Re: “On the Paradigm of Experience Appro priate for Semiotic”

* 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

Re: Comments by Claudio Guerri

I realize that many of us have been through these sorts of discussions
many times before, so let me just highlight what I consider to be some
of the most important points.

1. We must not confuse the roles in a sign relation or the components
    of a sign relational 3-tuple, that is, Object, Sign, Interpretant,
    with the Peircean categories of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness.
    These two sets of concepts reside at very different logical levels,
    as one can tell from the fact that Peirce described his Categories
    as "Predicaments", that is, predicates of predicates.

Cf. http://mywikibiz.com/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#Theory_of_categories

-- 

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#
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
polmic: www.policymic.com/profiles/1110/Jon-Awbrey