Edwina, list,
Thank you for your response. To make the matter more clear, perhaps you can tell me whether your attitude toward predestinate opinion is positive or negative. For if the predestinate opinion is bad, then surely I ought not believe in it. If it is good, I ought to believe in it because predestinate opinion-> destinate opinion -> truth and I prefer truth to untruth. There appears to be some measure of adequacy implied in the problem. So, is predestinate opinion that upon which I ought to be prepared to act, or would you recommend against it? Best wishes, Jerry R On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:06 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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 <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 .
