Edwina, List: 1ns as quality has nothing whatsoever to do with subjectivity or non-measurability. It pertains to characters such as color (e.g., redness) and shape (e.g., roundness) that are real possibilities in themselves, but only exist where embodied.
In the passages that I have referenced--most notably, NEM 4:292-300 and EP 2:303-304 (both 1904)--Peirce described Form as quality in this sense, Matter as individual reaction/existence, and Entelechy as that which brings them together. They clearly correspond to 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, respectively. Again, as Gary F. pointed out, Aristotelian Matter is more of a logical term than a physical term. Associating it with the modern notion of energy is just as misleading as associating it with the modern notion of matter/mass. Regards, Jon S. On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:09 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list > > We will, as usual, continue to disagree. > > 1] With regard to 1ns being understood as 'quality' - well, 'quality', as > a subjective rather than objective [and therefore, not amenable to > empirical measurement] - fits in well with chance, spontaneity and freedom > - all of which are subjective and not amenable to measurement. > > 2] I disagree with your insistence that > > "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". I don't see that as 'incontrovertible > or 'quite obvious' ..but don't see the point of engaging in any kind of > debate with you over this perception. > > 3] I am aware that Aristotelian 'matter' is not 'mass' [which can be > measured] but is more akin to potential energy which can be formed into > particular 'things'. > > Edwina > > On Fri 14/12/18 3:50 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > 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 <tabor...@primus.ca> > 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
