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
----------------------------- 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 .
