Dear Edwina, list,
Isn’t the *a priori* before the opinion, whether predestinate or destinate? So we could even decide whether we intend the *a priori* as necessary when we refer to predestinate opinion. Best, Jerry R On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:14 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jerry - surely you are joking with me! > > How can there be such a 'thing' as a predestinate opinion??? Is there any > 'thing' whether material or cognitive (an opinion) that is 'predestinate', > ie, is there any actuality that is predetermined to become that > actuality??? Is there anything that has been preplanned such that the > outcome is necessary and unchangeable? I can't think of a single material > or cognitive 'thing'.. Necessity is always confronted with possibility. > > You cannot use me as your authority or guide as to whether a > 'predestinate' is good or bad; you must make up your own mind. > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 19/05/20 5:30 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent: > > 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 .
