Re: Triadic Sign Relations

Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2010-08/msg00143.html

That's my best recollection-reconstruction without taking time
to go through my old notes and Peirce's original texts right now.
I worry a little about using the word "individual" for the elements
of extension because Peirce followed a variety of earlier traditions
in recognizing careful distinctions among "atoms", "particulars", and
"individual terms" of various types.  He also made a special critique
of what he called the "Doctrine of Individuals", that is, the theory
of individuals, and this led to conclusions very different from what
most folks take for granted today.  But sufficient unto the day ...

More information on the relationships among various terms of art --
comprehension, connotation, denotation, extension, and their ilk --
is found in Selection 8 and the excerpt that follows Selection 18.

http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Information_%3D_Comprehension_%C3%97_Extension#Selection_8

http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Information_%3D_Comprehension_%C3%97_Extension#Discussion_4

One other thing is very important to notice about Peirce's use of these terms --
their first instance meanings are taken relative to an agent's state of knowledge.
That is why Peirce describes the denotation, extension, or sphere of a word the way
he does -- "Thus the sphere of the word ''man'' is for me every man I know;  and for
each of you it is every man you know."  If we find ourselves falling into the habit
of saying "the" comprehension and "the" extension, as we do when we commit the sins
of ontological absolutism, then when ought to repent and become mindful of our human
condition that speaks of such perfections only by way of ideals, images, limits, and
parables.

Jon Awbrey

-- 

inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey