Consider Anaximanders apeiron, the indeterminate in the context of Platos theory of Forms; a form, an idea makes the indeterminate determinate in some particular way (In Anaximanders system - rotation ie generalised motion; in his system there is no linear motion - any motion being extended to infinity closes up or turns back)
In Kants system, identifying the noumena as apeiron; we have the Forms, time and space; they are pure intuitions being inseperable from us.
Is this then hylomorphic in Aristotles sense, as it appears inseperable from the apeiron (or noumena)?
Does this explain noumena as the ding-an-sich - the thing-in-itself, as it is the thing without the form and therefore indeterminate?
Does this solve the location of Forms? In Plato, a form exists in some intelligible realm; here we have a second hylomorphism where the pure intuitions of Time and Space are intrinsic to mind.
But then how does Kant solve the problem of universals for Time and Space?
Finally, is this consonance with Platos theory of Forms, and Anaximaders apeiron a figment of my imagination; or is there some corroborating literature that validates this view, implicitly or explicitly?
It's also attested as arche (first principle) in Simplicius's commentary to Aristotles Physics.