Re: [Fwd: teleonomic, teric, etc]
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Wed, 7 Feb 1996 12:58:45 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU,Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
In our concept of complexity, (mainly from Rosen and Kampis) there
is a distiction between simple systems and complex systems. This
distinctions centrally involves a refinement of these terms. The
classic definitions seem insufficient in the present context.
Newtonian physics and reductionist science reject any form of
purposefullness as "unscientific" and often then use "vitalism"
as a perjorative to punctuate this rejection.
It seems clear to us that this throws out the baby with
the bath water. In fact, we can make a very strong case for the
rejection of posivist logic and the acceptance of constructivist
ideas in its place. A central point is the substitution of "why"
questions for "how" questions. This is not a new idea and it rests
in Aristotelian causality. There are four Aristotelian causes,
material,efficient, formal, and final. The last two are rejected by
the reductionists. However, we cxan demonstrate that all complex
systems involve all four causes, especially final cause. In a few
words, the final cause is deeply invi\olved with anticipitory models
which are inbuilt in complex systems. We therefore, suggest that
the discussion so far is at best a dated one and potentially very
misleading unless we take these modern notions of complexity into
the discussion.
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky