Like it or not, Peirce was an iconoclastic and acerbic Christian. Had he delved into theology and church history more than he did, he would doubtless have arrived at ample bases for what is implicit in his own understanding. He is agnostic about supposition and a stickler for proofs. The problem he presents to those who ignore his spirituality is that it not only remains central, it also purports to be self-evident. But only to those willing to engage in a fairly explicit mode of practice. Between fairly explicit and free choice there is some leeway but it seems to me that a Peirce-derivative practice would involve at a minimum an openness to a discipline of thinking based on a mode we could call triadic and a form of musement that might correspond to an effort to achieve some harmonious relationship with another. I do not capitalize another. But it seems obvious to me that Peirce thought we talked within ourselves to what might be considered one's higher self or to one beyond that. To condense this into a question, is it the case, or is it not, that Peirce, to be understood, requires a practice based on his premises?
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
