[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Teleology



John M,
Just a note, "final" does not mean ultimate in the philosophical
definition, it means any future state being considered as the result of
something. Technically it precludes all causal feedbacks from the future.
JJK

John M wrote:

Judith,
in the continuing use of the word on lists with some philosophical
side-burden (Mind, Conscness, Dualism, and some more I have frequented
over the past decade+) RELAXED into something like "directed to a
goal" "purposeful to achieve an end", not necessarily the 'final' one.
Which is in 'our' parlance wrong (I think).
This is the meaning I used 'teleologi(cal) ' in my post.
The Webster absolutistic meaning is of course valid.
I will come back to justify my 'maliciousness' in the sense how
prediction and anticipation is thought of usually.

John M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Judith Rosen <mailto:***>
    To: *** <mailto:***>
    Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:58 PM
    Subject: Teleology

    The Webster's Dictionary defines Teleology  (from the Greek: telos
    or teleos; "an end" and ology; "study of") as 1. The study of
    final causes. 2. The fact or quality of being directed toward a
    definite end or of having an ultimate purpose, especially as
    attributed to natural systems. 3. A belief, as in that of
    vitalism, that natural phenomena are determined not only by
    mechanical causes but by an overall design or purpose in nature.

    Vitalism is the dirty word here. That's the connotation that is
    the kiss of death in science. It basically says that only God can
    make a tree or even know how one really works-- that living
    systems are outside the purview of science. So my father was
    extremely thorough in disproving any hint of telos in Anticipatory
    Systems and in presenting all his ideas via accepted channels
    (mathematics, physics, systems theory, category theory, etc) even
    as he was proving those channels were currently inadequate to do
    the job. What he was trying to show is that one simply has to
    widen what is allowed in science and then all things are possible.
    The prohibitions that have strangled physics' ability to deal with
    biology are all artificial and unnecessary, anyway.

Judith


-- © 2004 John J. Kineman all rights reserved