Home
CP 5.485. Although the definition does not require the logical interpretant (or, for that matter, either of the other two interpretants) to be a modification of consciousness, yet our lack of experience of any semiosis in which this is not the case, leaves us no alternative to beginning our inquiry into its general nature with a provisional assumption that the interpretant is, at least, in all cases, a sufficiently close analogue of a modification of consciousness to keep our conclusion pretty near to the general truth. We can only hope that, once that conclusion is reached, it may be susceptible of such a generalization as will eliminate any possible error due to the falsity of that assumption. The reader may well wonder why I do not simply confine my inquiry to psychical semiosis, since no other seems to be of much importance. My reason is that the too frequent practice, by those logicians who do not go to work [with] any method at all [or who follow] the method of basing propositions in the science of logic upon results of the science of psychology -- as contradistinguished from common-sense observations concerning the workings of the mind, observations well-known even if little noticed, to all grown men and women, that are of sound minds -- that practice is to my apprehension as unsound and insecure as was that bridge in the novel of "Kenilworth" that, being utterly without any sort of support, sent the poor Countess Amy to her destruction; seeing that, for the firm establishment of the truths of the science of psychology, almost incessant appeals to the results of the science of logic -- as contradistinguished from natural perceptions that one relation evidently involves another -- are peculiarly indispensable. Those logicians continually confound psychical truths with psychological truths, although the distinction between them is of that kind that takes precedence over all others as calling for the respect of anyone who would tread the strait and narrow road that leadeth unto exact truth. END
I am not ready to end my exploration of Peirce's logic and his understanding of psychic with this text. Amy Dudley died under questionable circumstances from falling down stairs. After the servants had retired.
My sense is that Peirce was vastly more trusting of common sense than he was or conclusions drawn by a panel of psychologists. And I must indulge my own bias toward the unity, ultimately, of all creatures with their Creator and Source. God, if you will.
We are nearing a time when use of this term need not give rise to reverences for Hitchens and Dawkins. I daresay both have their motives and whether they are intact now I have no idea. I regard religion as too partial in itself to be deemed universal and place my hopes in a universal philosopy that understands the dangers of binary thinking and the saving graces of triadic consciousness.
I am not ready to end my exploration of Peirce's logic and his understanding of psychic with this text. Amy Dudley died under questionable circumstances from falling down stairs. After the servants had retired.
My sense is that Peirce was vastly more trusting of common sense than he was or conclusions drawn by a panel of psychologists. And I must indulge my own bias toward the unity, ultimately, of all creatures with their Creator and Source. God, if you will.
We are nearing a time when use of this term need not give rise to reverences for Hitchens and Dawkins. I daresay both have their motives and whether they are intact now I have no idea. I regard religion as too partial in itself to be deemed universal and place my hopes in a universal philosopy that understands the dangers of binary thinking and the saving graces of triadic consciousness.
