I enjoyed reading your message. - My own expressions must have been inadequate, and misleading, because, as it happens, I fully agree with all you say in the following:

Life is more than “science and scientific knowledge,” and more than “striving to approach, better and better, The Truth.” And I mean this in a Peircean sense. Stated differently, science is part of life, not the determinant of it.
        By my lights life is participant in the entelechy of being, not a spectator looking at a scoreboard it can never reach. The perfection of being manifests all the time in realized aesthetic moments. Entelechy has Firstness, here and now, does it not?

        Perhaps something like this aesthetic perspective is what William Blake had in mind when he wrote: “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.”

        “…[T]he living intelligence which is the creator of all intelligible reality…”, as Peirce put it in the earlier quotation you comment on, means that ongoing creation involves more than chaos or chance, it involves a “reasonableness energizing in the world,” as Peirce put it elsewhere.

Although I'm not sure whether I fully understand your meaning here:
If logic, as self-controlled thought, is a species of ethics, as self-controlled conduct, and ethics is itself a species of aesthetics, as the intrinsically admirable, then “The Truth” ultimately gives itself to Beauty, as the ultimate of entelechy, as I understand Peirce.
To my mind Truth and Beauty become One, a unity. But perhaps my English just fails me. "giving itself to Beauty" sounds to my nonnative ear as something like surrending to something superior.

        And if so, as I see it, the perfection of being involves genesis, as well as development. Perfecting habits of conduct and even the laws of the universe itself, means the perfection of ongoing creation, not the “overcoming” of it in some Hegelian straitjacket.
I fully agree, again,

From this perspective the final entelechy of all being is itself such a moment, poem, painting, banquet, music, or better, mousike, rhythm-rhyme-dance-musicking, at least in the sense in which Peirce claimed that:

        “The Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of art, a great poem -- for every fine argument is a poem and a symphony -- just as every true poem is a sound argument. But let us compare it rather with a painting -- with an impressionist seashore piece -- then every Quality in a Premiss is one of the elementary colored particles of the Painting; they are all meant to go together to make up the intended Quality that belongs to the whole as whole. That total effect is beyond our ken; but we can appreciate in some measure the resultant Quality of parts of the whole -- which Qualities result from the combinations of elementary Qualities that belong to the premisses.” CP 5.119

My favorite quote! - That "the total effect is beyond our ken" was what I was striving to express. And that we only "can appreciate in some measure the resultant Quality of parts of the whole".

Thank you for your response! Back in the 1980's I read two articles of yours. They were the first ones on Peirce I had met, which I agreed with. Used to go around recommending them to everyone.

With best regards,


Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber

Reply via email to