1 before the baking aren't a mixture at all. This is a case that would be a regular old mi the knovledge of the baker. If the right kind of heat ware to affect the ingredients on its awn (an admittedly rare event) the result ‘would be indistinguishable from a cake (since cakes are, qua natural, just mixtures) but it wouldn't be a cake, You say of the house builder that “there is a preservation of the form of the knowledge that merely develops into itself in a ‘distinctive and more complete manner’ | would say that it isn't the knowledge or the form of the knowledge that develops but the builder herself. The knowledge remains the same, itis the builder that transitions from being such in potentiality to being such in actuality, I'm not sure if this kind of transition is less “radical” than changes that involve replacement, but itis a different kind of, ‘change (and even in the house case, the bricks are not only moved but also transition from being a house in potentiality to a house in actuality). You are tight that the pottery case is different from the cake case. Heating the wet clay doesn’t change it from being clay. tis just. solid clay after the heating. The heating of the ingredients of a cake yields a mixture. The ingredients are no longer actually present But | don’t think itis right to say that there is no alteration in the clay. There is a replacement. It goes from wet to dry and because of this goes from malleable to rigid. I'm not sure this is a development. This isa classic alteration. The shape stays the same through this, But itis not more “mug shaped’ or better “mug shaped’. So I'm not sure that is a development either. So I would say that the dlay is altered (wet to dry), the shape stays the same, and there is a transition from potentiality to actuality (a cup in potentiality becomes a cup in actuality). But the last is different from either the alteration of the chape staying the came. | find what you say about the final transition from blood to flesh being a matter of structural change without compositional change interesting. To see if itis right, I'd need to go back and look at what Aristotle says the vital heat is actually doing. ! was thinking that it was closer to the cake case than the pottery case. That is, the final heat was making a kind of compositional change. That is because flesh is a uniform bedy. So are the other tissues. The transition isn't. it seemed to me, like drying something out or solidifying it. Itis more like mixing. I think I'm comfortable saying there are two forms. But I'm not sure | would say the two forme are a compositional form and a structural form. | would say blood has the form of nutriment and the form of flesh; it has the former in actuality and the latter in potentiality. | recognize that you are trying to cash out what | mean (or what Aristotle means) when | says this by employing the ‘compositional/structural distinction, But | think | need to better understand what you mean by compositional form in particular. Because | would say slightly different things than you do, so I'm worrled | don’t fully understand it. For example, | would say that blood and flesh are compositionally different.