> On Oct 6, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
I think this gets at some ambiguity of terminology. With a dicisign because it is more expansive than mere language, a traditional copula is insufficient. Thus a painting can be a dicisign but clearly it doesn’t have a copula in any normal syntactical sense. (There’s no “to be” of the painting) Yet there is a copula-like function going on. Personally I still call this a copula although I can understand some wanting to avoid that term. When Peirce discusses the copula though he’s really discussing this broader function which has this indexical aspect. As I’ve mentioned while most analytical philosophy of language seems to avoid the broadness of general semiotics, continental philosophy did see this issue with respect to paintings, photographs and art in general.
----------------------------- 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 .
