Edwina, List: As I have acknowledged before, there are passages in Peirce's writings where he uses the term "form" in a way more consistent with 3ns than 1ns, but the ones that I have quoted recently are not among them. In my view, it is incontrovertible that when he discusses Form, Matter, and Entelechy as the three modes of being, he is quite obviously referring to 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, respectively. Chance, spontaneity, and freedom do not exhaust the scope of 1ns for Peirce; in fact, quality is the element of experience that is its paradigmatic manifestation, "that which is what it is in itself, and as prior to any embodiment." Gary F. has already pointed out that Aristotelian Matter is not at all the same thing as physical matter in the modern sense.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:16 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
