Aquinas's First Way

[Linusthe2nd]

Dear Linus:

Well, I know that “phantasm” is a scholastic term. However, as I said, I could never assimilate it. On your side, you could make an extraordinary use of it. And I certainly would like to know how this term and others like *agent and passive intellect *became indispensable.

I had difficulties with the term “abstraction” as well: Along with the term “essence” it was used for centuries, and I would have expected that hundreds of essences would have been abstracted over all that long time. However, it simply did not happen. On the other hand, it was inexplicable to me how could we make so many theoretical mistakes if it is true that we have the capacity to abstract forms from reality. For decades, many good philosophers tried to design a method to find truth (but, do you need a method if you can abstract?). As for me, I have tried to explain how it can be that we err.

Concerning the synthesis of sensory data, my experience does not indicate the need of any particular effort. I live among objects already constituted, not among sensory data that wants some kind of integration.

However, as I have said before, no entity displays all its interaction modes at once; and the *knowledge *we have about entities has to do precisely with their interactions. We build this *knowledge *by mimicking the interactions through relations. Some of us have enough with building a set of relatively independent relations (as if the interaction modes of the entity were independent from each other as well), but other persons work on them to produce relations of higher order based on them. This is the synthetic effort that I have identified, and it does not have to do with sensory data but with relations. On the other hand, these higher order relations are not the result of an abstraction capability: we propose them by trial and error.

Kind regards
JuanFlorencio

I see that I have assumed too much, I thought you were a Thomist. Aristotle and Thomas after him were simply trying to explain how the senses, the brain, and the intellect function to arrive at a knowledge of universals and how the will applies universals to their extra mental instantiations. Perhaps it is unimportant in everyday life, but it becomes very important when the existence of the soul is challenged by materialists, naturalists, and other skeptical adversaries to the Faith. The philosopher is interested in teaching and defending truth.

Linus2nd

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I see that I have assumed too much, I thought you were a Thomist. Aristotle and Thomas after him were simply trying to explain how the senses, the brain, and the intellect function to arrive at a knowledge of universals and how the will applies universals to their extra mental instantiations. Perhaps it is unimportant in everyday life, but it becomes very important when the existence of the soul is challenged by materialists, naturalists, and other skeptical adversaries to the Faith. The philosopher is interested in teaching and defending truth.

Linus2nd

Dear Linus:

I was a Thomist! And it is still St. Thomas my source of inspiration. I am convinced that a lot of hard work is still required on epistemology, and St. Thomas is to me an example of intellectual honesty to follow. If Aristotle was “the philosopher” to him; to me, it is him “the master”. I am also trying to explain how human cognition takes place.

Even though to me materialists are not important adversaries to our faith (I don’t even regard materialism as a philosophy), I am aware they excercise a lot of influence over the minds. However, I have never missed the doctrine of abstraction in the few occasions that I have dealt with them.

Good night, Linus.
JuanFlorencio

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes I think you understand the point I am making.

In computer programming there are two ways we can give data to another process - by way of the “value” itself (e.g. the number 16)…or by way of an address (a “reference” or “pointer”) as to where that data is held in PC memory (a symbol if you will).

I find that an interesting distinction when it comes to human communication/understanding.

Humans cannot pass literal “values” (ie our concepts) though we try to with “words” or definitions.

In fact Ricouer would say that we cannot even well comprehend the substances we identify in “reality” because our experiences of, for example, “elephants” are no better than if those experiences were “internal words”. Very 2D. There is always the possibility our senses will one day tell us something about elephants we never knew before or may even contradict a “gap” in our knowledge which we had unconsciously interpolated wrongly from the little we do know.

So for me the Hindu saying is always true, “the sensible substance once named (turned into a 2D concept or definition) is no longer the 3D reality” (which is always bigger).

Therefore how fragile is our “metaphysics” when we think that the relationships we discern (and manipulate by logic) between our 2D concepts well represents the empirical 3D relationships that actually hold in the world between actual 3D substances.

We only deal in “references” to reality, never the actual “values” themselves.
Therefore the relationships we discern between 2D representations are equally 2D.

Sure we do validly know 3D objects by these 2D representations (eg ananolgy).
But it is always fragile and those analogies and other “logical” conclusions need to be constantly informed by testing and re-testing, with our senses, the link (what I below called a relation/interaction) between 3D reality and our 2D representations of them.

This sort of “relation” is something Linus’s eternal philosophy appears to trivialise.
He thinks the most important “relation” is only the one’s between the 2D representations themselves. That is an apriori approach to certitude.

I believe the sciences can find corrective insight into these 2D relations by good hypothesis and experimentation that can, by this means, get actual insight into the actual 3D relations that exist between real 3D substances in the real world. This is an aposteriori approach to certitude.

Anyways,
its av ery small point I am making here and below.
One either gets it or one doesn’t.

I don’t really have time to pursue it further with you - but thankyou for teasing all this out.

Dear Blue Hirizon:

In the real world, to which we ourselves belong, there are no relations but only interactions. Data is a set of relations and it only exist for us. Computers, which are mechanisms, do not work with data, but with electrical impulses. When you feed a “value” or an “address” to the computer, the main difference is not in the electrical impulse, but on the path it follows through the circuitry. “Data”, “signal” or “information” are words that computer scientists utilize abusively regarding computers.

As I said in one of my previous posts, we are the kind of beings that belong to the realm of interactions and to the realm of relations. We belong to the realm of interactions due to our corporeality, and we belong to the realm of relations due to our spirituality. When we educate our children, we try to inform them using the good discourses that we have, and you can see that you need to repeat those discourses to them in different circumstances of their life so that they get the idea. You also need to accompany the discourses with your good example for the same purpose: that they finally get the idea. We need to be there to compensate for the “fragility” of discourses.

Certain relations will never be corrected through the discovery of new interactions. It is only the relations whose elements are interactions the ones that can be corrected. Mathematics and Logics are two examples of entire fields of relations that cannot be affected by new discoveries, and I believe I can explain why, but I see too that you don’t have the necessary background to get the idea. It was my mistake to expose part of my thought without enough care, and I understand why Linus has been disappointed by reading my last posts. I offer my apologies to both of you and to other readers because of that. Linus is a person who cares, and I profoundly respect that.

Concerning metaphysical core concepts, it is a mistake to think that they could be refuted or improved through new scientific discoveries. They do not refer to interactions, which is the object of science as a discipline, but to Being, which “involves” both realms of reality (interaction and relation). Hume was one of the philosophers whose discourses tended to discredit metaphysical concepts, but it is possible to show where his mistake was, and why his arguments fail.

I do not support this statement of yours: “This sort of “relation” is something Linus’s eternal philosophy appears to trivialise. He thinks the most important “relation” is only the one’s between the 2D representations themselves. That is an apriori approach to certitude.” nor others similar to it. I have been trying to correct your views all along this thread, and if you have thought that I am supporting you, you have been misunderstanding me. But I assume my responsibility.

You will need to read Ricoer’s texts again and again and again, because he does not support you either. However, you need to consider this: discourses are “fragile” but at the same time extremely dangerous without the assistance of the “father”. So, be careful because you always need the interaction with someone who cares.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Dear Blue,

When you are doing your daily activities you are interacting with objects directly, not through “phantasms”.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

Hmmmn, looks like we have an epistemological disagreement (as would Buddhism, Hinduism, Paul Riceour, Aristotle and Aquinas, though all in their different ways).

Nevermind, I don’t have a lot of time to take this further at the moment.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue! You must know that “repulsive forces” or “attractive forces” or simply “force” are “mental constructs”. Whatever happens at a microscopical level, the fact is that we cannot go through the concrete wall without producing serious damage to our head!

Of course (though not exactly “simply”)…
Nevertheless the above is a more accurate construct than the allegedly “common sense” model that says everyday matter is solid and contiguous - a proposition not consistent with neutron-gun experiments.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Dear Linus:

I was a Thomist! And it is still St. Thomas my source of inspiration. I am convinced that a lot of hard work is still required on epistemology, and St. Thomas is to me an example of intellectual honesty to follow. If Aristotle was “the philosopher” to him; to me, it is him “the master”. I am also trying to explain how human cognition takes place.

Even though to me materialists are not important adversaries to our faith (I don’t even regard materialism as a philosophy), I am aware they excercise a lot of influence over the minds. However, I have never missed the doctrine of abstraction in the few occasions that I have dealt with them.

Good night, Linus.
JuanFlorencio

I agree JF that explainingh medieval “abstraction” is frought with difficulties these days.
Though explanations of imagination/phantasm I accept as seminal.
Even animals do not meaningfully experience the world directly by the senses.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Dear Blue Hirizon:

In the real world, to which we ourselves belong, there are no relations but only interactions. Data is a set of relations and it only exist for us. Computers, which are mechanisms, do not work with data, but with electrical impulses. When you feed a “value” or an “address” to the computer, the main difference is not in the electrical impulse, but on the path it follows through the circuitry. “Data”, “signal” or “information” are words that computer scientists utilize abusively regarding computers.

As I said in one of my previous posts, we are the kind of beings that belong to the realm of interactions and to the realm of relations. We belong to the realm of interactions due to our corporeality, and we belong to the realm of relations due to our spirituality. When we educate our children, we try to inform them using the good discourses that we have, and you can see that you need to repeat those discourses to them in different circumstances of their life so that they get the idea. You also need to accompany the discourses with your good example for the same purpose: that they finally get the idea. We need to be there to compensate for the “fragility” of discourses.

Certain relations will never be corrected through the discovery of new interactions. It is only the relations whose elements are interactions the ones that can be corrected. Mathematics and Logics are two examples of entire fields of relations that cannot be affected by new discoveries, and I believe I can explain why, but I see too that you don’t have the necessary background to get the idea. It was my mistake to expose part of my thought without enough care, and I understand why Linus has been disappointed by reading my last posts. I offer my apologies to both of you and to other readers because of that. Linus is a person who cares, and I profoundly respect that.

Concerning metaphysical core concepts, it is a mistake to think that they could be refuted or improved through new scientific discoveries. They do not refer to interactions, which is the object of science as a discipline, but to Being, which “involves” both realms of reality (interaction and relation). Hume was one of the philosophers whose discourses tended to discredit metaphysical concepts, but it is possible to show where his mistake was, and why his arguments fail.

I do not support this statement of yours: “This sort of “relation” is something Linus’s eternal philosophy appears to trivialise. He thinks the most important “relation” is only the one’s between the 2D representations themselves. That is an apriori approach to certitude.” nor others similar to it. I have been trying to correct your views all along this thread, and if you have thought that I am supporting you, you have been misunderstanding me. But I assume my responsibility.

You will need to read Ricoer’s texts again and again and again, because he does not support you either. However, you need to consider this: discourses are “fragile” but at the same time extremely dangerous without the assistance of the “father”. So, be careful because you always need the interaction with someone who cares.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

JF you missed my very small point wrt values versus pointers in PC SCience.
I wasn’t presenting a forest, just a tree.
Nevermind.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You will need to read Ricoer’s texts again and again and again, because he does not support you either. However, you need to consider this: discourses are “fragile” but at the same time extremely dangerous without the assistance of the “father”. So, be careful because you always need the interaction with someone who cares.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

Have a read of The Symbolism of Evil.
His thesis is very clear wrt the small point I am making.
Namely that our conscious (eg concepts) and preconscious (eg the phantasm) levels of meaningful experience… are constructs of the raw sense data our bodies experience.
Recouer called these three levels respectively logos, mythos and bios.
Wherever there is meaning there is a construct… and where there is a mental construct there is both insight and veiling of the always partially unknown world of the senses (bios).

As misunderstandings in our own discourse here demonstrates .

Let’s leave it there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Good stuff.

But good and wrong. As I have explained, a substance is that which exists in no other thing. The problem here is that atoms, etc, of which physicists, chemists, speak, do not normally exist alone outside of another substance (. Matter does have to be formed of some kind of material ’ stuff ’ after all! ) They don’t just float around alone in the environment normally. And when they do, as in the case of gasses, they are clearly substances on their own.

But when a part of another substance, they exist only as a part of that substance’s matter. They loose a key part of what makes a substance a substance, and that is the ability to operate alone without the restrictive governace of another controlling form ( i.e.the human soul, when they are a part of the matter of the human person). But, at the same time, they do not loose their individuality entirely, since their internal structure remains fully functional ( as far as we know ). But now they bow to another master, the form of the substance in which they exist.

Scotus was wrong and the Franciscans have been wrong for a long, long time. They suffer from hero worship. He is " our man, " and a possible saint, we must defend him whatever the cost, philosophically. But saints have been wrong before. Even Aristotle and Aquinas were wrong in some rather huge ways ( i.e., their defense of the eternal " Heavenly Spheres "

This article ( plato.stanford.edu/entries/du…/#MatForBodSou ) clearly points out some of the major flaws in Scotus’ philosophy. Anyone who accepts the flaws just because they agree with one’s preconceived notions of scientific explanation has sacrificed philosophical credibility. In other words. you can’t have you cake and eat it too. A system of thought cannot both be and not be a cogent philosophy.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

But good and wrong. As I have explained, a substance is that which exists in no other thing. The problem here is that atoms, etc, of which physicists, chemists, speak, do not normally exist alone outside of another substance (. Matter does have to be formed of some kind of material ’ stuff ’ after all! ) They don’t just float around alone in the environment normally. And when they do, as in the case of gasses, they are clearly substances on their own.

But when a part of another substance, they exist only as a part of that substance’s matter. They loose a key part of what makes a substance a substance, and that is the ability to operate alone without the restrictive governace of another controlling form ( i.e.the human soul, when they are a part of the matter of the human person). But, at the same time, they do not loose their individuality entirely, since their internal structure remains fully functional ( as far as we know ). But now they bow to another master, the form of the substance in which they exist.

Linus2nd

Atoms are no-longer substances in their own right when they become a part of another substance?

I don’t think that works. Sounds kind of ad-hoc. And your argument that a substance is defined by the ability to operate alone without the restrictive governance of another controlling form seems ad-hoc also. I think that so long as it can possibly exist by itself it can be called a substance. You might be doing a bit of hero worshiping yourself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Atoms are no-longer substances in their own right when they become a part of another substance?

Right, they the designated or informed matter called for by the form of the substance they exist in. In other words, they are the matter in the mater-form composit. Apparently, if science is correct, matter always demands some kind of atomic structure. .

And your argument that a substance is defined by the ability to operate alone without the restrictive governance of another controlling form seems ad-hoc also. I think that so long as it can possibly exist by itself it can be called a substance. You might be doing a bit of hero worshiping yourself.

Heck, I thought that was pretty good. Let’s say it the way Aristotle or Auinas would say it then. A substance is a being which exists in no other, but to whom it belongs to have others others ( accidents ) belong to it.

Linus2nd.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But good and wrong. As I have explained, a substance is that which exists in no other thing.

Linus there are a number of ambiguities here you may not have averted to:
(i) Nobody is saying that salt or water cannot be called substances.
(ii) What some of us Catholic philosophers here are saying is… that scientists would not be wrong in also saying that they can recognise, at the atomic level, characteristic behaviour of other substances. This is a fact that cannot be denied. The tools of scientists that “extend” our senses clearly show this. These tools were not available in Aristotle’s day.
(iii) I do not know if that necessarily contradicts your own definition of substance as “that which exists in no other thing.” Salt does seem in some way to exist in a “mixture” of sodium and chlorine. Just as sodium and chlorine in some way sem to exist in salt".
But that certainly doesn’t mean that sodium is an accident of salt or salt is an accident of sodium.

Your definition seems a little like “babies come from mummy’s tummy”. Some more precisioning needs in order. Compounds represent a structure that Aristotle’s system doesn’t seem to cope with well. Is molten salt an “aggregate” of sodium and chlorine ions?

I note that Aristotle himslef means at least 6 different things by the word substance:
i.being ontologically basic—substances are the things from which everything else is made
ii.being relatively independent and durable and, perhaps, absolutely so;
iii.being the paradigm subjects of predication and bearers of properties;
iv.often being the subjects of change;
v.being typified by what we classify as “things”;
vi.being typified by kinds of stuff.

The problem here is that atoms, etc, of which physicists, chemists, speak, do not normally exist alone outside of another substance

OK it looks like we need to “draw the organs as well” as my wife would say.

First up lets correct your sentence. I think you really mean “elements do not normally exist alone outside of a compound”?

That is perfectly correct. Yet that doesn’t mean your conclusion (eg they no longer exist as sodium or chlorine in a compound like salt). That is incorrect.

Chemists rightly say that salt is NaCl and water is still H2O for a reason.
They see an abiding identity between the Na in salt and Na the elemental metal.
Likewise they see an abiding identity between the Cl in salt and the elemental green gas Cl2.

They see an abiding identity for at least two reasons I can see:
(i) the ion Na+ is easily identified to be present in both salt and sodium metal (and another substance called lye (NaOH) for that matter). Likewise for hydrogen, chlorine and oxygen ions.
(ii) If we ionise sodium metal…is this a substantial change or an accidental change? Clearly it is an accidental change…the only difference between the two is the loss of one electron which is completely reversible. In fact Na+ always wants its electron back! Sure, Na and Na+ have different properties. So does water and steam … yet even Aristotle recognsied they are the same didn’t he?

So you are wrong above. The constituent elements of substances like salt etc do continue to exist in salt as is obvious esp in their liquid or soluted forms where the ionic accidental forms are readily identifiable.

Or do you think Fe Fe++ and Fe+++ are completely different substances?

In short, we can see compounds where there is a constant and dynamic to and fro between the macroscopic substance (eg salt) and its constituent, microscopic substances. This truth is visible by experiment where the elemental substances are identified by their accidental ionic forms.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…continued…
In short, we can see compounds where there is a constant and dynamic to and fro between the macroscopic substance (eg salt) and its constituent, microscopic substances. This truth is visible by experiment where the elemental substances are identified by their accidental ionic forms.

The same is true of the human substance. We can see all manner of chemical reactions and interchanges that make muscles move and burn oxygen and sugar. Its all controlled/unified by the soul but the lower level substances act just as they would in the test tube.

Looks like plurality of forms to me.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Linus there are a number of ambiguities here you may not have averted to:
(i) Nobody is saying that salt or water cannot be called substances.
(ii) What some of us Catholic philosophers here are saying is… that scientists would not be wrong in also saying that they can recognise, at the atomic level, characteristic behaviour of other substances. This is a fact that cannot be denied. The tools of scientists that “extend” our senses clearly show this. These tools were not available in Aristotle’s day.

This is correct. Aquinas was not aware of Atoms and subatomic particles. The reality is we are made up of smaller substances and there is no rational basis to claim that they are no-longer substances when they participate in a greater substance. This is an ad-hoc attempt to explain away new advances in science.

This is what frustrates me about thomism. It plays very well with commentaries. But few Thomist’s actually attempt to do philosophy because they treat it like dogmatic theology; they rarely if ever evolve with new science. This is why thomism has become stale and old. Its time for a neo-thomism that integrates the new science with Aristotelian metaphysics.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, you are both wrong because you have not paid close enough attention to my arguments. I never denied that elemental particles ( however you want to define them ) exist in substances which have a very specific nature, animals, men, vegetation, even minerals and chemical compounds.

I have maintained that when present in specific substances, essences, or natures, as specified above, they act for the preservation and good of that substance, that their actions and interactions and properties do not entirely exhibit the exact same characteristics as when they are alone and isolated. That means that they are not substances in their own right, that what makes them exist at all in the specified substance, is the mater-form composition of the specified substance, in which the form calls for a specified or designated matter, specific to the demands and needs of the form. Now designated matter must be made out of some kind of matter. It just so happens that God, the creator, has created matter in a certain way, out of various types of atoms ( which in turn are made out of even more elemental forms of particles, energy, etc. ), molecules, cells, etc. Is that so strange?

The major point is that this designated matter would not exist were it not God’s intention to make an animal, a man, a plant, a lump of coal, etc. You can talk all you want about laboratory conditions where it is presumably possible to " see " via a spectrograph, or electron microscope, etc. a single atom, electron, etc. They have been taken out of their proper environment. How in the world does the scientist know how they act in their " natural state, " since they are seldom, if ever, found except in the substances named above.
So yes, I maintain that a substance is just what Aristotle defined it to be and that a substance just is a unit, defined by one specific nature or essence, such as is demanded by its matter-form composition. And that the various types of atoms, cells, molecules, etc. which form a particular designated matter, comprise the matter of the matter-form composition.

Now you have attempted to make hay out of what Aristotle and Thomas knew and didn’t know. They knew:

1. That all complex material substances were composed of particular kinds of simple matter in definite proportions.
2. That in the destruction of these complex substances, certain simple matter is recovered in the same proportions as they had in the complex material substances.
3. That any complex substance has some of the properties of its constituent parts: for example, some of its activities can be predicted from a knowledge of the activities of those parts, that the total weight of the substance is the sum of the weight of the parts.
4. That in large complex substances some parts have activities related to their own structure; for example, the eye is partly composed of transparent matter and it is the only part of a large animal that is sensitive to color.
5. That many parts of large complex substances operated naturally, according to nature, without external causation, or even of thought, for example; the human heart and other bodily organs.
6. That in certain types of illnesses like cancer some cells escape the unity of the body and work for its destruction.

• Most of the above points were taken from The Philosophy of Human Nature by George Klubertanz S.J., 1953

And this is just to show that these old philosophers were not as out of touch with reality as we moderns seem to think.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I never denied that elemental particles ( however you want to define them ) exist in substances which have a very specific nature, animals, men, vegetation, even minerals and chemical compounds.

Provide a specific example to clarify your many ambiguities and fuzziness here please Linus. I have no idea what you mean by “elemental particles”. Stick to my context…do you mean nascent elements, ions, compounds? Give a specific example…if you can?

I have maintained that when present in specific substances, essences, or natures, as specified above, they act for the preservation and good of that substance, that their actions and interactions and properties do not entirely exhibit the exact same characteristics as when they are alone and isolated.

Agreed, please quote where I denied that.

That means that they are not substances in their own right.

This is a logical non-sequitur.

Do you assert that Chemist’s are wrong in saying that nascent H2 and H++ ions are both hydrogen?
To assert that you would have to demonstrate that the difference in properties constitutes
substantial change rather than accidental change. (Which has been the whole point of my observations ab initio).
Water and steam have very different properties - why is this not substantial change?

If you want me to continue conversing with you then answering my questions below would be helpful…eg

“Or do you think Fe Fe++ and Fe+++ are completely different substances?”

If we ionise sodium metal…is this a substantial change or an accidental change?

When we have surmounted these very basic “tree” issues wrt how substance/accidents actually play out in the world…then perhaps it will be productive to discuss the forests you try to build out of them.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Provide a specific example to clarify your many ambiguities and fuzziness here please Linus. I have no idea what you mean by “elemental particles”. Stick to my context…do you mean nascent elements, ions, compounds? Give a specific example…if you can?

Agreed, please quote where I denied that.

This is a logical non-sequitur.

Do you assert that Chemist’s are wrong in saying that nascent H2 and H++ ions are both hydrogen?
To assert that you would have to demonstrate that the difference in properties constitutes
substantial change rather than accidental change. (Which has been the whole point of my observations ab initio).
Water and steam have very different properties - why is this not substantial change?

If you want me to continue conversing with you then answering my questions below would be helpful…eg

When we have surmounted these very basic “tree” issues wrt how substance/accidents actually play out in the world…then perhaps it will be productive to discuss the forests you try to build out of them.

I don’t think I can be more clear than I have been. I think your demands are unreasonable. I think you are so invested in modern philosophy of science, which rejects A/T out of hand, that you have closed your mind.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

I don’t think I can be more clear than I have been. I think your demands are unreasonable. I think you are so invested in modern philosophy of science, which rejects A/T out of hand, that you have closed your mind.

Linus2nd

Actually, he provides many examples of how applying the ideas of objective “accident” and “substance” to the physical world leads to logical absurdities. Accident and substance is too simplified an explanation of the physical world to be coherent with modern scientific discoveries.

 

[thinkandmull]

Physical breadness remains after consecration, but the form has changed. The Catechism of Trent specifically said “form”, but called it “physical” was well. Maybe the spiritual and physical are related differently than we think

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Physical breadness remains after consecration, but the form has changed. The Catechism of Trent specifically said “form”, but called it “physical” was well. Maybe the spiritual and physical are related differently than we think

That is absolutely wrong. See the quote below from the Council.

"
Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Bread
We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body.

This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Saviour: Do this for a commemoration of me. For what the Lord enjoined was not only what He had done, but also what he had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish.

That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also. The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying: “This is my body”."

So " form " refers to the words of consecration not to what happens during consecration, you can read the rest of what the Council says about the " form " here:

.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

Linus2nd