THE INDIRECT JUSTIFICATION OF ENTELECHY 161 



But we have shown nothing more. The important question 

 now inevitably arises : What are the ultimate relations 

 between the inorganic and our autonomous entelechy? 

 What is the meaning of saying that inorganic factors are 

 not sufficient for explanation ? In what way are in- 

 organic factors, so to speak, counteracted in the organic 

 world ? 



That the closest relations exist between the organic and 

 the inorganic is most clearly shown, for instance, by our 

 studies of the " means " of morphogenesis ; moreover, it is 

 evident from the mere fact that every organisation exhibits 

 as many different systems of organs as it is able to perform 

 functions, in other words, as it shows mutual relations to 

 the inorganic. In fact, knowing what it means to be an 

 organism, and what the different agents of the medium are, 

 one could really deduce what systems of organs an 

 organism must possess. 



Thus our important question is inevitable. We are 

 simply obliged to attack the problem as to what the most 

 intimate relation between inorganic nature and entelechy 

 implies. 



We shall try to get a solution by degrees, studying one 

 by one the general scientific conceptions of the inorganic 

 world, and always bringing entelechy into relation to it. 

 We shall begin with so-called energetics ; pure mechanical 

 physics is to follow. 



What then does it mean to assert, as we do, that the 

 Organic crosses the border of the Inorganic ? What does it 

 mean in terms of energetics and of mechanics ? 



And what is to follow ultimately from this discussion 

 about the problem of " entelechy and causality " ? 



ii 



