Gary F., List: Consider these two passages.
CSP: The First Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the simplest nature, being a mere possibility if any one of the three is of that nature, and not being a law unless all three are of that nature. The Third Correlate is that one of the three which is regarded as of the most complex nature, being a law if any one of the three is a law, and not being a mere possibility unless all three are of that nature ... (CP 2.235-236; 1903) CSP: It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant. Hence it follows from the definition of a Sign that since the Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object, which determines the Sign itself, which determines the Destinate Interpretant, which determins the Effective Interpretant, which determines the Explicit Interpretant, the six trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as they would if they were independent, only yield 28 classes ... (EP 2:481; 1908) If we equate "mere possibility" with "Possible" and "law" with "Necessitant," and define "determines" in accordance with the second passage, then the first passage entails that the Third Correlate determines the Second Correlate, which determines the First Correlate. This is the only way that the same procedure that yields 28 classes from six correlate trichotomies will yield ten classes from three correlate trichotomies *such that* the First Correlate is a law only if all three are laws, and the Third Correlate is a mere possibility only if all three are mere possibilities. Please note, I am well aware that these are not the ten Sign classes that Peirce spells out later in NDTR. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 6:49 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Jon S, see insert below … > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 16-Apr-17 17:40 > > Gary R., List: > > GR: But surely, the most obvious thing, as Gary F reminds us, is that > Peirce always says that the Object determines the Sign for the Interpretant > ... > > Yes, and this is what makes CP 2.235-238 so incongruous to me. That > passage requires the Third Correlate (Interpretant) to determine the Second > Correlate (Object), and the Second Correlate (Object) to determine the > First Correlate (Sign). > > [GF: ] That “requirement” is something you have read into it, I think by > mistaking Peirce’s order of presentation for the order of determination. > Try fixing your understanding of the order of determination in your mind, > and then read the passage again carefully and test whether it is consistent > with your understanding. I think you’ll see that it is. It certainly is > consistent with the understanding I’ve expressed, which you’ve said you > agree with. > > > > It’s also possible that you’ve been distracted by Peirce’s statement that > “These three trichotomies, taken together, divide all triadic relations > into ten classes.” They would indeed, but since they are not the three > trichotomies *of sign types*, they would not divide *signs* into the same > ten classes that Peirce gives us later in NDTR. > > > > I wonder if part of the problem here is that there are differences in what > each of us means by "determine"; again, I am using it as synonymous with > "constrain the mode of." > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
