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 Auke van Breemen

Auke,

I thought it best to go back and recover the context before attempting
to address your comments. The subject of Peirce's categories arose this
time around in connection with Claudio Guerri's comments on the remarks
I made about "the paradigm or pattern of data appropriate for semiotic".
For ease of reference that note is recorded here:

http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2011-November/003720.html

Claudio raised an issue that often arises in our discussions of sign relations,
namely, whether there is a correspondence between the roles in a sign relation
(Object, Sign, Interpretant Sign) and Peirce's categories (First, Second, Third)
or whatever names we find most evocative for them.

Although the definition of a sign relation is so highly abstract and general that
it certainly leaves room for all sorts of additional relationships to exist among
the components and elements of an arbitrary sign relation, it is only those extra
relationships that follow logically from the bare definition itself that can rank
as "essential" or "necessary" properties of sign relations.

-- 

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