Friday, February 14 at 13:00 in Centro Carlos Santamaria Room 3 (mind the change in the habitual room). The talk will be hybrid. If you want to participate, please contact m.aste.tb2@gmail.com

The aim of this work is to re-examine the organisational conception of teleology, in light of what I call the biological organisation’s plasticity, i.e., its capacity to change its conditions of existence as a teleological self-determining entity. The work is structured in two parts. I start by detecting a tension between two co-existing tendencies within the organisational approach (OA). One sees organisms as having one goal, or telos, namely existence, often cast as self-maintenance or maintenance of viability. The other sees organisms as having no telos, but multiple internally defined goals, i.e., their actual conditions of existence, whereby ‘conditions’ are both descriptive and normative. I take these two tendencies to be respectively the OA ‘metaphysical’ stance on living beings (in a ‘Kantian’ sense), and the model-theoretic operationalisation of such stance. While connected, the two tendencies bear implications for how we understand the organisation’s plasticity. In the first case, regulation changes the means to achieve the same telos, thus change is goal-directed (the end counterfactually determines its means). In the second, goals themselves change, but this change is not goal-directed (there is no ‘higher’ telos beyond present conditions). Afterwards, I propose to consider more closely the relationship between teleology and plasticity, to possibly conciliate these two perspectives. Here I take plasticity as the organisation’s capacity to accommodate external or internal inputs by exploring new configurations. On the one hand, “when the end modifies its means” (Moczeck 2022), plasticity keeps the organisation viable. However, ends, seen as a ‘benchmark’ for regulated change (Nicoglou 2024), also underdetermine their means. I suggest that when viability is multiply realisable, the determination of its realisability need not be goal-oriented, introducing a non-teleological dimension to self-determination beyond simply self-maintenance.