes on to say: "The former are completely determinate or individual objects of thought; the latter are partially indeterminate or general objects." And he then goes on (in the next paragraph) to say : "But according to my theory of logic, since no pure sensations or individual objects exist . . . ." I omit the rest of the long and complex sentence since it adds nothing to the point at issue, which is that he does not himself accept the "usually admitted" theory, which he contrasts as based on a different metaphysics than his. I cannot myself think of any reason why he would want to use such a term. The word "icon" is after all his term for a representing entity which presents its object immediately in the sense that no distinction can be drawn between the iconic sign and that of which it is an icon: they are numerically identical.. (There is still a formal distinction to be drawn between icon and object, in the sense that there is a difference between representing and being represented, but this does not entail that what represents and what is represented cannot be the same thing. Otherwise there would be no such thing as self-representation. But of course there is.) So of what use would there be for the term "immediate representation", where that is equivalent to "immediate sign" or "immediate representamen"? It would only introduce an awkward expression of no distinctive use in his theoretical work with the negative potentiality of throwing it into confusion. That is why I am questioning your trying to do this. I don't understand what theoretical use it could have. Joe Ransdell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:07 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) Frances to Joe and Jim and others... No sources could be found by me in Peirce or on Peirce for the terms "immediate representamen" and "immediate sign" but my search continues. The terms "Immediate Representations" and "Mediate Representations" found in Peirce however do raise the further issue of some differences that Peirce might have held between representation and representamen, as well as some differences that he might also have held between representamen and sign. Joe queried... Where does Peirce talk about "immediate representamen" or "immediate sign"? I can't think of any use he would have for such a term. Jim answered... "It is usually admitted that there are two classes of mental representation, Immediate Representations or Sensations and Mediate Representations or Conceptions." - from Essential Peirce, Volume 1, page 106 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.3/374 - Release Date: 6/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.3/374 - Release Date: 6/23/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
