> On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > I know that was all long, but I want to return to Edwina’s initial comment > that firstness is both chance and entropy. For Peirce, I’ve hopefully shown, > those are actually opposed. Firstness is what violates entropy. It is > anti-entropy.
Sorry that was already long enough but rereading it there’s a crucial point I should make. Not everyone agrees on this point. So I don’t want to convey to Edwina this is settled. In particular Esposito sees tychism as an entropic factor and synechism as an opposing negentropic factor” (Evolutionary Metaphysics, 1980, 169) I’ll confess I’ve not read Esposito, only references to his work. So I can’t speak to his argument. From references I’ve seen scattered in various works over the years I think Esposito sees the topic through habit and what forms habits versus what breaks habits. My previous post sees chance as performing both those roles. Esposito sees chances as breaking habit (thus Edwina’s view of firstness as entropy). I think though Peirce saw chance as simply something different (whether he was correct in that or not is an other matter)
----------------------------- 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 .
