martin lefebvre

8/7/2019 Martin Lefebvre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/martin-lefebvre 1/27

Peirce's Esthetics: A Taste for Signs in ArtAuthor(s): Martin LefebvreSource: Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Spring, 2007), pp. 319-344Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40321187 .

Accessed: 28/02/2011 09:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions

of the Charles S. Peirce Society.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40321187?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40321187?origin=JSTOR-pdf




^O Can Peirce conceptionf the stheticontributenythingo the he-Z ory r thephilosophyfart what s usually eferredotoday s aes-

Otheticsi3he

question pensupaperspective

rom hich haveought►-• to examine ome fPeirces aterwritingshere eexplains isconcep-

ts tions fboth henormativeciences nd hispragmaticism.t the ut-^ set we shall see how much Peirces ommitmento estheticss the^ science f the"admirablen itself" eparts rom he morecommon

^ view festheticss thephilosophyf rt.Yet, eircesmany esitations^ whenevere venturedodiscuss sthetics ay e seen o llustrateome*/J of thedifficultiesewrestled ith ntryingodistinguishisconcep-r tion fthis cience rom he dea that t should rimarilyeconcerned

with rt nd thebeautiful. hat smore, heres noevidence o behad

that eirce ver rrivedt a definitivetatementn thematter or venthathe had settledt to his ownsatisfaction.ut the absence fanysuch ruly omprehensiver final ccount hatwouldclarifynceandfor ll theplaceoccupiedbyartor bythe estheticxperiencef artwithin eirce'sonceptionf estheticsnnoway mplies hat here snothingobegained ygivinghe ssue arefulonsideration.hefol-lowingsanattempto do just hat.

In thefirstection,goover hemainpoints fPeirces stheticsndconsidertsrole s a "normativecience"within is mature lassifica-

tion f he ciences.nthe econd ection,offeromehypothesesstowhat onceptionf rt ndof estheticxperiencenemayegitimatelydraw rom eirce'spproachoesthetics.

Estheticsnd normativecienceTo avoid nymisunderstandings,t s mportantrom he tartopointoutthatwhat eircemeant y esthetics"iffersreatlyrom hatwhichthemodernraditionas dentifiedsthepart fphilosophyhich on-cernstself,sHegelput t nthe ntroductioní \i\sesthetics,ith therealm fthebeautiful;nd more

recisely...]

art, rrather,ine

rt"4Indeed,while rt ventuallyecame heparadigmaticomain festhet-ics, speciallynthepost-Kantianeriod,hePeirceanonceptionf hisscience eems t first lance o be somewhatndifferento it. n fact,Peirceven ppearsttimesontemptuousf stheticsounderstood,scan be seen na manuscriptf1911where e writes hat insteadfasilly cience fEsthetics,hat ries o bring s enjoymentfsensuousbeauty, bywhich mean llbeautyhat ppeals o our fiveenses,thatwhich ught o be fosteredsmeditation,onderings,ay-dreams(underdue control), oncerningdeals" EP 2: 460). Earlier,n his

"Minute ogic"of1902he had stated hat sthetics as been"handi-cappedbythedefinitionf tas the heoryfbeauty"CP 2.199) andthatogiciansught o avoid heGerman ay fcalling pon ensibilityandfeelingso udge he alue freasoning,f ookingupon henaturaljudgmentfrationalitys a mereudgmentffeeling"CP 2.1 5)



Only ate nhis ife id Peircever ome oofferstheticsnimpor- Jptant olewithin isphilosophicalystems a normativecience,long- r"

side ethics ndlogic.5No one,ofcourse, oulddeny hat, aken s aco-

whole, ismany ontributionsophilosophyrefirstnd foremosthat S1ofa logician,ndnotof a specialistfethics restheticsespeciallyf %*the atters understoodo be thephilosophicalcience fthefine rts. n'At several ccasionsPeircementions hat he considers imselfllinformed,ven ncompetent,ithregardso estheticmatters.Likemostogicians,"ewroten1903, I haveponderedhat ubject ar oo ^little"CP 2.197). Buttothisheadds mmediatelyhereafter:Esthet- hics and ogic eem, t firstlush, obelong o differentniverses.t is 2onlyvery ecentlyhat havebecomepersuadedhat hat eemings £*illusory,ndthat, nthe ontrary,ogicneeds hehelpof sthetics.he £mattersnotyet ery lear o me." <

Peirce initial esitancyegardingsthetics aybe accounted orn wseveral ays.On onehand,he was reluctanto considert to be a truenormativecience n thebasis hat degustibustcoloribus,on st is-putandum"notherwords,he ommonlyeldview festheticss thephilosophyf taste nd of the beautifuln thefine rts eemedtoimpedets onceptionsa truenormativecience. n theother and,therewastheproblem fpsychologism. e knowthatPeirce lways

refusedo found is ogic repistemologyponpsychologicalround.Thiswaspreciselyhathefound bjectionablenGerman hilosophy.One of thepossible itfallsf estheticsonsidereds a normativeci-ence longsideogic, herefore,asthat ts oncern or feeling" ightlead to psychologismn anyefforto unitethenormativeciences.Finally,n evil ustas seriouswasthe threat frelatingogicand itssearch or rutho the uest f ensual leasures.orwhatevertsform,hedonismwas forPeirce n irrational octrine nd thereforeneincompatibleithogic. stheticsouldonly eintegratedntoPeirce

conceptionf thenormativeciences ncehe couldmake ure hese

pitfalls ere voided,llustratingn theprocess ow t couldbelong othe ame universe"slogic andethics).

This "universe,"orsure, s one governed y the architectonicscheme fferedytheCategories,s is,for hatmatter,ll thatwhichpertainsoPeirce'smaturettemptst the lassificationfthe ciences.There s noroomhere ogointo detailedccount f uch rich ax-onomic ndeavor.6ufficeosay hat eirceawthenormativeciencesasbelongingo the ciences fdiscovery,ndmore pecificallyophi-losophy the atter indingtsplacebetweenmathematicsnd the

specialsciences in short: hephysical nd thepsychicalciences).Philosophy tselfbeing divided into three scientificub-classes:phaneroscopy,henormativecienceswherene findssthetics,thics,andlogic), ndmetaphysics.he three-partivision fphilosophyswellas that fthenormativeciencess madeon thebasisof how a ^i



^o given cience oregroundsspects fthe three ategoriesfFirstness,Z Secondness,ndThirdness.imply ut, hismplieshat henormative

O sciences,eing etbetweenhaneroscopy-Firstndmetaphysics-Third,h-1 mustdisplay haracteristicsf Secondness.Next,the internal ub-£""* division f thenormativeciencesmplieshat, elativeooneanother,^ theylldisplay ifferentategorialharacteristics:onadicityf esthet-^ ics,dyadicityfethics,riadicicyf ogic.Finally,ccordingo Peirce

^ categorialaxonomiccheme,ciences hich re Firsts"fferperating^ principleso those hat re "Second" nd "Third", nd those hat re*J "Second" o the amefor hose hat re Third" this showone mustr understandeirce statementhat logicneeds hehelp f sthetics."7

In short, ccordingo thisbreakdown,stheticsmustmanifest

dyadic haracter,ust s ethics nd ogicdo this s relatedo their ta-tus s "normativeciences"see below) , but t must lsomanifestmonadic haracteruch that tmayfurthereterminetselfn ethicsand logic,whichevidencedominant yadicand triadic haractersrespectively.hesumof hese ategorialharacteristicsdyadicityf henormativeciences elativeothemonadicityfphaneroscopynd tothetriadicityfmetaphysics; onadicityf esthetics elativeo thedyadicityf thicsndto the riadicityf ogic) swhat ormallyefinesPeirce conceptionfesthetics,thics,nd ogic.

Peircensists n the fact hat henormativeciences re not con-cerned ywhat s orbywhatmust e,ratherhey eek oexamine heconditions fpossibilityorwhat ughtobe withregardso feeling,conduct,ndthought.Morespecifically,xplains eirce,heynvesti-gate the niversalndnecessaryawsof therelation f PhenomenaoEnds" EP 2: 197,1903).This swhyhe also states hat henormativesciences re the"most urelyheoreticalfpurelyheoreticalciences(CP 1.281,1902-03).Thus,contraryo certainracticalciences hatclaim to discriminatend evaluate oncrete nd manifest eelings,

actions,nd

thoughts,henormativeciences ffer theoreticalnves-

tigationfthe onditionshatmakepossible hese orts fdiscrimina-tion nd evaluationn thefirst lace.Now,theonlywayto considerwhatought o be withregardso feeling,onduct, nd thoughtndthereforeo envisage ossible iscriminationnd evaluationn thesematters for nstance: odistinguishetween n ethicallyoodandabad action is to conceive f ends r idealswhichought o be con-formed ith s much spossibleo that heymay ccomplishr fulfillthemselves.his also serves o explain hedominant yadicnature fthenormativeciences.ndeed,what ughtobe thatstosay, he on-

formityfphenomenaoends onceivedonditionallyshouldnot beunderstoods theresult feither hance rnecessity,utrathers theoutcome f a rational rocess fdeliberationubjectedo criticalelf-control onducive o theformationndto thegrowthfhabits. hus,even houghnds reThirds or eirce,he ppealto deliberationnd



self-controlwhich lwaysmplyffortrresistance as the ondition $making ossible hefree onformityfphenomenaoendsevidences ^the

dualityhat confers o the normativeciences heirdominant w

dyadic haracter.8 EPIfestheticshareswith thics nd logicthisdyadic haracters a %*

determiningrait fnormativity,t alsopossesses monadic uality o'which, smentionedbove, haracterizest relativeothedyadicityfethics ndtothe riadiciy f ogic.Thisfurtherreakdowneflectshenaturefthe boutness feachofthe hreeciences:ualitiesffeeling >in the aseof sthetics,onductnthe aseof thics,ndthoughtrthe huse ofsignsnthecaseof ogic.Asweshallnowsee,thisdivision lso zillustrateshe verarchingrchitectonicategorialcheme f the lassi- £ficationfthe ciences,ccordingo whichogic nd ethics equirehe £helpofesthetics. <

ForPeirce,he ndebtednessf thics nd ogic o estheticsies t the wvery eart f henormativityndthe ationalityfboth ciences. or obe truly ormativendrational thics nd ogicrequiredeals rends,that s,somethingdmirablehat onduct nd thoughteekto carryoutoraccomplishn a concretemannerhroughheformationnd thedevelopmentf rational abits.These endsare simply hatagainstwhich onductndthoughtmay emeasurednd evaluated. owever,

the doptionf n ideal ndthe ttempto see tthroughyway fouractions nd our thinkingirst resupposeshepossibilityf ormingideals uchthat hey an associatewith omethingdmirablen itself,independentlyfanythinglse, supremedeal.Suchan ideal s pre-ciselyhe bject f stheticsnd thisswhy oth thics nd ogic an besaidtorequirehehelpofthefirstfthe hree ormativeciences. olongerhe cience fthebeautifuln thefine rts, stheticsecomes orPeirce hescience f the admirablen itself,he science fends,ofwhich hegood n ethics nd truthnlogic onstituteurther,pecial-

ized,determinations.ore

specifically,stheticss thescience hat

studiesheformationf deals ndof the upremedeal, he ummumbonum. utestheticsotonlyoffersthics nd logictheground ortheir wnnormativityndrationality,ndeed t s itself rational ndnormativecience. he idea s well ncapsulatedhenPeirce tates hat"if onductsto bethoroughlyeliberate,he dealmust e a habit ffeeling hichhasgrown p under he nfluencef a course f self-criticismndofheterocriticisms;ndthetheoryfthedeliberateor-mation f uchhabits ffeelings what ught obemeant yesthetics"(EP2: 378, 1906).Let us examinehe deamore losely.

The idealwhich eirce as nmind s such hattmust e admirablein itselfhat s, ts dmirableness ustbe independentromnyrea-son, ndeedndependentromnythinglse.This mplieshat t mustchieflyeconceived romhepoint fview fFirstness,s a qualityffeeling,owhich eirce ddsthat t s a habit f eeling? rom he tart, „„„



<-O this xcludesmaking leasurehe ndorsupremedeal ince,ikepain,Z it s not qualityffeelingtrictlypeaking nor s ta habit ffeeling

O-

>butrather,ccordingoPeirce, "secondary"eelingr a form fHH generalizationhat roups ogetherifferentualities ffeeling hichr"1 mustnonethelessemaineparatenddistinctn themselvesindeed,^ though othmaybe saidto bepainful,he uigeneriseelingf tooth^ ache remains istinct rom hat f an armbeingbroken).10fpleasure^ does indeedaccompanyheaccomplishmentf the deal, t is as a^~\ symptom,ot s a cause.Butwhat xactlys a habit f eeling.^ We know hatPeirce nderstandsabit n relation ophenomena, exhibitinghe endencyospread ut nto continuum,hat s tosay,

to regularizend to reproducehemselvesndefinitelyn the future.

This tendencymanifeststselfn the fact hatonce a phenomenonappears, hepossibilityf another ne just like t appearingn thefuture ecomesmore ikely. ualities ffeelingre monads nd thusunrelated o anythinglse,and yet,by their ery ppearance heyacquire hepowerofmaking heir eproduction,heir rowth,ndtheir egularizationore ikely hanbefore. nce regularizedn thisfashion,ualities f feeling ecomewhat Peirce alls ideas. ndeed,writes eirce,whenfeelingsbecomewelded ogethern association,theresults a generaldea" CP6.137, 1892).This s thevery rinciple

ofhabit-akinghat eirce escribess the lawofmind': Feelingendsto spread; onnectionsetween eelingswaken eelings;eighboringfeelings ecomeassimilated;deas are apt to reproducehemselves.These re omany ormulationsfthe ne awofthegrowthfmind"(GP6.21, 1891).Consequently,he ummumonummay e definedsthequality ffeelingftheadmirablen itself hich preads, rows,andreproducestselfyhabit, or s Peirceays t s a habit f eeling.Now, nasmuch s thishabit s deological and thereforeontrolled- , thegrowthfthis uality ffeelingorrespondsothevery rinci-

pleof

rationality.his eadsPeirce oconclude hat he

nly hinghat

isadmirablenitself,ndependentlyfanyreason,s reason tself. utreason eremust otbeunderstoodsnorreducedo a faculty.ather,wemust ee t as thequality ffeelinghat egularizestselfnthe deaofreason,s itsvery ssencewhose haracterstobe ina state f con-stantincipiency. his statemay be described s the never-fully-embodiedhabitthe universe asdeveloped facquiringhabits n an evermore ontrolledashion, f onstantlyrowingn concreteeasonableness.tis this ualityhat s admirablend that nables s to conceive f thesummumonums lyingn the"rationalizationfthe universe"CP1.590,1903),or ascorrespondingothe developmentfconcrete ea-sonableness"ntheuniverseCP 5.3, 1902).

Onlybymaintaininghat heformationfthisdealworthyf do-ration s subject o a process f self- nd heretocriticismsan Peirce

324 argue hat sthetics anifestshe haracteristicyadicityfthenorma-



tive ciencesmentionedbove.However,ince riticismeeks o con- Jptrol heconditionsccordingo which phenomenon the ummum ^

bonum,nthis ase can

embodynd fulfilln ideal whose ttractive- w

ness r admirablenessctsupon t as does finalcause,we are eft o won- ETderhow to avoidan infiniteegressf ideals n accounting or he fjfnormativityfesthetics.he only ossiblenswer can thinkfthat s n'congruent ithPeirce's iews thought s eftmplicityhim is toconsidern tselfheupremedéalasthatwhichorrespondso he eryor-mationndgrowthf deals. his implies hat he ummum onum s ^itselftsownnorm, ince hegrowthf concreteeasonablenessnthe huniverse ouldbe impossiblend unthinkable ere tnotfor hefor- 2mation ndgrowthf deals. ^

With he ummumonum eason ontemplatestselfnd, ike ome £greatNarcissus,ringso bearupon tself hepower f tsown attrae- <tivenessnan attempto achievets ccomplishment.n otherwords, wthe ideal thatmakespossible riticism,hatwhichmakespossibleapprovalrdisapprovalntheformationfthe ummumonum,orre-spondsto theprinciple r process hatgovernstsvery ormation.Accordingo this rocess,deasform hemselvesndgrow hroughnevermore ontrolledourse f ssociationsetweenualitiesffeeling.Asmentionedarlier,his s whatPeirce alls he aw of mind' r aw

ofhabit-aking,' hose ationalityies t theheart f stheticormativ-ity.Now,notall actions rescribedythis awmay ppear ational ous,thats,from ur imited uman erspective,ssome likepercep-tion, or nstance arebeyond urcontrol.Ofcourse,ogicfor eirceimpels hatwe consider henomenanwaysunrestrainedythepsy-chologicalimitationsfourhumanmind.) he importantoint, ow-ever, s to understandhatthe aw of mindconstitutesn essentialcondition or heemergencefrationality,eing ntirelyompatiblewithtfor t east woreasons. n the nehand, heformationnd thereinforcementfhabits f

feeling,he

rejectionfpast

deals nd theformationf newones, hegrowthfhabits ffeelingnd their nflu-enceover ther abits ffeeling,llrequireroceduresfcontrol nal-ogousto thosefound n ethics nd logic.Accordingo Peirce, heseprocedures ossessthe formal haracteristicsf either bduction,induction,r deductionCP 6. 144-6.147,1892).On theother and,habit-takingndhabit-growthetupthe onditions or oth) thefor-mation fideals idealsare hierarchizedabits: hey reformed yway fhabits eing ormed,ytheir rowth,ndbyother abits eingdiscardedn time and b) thegrowth f self-controlccording o

which he ntire abit-takingrocesshat haracterizeshe awofmindcontinuallyrowsnrationality.

Obviously ne cannot nvisage heformationf a firstdeal,ofsome nitialmanifestationfthe ummumonum anymorehan necouldenvisage heemergencef the firstign sinceevery ational _-



o^ action ndevery ationalhought equiren idealthat tattemptsoZ carryutconcretelyyconformingo it.At bestwemay nvisagehe

O formation,yway fchancenitially,f nextremelyaguedeal ease-HH lessly eterminingtself hile lsogrowingncomplexityndvarietyr""1 throughheconjugatedndopposite ffectsf chance nd habit. he^ notion hat deals angrow husmplies constantrocess frevision,^ re-evaluation,nd criticism. otsurprisingly,his icturefgrowths

^ analogous o howPeirce,nhiscosmological ritings,onceived fthe^ ideological volution f theuniverse. s earlys "AGuess t theRid-^J die,"Peirce laimed hat ne finds hree lementshat re ctiventhe, world: first,hance; econd, aw; ndthird,abit-taking"W6,p.208,

1887-8). Ifhabit-takings third,t is because t enablesmediation

between universentirelyoverned y chance n some infinitelyremote ast nd,at theother ndofthe pectrum,nsome nfinitelyremoteuture,universentirelyovernedy aw.This future niversewouldbeonecompletelynder he way freason, et twouldbe onefrom hich eason tself understoodsthatwhich alwaysmust e na state f ncipiency,fgrowth"UP2: 255, 1903) wouldnecessarilybe absent. herefore,tis in the nterval etween hese wo nfinitelyremote oints hat he aw ofmind omes omanifesttself.With t,reason ppears s an incessantlymergingnd perpetuallyrowing

propertyredicatingverythingntheuniverse,ntil t s replacednsome nfinitelyistant uturey aw, hat s,bya habithaving racti-cally ost all of tsplasticity,habit hat hance an no longernflu-ence sucha future,eed we add,would be analogous odeath CP8.317, 1891). Finally,ince hetendencyodevelophabits ccupiesspace in between wo asymptotic oints, t is impossible, xplainsPeirce, o conceive fany ctualmomentnthepastorfuture herethis endencyouldbeabsent,ust s t s mpossibleo conceive f nyactualmomentnthefuturerom hich hancewouldbe absent.

Notonly

oesthe ummumonumorrespond

oPeirce'scheme

orgrowthntheuniverse,talsoyields o this chemensubjectingheformationf llour deals o t.Thesummumonum hereforeppearsas an indefinitelyrowingrocessf rowth,sdoes tsmodeofgrowth.This implies oth a growth frationality,ut also a growthwithinrationality,r, oput tdifferently,rowthnthevery xercise f self-control. oras Peircewrites,n itsmost dvancedtages,volutionrthedevelopmentfreason takes lacemore nd moreargelyhroughself-control"CP 5.433, 1905). Concretely,histranslatesnto evermore pportunitiesocriticizeur habits nd even ur deals. n fact,thepossibilityor uchcriticismsa necessaryutcome fthegrowthof reasonableness.y submittingur habits nd our ideals to self-controlndcriticism,ither or pprovalrdisapproval,inal ausationcanbegin oknow tselfnd make tselfnown, hichnturnmayead

22f toendsbeing urthereveloped,efined,nd evenmodifiedfneedbe.



To belong othe ontinuumfthe ummumonum much ike he Jpconclusionf n nductionanbesaid obelongo a continuouseries f 3"

experimentationsan deamust

ossessdmirableness,tmust e

iner ^

"kalos"anancient reekwordusuallyranslateds "beautiful",hough £Fthe atter,laimsPeirce,s inadequate o expresstsmeaning).n an £funpublishedefinitionikely rittensanadditionooneof heCentury n'Dictionaryentriesc. 1888-1889),Peirce tates hat dmiration,

... issimply highdegree femotional pproval f,ordelightnany pobject s being uchoracting s it doesregardlessfanyulterior on- gsiderations futility,nterest, orality,rtruth. hus, I mayadmire Ejjthe implicityf a woman's ress, r the ccuracy fa mans anguage, t-

without nyparticular onder t it. ... My admiration onsists n 3thedelight take n looking t theone or attending o the other. tamaywonder tGod's creation f theworld.Butifhe was to create t pat all there an be no wonder thathe made it one wayrather hananother.Neither an therehave beenanyutility radvantage fanykind ofwhich we can havecognizance n itsbeingconstructedne

wayrather han nother. ut thathe created world apableof devel-

opingends ssomething hich, hough aken s a whole t subservesno purposewhatsoever,xcites n emotion nmewhich orresponds,as I think osome realgeneral ttribute fgoodness "goodness"was

struck rom hemanuscript]rexcellence;nd that motion

ogetherwithmydeliberatecceptance f t as a judgment, onstitutesdmi-ration.R 1597a)

Thepassages nterestingnshowinghat great umber f hingsmaybe admiredtanygivenmoment,uch sclothes, hetoric,r more othepoint, hedevelopmentfends n theuniverse.ndeed,humanbeings ind ifferenthingsdmirablendhavedifferentdeals. et, heissue or sthetics,s wehave een, snotto consider hat sormay eadmirableutrather hat ughto be admirable. ow, t followsrom

whatwassaidearlierhatnorder thattought obeso", n admirableideamustbe ableto grow ndefinitely,tmustbe capableoffurtherdeterminationndofdeterminingtselfnotherdeas,notablyhroughconduct nd reasoning.n short,tmustbe reasonable. oreover,tmust lso beable toattracts,toattracturhabits, nd, norder obeconsidereddmirablen tself,tmust ecapable f ttractings beforewe can inductively easure heconsequencesfadoptingt on ourconduct rourreasoning.

This attractioniesin part n thecompatibilityf the dea with

habits nd deals hathave lreadyeenformed. owever,his lone sinsufficient.n fact, ttractionor he ummum onummust irstelyon whatPeirce,n hiscosmology,eferso as Love or theagapasticdevelopmentfthought.Theagapastic evelopmentfthought,"ewrites,is theadoption f certainmental endencies,otaltogether

327



^ heedlesslys in tychasma modeofevolution estingn chance, sZ exemplifiedyDarwinianism],orquiteblindly ythemere orce f

O circumstancer of ogic, s inanancasmamodeof evolutionestingh"H on necessity,s exemplifiedyHegelianism],utbyan immediateÉ""1 attractionor he deaitself, hosenature s divined eforehemind^ possessest,bythepower f ympathy,hat sbyvirtue fthe ontinu-< ity fmind"CP 6.307, 1893).^ There s an obviousresemblanceerebetweengapastic evelop-^ ment nd Peirces onception fthe normofvalidityf abduction.

^ Indeed, ccordingohim, he nlyway hat ne canexplainhe uccessr of bductiveeasoning,ndby he ame oken,heprogressf cientific

inquiry,s toconsider hathypotheses ust irstppear dequate ousthanks o a sort fnaturalnsightr instinctGalileos"//umenatu-rale"} ccordingo whichhumanbeings, otwithstandingll thefail-ings ftheironjecturing,vidence tendencyoguess he ruth. ndalthough his s theonly ortofepistemicssurance hat bductionaffords,tnonethelessonstitutesrational orm fcontrol,sweak sitmaybe. Thissame ort fabductivessurance,amely,hefact hatan dea ppears mmediatelyttractive,quallyecures he ationalityntheformationf new deals. texplains otonly he uccess, utalsothegeneral endency eexhibit f dvancingeason espitell ourcol-

lective ailingsnthis egard.A uniquefeaturefPeirce agapasticismesidesnhownoveltyndchance re ntegratednto tsaccount f the deological thoughonnecessaryevolution ftheuniverse. similar icturean be drawn oaccount or heformationnd evolution fthe ummumonum ndofidealswhich, ecause heyerve henormativiy f thicsnd ogic nd,therefore,quallyerve herationalityfmetaphysicsnd of ll the pe-cialsciences,nable s tocontributeo the volvingniverse,ogive ahandtoward enderingheworldmore easonable"EP : 255, 1903).

Accordingo the

octrinef gapasticism,he nitial hancemergingfqualitiesffeeling,heirubsequentrowthntogrowingabits ffeel-ing, stablisheloi hat ncrease heprobabilityor hegrowthf con-tinua fqualitiesffeeling.he recurrencefthis rocess ith ariousqualities ffeeling,ifferentabits, ntails umerouseloi'ubject oorderinghemselvesierarchically,oopposingneanother,ogrow,operfectrtransformhemselves.tthe ame ime,hegeneralendencytoacquire abits ndergoessimilarrocesshroughhe ecursiveppli-cation f ts ownhabit.Whatclearly istinguishesgapasticismromnecessitarianismor anancasticism)s theway it conceives f final

causality ot as absolute,mmutable,nd eternalaws,butrather shabitswhose volution,espitetstelos,mustmakeroomfor hance,spontaneity,ndcreativity.orhabits retendencies,ot aws,which swhychancemaymanifesttselfn agapasticvolution.11s a result,

^n Peirce an assert,without nyparadox, hat evolution eads to an



increasen complexitynd diversityn theuniverse ll the while reduc- Jjping n itthe roleplayedbychance. ^

Fromthetandpoint

fpracticality,

t sobvious that sthetic orma- w

tivity,n relyinghiefly n attraction r insight that s to say,on the 51onlyform f assurance ffordedyabduction , offers ery ittle ecu- %*ritynmaking sthetic iscriminationsn theactualprocessofforming n'new ideals.Yet,thisbeingsaid, one must not believe thatPeircecon-ceived of abduction as an unbridledprocessof invention rrived t

through hesole agency fpurechance.Rather, e saw it as a processof pforming ypothesesubject ofinal causation.This means thatabduc- 2?tionsrationality based on ourability o insightfullyuessthetruth,o 2

instinctivelyraspthecontinuityfthings is itselfncreasing,fonly £"infinitesimally,s ittakes ntoconsiderationther, stablished, ypothe- £scs.12Guessingright,notherwords, salso subject ogrowth.Now,the <;more an ideal or a habit of feelinggrowsand consolidates, hemore w

qualitiesoffeeling endto be attracted o it.A simpleexamplecan serveto illustratehepoint. magine youngfilmgoer hodevelops taste orso-called modernist"inema.A film yAntonionimay eadhimtodis-covertheworkofGodard orPasolini, nd then thatofGlauberRocha,ChrisMarker, r even Robbe-Grillet. t eachstage hedevelopinghabitoffeelings likely o findgreaterssurance nd grow, o thattheyoung

mans tastemayeventuallyffirmtselfnd evenproducehierarchies.nthe process,thistaste or ideal thatis to say,whateverhad initiallyattractedheyoung filmgoero Antonioni nd then to the work of theotherfilmmakers is further etermined nd, in a sense, can start

becoming ware of tself nd of tsown identity.Yet, despite the growth n our abductive abilityto guess right,

greaterssurance n exercisingelf-controlnd discriminatingetweenour idealscan onlycome from onsidering heconsequencesofadopt-ingthemwithregards o conductor thought either y wayof magi-nation

througheductionor

concretelyhroughnduction.The

upshotbeingthat sthetics, hile t s concernedwiththe rational ormationfideals, is ill-equiped to handle discrimination etween them, inde-

pendently rom thicsand logic. This mayexplainwhyPeirce claimsthat hecharacteristicualismof the normativeciences,patent nbothethics nd logic,"is softened lmostto obliterationn esthetics"EP 2,379, 1906). "Nontheless", e adds,"itwould be theheight fstupidityto say thatestheticsknows no good and bad". Thus in his writingsPeirceoffers, ere and there,examples of ideas he considered to beadmirable.These include truth nd justice (CP 1.348, 1903; 5.431,

1905; 8.272, 1902), the three heologicalvirtues r habitsof charity,hope, and faith to whichPeircegave a logicalturn W3: 276-289,1878)-, and, of course, ove (CP 6.287-6.317, 1893). However, t

maywell be withthefamous"NeglectedArgument ortheRealityofGod" that Peirce presentsmost compellinglythe formationof an ~q



c/D estheticdea,thatofGod, whosedescriptionears tunningesem-^ blance othatwhich egives he ummumonum.

O ForPeirce,ll thesedeas readmirable ecause hey elong o theI"H continuumfreason,he ontinuumfthe ummumonum.hey reÉ""1 reasonable eelingsr "logical entiments"W 3: 281-285) whose^ adoption sideals as a resultfourhabits eingndefinitelyttracted^ andharmoniouslyssociated o them makes spartakenthegrowth^ ofconcrete easonablenessn theworld.Now,onemightwell ayof a^~\ personwhoadopts uchhabits ffeelings ideals hat hey re culti-

^ vating taste or eason ndthat headmirablenestheticss all thatr which s continuous ith ucha taste, hat s to say, ll thatwhich s

perceiveds beingcompatible ith t or as possessinghequalityt

approvesr ooksfor,ndthrough hich t cangrow,mprove,enewor eventransformtself. his tasteforreasonwhichwe all possess,though ome cultivatet moreferventlyhanothers,s thatwhichmightqually e known s the asteorThirdness.

Estheticsnd ArtThe abovesurveyfsomekey spects f Peirce estheticsmayhelpmeasure he onsiderableistance hat eparatesisnormativeoncep-tionofthis cience romhat fthemajorityf modern hilosophers

whonarrowtsdomain o thefine rts xclusively.orerecently,hatis, startingt theturnof the lastcentury, ost thinkersave en-deavorednstead o bannormativityrom heir onceptionsí artisticproduction,roducts,nd reception. s a result, ew ontemporaryestheticians,r art heorists,ave hownmuch nterestn this spect fPeirce philosophy. ot surprizingly,erhaps, eircehimselfonsid-ered, round1905, ettisoninghe term esthetics"ltogethers thedesignationor hefirst f thethree ormativeciences,ndreplacingit with the neologism axiagastics"fromthe Greek"

axiagastos"whichmeans

worthyf dmiration".et his snot o

sayhat necan-

notuse Peirce estheticso investigatenumber f issues hathavebeen significantn the traditionf Western rt theory. hus, forinstance, fewyearsgo,DouglasAnderson xaminedrtisticreativ-itynrelationoagapasticvolution, hich,s we sawearlier,nderliesthe heoryftheformationf deals ndof he ummumonum}0 ur-thermore,he amedevelopmentaleleologyightlso becalled pontoinvestigateuch ssues s the formationfartisticenres,hemes,reven hat f rtisticersonalityrstyle. inally,fHegelcouldconceiveof thehistoryf art s theprogressnd realizationfGeist,heres no

doubtthat,forgoing egeliannecessitarianism,nd with sufficientpatience nd ingenuity,ne couldenvisagenstead n agapastic er-spective n thehistoryf art. Of course, 'm skeptical bout theprospectf thiskind fproject itting-inith urrentrendsnd with

_0 the heoverallgout ujour9 nestheticsnd art heory,nd haveno



wayofknowingnadvancewhatresultstmight ield.Nevertheless, Jjpsuch history ouldundoubtedlyppear s a series fends onstantly ^

emerging, ormingnd

developinghemselves

possiblythrough2~

chance alone initiallynd laterthroughmorecontrolledmeans , EFwhileothers retransformednd eventuallybandoned. n short,t ffwould ikelyhow hehistoryf rt o be an nfinitelyomplex etwork o'or web created ut of multiplicityfhistoriesnd telo'i.

But uch onsiderationsrenotwhat oncernmehere.ndeed, atherthan ttempto"apply" eirce views osome spect f thepracticer ^the heoryfart e.g., reativity,istoriographyfart, tyle, enre),r heven o a particularork fart,my ntentions toexamine ow rtfits 2intoPeirceestheticheoryndtoconsider hat,f nything,he atter ^has oofferstheticsor esthetics)nthe urrentsage f he erm.What, £then,s theplace f rtwithin eircesstheticheory? <

At firstlance, nemight e temptedoanswer hat here snone; wthat eirces stheticheorys innoway oncerned ith rt.Butsuch,however,s not ntirelyhe ase. nfact,nat east nekey ssay,eirce,as we shall eebelow,ies hepresentationfbasic spectsfhisesthetictheoryo a fewbrief,houghmportant,emarksn artand on the"estheticnjoyment"hat he ontemplationf n artwork ay roduceinus.Asbriefstheymay e, hese bservationspenupa series f ues-

tions:What s themeaningf rt or eircessthetic?s itmerelyneofmany xampleshat an serve o llustratehefunctionfesthetics,r sthere n implicitheoryfart hidden"omewherenPeirceesthetics?Whatcounts s admirabler kalos nart?What s theroleof artwithrespecto thegrowthfconcreteeasonablenessntheuniverse?

As mentionedarlier,eallpossess taste or easonndall ofus col-lectivelyarticipaten therealizationfthe ummumonumhroughourhabits,heformationfour deals,ndtherationalityfourethics(ourconduct) nd ogic ourthought).n this ense, rtisticracticesno differentromther ational uman

ntreprises:rtists orm

deals,adopt hem,ndattemptofulfillhem. he implications that rtisticpracticessubjecto the heoreticalrinciplesf henormativeciences,just ike ny ther racticalpherefhuman ctivity.his,ofcourse,sa commonplacend Kant,forone,madeessentiallyhesame claimwhen, n theCritiquefJudgment,ewrote n 43 that byrightweought nly odescribesArt, roductionhroughreedom,.e.througha willthat lacesReason t thebasis f ts ctions."14 n this round,one could certainlyonsider tudying ow artists orm nd expressideals, ow these dealsmanifesthemselvesntheirwork, rthewaythat rtistsave fadoptingnd ncarnatingabitsnd,then, faban-doninghem or hedevelopmentfnewhabits. ndtosome xtent,rthistoriansften o ust hatwhen hey tudyhe tylef nartist. ow,as long s the ndof a work f art ould be said to find xpressionnthose rtistic abits hat ave edto tsrealizationnd to serve oother



^ ideal han oenable uchhabits ogrowo as torenderossibleorever^ more ikely) he mergencefotherworkswhere he ame dealcould

O find xpression,nd so on indefinitely,hepracticef rt ouldbe con-HH sideredsadmirablen tself,t east,n so ar s the rtistnd the ctoft""""1 artisticreationreconcerned.etwhat bout rtunderstoodot as an^ object fwillful rrationalreation,ut rathers an object fexperi-^ enee?Foralthoughtcould be argued hat hepracticefart, s just^ described,elongs o (or better et: s continuousith) hesummum^~j bonum,othingnwhathasbeen aid o farmplieshat heproductf

^ this ractice,.e.art tself,qually elongso t.r Letusbeginwith truism:ynotmakingrtor thebeautifulhe

object fhisestheticheory,eircevoids oldinghe stheticntothe

artistic. he samemight e said of Kant to the extenthathe madenature, ot art,thepragadigmaticocus f theesthetic. et,byap-proachingtin terms fthebeautifulndofdisinterestedleasuretcould be said that heCritiquefJudgmentasnonethelessonduciveto thefurtheronflationfthe sthetic ith he rtistic.eirce,ntheother and, ullynderstoodhat heuseofthe ermbeautiful" ouldhave onsiderablyarrowedheprovincefhisestheticheory.ndeed,as hesaw t,esthetics as thetheoreticalciencewhose bjectwas thegrowthfqualitiesffeelingnto deals.Art eingmadeupofqualities

offeeling much ikeperceptionnthis egard_ it stheformationof dealswithin tssphere,hepresencefhabits ffeeling ttractingother abits ffeelingnto heirrbit,hatwillfall nder heumbrellaofesthetics.

Looking t whatPeircewroteon thesubjectof esthetics,hereappears o beonly nepaperwhere ne canfindmore hanmere ass-ing remarksoncerningrt.The piece in question s "The SevenSystemsfMetaphysics",he4th ntheHarvardectureeries nprag-matism f1903. na sectionntitledTheRealityfFirstness"e findanunusual mount fobservations

ertainingo the ctivityfartists,"estheticnjoyment"nd,as we shall oonsee, remarkableompari-sonbetween heuniversend a work f art.The same ection,more-over,s also concerned ith erceptions theroyal oadofaccesstoqualitiesffeeling. ere,Peircexplainshat ualitiesffeelingrerealand that hey renot a product fsome ndividualsmind, s is oftenbelieved y thosewho investigateuchquestions rom hevantagepoint fpsychologyatherhanogic. heveryamepoint s alsomadelater,lbeitmore uccintly,nthe Neglected rgumentor heRealityofGod",where eircewriteshat deas (defineds "anythinghose

Being onsistsn tsmere apacityor ettingullyepresented,egard-less ofanypersons acultyr impotenceo representthem]", P 2:434, 1908)owetheir ealityo "themere apabilityfgettinghought,not n anybody's ctuallyhinkinghem"EP 2: 435). Accordingo

™ Peirce,llthat spresentosomemindmust e so throughqualityf



feeling,hethert s a perception,dream, mathematicalormula r £pan argument.eirce onceived fthetermsquality"nd "feeling"s £*

practicallynterchangeableince

eelings the

undifferentiatedodeof 2-

Beingofqualitynconsciousness.ndeed, heres simply owaywe 5?coulddistinguishetweenhequalityf"red" nd the eelingf"red." fifOnce they ave ctualized hemselvesnperceptualudgments,uali- fi'tiesoffeelingecome hefirst remissesfreasoning.We might aythatthey onstituteheessential redicatesthe icons for ll thatwhich ppears o themind nits uchness.ualities ffeelingrethus >ofgreatmport or veryone,et hey cquire pecial ignificanceor 2jthosewhose ifesdedicatedothemnonewayoranother,ndespe- 2dailyartistsnd scientistsho are bothexpresslyoncerned ith he ^suchnessfappearances.rtists,fcourse, fteneek o makeusaware Sofqualities ffeelingypresentinghem ousthroughhemediation <of their rt.As for cientists,heir oal s to discover hedistribution wandregularizationfqualities ffeelingnnature, hatweoften eferto as the aws fnature.

We saw earlier ow, or eirce, stheticss concerned ith hefor-mation f deals ndof the ummum onum utofqualities ffeelingthat row ndregularizehemselveso as to formdeas nd deals.Wealso sawhow, hroughiscosmology,e conceived ftheuniverses a

growing ind, nesubject othe ame awofmind ndagapasticvo-lution hat qually etermineshegrowthf thehumanmind.Theseideas rebroughtogetherntheHarvardecture henPeirce onsidersthatwhat ppears o us, through erception,s perceptualacts,requalitiesffeelingfnaturendtherefore,emightdd,possibledeasor evenperhapsdeals fnature:

. . . ifyou skmewhat art ualitiesanplaynthe conomyf heUniverse,shall eplyhat heUniverses a vast epresentamen,greatymbolfGod purpose, orkingut ts onclusionsn ivingrealities.oweveryymbolmust ave, rganicallyttachedo t, tsIndicesfReactionsnd ts cons fQualities;nd uch art s thesereactionsndthese ualitieslayn anargument,hat heyf ourseplay ntheUniverse,hatUniverseeing reciselynargument.nthe ittle hat ou r canmake utof his uge emonstration,urperceptualudgmentsrethepremissesorus and these erceptualjudgmentsave cons stheirredicates,n which cons ualitiesreimmediatelyresented.utwhat sfirstor s s notfirstnnature.The premissesf Natures wnprocess re all the independentuncausedlementsf fact hat oto make p thevarietyfnature

.... Thosepremissesfnature,owever,houghheyrenot he er-ceptualactshatrepremissesous,neverthelessust esembleheminbeing remisses.e canonly magine hat heyreby omparingthem ith he remissesor s.Aspremissesheymustnvolve ual-ities.EP2: 193-4,1903)

333



W Inasmuch s nature rows gapastically,nd nas much s it ssubjectZ to the aw ofmind,tsqualities ffeelingremost ikelyvolvingnto

O ever rowingdeas nd ideals.ndeed,Peircewasabsolutelyonvinced|- that he aws fnature or,better et, hehabitsfnature are ubjectt""1 togrowthnd agapasticvolution. his, however,learlymplies he^ existencef nestheticimensionaswell s an ethicalnda logical ne)^ to the ffectiverowthf theuniverse,processwhose total ffectsh^ beyond urken",writes eirce, but[ofwhich]we can appreciaten

^J somemeasure he resultant ualityof partsof the whole" ibid.,^ emphasismine).The esthete ho can appreciatehisquality, erhapsr evenmore o than he rtist,sundoubtedlyhe cientist hose uest

to discoverhe habits fnaturemaynowbe recast s a questfor he

estheticorms r ideals f the universe. he artist,n theother and,mighteemconfinedliketherest fus) tomerelyontemplateuchideals n thebasis fwhatheperceivess qualities ffeelingtheper-ceptual actshat orm remissesorus).

Yet he rtist,f ourse, oesmore hanmerelyontemplatehatheperceivess qualities ffeeling. e must lsopresenthem o us and"most fhis ffort",riteseirce, oes oreproducinghatheperceives.Surprisinglynough, owever, earetold hat herequirementsfartnarrow he artist'sapacity or stheticppreciation, hereas eirce

himselflaims o haveundergone,hroughoutis ifetime,systematictrainingrogramnrecognizingisfeelingshich as ikely iven im"a fairhare fcapacityor stheticnjoyment"ibid):

The artist as such a training; ut mostofhiseffortoes to repro-ducing none form r anotherwhathe seesorhears,which s neveryarta very omplicated rade;while have strivenimply o see whatit is that see.That this imitation fthe task s a great dvantagesproved to me by findingthat the greatmajorityof artists reextremely arrow. heir esthetic ppreciationsre narrow; nd this

comesfrom heir nlyhaving hepowerofrecognizinghequalitiesof their erceptsncertain irections.Ibid)

ButregardlessfPeirce's iews n the limited"stheticppreciationfartists,nanalogy eginso unfurl hose ermsre heuniversendthework f rt.LikeGod,whoproduces universe hose deas nd dealsappear ous asqualitiesffeelingrom hich,with hehelpofthe awofmind,wemaydraw deas nd deals fourown, he rtist despitehis failings produces workwherehabits f feeling,nd perhapsideals, irst

ppearous as

qualitiesffeelingyway

fourperceptionofawork f rt. ftheuniversefferstselfs thegrowthndthemak-

ing oncrete f n idea turnednto n ideal,Peirce eems o mplyhatthis ccount olds qually or work f rt I shall eturn elow o con-sider he mplicationsf the nalogy).fworks fart, hen, allunder

334 theumbrellafestheticss I mentionedarlier,necould ay hatt s



because ll ofusare, n somerespect,artists"hemomenturfeelings £pform abits nd ourhabitsdealswhose urposestoattractther eel- 3"

ingsnd

deals,nd so on. In

short,emightay

hatweeachpossess

<*"an estheticstyle"f our own.And t sthis ntire rocess,s we have SS1seen, hatPeirce onsiders orthyfadmiration; hich swhy, o his jf"mind, nynarrowingownof estheticso art r to a theoryf ensual R'beautywould constituten unacceptableimitationf thebreadthfesthetics.hisexplainswhyPeirce, nlikemost f hispredecessorssaveperhaps lato nthe ymposiumrthePhaedrus chose odevelop >an estheticheory,theoryf the dmirablenitself,egardlessfany hmajor onsiderationor rt. z

Onceweaccept he rreducibilityf theesthetico the rtistic, e £"*canmove n to considerhepossiblentegrationf the rtistic ithin £the sthetic.hegoal s not oproducen ars oetica, utrathero the- <;oreticallyonsider he dmirablenessfart nd tscontributiono the wsummumonum.

Now,thefirst bservatione candrawfromwhathas so far eensaid s that he dmirablen art, r"estheticxcellence,"houldn't elookedfor nitiallyn thematerial rplastic ualitiesf worksome-thingGreekAntiquity as aware f, houghnitsownway, s canbeseen n theGreater ippias).The reason eing hat hequalities f a

work onstitutehat spresentedoourperception:heyreFirstsndarepresent o our consciousnesss iconsin perceptualudgments.Every ualityffeeling ay e consideredobe anidea npotentia,utas such,none houldbe consideredess dmirable han nyother. hequalityffeelingf red"s thusno ess dmirablehan hat f green,"thatof theMona Lisa no less so thanthatof Guernica,r thatofDuchamp Fountain,he implications that veryuality ffeeling,without iscriminationhatsoever,ffersstheticotential(or ower,na mathematicalense).As Peirce ritesnthe5th arvardecture«TheThreeNormativeciences

):In the ight f thedoctrine fcategories shouldsaythat n object,to be estheticallyood,musthavea multitude fparts o related oone another s to impart positive imple mmediate uality o their

totality;nd whateveroesthis s, n so far,stheticallyood,no mat-terwhat theparticularuality f thetotalmaybe. If thatqualitybesuchas to nauseateus, to scareus,orotherwise o disturb s to the

pointofthrowing s out of the mood of esthetic njoyment,ut ofthe moodofsimply ontemplatinghe embodiment f thequality

just,for

xample,s the

Alpsaffectedhe

peopleof old times,when

thestateofcivilizationwas such that n impression fgreatpowerwasinseparablyssociatedwith ively pprehensionndterror thentheobjectremains one the essestheticallyood,although eople nourcondition reincapacitated rom calm esthetic ontemplationof t. .. I amseriouslynclined o doubtthere eing nydistinction

335



C/3 ofpure stheticetternessnd worseness.ynotionwouldbe thatJZ¡ there re innumerablearietiesfestheticuality,ut no purely

Qesthetic

radef xcellence.EP2: 201-202,1903)15

h-H

H Whatmay trike stodaynthesedeas, nceweapply hem oart,U is their esolutely odernharacter.ndeed, heupshot fseparating<í the sthetic romhe rtisticnd fromensual eautysthat llquali-00 ties, ven ugliness"r"difFormity,"ust eregardedspossessingallZ estheticotential. owmuchPeirce new bout heburgeoning od-^ ern rt cene n 1903 s mpossibleormetotell. here s no reason o^ think, owever,hathecouldhaveforeseenhe oming fDuchamp*""* Readymadesfirstroduced nly enyearsfter heHarvardectures!),

Dada, orWarhol's rillo oxes, et nastuteistener,onderingr mus-ingtheconsequencesf Peirce wordsoutside heconfinesf theirapplicationo ogic ndapplyinghem nstead o the rtworld, ightwellhavebeen ed toguess t thepossibilityf uchnew rtformsndconsiderhe crisis"fWesternrt hatwasalreadyrewing.utwhat-ever he asemay e,the rux fthemattersthatwe should ookelse-where or he ource four attractiono works f rt.Butwhere?

The answeriesin twopassages rom he4thHarvard ecture owhich alluded o earliernd towhichwe cannow return.he first

one sconcerned ith he ort f xperiencework f rtmay ffordtsviewer, hatPeirce alls estheticnjoyment.e writes:

. . . and gnorants I amofArt, have fair hare fcapacityorestheticnjoyment;nd t seems o methatwhile n estheticnjoy-mentweattend othe otalityfFeeling andespeciallyothe otalresultantualityfFeelingresentednthework f rtwe are on-templatingyett s a sort f ntellectualympathy,sense hat ereis a Feelinghat necancomprehend,reasonableeeling.do notsucceed nsayingxactlyhatt s,but t sa consciousnesselong-

ing othe ategoryfRepresentation,houghepresentingomethingintheCategoryfQualityfFeeling.EP2: 190,1903)

What does this characterization f the estheticexperienceof artreveal?Or, more to the point: toward what manifestation f the"admirable n itself" s theartviewers ttractionrsympathyirected oon the basis of a guess (an abduction)? Peirce claims thatwhat isinvolved n theesthetic xperience f art s a reasonableeelingsne thatofferstself o consciousness s belonging o Thirdness thecategory fRepresentation)though it represents First. Such characterization

might eemparadoxical n lightof Peirce categorial cheme. For howcan a qualityof feelingbelongto Thirdnessand represent omethingthatbelongsto Firstness? he answer ies in semeiotic: conicitylonecan account forthe peculiarstateof affairs eirce s describinghere.

2~, Granted,as I statedearlier, hat all which is present o consciousness



must e so bywayof a quality ffeeling,ncludingigns, hich elong JptoThirdness,twould eem hatwhatPeirce sreally escribingere s 3

the ontemplationfsignhoodi.e.the

ualityf sign uasign)conically^

standingor tselfndeed, ) understoodhat ignsreThirds; ) under- £?stoodthat hirdnesss thecategoryfmind; nd3) understoodhat ?fthe ssence fThirdness-mindies ncontinuousrowthccordingo n'the awofmind,t follows hat he uigenerisualityhat igns ctual-ize not nbodybut nsoul16 canonly e that f reasonableeeling.I take t,then, hatPeirce s saying hat stheticxperiencenvolves >consciousnessf"representedness."he latter, oreover,anonlybut hattracts,orform sympatheticondwithus,sinceboth t and our zmindbelong o the ame ontinuum. £

This hypothesis ains n credibilityhen, ust a fewparagraphs £later, eirce omparesheuniverseoa work f rt: <;

wThe Universes an argumentsnecessarilygreatwork fart, greatpoem for very ine rguments a poem and a symphony justas

everyrue oem sa soundargument.ut etuscomparet rather itha painting with n impressionisteashore iece then very ualityin a Premisss oneof theelementaryoloredparticlesfthePainting;they re llmeant ogotogetheromakeupthe ntended uality hat

belongs othewhole s whole.That total ffectsbeyond urken;but

we canappreciaten some measureheresultantuality fparts f thewhole whichQualitiesresult rom he combinationsfelementaryQualities hat elong othepremisses.EP2: 194, 1903)

The statements notwithout emindings ofSchellingwho, n hisPhilosophyfArt, laimed hat theuniverses God intheform ftheabsolutework fart ndineternal eauty".17 ithout doubt,how-ever, hedifferencen thetwostatementsests n howbothphiloso-phers onceive f theuniversend ts volution,ndconsequently,n

howboth onceive hework fart.The specificityftheuniverseorPeirce, s we haveseen, s that tshares ll the essentialttributesfmind nd,therefore,fThirdness.his iswhy he universes a sign,even n argumentwhich s tosaythemost omplete ign ccordingto the classificationfsignsPeirceproduced hat ameyearfor heLowell nstituteectures.18y1903,ofcourse, llthefundamentalsfPeirce cosmology ere lready ell nplace, ndhe conceivedf theuniverses hedida growingmindwhosetendencyo acquirehabitsmanifeststselfhroughhe volutionf habits r awsofphysicsndnature. he universe,nshort,s a rationallymbodieddeaendlesslygrowingnvarietyndcomplexity.oulda semioticianver onsidermore ittingefinitionf work fart?

Iftheuniverse,sargument,anbecompared ith work f rtbyvirtuef ts emeioticharacter,t canonlybe so because hequalitiesofanartwork,ike hose f theuniverse,equirembodimenthrough ^j



o^> interpretants.stheticontemplation,hereasonableeelingeircesat2¡ painstodescribe,onstituteshefirstteptowardshis mbodiment.

O But this easonableeelinghat ttractssto a work f art sn't qual-1-1 ity ffeelinguch s the uality f "blue" r "red." or s I mentionedr""1 above, llqualitiesreequally dmirablerattractive.ather, e must^ conceive f itas an idea or a habit f eelingapableofattractingr^ pullingowardst differentualitiesffeelinghat elong o thework,^ ordifferenterceptionsf t.Suchan ideawouldbe vaguebutone that

^ would seekto determinetself hrough arious nterpretants,s we

^ interprethework. twouldfollow hat nterpretingwork f art s ar waytoensure hegrowthfqualities ffeelinghatbelong o it nto

habits ffeelingnthehopeofconcretelyrealizing"hework.

Peirce,hen, eems osuggesthatwhat ttracts s towards rt s asemeioticualityuaqualityfmind rqualityfThirdness.hisqual-itywould mbodytselfntheviewer s a habit ffeelingnd, hroughthe workofinterpretation,n habits f action nd thought. ow itmight e objected hat his s true or ll signs, ot ustworks fart,andthat onsequentlyllsigns re ikelyoproduce estheticnjoyment"as a symptomr result f semiosis. his is correct, believe.Butalthoughveryign anindeed eadtocontemplationnsuch man-ner,weneed torealize lso how nour culturesthas,for he ongest

time, een ncumbentponwhatwe call artto ensure nd create nenvironmentor his ort f ontemplation.19shall ryo be more re-cisebyreferringo anexamplef "perfect"emiosic rocess orrowedfrom 1906manuscriptor projectedrticle ntitled The BasisofPragmaticismntheNormativeciences":

Asign . . just nso far s it fulfillshe unctionf sign,nd noneother,erfectlyonformso thedefinitionf medium fcommu-nication.t sdeterminedy he bject, ut nnoother especthangoesto enable tto actuponthe nterpretinguasi-mind;nd the

more erfectlytfulfillstsfunctions a sign, he ess ffectt hasuponthat uasi-mindther han hat fdeterminingt as iftheobjecttself ad acted pon t.Thus, fternordinaryonversation,a wonderfullyerfectindofsign-functioning,ne knowswhatinformationr suggestionasbeenconveyed,utwillbe utterlyunable osay nwhatwords twasconveyed,ndoften ill hinktwas onveyednwords, hen nfacttwasonly onveyedntones rinfacialxpressions.EP : 391,1906)

As I read thispassage cannothelpbut think ftheactor per-formancentheater. eknow hat gooddeal ofthe hespiansrt iesinthe bilityoconveynformationusually ictional throughoneofvoice nd facial xpressions.he theateroverwhoappreciateser-formanceooks for hese igns,n part o as to contemplatehem sexpressiversemiosicorms. his iswhat, rom completelyifferent



semioticradition,omanJakobsonsedto call the poetic unction Jpofcommunication.eflectingnPeirce example or perfect"emio- 3"

sis,ne could

ayhatn

ordinaryonversationesthetic

njoyment"s *»"

usuallyminimal,whereasn the theatert tends o maximizetself. BFThere, ndthroughbduction,he ignwill nitiallye interpreteds fjfan con a rheme,n fact ofthe ummumonumwhichstosay, he n'signwillbe appreciateds sign). fallsigns ave hepotentialobesocontemplatednd nterpreted,twould ppear hat he emeiotic une-tion f rt s tobringemeiosiso our onsciousnesssanobject f on- ptemplation,o enable s to"estheticallynjoy" he easonableeelingf hsemiosis. ndyet, he ttentionor he ign tself for ts ignhood zin noway mplieshat t s incapable f normal emeioticunctioning ^(i.e. ofconveyingnformationbout tsobject), ince t is thisfune- £tioning,fterll,thatsadmirablen tself. *

Now,what eirce alls estheticnjoyment"equireshatweattends wmuch spossibleo the ntirerrayfexpressiveeans hatmakeupasign, rantedhat,she writesn"Kaina toicheia""NewElements"),"awholebook s a sign," s is a whole iteratureEP 2: 303, 1904). n the5th arvardecturefthe1903series,eircexplainshat herexistsaspecial arietyfestheticoodnesshatmaybelong oa representamen,namely,xpressiveness"EP 2: 203). Everyignmust ossesstto some

degree. eirce hen ddstwoothermodes fgoodnesswith egardsorepresentation,eracityhichhe considerso be a moral oodnessndtruthhichs a logicalmodeofgoodness.he estheticunctionfwhatwe call"works f art" mpliesontemplationf "estheticoodness",rsemioticxpressivity.ow,modern nd contemporaryrthave ndeedshown sthat ny xpression,ny ign, anbecontemplatedwith egardsto ts xpressivityfrom arnett ewmans olor ield aintingso PieroManzoniMerda 'artistain ans.Asformoral r ogical oodness,hereis nothingo preventny sufficientlyompleteignfrom mbodying

them,houghhese urthereterminationsf he ummumonum

mplyother unctionshan hepurelystheticne.To contemplatesign as sign) s also,ofcourse, o contemplatets

interpretabilityowhich ontemplationtself elongs. or n theend,interpretationthat spect f emiosis hich ertainso nterpretantsishow ll igns,ncludingorks f rt, anhope oachieveoodness. utinterpretationincludingtsperformanceya reasonablegent) s alsoitselfhabit hat rowsncomplexityndvariety,espitehegrowthfitsreasonableness.ts source s an abduction, feelingf attraction,somethinghat esidesntheway urperceptionsremoved y nidea

that mergeslongwith hat eryttractiveness.tsonly ecurity,t thisstage,s instinct.t is a manifestationfwhatPeirce,nhis"NeglectedArgumentor heRealityfGod" relates o "PurePlay" r musement.Indeed, eirce xplainshatmusementnd estheticontemplationreboth ormsfpure lay,he nly ifferenceeing hatnmusementne _



o^ "considersomewondernoneof heUniversesofwhichherere hree:£ theUniverse f deas orFirsts;heUniversefBruteActualityr Sec-

O onds; heUniversef igns rThirds] r some onnectionetween woHH ofthethree,with peculationoncerningts cause' EP 2: 436, 1908,fr"1 emphasismine). t isthroughuchplaythat,ncontemplatingworkof^ art, ncontemplatingsignqua sign, eason ontemplatestself ywayof^ mind (orThirdness).Of course,we cannotexpectthat veryonewill be

^ able to contemplatend interpret workofart, nymore thanwe can^~\ expect everyone o adoptwhatoughtto be thescientistswonderment

*y toward he dmirableness f theuniverse.What is atstake sourgrowingr collectivebility odo so. Peircewrites:

Tellme,upon ufficientuthority,hat ll cerebrationependsponmovementsfneuriteshat trictlybey ertainhysicalaws, ndthat hus ll expressionsf thought,oth externalnd internal,receivephysicalxplanation,nd shall ereadyobelieveou.Butifyougoonto ay hat hisxplodeshe heoryhatmy eighborndmyselfregovernedyreason,nd arethinking eings, mustfranklyay hattwillnotgiveme high pinionfyourntelligence.(EP2: 439,1908)

Justs the bilityo conceive f heuniverses theunfoldingf nargu-ment rows ith achnew cientificiscovery,otoo doesour bilityocontemplate orks f artwitheach new interpretationf them.Todevelop,ultivate,ndnourishhehabit f nterpretingorks f rtmay,for hat eason,ppear obenothinghort fcultivatingtasteor igns.In art, hen, uman eings ontemplateheir ontributionothe um-mumbonum ycontemplatingheir wnabilityo use and interpretsigns. processothmodernndcontemporaryrt eems o have ncor-poratednto heir wn rt-makingractices.*

* *Peirce elieved hat he eachesf sthetics ere arwider han hat f rtalone.He thereforeesistedny asydentificationetweenhe wo. hissaid,however,herehould e nodoubt as indeed he uotationsedasepigrapho this ssayllustratesthat e came o understandhe on-tinuityhat xists etween rt nd science. eirce,fcourse, ever ro-duceda full-fledgedheoryfartand his direct ontributionso thephilosophyf art are at best minimal. et hiswritingsn estheticsnonethelessndicate will o ntegratert ntohis stheticoncerns.t sthe erms fthis

ntegrationhat have

ttemptedere ounravelrom

what,nthe bsence f theoryf rt, eems obe a seriesfpresupposi-tions ndassumptionsn Peirces art. t showswheren estheticndsemeioticheoryf rtmightroperlyegints nvestigations.

ConcordiaUniversity340 [email protected],a



NOTES

1 I thank incent olapietrondAndre e Tienne or heir ind ugges-

tions ndcomments.2. EP 2: 443,1908.All citationsrom eirce's ritingsillfollow he tan-dardnotation:P forTheCollectedapersfCharlesanderseirce,ollowedyvolume umberndparagraphumber,heCollectedapers fCharlesandersPeirce, vols.vols.1-6 C. Hartshornend P.Weisseds.) Cambridge: arvardUniversityress, 931-35),vols. -8A. Burksed.), Cambridge:arvard ni-versityress, 958);W,followedyvolume umberndpagenumber or heWritingsfCharles. Peirce. Chronologicaldition,ols.1-6, Bloomington:IndianaUniversityress, 982-2000;EP for he ssentialeirce ol.2,followedbyvolume umberndpage; nd NEM forNewElementsfMathematics,ol-

lowed y olumendpagenumber,ew lementsfMathematics,vols., arolynEiseleed.),TheHague,Netherlands:outon, 976.3. Forsimplicity'sake shallhenceforthse Peirce'spelling,esthetics",

ratherhan henowmore ommon aesthetics."4. Hegel,G.W.E,Aesthetics.ecturesf ineArt, ol. ,trans. . M. Knox,

Oxford: larendonress, . 15. It spossible,owever,o seePeircesate iews n estheticssa normative

sciences having een prepared"yhisreadingfSchiller'sesthetischeriefeduringisfreshmaneartHarvardseeW\:10-12,1857).SeveralcholarsaveconsideredhempactfPeircestudyf chillerLettersnhis onceptionf he

Categories,nhispragmatism,ndonhis ate onceptionfthenormativeci-ences. chiller,f ourse, asdeeplynfluencedyKantwhom esoughto bet-ter onethelessy ttemptingofill he apofKantian ualism.n a well-knownpassagerom he hirdCritique,ant laimshat eautysa symbolfmorality(see CritiquefJudgement,ranslatedith ntroductionnd NotesbyJ.H.Bernard2nded. revised),ondon:Macmillan, 914,sections42.6-7). ForKant, stheticudgmenteadsus tocontemplatehe uprasensible,hat s,theformffinalityn naturen the bsencef nyknowableinality.n sodoing,heexperiencef hebeautiful akestpossible,y nalogy,ograsphe oundationofmoralityhich estsn the nion f he uprasensiblendthe ensiblehroughthe

racticalffectsf he

onceptffreedom.na

very articularense hen,ne

couldpossiblyrgue hat orKant thicsmoral onduct) equireshehelpofestheticsan ideawe willfind evelopedn Peirce,houghn a differenteinentirely).ant,nshort,onceivedfour experience"f stheticinalitys a keyelementnourunderstandinghefoundationfmoralitynd nourgraspingthroughnalogy the onnectionetweenhe deaof freedomnd tspracticaleffects.ore pecifically,ecause oodmoralityequires ore han greementfconduct ith heCategoricalmperative,urunderstandinghat tsfoundationlies n the ffectsf he dea ffreedomn our onductlaysn mportantolenour bilityo actmorally.chillerbviouslyaw his s anopportunityo use rtand

Spieltriebobridge ant's ualism.chillerevisitedhis ualismnpsycho-

logical ermss a tensionetween hathe callsFormtriebessentially,he ntel-lect) ndStojftriebessentially,ensation).eautyswhat nites he wo nstinctsinSpieltrieb:nbeautyman indsnity,alance,ndmoral reedom.ccordingoDe Tienne, heyoung eircewas sensitiveoSchillers"triadic"olution o theproblemaised yKant's ualism.n fact, e Tiennehas shown owSchillers

s3

Wenrt

n>rt

Íw*jww5SW

341



oHU<CO

<

H

342

threenstinctsor impulses"s Peirce eferedothem)werenitiallyeformulatedasthe irstfPeircetriads,hat f (Formtrieb),t Stojftrieb),ndThou Spiel-trieb).

long rocessfrevisionf his riad

vetuallyedPeirce o his hree at-

egories.Now, Schiller's hree nstinctsan also be configuredn terms fgradation:eauty r freedomSpieltriebs the unificationf the two otherinstincts)nablesmoralityhich,nturn,nables oliticalreedom.e Tienneshows his o becompatible ith eirce'sater lassificationfthenormativeci-ences. eeAndre e Tienne, analytiquee arepresentationhez eirce. agenèsede athéoriees ategories,ruxelles:resses niversitairesaint-Louis, 96.TheinfluencefPeirce'sarlyontact ith chiller,ith egardspeciallyohis sthet-ics,has lsobeendiscussedyJeffreyarnouw:Schiller'sdeaof he unctionffeelingnthe evelopmentfhuman nowledge,otives,ndcharacteraswellunderstoody heyoung eirce, owever,nd taffordsuch strikingnticipa-tion f he esthetic hich eirce utlinednthe ast tagesfhis areer hatt sreasonableo concludehat he nfluencefSchiller as ctive tthe nd s wellas atthenceptionfPeirce'shilosophicalevelopment,panning ore han iftyyearsfhis ife"n"Aesthetic'or chillerndPeirce: Neglected riginfPrag-matism",he ournalf heHistoryfdeas, ol.49,no.4, 1988,p.607.See alsoBarnouw"ThePlace fPeirce'ssthetic'nhisThoughtnd n the raditionfAesthetics"nPeircendValue heory.n PeirceanthicsndAesthetics,ermanParreted.),Amsterdam/Philadelphia:ohnBenjaminsress, 994.However,since eircenly evelopedis deas egardingstheticsate nhis ife twould efalse o claim hat esteadfastlyeld oSchiller'siews nestheticsor art)for

somefiftyears there eems obe no textualvidence osupportuch view.Consequently,ne should robablyhink fthis llipsiss a longprocessfrec-onciliationroughtboutbyinternalequirementsithin eirce'systemfthought.

6. SeeBeverleyent's ook,Charles. Peirce.ogicnd theClassificationfthe ciences,ingstonndMontreal, cGill-Queen'sniversityress,987.

7. Inthe ame Categorial"pirit,eircexplainshat haneroscopyequiresthematematicalonceptsfmonadicity,yadicity,ndtriadicityo as toapplythem throughheCategoriesto all thatwhichappears."

8. Peirce xplains hat all inhibitionf action, r actionuponaction,

involves eactionndduality. llself-controlnvolves,ndchieflyonsistsn,inhibition.lldirectionowardnend rgood upposeself-control;nd hus henormativeciencesrethoroughlynfused ith uality."n "TheBasis fPrag-maticismn theNormativeciences"nEP2, p.385.

9. Vincent olapietroas ustly ointedut to me that lthoughhe um-mum onummustnitiallye consideredn itsFirstness,tsSecondnessnd tsThirdnessreno less mportantnaccountingor t. n its econdness,he um-mum onumcquires"criticalunction"hich, henevert nables netoeithercorrectrpursue tendencynfeeling,ction rthought,nergeticallyxhibitsform falterityith egardso them. his san inhibittingr nstigatingorce

that elps ationalgentsecomemore ationaltill.n ts hirdnesshe ummumbonums thehabit hat urhabits ffeeling,onduct,ndthought ustmbody,thus nsuring ediationetweeneelingndconduct.

10. See "TheBasis fPragmaticismn theNormativeciences"nEP2: 379,1906.



11 This s not he ure hance f heUniverse'sriginsince t sconstrainedbyfinalausalityndby ts ecursivepplicationf he awofmind.

12.Thisprocess

fnarrowing"

ossible ypothesess a form f elf-controlsanimportantspect ftherationalityf bduction. bduction,or eirce,s notsynonymousith nbridledmagination.s he wrotenhisCarnegieoundationapplicationf1902:

Of [the]three lasses freasonings bduction s the owest. o longas it s sincere,and if t be not, t does not deserve o be calledreasoning, bductioncannot be

absolutely ad. For sincere ffortso reach hetruth, o matternhowwrong waytheymaybe commenced, annotfailultimatelyo attain nytruth hat s attain-able.Consequently,heresonly relative referenceetween ifferentbductions;and thegroundof suchpreference ustbe economical.That is to say, he betterabduction s the onewhich s likely o lead to the truthwiththe esser xpenditure

oftime, itality,tc."

{NEM4:

37-38)The mplicationere s that herexistsminimal orm f elf-controlnabduc-tion hat nables istinguishingetween ifferentypothesesnd thus xplainsthe ationalityf his ormfreasoning.heresmore, owever,f ne considersabductionrom heperspectivefagapasticvolution.ndeed,n the gapasticevolutionfreason urguesses ecome onstrainedifonly nfinitesimallyaschance iminishes.his means hat,heoretically,bductiontthebeginningftheuniversehould e more nbridledhan bductiontthemomentustpriortheuniversesventualrystallizations law. nshort,he endencynxibitedythe niverseogrown reasonablenessnddiminishhe ole f hancelso ffects

abduction.13.DouglasR.Anderson,reativityndthe hilosophyfC. S. Peirce,or-drecht: artinus ijhoffublishers,987.

14. mmanuel ant,Critiquef udgement,ranslatedithntroductionndNotes yJ.H.Bernard2nded.revised),ondon:Macmillan,914.

15. Reproduced below is the passage in its entirety as we shall see, it is such

as to warranta briefcommentaryafterward

In the ight f thedoctrine fcategories shouldsaythat n object,to be estheti-

callygood,musthave a multitude fparts o related o one another s to impartpositive imple mmediate uality o their otality;nd whatever oes this s, n so

far, stheticallyood,no matterwhattheparticularuality fthe total

maybe. If

that ualitybe suchas to nauseateus,to scareus,or otherwise o disturb s to the

pointofthrowing s out of themood of esthetic njoyment,ut of the mood of

simply ontemplatinghe embodiment f thequality just,forexample, s the

Alpsaffectedhepeopleofold times,when the tate fcivilization as suchthat n

impressionfgreat owerwas inseparablyssociatedwith ively pprehensionndterror then heobjectremains one the essestheticallyood,although eopleinourcondition re ncapacitated rom calmesthetic ontemplationf t.

This suggestionmustgoforwhat tmaybeworth,which dare aymaybeverylittle. f it be correct,twill follow hatthere s no suchthing s positive stheticbadness; and since by goodnesswe chieflyn this discussionmean merely heabsenceofbadness,or faultlessness,herewill be no such thing s esthetic ood-

ness.All therewill be will be various sthetic ualities;that s,simple qualitiesoftotalities otcapableof full mbodimentn theparts,whichqualitiesmaybe moredecided ndstrongn one casethan n another. ut thevery eductionfthe nten-

sitymaybe an esthetic uality;nay, twill be so; and I am seriouslynclinedtodoubt therebeinganydistinction fpureesthetic etternessnd worseness.My

ñen

K1-*(I

ÌwWw

w

343



C/D

OHU<

<

H

notion ould e that herere nnumerablearietiesf stheticuality,utnopurelystheticradef xcellence."EP2:201-202, 903)

At firstlancewemaybe struckyhow thispassage eems o contradictanotherassage,uoted arlier,here eirce laimshatitwould e theheightfstupidityosay hat stheticsnows ogoodand bad".Since he atteruote staken rom laterssay a 1 06manuscriptor n articleeirce adplannedopublishnTheMonistntitledThe Basis fPragmaticismn theNormativeci-ences" itmightetemptingo nferhat ehadmerelyhanged ismind ur-ing he nterveningears. ut sthis eallyhe ase?sPeirceeallyondradictinghimself ere? don't hinko. Infact, believe hat oth emarksear osomeextentndifferentbjects.ntheHarvardecture,eirces still esitantnaffirm-ing he xistencef stheticssa normativecience. festhetics,ewrites:I am

enclined o think hat heres such normativecience; ut feel ynomeanssure ven fthat"EP 2: 200).Yet, or newho urmisests xistence,estheticsconsidershose hingswhoseends are to embodyualities ffeeling"Ibid.Emphasismine). n "The Basis ofPragmaticismn theNormativeciences"Peirce, esawearlier,ffers ore recisionhenhewriteshat stheticss "thetheoryfthedeliberateormationf[. . .] habits ffeeling"EP 2: 378, 1906,emphasis ine).Now, he oint wish omake s this: ince,ccordingo the at-egorialrchitectonic,eliberatembodimentfqualitiesffeelinganonly appenthroughhemediationf abitsf eeling,he aterssaymerelyppearso bedraw-ing henecessaryonclusionftheviews resentedntheHarvardecturehree

yearsarlier.n short:t sone

thingor

ualitiesf eelingo know either

oodnorbad,butquiteanother or he deliberateormationfhabits f eelingo knowestheticoodness r badness. or deliberatenessmplies omedegree fself-control,nd thereforeecondnessas s mplied ith stheticseing normativescience). hatPeirce idn't raw his onclusionn his Harvardecturemayappearurprising,et he deaof hereeing odegreef stheticxcellence ithregardsoqualitiesffeelingsentirelyongruentith is heoryf he ategoriesandwith heperspectiveeadoptsn1906for isprojectedonistrticle.

16.See"ANeglectedrgumentor heRealityfGod", nEP 2: 435,1908.17.Friedrichchelling,hilosophyfArt,dited,ranslatednd ntroducedy

DouglasW.Stott, inneapolis: niversityfMinnesotaress,989:§21. Inthe

"Law ofMind"of1892,Peirce cknowledgedconnectiono Schelling ithregardsocosmologica!ssays ehadpublishednTheMonistm1891and1892("TheArchitecturefTheories"nd"The Doctrine fNecessityxamined"):Ihave egun y howinghatychismust ive irthoanevolutionaryosmology,inwhich ll theregularitiesf nature nd ofmind reregardeds productsfgrowth,ndtoa Schelling-fashioneddealism hich oldsmattero be merepe-cialized ndpartiallyeadenedmind"CP 6.102).

18. See"Sundryogical onceptions"nd "Nomenclaturend DivisionsfTriadic elations,s FarAsTheyAreDetermined"n EP 2: 267-288,1903.

19.Kant's otion fdisinterestednesselativeohis Analyticalf heBeauti-

ful"nTheCritiquef udgmentespondedo this ontemplativenvironmentsmuch s thelped hapetfor utureenerations.

344

martin lefebvre

Documents