The Confusion in Charles Sanders Peirce

If the way history is made is through willed values, those values were there before we were. They are ontological. I think the confusion in Peirce is his relegation of ethics to the aesthetic. Kierkegaard did a similar thing when he essentially sidelined the ethical. I muse that the semiotic realm is infused with ontological values (the foundation of ethics) and that history is made by the values we will. By our fruits we are known. Why is it I feel I understand Peirce when I have a dunce's capacity for math and science? It is because he fits in to my evolving understanding of how to see the world and particularly how to identify and deal with the nominalist binary consciousness that essentially has allowed us to arrive at the ethical morass we are in. This is the century when we have to advance out of that and achieve what Derrida called the unprecedented.

Charles Sanders Peirce - Thinking in Threes