Clark, yes, that’s why I was careful to qualify my comments by saying “In NDTR.” But when you say that “what happens actually affects what is possible,” what you mean is that what happens now affects what can possibly happen in the future. Possibility as Firstness is timeless, in Peirce’s usage, so your usage of the term in your statement diverges from Peirce’s usage in a categorial context.
Gary f. From: CLARK GOBLE [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: 15-Apr-17 13:49 To: Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic On Apr 15, 2017, at 10:28 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: The upshot of this, as far as I can see, is that Firstness (possibility) cannot determine Secondness (actuality) or Thirdness (law), and Secondness cannot determine Thirdness: determination can only run in the other direction. And again, this seems to me entirely consistent with the definitions of the three trichotomies and the tenfold classification. We should note that this is for a particular type of analysis and meaning of determines. Since in his cosmology he’s not so limited. Further we can see how what happens actually affects what is possible. (If a bridge collapses it’s no longer possible to cross) So we should be careful not to assume NDTR applies to any type of analysis.
----------------------------- 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 .
