Clark, Ben, Gary F, lists,
Clark wrote:
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.
[. . .]
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.
I agree that in considering the dicisign that "when Peirce discusses the
copula. . .he's really discussing this broader function which has this
indexical aspect." Ben referred to this as a *meta-index*, and although
Peirce doesn't use that expression, I'm toying with the notion that it
might be a useful term for this copula-*like* function.
Mainly, I agree with Clark that analyses of such non-linguistic objects
such as paintings, etc. help clarify the functioning of this meta-index,
and that such analyses may help prepare the way for the extrapolation of
the dicisign idea to, especially, biosemiotics. So that's why I was
especially responsive to Frederik's example ("Andreas Achenbach," NS 67) of
a name placed either below the painting (so signify that it is a portrait *of
*A.A.), or placed, say, on the lower right corner of the painting (so
signifying that it is a portrait *by *A.A.). One might even expand this
list to include, say, A.A. on the back of the frame, say, as carver of it.
Gary F, I managed to miss Frederik's mention (NP 68) "almost in passing"
that the Primary and Secondary Objects become the Dynamic and Immediate
Object some time after the Syllabus. I think that that both helps clarify
what I mentioned as confusing in the penultimate paragraph of my post
addressed to Frederik et alia, while I still am uncertain as to the status
of the existential (?) relation of the meta-index to the S and P replicas
in this localizing syntax. I'd written in that earlier post:
GR. . . 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 [which is] 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.)
So, how is it that if the localizing meta-index joins but "the replicas of
the subject and the predicate of a proposition" that such a
co-localization syntax can be understood to be "primitive" (NP, 67; btw,
I'm OK with "pre-linguistic")?
Best, Gary R
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
