One of the wonderful things about triism is that it allows for both Plato’s and Aristotle’s forms to apply to objects in my interpretation. What this approach is resolving is a conflict I resisted emphasizing in a prior dialectic: The dualistic form may be that which finds thingness in a thing, or that which asserts thingness in a thing. In this approach, the spiritual does the former and the rational does the latter.

Both forms theories separate the thing itself from the form, but they have different ideas of what the form is exactly. Socrates spoke of triism in The Republic to some extent, but his disciples were as far as I understand purely dualistic.

The thing itself is a physical object. It is the material that makes up the thing, but without any other element it ceases to be a thing. Likewise, without the physical or if any single element of three is missing, the thing ceases to be a thing.

Plato’s form indicates ideas behind the things themselves that are the essence of thingness- you could say that this thingness is worth fighting for, as Plato’s Forms defend thingness in whatever object they find thingness in. This is essentially the result of having an ideal celestial thingness. So you see, his form is more spiritual and not at all rational, if you will. It looks not to facts, but to a spiritual force that makes Thing A to be Thing Aish. You might say that force is Love, for love is that which binds separate entities as one- love compels us to defend as well.

Aristotle’s form indicates the structure of material as the form of an object- this is more concrete and coherent. It is my interpretation that whereas Plato’s was a spiritual form, this form is rational. It takes the facts of material and decides how to structure them methodically. This form is a blueprint- far from the celestial Perfects of the preceding forms. Just as the rational element of the state organizes and conducts to make it more state-like, the rational element of the thing conducts and organizes to make it more thing-like.