Helmut, that’s an interesting new term you’ve introduced into metaphysical discourse, but I wonder whether it will stick … it might help if you explain what it means. (But maybe that would make the discussion overfucked?)
Anyway … your reason for asserting that “matter is first, and form second” does seem consistent (or paraconsistent?) with Aristotle’s matter/form distinction as given in De Anima. You imply that Peirce held the opposite view; but do you know of any text where Peirce actually said that “form” was first and “matter” second?
Gary f.
From: Helmut Raulien <[email protected]>
Sent: 13-Dec-18 13:19
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] the sexuality of methodeutic
Supplement: Or was he just underfucked?
List,
I think the question, whether matter is 1ns, and form 2ns, or the other way round, does not have to do with sex. This discussion is underfucked. Form requires matter, because a form must consist of something. Matter does not require form, matter may be amorphous. So matter is first, and form second. If Peirce said it differently, maybe he was wrong. Is that possible, that Peirce was wrong, or was he God?
Best, Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
