Chris--
It's a forehead-slapper once it gets explained to you.
300 PPI (in the print) has become a rule-of-thumb for print output because it relates to the smallest features the typical human eye can resolve at a certain distance (something like viewing an 8x10 at arm's length) to get an "acceptable" print. Some people claim that differences can bee seen up to 600-800 PPI in output. A gigantic print viewed from a significant distance does not need that high of an output resolution, but a 16x20 viewed from 2 feet might need even more in order to not look soft. Like I said, the 300 PPI is a rule-of-thumb, but the true answer is "it depends".
The second half of your question relates to why you should think in terms of "pixels" (PPI) instead of arbitrary "dots". If you want to make an 8x12" print, using the 300 PPI rule-of-thumb, then your digital file needs to be 2400 x 3600 pixels. If your source is a 35mm frame, then you need to scan in excess of 2400 PPI (since the frame is slightly less than 1" in height). If you're scanning from a 6x9 frame (2.25" x 3.25"), then you only need to scan that frame between 1000 and 1200 PPI to get the digital data you need. Now, there's nothing stopping you from scanning at a higher resolution and down-sampling for the print, but it sets a minimum for what you should scan at to get good quality in your print.
There's an additional complication/confusion when it comes to imagesetter negatives like the OP asks about, since they are not continuous-tone, just dots or not-dots. But I don't think I can explain that adequately. Hopefully, someone else will chime in and do so.
Hope that helps.
--Greg