Edwina, Jon, list,
Edwina wrote:
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
Gary F., List:
In the evolution of being, Peirce clearly held (with the scholastics) that
Form is first and Matter is second, while recognizing that Aristotle had it
the other way around.
CSP: Aristotle, on the other hand, whose system, like all the greatest
systems, was evolutionary,
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
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
Again - we'll just have to disagree.
1] In my view, something that is occurring with the actions of
'chance, spontaneity and freedom' is not amenable to measurement. As
such, the experience
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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,
Helmut, list,
When we talk about “matter” in the English of our time, we tend to think of it
as tangible stuff, or in physics, as stuff that has mass. Aristotle’s “matter”
(ὕλη) is a very different concept, pertaining more to logic than to physics,
and Peirce says in the excerpt Jon quoted,
Yes, sorry, I was a bit too happy to have had learnt a new English term. There is a theory that assumes, that people in the western civilization are "oversexed and (term)". Best, Helmut
13. Dezember 2018 um 20:20 Uhr
Von: g...@gnusystems.ca
Helmut, that’s an interesting new term you’ve
Supplement: Meaning, that we see, hear, etc. very much about sex (e.g. in literature, music, advertisement, the conventional and new media), but dont receive enough of it. I imho agree.
Form and matter: After having read JAS´ post with the CSP-quotation, I am not so sure anymore. I guess,
Jon, you seem determined to take a firm stand that for Peirce, “Form is first
and Matter is second” — although Peirce does not explicitly mention the
phaneroscopic categories either in the excerpt you’ve quoted or in “The Basis
of Pragmaticism in the Normative Sciences” (MS 283), the article
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
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
Gary, list,
Just now I am guessing, that there are two different approaches: Individuation and evolution:
If we talk about individuation, matter (as you and Old Stotle said) has no individuality, so matter is that what is worked upon by individuation (which is formal, with form as a first), so
13 matches
Mail list logo
