未発の潜勢力としての「Chaos 混沌」Ⅱ／ “Chaos” as a latent force Ⅱ

　Cosmos（秩序）は、それがかつて流動(flux)する Chaos に起源を持っていたとしても、やがてその溌溂とした運動は影を潜める。なぜなら、コスモス化するとは、世界内の不確実性／偶有性の縮減を意味し、自己保存と反復を通じた、確実性／必然性／計算合理性の強化に他ならないからである。また運動自体はむしろ既成の Cosmos にとり世界の動揺を意味してしまうからである。だから Cosmos は修正と延長を繰り返しながら、 solid 化しその壮麗な外観とは裏腹にゆっくりと朽ちていく。

　では、清新な Cosmos は何処から訪れるか。これを人間的・歴史的世界に翻訳して言えば、その萌芽は、solid化が亢進する中心部とは反対にむしろ脆弱性／朽壊化する（価値的）外縁部にあって、既存秩序から遊離せざるを得ない幾つもの小さな chaos の渦、つまり非文脈化した、 agents と resources の新たな選択的親和関係（elective affinities/Wahlverwandtshaften）の生成（Emergence）として現れる。この幾つもの小さな chaos の渦が、一定の flux まで育ち、新たな Cosmos に生長するかどうかは、事前には当事者たちにもわからない。それが誰の眼にも明らかになるのは後世の観察者がそれに名を与え、記述し言説化した後だからである。

Cosmos (order), even if it once originated from the flux of Chaos, eventually sees its vigorous movement fade into the background. This is because “cosmos-ization” signifies a reduction of uncertainty and contingency within the world; it is nothing other than the reinforcement of certainty, necessity, and calculative rationality through self-preservation and repetition. Furthermore, movement itself tends to disrupt the established Cosmos. Thus, while the Cosmos undergoes repeated revisions and extensions, it solidifies and, contrary to its magnificent appearance, slowly decays.

　So, where does this fresh Cosmos come from? To translate this into human and historical terms, its seeds lie not in the core—where solidification is intensifying—but rather in the fragile, decaying (in terms of value) periphery—opposite to the core where solidification intensifies—as the emergence of numerous small vortices of chaos that are compelled to break away from the existing order; that is, as the emergence of new elective affinities (Wahlverwandtschaften) between agents and resources that have been decontextualized. Whether these numerous small whirlpools of chaos will grow to a certain flux and develop into a new Cosmos is something even the participants themselves cannot know in advance. It only becomes clear to everyone’s eyes after observers of later generations have named it, described it, and turned it into discourse.

※参照／ See.
未発の潜勢力としての「Chaos 混沌」／ “Chaos” as a latent force: 本に溺れたい

Charles Sanders Peirce’s assessment of Hegel (2)

Internal anancasm, or logical groping, which advances upon a predestined line without being able to foresee whither it is to be carried nor to steer its course, this is the rule of development of philosophy. Hegel first made the world understand this; and he seeks to make logic not merely the subjective guide and monitor of thought, which was all it had been ambitioning before, but to be the vert mainspring of thinking, and not merely of individual thinking but of discussion, of the history of the development of thought, of all history, of all development.
Charles S. Peirce, 'Evolutionary Love' (1891), Chance, Love, and Logic: Philosophical Essays, edited and introduced by Morris R. Cohen, with an essay by John Dewey, introduction to the Bison Books Edition by Kenneth Laine Ketner, 1998, Univ. of Nebraska Press, p.294 (Reprint of 1923 ed. by Harcourt, Brace and World)

The truth is that pragmaticism is closely allied to the Hegelian absolute idealism, from which, however, it is sundered by its vigorous denial that the third category (which Hegel degrades to a mere stage of thinking) suffices to make the world, or is even so much as self-sufficient. Had Hegel, instead of regarding the first two stages with his smile of contempt, held on to them as independent or distinct elements of the triune Reality, pragmaticists might have looked up to him as the treat vindicator of their truth. (Of course, the external trappings of his doctrine are only here and there of much significance.) For pragmaticism belongs essentially to the triadic class of philosophical doctrines, and is much more essentially so than Hegelianism is. (Indeed, in one passage, at least, Hegel alludes to the triadic from his exposition as to a mere fashion of dress.) 
Charles S. Peirce, 'What Pragmatism Is' (1902), Selected Writings (Values in a Universe of Chance), edited, with an introduction and Notes by Phlip P. Weiner, 1966, Dover, p.202

　Just reading the above doesn’t make much sense. According to Shunpei Ueyama’s commentary in the Japanese edition of the anthology, the situation is as follows: When considering both the logical unfolding and the temporal development of a system, formal logic can describe only the logical unfolding. In formal logic, temporal development cannot, in principle, be described. And it seems that Hegel’s dialectic is valued as the descriptive logic for this latter aspect—the temporal development of a system.

※Please also refer to the following.
Two approaches to the Emergence

Two approaches to emergence

　Emergence refers to the behavior of a system that cannot be logically derived from the sum of the regular and simple behaviors of the elements that make up that system.

　When considering emergence, I believe there are two prominent approaches: “evolutionary theory” and “dialectics.”

１）The Theory of Evolution
　W. James interpreted the theoretical essence of evolutionary theory as follows.
　He stated that, in Darwinism, the two processes of “mutation” and “natural selection” are regarded as independent, unrelated phenomena. In other words, W. James understood Darwinism to be a theory that links two distinct types of change occurring in nature while keeping them separate.

２）Dialectics
　Peirce, the father of pragmatism and its greatest theorist, stated, “Even if it is dressed in strange garb, my philosophy is a revival of Hegelian philosophy.” It appears that Peirce valued dialectics as a methodological approach for describing the behavior of a system evolving over time. Furthermore, the pragmatist John Dewey was a Hegelian in his youth.

　Whether we are talking about “evolutionary theory” or “dialectics,” it is reasonable to expect that they share a deep theoretical affinity with pragmatism. Or rather, it seems possible to use pragmatism as a bridge to connect “evolutionary theory” and “dialectics” theoretically. Furthermore, my current prediction is that this could represent a significant breakthrough for contemporary systems theory.

[See] Our article below
The essence of Darwinism(Japanese Version)
Charles Sanders Peirce’s assessment of Hegel

Warum wende ich mich der Geschichte zu?

Es gibt zwei Gründe, warum ich mich der Geschichte und der Methodologie der Geschichtswissenschaft so stark verpflichtet fühle.

※Dieser Artikel ist eine deutsche Übersetzung des folgenden japanischen Artikels.
なぜ私は歴史を志向するのか／ Why Do I Turn to History?: 本に溺れたい

続きを読む "Warum wende ich mich der Geschichte zu?"

Why Do I Turn to History?

There are two reasons why I am so committed to history and the methodology of historiography.

※This article is an English translation of the following Japanese article.
なぜ私は歴史を志向するのか／ Why Do I Turn to History?: 本に溺れたい

続きを読む "Why Do I Turn to History?"

国際社会学会が選ぶ、２０世紀を代表する社会学書１０選（1998年） Books of the Century XX ／International Sociological Association 1998

いささか画像が不鮮明なので、マウスポンタを重ねて、別ウィンドウでご覧ください。(The image is a little unclear, so please click on the image and view it in a separate window.)

念のため、テキスト化しておきます。(Just to be sure, I will convert it to text.)

International Sociological Association 1998
・Books of the Century   XX
1.    Weber, Max.   Economy and Society
2.    Mills, Charles Wright   The Sociological Imagination
3.    Merton, Robert K.   Social Theory and Social Structure
4.    Weber, Max   The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
5.    Berger, P.L. and Luckmann,T   The Social Construction of Reailty
6.    Bourdieu, Pierre   Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Tast
7.    Elias, Norbert   The Civilizing Process
8.    Habermas, Jürgen   The Theory of Communicative Action
9.    Parsons, Talcott   The Structure of Social Action
10.  Goffman, Erving   The Presentation of Self in Everyday life

私の「推し」は、５．と７．でしょうか。

Max Weber なら上記の２冊よりも、
Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie（宗教社会学論集全３巻）, 1920, Bd. 1 Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligion（第1巻世界宗教の経済倫理）
で、その中でも、
Einleitung（序論）
Zwischenbetrachtung（中間考察）
であろうかと思います。社会科学方法論として理論的に抜群に面白いです。個人的にはですが。

Bricolage and theory of resources

Unlike the magicians of fairy tales or the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament, in the world we live in, it is not possible to create something from nothing.

※See also（Japanese version）
ブリコラージュと資源論（Bricolage and theory of resources）: 本に溺れたい（2017.01.23）

続きを読む "Bricolage and theory of resources"

Crossing the contingent sea ／ Überquerung das Meer der Kontingenzen

In the Meiji era, it was the British Empire; in the Showa era, it was the United States — clinging to the underbelly of these great powers and chasing after their scraps, the remora-like nation of the Empire of Japan, and later, postwar Japanese society. Now, we are being forced, without any real choice, to set sail into a vast, contingent ocean—an uncertain and unpredictable sea. Modern Japanese are being compelled to embark on an uncharted voyage, an experience unknown even to our ancestors. In facing this, I humbly believe that the following posture or mindset may be one of the necessities.

Sie können das Meer der Kontingenzen nicht trockenen Fußes umgehen, und auch die Angst vor dem Ertrinken hilft nichts: Auf die hohe stürmische See müssen sie notgedrungen hinaus; und nur ohne Angst vor dem Ertrinken bei gleichzeitigem Respekt vor seiner Möglichkeit kann das Schiff „richtig“, d.h. mit und gegen die Wellen, gesteuert werden; denn nur gegen die Wellen anzusteuern, führte früher oder später zum Zerschellen; sich nur mit ihnen zu bewegen, führte früher oder später dazu, unter ihnen begraben zu werden. Ein verantwortungsbewusster Steuermann kann dabei nur derjenige sein, der sich voll auf diese seine Tätigkeit (Praxis) „als solche“ konzentriert und nicht nach (neuen) Ufern sucht. Denn das Meer der Kontingenzen ist - im Gegensatz zu denen, die Sinnsysteme in ihrer Umwelt vorfinden - uferlos.
Michael Blecher, Zu einer Ethik der Selbstreferenz oder: Theorie als Compassion, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1991, S.168

They cannot avoid the sea of contingencies with dry feet, and fear of drowning is of no help either. They are inevitably forced to head out onto the high, stormy sea; and only by having no fear of drowning, while simultaneously respecting its possibility, can the ship be steered "properly," that is, both with and against the waves. For steering only against the waves would sooner or later lead to the ship breaking apart; moving only with the waves would sooner or later result in being buried beneath them. A responsible helmsman can only be someone who fully concentrates on this activity (practice) "as such" and does not seek (new) shores. For the sea of contingencies—unlike those who find meaning systems in their environment—is boundless.
〔Translated by ChatGPT〕

 

コンティンジェント（偶有性）の海を渡ること ／ Überquerung das Meer der Kontingenzen

明治においては大英帝国、昭和ではアメリカ合衆国、の下腹に貼りつき、そのおこぼれを追いかけていた小判ザメ国家・大日本帝国と戦後日本人。この私たちにいま選択の余地なく迫る、なにが起こるかわからない、コンティンジェント（不確定性／偶有性）な大海原への船出。ご先祖様たちには未経験の海図なき航海を、現代日本人は迫られています。その時に必要な構えの一つが下記ではないかと愚考する次第です。

システムは、不確定性の大海を、足を濡らさずに渡ってゆくわけにはいかない。溺れるのを恐れても、何にもならない。嵐の荒れ狂う沖に向かって船出するしかないのであって、溺れることを恐れると同時に溺れる可能性を畏敬することによってのみ、船は正しく — 波に乗ったり波に逆らったりしながら — 操られる。波に逆らうだけでは、遅かれ早かれ難破するだろう。波に乗って進むだけでは、遅かれ早かれ波に呑まれてしまうだろう。責任感のある舵取りは、こうした自分の仕事だけに没頭するのであって、新しい岸辺を探し求めたりしない。不確定性の大海にはどこまでも岸辺はないのだから。
ミヒャエル・ブレッヒャー『自己準拠性の倫理学』1991、ベルリン、German text、p.168
村上淳一『〈法〉の歴史』1997年、東京大学出版会、168頁より日本語訳を引用

Sie können das Meer der Kontingenzen nicht trockenen Fußes umgehen, und auch die Angst vor dem Ertrinken hilft nichts: Auf die hohe stürmische See müssen sie notgedrungen hinaus; und nur ohne Angst vor dem Ertrinken bei gleichzeitigem Respekt vor seiner Möglichkeit kann das Schiff „richtig“, d.h. mit und gegen die Wellen, gesteuert werden; denn nur gegen die Wellen anzusteuern, führte früher oder später zum Zerschellen; sich nur mit ihnen zu bewegen, führte früher oder später dazu, unter ihnen begraben zu werden. Ein verantwortungsbewusster Steuermann kann dabei nur derjenige sein, der sich voll auf diese seine Tätigkeit (Praxis) „als solche“ konzentriert und nicht nach (neuen) Ufern sucht. Denn das Meer der Kontingenzen ist - im Gegensatz zu denen, die Sinnsysteme in ihrer Umwelt vorfinden - uferlos.
Michael Blecher, Zu einer Ethik der Selbstreferenz oder: Theorie als Compassion, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1991, S.168

20世紀におけるドイツ「概念史」とアメリカ「観念史」の思想史的比較 ／ A historical comparison of the German “Begriffsgeschichte” and American “History of Ideas”of the 20th century

以下の質問をChatGPTに実行し、下記の回答を得ました。こういった問題設定をあまり見かけたことが無いので、ご参考になれば幸甚です。

問
「20世紀における、ドイツの Begriffsgeschichte（概念史） グループと、米国の History of Ideas（観念史） グループの知的交流の有無、そして、相似点と相違点、21世紀から見た思想史学上のそれぞれの評価をおしえてください。」

続きを読む "20世紀におけるドイツ「概念史」とアメリカ「観念史」の思想史的比較 ／ A historical comparison of the German “Begriffsgeschichte” and American “History of Ideas”of the 20th century"