Gene, I wonder if you can comment a bit more on the end of your note--how exactly does it make sense from a Peircean point of view to claim that poems are arguments? More specifically, if poems qua aesthetic objects partake most of firstness, how can they also be arguments?
Jeff -----Original Message----- >From: Eugene Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: May 9, 2006 7:45 AM >To: Peirce Discussion Forum <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Entelechy > >Kirsti M: ï¿½ï¿½The entelechy or perfection of being Peirce here refers to is >something never attained to full, but strived at, again and again. Just as >with science and scientific knowledge. It's about striving to approach, >better and better, The Truth. If there ever would be an end, the absolute >perfection of knowledge, that would mean an end, which would be in >contradiction with life and living. Life and living IS striving - with >some kind of an end. Never the last possibleï¿½ï¿½ > > I have to disagree, Kirsti. Life is more than ï¿½science and >scientific knowledge,ï¿½ and more than ï¿½striving to approach, better and >better, The Truth.ï¿½ 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: ï¿½If 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.ï¿½ > > ï¿½ï¿½[T]he living intelligence which is the creator of all >intelligible realityï¿½ï¿½, as Peirce put it in the earlier quotation you >comment on, means that ongoing creation involves more than chaos or chance, >it involves a ï¿½reasonableness energizing in the world,ï¿½ as Peirce put it >elsewhere. 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 ï¿½The Truthï¿½ ultimately gives itself to >Beauty, as the ultimate of entelechy, as I understand Peirce. > > 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 >ï¿½overcomingï¿½ of it in some Hegelian straitjacket. 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: > > ï¿½The 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.ï¿½ CP 5.119 > > > Gene > > > >--- >Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber email@example.com