THE INDIRECT JUSTIFICATION OF ENTELECHY 185 



that we have charged it with too little, that future experience 

 will enlarge the sphere of its acting. But it always is the 

 best scientific method not to assume more of the new than 

 is absolutely necessary. 



In attributing to entelechy the suspending of possible 

 becoming exclusively, though in a changeable and regulable 

 way, we at the same time, I believe, have avoided one 

 very bad mistake that has been very often a reproach to 

 vitalists. We have not imputed any action to entelechy 

 that might seem to represent any amount of energy in 

 itself, and in fact we could not do so, as we had most 

 strictly refuted any kind of theory regarding entelechy 

 itself as a sort of energy. Suspending the compensation 

 of uncompensated differences of intensities among coupled 

 kinds of energies and relaxing that suspension are in fact 

 not acts that would require any amount of energy. For, 

 we repeat, our hypothetic act of suspending and setting 

 free actually uncompensated potentials by no means relates 

 to a removal of obstacles, such as occurs in catalysis, 1 for 

 example. 



We must always very carefully discriminate between 

 creating differences of potential and suspending the compen- 

 sation of existing differences. The former can only happen 

 by an actual transfer of energy, whereas for suspending and 

 for relaxing of suspension no transfer of energy is required, 

 but simply a transformation of energy from actuality into 

 a potential form, and vice versa. 



1 On the theory of "intermediate reactions" the part played by the 

 catalyser would also require no extra amount of energy. 



