Entellechy, Question it be Options

If one entellechy be bound to another entellechy, how to sever that binding without the death of the one or the annihilation of the other?

Were it possible, why would one do it?

Greetings!
Just in case you(all) aren't familiar with the word....

"This was the word I was looking for:
entelechy (en-TEL-uh-kee) noun
1. Perfect realization as opposed to a potentiality.
2. In some philosophies, a vital force that propels one to self-fulfillment.
[From Late Latin entelechia, from Greek entelecheia, from enteles (complete), from telos (end, completion) + echein (to have).]"

I would imagine that the bond formed should be contemplated. Catastrophic endings need not rule the day. And then certainly why would one wish to sunder a relationship if it is/has been mutually beneficial?

That being said...I'm wondering "interogatively" if this post is going someplace that can be construed as dealing with the occult, magic or of a discussion on/about mysticism? There are those here that will find that fencing words as being entertaining but for those of us that are more obtuse, can we stay within the borders of this Forum? I've noticed some of your replies oin other areas and they tend toward brevity which is discouraged when you first post on this Forum. Please refer to the guidelines. I look forward to hearing more from you...you have taught me two new words within the space of 3 days. I am intrigued. I hope you will find the site a rewarding one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Master Bym,

First I should tender apologies at brevity, though in the past that is not an act I would have been accused of rather the reverse. I also find that as certain malfunctions continue that a certain amount of recursion is slinking into my communicatrions. While recursion isn't as bad for me as it would be for an AI, it can none the less be rather annoying, i.e.: a scratched record repeating the same phrase for hours.

Second, while in some ways an entellechy might border upon majick or what some term entities the question posed would be more of philosphical discussion. No intent to argue, defame, or as some would say "flame" was intended--rather more of a "Hello, it be here" from one that has unfortunately lost a bit more ability at socialization than might at first be apparent. Bubbly I am not nor can I be. Then again there isn't much need for any copious socialization as it does tend to put moderns off after a while--nature of the beast in a sense.

I would hope that my declaratives be not too strong as I have no intent to offend, though some would disagree. On to more divers pleasures though as the toil awaits. May your endeavours be pleasant.

It appears that none have much to say on the matter--dissolution (as in disintigration and/or dispersion to end the bond) would seem to be the most achievable solution then.

Semper Praesto

Et obediere et viviere, et viviere et obediere

Time is now: 23rd March 2006 - 03:20 AM
Topic Moved from Coffee Shop to Pyschology, Philosophy, & Religion.

It appears that none have much to say on the matter

If you truly wish to facilitate discussion on this topic it would be helpful to develop your statements further. One sentence gives the reader very little to consider. A number of questions come to mind that for myself would serve to provide enough information for actual discussion.
Example:

• In what context are you using the term entelechy?
• Within the framework of Aristotle's \\"Metaphysics\\"?
• If so, what is the nature of the proposed relationship?
• As an incident of First cause in matter?
• As a state of pure entelechy (god) or a shared state?
• The initial form of the soul?
• A state of entelechy(actuality) and dynamis(potentiality) that is static?
• To what are we relating this bounded entelechy?(matter, form, being?)
• Do we stick to Aristotle's view that Actuality is the highest determinations of being?
• Plato's view that ideas are the highest determination?
• Some arbitrary concept?
• Do we take in account Giordano Bruno's concept of the Bonding agent as being predisposed to bond by it's order, measure, and type?

Do we instead recognize that entelechy and metaphysics in general provides no means to determine conclusions? Shouldn't we consider that these concepts lie within the Noumenal realm, and any conclusions or questions on matters are ultimately worthless as they lack any means to provide empiracal data?

--dissolution (as in disintigration and/or dispersion to end the bond) would seem to be the most achievable solution then.

In this case we have no point of reference, and we can determine in the same manner that dissolution(as in disintegration and/or dispersion to end the bond) is actually the most difficult solution to achieve. With no method or logic to follow we determine that greatest chance of success is dissipation, coagualtion , distillation, conflagration, fusion, fission, eating Chocolate Ice Cream, contemplation, evaporation, digestion, or any other random idea we choose to assign.

Master Crowley,

The ooriginal was meant in a more pragmatic way, though I must admit that as badly as I malfunction anymore that there truly be no point in continuance of the matter.

It should be obvious that I haven't the wit to form a cogent thought, much less such an auric scintillation as I am faced with.

I yield the field to you sir.