Helmut, List: I agree with Jeff that "perfect" in this context does not have a Platonic meaning, but rather--as I have stated previously--is related to the Aristotelian notion of Entelechy. In fact, here is another passage that *might *provide more clues about what Peirce meant by a "perfect Sign."
CSP: Aristotle gropes for a conception of *perfection*, or *entelechy*, which he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the very fact, that is, *the ideal sign which should be quite perfect*, and so identical,--in such identity as a sign may have,--with the very matter denoted united with the very form signified by it" (EP 2:304; 1904, emphases added). As for why we "always dive deeply into Peirce's writings"--this is, after all, a *Peirce *List; and the fact that we (at least some of us) strive diligently to remain faithful to his basic ideas and careful terminology *does not* entail that we are not *also *thinking very much for ourselves, as I believe this thread amply illustrates. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > Quasi and not-quasi, perfect and imperfect, genuine and degenerate: I find > it boring, and it reminds me of dogmatism and fundamentalism. By saying > that it reminds me, I dont mean it as an offence. Rather like proposing the > application of Ockham´s razor: Why don´t you try to find a way to avoid an > agonistic continuity concept (a competition of quality-related valuing), > when there is a chance to do (avoid) so? I am trying that all the time, > sometimes with good and sometimes with faulty results. It would make things > much easier if successfully achieved. Anyway, what has a sign to do with > perfection? The idea of perfection is Platonism, as if there were perfect > ideas already existing, to whom a sign more or less might match. This has > nothing to do with the Peircean concept of "habit". It are two > contradicting ideologies. And, why do you always dive deeply into Peirce´s > writings instead of to think yourselves? Peirce was no all-knowing god, was > he? And, but that is abstraction from me to others, thinking myself is much > more fun than hermeneutics. > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- 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 .
