Dear Edwina, list,
What is the significance of ‘pre-‘ in ‘predestinate opinion’? I’ve noticed not only you but others also, make this subtle move, as if there is no significance- that it can be explained away as a habitual hiccup. I mean, is it like the difference between presupposition and supposition, preamble and amble or precognition and cognition? Best, Jerry R On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:49 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon - yes, if I understand you correctly - then, yes, semiosis generates > regulative principles but as to whether these are 'abductive hopes' - hmm. > I agree with the 'abductive' - but- does the Universe actually 'hope'? I > think I'd prefer the term ' Will', with Will understood only as the > Will-to-Generate the semiosic triad. > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 19/05/20 12:25 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent: > > Edwina, All ... > > In the many, many discussions we've had along these lines over the last > couple of decades I think it's most commonly > been understood that such convergence theses amount to regulative > principles, in effect falling into the category of > abductive hopes. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 5/19/2020 8:09 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > > > > > Robert, Gary F, list - with regard to concerns about the concept of > > a 'predestination' identity of something, i.e., the notion of a > > 'final truth' about this 'thing' - I question whether such an agenda > > is the 'nature of Peircean semiosis'. > > > > Whether one assumes that truth is a fact or an ideal - both > > assumptions include the view that 'truth' exists about this 'thing'. > > Now, in some instances of semiosis, we can indeed accept that there > > is a truth vs a non-truth. For example, in the identity of a poison; > > in the factual nature of an historical event. > > > > But surely this is not definitive of the full nature of Peircean > > semiosis. Did he spend all his years and work merely writing that 'if > > you or a group work hard enough - you'll find out the truth of whether > > X is a poison or the truth of what happened'.... > > > > This notion of an almost predestined reality of a 'thing'. which can > > never change...seems to me to function only within pure Thirdness. It > > ignores the brute accidents and changes of Secondness and totally > > ignores the chance novelties introduced by Firstness. That is, it > > ignores evolution and adaptation and novelty. > > > > I consider that - apart from these factual situations of 'either-or' > > [is it a poison or not; did this event occur or not] ….that > > Peircean semiosis rejects a predestined Truth. Indeed, with the power > > of Secondness and Firstness - Peircean semiosis rejects predestination > > of any kind and sets up the world as complex, interactive, dynamic and > > open to pure novelty, There is no 'final truth'. > > > > Edwina > > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
