Re: "On the Paradigm of Experience Appropriate for Semiotic

NB. Comments on the Peirce List slow reading of Joseph Ransdell,
     "On the Paradigm of Experience Appropriate for Semiotic",
     http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/paradigm.htm

One of the continuing problems that we have in reading Peirce is the fact that
logical atomists, logical positivists, and later writers tend to attach rather
different meanings to words like "formal", "logical atom", and "positive" than
Peirce did himself.

The meaning of "formal" is especially critical for the present discussion,
since it figures most prominently in Peirce's most detailed definition of
a sign relation, namely, the one given in 2 variants in NEM 4, 20-21 & 54.

Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. A definition of a sign will be
given which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line
as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.
Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign
determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C,
its object, as that in which itself stands to C. It is from this definition, together
with a definition of "formal", that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.
I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and
show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological
conception of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally
recognized. (C.S. Peirce, NEM 4, 20–21).

Cf. http://mywikibiz.com/Sign_relation#Definition

-- 

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol profile: http://knol.google.com/k/Jon-Awbrey#
policy mic: www.policymic.com/profile/show?id=1110
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey