Jon S.,
OK, what I’ll do here is take CP 2.235-6 and apply it to signs on the assumption that the Sign is First Correlate and determines the Interpretant which is Third Correlate, and list ALL the possibilities, and see whether your “entailment” is among them. 1. Sign is a mere possibility (qualisign). Then the Interpretant is a mere possibility. 2. Sign is an actual fact (sinsign). Then the Interpretant is either an actual fact or a possibility. 3. Sign is a law. Then the Interpretant could be possibility, fact or law. 4. Interpretant is a mere possibility. Then it could have been determined by any of the three kinds of sign. 5. Interpretant is an actual fact. Then it could have been determined by a fact or a law. 6. Interpretant is a law. Then it could only have been determined by a law. Or, as Peirce put it in terms of correlates: the First Correlate is “a mere possibility if any one of the three is of that nature, and not a law unless all three are of that nature.” And the Third Correlate is “a law if any one of the three is a law, and not a mere possibility unless all three are of that nature.” That’s what 2.235-6 says. I still don’t see how you get this passage to “entail that the Third Correlate determines the Second Correlate, which determines the First Correlate.” Hence my bafflement. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 16-Apr-17 20:17 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic 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
----------------------------- 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 .
