The correction is appreciated. But it's not strictly relevant toi Poe's original question, which he has pressed me to reply to.

Even correcting (1), the thrust of the argument I gave stands: The point of reproduction was that true, forms are formative, not matter, but matter has its own forms, as well as externally-imposed forms i.e. environmental pressures.

I've reproduced - heh - the propositions I gave earlier.

(1) The substantial form is [what is passed on from parent to child - edited]; the matter is the culprit of corruption.
(2) Living matter is full of its own subordinated form. . . .
(4) Corruption is due to the matter, not to the substantial form.
(4.1) The subordinate forms are the cause of matter's refractory nature. So, in a way corruption is also due to form - but not the substantial one. . . .
(5.1) Some departures . . . are not corruptions of substance. . . . But some corruptions are corruptions of substance.
(5.2) "What makes a man? A man, and the Sun.". . . Where one form begins to fail to master the matter, other forms can become prominent. And with 'the Sun', i.e. an engine of change like environmental pressure, the altered substance need not be merely a crappy, less optimal version of its parents.
(6) There is no restriction on the number of kinds of substantial forms.
(6.1) And thus, there is every reason that children can depart from parents by any amount the matter can thwart, yet still be a substance.
- - - - - - - -
(7) And so with these conceptual tools, there is at least the start of an account for the evolution of biological species.

Thanks,

Chris

John West wrote:

Hi Chris:

My emphasis on the primary (individual) substance and importance of family history in this talk has come partly from my interest in trope theory spurred partly for religious reasons

Out of curiosity, what religious reasons do you have in mind?

John,
Off-topic, but it's a puzzle to me that God is both quite simple and full of ideas.
Why individuals over species, genuses etc. God loves *me*, He created *you*. There is precious little worry that He loves universals; otherwise among other absurdities, He favors some over others with instantiation or existence.
As for ideas in particular, lately I've been rehearsing on paper the various (Renaissance) positions on mathematicals.
So suddenly, in my mental spare time, i'm on the prowl for things to cut, trim or shave from God.
Nor do I favor acts or operations in which I do *exactly* as God does it (such as in platonistic 'intuition').
I have similar 'willies' about God knowing the future in any fashion but through perfect indirect knowledge; being God, the present, and the past when it was present, should be all He needs be 'omni'.
I am on the warpath about infinities and God too; and have fallen back on God being 'complete' or 'perfect'.

Chris-Kirk