Re Chai-on's [5828]: > In Hegel's Logic(pp. 189-190), CONTENT has > its own form, which I must call an internal form, > in distinction from the external FORM. > Content's he external FORM. Content's > own form and its external form. Thanks for the reference, but I think it tends to support (at least on Hegelian terms) the VFT interpretation against Fred's interpretatation. Starting at the top of p. 189: "Outside one another as the phenomena in this phenomenal world are, they form a totality, and are wholly contained in their self-relatedness. In this way the self-relation of the phenomenon is completely satisfied; it has the *Form* in itself: and because it is in this identity, has it as external substance. So it comes about that the form is *Content*: and in its mature phase is the *Law of the Phenomenon* . When the form, on the contrary, is not reflected into self, it is equivalent to the negation of the phenomenon, to the non- independent and changeable: and that sort of form is the indifferent or External Form. The essential point to keep in mind about the opposition of Form and Content is that the content is not formless, but has as the form in its own self, quite as much as the form external to it. There is thus a doubling of form. At one point it is reflected into itself; and then is identical with the content. At another point it is not reflected into itself, and then is the external existence, which does not at all affect the content. We are here in presence, implicitly, of the absolute correlation of content and form: viz. their reciprocal revulsion, so that content is nothing but the revulsion of form into content, and form nothing but the revulsion of content into form. This mutual revulsion is one of the most important laws of thought. But it is not explicitly brought out before the relations of Substance and Causality." (emphasis in original, JL) Substance and Causality are then developed later in "The Doctrine of Essence" beginning with section 150 (p. 213). Fred: how would you make sense of the above from your interpretation? Mike W, Geert, Chris, or Nicky: would you say that this confirms your interpretation of the relationships of content and form? If so, how? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT