BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry- you are moving into Alice in Wonderland territory: Why is a
raven like a writing desk?
And remember, the White Queen in Alive Through the Looking Glass
could remember future events before they even happened!
And I quote the Queen..."Why sometimes I've believed as many as six
impossible things before breakfast!.
And the Cat said: "We're all mad here. I'm made. You're mad..
How do you know I'm mad? said Alice. ' You must be, said the Cat, or
you wouldn't have come here.
Edwina
On Tue 19/05/20 6:23 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent:
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 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 [2] 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 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 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
>
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jerryr...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
