Challenging integralism, Aristotelian entelecheia, hyle and morphe (form), and contemporary concepts of information, touching upon the aetiological issues of carcinogenesis (with reflecting feedbacks of Paul Beaulieu, Ana Bazac, Anna Makolkin, Leonardo Chiatti, Milan Tasić and Dariusz Szkutnik)
Creators: name: Bremer, Josef
name: Khroutski, Konstantin S.
name: Klimek, Rudolf
name: Tadeusiewicz, Ryszard
Publisher: name: Biocosmology – neo-Aristotelism
Year: 2017
Subjects: theory of information
Aristotle’s entelechism and hylemorphism
aetiology of four causes
Aristotle as a biologist
contemporary formulas of information
Aristotelian influence on Thomas Aquinas
animate and inanimate information
Aristotle’s teleological scientific naturalism

description: The given paper reflects and unites the Integralist (originally independent) scholarly endeavors and results of the four authors, that were initially realized through the decades of preceding intensive scientific pursuits. In general, this collective work is devoted to a dedicated reader who strives to develop Integralist (systemic, holistic) research, and, chiefly – is interested in studying the methodological bases of such (Integralist) scientific activity. Another essential point is that our sought-for scholar recognizes (explicitly, or implicitly) – together with the indispensible significance of modern “scientific method” (that is based on the Dualist mathematical physicalism) – the Aristotelian teleological physics (archetype of Entelechial Hylemorphist naturalism), as the essential constituent of present-day Integralist research and development (in its contemporary forms, primarily including current theories of Information). In fact, up to now – in our time of urgent challenges, firstly aiming to approach the scholarly breakthroughs that would ensure progress in addressing the multiple and interrelated crises and challenges the world faced (including the acute problem of cancer diseases) – we all, still, entirely base our efforts (rigorously believing in) the methodological (cosmological – comprehensive, in general) principles of research that were established yet in the XVII-th century. Francis Bacon (1561–1626), who fiercely fought (and eventually won) against the Aristotelian naturalism (based on Entelechism and Hylemorphism) – in the name of triumph of Dualist idealism (mathematics) and physicalism (empiricism and reductionism), and their experimental (i.e. artificial) application – Bacon himself taught (in the 1620, in his famous “Novum Organum”) that “truth is rightly called the daughter of time and not of authority” ; and concluded that scientific gentlemen (of his time) were under “the spell of antiquity, of authors and of consent”, which had “so shackled men’s courage that (as if bewitched) they have been unable to get close to things themselves.” [Ibid.] In very deed, we have the same situation (but, four centuries later – already with quite an opposite meaning); and science certainly is not a religion (wherein, man pursues One the same religion and speaks exclusively the same language – of the given fundamental invariable “religious” doctrine), but, quite the contrary – the institute of science (as the essential constituent of culture) naturally undergoes the dynamic cycles of development and transformation; and, for this, in our XXI-st century – the time is ripe. The contents of the present article are given below.