#the assayer

[rideonruffian]

THE ASSAYER (SAF)

Galileo- Crystal Charm, by Danehill

Photo (X)

[in-his-velvet-arms]

Mi vida privada es un caos. Cualquiera que haya examinado mi vida pronto llegará a la conclusión de que no pienso en absoluto. Como lo veo,  hay una especie de impulso interno para todo. Esto es a lo que reacciono. En general, en la vida real, siempre respondo de la manera incorrecta. Como me dijo una vez uno de mis amigos: "Leonard, ¿estás seguro de que estás haciendo lo incorrecto?" Nunca tuve un solo pensamiento en mi cabeza. Algo sucede y reacciono con un poema, una canción o un trabajo. No sé nada sobre el amor.

 Leonard Cohen entrevistado por Pat Harbron en el verano de 1973 (de The Way to Say Goodbye, The Assayer)

[philo-lol]

I move my hand first over a marble statue and then over a living man... the live body which receives these operations feels different sensations according to the various places touched... A piece of paper or a feather drawn lightly over any part of our bodies... excites in us an almost intolerable titillation.

Galileo, from The Assayer, in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Stillman Drake (trans.), 1957, pp. 273-9

One of the pleasures of teaching about primary and secondary qualities is getting a bunch of 18 year olds to read about Galileo moving his hands all over men and statues of men and 'titillating' them with feathers.

There's also a good deal of 'tickling' involved. It's fun.

[randomquoteoftheday]

Philosophy [i.e. physics] is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.

Galileo Galilei. The Assayer (1623).

[aghastandrantings]

GALILEO- THE ASSAYER

I have this translation as a photocopy, I wanted to share it with every one, so I have given credit. I do not mean any plagiarism. If posting it on the blog falls under it please let me know, I will remove it. Thanks.

This is a very important piece of writing by Galileo.

Translation by George MacDonald Ross, 1998–1999 The Assayer, in which are weighed with a fine and accurate balance the contents of the Astronomical and Philosophical Weighing Scales of Lothario Sarsi of Siguenza, written in the form of a letter to the Illustrious and Very Reverend Monsignor Don Virginio Cesarini, Lincean Academician, and Chamberlain to his Holiness, by Signor Galileo Galilei, Lincean Academician, Gentleman of Florence, and Chief Philosopher and Mathematician to the Most Serene Grand Duke of Tuscany (Rome, Giacomo Mascardi, 1623).  [The Language of Nature] I seem to detect in Sarsi a firm belief that, in philosophising, it is necessary to depend on the opinions of some famous author, as if our minds should remain completely sterile and barren, when not wedded to the reasonings of someone else. Perhaps he thinks that philosophy is a book of fiction written by some man, like the Iliad, or Orlando Furioso — books in which the least important thing is whether what is written there is true. Mr. Sarsi, this is not how the matter stands. Philosophy is written in this vast book, which continuously lies open before our eyes (I mean the universe). But it cannot be understood unless you have first learned to understand the language and recognise the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and the characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures. Without such means, it is impossible for us humans to understand a word of it, and to be without them is to wander around in vain through a dark labyrinth. [Primary and Secondary Qualities It now remains for me to fulfil the promise I made Your Excellency above, and give you certain thoughts of mine about the proposition ‘Motion is the cause of heat,’ showing how it seems to me possible that it is true. But first I need to give some consideration to what it is that we call ‘heat’, since I strongly suspect that the concept which everyone has formed of it is very far from the true one. People have come to believe that it is a genuine accident, affection, or quality, which inheres as something real in the matter which we feel ourselves being warmed by. Nevertheless, I say that, as soon as I conceive of a piece of matter, or a corporeal substance, I feel myself necessarily compelled to conceive along with it, that it is bounded, and has this or that shape; that in relation to some other body it is either small or large; that it is in this or that place, and in this or that time; that it is in motion or at rest; that it either touches or does not touch some other body; and that it is one, few, or many; nor can I separate it from these states by any act of the imagination. But I do not feel my mind forced to conceive it as necessarily accompanied by such states as being white or red, bitter or sweet, noisy or quiet, or having a nice or nasty smell. On the contrary, if we were not guided by our senses, thinking or imagining would probably never arrive at them by themselves. This is why I think that, as far as concerns the subject in which these tastes, smells, colours, etc. appear to us as inhering, they are nothing other than mere names, and they inhere only in the sentient body. Consequently, if the animal were removed, all these qualities would disappear and be annihilated. But whenever we ourselves have imposed on such things individual names which are different from those of the other primary and real accidents, we want to believe that they also truly exist, and are really distinct from the latter. I believe that a few examples will make my conception clearer. I move one of my hands, first over a marble statue, and then over a living person. As far as concerns the action which comes from the hand to each subject, it is one and the same, and it consists of those primary accidents, namely motion and touch; and these are the only names we have given them. But the animate body which is subject to these actions, feels different affections depending on which parts are touched. For example, when touched under the soles of the feet, on the knees, or under the armpits, in addition to the ordinary sensation of touch, there is another sensation to which we have given a special name, by calling it ‘tickling’. This affection belongs wholly to us, and not a whit of it belongs to the hand. And it seems to me that it would be a serious error if one wanted to say that, in addition to the motion and the touching, the hand had in itself this distinct capacity of tickling, as if tickling were an accident which inhered in it. A little piece of paper or a feather drawn lightly over any part of our body performs intrinsically the same action throughout, namely moving and touching us; but on touching us around the eyes, the nose, or under the nostrils, it gives rise to an almost intolerable itching, whereas in other parts we scarcely feel it. This itching belongs entirely to us, and not to the feather. Remove the animate and sentient body, and it is nothing other than a mere name. I believe that many other qualities which have been attributed to natural bodies (such as tastes, smells, colours, and others) have no greater an existence. When a body which is solid (or very ‘material’ as it is called) is in motion, and comes into contact with any part of my person, it produces in me the sensation which we call ‘touch’. Although it is present over the whole of the body, nevertheless, it seems to reside mainly in the palms of the hands, and especially in the tips of the fingers, with which we sense the tiniest differences in roughness, smoothness, softness, and hardness, which we cannot distinguish so easily with other parts of the body. Some of these sensations are more pleasant than others, and others less pleasant, depending on the different shapes of the bodies which are touched — smooth or scaly, sharp or blunt, hard or yielding. And this sense is, as it were, more material than the others; and since it arises from the solidity of matter, it seems to be related to the element Earth. Some of these bodies are continuously dissolving into tiny particles; and of these, some fall downwards because they are heavier than air, and other lighter ones rise upwards. This is perhaps the source of two other senses, when these particles strike two parts of our body which are much more sensitive than our skin, which cannot sense the impact of such subtle, tenuous, and tiny matter. Of these tiny particles, the ones which descend are received by the upper part of the tongue, and, penetrating into its substance by blending with its humidity, they give rise to pleasant or unpleasant tastes, depending on the different ways in which the different shapes of these tiny particles touch the tongue, and on whether they are few or many, and faster or slower. The others, which rise upwards, enter by the nostrils, and will  strike certain little bumps which are the organ of taste; and here they are received in a similar way, and how they touch and pass among them gives rise to pleasure or displeasure, depending on whether they have this or that shape; on whether their motion is slow or quick; and on whether they are very few, quite a few, or many. The tongue and the nasal passages seem to be providentially situated, since the former is spread out underneath to receive the impact of the descending particles, and the latter is suitable for the ones which rise. Perhaps, by a certain analogy, things of a watery nature are suitable for giving rise to tastes, since they descend in the air; whereas things with a fiery nature are suitable for smells, since they rise. Air is the one remaining element left for sounds. These come to us indifferently from below, from above, and horizontally, since we are located in the air, and any motion in the air itself (i.e. in its proper region), is propagated equally in all directions. The position of the ears is as suitable as could possibly be for pointing them in any direction. Sounds are generated and sensed in us when (without any quality of ‘sonority’ or ‘transonority’  a rapid vibration of the air rippling into minute waves moves certain cartilages of our eardrums. There are very many ways in which external things have the power to make the air ripple like this; but perhaps they are mostly reducible to the vibration of some body which makes the air ripple by pushing against it. The waves are propagated through the air at great speed, and the greater their frequency the higher the sound they give rise to. I do not believe that external bodies need anything more than size, shape, number, and slow or quick motion, to excite in us tastes, smells, and sounds. I think that if ears, tongues, and noses were taken away, shapes, numbers, and motions would certainly remain, but there would no longer be smells, tastes, or sounds. Without a living animal, I do not believe that these would be anything other than names  just as I said above, that tickling and itching are mere names without armpits and the skin inside the nose. Just as I have considered these four senses in relation to the four elements, so I believe that vision, which is pre-eminent above all the others, is related to light; but in a ratio  of excellence such as holds between the finite and the infinite; between that which takes place over time, and the instantaneous; between that which has quantity, and the indivisible; and between light and darkness. As for this sensation and its concomitant properties, I shall not pretend to Your Excellency that I understand more than a very little; and to explain this little (or more accurately, to sketch it in writing) would take more than just a long time, and so I pass it over in silence. I now return to the proposition I originally posed in this section. We have already seen that many affections which are believed to be qualities inhering in external subjects do not have any real existence expect in ourselves, and that outside ourselves they are nothing but names. I say that I am strongly inclined to believe that heat is of the same kind, and that material things which make us hot and feel hot (such as we call by the general name ‘fire’) are a multitude of tiny corpuscles of such and such a shape, and moving at such and such a speed. When they meet our bodies, they penetrate them with their extreme subtlety, and the way they touch our substance as they pass through it is sensed by us as the affection we call ‘heat’. It is pleasant or unpleasant in proportion to the number and speed of the particles as they prick and penetrate it. This penetration is pleasant if it is beneficial to our insensible vital functions, and unpleasant when it causes too much of a separation and dissolution of our substance. To sum up, all that fire does in itself is to move; and with its extreme degree of subtlety, it penetrates all bodies, and it dissolves them more or less quickly, depending on the number and speed of the fire-corpuscles, or the density or rarity of the bodies. Many of these bodies are such that, as they dissolve, the larger part of them is transformed into further fiery particles, and the resolution continues as long as there is still matter capable of being broken down. But I do not believe that, apart from shape, number, motion, penetration, and touching, there is any other quality in fire; and if there is, that it is heat. In my view, heat belongs to us so exclusively that, if there were no animate and sentient body, all that would be left of heat would be a mere word. Since this affection is produced in us by the fire-corpuscles passing through and touching our substance, it is obvious that they will have no more effect when they come to a halt. When a certain amount of fire is trapped in the porosity and passages of quicklime, we see that it does not warm us, even if we hold it in our hands, because it is at rest. But if we put the stone in water, where the heaviness of the water gives it a greater propensity towards motion than it had in the air, the fire-particles escape, and when they encounter our hands, they penetrate them, and we feel the warmth. Consequently, since the mere presence of fire-particles is not sufficient to generate heat, but it is also necessary for them to be in motion, it therefore seems to me that it was not without good reason that I said that motion is the cause of heat. This is the motion by which faggots  and other kinds of wood burn; and by which lead and other metals melt. As long as the fire-particles are in motion (whether they maintain their speed by themselves, or whether, losing their own force, they are impelled by the violent blast of the bellows), they penetrate all bodies, and dissolve some of them into other flying fire-corpuscles; they pulverise others into the tiniest of particles; and they liquefy others, turning them into fluids which are like water. But I think it is a serious error to take this proposition in the ordinary sense, as if a piece of stone, or iron, or wood had to heat up because it was moving. Rather, when two hard bodies are rubbed together, the friction either breaks up their parts into very subtle and volatile particles, or it opens a way out for the fire particles inside. This finally reduces them to motion, and when they encounter our bodies, they penetrate and pass through them. The sentient soul senses their contacts as they pass through, and feels the pleasant or unpleasant affections which we have named ‘warm’, ‘burning’, or ‘scalding’. As long as the refining and rubbing away remains confined within the smallest particles of a finite size, their motion takes place within time, and their action only generates heat. But perhaps the ultimate and deepest level of resolution results in atoms which are indivisible in reality, and light is created by their motion — or it would be better to say their instantaneous scattering and diffusion . Because of its, I don’t know if I should call it ‘subtlety’, ‘rarity’, or ‘immateriality’, or some other state which is completely different from all of these, and has no name — because of this, it has the power to occupy immense tracts of space. Your Excellency, I would not wish to become inadvertently engulfed in an infinite ocean, from which I could not get back to port. Nor would I wish, while attempting to remove one doubt, to give birth to a hundred; as I fear has partly happened, because of the little distance I have ventured from the shore. Nevertheless, I want to keep my options open for a more appropriate occasion.