Janet,
[[ Is entelechy the same as final cause to Aristotle or are they just
related concepts? ]]
My understanding is that the entelechy is an entity, while the final
cause is not. If we could map a process onto a sentence, the entelechy
would correspond to a noun while the final cause would be more like a
verb. Or maybe a better analogy is the "attractor" in physical state
space: final cause would be its *attracting* function, while the
entelechy is the final state that would be achieved if the attractor
could complete its work. As long as the attractor is still working, the
entelechy has only "such identity as a sign may have" (Peirce) -- so
it's an odd sort of entity.
I'm not using Aristotelian language here, because his usage of the term
is not very clear to me, and i'm trying to carry forward Peirce's
attempt to clarify the concept more than Aristotle himself did (while
also trying to preserve Aristotle's meaning). Here's what Peirce said in
"New Elements":
[[[ Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection, or entelechy, which
he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the
very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite perfect, and so
identical, -- in such identity as a sign may have, -- with the very
matter denoted united with the very form signified by it. The entelechy
of the Universe of being, then, the Universe qua fact, will be that
Universe in its aspect as a sign, the "Truth" of being. The "Truth," the
fact that is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant
of every sign. ]]]
[[ I believe your point about "-tel-" concepts and non-linearity agrees
with Robert Rosen's treatment of final cause and complexity. ]]
I'm glad you think so too! Rosen did not use the idiom of semiotics but
i have no doubt that his "modeling relation" is a semiotic one; and his
idea of the modeling process is virtually identical with what Walter
Freeman (the neuroscientist) calls "circular causality". But this is the
central concept of my work in progress, so i'd better drop the subject
here lest i get carried away ...
I too would be curious about what people find in Professor Ehresmann's
work on Memory Evolutive Systems -- i still haven't found time yet to
tackle it myself. (Jerry Chandler, who provided us with the link to it,
finds it "radically different" from Rosen's view, but i don't know why.)
I guess it's questionable how appropriate this topic is to Peirce-L, but
in my view it's close enough. I subscribe to a complexity list which
hosted a lengthy discussion on Peirce last year, so i don't see why we
shouldn't discuss complexity on the Peirce list! But Joe and others
might disagree about that, and perhaps rightly so.
gary F.
}Into deep darkness fall those who follow the immanent. Into deeper
darkness fall those who follow the transcendent. He who knows both, with
the immanent overcomes death and with the transcendent reaches
immortality. [Mascaro, Isa Upanishad]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
