to cyberspace from the biofilm to the nano film a new smooth space across which

To cyberspace from the biofilm to the nano film a new

This preview shows page 16 - 19 out of 21 pages.

to cyberspace, from the biofilm to the nano-film; a new smooth space across which the war machine slides. Endnotes 1The notion of distress here derives from Greg Egan’s fascinating science fiction text, Distress, (1995). Distress in the book relates to an affective virus, a condition brought on by the impending implosion of the information/matter duality through the discovery of a 'theory of everything' which would reengineer reality from the bottom up. 2On this point, see B. Massumi (2002: 27).
Background image
3To sidestep this obstacle, the CCRU (Cybernetic Culture Research Unit) has develop the concept of unbelief in relation to hyperstitional phenomena, i.e. virtual (or fictional) entities which actualise themselves, e.g. the migration of the concept of cyberspace from fiction to the everyday. On the concept of hyperstition, see the Digital Hyperstition edition of Abstract Culture at . 4Whitehead ‘s notion of prehension, together with the notions of 'actual entity', 'nexus' and 'ontological principle' constitute the primary notions of the philosophy of the organism. Prehensions aim to 'express the most concrete mode of analysis applicable to every grade of individual activity.' Prehensions define the real individual facts of relatedness. See Whitehead (978: 18-22). 5See Damasio (2003: 58). 6The term ‘eukaryotic’ derives from "eukaryote" or nucleated cell ororganism. Nucleated cells are characterised by a nucleus-bounded membrane. 7See L. Margulis (1971: 3-11). 8This understanding of eukaryotic evolution was first proposed in the 1920s by the American biologist Ivan Wallin. In the 1981 book, Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, Lynn Margulis confirmed the endosymbiotic theory as she proposed that the eukaryotic cells originated as communities of interacting entities that joined together in a specific order. 9As explained by A. Goffey (2003), the understanding of the immune system in terms of networks derives from Niels Jerne hypothesis of idiotypic networks, pointing at the connectedness of all cells composing the immune system and explaining how immune reactions 'are a consequence of the network’s loss of plasticity.' Goffey goes on to explain that the notion of immune networks was adopted by Varela and Anspach arguing that such network is an autonomous autopoietic system. The connectedness of this system challenges any distinction between the inside and the outside, whichwas at the centre of a previous understanding of immunity: as the 'science of self-nonself discrimination' (6). For Varela et al. the network of cell interactions defining the immune system 'determinesthe sensitivity of the network to any of its elements. Such sensitivitycoincides with these elements degrees of connectedness: the less connected the network to any element, the more likely that element will be rejected' (27). Goffey concludes that metastability is a useful term to understand such network dynamics, in which the immune networks 'provide evidence for an ongoing process of individuation, itself a more or less chaotic process.' (28). From this standpoint we
Background image
argue that the symbiotic evolution of the immune system from
Background image
Image of page 19

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 21 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • DanielKevles
  • Bacteria, bacterial colonies, bacterial communication

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture