[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Cassiano wrote, It's been a long while I don't write, but the subject interests me.I run the risk of repeating everything that was said here about entelechy, but a look up at the form of the word seems appropriate: entelechy in ancient greek is a form of saying (as literally as I can see) en telos echein, that is, something like "to have the end [aim?] in", "the obtaining of the end" (since the verb "echein" has a wide semantic range).In this sense, it is possible to think of it as a process rather than the final result of the process itself - if we think in analogy to the ultimate interpretant, it's perfectly fit: although the interpretant is called "ultimate", it's nonetheless still an interpretant, sign-process in sum. Now, the substantive "entelechia" seems to indicate exactly this, as I can see, in Aristotle: a process of attaining the end (telos), which should not as I see be defined as a definite outcome, final and not capable of being fowarded furthermore - because the idea of telos carries the notion of possible aim to be reached - the final cause is of the nature of a general desire, in Peirce's interpretation (which seems a very plausible way to read Aristotle's theory of the four causes - the formal cause being in the end the same as the final cause, the material cause the same as the efficient cause). So, entelechy would be a process of causation, the finalization of the process of attainment a telos, or of fulfillment of the end, if I can say this in English. So, it continues to be a process, as I tend to read it; not the same as before, but still a process.I hope I'm understandable in this poor English of mine, and I also hope I'm not completely out of the discussion. All the best to all,Cassiano(from the Center for Studies on Pragmatism, Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC), Brasil).I tend to see an entelechy assomething which is stable but not merely exhausted, but instead "in working order" to do more. In its stability, it'snot just a form but a structure, andit can serve as a foundation and basis for more, as for instance we say that knowledge is a basis anda grounding. So it's a settledness yet it contributes to a process, helps ground it more securely, sometimes precisely in order for the process not just to repeat but to evolve (through learning). It supports us, is our human supportedness by reality. So I tend to see entelechy as the confirmation, the solidification, of that action or culmination which is an end or is supposed to be an end -- but which may or may not hold up. If it holds up, stands stably, then it is, in that sense, confirmed. It's the difference between coming to an end, and being ended, being settled, settled ina constructive sense, ready for more. In a broader sense, I regard intelligent experience, formed as collateral to sign interpretant in respect of the object, as the entelechy of semiosis as such. And they all keep on going, and cannot culminate except as "energy" or solidify except as basis -- energy and basis, for _more_ of themselves.Charles Olson once said that Edward Dahlberg pounded it into his head as a poet that "every perception leads DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY to another perception." Culmination entelechy. It's also the difference between the Thomistic "necessaries for the beautiful" -- "claritas" (which Joyce well translated as "radiance," as of a culmination, a bloom, the bright colors of flowers, the shiny colors of fish, etc.,)and "integritas sive perfectio" (which Joyce sonorously translated as "wholeness" but misunderstood as simple unity as provided by a bounding line drawn around an object. Aquinas instead meant structural integrity, as of something not "diminuta" (dashed to pieces or destructively violated) and thereby "turpia" (base, disgusting, "gross"). Diminuta http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2314023 turpia http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?turpis But in my emphasis on entelechy as something cognitive and even epistemic, as confirmation, confirmed value, etc., (as opposed to a telos or teleiosis asmore affective, aculmination, a value), I part with Aristotle, Aquinas, Peirce, and everybody but myself. I also think of entelechy as a causal principle like telos, in a sense like the formal cause, but deepened, just as a vital telos is something deeper than mere thermodynamic decay. With entelechy, there is dependence, often complex dependence,on sign and evidentiary conditions. E.g., knowledge expectations are causes in markets. This is not "instead" of telic influence, nor does it leave teleology behind -- but it does take things to a new level, a level of ongoing evolution (mental, social), which distinguishes a human from, say, a vegetable organism which, in its way, is quite telically governed, but certainly does not evolve in its own lifetime. So those are just my opinions. Joe Ransdell sent
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Victoria Cassiano, I agree that Cassiano's is a sane, sound, and even evolutionary way of looking at entelechy. Peirce too saw that Kant and Bergson were on the right metaphysical track, process and vitalism, not mechanism and predetermination. The resultant 'emergent principle' is thus the seeking of a final and not an efficient cause. Tracing out the history of the principle further would seem a most valuable intellectual enterprise. Gary Victoria N. Alexander wrote: Dear Cassino, I think that your characterization of Aristotle's (and Pierce's) entelechy as a process is correct. I think an argument can be made that this is true of genuine teleology in general. Teleology seeks, in additional to material causes, evidence for an emergent vital force immanent in the process itself. It seeks internal final causes not external efficient causes. As vitalist Bergson writes in 1907, predetermined teleology, based on a definite end, implies that things and beings merely realize a programme previously arranged … As in the mechanistic hypothesis, here again it is supposed that all is given. Finalism thus understood is only inverted mechanism. Kant imagined that limiting principles, inherent in ongoing natural processes themselves, guided events. According to Alicia Juarrero, Kant's emphasis on recursive causality, wherein the parts are both cause and effect, precludes the existence of a preexisting whole (113). And as Ernst Cassirer explains, the Kantian whole is contained in them [the parts] as a guiding principle. In Kant telos is emergent, given in the interactions between parts and the whole. Victoria Victoria N. Alexander, Ph.D. Dactyl Foundation for the Arts Humanities 64 Grand Street New York, NY 10013 212 219 2344 www.dactyl.org Support the arts! Copy and paste the link below to donate to Dactyl Foundation using PayPal. https://www.paypal.com/xclick/ business=art%40dactyl.orgitem_name=Member+%2420+Friend+%24100+Patron+%2 4500+Benefactor+%241000item_number=Various+Levelsno_note=1tax=0curre ncy_code=USD On Jun 4, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Cassiano Terra Rodrigues wrote: Hello list: It's been a long while I don't write, but the subject interests me. I run the risk of repeating everything that was said here about entelechy, but a look up at the form of the word seems appropriate: entelechy in ancient greek is a form of saying (as literally as I can see) en telos echein, that is, something like to have the end [aim?] in, the obtaining of the end (since the verb echein has a wide semantic range). In this sense, it is possible to think of it as a process rather than the final result of the process itself - if we think in analogy to the ultimate interpretant, it's perfectly fit: although the interpretant is called ultimate, it's nonetheless still an interpretant, sign-process in sum. Now, the substantive entelechia seems to indicate exactly this, as I can see, in Aristotle: a process of attaining the end (telos), which should not as I see be defined as a definite outcome, final and not capable of being fowarded furthermore - because the idea of telos carries the notion of possible aim to be reached - the final cause is of the nature of a general desire, in Peirce's interpretation (which seems a very plausible way to read Aristotle's theory of the four causes - the formal cause being in the end the same as the final cause, the material cause the same as the efficient cause). So, entelechy would be a process of causation, the finalization of the process of attainment a telos, or of fulfillment of the end, if I can say this in English. So, it continues to be a process, as I tend to read it; not the same as before, but still a process. I hope I'm understandable in this poor English of mine, and I also hope I'm not completely out of the discussion. All the best to all, Cassiano (from the Center for Studies on Pragmatism, Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC), Brasil). --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Hello list: It's been a long while I don't write, but the subject interests me. I run the risk of repeating everything that was said here about entelechy, but a look up at the form of the word seems appropriate: entelechy in ancient greek is a form of saying (as literally as I can see) en telos echein, that is, something like to have the end [aim?] in, the obtaining of the end (since the verb echein has a wide semantic range). In this sense, it is possible to think of it as a process rather than the final result of the process itself - if we think in analogy to the ultimate interpretant, it's perfectly fit: although the interpretant is called ultimate, it's nonetheless still an interpretant, sign-process in sum. Now, the substantive entelechia seems to indicate exactly this, as I can see, in Aristotle: a process of attaining the end (telos), which should not as I see be defined as a definite outcome, final and not capable of being fowarded furthermore - because the idea of telos carries the notion of possible aim to be reached - the final cause is of the nature of a general desire, in Peirce's interpretation (which seems a very plausible way to read Aristotle's theory of the four causes - the formal cause being in the end the same as the final cause, the material cause the same as the efficient cause). So, entelechy would be a process of causation, the finalization of the process of attainment a telos, or of fulfillment of the end, if I can say this in English. So, it continues to be a process, as I tend to read it; not the same as before, but still a process. I hope I'm understandable in this poor English of mine, and I also hope I'm not completely out of the discussion. All the best to all, Cassiano (from the Center for Studies on Pragmatism, Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC), Brasil). --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Dear Folks-- I came across this definition of Entelechy among the words Peirce is reputed to have defined for the Century Dictionay in 1886 (page 404 of Writings of Charles S Peirce A Chronological Edition Volume 5 1884-1886) -- I was looking for a definition of form. BEGIN QUOTE ENTGELECHY, n. CGr entelecheia, word invented by Aristotle, from en telei echon, having atained the end.) Literally, attainment, realization; opposed to power, potentiality, and nearly the same as energy or act (actuality). The idea of entelechy is connected with that of FORM (caps from piat), the idea of power with that of matter. Iron is potentially in its ore, which to be made from must be worked. When this is done, the iron exists in entelechy. The passage from power to entelechy takes place by means of change (kinesis). This is the imperfect energy, the perfected energy is the entelechy. Tirst entelechy is being in working order, second entelechy is being in action. The soul is said to be first entelechy, that is, a thing precisely like a mani in every respect, except that it would not feel, would b e body without a sould; but a soul once infused is not lost whenever the man is asleep. This is the Aristotelian sense, but Cudworth and others have used entelechy and firt entelechy somewhat diferently. Cudworth calls his plastic nature or vital principle the first entelechy, and leibniz terms a monad an entelechy. END OUOTE My apologies if I'm repeating previously posted material. Cheers, Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Joe, Thank you for the below post--which I've cut away all but it's identification. I don't find entelechy of particular interest, but I'm in awe of Peirce's conception of communication and mediation. It's ready to bottle and label. Bill Bailey For the benefit of those who don't have a copy of Essential Peirce 2, here is the passage referred to by Vinicius Romanini in which Peirce appears to be defining perfect sign in such a way as to make it synonymous with entelechy (Peirce's emphasis shown here by use of capital letters): -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/337 - Release Date: 5/11/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Title: [peirce-l] Re: Entelechy Gary -- I see now that Merrell is mentioned in the Life of Meaning resources on your site. Nice collection! I am surprised, however, to see the entrants under Models and simulations of mind. Aren't the views of Hofstadter, Dennet and Minsky generally at odds with the spirit of rest of your list -- and explicitly at odds with Damasio, Lakoff, Maturana and Varela, Rosen, and Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations? Janet Gary -- Are you familiar with the work of Floyd Merrell? Your characterization of your own work brings his to mind. To quote from a review of three of Merrell's books by Robert E. Innis (review available in the archives of the Semiotic Review of Books at http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/srb/signtrek.html ) Merrell's account of the physical contexts of semiosis culminates in the notion of the physical conditions of possibility of open systems, exemplified in the revolutionary work of Prigogine (perhaps, after Peirce, Merrell's intellectual hero), which make possible on the ontological level emergence of higher-order structures, including the higher-order structure that doubles back on itself, the field of consciousness itself. On this view, consciousness is an emergent property of cosmic processes and condition of the possibility of our knowledge of these very properties. Sorry I incorrectly attributed the Ehresmann reference to you -- it will take a while to get oriented to the list. Janet --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Vinicius,
[[ 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). ]]
I see what you mean -- although Peirce doesn't mention the word
entelechy there, perfect sign seems synonymous with it.
Janet,
I'm relatively new around here myself, so i know it takes awhile to get
oriented. Welcome to the list! (I don't recall whether that's been said
to you already, but if so, another welcome won't hurt.)
[[ I am surprised, however, to see the entrants under Models and
simulations of mind. Aren't the views of Hofstadter, Dennet and Minsky
generally at odds with the spirit of rest of your list -- and explicitly
at odds with Damasio, Lakoff, Maturana and Varela, Rosen, and
Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations? ]]
No more at odds than the latter group are among themselves, if you allow
for some major differences in focus and idiom. But i have to admit that
i don't find much of interest in Dennett or Minsky nowadays. They were
central to my reading and thinking 25 years ago (before the others that
you mention appeared on my horizon), but much more peripheral now. I put
them on the list because i think much of what i learned from them is
still valid; and in Hofstadter's case, because my work in progress still
draws upon his concepts of tangled hierarchy and strange loops and
(especially) his modeling of the creative process. Besides, Hofstadter
was quick to pick up on the emerging concepts of chaos and complexity.
Actually, if i had to list those who are most out of step with the rest
of the list, i'd name Pinker, Dawkins, Koch and Crick. But they still
have a place there, if only because i think that any point on which they
agree with the others can be assumed to have very broad support, simply
because the supporters are so diverse.
But really i'd rather not speak as glibly of these folks as i have here,
as if i could fit each one neatly into some mental pigeonhole. Each one
of us is a whole world. We are worlds in conversation, turning still.
Sometimes we spin in synchrony and sometimes we don't. When we do, we
have structural coupling, as Maturana and Varela called it. And when we
don't, we may have a chance to learn something new.
gary F.
}The simple fact is that no measurement, no experiment or observation is
possible without a relevant theoretical framework. [D.S. Kothari]{
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
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Kirsti M: The entelechy or perfection of being Peirce here refers to is something never attained to full, but strived at, again and again. Just as with science and scientific knowledge. It's about striving to approach, better and better, The Truth. If there ever would be an end, the absolute perfection of knowledge, that would mean an end, which would be in contradiction with life and living. Life and living IS striving - with some kind of an end. Never the last possible I have to disagree, Kirsti. Life is more than science and scientific knowledge, and more than striving to approach, better and better, The Truth. And I mean this in a Peircean sense. Stated differently, science is part of life, not the determinant of it. By my lights life is participant in the entelechy of being, not a spectator looking at a scoreboard it can never reach. The perfection of being manifests all the time in realized aesthetic moments. Entelechy has Firstness, here and now, does it not? Perhaps something like this aesthetic perspective is what William Blake had in mind when he wrote: If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern. [T]he living intelligence which is the creator of all intelligible reality , as Peirce put it in the earlier quotation you comment on, means that ongoing creation involves more than chaos or chance, it involves a reasonableness energizing in the world, as Peirce put it elsewhere. If logic, as self-controlled thought, is a species of ethics, as self-controlled conduct, and ethics is itself a species of aesthetics, as the intrinsically admirable, then The Truth ultimately gives itself to Beauty, as the ultimate of entelechy, as I understand Peirce. And if so, as I see it, the perfection of being involves genesis, as well as development. Perfecting habits of conduct and even the laws of the universe itself, means the perfection of ongoing creation, not the overcoming of it in some Hegelian straitjacket. From this perspective the final entelechy of all being is itself such a moment, poem, painting, banquet, music, or better, mousike, rhythm-rhyme-dance-musicking, at least in the sense in which Peirce claimed that: The Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of art, a great poem -- for every fine argument is a poem and a symphony -- just as every true poem is a sound argument. But let us compare it rather with a painting -- with an impressionist seashore piece -- then every Quality in a Premiss is one of the elementary colored particles of the Painting; they are all meant to go together to make up the intended Quality that belongs to the whole as whole. That total effect is beyond our ken; but we can appreciate in some measure the resultant Quality of parts of the whole -- which Qualities result from the combinations of elementary Qualities that belong to the premisses. CP 5.119 Gene --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Gary,
Your concluding comment:
We are worlds in conversation, turning still.
Sometimes we spin in synchrony and sometimes we don't. When we do, we
have structural coupling, as Maturana and Varela called it. And when we
don't, we may have a chance to learn something new.
for some reason brought to mind this famous one.
I do not think much of a man who is
not wiser today than he was yesterday.
Abraham Lincoln
Gary
gnusystems wrote:
Vinicius,
[[ 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). ]]
I see what you mean -- although Peirce doesn't mention the word
entelechy there, perfect sign seems synonymous with it.
Janet,
I'm relatively new around here myself, so i know it takes awhile to get
oriented. Welcome to the list! (I don't recall whether that's been said
to you already, but if so, another welcome won't hurt.)
[[ I am surprised, however, to see the entrants under Models and
simulations of mind. Aren't the views of Hofstadter, Dennet and Minsky
generally at odds with the spirit of rest of your list -- and explicitly
at odds with Damasio, Lakoff, Maturana and Varela, Rosen, and
Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations? ]]
No more at odds than the latter group are among themselves, if you allow
for some major differences in focus and idiom. But i have to admit that
i don't find much of interest in Dennett or Minsky nowadays. They were
central to my reading and thinking 25 years ago (before the others that
you mention appeared on my horizon), but much more peripheral now. I put
them on the list because i think much of what i learned from them is
still valid; and in Hofstadter's case, because my work in progress still
draws upon his concepts of tangled hierarchy and strange loops and
(especially) his modeling of the creative process. Besides, Hofstadter
was quick to pick up on the emerging concepts of chaos and complexity.
Actually, if i had to list those who are most out of step with the rest
of the list, i'd name Pinker, Dawkins, Koch and Crick. But they still
have a place there, if only because i think that any point on which they
agree with the others can be assumed to have very broad support, simply
because the supporters are so diverse.
But really i'd rather not speak as glibly of these folks as i have here,
as if i could fit each one neatly into some mental pigeonhole. Each one
of us is a whole world. We are worlds in conversation, turning still.
Sometimes we spin in synchrony and sometimes we don't. When we do, we
have structural coupling, as Maturana and Varela called it. And when we
don't, we may have a chance to learn something new.
gary F.
}The simple fact is that no measurement, no experiment or observation is
possible without a relevant theoretical framework. [D.S. Kothari]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Gene, I wonder if you can comment a bit more on the end of your note--how exactly does it make sense from a Peircean point of view to claim that poems are arguments? More specifically, if poems qua aesthetic objects partake most of firstness, how can they also be arguments? Jeff -Original Message- From: Eugene Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 9, 2006 7:45 AM To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Entelechy Kirsti M: ��The entelechy or perfection of being Peirce here refers to is something never attained to full, but strived at, again and again. Just as with science and scientific knowledge. It's about striving to approach, better and better, The Truth. If there ever would be an end, the absolute perfection of knowledge, that would mean an end, which would be in contradiction with life and living. Life and living IS striving - with some kind of an end. Never the last possible�� I have to disagree, Kirsti. Life is more than �science and scientific knowledge,� and more than �striving to approach, better and better, The Truth.� And I mean this in a Peircean sense. Stated differently, science is part of life, not the determinant of it. By my lights life is participant in the entelechy of being, not a spectator looking at a scoreboard it can never reach. The perfection of being manifests all the time in realized aesthetic moments. Entelechy has Firstness, here and now, does it not? Perhaps something like this aesthetic perspective is what William Blake had in mind when he wrote: �If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.� ��[T]he living intelligence which is the creator of all intelligible reality��, as Peirce put it in the earlier quotation you comment on, means that ongoing creation involves more than chaos or chance, it involves a �reasonableness energizing in the world,� as Peirce put it elsewhere. If logic, as self-controlled thought, is a species of ethics, as self-controlled conduct, and ethics is itself a species of aesthetics, as the intrinsically admirable, then �The Truth� ultimately gives itself to Beauty, as the ultimate of entelechy, as I understand Peirce. And if so, as I see it, the perfection of being involves genesis, as well as development. Perfecting habits of conduct and even the laws of the universe itself, means the perfection of ongoing creation, not the �overcoming� of it in some Hegelian straitjacket. From this perspective the final entelechy of all being is itself such a moment, poem, painting, banquet, music, or better, mousike, rhythm-rhyme-dance-musicking, at least in the sense in which Peirce claimed that: �The Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of art, a great poem -- for every fine argument is a poem and a symphony -- just as every true poem is a sound argument. But let us compare it rather with a painting -- with an impressionist seashore piece -- then every Quality in a Premiss is one of the elementary colored particles of the Painting; they are all meant to go together to make up the intended Quality that belongs to the whole as whole. That total effect is beyond our ken; but we can appreciate in some measure the resultant Quality of parts of the whole -- which Qualities result from the combinations of elementary Qualities that belong to the premisses.� CP 5.119 Gene --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
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
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
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 concept of "entelechy" myself, but the best definition i can offer at the moment is "the end product of a completed process."Yes, that's a good definition. Keeping in mind Peircean idea of meaning as something having it's being in futuro. So, the process in question will never actually be completed. Which is tied with Peirce's idea of continuity (which goes beyond those of Aristotle and Kant).The Greek word comes from: en-telos-ekhein. With en (preposition)= inside, telos =end, and ekhein = to have. So, it comes to something like: Having it's (or a ?) being within an end. G.F.: So the problem with the translation "actuality" is that the reality of the entelechy does not depend on its actuality -- not in the Peircean senses of those words.Agreed. I don't think it does in the Aristotelian sense either. Personally i find it almost impossible to apply these "-tel-" concepts (such as entelechy and final cause) to a linear process. It seems to me that they are only really meaningful in the nonlinear or cyclical domain.So do I, so do I. This is exactly where Peirce's notion of continuity is crucial. It's not a linear notion. And yet this is not evident from Peirce's discussion in "New Elements", which for me is the central text in the discussion of "entelechy". There he applies the term to the universal process -- the process of the universe evolving toward complete being -- and he doesn't appear to say that this universal process is nonlinear. (Though i don't think he rules it out either.)I assume Peirce takes it in New Elements as something he had already made clear in earlier writings, and consequently did not feel the need to make it explicit there. (Thus highly overestimating the capacities his audience:).)Well, I do hope I'll have time in the future to discuss the New Elements in the list. Now I've just jotted down these few thoughts in a hurry. Noticing that there are twenty unread messages. So, someone else might have written something I should have taken notice.BestKirsti M¨¨tt¨nen<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>7.5.2006 kello 18:25, gnusystems kirjoitti:Kirsti, Wilfred et al., Kirsti writes, [[ I was quite perplexed to read that J.A. Smith's translation of De Anima renders [entelechy] as "actuality." ]] Yes, that perplexed me too when i compared the Smith translation with the Greek original. Peirce would never translate it that way -- he would no doubt write "realization". And yet Smith's choice does make some sense in the context (though it might make more sense if rendered "actualization"). I'm still trying to get a firmer grip on the concept of "entelechy" myself, but the best definition i can offer at the moment is "the end product of a completed process." (The "end" part represents the connection with /telos/ cited in the Century Dictionary.) In that sense, the complete actualization of an idea would be an entelechy; it's what you'd have when the material, efficient, formal and final causes of the fact had all completed their work. The problem is that we can (and i think Peirce does) talk about the entelechy of a process which may never *actually* be completed. As you say, Kirsti, [[ Perfection of being, which you take up from Peirce, is something never attained to the full. Still, something which is effective, and in that sense real, even if never actual, to the full. ]] So the problem with the translation "actuality" is that the reality of the entelechy does not depend on its actuality -- not in the Peircean senses of those words. Personally i find it almost impossible to apply these "-tel-" concepts (such as entelechy and final cause) to a linear process. It seems to me that they are only really meaningful in the nonlinear or cyclical domain. And yet this is not evident from Peirce's discussion in "New Elements", which for me is the central text in the discussion of "entelechy". There he applies the term to the universal process -- the process of the universe evolving toward complete being -- and he doesn't appear to say that this universal process is nonlinear. (Though i don't think he rules it out either.) That's the crux of the problem, to me -- and this problem is the main reason i wanted to start (or rather revive) the discussion of "New Elements" on this list when i first joined. (It's also the main reason that i first looked into Aristotle's book On the Psyche.) By the way: Looking again at the Century Dictionary entry on "entelechy", we can see that the final part of it is attributed to E. Wallace. But where in the entry does Peirce's contribution end and Wallace's begin? Where the fine print starts, or at the paragraph break? Does anyone know? gary F.---Message from peirce-l forum to
[peirce-l] RE: Entelechy
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, of course, to his semiotic. [The mode of being of the composition of thought, which is always of the nature of the attribution of a predicate to a subject . . . ]. winmail.dat--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] RE: Entelechy
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 - Original Message - Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:51 PM 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, of course, to his semiotic. [The mode of being of the composition of thought, which is always of the nature of the attribution of a predicate to a subject . . . ]. winmail.dat--- --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Dear Folks-- I looked up escatology (which I though is at least a remotely related notion) and entelechy in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. I found the entry below for Entelechy. I think it adds a fun slant that is consistent with the picture you folks are painting. I especially like the religious teleological (from the Greek word for goal task completion or erfection -- also according to the Oxford Companion) movtives that I think are implicit in this notion. BEGIN QUOTE: entelechy. Hans Driesch (1867-1941) this century's leading neovitalist, was much impressed with his discovery that, despite extreme interferene in the early stages of embrological development, some organisms nevertheless develop into perfectly formed adults. In a thoroughly Aristotelian fashion, therefore, he became convinced that there is some life-element, transcending the purely material, controlling and promoting such development. Denying that this 'entelechy' is a force in the ususal sense, Driesch openly argued that it is end-directed. In his later writing, Driesch moved beyond his Greek influences, starting to sound more Hegelian, as he argued that ll life culminates ultimately in a 'supra personal whole'. END QUOTE the artical ends with a cross reference to vitalism which reminds me that Peirce was himself an investigator of spritualism. Cheers, Jim Piat --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] RE: Entelechy
. . . and notice how the first two clauses of the passage link entelechy with the Peirce's freuqent turn to grammar in his logic, and, of course, to his semiotic. [The mode of being of the composition of thought, which is always of the nature of the attribution of a predicate to a subject . . . ]. -Original Message- From: Kirsti Määttänen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 5/7/2006 12:59 PM To: Peirce Discussion Forum Cc: Subject:[peirce-l] RE: Entelechy Neal, A good quote you brought up. The entelechy or perfection of being Peirce here refers to is something never attained to full, but astrived at, again and again. Just as with science and scientific knowledge. It's about striving to approach, better and better, The Truth. If there ever would be an end, the absolute perfection of knowledge, that would mean an end, which would be in contradiction with life and living. Life and living IS striving - with some kind of an end. Never the last possible. Welcome to the list! Best, Kirsti Määttänen 6.5.2006 kello 18:01, Neal Bruss kirjoitti: Dear Wilfred: Do you have 6.341, noted as from Some Amazing Mazes, Fourth Curiosity, (c. 1909)? 341 The mode of being of the composition of thought, which is always of the nature of the attribution of a predicate to a subject, is the living intelligence which is the creator of all intelligible reality, as well as the knowledge of such reality. It is the /entelechy/, or perfection of being. Neal Bruss (new to the list English department University of Massachusetts Boston) -Original Message- From: Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 5/6/2006 4:23 AM To: Peirce Discussion Forum Cc: Subject: [peirce-l] Entelechy Dear list, I am currently writing my PhD thesis and want to use the concept of entelechy in it. But, for doing so, I would be interested whether Peirce might have defined this term in other sources than the Century Dictionary (where I got it from). If so, I would be very interested in sources. Besides this, I would like to know the exact translation of the greek (?)word entelechia like it was used by Aristotle. Is there anyone here on the list who knows this ancient greek (?)language ? Kind regards, Wilfred -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/327 - Release Date: 28-4-2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] winmail.dat--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Just one point to add to what Gary says, namely, that the word perfection,
as used by Peirce in this context (and wherever the concept of a process is
pertinent) should be understood as implying completion.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: gnusystems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Wilfred,
I have a smattering of classical Greek, maybe enough to provide you with
a little information.
Aristotle apparently coined the term, and didn't define it, so one has
to figure out its meaning from context. (There is no listing for it in
Liddell and Scott's Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, which is the
only Greek dictionary i have at hand.) J.A. Smith's translation of De
Anima renders it as actuality.
It is sometimes transliterated entelechia and sometimes entelecheia
(the latter is closer to the actual Greek), so an Internet search on
either of those spellings will bring up some useful items.
As for Peirce, the term plays a prominent role in his New Elements
essay, which you'll find in EP2 and online at Arisbe. Another
illuminating passage is CP 6.356: [[[ It must not be forgotten that
Aristotle was an Asclepiad, that is, that he belonged to a family which
for generation after generation, from prehistoric times, had had their
attention turned to vital phenomena; and he is almost as remarkable for
his capacity as a naturalist as he is for his incapacity in physics and
mathematics. He must have had prominently before his mind the fact that
all eggs are very much alike, and all seeds are very much alike, while
the animals that grow out of the one, the plants that grow out of the
other, are as different as possible. Accordingly, his dunamis is
germinal being, not amounting to existence; while his entelechy is the
perfect thing that ought to grow out of that germ. ]]]
Another term he gives as equivalent to it is perfection of being (CP
6.341).
I hope this is of some help, though the more accomplished Peircean and
Aristotelian scholars can probably provide more.
gary F.
}The revelation of the Divine Reality hath everlastingly been identical
with its concealment and its concealment identical with its revelation.
[The Bab]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin Island, Canada
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 5/5/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 5/5/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
