Forwarded message:
From: Self <ZONDISK/HANSS>
To: PRNCYB-L@BINGVMB.bitnet
Subject: Re: [Fwd: teleonomic, teric, etc]
Reply-to: hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 11:12:04
> >Dear listmembers, a little system science question.
> >In system science there is a distinction between teleologic,
> >teleonomic and teleoretic. Can somebody give me a reference or strait
> >explanation where it is clearly lined out what the difference is?
>
> Never heard of "teleoretic". The classic article on teleonomy (as opposed
> to teleology) is
Thanks for the answers, and i confused a few terms.
I meant to ask the difference between teleological, teleonomic and
teleomatic. I confused these things with homeostatic, and homeoretic.
In an answer to Francis, I know the common explanations as with
regard to vitalism and the like. I did not state to clearly what I
meant I realize now. I am trying to find definitions of what
teleo...etc is for a system, so when do you call a system
teleo..blabla.
The reason for this is that I am studying a thesis I was guided to by
the author on www, on memes, but better than that on cultural
evolutionary theories, as in science and the like. The author claims,
and has my support that Lamarckian theorists of science processes
see the process of science as a nested set of teleologic, including
the set of teleonomic, and teleonomic including the set of
teleomatic. I will quote from him directly:
John S Wilkins, in chapter 5 of his thesis 'evolutionary models of
scientific theory change' at
http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/MA/index.html :
' The paradigm case of an end-seeking system is, of course, cognition in humans,
and,
arguably, of other higher animals. Concepts, as conjectures, are adopted with
the intention of
solving problems, attaining ends and so forth. The philosophical exemplar of cog
nition is that of
rational revision - individuals revising their belief set after deep reflection
to better solve those
problems. The approach of our lamarckians to large scale conceptual change is to
invert the telic
"pyramid". They assume (in Rescher's case with some argument) that in the case
of science the
teleomatic is nested in the teleonomic and that set is nested in the
teleological. In other words,
theoretical constructs such as laws (teleomatic conceptual entities) are
outcomes of methodological
activity (teleonomic conceptual activity) which is the outcome of intentional
application of method
(teleological conceptual activity). Inverting the biological hierarchy this way
makes for a major
disanalogy with evolution in the Darwinian sense, and this is a focal objection
not only in studies of
science and epistemology, but also in more general anthropological debate. It is
objected that we
"make" our social and epistemic world with purpose. Since darwinism
fundamentally has no need of
purpose in order to explain the appearance of purpose,[1] the lamarckians
conclude that darwinian
accounts are at best unnecessary and at worst horribly wrong and misleading. So,
we need to see
whether intentionality is indeed the hallmark of science, just as a cultural
evolutionist would need to
show that social planning is not needed to account for social change,
even if, in some cases, it is.;'
Maybe you need to know about the distictions he makes in lamarckian,
teilhardian, bergsonian and darwinianevolutionary theories. But in that case I
must refer to his thesis, or you must be very interested, then i can
try to summarize.
Anyway, that was the reason for my question.
hc
Theories come and go, the frog stays [F. Jacob]
-------------------------------------------------------
|Hans-Cees Speel School of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and management
|Technical University Delft, Jaffalaan 5 2600 GA Delft PO Box 5015 The
Netherlands
|telephone +3115785776 telefax +3115783422 E-mail hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
HTTP://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/~afd_ba/hanss.html featuring evolution and memetics!