Epigenetic Phenomenology of Entirety: General Comments and Observations on Epigenetic Information, in: Challenging Integralism, Aristotelian Entelecheia, Hyle and Morphe (Form), and Contemporary Concepts of Information, Touching upon the Aetiological Issues of Carcinogenesis (with Reflecting Feedbacks of Josef Bremer, Konstantin Khroutski, Rudolf Klimek, Ryszard Tadeusiewicz, Paul Beaulieu, Ana Bazac, Anna Makolkin, Leonardo Chiatti, Milan Tasić and Dariusz Szkutnik)
| dc.contributor.author | Szkutnik, Dariusz Adam | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-06-16T07:05:43Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-06-16T07:05:43Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.description | This work, critically reflecting on the joint article of J. Bremer , K. Khroutski, R. Klimek and R. Tadeusiewicz (2017) – presents the methodological development of scientific research in the field of the specificity of processes occurring in living organisms. Author begins with the analysis of historical scientific approaches that clearly show the development of particular scientific positions (Aristotle, Wilhelm Roux, Hans Driesch, and Hans Spemann). Further, author focuses his attention on the clear distinction between epigenetic theory and the theory of preformation which, in the historical development of embryological research – have sought to dominate in the adequate explanation of the peculiarities of organic phenomena. Both the theory of preformation and the theory of epigenesis were based on their own types of rationality, and on their own cosmological bases, therefore striving to explain the problematics associated with biological development. In this work, indirectly, the category (methodological notion) of information also has been included as one of the basic developmental factors for the all physicochemical structures. This fundamental category was lacked directly in the research of above-mentioned authors, but which, in turn, forces modern researches to modify and improve historical and contemporary scientific approaches. | |
| dc.description.abstract | 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.” 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. | eng |
| dc.description.sponsorship | Nie dotyczy | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2225-1820 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repozytorium.ur.edu.pl/handle/item/12557 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.publisher | Biocosmological Association | |
| dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International | en |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
| dc.subject | Aristotle’s Bio-philosophy | |
| dc.subject | Driesch’s Entelechy | |
| dc.subject | embryology | |
| dc.subject | phenomenology | |
| dc.subject | reductionism | |
| dc.subject | organizer | |
| dc.subject | experiment | |
| dc.subject | information | |
| dc.title | Epigenetic Phenomenology of Entirety: General Comments and Observations on Epigenetic Information, in: Challenging Integralism, Aristotelian Entelecheia, Hyle and Morphe (Form), and Contemporary Concepts of Information, Touching upon the Aetiological Issues of Carcinogenesis (with Reflecting Feedbacks of Josef Bremer, Konstantin Khroutski, Rudolf Klimek, Ryszard Tadeusiewicz, Paul Beaulieu, Ana Bazac, Anna Makolkin, Leonardo Chiatti, Milan Tasić and Dariusz Szkutnik) | |
| dc.type | article |