The notion that either form or matter mean a hill of beans in terms of triadic thinking assumes we know the nature of reality. Insofar as we know what came first ir is first it is shrouded in mystery but it is most certainly not all chance and formless. I do not know what Peirce had in mind and I feel his effort to assign more than ontological significance to his categories is responsible for generations of fruitless efforts to construct a theory that cannot work. It involves too much hair splitting. First is reality and insofar as we can infer it it is One and one contains freedom, truth, beauty and love. Second is some index that advances thinking to a potential act or expression. And third is the stage at which one thinks the world as it were -- eventuating in the continuing creation of the world.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:16 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > I disagree that this section states that Form is associated with 1ns > and Matter with 2ns. After all, that would suggest that Form is an > action of chance, spontaneity and freedom. I consider that Form, which is > not simply external appearance but 'how' matter is organized into its > identity cannot function with such randomness. And - It is important, I > think, not to confuse the three modes of Firstness, Secondness and > Thirdness, with ordinality. That is, I consider it an error to think that > the term 'Firstness' means - first in order of existence etc. > > Peirce writes "Form, as that which is what it is in itself, and as prior > to any embodiment of it. It is looking upon being as created, and regards > its evolution as having the mode of movement of practice" . This suggests > instead to me, that Form is 3ns and its priority is akin to its nature, not > of ordinality but of continuity. This does NOT mean that it is > pre-existent! It simply means that Form or habits of organization are > continuous rules rather than individual embodiments. And that matter, which > is to say, the individual, or 'that which simply exists' is 2ns and exists > within the constraints of continuous rules/habits. > > See also 'matter prior to form' 6.388 where he outlines but does not > reject, Aristotle. > > As to what emerged, ordinally first in our cosmos - matter or form, > Peirce's outline of cosmology suggests that 'bits of matter' [which are > existent in 2ns] spontaneously [1ns] emerged first and the 'habits' of > their interactions emerged gradually afterwards and became rules 3ns]. > [1.412]. As to what 'matter' is, apart from its being constituted within > discrete individual units, I'd suggest it's energy. > > Edwina > > > > On Thu 13/12/18 11:01 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Gary F., Helmut, List: > > GF: ... do you know of any text where Peirce actually said that “form” > was first and “matter” second? > > > I offered several representative quotes in a previous post to demonstrate > that Peirce consistently associated Form with 1ns and Matter with 2ns, > rather than the other way around. The following is the most relevant to > your question as posed here, this time without any omissions. > > CSP: Aristotle's metaphysics undoubtedly belongs to the general type of > evolutionary systems, as does for example, that of Hegel. As I understand > it, he identifies the mode of the evolution of being with that of the > evolution of theory, notwithstanding his incessant oppositions of πρότερον > ούσίᾳ and πρότερον λόγῳ. Matter is, for him, that which is what it is in > itself. Form is that which is only so far as it is embodied in matter, and > is essentially dichotomic, as Plato made it. The scholastic metaphysics, > on the other hand, looks upon the pure nature, or Form, as that which is > what it is in itself, and as prior to any embodiment of it. It is looking > upon being as created, and regards its evolution as having the mode of > movement of practice. Scotus appears to look upon individuation as an > unintelligible act of force. From this point of view, matter (it is always > the Aristotelian matter I speak of, or that which simply exists) ought to > be held to exist only by reaction, and so to be that which is what it is by > force of another. It is not necessary for the logician to embrace either > of these theories (of which I prefer the second.) He had better remain > aloof. (R 517:92-93[18-19]; 1904) > > > In the evolution of being, what comes first is "that which is what it is > in itself," and what comes second is either "that which is only so far as > it is embodied" or "that which is what it is by force of another." Hence > for Aristotle, Matter is first and Form is second; but for the scholastics > and Peirce, Form is first and Matter is second. It is Matter, not Form, > that corresponds to force. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
