I think within the NA text there is ample basis for inferring that at the time of its writing CSP had long practiced what he advocated - a damningly unstructured mode of thinking that he advocated almost universally and certainly for persons untrained in the philosophy that is the basis for most Peirce studies. Rising from play, pure play, linking the barely described universes of experience, but saying enough to imply a triadic semiotic originating in vagueness and progressing through rude shock to a creative linkage that might have the chance to move toward activation, even habit. If this is not meta-physical, then what is? I think CSP has been virtually ignored regarding what might be called his populist or everyman assertions. Turning to revelation and mysticism, I am inclined to credit Brent with insight into the way CSP dealt with the realization of his situation and his experience in the Episcopal Church and to call that mystical in the sense of it being something that siezed him, not something he simply realized. I do not think revelation means more than a description of that experience. I do not think the NA could have been written without that foundational event. I do not see science as an object of worship for Peirce, rather as a simple acknowledgement that things, perhaps extending as far as the mystical, can be measured and evaluated in terms of their practical effect.