Bibliography

On the System of Existential Graphs Considered as an Instrument for the Investigation of Logic

…one component, B, of the Phaneron may be quite unsupposable (at any rate, by any ordinary mind), without supposing the full and perfect presence of a certain other constituent, A; and yet it may be [that] A may be supposed to be present while B is present in widely varying degrees (or, perhaps sometimes is quite absent). In such a case, we not only get by prescission a concept of A unmixed with B, but we are able to recognize B as a constituent different from its constant and inseparable companion, A. For example, being able to imagine visual surfaces of various colors (or perhaps even colorless, as the boundary between media of widely different indices of refraction; but it is not necessary to resort to such phenomena) we come to recognize color as something quite different from visible superficies, notwithstanding the utter impossibility (for most people) of imagining color without superficial extension. I called this mode of analysis discrimination. It is highly important not to lose sight of it.

The first mode of separating one constituent of the phaneron from another consists in imagining a state of things as to which the one may be affirmed while the other is denied. Thus we may imagine that there are brilliant colors while there are no sounds whatever, or the reverse. I called this mode of analysis dissociation.

…there is the dynamical interpretant which is the effect or the result which the sign actually does determine…

…every sign has two objects. It has that object which it represents itself to have, its Immediate Object, which has no other being than that of being represented to be, a mere Representative Being, or as the Kantian logicians used to say a merely Objective Being; and on the other hand there is the Real Object which has really determined the sign[,] which I usually call the Dynamical Object, and which alone strictly conforms to the definition of the Object. The Object of a Sign is its progenitor, its father. The Dynamical Object is the Natural Father, The Objective Object is the putative father.

…the Objective or Naïve, or Rogate, Interpretant, that interpretant that the sign itself involves, its self-valuation, thoughtless of the possibility of there being any other...

…every sign has two objects. It has that object which it represents itself to have, its Immediate Object, which has no other being than that of being represented to be, a mere Representative Being, or as the Kantian logicians used to say a merely Objective Being; and on the other hand there is the Real Object which has really determined the sign[,] which I usually call the Dynamical Object, and which alone strictly conforms to the definition of the Object. The Object of a Sign is its progenitor, its father. The Dynamical Object is the Natural Father, The Objective Object is the putative father.

…we may as well consider Logic as the Science of the Nature of Signs, Semeiotic.

…there is the Normal Interpretant, which is the true Interpretand, which the sign ought to produce. Its true value.

The Object of a Sign is its progenitor, its father.

Let us call all that ever could be present to the mind in any way or any sense, when taken collectively, the Phaneron. Then every thought is a Constituent of the Phaneron, and much besides that would not ordinarily be called a Thought.

The second mode consists in supposing that one component of the Phaneron is present in a given subject, while making no supposition whatever in regard to another. Thus, I may suppose that a star shines with an intense light without making any supposition at all in regard to the color of the light, further than that it has some color. We thus separate luminosity from hue. I called this mode of analysis prescission.

Do not confound thought with thinking. Thought is the Object that you think. Thinking, as contradistinguished from feeling and from the effort of attention, is the operation of the mind by which you strive to make out the Truth. You expect to extract it from the object before your mind, the Thought.

Do not confound thought with thinking. Thought is the Object that you think. Thinking, as contradistinguished from feeling and from the effort of attention, is the operation of the mind by which you strive to make out the Truth. You expect to extract it from the object before your mind, the Thought. That thought, then, is (or you hope it may be) a Sign of the Truth. Thought then is a Sign.