BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry - good point. I suppose the 'pre' somehow moves the situation
out of an 'actuallity' and into some kind of amorphous pre-actuality.
To say 'destinate' implies, possibly, an actual agent making the
decision to 'move ahead'; while 'predestinate' implies an immaterial
agency making such a decision....
Edwina
On Tue 19/05/20 2:40 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
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 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 [2] 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
>
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jawb...@att.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
