Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
“Let us acknowledge, then, that we have no preamble. .. for the statement that is to follow the prelude is one of no small importance, and it makes no difference whether these statements are distinctly or indistinctly remembered.”~ *Laws*, 723c I hope that helps. With best wishes, Jerry R On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:14 PM Jerry Rhee wrote: > Dear Cecile, Helmut, Michael, Robert, Edwina, list, > > > > Hence, this is why I do not believe it. > > > > With best wishes, > Jerry R > > > > > > Helmut said: > do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the final > interpretant is the first element in logical order, but the last in > temporal order? In this case I would propose a solution attempt like this: > The truth works as a motive, a quest for it, although it is not yet > achieved. People (animals, organisms, molecules?) have a feeling, > intuition, instinct, internalised law or axiom, that everything has or > would have a true representation. This final interpretant, though not > realised, does nevertheless do its work for the sign this way here and now. > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:01 PM Edwina Taborsky > wrote: > >> 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 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
Dear Cecile, Helmut, Michael, Robert, Edwina, list, Hence, this is why I do not believe it. With best wishes, Jerry R Helmut said: do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the final interpretant is the first element in logical order, but the last in temporal order? In this case I would propose a solution attempt like this: The truth works as a motive, a quest for it, although it is not yet achieved. People (animals, organisms, molecules?) have a feeling, intuition, instinct, internalised law or axiom, that everything has or would have a true representation. This final interpretant, though not realised, does nevertheless do its work for the sign this way here and now. On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:01 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > 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 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 -
Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
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
Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
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 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
Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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 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 [2] 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]
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
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 >> > >> >> >> >> >> > - 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 .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
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 > > > > > > > - 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 .
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Re: Semiosis and Truth
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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 .
