ABSTRACT
The Dao of Habit is well known that two significantly different theoretical frameworks were developed for the study of signs at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. One might think, too, that abduction as Hartama-Heinonen describes as flowing into abductive habits, would bypass induction and deduction. This chapter traces the development of Charles Sanders Peirce's thinking on habit. Groups too, as Peirce would insist, are fallible, but one of the primary functions of what one call group dynamics is to minimize such idiosomatic experience, to ideosomatize experience as much as possible so that group members feel it as ideologically meaningful. The chapter reviews Hartama-Heinonen's Daoist citations from Peirce to the effect that truest guesses come when one is in as passive and receptive a state as possible. An account of creativity taken from the Zhongyong should work as well for a Daoist theory of translation as it would for a Ruist one.
