Gary R., Gary F., Frederik, Jeff D., lists,
I don't have the quotes handy at this late (for me) time of day, but:
The predicate does denote the subject. "Jack is blue": blue denotes
Jack, not _/only/_ Jack, but still _/also/_ Jack. Jack, in turn,
'comprehends' blue. You may remember Peirce's discussion of the copula
as a relation of 'if-then' or 'is included in'.
Jack —< blue.
Jack is included in blue.
If Jack, then blue.
Jack materially implies blue.
Comprehension is implication. Somewhere Peirce also says that a
proposition comprehends the further propositions that it implies, and
denotes the propositions that imply it. I wonder whether that applies
only in deductive implication (i.e., 'entailment' as it is nowadays
called) or in all inference modes of implication (I'm not sure how to
say that, but I hope readers understand me). I also have wondered
whether an icon may properly be said to have a comprehension. This
depends on whether an icon 'comprehends' the character that it presents.
I once searched CP, W, & CN for discussion of comprehension in relation
to icons and found nothing.
Peirce speaks of index, icon, and symbol alike as 'denoting.' The icon
denotes by virtue of a character of its own. While, as Gary F. recently
said, an icon denotes a possible range of objects, some of that range
may also be actual. An icon may have actual denotation.
The copula as index is index in a 'meta' sense. In a 1908 effort at the
ten sign-trichotomies, Peirce classified 'copulants', or 'distributive
signs', as Thirds in the trichotomy of (1) descriptive (2)
designative/denominative, and (3) copulant / distributive. Peirce did
not complete the ten-trichotomy system to his own satisfaction but his
effort indicates that he regarded the copula basically as a Third, not
as a Second, although it works as a Second at the syntactical level.
Best, Ben
On 10/6/2014 7:45 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
Frederik, Gary F, Jeff D, lists,
I've almost finished catching up with the very interesting
terminological discussions relating, on the one hand, to the *subject
(*such as /denote/, /designate, indicate/, etc). and on the other to
the *predicate*, (such as /signify, comprehend, connote, etc.)/ It
seems to me that Frederik here employs such terms relating to the
proposition as Peirce used them in his extraordinary development and
vast expansion of the proposition as the /dicisign concept /in,
especially, the/ Syllabus/ and /Kaina Stoicheia/ ca.1903/./
I hope, therefore, that it is safe to say that for the present
analysis that Peirce of this period (and Frederik) is saying:
/In considering the proposition (dicisign)/:
*[the Subject--denotes the object == the breadth of the sign] (the
Predicate signifies its characters == the depth of the sign) *
And, further, for Peirce these two are joined /not/, as they've
traditionally been, by a *copula, *but rather by an /*index */of a
peculiar kind, indeed of a metaphysical kind, namely, an index
pointing to the *real fact *joining the Subject and the Object. Or, if
I'm getting this right, the formulation/ breadth x depth = information
(/i.e,, the sum of these two as equaling some factual information) for
the dicisign means that _true information represents a real fact in
some world of experience_.
In 3.7 Frederik shows, in considering the syntax of the proposition,
that Peirce replaces the traditional copula with an index pointing to
the fact being represented, the index being the /necessary /sign for
joining the replicas of the subject and the predicate of a
proposition. This syntactical index involves an icon (as all indices
do), the icon being, in this case, exactly the//juxtaposition//of the
two, that is, their*/co-localization/*, as Stjernfelt helpfully terms it.
/The/
/ co-localization of the elements of the dicisign/:
*[Subject](Predicate)*
(Such a *co-localization syntax* is further understood to be primitive
and pre-linguistic.)
This syntax claims that the dicisign "is/ really indexically
connected/ to the /real fact/ to which the subject and predicate
correspond" (Stjernfelt, 66), and /how/ this happens forms the
argumentation of the rest of this section and some of the next
(centering on the/ two objects/ of the co-localizing index) . But,
just to make sure I've got this right, I'd like to ask if the above
summary represents a correct understanding of the terminology dthat
Peirce is using ca. 1903 and if it correctly represents the argument
being made regarding the syntax of the dicisign in NP 3.7?
Understanding that there are in this syntax /two objects /helps
explain how Peirce can speak of the index as being in "existential"
relation to the fact being represented. But it seems to me that it is
to the replica (Secondary Object) that the /existentia/l relation
especially applies, while the /reality/ (Primary Object) could be in
any of the Three Worlds of Experience, and in that sense is different
and altogether greater than its replica. So the language of existence,
of facticity, of secondness, is a bit unnerving to me
for/ both/ Objects.. Frederik's chart on page 70 and the Peirce quotes
on 71 (from KS) are quite helpful in using the language of reality
(3ns), but cf. paragraph 1 on 68 (the quote from the Syllabus) where
both use the language of existence (2ns). (I am aware that I may be
making a mountain out of a molehill, and that Peirce is sometimes
simply loose in his existence/reality terminoiogy, an understanding
I've argued for myself in the past; I doubt that it signals a
significant change in terminology from the Syllabus to KS)
Btw, I thought your choices of quotes and examples, especially of the
Achenbach portrait, which was a particularly apt example to make a
rather complex point (67), as well as your explication of
the co-localization synta*x *were both very helpful, Frederik. Thanks!
Best,
Gary
*
*
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca
<mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca>> wrote:
Lists,
We have now arrived (slightly behind schedule) at NP 3.7, which is
considerably longer and more difficult than the previous sections
of Chapter 3. Readers who have taken in those previous sections
should be prepared to take on 3.7, but instead of adding any
commentary of mine to it, I’m going to simply direct your
attention to it and wait a few days for questions about it, before
we move on to 3.8. According to the schedule (attached), we have
another two weeks to ‘cover’ Chapter 3. I’d encourage those who
haven’t yet posted questions about NP to do so now. Don’t worry if
you feel that your command of the terminology is imperfect; I
doubt that anyone, including me, has it ‘down pat’, with the
possible exception of Frederik! As you’ve probably seen by now,
the Dicisign is a complex and difficult concept, but an important
one, so we need whatever questions can make it a little easier.
gary f.
} {
www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm <http://www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm>
}{ gnoxics
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
