[D-G] <<If the goal is information storage, there's no need to use a cell>>

Johnatan Petterson internet.petterson at gmail.com
Fri Aug 11 07:43:27 PDT 2017

today,was browsing anews~paper , this morning (theguardian 16august2012;
a paper about viral crossfertilization to a computer equipped with DNA
then a paper about a Book, written in 2012, with inkjet printer, a DNA Book.
<<complications and some risks>> involved with living organisms,
mentioned in the 2012paper.
but i found this related to the atp deleuze guattari quote from the
universalis,encyclopedia entry, saying "life" ("carbon") cannot work
together with "computer" ("silice")"l'agencement vie n'est pas
machiniquement possible avec le silicium" (mil plateaux-p350) ou encore:
-"la machine abstraite ne le laisse pas passer, parce qu'il ne distribue
pas lez zones de voisinage qui construisent le plan d'consistance". "il"
here is "l'agencement vie" ie. the agency life.

what do ya think?

the word "abstract machine" here refers to the specific logical relation
between silicium molecules and organic life molecules? abstract machine,
thus, the meaning of neighborhood, is: the compound "silicium"-"carbon",
"etc" (organic), found as basis of computer industry in the 1980's (so they
seem to suggest with the words 'distribution of neighborhood zones') lacks
(human?) understanding of 'our freedom', 'our reality' (in the platonic
sense) we people to become.

(they were just talking about drug-becomings,  water drinking experiences)

i see it thus, in retrospect, more as a cautious critique of the humans in
charge of inventing/designing the physical engeneering in the computers.

the teacher in university (ULB) where i studied philo, came a question on
the passage, similar in guise in Foucault 1984.
and Pierre Verstraeten, said he didnot know what to think about it
but to ask Isabelle Zaza Stengers instead! who was in her class (in 1993)
talking about questions such like: -- Why is Science so dogmatically
hermetic to Ghosts, TeleKinesis, Psychic & Stuffs, and wants "facts" which
disqualify "superstition". She wanted to raise this issue.
I personnaly think she did bifork, and diverted the course of her
questions, without having found an answer, a satifactory echo in the
scientific community?
Or this answer took the form of the Sokal Bricmont controversy against
Bruno Latour?
Maybe someone here will be more informed than i am on Isabelle work.

Regards to whomeever is now in the process, of reading my name:

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list