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
List, I think the best definition of Entelechy given by Peirce, done in terms of Semeiosis, can be found in his definition of "Perfect Sign" (EP2: 545, n.25). Best, ViniciusKirsti M¨¨tt¨nen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary, Wilfred et al.Gary wrote: I'm still trying to get a firmer grip on the
Ben, Jim, c.,
[[ Signs are built into complex signs and it wouldn't be helpful to have
a level of internal structure where semiotics must dispense with its
usual conceptions in order to reach. ]]
Having thought it through further, i think what you say here makes more
sense than what i said
Neal,
I didn't succeed in opening your attachment. Could you possibly copy it
and send it as a mail?
Kirsti
7.5.2006 kello 23:09, Neal Bruss kirjoitti:
. . . and notice how the first two clauses of the passage link
entelechy with the Peirce's freuqent turn to grammar in his logic,
and,
Kirsti, it's good that you couldn't open the attachment -- according to
my software it contained a virus (the worm Mydoom.O). Neal doesn't
mention it in the message itself, so i'd bet he didn't even know it was
attached when he sent it.
Neal, better check your system --
gary
-
PLEASE DON'T OPEN ANYTHING ATTACHED TO THIS E-MAIL. I'LL STAY OFF THE
LISTSERVE UNTIL I CAN TRACK DOWN A POSSIBLE VIRUS IN THE SYSTEMS I WORK WITH.
NEAL
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 4:54 PM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Cc:
Dear Jim, list,
One thing is that I wouldn't underrate the importance of the conception of
resistance/reaction -- I wouldn't replace it with location. Location has a lot
to do with resistance and reaction! Space, shortest distances, straight lines,
least action, fields, -- there's quite a set
