THE DIRECT JUSTIFICATION OF ENTELECHY 315 



study the question : What are the factors determining the 

 precise events at a given moment t of the process ? 



Let (f> (E) be the psychoidal or entelechian factor itself, E 

 denoting the " end," and the function <(...) denoting that not 

 " the end " itself but something depending thereon is at work. 

 Let s be the state, i.e. the amount of the whole constructive 

 individualisation already accomplished, and let a be some 

 specific alteration of this state coming from without. Then 

 the events B at the moment t would be expressed by the 



formula : l 



B =/ |> (E), s, a] 



If it can be shown that </> (E) cannot be resolved into 

 other elements it follows that some factor based upon the 

 category of individuality is at work. 



But all this would not amount to very much; it would 

 be far too summary, so to say. 



No " Causa Finalis " 



Let us begin our further analysis by referring once more 

 to our formula. 



We have written </> (E) and not E '; this implies a very 

 important statement indeed. 



We know already that our entelechy is no kind of 

 causality, though it resembles causality. A cause is only a 

 change in space which univocally determines another change 

 in space ; entelechy therefore is not a cause. But what 

 then of the famous " causa finalis " ? Simply this, that 

 the term is completely absurd without further explanation. 

 In the first place, as we know, there is no proper " causa " ; 



1 This formula will be found discussed at full length in my Localisation 

 morphogcnctischcr Vorgdnge, (1899) and in ray Organische Regulationen (1901), 

 p. 172. 



