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: Irving Anellis, Sefan Berwing, Auke van Breemen, Jerry Chandler, Michael DeLaurentis,
     Steven Ericsson-Zenith, Gary Fuhrman, Claudio Guerri, Eugene Halton, Kirsti Määttänen,
     John Sowa, Benjamin Udell, Jim Willgoose, ...

One of the issues that frequently comes up in these discussions is the
distinction between relations and relation elements, in particular, the
distinction between a sign relation L and a sign relation element having
the form of a single 3-tuple (o, s, i) in L.

The sign classifications that we commonly see discussed in semiotics
are all classifications of different types of sign relation elements,
and not classifications of sign relations themselves, which is a far
more difficult task, since it requires classifying the possible sets
of sign relation elements and not just the individual members alone.

Viewing sign relations as sets of (o, s, i) triples is the extensional way
of looking at them, but the a posteriori extensional view of data is what
presses itself most characteristically on us in our empirical inquiries,
since we find the welter of data before us long before we can determine
what a priori intensional schemes will organize them most fittingly.

Regards,

Jon

-- 

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