Stephen R., List: I agree with you in the sense that nothing Peirce authored--whether published or (especially) in handwritten manuscripts--is properly characterized as "complete."
The Harvard website for the Peirce Papers has a link to an interesting 1997 book chapter by Mary Keeler and Christian Kloesel, "Communication, Semiotic Continuity, and the Margins of the Peircean Text" ( http://conceptualgraphs.org/revelator/web/papers/keelermargins1997.pdf). They go so far as to say that for Peirce, "the usual distinction between draft versions of a paper and the final version (if there is one) is all but useless ... he would not have called a single one of his writings 'finished,' 'definitive,' or 'final.'" That is obviously problematic for anyone like me who has a strong "regularizing" tendency, as Gary F. has helpfully (and accurately) described it. They also include a quote from Peirce's Carnegie Institution application with which I strongly identify--"What has chiefly prevented my publishing much has been, first, that my desire to teach has not been so strong as my desire to learn ..." *Writing* was an integral aspect of Peirce's *thinking *and *learning *process, as it is of mine; communicating ideas to others was a secondary objective. After all ... CSP: A psychologist cuts out a lobe of my brain ... and then, when I find I cannot express myself, he says, "You see your faculty of language was localized in that lobe." No doubt it was; and so, if he had filched my inkstand, I should not have been able to continue my discussion until I had got another. Yea, the very thoughts would not come to me. So my faculty of discussion is equally localized in my inkstand. It is localization in a sense in which a thing may be in two places at once. On the theory that the distinction between psychical and physical phenomena is the distinction between final and efficient causation, it is plain enough that the inkstand and the brain-lobe have the same general relation to the functions of the mind. (CP 7.366; 1902) Likewise the computer keyboard, in my case; and of course, a Sign is precisely the kind of thing that "may be in two places at once," as two different Instances. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:36 AM Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > I feel the notion Peirce had a complete philosophy is unfair to him and as > a characterization, any more than Nietzsche or Wittgenstein could be said > to have such a philosophy. Aside from the fact that completeness is > impossible, I explicitly sense that Peirce developed what might be perfect > control and understanding and knowing to his personal satisfaction I more > and more sense that his philosophy is bifurcated both by his interpreters > and by himself. There is not much point in going on as my posts here are > not exactly dialog creators. I think that is actually one way of > understanding him, ironic but perhaps the case. Best, S > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > >>
----------------------------- 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 .
