No, I don't think Peirce was discussing 'human habits', i.e., societal beliefs.
And he did not consider that habits are reversible.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungchul Ji
To: PEIRCE-L
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:35 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: Terms, Propositions, Arguments
Hi Ed,
I wonder if what Peirce calls "habits" can be divided into at least two
groups -- (i) human habits, and (ii) natural habits. If so, the former is
obviously reversible as someone recently pointed out in PEIRCE-L but the latter
may not in general, although there may be exceptions, depending on how one
defines "natural habits".
All the best.
Sung
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Ed Dellian <ed.dell...@t-online.de> wrote:
Sung, Jon –
Peirce, as he has been quoted, is speaking of “every physical process”, and
of the allegedly all-explaining “laws of mechanics” which he believes to be
time-reversible without exception. He was not aware of the time-irreversible
second law of thermodynamics. He was also not aware of the evident fact that
Newton’s authentic second law of mechanics states a geometric proportionality
of “force” and “change in motion”. Force and motion are heterogeneous entities
here, and therefore they are not equivalent, but geometrically proportional.
The case is different in classical mechanics, where we have F = ṗ, which
asserted equivalence of homogeneous entities is certainly time-reversible. Note
that “classical mechanics” based on F = ṗ is “analytical mechanics”; none of
the principles of that mechanics, which was conceived by Leonhard Euler and
others in the first half of the 18th century in Berlin, can be found in
Newton’s “Principia”. Classical mechanics is not Newton’s mechanics! It was and
is certainly a most momentuous mistake of theoretical physicists to make Newton
responsible for an absurd “law of motion” which due to its mathematical
reversibility has nothing to do with time-irreversible reality.
Ed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Von: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] Im Auftrag
von Sungchul Ji
Gesendet: Montag, 23. November 2015 18:22
An: Jon Awbrey
Betreff: Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments
Hi Jon,
Even then, according to Ed Dellian (see my previous PEIRCE-L post), Peirce
would be wrong, since Newton's Second Law of motion is not time-reversible.
Sung
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
Sung,
Peirce is using “mechanics” advisedly there to refer to classical mechanics
as distinguished from thermodynamics.
Regards,
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
On Nov 23, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
Clark, Søren, lists,
Peirce said:
" . . . While every physical process can be reverse without violation of
the law of mechanics, (112315-1)
the law of habit forbids such reversal. ' (CP 8.318)
I am glad you quoted this statement because I wanted to make a comment on
it when I first read it about a year ago somewhere in CP but could not find it
again.
It seems to me that the first sentence of this this statement is false
even based on our common experience: Evaporated perfume cannot be put back into
a bottle. As we all now know the physical law forbidding the reversal of
evaporated perfume is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there
developed a whole field of scientific studies during the 20th Century on such
processes called IRREVERSIBLE thermodynamics, for the contribution to the
establishment of which I. Prigogine (1917-2003) was awarded a Nobel Prize in
1977.
If this interpretation is correct, the validity of the second sentence in
(112315-1) seems weakened considerably, although not totally removed, since it
can stand on its own as an assertion with or without any supporting scientific
evidence.
All the best.
Sung
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:18 PM, CLARK GOBLE <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:01 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote:
I agree but Peirce is integrating it with an emptiness ontology
inspired by Buddhism. Hartshorne describes it as his Buddhisto-Christianism.
Bishop writes a paper on Peirce and Eastern Thought. See my
Pure Zero paper attached.
I just finished it. Very interesting. I hadn’t known that Peirce was
connected with Suzuki before. (Again as I said I know just enough Buddhism to
be dangerous but not enough to really be able to say much)
One tangental comment that came to mind in one of your quotes. You have
Peirce commenting on his famous relationship of mind and matter.
I believe the law of habit to be purely psychical. But then I suppose
matter is merely mind deadened by the development of habit. While every
physical process can be reverse without violation of the law of mechanics, the
law of habit forbids such reversal. (CP 8.318)
I assume here meaning we can’t lose a habit once developed. Does Peirce
ever defend this position? I confess it seems a dubious position to hold
although I understand why his ontology requires it.
On much else I’ve taken Peirce, contra say the scientific realists, to
reject any kind of convergence. That is there can be periods of rapid
development and then because of fallibilism falling away or change. To use the
metaphors James Burke famously did in the 70’s and 80’s about science, it is
less convergence than pinball process.
That’s always seemed more persuasive as a view of habit-forming too. Yet
the reversibility is something that in at least a few places Peirce denies.
Of course Peirce is inconsistent on this in certain ways. After all he
conceives of belief as habit yet the ability to change belief entails the
ability to reverse habit. So I’m never quite sure how to take this. In practice
it seems sufficient to merely accept that some habits are more ingrained than
others. Habits as laws are much less reversible. With Peirce’s conception of
substance (at least in his early period) as extremely congealed habit.
At the end of your paper you say,
Like the Buddhists, Peirce sees this order as no-thing. Niemoczynsk
(2011) shows that both Eckhart and Böhme posited a pre-personal ground within
God’s own being, where this ground was called “the godhead” or “the abyss”. It
contains infinite potential, the absolute freedom to be, and even the will or
desire to be.
Which order are you speaking of here? Plotinus, among the neoplatonists
has two classes of absolute otherness. On the one is the One which is pure
potency and the origin of all the emanations. Yet somewhat following Aristotle
he has matter as pure privation which is also absolutely Other. Peirce makes a
similar move in his early works with pure Being to pure Substance and his three
categories in between. In the quote you have in your paper what he compares to
the Hebrew tohu bohu is the infinite past with pure chaotic emptiness.
Within Hebrew mysticism, especially certain forms of Kabbalism, there’s a
notion of Tzimtzum. (I tend to follow the traditional interpretation that the
Jewish mystics got this from gnosticism and neoplatonism but there’s a strain
that argues for the influence going the other way or at least co-evolution. In
any case the major form is Lurianic Kabbalism which is a 16th century
phenomena) This is the idea of God withdrawing to create a space within himself
that creation can take place. In other words a primal nothing creates a
secondary nothing. This enables finitude to take place. The reason to see
connection to platonism is the parallel to the creation of the elements from
the forms and place or khora in the Timaeus. The khora is receptical or empty
space and the origin of the forms would be the One of Plotinus.
Getting back to Peirce and your paper you say that Eckhart and Bohme have
a pre-personal ground within God’s being called the godhead or abyss. This
seems similar. And of course Duns Scotus who also was a big influence on Peirce
has some writings on the ground of the Godhead that makes a similar move. I’ve
studied this more in connection to Heidegger but it seems like there are some
similar moves with Peirce.
Within Peirce how do you see this notion of the Nothing as source and
Nothing as end as well as the distinction between God’s being and this space
within God’s being (or even its ground)? I confess it’s not something I’ve
studied in the least.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
