On Beyond Living - Rhetorical Transformations of The Life Sciences - Richard Doyle

LP bXLP
LVPC
R|.|et|:| 1t:njtm:||ens
||. I S|.n.s
Rchard Doyle
STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 1997
Stanford University Press
Stanford, California
1997 by the Board of Trustees of the
Leland Stanford Junior University
Printed in the United States of Aerica
CIP data are at the end of the book
Figure I (p. 32) is reprinted from My Tompkins Inside
Himsel 1967 by George Gamow and Martynas Y cas.
Used by permission of Viking Penguin, a division of
Penguin Books USA Inc.
Acknowledgments
HIs DCCK CmCr_Cs CUt C!aH CCCC_y, HUmaH aHO CtHCrVIsC. 1VCH !CX
CCr,tHrCU_HHCr tCaCHIH_, VCrK, aHO!rICHOsHIQ, aCtIVatCOaHO!CCUsCO
m astCHIsHmCHt at aHOCVC C!tCCHHCsCICHCC. HIs DCCK VCUO DC Im-
QCssIDC VItHCUt HCr. 1rIaH CtmaHs VCrK aHO VarmtH HaVC mCrQHCO
mDraIHDCCHOrCCC_HItICH. !rCOCrICKCaHs tCaCHIH_, _UIOaHCC, aHO
UICHOsHIQ QCrCCatC tHrCU_H CVCr Qa_C C!tHIs DCCK. ÎCHaC !CrtUH
taU_HtmC HCV tC tHIHKaDCUt QraCtICCs aHOHCV tC QraCtICC sCmC C!m
tHIHKIH_. aU arrIss QHCHC Cas, rCaO trIQs, aHO aU_HtCr CCHstaHt!
rCsCUC mC aHOrCmIHOmC VHatVCrC UQ tC. am CCHtIHUa _ratC!U !Cr
1VItaCHC!!s rCmarKaDC tHCU_HtaHOVarmsUQQCrt.
HC CQartmCHt C!HCtCrIC at Uc. 1CrKCCâtt LCCr_C, Î-
CHaC NItmCrC, !CIQC LUtICrrCZ, PCaHI LUIHH, ÎCHaC ^CCHaO,
jCHH 5CHICssCr, jCHHCaHmaOC ItQCssIDC !CrmC tC HaCKtHC QrCCCss
C!1CCCmIH_-1CaOCmIC aHO taU_HtmCmCrCtHaH CaHrCCCUHt. HaHKs
tC aVIO LCHCH !Cr maKIH_ tHC HCtCrIC CQartmCHt sUCH aH aCatCr
aHO tHCU_Ht!U aCaOCmIC HICHC. am _ratC!U tCjCHHI!Cr LUDCrt !Cr tHC
tHIHKIH_aHO tHCCars C!aUIrmatICH aHOsUQQCrt. HC Uc. UmaHItICs
CsCarCH HstItUtC _rCUQ CH DICtCCHHCC_y QrCVIOCO DCtH !IHaHCIa aHO
CC_HItIVC rCsCUrCCs !Cr tHC Car! QHasCs C! tHIs QrCjCCt. 5QCCIa tHaHKs
tC Lar LraHCr, CHHa araVa, LamI!!C ImC_Cs, aU aDIHCV, aHO
IaHC aU. HC atHCHaU 5UmCr 1CaOCm IH 1CrIH Has QrCVIOCO
mUCH!CCODaCKaHOaIO!CrtHIsQrCjCCttHaHKstCImCtHCHCIr,aHs-
jCr_ HCIHDCr_Cr, aHO CUIs 1aQaH. COOC CIO Has DCCH a !CUHt
C!aOVICC aHO IHsI_Ht, aHO 5tC!aH CmrCICH Has QrCVIOCO mC VItH CrU
CIa CCHVCrsatICHs CVCrVHCrC UCm baHta !C tC LCrHC. ^ tHaHKs tC
tHC ^CCH !CUHOatICH aHO ^ !Cr a ^C!!CH Cst CCtCra !C!CV-
V111 Acknowledgents
sHIQ. CCH artar, aU! 1COIHC, atHaH âC1rICH, aHO 1m 1!atZKIH
CXQCrt! _UIOCO mC tHrCU_HtHC COItIH_ aHOQC!IsHIH_ C!tHC maHUsCrIQt,
DUtamtCDamC!CraHCrrCrstHatCrCQtIHtCtHCDCCK. 5HCrr1rCHHaH,
jCH Ca!CH, CH 1IaCstOsK, 5UsaH 5QUICr, aHO m HCV CHH 5tatC
CCCa_UCs aHC stUOCHts HaVC arCaO HC!QCO mC CUtIVatC a HCV sCt C!
QCssIDItICs IH CCHtra CHHsVaHIa. 1m LrCCHDCr_ HCVCr CCasCs tC
astCUHOmCVItHHCr!CVC,tHCU_Ht,aHOsCHsCC!QCssIDIIt. !IHa!!, O!IKC
tC tHaHKm QarCHts,jaCK aHO1HH CC, VHC _aVCmC mUCH mCrC tHaH
1. HIs DCCKIs OCOICatCOtCmDrCtHCrjCHH.
..
Contents
I. HC5UD!ImCLDjCCtC!1ICC_y I
2. ^r. 5CHrCOIH_CrHsIOC ImsCI HC HCtCrICa LrI_IHs
C!tHC LCHCtIC LCOC 25
3

!rCm LCOCs tCNCrOs. LCCr_C LaCVaHOtHC 1_C C!
tHCNCrO 5CrIQtUrC 3
9
4

ts a UC!CIC1CIONCt!O.^CHCO, jaCCD, aHOI!Cs!UtUrC 65
5

1 Cr_ICs C!CaOIH_. 1, aH_Ua_C, aHOtHC rCDCm
C!LrI_IHs 86
6. 1mCr_CHtCVCr.Ìta!ItyaHO HCC!C_y IH1rtI!ICIa!I!C I09
Notes 135
Bibliography 163
Index 171
ON BEYOND LIVING
CHAPTER 1
The Sublime Object of Biolog
* Our machines are disturbingly lively, and we ourselves are
fighteningly inert.
-Donna Haraway
HIsIs HCtsC mUCH a1CCKasa_rCUQ C!tHCsCsDUHCHCOtC_CtHCr, !C!OCO,
DCUHO,aHOCHCrCOasamaQC!OIsCUrsIVC CVCHtstHatHaVCDCtHCr_aHIZCO
aHOOIstUrDCOVHatIs CaCOtCOa `!I!C `sCICHCC.
Theses
Tesis 1: Wat Now? Wat Knowledge?
LHCtHCsIsIH!aCt, asVarmC!tHCmCCHCCrHstHCC!aImtHatVHatCHCC
!CrmCOtHCrCU_H aHOja__CODCUHOarICs C!a CCHsCHsUs CHtHC CDjCCtC!
DIC!C_y Has sCmCHCV DCCH OIsQ!aCCO, VItH tHC mC!CCU!C CVCrtaKIH_ Cr
tCrrItCrIaIZIH_tHC Cr_aHIsmaHO_CttIH_Q!U__COIHtCtHCCCmQUtCr.Cr-
HaQstHIsIs CH arCCC_HItICH C!aQrICr mU!tIQICItyIHOCCO, I!VC !CCK
C!CsC!, as HaVC trICOtC OC, It sCCms tHatVCHCVCrrCa!!KHCVVHatVC
VCrC taKIH_ aDCUt VHCH VC VCrC ta!KIH_ aDCUt !I!C. ' H tImC VC VI!!
CHCCUHtCr tHC OIUICU!t DUt CHCCrIH_ ImQaCt C!tHC rCCC_HItICH tHat tHIs
OIsCUrsIVC CCHstCatICHHas DCCCmCa rHCtCrICa! D!aCK HC!C, a Q!aCC VHCrC
tHCQUC!tHC OCsIrCtCKHCVVHat!I!CIsDCtH!CUHOsaHOCmDarrassCstHC
!I!C sCICHCCs. 1Ut !Cr HCV, maKC tHIs sImQ!C C!aIm. taKC sHaQsHCts C!
tHCsCQ!aCCsVHCrC tHC rHCtCrICs C!mC!CCU!arDIC!C_s!IQ UQ, aHO CCm-
QarCtHCm, nCtIH_tHCIrOIHCrCHCCs.`
stHIs asImQ!CaHHCUHCCmCHtC!tHCHIstCrICItyC!!I!CsCICHCC:NCrsC
stI!, Is It Ct aHCtHCr DCVIH_ DC!CrC tHC IHCHaDI!Ity C!tHC VIta: 5CmC
tImCs,QCrHaQs.1UttHIsIHtCrVCHtICHHCQCstCtaKCsCrICUs!tHCOIHCrCHCC
tHat QCststrUCtUra!Ism maKCs, sC m CHCCuHtCr VItH tHC CtHCrHCss tHat
aHImatCs tHC OIsCCUrsC C!mC!CCU!ar DIC!C_y sCCKs aH aHa!sIs VItH tHC
`CUtsIOC C!sCICHtIC OIsCCUrCtHatCaHHCtsImQ!DCCa!!CO`HIstCrICa!,
2 Sublime Object of Biolog
`!ItCrar, Cr CVCH `mCtaQHsICa. HC rC!atICHs C!!CrCCs tHat Cr_aHIZC
VHat VC Ca !I!C, VHat VC tHIHK a DCO Is, !Crm a VHC!C mCHu C!tHC
uHtHCu_Ht aHO tHC uHtHIHKaDC, aHO tHCsC !CrCCs OC HCt !CaVC VHat VC
CCu!OCa!!`HIstCr uHtCuCHCO.CrOCtHC!CaVC `sCICHCCIHtaCt. Hus,
tHC QuCstICHtHatIstHIstHCsIs. Wat are we studying when we study life, today?
HIs QuCstICH Cr_aHIZCs CaCH rCaOIH_ _IVC C! tHC Va IH VHICH
aH_ua_C sCrVCs as aH aCtIVC rCQCsItCr C!tHC uHtHCu_Ht C!sCICHCC, Its
`sC!tVarC. H CHaQtCr 2, `^r. 5CHrCOIH_Cr HsIOC ImsC!!, tHC QCCuIar
!Crmu!atICH C!tHC `CCOC-sCrIQt C!HCrCOIty, as VC!! as tHC sHCCOCCHa
suDstItutICH C!HCrCOIt !Cr!I!C, Is sCrVCOuQ as aH CXamQ!C C!tHC OIsjuHC-
tICHs aHO sIQQa_Cs tHataHImatC sCICHtIHC OIsCCursC. 1t tHC CXQCHsC C!a
HIstCrICa! aCCCuHt C!1rVIH 5CHrCOIH_Crs OCQCmCHt C!tHC rHCtCrIC C!
CCOCs,IHVHICHCHC CCu!O!CCusCHtHC `CCHtCXt C!5CHrCOIH_CrsmCVC,
traCC Cut tHC OIsCursIVC CVCHt ÌtsC!!. CrC !CCVÎCHC !CuCaut IH
QuCstICHIH_ tHC OCCuCHt. atHCr tHaH trCatIH_ 5CHrCOIH_Crs tCXt as aH
arCHIVa mCmCr sCurCC D VHICH HIstCrIaHs rCCCHstruCt tHC Qast, I aHa-
!ZC It as a rHCtOr1Ca a!_CrItHm, a OIa_ram C!tHC !CrCCs tHat Cr_aHIZCO
5CHrCOIH_Crs tCXt aHO, at a OIstaHCC, !uCCO tHC mCCCu!arIZatICH C!!I!C."
HCHaQtCr3 , `!rCmLCOCstCNCrOs. LCCr_C LamCVaHOtHC1_C C!tHC
NCr!O5CrIQturC, HI_HI_Ht a `HCCIHLamCVs sCHCmC !CrtraHs!atIH_
1IHtC QrCtCIHs, aHCC tHat CCmCs tC staHO!CraH aDsCHtDCOCrCC!.
LHaQtCr4, `ts auC!CIC1CIONCr!O. PCHCO, jaCCD, aHOI!Cs !uturC,
!CCusCs CHtHC tCmQCra! QrCD!CmatICs QrCVCKCOD tHC !CCaIZatICH C!I!C
IH tHC sCvCrCI_H _CHCmC. LHaQtCr 5 , `1!Cr_ICs C!CaOIH_. 1, aH-
_ua_C, aHO tHC rCDCm C! LrI_IHs CXQCrCs tHC rHCtCrICa QrCDCms
assOCIatCO VItH tHC CrCssCVCr C!I!C aHO aH_ua_C IH tHC H_urC C!1.
`1mCr_CHt CVCr. Ìta!Ity aHO HCC!C_ IH 1rtIHCIa! I!C traCKs tHC
HCV C! !I!C as It mCVCs CHtC tHC CCmQutCr, a VIrtua VIHOCV CH tHC
QCstVIta!.
H tHIs DCCK, tHCH, VaHt tC CVCrCCmC tHC trCatmCHt C!HIstCrICa
sCurCCsas sItCsC!mCaHIH_aHOHI_H!I_HttHCIraCtIVIt, tHCIr!CrCCs. `HC-
tCrICa sC!tVarC Is a CCIHa_CtHat HCQC HC!Qs HI_HI_Ht tHC !aCttHattHC
rHCtCrICs C!!I!C sCICHCC, as IHtCr!aCCs, HaO CHCCts CtHCrtHaH tHCIr mCaH-
IH_s aHO tHat tHCIr `mCaHIH_s arC VCCtCrs C! !CrCC aHO sI_HIHCatICH.
Hus, tHCsIstVC.
Thesis 2: How Does Language Matter?
^ sHaQsCts arC rHCtCrICa CHCs, aVKVarO aHO sCmCtImCs uHOCrOCVC!-
CQCO, tHCHCHCtHC!CssDrIH_CuttHC!aIHtIma_C C!VHat5aVCj
_
IZCKHas
Sublime Object of Biolog 3
CaLCO tHC `matCrIaIZatCH C!DCIC!` atHCr tHaH a mCrC OCsCrQtICH
Cr HCUrIstC !Cr tHC !C sCCHCCs, tHC rHCtCrICs C!CCOC, HstrUCtCH, aHO
QrC_ram matCraZCODCC!s HtC sCICHCCs aHO tCCHHCC_ICs. CrC CC-
aQsCtHC OVIsCHC!ItCraraHOmatCrIatCCHHCC_Cs CUtHCOD 5mCH
5CHaHCr aHO 5tCVCH 5HaQIH IH tHCr Leviathan. NHC UsC!U H Its HsIs-
tCHCC CHtHC mQCrtaHCC C!tHC rHCtCrICa CCHstrUCtCH C!sCCHtIHC !aCts,
5CHaHCraHO 5HaQIHs OIVsICH C!tHCtCrar!rCmtHC matCraUtmatC
QrVIC_Cs tHC matCrIa attHC CXQCHsC C!VrItH_. HOCCO, IHtHCr OCsCrQ-
tCH C!tHC sCICHt!IC tCXt, 5CHaHCr aHO 5HaQIH OCQCHO CH a rCQrCsCHta-
tCHamCOCC!rHCtCrIC. `NCUsUa tHIHKC!aHCXQCrmCHtarCQCrtasa
HarratCHC!sCmCQrICr
IsUaCXQCrCHCC.tQCIHtstCsCHsCrCXQCrICHCCs
tHatICDCHIHOtHCtCXt. HsIs CCrrCCt. CVCVCr, VC sHCUOasCaQQrCCI-
atC tHat tHC tCXt tsC! CCHsttUtCs a VsUa sCUrCC.' Hat s, HarratVC
!UHCtICHs as a KIHO C!sUQQCmCHt tC tHC matCrIa tCCHHCC_y C!tHC ar
QUmQ,!ramH_ItIH aCCHCrCHtaHOQCrsUasIVC!asHCHsCtHatCtHCrsmI_t
DCCCHVIHCCOC!CDCrt1CCs HHOIH_ataOIstaHCCIHtHC aDsCHCCC!tHC
QUmQ CrC!1CC. 1HOCttHIs !ramIH_CVCrCCKstHCVaIH VHCH sUCH
`HarratICHsC!tCHQrICrtCtHCCXQCrImCHts,astHCCr_aHZIH_mCtaQHCrs
aHOHIstCrC!tHCQrCjCCt.Hats,tHCHarratICHC!CXQCrImCHtsQCHtsHCt
jUst tC sCHsCr CXQCrICHCCs tHat IC DCHHO tHC tCXt DUt asC tC CtHCr
HarratIVCstH
g
trCHOCrtHCmatCrIaCr_aHIZatICHC!tHC CXQCrImCHtQCrsUa-
sIVC aHOCCHCrCHt. !CrCXamQC, tHCHarratVC C!1CCsQUmQsQCIHtCOtC
CtHCr, mQICIt HarratIVCs aDCUt tHC rCatVC VaUC C!VsUa rCQrCsCHtatICH
aHO aDCUt tHC mastCr C!1CC tHC sCCHtIst. HCsC VCrC HCt mCrC
suQQCmCHts tC tHC QUmQ, tHCVCrC a Qart C!tHC HCtVCrK C!QCVCr aHO
tHIHKIH_tHatmaOC1CCsQrCjCCtQCssIDC.
HUs, aH CmQHass CHtHCrCQrCsCHtatICHa!UHCtCH C!HarratIVC CVCr-
CCKs tHC HarratIVa strUCtUrIH_ C!CXQCrImCHts. LCHsCQUCHt, t_HCrCs
tHC OsjUHCtCHs aHO CC!aDCratCHs amCH_ tCCHHCC_ICs, rHCtCrICa aHO
CtHCrVsC,aHOtHUsCHOsUQ QCstIH_aHIstCrICaa_CHtHCCmmaHOC!HCr
techne. 1CCHtrast,VaHttCar_UCtHatrHCtCrCsVCrKmCrCCHtHCmCOC
C!CCHta_CH tHaH CCmUHCatCH CrrCQrCsCHtatICH, tHC Qass tHrCU_H
UCOs aHO a_CHts as 1HtCrtCXtUa !CrCCs tHat rCCast KHCVCO_Cs aHO tHCIr
KHCVCrsVHICsCmCtImCsrCmaIHIH_H tHCrCamC!tHCUHtHCU_Ht,VHat
!rCOrCHICtZsCHC CaCOtHC UHHIstCrCa, tHC aCts C!!Cr_CttIH_IHtC_ra
tCaHaCt C!CrCatCH.'
HCtCrCsarC Oa_rams C!tHC `C
_
tsOC, traCCsC!tHC!Cr_CttCHCQCra
tCHs C!QCVCr aHO mCtaQHsCs CHaHOVItHIH sCCHCC.jaCQUCs CrrIOas
aHasIs C!mCtaQHCrQrCVOCs UsVItHaCasCIHQCIHt.
4 Sublime Object of Biology
Metaphor has been issued fom a network of philosophemes which themselves
correspond to tropes or to figures, and these philosophemes are contempo
raneous to or in systematic solidarity with these tropes or figures . ... If one
wished to conceive and to class al the metaphorical possibilities of philosophy,
one metaphor, at least, always would remain excluded, outside the system: the
metaphor, at the very least, without which the concept of metaphor could not
be constructed, or to syncopate an entire chain of reasoning, the metaphor of
metaphor.8
!CrCrrIOa,VrItIH_aDCUttHCVrItIH_C! QHICsCQH, tHIsImQCssIDIItC!
arrIVIH_at tHC HHa! CrCCmQCtC mCtaQHCrC!mCtaQHCrCXHIDItsQHICsC
QHs OCQCHOCHCC CHtHCQassCOCVCr, tHCQrCtCrIt, sCmCtHIH_`CUtsIOCtHC
sstCm. Hat Is, tHC VCr VCrKIH_ C!mCtaQHCr, tHC !aCt C!mCtaQHCr,
tCstIHCs tC tHC !aCt tHat aH_Ua_C VCrKs tHrCU_H a !Cr_CttIH_, at tHC VCr
Casta!Cr_CttIH_ C!VHatVC mCaH D mCtaQHCr. LUr maHIa !CraCCCUHts
C!aH_Ua_CtHatstrCsstHCQCssIDIIt C!UHIVCCaItyaHOCVCrCCKtHC!CrCC
aHOrHCtCrICItC!!aH_Ua_C CCC!UOCstHC Vas IHVHICH!aH_Ua_C mattCrs.
HCrC CaHDC HC CasOIstIHCtICHDCtVCCHVrItIH_aHOIts `CDjCCts, DCtH
arC C!CmCHts C!aH IHtCr!aCC. HC rC!atICHs tHatmaKCUQ tHIs IHtCr!aCCarC
maQs C!QCVCr.
HUs, !aH_Ua_C Is mCrC tHaH tVC-OImCHsICHa~It Is HCtsImQ!sI_Hs
aHO sI_HICOs DUt ratHCr aH CCCHCm C!CIHCrCHCCs tHat IHC!UOCs sI_Hs,
tHIH_s, aHO what it is possible to say. HIs rCam C!tHC QCssIDC Is a KIHO C!
!CrCC HCO tHat Cr_aHIZCs tHC rCatICHDCtVCCH `sI_Hs aHO `tHIH_s. HC
traCCs aHO traCIH_s C!tHIs rCa!m CaH DC rCaO CUt C!rHCtCrICa OCVICCs,
tCCHHC!C_ICs C!aH_Ua_C tHat aCtCHaHOIHDCOICs,CUtUrCs,aHOsCICHCCs.
1aCHrHCtCrICa!OCVICC~DIts C!sC!tVarC~CaHDCtraCCOCUt, _IVCHamCr-
QHCC_y, OIa_rammCO.
LHC Vay IH VHICH tHC !CrCC C!!aH_Ua_C CaH DC OIa_rammCO Is tC
DrIH_tC!I_HttHCsUDstItUtICHsaHOmCVCmCHtsVrCU_HtDrHCtCrICs. !Cr
IHstaHCC, CHCCaHOIa_ramtHC!CrCCstHatmaOCQCssID!CtHCCCaIZatICHC!
!I!C IH a _CHC, tHC ItCra/rHCtCrICa!CramUH_C!tHC DCOIHtC tHC CHrC-
mCsCmC Cr, IH tHC CasC C!artI!ICIa!!I!C,IHtC aQ!XC!. HatIs, tHC rHCtCrICs
artICU!atCOIHtHC!I!CsCICHCCsarCIHOCXCsC!aùCtaQHCrC! mCtaQHCr,tC
UsC CrrIOas QHrasC, VHCsC amHCsIa CXICHOCO tC tHC DCO. ÛCH C!tHIs
DCCK, IH !aCt, Is a OIa_rammIH_ C! tHC Vas IH VHICH tHC rHCtCrIC C!
mCCCUar DICC_y CrOCrCO tHC DCO. t arraH_CO It arCUHO a mCCCU!C,
Hrstas a OCsCrIQtICH. a sQCCUatIVC, CrCatIVC, aHIstCrICa mCOC! C!I!C as a
mCCCUC. ta!sCOIOsCVIaaHCtHCrmCaHIH_C!`CrOCr. ItCCmnaHOCOIt.
HatIs, mrCaOIH_ C!tHC rHCtCrIC C!mCCCU!arDIC!C_y IHsIsts CH_CIH_
Sublime Object of Biology 5
DCCHOtHCHCrmCHCUtICaHa!ss C!tHCCHaH_H_mCaHIH_C! HCrCOtaHO
!!C tHrCU_H tHC asCCHOaHt OIsCQ!HC C!mO!CCU!ar DIC!C_. a!sC sCCK tC
marK CUt tHC rHCtCrICa! VCCtCrs tHat !CrmCO tHC sHaQC C! CUr DCOICs
tCOatHCsC DCOICs VHCsC I!!HCss, HtC!!I_CHCC, aHO sCXUa!QrC!CrCHCC s
`CrOCrCO tHrCU_HtHC_CHC. ''
H HCrt, !C!!CVj. . 1UstIHs aCCCUHt, !aCCO VtH sCmC CrrIOCaH
IHsI_Hts, C!tHC QCr!CrmatIVC CHCCts C!!aH_Ua_C, tHC !CrCC tHat maKCs a
saH_ a OCIH_, as IH tHC ` OC C!marrIa_C. CrrIOa Has CUt!IHCO QCr-
sUasIVC! tHC Vas H VHICH QCr!CrmatIVIt QrCD!CmatZCs Cr CVCrtaKCs a
sCmaHtC, HCrmCHCUtICa!aCCCUHt C!!aH_Ua_C as CCmmUHICatICH.
Here at least provisional recourse to ordinary language and to the equivocalities
of natural language teaches us that one may, for example, communicate a move
ment, or that a tremor, a shock, a displacement of force can be communicated
that is, propagated, transmitted. It is also said that diferent or distant places can
communicate between each other by means of a given passageway or opening.
What happens in this case, what is transmitted or communicated, are not phe
nomena of meaning or signification. In these cases we are dealing neither with a
semantic or conceptual content, nor with a semiotic operation, and even less
with a linguistic exchange.
11
HC traHsmIssCH, Qassa_C, aHO CCmmUHCaD!t C!!aH_Ua_C, tHCrC!CrC,
DCCCmC sCmCtHIH_ CtHCr tHaH aH aHar C!mCaHIH_ CrH!CrmatICH, tHC
DCCCmC sCmCIHIH_mCrC!KCDa!!stCsCrCCHta_ICH, tHCtraHsmssICHaHO
rCQCttCH C!aH CHCCtaCrCssDCOICsC!OsCCUrsC aHOaCrCssDCOCs. 1,
HIts!I_UratICHas a`!aH_Ua_C,IrCHICa!!QrCVIOCsUsVItHamCtaQHCr!Cr
tHIs tHIHKIH_ C!!aH_Ua_C as a CCHta_ICH. tHC Qassa_C !rCm OCCXrDC-
HUC!CCaCOtCQrCtCIHsQassCstHrCU_HaHOIHaDCO, aHOtsaHC!IsICHC!
tHs DCO, tHC OsQ!aCCmCHt C!tHC Cr_aHIsmIC `QrCOUCtICH C!a !VH_
DCO, tHat CHaraCtCrIZCs tHC HstCr C!mC!CCU!ar DC!C_y aHO a!!CVs tHC
CCmmUHCatCH C!tHC !I_UrC C!a `_CHCtC CCOC tHat sCamCss! aHO
aUtCmatICa!! traHsCrIDCs aHO traHs!atCs tHC 1 `VCrO. Hs HCrmC-
HCUtCa! QaraO_m C!1 traHsCrQtICH aHO traHs!atICH sstCmatICa!!
CVCHCCKstHC!CrCC C!tHIs aCtVIt, tsQCr!CrmaHCC,ts CmDCOImCHt.
LHC Va C! OCsCrIDIH_ tHIs CraOICatICH C! tHC OIHCrCHta! QCr!Cr-
maHCCs tHat traVCrsC tHC 1-QrCtCH rC!atCH Is tC aQQCa! tC tHC tVC
KHOs C!sHtHCsIs tHat CCCUrUHOCr tHC mCtaQHCr aHO rC_ImC C!`CCOC.
1t tHCDrst!CVC!, VItHHtHCsHaQCs aHOIHtCraCtICHs Ca CCH!I_UratICH C!
mC!CCU!CsHUC!CCaCIOsaHOamHCaCIOs~aKIHOC!CrOCrCmCr_CsattHC
mC!CCU!ar !CVC! VHCrC tHCrC CXsts a statstCa! rC_U!arty DCtVCCH a sC-
QUCHCC C! 1aHOaCHaHC!amHC aCIOs. Hs CaH, atQrCsCHt,CH!DCa
statIstICarC_U!arIt OUC tC tHC CCmQ!CXItICs aHOCCHtIH_CHCICs C!QrCtCIH
!C!OIH_. t Is CH! VHCH tHIs CrOCrstatIstICa! aHO a QrCOUCt C!rCQCatCO
IHtCraCtICHs aHO mC!CCU!ar rC!atICHsIs tHCH ItsC!!CrOCrCO aHO sHtHC-
sIZCOIHtC asIH_!C, statIC, CaUsasItC IHItsCVHrI_HttHat1CmCr_Csas
tHC mraCU!CUs a_CHt C!!I!C. tIs tHIs sCCCHOsHtHCsIstHC IHstaatICHC!
1 as tHC sCVCrCI_H a_CHt C!!I!CtHat traCC tHrCU_H tHC rHCtCrIC C!
mC!CCU!arDIC!C_. HIssCCCHOsHtHCsIstaKCsQ!aCCtHrCU_HaHaHa!C_CUs
rC_IDCC!mCtaQHCr, aQCrsIstCHtOCQ!CmCHtC!tHC!CrCC C!rHCtCrIC tHat
VCrKs tC CHaCCtHCQC!sCmIC aHOrC!JtICHa!HatUrCsC!!aH_Ua_C.
LICs C!CUZC aHO !C!IX LUattarI, VrItIH_ IH Wat Is Philosophy?,
CCHVCrt tHIs tCHOCHC C!sCICHtIUC OIsCCUrsCIts HaDIt C!CraOICatIH_ tHC
CCHOItICHsC!Its CHUHCIatICHIHtC a_CHrC OIstIHCtICHDCtVCCH `QHI!CsC-
QH aHO `sCICHCC. !Cr C!CUZC aHO LUattarI, à sCICHtIUC HCtICH Is
OCrIVCO HCt !rCm CCHCCQts, DUt D !UHCtICHs Cr QrCQCsItICHs.' 1 CCH-
CCQtaH CmQIrICa CHtIt tHatQHI!CsCQH IHVCHtsIs a mU!tIQ!ICIt tHat
CaH CH DC artICU!atCO IH tCrms C!Its DCCCmIH_ aHO HIstCrICIty. NHIC
rCsIstIH_ arrCsttHC CCHCCQtCaHHCtDC OsCIQ!IHCO IHtC aUHIty, CtHCrVIsC
It Is HCta CCHCCQttHIs OHamIsmC!tHC CCHCCQt OCCs HaVC a mCrQHC!-
C_y, CVCHI!ItIs aOIstUrDCO CHC. `1VCrCCHCCQtHas aH IrrC_U!ar CCHtCUr
OC!IHCO D tHC sUm C!It8 CCmQCHCHts . . . CH CH tHIs CCHOtICH CaH It
CsCaQC tHC mCHta! CHaCs CCHstaHt! tHrCatCHIH_ It, sta!KH_ It, trIH_ tC
rCaDsCrD It.'`
1Ut tHC IrrC_U!arIt C! tHC CCHCCQt Is I sUItCO tC tHC QCrsUasICH
maCHIHC C!sCICHCC. CrC tHC QrC Is `rC_U!arItICs, aHO tHC staKH_ C!
rC_U!arItICs Cu!s!CrVHatC!CUZC aHO LUattarICHaraCtCrIZC astHC `!UHC-
tIVC. NHI!C tHC CCHCCQt Is a HCHmImCtIC tHHKIH_ tCC! !Cr QH!CsCQH
aHO as sUCH CaH aVCIO tHC QUCstICH C!rC!CrCHtIa!Ity, tHC ÙHCtICH Cr
`!UHCtIVC Is a sCICHtI!IC tCC! tHat `s!CVs OCVH tHCU_Ht, OIsCIQ!IHCs It
IHtC rC!CrCHCC. `H tHC CasC C!sCICHCC It Is !IKC a !rCCZC-!ramC. t Is a
!aHtastICslowing down, aHOItIsDs!CVIH_OCVHtHatmattCr,asVCas tHC
sCICHtIUC tHCU_Ht aD!C tC QCHCtratC It VItH QrCQCsItICHs, Is aCtUa!IZCO.'"
HIs !CrmU!atICH C!sCICHCC as a `!rCCZC-!ramC Is IHstrUCtIVC !CrItHI_H-
!I_Hts tHCImQCrtaHCC C!tHC `!ramIH_ C!sCICHtIUC OsCCUrsC, arHCtCrICa
OIsCIQ!IHIH_ C!tHC OIsCCUrsC tHat tCra! maKCs sCmC CDjCCts aCCCssID!C
aHO CtHCrs IHVIsID!C. HIs `!rCCZIH_ C!sCICHtIUC OIsCCUrsC sUsQCHOs Its
rC!atICH tC HIstCr as VC!! as Its rC!atICHs tC !aH_Ua_C. !Cr VHat OCCs HCt
aQQCar IH tHC UCCZC-!ramC C!sCICHCC Is tHC tCCHHC!C_y C!ramIH_ ItsC!!,
VHat V!! CarHCtCrICasC!tVarC.
`HCtCrICa!sC!tVarC marKsm attCmQt tC !CrC_rCUHOtHCrC!atICHa!
aHO matCrIa IHtCraCtICHs tHat maKC QCssID!C tHC CmCr_CHCC C!sCICHtIUC
statCmCHts. NHI!C HI_HI_HtIH_ tHC tCXtUaIt C!sCICHtIDC QraCtICCs, tHC
tCrm aVCIOs a tCXtUa! OCtCrmIHIsm. as aH UsCr C!sC!tVarC KHCVs, sC!t-
VarC Is UsaD!C CHVItHIHa HCtVCr C!HarOVarC aHOtHIs Is !rCQUCHt!
CVCrCCKCO`VCtVarC. HC `rHCtCrICa! sIOC C!tHIsOCUD!C!CrmU!atICH
Is aH attCmQt tC marK CUt VHat C!CUZC aHO LUattarI OCsCrIDC as tHC
`!aHtastICQrCCUCtICHC!sCICHtIUCstatCmCHts, tHCIHVCHtIVCaHOIma_IHa-
tIVC tamIH_C!mattCr. LrUCIatC C!CUZC aHO LUattarIs C!aImIs tHatItIs
CH!tHrCU_H sUCH a OIsCIQ!IHIH_ tHat mattCr Is aCtUaIZCO, DrCU_Ht CHtC
tHC Q!aHC C!rC!CrCHCC. HCIrs Is tHUs a rC!atICHa! aCCCUHt C!mattCr aHO
!aH_Ua_C,aHOItIstHIsHCtICHC!tHCrC!atICHsDCtVCCHsUCH`!ramIH_ aHO
tHC aCtUaIZatCH C!sCICHtIUC QraCtICCs tHat sCCK tCmarKCUtVItH `rHC-
tCrICa! sC!tVarC.'`1!CH_VItH tHC HCtICH C!tHC !UHCtIVC, tHC CCHCCQtC!
rHCtCrICa! sC!tVarC attCmQts tC sIOCstCQ tHC CCHstaHt CHCCUHtCrs VItH
sUDjCCtIVItyQrCVCKCODtHCQCr!CrmatIVC.
1HCXamQ!CVI!!,HCQC,HC!QC!arI]tHIsHCtICH. !Irst, `LCHCs\s.
CHC CCU!OCHaraCtCrIZCmUCHrCCCHtOIsCUssICHC! tHC `_CHCtICOCtCrmIH-
Ism C!HUmaHsarCUHOtHC!UHCtIVC `LCHCs\s.''atHCrtHaHamCrC
CCQU!a, tHIs aCt C!OCDHItICH, tHC OCUHItICH C!tHC HUmaH, Is a !UHCtIVC
tHat OCCs VCrK CH tHC Q!aHC C!rC!CrCHCCIt maKCs It Q!aUsID!C tC _IVC a
statCmCHt C!VHatHUDaHDCIH_s àttHC samC tImC tHatItrCQUIrCsa
!aHtastICOIsCIQ!IHIH_C!tHCsCICHtI!ICCDjCCt, tHCHUmaH. HsC!arasHUmaH
IOCHtIty Is CHaraCtCrIZCO HCrC as CmCr_IH_ !rCm 1, aH ` am, `NC
arC, Is IHsCrIDCC at tHC sItC C!tHC OCUD!C HC!X. !Cr tHIs IHsCrIQtICH tC DC
QCssID!C Cr Q!aUsID!C, DCtH tHC DCO C!tHC HUmaH aHO, QCrHaQs mCrC
ImQCrtaHt, tHCOIsCUrsIVC aHOIHstItUtICHa!VCCtCrstHatmaKCQCssID!CtHC
statCmCHt `LCHCs \s mUst !a aVa I!tHC statCmCHt Is tC HaVC aH
!CrCC Cr, VHatamCUHts tC tHC samC tHIH_, aHrC!CrCHCC.'
HUs, ItIs HCt tHat tHC !UHCtIVC `LCHCs arC Us Is HCtHIH_, a mCrC
CHImCra QrCjCCtCC D tHC CamCra CDsCUra C!IOCC!C_y aHC sCCIa! CCH-
strUCtICH. t IsjUsttHatIts !CrCC as a sCICHtIUC statCmCHt, Its sCICHtI!ICIty,
OCQCHOs CH tHC amQUtatICH C!tHC DCO tHat It HCra!Os. t a!sC OCQCHOs
UQCH a sCt C!rHCtCrICa!QraCtICCs`sC!tVarCtHat arC, asCt, HCtQUItC
UQ tC tHC tasK C!CH!CrCIH_tHC VCOOIH_DCtVCCH IOCHtIty aHO 1 tHat
`LCHCs\s QrCmIsCs.
L!CCUrsC,tHCrCarCQ!aCCs, IHtHCrHCtCrICa!sCHsC,VHCrCVHatVC arC
Ca!IH_`tHCDCO maKCs ItsC!!!C!tIHmC!CCU!arDIC!C_y. HC trIUmQHs C!
mC!CCU!ar DIC!C_y arC HCt CH CCHstrUCtICHs, aHa!ZC tHC OIsCCUrsC C!
mC!CCU!ar DIC!C_y as a trCQC!C_ICa sQaCC VHCrC tHC rCsIstaHCCs C!`tHC
8 Sublme Object of Biolog
DCOHtCr!aCCaHOCHtaH_!CVtHtHCsHaQCsJHOtCrsCHsC!!aH_Ua_C. HC
rHCtCrCa! sC!tVarC C!mC!CCU!arDC!C_y CCmQCsCs a sCt C!tCC!s rCU_H!
UttCOtC, aHOUttH_, OHCrCHtVCtVarCs aHOHarOVarCs,aHOsCCKCUt aHO
Oa_ram tHCsC Q!aCCs VHCrC tHC OHCrCHCCs H tHs CCCHCm CCmC tC-
_CtHCr aHO s!Q UQ, OsQ!aCC, Cr sUDsttUtC. HUs, tHC CrtQUC attCmQt
HCrC C!tHC HCrmCHCUtCa! aCCCUHt C!aHOH tHC OCCUmCHts C!mC!CCU!ar
DC!C_ytaKCstsCUCHCmaHCtHCrQ!aCC, VHatHaVC Ca!!COtHC `QCstVta!
DCO. Hss tHC DCOtHat Uts, aHOs UttCO tC, mC!CCU!arDC!C_y.
Tesis 3: Wat Body?
HC QCstVta! DCO s a CCHtCmQCrar mattCr C! !aCt. 1 CDCr_, mHO
Ch!OrCH, VrtUa! sUr_Cr, a !CtsHZatCH C!tHC !CtUs, a tHCsC U_UrCs arC
!aCts, aHO tHC H_H!_Ht Cr aCt CUt tHC tCCHHCsCCHt!IC CCHstrUCtCH C!
tHC DCOas a stC C!a_CHCtC rCmCtC CCHtrC!.' H tHs tCXt aHa!ZC aHO
maQ CUt sCmC C!tHC Vas H VHCH tHs Has HaQQCHCO. 1rVH 5CHrC-
OH_Crs CataCHrCss, LCCr_C LamCVs tHCC!C_Ca! VCrO ma_C, jaCQUCs
^CHCO aHO !raHCs jaCCDs tmC traVC!, tHC CCHHatCH C! !VH_ aHO
sQCaKCjaCCD, CmaHjaKCDsCH, L!aUOC CV-5traUss, aHO HIQQC
CrtCraHOatC!CVsCHCamCra, thC`mQCssD!CQIXC!DCOCsC!artD-
Ca! !!C. H tHCss 2 trCO tC QrCVOC a Va C!ta!KH_ aDCUt tHC Va H
VHCH !aH_Ua_C mattCrsHsCCHCC. Hs, C!CCUrsC,s HCtjUstatHCss, ts
tHC VCrKH_HQCtHCssC!CaCHCHaQtCr, aHOrCUHCmCHtsaHOrCjCCtCHs C!
tHatHQCtHCssHH_C CHCaCHCHaQtCrsQCr!CrmaHCC. tCCU!ODC saO tHat
sUCHan aHa!ss Qas aD_QrCC, tHCQrCCC!CCHtCXt, C!VHat _Cts sHCC-
OCCHa !aDC!CO `HstCr. !Cr_Ct, !Cr CXamQ!C, tHC HstCr C![CXtra-
rHCtCrCa!) HstrUmCHts, tHC HstCr C!!UHOH_, tHC HstCr C!sCCHtsts.
5UCH CXC!UsCH CaHHCt, aHO sHCU!O HCt, DC CVCrCCKCO, t s H !aCt aH
HtC_ra!Qart C!m aHa!ss tC !CrC_rCUHO tHC rrCOUCD!CCHtH_CHtaHO
aQQrCQratVC HatUrC C!HstCrCa! aHa!ss, HOCCO C!Har1atVC H _CHCra!,
HC!UOH_ m `CVH. Hs VC!CHCC CXtCHOs tC a sI!CHCC rC_arOH_ tHC
rrCOUCD! raCCOaHO_CHOCrCO`HatUrC C!tHC OsCCUrsC UHOCrOsCUssCH
HCrC, a sICHCC I OCQ!C HCt DCCaUsC !IHO tHC _CHOCrH_ Cr raCH_ C!
mC!CCU!arDC!C_Ca!OsCCUrsCUHmQCrtaHtDUtDCCaUsC am!CCKIH_!Cr
tHC rHCtCrCa! QCssDIt CCHOtCHs C!raCC aHO _CHOCr H tHCr CUrrCHt
aHOCmCr_H_CCHU_UratCHs.
1t tHC samC tmC, m CVCrs_Ht a!CVs sCmCtHH_ C!sC, HCQC, tC
CmCr_C. tHC CUtHCs C!tHC QCstVta! DCO, a DCO VtHCUt !!C. 1COCs
HaVCDCCHCVCrCCKCOaHOrCCastasaHCHCCtC!amC!CCU!C,aHCXtCHsCHCr
Sublime Object of Biology 9
sUQQCmCHt tC tHC rCa!, tImC!Css, OCatH!Css DIt C!ImmaHCHCC KHCVH as
P. HCsIs I, `NHat HCV, VHat KHCVCO_C:!CCUsCs CHtHC CCHCCQ-
tUa! sHI!t tHatmaKCs QCssIDC tHC HCVKHCV!CO_Cs C!DCOICs. !Cr HCV,
VCUOIKC tC QrCVIOC a rCU_H CUt!IHC C!tHC trajCCtCr aHO sHaQC C!tHC
QCstVIta!DCO. C OC sC, mUstrCVIHOmHarratIVC, !CramCmCHt, DaCK
tC tHCQUCstICHtHataHImatCstHCsIs 2, `CV OCCsaH_Ua_C mattCr: aHO
CXQ!CrC LICs C!CUZCs HCtICH C!tHC VIrtUa. HC VIrtUa! _IVCs Us a tCC!
!CrIHtCr!aCIH_VItHtHC `CUtsIOC C!OIsCCUrsC, tHCsICHtUHOCrsIOCC!tHC
aCtUaaHOtHC saIO.
The virtual is not hidden in the sense of a repressed signified or lost referent. It is
occulted, but as part of a necessary clearing. For a statement or thought to appear
in alits apparent simplicity and clarity, its complicated genesis must recede into
the abysmal shadows fom which it came. The virtual is the unsaid of the state
ment, the unthought of thought. It is real and subsists in them, but must be
forgotten at least momentarily for a clear statement to be produced .. . . The task
of philosophy is to explore that inevitable forgetting, to reattach statements to the
conditions of their emergence. 19
5ImQ QUt, It Is HCt mCrC! a mattCr C!traCKIH_ tHC CHCCts C!tHC
statCmCHts C!mCCCU!ar DICC_. HC rCC C!tHC ÙHsaIO mUst a!sC DC
tHCU_Ht aHOHCtsImQ!astHC !Cst CHCICC CratCrHatIVC C!tHC Qast. !VC
tHHK IH tCrms C!Cst DraHCHCs Cr QatHVas HCrC, VC IHsCrIDC a tCm-
QCra!It C!DC!CrC aHO a!tCr, a !C_IC C!tHC CItHCr/Cr tHat Is HCt QrIma
!aCICaQQ!ICaDCtC HIstCrICa! CHaH_C. HOCCO, tHCmCOC!C!a `Cst CHCICC
Cr a!tCrHatIVC tC tHC QrCsCHt, D _HCttCIZIH_ a `QCssIDI!t as Cst IH a
HCsta!_ICQast, UHVIttIH_!_raHtsaC_CmCHtCtHC OCmIHaHtOIsCUrsIVC
artICU!atICH CVCH as It attCmQts tC rCCUQCratC QCssIDIt !rCm tHC Qast.
HstCaO, VaHttCar_UC HCrC!CrVHatCCUZCaHOLUattarIHaVC VrIttCH
UHOCr tHC sI_H C! tHC `rHIZCmC, VHCrC tHC CCHHCCtICHs aHO _aQs C!
OIsCCUrsCCCmQCsCastCVC!CCHtI_UIt,s!IQQa_C,aHOOIsQaCCmCHt. HCrC
Is HC CHCC-aHO-!Cr-aL DraHCHIH_ C!OIsCCUrsC Cr HIstCr, tHCrC arC mUr-
mUrs aHOsHCUts aHOsCCHts C!QCssIDI!It at CVCrQaCC aHOmCmCHt. tIs
HCt tHat tHCsC mCmCHts arC UHCr_aHIZCO, tHC arC CCHtIH_CHt CrOCrs C!
tHCVIrtUa aHOtHCrCa, IHtCr!aCCs. HCVIrtUa!Is asaCrIUCCOCtHCrsIOCC!
tHC statCmCHt, tHC `s!CHCC !rCm VHICHaHsQCCCHaCtDUrsts !CrtH. tIs
a sUDstratC tHat Is CHaCCO DUt HCt CrasCO. ts traCCs CCHtIHUC tC HaVC C!
!CCts, as IH aârKCV CHaIH, VHCrC aHIHItIaVa!UCInQaCts a VHCC sCrICs
tHrCU_H CCHtI_UIt, CVCH as It QCrHaQs OsaQQCars. HIHKH_ sQatIa!!
aHO, VC sHasCC, tHC VIrtUaHas sQatIa! OImCHsICHs aHOCHCCtsVC CCU!O
tHHK C!tHC VIrtUa as tHC `HCCK C!HarratIVC, tHC UaCta sQaCC DCtVCCH
tHCU_Hts, stCrICs, aHOUamCstHat_CtstraVCrsCODtrCQCs, as IHtHC mCVC-
mCHt C!CHC!ramC C!aHImatICHtC aHCtHCr, CHC Qara_raQHtC tHC HCXt.
HUs, VHCH asKCO, as 1VCH !CX C!Cr OCCs, VHCtHCr VCrOs HaVC
!CrCC IH aHO C!tHCmsCVCs, mUst sa HC, DUt CH DCCaUsC tHCrC Is HC
aH_Ua_C ÌH aHO C!ItsC!rHCtCrICs aVas IHsCrIDC aHO arC IHsCrIDCOIH
HCt CH! CCHtCXts DUt IHtCr!aCCs, VCtVarCs aHO sC!tVarCs, aHO HarOVarCs
CVCr VHICH `HUmaH aCtCrs arC HCt sC CCat sCVCrCI_H.' HOCCO, tHC
CCHta_ICHC!tHC UHtHCU_tsU__Csts tHat tHCIHHUCHCC C!rHCtCrICasC!t-
VarC rIsCs as It Is `!Cr_CttCH, I_HCrCO, Cr, VHat amCUHts tC tHC samC
tHIH_, assUmCO.
HC CCmQICatCO CCHOItICHs C!tHC CmCr_CHCC C!mCCCUarDICC_y
rC CH tHC OIsaQQCaraHCC IHtC aH àDss C!Its IHItIa VaUCs, tHC OCsIrCs,
IOCCC_ICs, aHO !Cr_CttIH_s VItH VHICH It Vas IHVCHtCO. H tHIs CasC, tHC
àDsma sHaOCVs arC CastD tHC aDss ItsC!. !CrtHC _rCat UHsaIO C!tHC
I!C sCICHCCs, C!amCCCUarDICC_y tHat sCU_Ht aHO!CUHO `tHC sCCrCt C!
I!C, Is tHC !aCt tHat I!C Has CCasCO tC CXIst. Lr, ratHCr, tHat It HCVCr OIO
CXIst, tHattHCI!C sCICHCCsVCrC!CUHOCOCH aH CmDarrassIH_DUtQrCOUC-
tIVC amDI_UIty, tHC CQaQUCQCsItIVItCaCOÌ!C.
Life?
ÎCHC !CUCaUts aHasIs C!tHC QCssIDIIty CCHOItICHs C!DICC_y IH Te
Order ofTings CHCrs t!C stUHHIH_CamtHat DC!CrC tHC HIHCtCCHtH CCH-
tUr, I!C OIO HCtCXIst. ^CrC QrCCIsC, tHC CCHCCQtUamatrIXtHat!ramCs
DICC_yas asCICHCCC!I!CHaOCt tC DCartICUatCO.
Historians want to write histories of biology in the eighteenth century; but they
do not realize that biology did not exist then, and that the pattern of knowledge
that has been familiar to us for a hundred and fify years is not valid for a previous
period. And that, if biology was unknown, there was a very simple reason for it:
that life itself did not exist. Al that existed was living beings, which were viewed
through a grid of knowledge constituted by natural history.
21
HtHC sHI!t!rCmHatUra HIstCrtC DICC_y, !CUCaU!t ar_UCs, Ì!C CCmCs
tC CCCUQ a `sCVCrCI_HVaHIsHIH_QCIHt VItHIH tHC Cr_aHIsm. NHCrCas
IH tHC rC_ImC C!HatUra HIstCrIVIH_DCIH_sVCrC CCmQarCO CHtHCDasIs
C! a taXCHCm tHat CCUO DC _CaHCO UCm a sIH_C QaHC, tHC VIsIDC
sUr!aCC, Ì!C IHVIsID CCmCs IHtC Its sCCrCt CXIstCHCC D IHtrCOUCIH_
Cr IHjCCtIH_ OCQtH IHtC tHC IHVIsIDC, IHtCrICr DCOICs C!Cr_aHIsms. !Cr
Sublime Object of Biology I I
!CUCaU!t, !!C CCmCs tC DC as tHC CDjCCt C!aH Cr_aHsms QrCtCCtCH, aH
HtCrCr Va!!CO CH!rCm OCatH D tHC sCmatC armCr aHO QraCtCCs C!
. .
sCVCrCI_H Cr_amsms.
sU__Cst tHat tHs rCCr_aHZatCH C!tHC CDjCCts C!!!C sCCHCC!VH_
DCH_sQrCOUCCO Cr_aHsms rQC !Cr DCtH Vta!sm aHO mC!CCU!ar DC!-
C_y. CsQtC tHCraQQarCHt CQQCstCH, DCtH Vtasm, tHC OCa tHat !!C
CXCCCOsKHCVHQHsCCCHCmCa!!aVs, aHOmC!CCU!arDC!C_y, tHCsCCHCC
tHatHasC!amCOtHCrCOUCtCHC!!!C tCtHCsCsamCQHsCCCHCmCa!!aVs,
rC!COCHaHUHsCCHUHttHattraVCrsCOa!!tHCOHCrCHCCsaHOOsCCHtHU-
tCsC!!VH_DCH_s, `!!C. !CrVHCtHCrCVasHCVsD!Cs_HVtHVHCH
CHC CCU!OCVCrCCmC tHC raOCa! OHCrCHCCs tHatVCrC sCCH tC OstH_UsH,
!Cr CXamQ!C, tHC VCrtCDratCs !rCm tHC HVCrtCDratCs, DCtH HCHCtHC!Css
DasKCOHtHCUHtC!!!C, `CCmmCHCCHtrC!. tstHsCCHstrUCtCHC!!!C
as aH `HVsD!C !CCa UHty, tHat, !CUCaU!t ar_UCs, maKCs aDC!C_yQCss-
D!C. 1 Q!UH_H_ !C HtC tHC UHsCCH OCQtHs C!tHC DCO, tHsH_UratCH
a!sC!CCa!ZCs!!CHa stCHCt!CrC_HtCmC!CCU!arDC!C_yasCCrCt. !Crt
Vas tHC CCHCCa!CO asQCCt C!!!C, !HCt ts sCCrCC, tHat UHtCO tHC !ra_-
mCHtCO aHOOHCrCHtatCOHC!O C!!VH_DCH_s. !C DCCCmCstHC UHsCCH
_UaraHtCrC!DC!C_y, KHCVaD!C Cn!ataOstaHCC.
Thus life does not exist, per se; it is an abstraction much as it matters little, afer
al, that gills and lungs may have a few variables of form, magnitude, or number in
common: they resemble one another because they are two varieties of that non
existent, abstract, unreal, unassignable organ, absent from aldescribable species,
yet present in the animal kingdom in its entirety, which serves for respiration in
general.2 3
H CtHCr VCrOs, !!C CCCUQCs tHC sCVCrC_H VaHsHH_ QCHt CH tHC
DassC!ts!aCKC!CXstCHCC."tsarCtrCaCtVCCHCCtC!tHCCr_aHZatCHC!
tHC Cr_aHsm, tHC QrCOUCt aHO HCttHC CaUsC C!tHC tCCHHQUCs C!Cr_aH-
sms.jUstas!UH_s aHO_!ssUDsttUtC!CrtHC_CHCra!CtHCHCXstCHtUHty
C!rCsQratCH, sC tCC OC tHC rCmaHH_ QraCtCCs C!Cr_aHsms sUDsttUtC
!Cr tHC VrtUa! aDss C!!!C, a HCH-Q!aCC. `1CtVCCH tHC VsD!C aHO tHC
artCU!aD!C a_aQ CraOsjUHCtCH CQCHs UQ, DUttHs OsjUHCtCHC!!Crmss
tHC Q!aCCCr `HCH-Q!aCC , as !CUCaU!t QUts tVHCrC tHC H!Crma Oa-
_ram s sVa!!CVCO UQ aHO DCCCmCs CmDCOCO HstCaO H tVC OHCrCHt
OrCCtCHs tHat arC HCCCssar! OVCr_CHt aHO rrCOUCD!C. !C s VsD!C,
QaraOCXCa!!, HsC!ar as t s CCHCCa!CO. `!VH_ sQCCCs . . . CaH DC C!ass-
HCCCH!DCCaUsCtHCarCu!VC aHO CH tHC Dass C!VHattHCCCHCCa!.'
1CtVCCHtHsVsD!t, !!CsstatUsas aH `CH_ma, aHOtsartCU!atCH,!!Cs
CCHHCCtICHtCtHC!UHCtICHsC!Cr_aHIsms,tHCDCOC!tHC mCOCrHCr_aH-
Ism rCsIOCs. Lr_aHIsms at CHCC QrCtCCt I!C IH tHCIr OCQtHs aHO QrCOUCC
VtaItytHrCU_HtHCIr!UHCtICHs. HUs, tHC OIa_ram. tHCOCUDCOUtyC!aH
Cr_aHIsmtHatDCtHQCssCssCsI!C aHOQrCOUCCs ItIs `sVaCVCO UQ, QaC-
IH_I!CatIHVIsDC, UHKHCVaDC OCQtHs,aVaHIsHIH_QCIHt,aHOCCHHCCtIH_
tHC artICUatCO !UHCtICHs C!IVIH_ DCIH_s CH a CH_ tCtHCr tC I!C.NC sCC
HCrCI!Cs rCC IHaH CHtCC_ICaCCCHCm.
Life is the root of al existence, and the non-living, nature in its inert form, is
merely spent life; mere being is the non-being of life. For life-and this is why it
has such a radical value in nineteenth-century thought-is at the same time the
nucleus of being and non-being: there is being only because there is life, and in
that fundamental movement that dooms them to death, the scattered beings,
stable for an instant, are formed, halt, hold life immobile-and in a sense klit
but are then in turn destroyed by that inexhaustible force. The experience of life
is thus posited as the most general law of beings, the revelation of that primitive
force on the basis of which they are.
NHat Is CrUCIa tC HCtC HCrC Is tHat atHCU_H tHC HatUraIst LCCr_C
LUVICrs OIsQaCCmCHt C!tHC taXCHCmIC mCCC !CCUsCs CH h1HCtICH, tHC
QraCtICCs C!Cr_aHIsms, tHCsC UHCtICHs arC tHCmsCVCs h1HCtICHs C!a UHI-
VCrsa, sICHt, CXtraCHtCC_ICa!CrCCÌ!CtHat `QrImIUVC !CrCC CHtHC
DasIs C!VHCH tHC Cr_aHIsms| arC. HUs, rCQrCOUCtICH mCrC maIH-
taIHsI!CIHIts UHIty, It OCCs HCtCrCatC It. 1HOCXIstCHCC, VHIC CCCUQIH_
aOIHCrCHt sQaCCtHaHI!C, rCICs CHIt. NHICIVIH_DCIH_s arC strUCtUra
!IHItC, CCHstaHtmaIHtaIHIH_ tHCIr CXIstCHCC a_aIHst OCatH, tHCarC maOC
QCssIDC D tHat VHICH Is DCCHO DCIH_I!C. NHIC Cr_aHIsms DCCCmC,
VItHLUVICr, sUDjCCttCHstCr aHOtImC, I!C, as ItVCrC, _CCs CH, sCHt
aHOIHVIsID. If as CrICHCVrCtC, `CatHIsI!CIVCOIHtHC sICHCC C!tHC
Cr_aHs, tHCHI!C IstHCVIrtUaHCHQaCC C!tHatsICHCC.
HC IHtIaVaUCs C!DICC_y, tHCsCVHCsC CHCCts CaHstIDC!CtattHC
CrI_IHsC!mCCCUarDICC_, IHCUOCaDCOaHOa CCHCCQtC!I!C VItHCUt
tHC mCOaIty C! CXIstCHCC. I!Cs CXIstCHCC Is !Cr_CttCH, DUt Its UHIt Is
HCt, tHC VIrtUaIt C!I!C Is IH !aCtVHat maKCs UHIt, amIO tHC tCCmIH_
QrC!UsICH C!tHC HCV tHICKCHCO Cr_aHIsms C!DICC_y, tHIHKaDC. tIs a
CCHCCQtDCCHOtHCQartICUarItICsaHOQraCtICCsC! IVIH_Cr_aHIsms,aHOIt
tHUsaHCHCrstHCHCVsCICHCCC!I!C.1CCHOtHC!UHCtICHsaHOOHCrCHCCs
C!Cr_aHIsms, tHCrCIs a sCCrCt. Ì!C VItHOraVs IHtC tHC CHI_maC!a!CrCC
IHaCCCssIDC IHIts CssCHCC,aQQrCHCHOaDCCnIHtHC CHCrtsItmaKCsHCrC
2 7
aHOtHCrCtC maHI!CstaHOmaIHtaIHItsC!.``
Sublime Object of Biology 1 3
NHI!C HatUra HIstCr tCCK tHC QaHt as Its QaraOI_matIC, traHsQarCHt
CDjCCtC!stUO, DIC!C_y!CCUsCsCHtHCaHIma!aHOItstHICKHCss,tHCUHsCCH
UHIt CaCO !I!C tHat OVC!!s IH tHC OCQtHs C! DCOICs. ! HatUra! HIstCr
aHaZCOtHC tHIH_s tHatVCrC, OVC!!IH_ IHtHC sQaCC C!tHC rCQrCsCHtatICH
C!DCIH_, tHCH DIC!C_y saV DCIH_s as mCrC CQIQHCHCmCHa C!I!C, a sCCrCt
!CrCC DCCHO DCIH_. 1HO Ct IH CCHtCmQCrar mCCCUar DIC!C_y, tHC
sCCrCt Is CUt. 1CCCrOIH_ tC tHC CDC rIZCVIHHIH_ DIC!C_Ist !raHCIs
jaCCD,
Biology has demonstrated that there is no metaphysical entity hidden behind the
word "life. The power of assembling, of producing increasingly complex stuc
tures , even of reproducing, belongs to the elements that constitute matter. From
particles to man, there is a whole series of integration, oflevels, of discontinuities.
But there is no breach either in the composition of the objects or in the reactions
that take place in them; no change in "essence.
VCUOIKC tC taKCjaCCDs !CrmU!atICH C!tHC IssUC !ItCra. Hat Is,
tHCsQatIaCr_aHIZatICHC!jaCCDsartICU!atICHC!!I!C asaCKIH_a`DCHIHO
Cr a DCCHO sItUatCs QUItC QrCCIsC! tHC QaCC C!I!C IH tHC I!C sCICHCCs
sIHCCtHC rIsC C!mCCCUarDICC_. OC HCt C!aImtHattHIsartICUatICH Is
HCmC_CHCCUs, CHtHatItDCCCmCsQCssIDC VItH tHC arrIVa C!tHC QCst-
VIta!DCO, aDCOIHVHICHtHCOIstIHCt, mCOCrHCatC_CrICs C!sUr!aCCaHO
OCQtH, DCIH_ aHO IVIH_, ImQ!COC IHtC tHC HCV OCHsIt C!CCOIH_, VHat
jaCCD Ca!!s tHC à!_CrItHms C!tHC!IVIH_VCrO. HatIs, VItHtHC IHjCCtICH
C!àVCCOCaHOCXCCUtIVCQCVCrIHtC1, cde DCCCmCsasmUCHVCrD
as HCUH, aHO tHC OCUDC HC!!X DCCCmCs as mUCH DCO as Its OCsCrIQUCH.
NHI!C tHC mCOCrHDCOC!tHC Cr_aHIsmaHHCUHCCO, tHrCU_H Its CHaraC-
tCraHOaHatCm, tHCOCCQUHItatVCrKIHItsOCQtHs, tHCQCstVIta!DCOIs
a mCmCrIa!. t Is a sItC C!tHC mCmCr C!tHC mCOCrH DCO, VHCrC tHC
CHaraCtCrIstICs aHO tHC DCHaVICr C!Cr_aHIsms CaH DC !CUHO. !UHOCr tHC
mCOCrHrC_ImC!I!C,HIOOCHIHtHCDCO, Vas `QCrCCQtID!CDCCHOOIsCasC,
tHC QCstVIta! DCO Is a traHsQarCHt sCQUCHCC tHat Has HCtHIH_ DCHIHO Cr
DCCHOIt.`
Is That AlThere Is? C elegans, Postvital Window
CrHaQsItsCCmsmCrCQCrVCrsCtCsU__CsttHatamCCCU!CCCU!ODCCCmC
a DCO. 1UtjUst as tHC C!assICa aHO mCOCrH artICUatICHs C!I!C sCICHCC
rCICO CH aH UHsaIO, VIrtUa! mCOC! C!tHCIr CDjCCts, sC tCC, VI! ar_UC,
OCCs CCHtCmQCrar mC!CCU!arDIC!C_, !Cra!Its OIHCrCHCCs. A CXamQ!C
"
" 3!
CaHDC!CUHOIH a OCsCrIQtICH C!CHC C!tHCmCstsUCCCss!U! CCHtCmQCrar
DICC_ICastUOICs, tHC sC-Ca!COVCrmQrCjCCt, amassIVC CHCrttC ÙHOCr-
staHO C. elegans, tHC tIHyrCUHOVCrmtHatIHmaHVaysVICs!CrtHCrC!C
C!QaraOI_matICQCstVIta! Cr_aHIsm. !CrVItH C. elegans VC sCC aUCHZICO
CHCrt tC CCmQCtC CvCrCCmC tHC mCOCrH tHICKHCss C!tHC DCOas asItC
C!mCOIatICH DCtVCCH tHC !CrCC C!I!C aHO tHC CCHOItICHs C!CXIstCHCC.
1tHCU_H C. elegans maIH !aCt HaVC a `DCO, tHatDCO Is a traHsQarCHt
sItC C!IH!CrmatICHaHOmCmCr.
C.
30
elegans Has DCCHtHC maIH!CCUs C!5OHC1rCHHCrsrCsCarCH!CrtHC
Qast Cars. Is ÒrCam . . . tC QrCOICt DCHaVICr!rCm a CCmDIHatICH C!
HCUrCaHatCm aHO _CHCtICs tCCK rCCt IH C. elegans DCCaUsC It Is a `rCa
aHIma! aHOCt`traHsQarCHt,DCtH!ItCra! aHO!I_UratIVC.``
After a brief flirtation with C. brigsiae, Brenner settled upon C. elegans ...
though it is extremely simple, it is a "real animal. ... It has nerves, muscles,
intestines: it reproduces. And if you hit it, it reacts. What's more, C. elegans is
transparent: investigators can actually watch the process of development unfold in
a living animal under a microscope. At the same time its entire life cycle is a mere
six days and lOa, 000 of them can live in a petri dish. 34
!tHC mCOCrHDCOVas!IrstmaQQCOaHatCmICa, `CUtUQIHtCQattCrHs
IH tHC HCV HCtnCHCUtIcs C!OCQtH artICUatCO D DIC!C_, tHCH maQQCO
aCCCrOIH_ tC à CCrICsQCHOCHCC DCtVCCH IHtCrICr aHO CXtCrICr !Crms
VHICHarCa!!IHtC_ra!Qarts C!tHC aHIma!s CssCHCC,`` tHC QCstVIta Cr_aH-
Ism Is ItsC! a KIHO C! maQ VHCrC IHtCrICr aHO CXtCrICr, _CHCtICs aHO
aHatCm, ImQCOC UHOCrtHC _aZC aHOtCUCH C!rCsCarCH. HC DCO C!tHC
VCrm ItsC!Is a KIHO C!OIa_ram VItH VHICH CHC CaH traCC CC! IHCa_C.
`\sIH_aasCI,CUCaHaDatC CHC CC!aHODCaDsCUtC!CCHHOCHtC!VHat
CC!! Has DCCH K1!CO aHO VHat ItVCUOHCrma! _IVC rIsC tC . . . CU CaH
CCKat tHC CCmQCtC HCUraCIrCUIt !Cr aQartICUarQICCC C!DCHaVICr aHO
_Ct a CCmQ!CtC aHO CCHVIHCIH_ OCsCrIQtICH C! tHC HatUrC C! tHat DC-
HaVICr . . . . `CUCaHCCKatItaHOsa `tHatIs a!! tHCrC Is. `'
HIs IOCHtIty C!VHat VC CCu!O Ca!! tHC DCIH_ C! C. elegans aHO Its
aQQCaraHCC``CU CaHCCKatItaHOsa`tHatIsa!!tHCrCIsaHHCUHCC
tHatat tHC !CVC C!tHC Cr_aHIsm,jaCCDs C!aImtHattHCrC Is HCtHIH_ `DC-
HIHO !I!C Has aH CQCratICHa! VaIOIty IH rCsCarCH. HUs, VHIC !Cr tHC
mCOCrH Cr_aHIsmI!CVasDUrICO aVa !rCmDCIH_as aHIHVIsID!C, VIrtUa,
aHO HCHCXIstCHt _rCUHO!CrtHC I!C sCICHCCs,I!CHas OCCH OIsQ!aCCOIHtHC
QCstVIta Cr_aHIsm, as aH Cr_aHIsms DCIH_ aHO Its aQQCaraHCC DCCCmC
sHCHrCHIZCO, CVCrCCmIH_tHC `CCmmCH CCHtrC C!!I!CaHOtHCmCOIa-
tICHC!ItsQrCtCCtCr, tHC DCOC!tHC mCOCrHCr_aHIsm.
"
Sublime Object of Biology 1 5
HIsIOCHtItyDCtVCCHtHC aQQCaraHCCC! C elegans aHOItsDCIH_stCms,
at!CastIHQart,!rCmtHC!aCtC!ItsQHsICa!traHsQarCHC. `sIHCC L. C!C_aHs
Is traHsQarCHt, CC!s CaHDC VatCHCOas tHCOIVIOC, DI_ratC aHOOIHCrCHtI
atC IH!IVIH_aHImas.`HIsmaKCsQ!aUsID!CtHC!IrstHa!!C!tCrHCtCrICa!
a_CrItHm !Cr C. elegans: "You can look at It aHO sa `tHat Is al tHCrC Is
[CmQHasIs aOOCO) . 1Ut, a_aIH, DCtVCCH tHCVIsID!CaHOtHCartICU!aD!C, tHC
sCCaD!C aHOtHC saaD!C, tHCrCIs a_aQ. NHatmaKCsQCssID!C tHC C!aImtHat
tHCrC Is HCtHIH_ DUttHC VIsID!C, _IVCH tHC !C_aC C!tHC mCOCrH Cr_aHIsm
aHOIts OCQCHOCHCC CHtHCIHVIsID!C:
LHCaHsVCrIs tHat tHC QCstVta! Cr_aHIsms VIrtUa! mCOC!Is tHC CCm-
QUtCr. HCCCmQUtCrmCOC!CastsC elegans IHtCtVC!CrmsC!aHIH!Crma-
tICH CCHstrUCt, mCmCraHOQrC_ram. H a OIsCUssICH C!tHC HCmatCOCIH
1DCrts Cta.sMolecular Biology ofthe Cell, VC rCaOtHIsaHa!C_yIHIts mCst
CCHCIsC !Crm.
For cells, as for computers, memory makes complex programs possible; and
many cells together, each one stepping through its complex developmental con
trol program, generate a complex adult body. . . . Thus the cells of the embryo
can be likened to an array of computers operating in parallel and exchanging
information with one another. Each cell contains the same genome and therefore
the same built-in program, but it can exist in a variety of states; the program
directs development along various alternative paths according to a combination
of the past information the cell has remembered and the present environmental
signals it receives.38
1CCCrOIH_tC tHIsmCOC!,tHCH, Cr_aHIsmsarCDUHO!Cs C!IH!CrmatICH. C.
elegans arC IH!CrmatICHCCHstrUCts tC tHC CXtCHt tHat tHC OCQCHOCH tHCIr
_CHCmCsas tHCCr_aHIZIH_QrIHCIQ!C C!tHCIr_rCVtHaHOOCVC!CQmCHt. 5C
tCCIstHCCCLItsC!!aHIH!CrmatICHCCHstrUCt,ItsImQCrtaHCCIHtHIsmCOC!
ICsIHItsaDI!ItytCrCmCmDCr`CHCICCsmaOCDItsaHCCstCrs. HCDCaUty
C!C. elegans Is tHat tHCIrsCmatIC CC!!IHCa_Cs arC IHVarIaHt, mCaHIH_ tHat
`tHC !atC C!CaCH OCsCCHOCHtCC!! CaH DC QrCOICtCOHCmItsQCsItICHIHtHC
IHCa_C trCC. Hat Is, aH _IVCnCC!! CaH DC sCCH tC CCrrCsQCHO tC a
mCmCr aOOrCss, a QCsItICH IH a CCL !IHCa_C OIa_ram tHat tCstIHCs tC Its
CCLU!ar_CHCa!C_y.
HUs, aH _IVCH CC!! CaHDC sCCH as HCtHIH_DUt tHCIHstaHtIatICHCta
mCmCr C!Qast `CHCICCs, aHO tHCsC CHCICCs tHCnsC!VCs arC sCCH tC DC
OIrCCtCODtHC_CHCtICQrC_ram.NHCH jCHatHCHCO_IHsaystHat `tHats
altHCrCIs,VC CaHtHCrC!CrCsCCtHat!Cr C. elegans VCarCOCa!IH_!CssVItH
arC_ImCC!_CHCtyQCaHOQHCHCtQC tHanVItHamCrC _CHCra!IZCOmCOC!
C!CCOIH_, tHC IOCatHattHC HCmatCOC CaHDCDCst aHO CCmQ!CtC! UHOCr-
r6 Sublime Object of Biolog
stCCO as CCUar aUtCmata, VHCrC CCmQCX QattCrHs CmCr_C CUt C!tHC
HstaHtatCH C!a !CV smQC rUCs. NtH aH UHOCrstaHOH_ C!DCtH tHC
QrC_ram [_CHCs) aHO tHCr VarCUs statCs [tHC OHCrCHt QattCrHs C! CC!
HCa_C) CHC CaH _VC a CCmQCtC OCsCrQtCH C!tHC aUtCmata Ca!CO C.
elegans. HOCCO, tHs s tHC aHaC_y OraVH H Molecular Biology i the Cell:
`LCmQUtCrmCOCH_sHCVs tHat CVCH aVCt smQCQrC_ram CaHCaOtC
tHC QrCOUCtCH C!astCHsHH_ CCmQCX QattCrHs C!CC statCs H sUCH aH
arra, CHC CaHHCt OCOUCC tHC QrC_ram smQ D CDsCrVH_ tHC HCrma
OCVCCQmCHtC!tHC QattCrH.`
CtCtHatHtHsaHaC_yasQQa_CtaKCsQaCCHVHCHtHCCCmQUtCr
CC!aQsCs HtC ts QrC_ram. NHCrCas tHC Hrst QUCtatCH !rCm Molecular
Biology OCQCHOCO H Qart CH tHC HCtCH C!CC as HarOVarC`HUs tHC
CC!s C!tHC CmDrC CaH DC KCHCOtC aHarraC!CCmQUtCrs CQCratH_ H
Qara!C aHO CXCHaH_H_ H!CrmatCH VtH CHC aHCtHCr . . . CaCH QCssCss
tHCsamCDU!t HQrC_ramtHC QrC_ram aHOtsVarCUs statCs, CCs, arC
VCVCO as HCtHH_ DUt a QrC_ram aHO ts rCsUtaHt QattCrHs. C `CCm-
QUtCr Cr CC s HVCKCO H tHC sCCCHO QUCtatCH. HC rHCtCrC C!tHat
Qassa_C sQCaKs C à VCr smQC QrC_ram QrCOUCH_ CCmQCX statCs,
VHCrCastHC HrstQUCtatCH OCQCHOCO CHtHC HCtCH tHat tHC CCVastHC
a_CHt, `VHCH maKCs a sCrCs C! OsCrCtC CHCCCs." L! CCUrsC, tHCsC
`statCs arC statCs C!CCs, DUt t s HCrC tHat tHC OstHCtCH DCtVCCH tHC
QrC_ram aHO ts HstaHtatCH CCaQsCs, !Cr sUCH aH HstaHtatCH OCQCHOs
CHaH Cr_HarQrC_ramHstaHtatH_`tsC!."'
NC CaHsCCHCrCtHatHarratVC, as aHaDtUaHsCrQtCH C!DraHCHCs C!
ÒsCrCtC OCCsCHs tHat HaVC DC_HHH_s, Has DCCH HsCrDCO CH a stUa-
tCH tHat CCUZC aHO LUattar HaVC rC!CrtCO tC as `rHZCmatC. CsQtC
tHC CCHtrat C!tHCCCas à_CHt HtHCHrstQUCtatCH, tsCCHtratVas
UHOCHC D tHC CCs OCQCHCCHCC CH tHC CHCCCs C!ts àHCCstCrs. HCsC
CHCCCsCaOtC tHC CraOCatCHC!tHC CCHtratyaHOsCVCrC_Ht C!tHC CC
as a_CHt, mUCH as H tHs rHZCmatC CXamQC OraVH !rCm CCUZC aHO
LUattarsA Thousand Plateaus: ÙQQCt strH_s, as arHZCmC Cra mUt-
QCty, arC tCO)Ct tC tHC sUQQCsCOV! C!aH artst CrQUQQCtCCrDUt tC a
mUtQCt C!HCrVC!IDCrs, VHCH!Crm aHCtHCr QUQQCt H CtHCrOmCH-
sCHs tC tHC Hrst."
HmCXamQC, tHC `CHCCCs CrVC!tHC CC! OCQCHO CHts mCm-
Cr C!QastCHCCCs, tHCsC C!tsaHCCstCrs,VHCHarC tHCmsCVCsmCmCrCs
C!mCmCrCs. HC sCCCHO VCrsCH C!CUr stCrtHC CHC tHat sCCms tC
!Cr_Ct tHCVaHVHCH tHC CC!UHCtCHs as mCmCr, !rCm tHC `start
CraOCatCs tHC CCHHCCtCHs HtHsCCCHCm C!CC!QtCOUCtCHaHOQCsts
Sublime Object of Biolog 1 7
tHC CCHtraIt C!tHC QrC_ram aHO Its statCs."` HC Qat!Crm !Cr tHCsC
CHCICCs Is UHsQCKCH aHO UHmarKCO, as tHC !CCa! QCIHt C!aHa!sIs Is tHC
QrC_ramaHOIts CHCCts, HCtHarOVarC.
CVCVCr, aQQ!ICOtC C. elegans, asItQUItCCXQICItIsHCrC,VC sCCtHat
D aHaC_y tHC DCO C!tHC HCmatCOC DCCCmCs HCtHIH_ DUt a mCmCr.
HCrC Is HC _aQ DCtVCCH tHC QrC_ram aHO Its IHstaHtIatICH, HCtHIH_ tC
rUH tHC QrC_ram `CH. tHC QrC_ram rUHs, aHOVarICUsQattCrHs arC QrC-
OUCCO. 1aCH CC Is ItsC!tHC mCmCr C!tHC DCO C! C. elegans aHO Its
OCVC!CQmCHt.
NItH C. elegans VC CaHsatHat tHC QCstVIta! Cr_aHIsm Is HCtHIH_DUt
CCOIH_."" tIs coding IH Its HCUH !Crm, IH tHC sCHsC tHat tHC aDI!It tC sa
`tHatIsaltHCrC Is rC!ICs UQCHaQHsICa_CHCtIC maQ. 1ttHC samC tImC, It
Is coding IHIts sCHsC as aVCrDIHtHat CC!!!1HCa_CIssCCHasaHa_CrItmC!a
VCrms CVH OCVC!CQmCHt, VHICH Is ItsC!!tHC aCt C!IHstaHtIatIH_ CCOC.
Hat Is, tHC `CCOC, tHC _CHCmC C! C. elegans, ImQICIt CCOCs aHO OC
CCOCs ÌtsC!!. `Ct Vhat Is tHC `tHat VHCsC CXIstCHCC Is !aIO DarC D tHC
VCrmQrCjCCt:NHatIsItsCICHtIstsarC !CCKIH_atVHCHtHCVrItC `tHatIs
althCrC Is:
The Sublime Resolution?
1CtHtHCmCOCrHaHOtHCQCstVIta!DCOICsCaHDCQaCCOVItHIHatCHtatVC
!ramCVCrK tHat wil, HCQC, HC!Q sItUatC m Hrst tHCsIsVHat arC VC
stUOIH_VHCHVC stUOI!C:!Cr, OCsQItCjaCCDsrHCtCrIC aHOmaHasIs,
CtH tHC mCOCrH aHO tHC QCstVIta DCOICs CCCUQ a QCsItICH IH tHC DC-
CHO. HatIs, tHCVIrtUaCCHstrUCtICH C!tHCmCOCrHHCtICHC!I!C rC!ICO
CHtHCHCtICHtHatDCH1HOCrDCCHOtHCQraCtCCs, smQtCms, aHOOCatHs
C!Cr_aHsms!aaUHIt, aQrImItIVC, IHVIsIDC !CrCC CHtHC DasIs C!VHICH
!IVIH_ DCIH_s were. !Cr tHC QCstVIta! DCO, tHC CVCr!CCKIH_ Cr OIsaQ-
QCaraHCCC!tHCDCO OIsQ!aCCs tHIs `DCCHO CHtCaHCVCrOCHsCraHOCVCr
mCrC CCmQ!CX_CHCtIC aQQaratUs. Hat Is, ItIs HCt sImQ!tHattHCaCCC!Cr
atIH_QUrsUItCKHCV!CO_CC!mCCCU!ar_CHCtICs !CaOstC a_rCatCraQQrC-
CIatICH C!tHC rICHHCss C!_CHCtIC CXQrCssICH. HatHCr, tHC IHtCHsIt C!tHC
QUrsUIt C!a `CCmQ!CtC UHOCrstaHOIH_ C!C elegans IHCrCasCs tHC rCsC!U
tICH C!aHasIs aHO QUH_Cs rCsCarCH CVCr OCCQCI IHtC tHC _CHCmC tC a
Q!aCCDCCHOtHC mC!CCUC, tHC QCstVIta!. NHat aHOVHCrC Is tHIs `Q!aCC
CrCHCCtC!tHCQCstVIta!:5QCaKIH_C!tHCQrCCCssC!QHsICa!maQQIH_, CHC
C!tHC C. elegans rCsCarCHCrs, jCHH 5U!stCH, UHVttIH_ _IVCs Us a HIHt.
`HCrCIsaKIHOC!CIrCUarItytCIt. . . . HCDCttCrtHCmaQIstHCCasICrIt
1 8 Sublime Object of Biolog
stC CCHCtHH_s aHOtHCHtHCDCttCrtHCmaQDCCCmCs."CrC, VaHttC
asK, H VHat Va s tHC maQ _CttH_ DCttCr: Hat s, jUst VHat s DCH_
maQQCOHaQHsCamaQC!C. elegans?
LHtHCCHCHaHO,tHCaHsVCrtCtHs QUCstCHsCDVCUsaDCttCrmaQ
s CHC VtH H_HCrrCsCUtCH, aHHCr-_raHCOCC!CCtCHC!CrOCrCOQCCCs
C!1 tHat a!!CVs rCsCarCHCrs tC CCatC a _CHC aHOasKaDCUtts !UHC-
tCH."'LHCQ!aHHCr,HCDCrtCrVtZC!tHC C elegans sCQUCHCH_QrCjCCt,
`VCVs tas àHCQQCrtUHtytC CDtaH ata!CVC! C!rCsCUtCHHCVCrDC!CrC
aCHCVC
_
aH uHOCrstaHOH_ C!aH aHma tHat UsCs a HCrVCUs sstCm tC
CCHtrC! DCHaVCr. " HC CCUQ!H_ C!a QHsCa maQ VtH CC !HCa_C
a!CVs CHC tC sa `tHatsa!!tHCrC s HtHatCHCHas aOCsCrQtCHC!DCtH
tHC QrC_ram aHO ts HstaHtatCHs. raCtCa!! sQCaKH_, tHs mQarts a
staD!tyaHOaCCCssD!tytC C. elegans: `HtHC COOas,!CUVCrC_CH_
tC CCHC a _CHC CU HaO tC !Irst HHO sCmC !aHOmarK HCarD aHO tHCH
aDCrCUs`VaKOCVHtHCCHrCmCsCmCtC!IHOtHC _CHC.NtHtHCmaQ,
`CU CaH!tCra!!Va!K tC tHC !rCCZCr aHOQU CUt tHat QCCC C!1. "
1HOCttHC!aCttHat C. elegans HasDCCHCrOCrCOHtHsVa mUstHCt
CDsCUrC tHC !aCttHattHCrHCtCrC C!`CU
CaH!CCKattaHOsa` tHats a!!

tHCrC s CQCtatCs CH tHC Dass C!a DCC!H tHC tCta rCsC!UtCH C!tHC
stCr C!C. elegans, a stCrVtHCUt _aQs, aH UHOCrstaHOH_ Cr a HarratVC
tHat, strCty sQCaKH_, Has !UsCO VtH ts CDjCCt, aH CDCCt tHat tsC!!,
aCCCrOH_ tC bUstCH, CHVCCQs a! C!DC!C_. `H a sCHsC, CHC Cr_aHsm
KC tHs CCHtaHs a! C!DCC_y [Q. 1 3 1 3) . Hat s, tHC CCmQCtC OCsCrQ-
tCHC!C. elegans rCsC!VCstHCOHCrCHCCsDCtVCCHtHC!VH_Cr_aHIsmaHO
ts OCsCrQtCH, aHO tHC rCsC!UtCH C!tHs OHCrCHCCtHC mQCsCH C!a
DCO aHO ts OCsCrQtJCH HtC CCOH_ aHO maQQH_sHCVs Us tHat, mCst
CCrtaH!, VHat s DCIH_ maQQCO H tHC VCrm QrCjCCt s HCt, H tHC UsUa!
sCHsC, aH Cr_aHsm, HsC!ar as tHC Cr_aHsm s tsC!!a maQ Cr `Drar, a
OCsCrQtCHC!à!DCC_y. Wat the map and the cell lineage diagram inscribe
is the end i a stor. `Hat s a!! tHCrC s aHHCUHCCs tHC !aCttHattHCrCsHC
mCrC tC DC tCO aDCUt C. elegans. ts a stCry aDCUt a!aCK, Crat !Cast tHC
rCsC!UtCH C!, a stCr. NHat s maQQCO s tHCrC!CrC asC sCmCtHH_ CtHCr
tHaHaVCrDCrIts _CHCmC, ts tHC CVCHt CrCHCCttat CCHVHCCsUs tHat
tHC stCr s CVCr, rCsC!UtCH. H CtHCr VCrOs, tHC maQQH_ aHO Oa_ram-
mH_ sCrVC as DCtH a OCsCrQtCH C!tHC CrOCr C!HUCCC aCOs H tHC C.
elegans _CHCmC, tHC _CHCa!C_y C!CC! aHCCstCrs, aHO as a maQ !Cr Us C!
VHatmaKCsHHIsHH_tHC stCrQaUsDC. tOCsCrDCsVHatmaKCs `rCsC!U-
tCHQCssD!C. CrC, V!trtCOa_ramtHs `tCsC!UtCH.
Resolution Has a sCrCs C! mCaHH_s tHat CaH DC Cr_aHZCO, !Cr CUr
QUrQCsCs, IHtC tVC OIstIHCt aHO HCar CQQCsCO IHHCCtICHs. !Irst VC !IHO
tHat `rCsC!UtICH rCsts CH tHC IOCa C!QrCCIsICH. `1s tHC CXamIHC tHC
VCrO mCrC aHO mCrC mIHUtC! VItH IHstrUmCHts C!CVCrHI_HCr rCsC!U-
tICHtHCCCmC UQCHQHCHCmCHaHCtQrCVICUs!OCsCrIDCO.I_HrCsC!U-
tICH HCrC rC!Crs tC tHC aDI!IttC QrCCIsC! OIstIH_UIsH tHC mCCHaHIsms C!
tHC DCHaVICr C!C. elegans. NItH tHIs mCaHIH_ C!resolution VC sCC tHat It
rCsts CHtHC aDI!Ity C!aH CDsCrVCr tC rCCC_HIZC, aHOQCrHaQs maKC, OIHCr-
CHCCs. LHtHC CtHCrHaHO, `rCsC!UtICH Is a!sC aDCUt C!CsUrC, tHC CraOICa-
tICHC!OIHCrCHCCs. `HC QrCCCssDVHICHaOIsCCrOIsmaOCtCQassIHtC a
CCHCCrO Cr `1sC!UtICH CrsCttCmCHtC!aOIsQUtC."
VaHt tC C!aIm tHat tHC `rCsC!UtICH sQCKCH CID CrVItZ Has tHC
CUCCtC!DCtH C!tHCsCmCaHIH_s atCHCC. tIs C!CartHattHC OCQ!CmCHt C!
aQHsICa!maQ, aCC!!!IHCa_COa_ram, aHO, CVCHtUa, tHC!U!!sCQUCHCCC!
tHC C. elegans _CHCmC Is a tCCHHICa! CHCrt C!_rCat QrCCIsICH, CHC tHat
OIsCCVCrs aHO OCsCrIDCs HCV OHCrCHCCs IH DCHaVICr aHO _CHCtIC CHOCV-
mCHt. LHtHCCtHCrHaHO, ItIsa!sCaHCHCrtVHCsC CXQ!ICIt_Ca!Is tCmaKC
ItQCssID!CtCsa `tHatIsatHCrC Is, tCrCsC!VC tHC QUCstICHaHOstCr C!C.
elegans. VaHt tC IHsIst tHat DCtH arC CQUa! ImQCrtaHt, I! HCt CQUa!!
CDVICUs, asQCCts C!VHatHaVC CaCO tHC rHCtCrICa!sC!tVarCs C!rCsCarCH.
HCVCrsQCCI!ICIOCa C!aHI_H-rCsC!UtICH ÙHOCrstaHOH_ C!C. elegans,
VHICHVCrmrCsCarCHCrsHaVC,Is aQrCOUCtC!tHCUHsQCKCHHarratIVC tHC
UsC as a tCC! !Cr Cr_aHIZIH
|
aHO QUrsUIH_ rCsCarCH, jUst as mUCH as tHC
QCrsUasIVC `rCsC!UtICH maOC QCssID!C D tHC tCCHHC!C_ICs C!`1L [Cast
artI!ICIa! CHrCmCsCmC) aHO QHsICa! maQQIH_. 1CtH arC asQCCts C! tHC
!ar_Cr HarratIVC tC!O C! C. elegans, CHC VHICH, IrCHICa!!, aHHCUHCCs tHC
CHOC!tHC stCr.
HIs !ar_Cr stCr Is tHC stCr C!`!!C, astCr C!tHC sUD!ImC CDjCCtC!
DIC!C_y. IKC tHC QHCUma C!tHC LHCstICs, It CaHHCt OICIt Is, IH a Va,
ImmatCrIa!, !rCZCH, tImC!Css, aHOVItHCUt_aQs. !CraHt, tHCsUD!ImCVas
tHat VHICH QrCVCKCO a !CCH_ C! Q!CasUrC aHO OsQ!CasUrC tHrCU_H Its
IHaDI!Ity tC DC rCQrCsCHtCO. HaHts aCCCUHt, It Is QrCCIsC! tHC !aIUrC C!
rCQrCsCHtatICH tC OCjUstICC tC tHC sUD!ImC CDjCCttHat_IVCsUs aH IOCaC!
tHCsHaQCC!tHCsUD!ImC CDjCCt.HatIs,VCKHCV!rCm CUrrCsQCHsC tHat
ItIs aQUa!Ity C!tHC sUD!ImC CDjCCttHatItQrCVCKCs a!a!UrC C!rCQrCsCHta-
tICH. t QrCsCHts tHat VHICH Is UHrCQrCsCHtaD!C.`` jCaH-!raHCIs CtarO
artICU!atCs tHIs VC!!. `HtHC sUDmC `sItUatICH, sCmCtHIH_!IKC aH 1DsC-
!UtC,CItHCrC!ma_HItUOCCrC! QCVCr,IsmaOCQUasI-QCrCCQtD!C [tHCVCrO
Is aHts) OUC tC tHC VCr !aI!H_ C! tHC !aCU!ty C! QrCsCHtatICH. Hs
aDsC!UtC Is, IHaHts tCrmIHC!C_y, tHC CDjCCtC!aH OCa C!HCasCH.'
We can see that in a certain way the nineteenth-century concept of
life was networked with such a Kantian reading of the sublime. As the
"beyond" of disease, hidden in the silence of the organs, life was present
able only in its inability to be represented, visible only in its invisibility. `
With C. elegans, we have a radically diferent story, but the sublime re
mains. For while it is true that the ability to look at it and say "that is all
there is" argues against the unrepresentable, inefable, sublime nature of
life, the new visible invisibility can be found in the increasing resolution of
the descriptions of the nematode. For what is looked at here is the absence
of anything beyond the genetic endowment of C. elegans and its instantia
tion. Put another way, the aesthetic of a "complete understanding" is an
aesthetic that finds nothing sublime. Jean Baudrillard writes of his en
counter with such an aesthetic, that of the hyperreal:
I recal a particular scene of a hyperrealist . exhibition at Beauborg, of flesh
colored, absolutely realistic and naked sculptures, or rather mannequins in un
equivocal, banal positions. The instantaneousness of a body which is meaningless
and which has nothing to say but simply exists, has a kind of stupefing efect
upon its spectators. They leaned over to see something, to look at the texture of
the skin, the pubic hair, everything, but there was nothing to see. Some even
wanted to touch the bodies to test their reality, but of course that didn't work
because everything wa already there. (emphasis added)53
The resonances here between this hyperreal aesthetic and the worm proj
ect speak for themselves: the frenzied detail, the tactile interaction with
the object, the claim to be able to say nothing more. "It is a 'real ani
mal' . . . if you hit it, it reacts." Such an aesthetic is fascinated, and stu
pefied by, the end of narrative. Can it really have nothing more to say?
Yes, "that is althere is." It is the constant inquiry, the joyous disbelief that,
finally, there is nothing more beyond our gaze, that marks this new sub
lime. It is the remains of the sublime, sublime remains whose fascination is
tied to the memory of a story that looked for something beyond frag
mented surfaces-limbs, nerves, intestines, banal positions. The worm
project is a project that seeks to demonstrate, through "thousands of serial
electron micrographs," yeast artificial chromosomes, the sequence of a
genome, and the rhetoric of complete understanding, that the secret of
life is that there is nothing beyond the surface, that there is no secret. `"
Thus, the sublime object of biology is no longer the life that is beyond
disease and the organism, visibly invisible; instead, it is the continual story
that there is nothing more to say, a story of resolution told in higher and
higher resolution.
Thus, "resolution" here marks the displacement of the sublime object
of biology, and it is itself a marker of the sublime in the hyperreal aesthetic
of C. elegans. In its capacity as a marker of precision, "resolution" ends the
story of C. elegans insofar as it makes it plausible to say "that is all there is,"
to resolve the diferences between a computer program and its execution,
DNA and a body. At the same time, this very "resolution" allows more
stories to be told, stories about the end of stories, but narratives nonethe
less. These narratives are about the continual and constant triumph of
molecular biology, a triumph that announces the absence of that "meta
physic
a
l entity hidden behind the word 'life.' "
The new sublime object of biology is thus visibly invisible in two
ways. First, the transparent body of the nematode, "there" but unseen, is
resolved into nothing, a memory of a body, a body of memory that
functions as a repository of the "past choices of its ancestors." Second, a
new diference is uncovered or resolved "behind" the cel lineage dia
gram, wiring diagram, and the physical map: nothing. I now want to trace
out the shape of this nothing, because while it may be "no-thing," it
nonetheless has its efects as a virtual object.
Molecular Biology Is Dead-Long Live Molecular Biology
Slavoj
Z
izek has written of the psychoanalytic account of the sublime
body, a fantasy in which there exists a "body within the body" that resists
the cycle of generation and corruption.
Z
izek's paradigmatic example of
the sublime body comes from cartoons. "Consider Tom and Jerry, cat and
mouse. Each is subjected to frightful misadventures: the cat is stabbed,
dynamite goes of in his pocket, he is run over by a steamroller and his
body is fattened into a ribbon, and so forth; but in the next scene he ap
pears with his normal body and the game begins again-it is as though he
possessed another indestructible body." 55
Z
izek stresses the ways in which
the indestructible body within the body exemplifies Jacques Lacan's no
tion of a space between two deaths, between biological and symbolic
death. For what's crucial in this example-given the malleability of the
notion of "living" -is not the miraculous ability of a cat to withstand high
explosives. Rather, it is the ability of the narrative to withstand such
explosions because that ability is tied to the techniques of animation and
rhetoric that keep the cartoon going and keep Tom alive. One of these
techniques-the actual "reconstruction" of Tom's body-takes place be
tween frames, as a blackened, scorched cat is transformed, once again,
into the same, uninjured feline body. Thus, for us, the importance of
Lacan's analysis of the two deaths-one biological, one symbolic-lies in
its ability to highlight the distinction between the end of a "life" and the
end of a story. More than once we have watched cartoon souls ascend to
cartoon heaven in biological cartoon death, but the story and the cartoon
go on, symbolic death deferred for another frame, another episode of
" animation."
Thus, what animates the story of C elegans, given that there is no
"life" left in it, is a story of the end of narrative, a story that, like conven
tional animation, both covers over narrative gaps and lives of them. That
is, the very things that make animation, and narrative in general (if there is
such a thing) , possible are the gaps that make plausible the appearance of
movement and change. Beyond each fragment or frame of a narrative is a
story that moves, and this "beyond;' that which exceeds any individual
fragment, is the site of the sublime object. In the case of Tom, this object
is an indestructible body that returns "between" fames. In molecular
biology, the end of the grand narrative of life, the "death" of life is
overcome through a new story of information, in which a sequence of
"bits" is strung together or animated into a coherent whole through the
discourse of "that is all there is," a story of coding without mediaton or
bodies. Thus, we read in Walter Gilbert's "Towards a Paradigm Shift in
Biology," "Molecular biology is dead-Long live molecular biology." The
ambiguity and sublimity of molecular biological research can be found at
the point of "-," a marker of the "resolution" of the sublime object of
biology, a resolution at once apocalyptic and inventive, between two
deaths. No longer about "life," life science is now about the fact that there
is nothing but story, nothing but information. This information is the
sublime body, that which persistently returns. `' For example, in Gilbert's
manifesto for postvitality, he contrasts the modern and postvital para
digms. "In the current paradigm . . . . The 'correct' approach is to iden
tif a gene by some direct experimental procedure-determined by some
property of its product or otherwise related to its phenotype-to clone it,
to sequence it, to make its product . . . . The new paradigm, now emerg
ing, is that all the 'genes' will be known (in the sense of being resident in
databases available electronicaly) . 57
What has happened between these two frames or paradigms? Pheno
types, bodies, have disappeared as referents for the sequence of nucleic
acids, which have themselves become "al there is." The new biology,
Gilbert writes, wilbe dominated by "theoretical conjecture" and "inter-
Sublme Object of Biolog 23
pretation" of sequences. A researcher will begin with the end of nar
rativity, with the idea that "all there is" to know about an organism can be
found in its electronic database sequence, the notion that such informa
tion is the timeless and perhaps indestructible essence of the organism.
But she will not stop there; the narrative of life will now be an exegetical
one, where theorists scan databases and through "individual insight and
inspiration," produce new knowledge, new stories of organisms that will
themselves become a part of the worldwide databases. Thus, the sublime
object and body of biology remain in the form of sequences and their
network of databases. These sequences, networked together as a "reagent
that the scientist uses . . . include a knowledge of the primary sequence
of the organism, together with a list of all previous deductions fom that
sequence."58
It is this network, and the rhetoric of insight, that prevents the second
death of "life," symbolic death, as the sublime object/body of sequences
and networks still shimmers with "an understanding oflife" despite and
because of "resolution." While there is no "life" beyond the body of
the postvital organism, there is a sublime beyond, and it can be found
in the new density of interpretation brought to bear on genetic sequences,
the new narratives that arise out of the end of narratlvity, an epoch that
seems to be without stories. This is what animates Gilbert's manifesto:
)
"There is a malaise in biology. The growing excitement about the ge-
nome project is marred by a worry that something is wrong-a tension in
the minds of many biologists that sequencing is boring. And yet everyone
is sequencing. What can be happening? Our paradigm is changing."59
One most certainly gets bored when "that is all there is." While it is of
course true that the technical, repetitive nature of genomics is seen to be
tedious, this begs the question of what makes biological research interest
ing in the first place. While some biologists mourn the loss of their old
paradigm in a malaise, longing for the mediations of phenotye and
behavior, Gilbert calls for a new basis of narratives, one that finds new
density and inspiration from the "nothing" behind the massive, complete
knowledges found in databases of information. This nothing is certainly
no thing; rather it is a network of hard wares, wetwares, and softwares that
reconstitute the sublime object of biology at the mark of "-." Fittingly,
Gilbert writes nothing about what these new narratives are to be about;
rather, he merely marks and helps to animate a movement toward a
paradigm shift in biology, a shift toward a hyperreal paradigm that probes
and interprets information that is complete, "already there."
This shift, it should be clear, is not simply a progressive shift, where
more and more knowledge is gathered about "life." Rather, it is a dis
placement of the very terms of an "understanding" of "life," one that
reverses the polarity of analysis from the modern study of phenotype and
behavior to a study within an economy of sequences. For the very formu
lation and constitution of sequence databases and libraries depends on a
loss or an overcoming of the "priority" of the body of the organism as the
site of reference for life. This loss or overcoming efaces or ignores the
origins of such sequences and installs them as what Brian Rotman has
caled a "meta-sign," an inscription that marks absence. In our case, the
frenzied increase of sequencing announces the absence of that prior site of
1ife-organisms-at the same time that it marks new economies of refer
ence for life, ones in which the constandy changing and growing data
bases frame the vitality of any given sequence. In the absence of any
transcendental articulation like that of the sovereign organism and its
interior vitality, life, in the age of postvitality, becomes anchored not to
the organism and its will to live, but to the constant, worldwide compia
tion and exegesis of sequences.6
0
Like Brian Rotman's analysis of xeno
money, in which a futures market explodes to overcome the loss of gold as
a transcendental signifer, life becomes dislocated, no longer localizable in
a body but dispersed through the narratives and networks that make up
the interpretations of genetic databases.61
Thus, insofar as life becomes identified with genetic sequences and
their translation, it becomes distributed, situated not within the sublime,
sovereign interior of organisms but in and emerging from the strong
readings profered by theorists and their tools. The efects of a network of
tools, rhetorics, and work, "life" is not some transcendental object, some
"thing" that is "studed." Rther, the biological object, the postvital or
ganism, is in the position of a cryonic body, dependent on the network of
technologies, people, and narratives in order to fulfil its promise of a life it
has dis10cated.62 By connecting life back up to its conditions of emer
gence, I hope to dislocate it, to mark the way it occupies not one tran
scendental "place" or position, but instead emerges out of the series of
connections between words and technologies, human or otherwise. This
dislocation, in a way, makes it impossible to speak or write of "life" in
general, insofar as the emphasis on the connections of narratives and
networks of technologies marks the heterogeneities and diferences of
what has been called, since the nineteenth century, life.
CHAPTER 2
Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself
The Rhetorical Origins of
the Genetic Code
Biologists think that they devote themselves to the study
of life. It's not clear why.
-Jacques Lacan, Te Seminar of Jacques Lacan
Biologists no longer study life today.
-Fran<ois Jacob, Te Logic of Life
As I pointed out in chapter I , "life" just isn't what it used to be. The
conceptual, rhetorical matrix we used to feel comfortable ascribing to
something called "organ
i
sms" has been displaced and retooled. From
artificial life to the cyborg universe of Donna Haraway, the tropes we have
traditionally associated with vitality seem to be mutating. These muta
tions have most notably taken place around a molecule, the double helix, a
twin strand of nucleic acids with immense discursive as well as physico
chemical powers. In this chapter I will attempt to analyze the rhetorical
"origins" of this new regime of the molecule, rhetorics that functioned as
software for the new science of molecular biology. In this case, the notion
of rhetorics as software is particularly appropriate as it foregrounds mo
lecular biology's dependence on particular linguistic media. Specifcally,
the trope of the " code" has been as crucial to nascent molecular biology
and its precursors as the more obvious gadgets of ultracentrifuges, elec
trophoresis gels, and electron microscopes. Indeed, in one particular case
that I will outline here, I would argue that the new rhetorical framework
that made possible the identification oflife with a molecule preceded the
technologies that would make the practices of a molecular biology possi
ble. My concern is not to establish the priority of this rhetorical interven
tion, but to mark out how the assemblage or network that produces
molecular biology runs on rhetoricity as well as technicity.
26 Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself
Today technicity and rhetoricity together compile genetic databases,
texts that will only become "readable" -in al their depth, richness, and
absurdity-with the future mapping and sequencing of "the" human gen
ome, a three-billion-dollar project funded by the National Institutes of
Health and the Department of Energy. This massive and frenzied efort to
determine a reference standard for the genetic human finds its market
ability in medicine, and yet its motivations and efects are more varied and
profound. On the one hand, the genome projects can be seen as a "natu
ral" destination for late-twentiethcentury life science, science that has so
drastically imploded "life" and "information" that genetic sequences can
be transmitted by electronic mail. On the other hand, this instrumental
project sells itself as ontological research: "One of the strongest arguments
for supporting human genome projects is that they will provide knowl
edge about the determinants of the human condition. One group of
scientists has urged support of human genome projects because sequenc
ing the human genome will provide one of the most powerful tools hu
mankind has ever had for deciphering the mysteries of its own existence."l
Added to this twin specter of surveillence and existential stupidity are
quiet murmurs of a better eugenics: "the problem with positive eugenics
has more to do with the means than with the ends."2
This chapter will not deal explicitly with these remarks-indeed, in
many ways they function as their own critique.3 Instead, I want to focus
on what has made them possible as technoscientific statements. In order
to focus on the rhetorical softwares of molecular biology, I will examine
not only the oficial discourse of the life sciences, whose history tells of the
final penetration of the secrets oflife and the ultimate mastery of the vital,
but also the more fayed edges of the discourse on life, edges inhabited by
cartoons and popular crossover works. The interconnections and recep
tions of these seemingy aleatory discourses with the rise of molecular
biology disrupt the claim that there can be anything like a linear inheri
tance of concepts in the history of molecular biology. Rather than follow
ing one branch in a genealogy that leads to another, a branch that ul
timately ends up connecting to a tree of scientific causality through which
we can trace the evolution of molecular biology, we are confronted each
time with an error, a displacement or polyp that erupts into a new form of
knowledge with new technologies and power efects. We discover, along
with Foucault, that
to follow the complex course of descent is to maintain passing events in their
proper dispersion; it is to identif the accidents, the minute deviations-or con-
Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself 27
versely, the complete reversals-the errors, the false appraisals, and the faulty
calculations that gave birth to those things that continue to exst and have value
for us . . . that truth or being do not lie at the root of what we know and what we
are, but the exteriority of accidents. 4
What follows then is an accident report, a description of a rhetorical
collision.5
X Marks Metaph
y
sics: Schrodinger's Mutation
Although a physicist, Erwin Schrodinger had a profound impact on the
metaphorics of the genetic substance. Having received a Nobel Prize in
1933 for his breakthrough work in quantum theory, Schrodinger turned
his attention to biological questions in his popular account of the physical
basis of vitality. Mat Is Life?, published in 1 943 , provides a rhetorical
model of the gene that would influence Francis Crick, whose research
with James Watson resulted in the discovery of the now famous double
helical model of DNA. It also provided the groundwork for George
Gamow's descripton of the DNA-protein relation in 1 954 as a "transla
tion."6 An analysis of Schrodinger's text wil provide us with a view of
both his dependence / on the traditional metaphors of heredity and his
recasting of them, which alowed him to formulate the notion of a heredi
tary "code."
Schrodinger's rhetoric relies much on the traditional metaphors of
genetics in his "summary" of that subject. Indeed, because of his position
as a "dilettante," Schrodinger's characterization of genetics gives us a very
general picture of the nature of the rhetorical reservoir available to the
geneticist of the 1 940sJ It is also this status as "dilettante" that allows
Schrodinger to reinterpret some of these common tropes. For example,
his disC1ssion of genetics begins with the notion of the "pattern": "Let me
use the word 'pattern' of an organism in the sense in which the biologist
cals it 'the four dimensional pattern,' meaning not only the structure and
functioning of the organism in the adult, or in any other particular stage,
but the whole of its ontogenetic development."8
Here Schrodinger employs what I will cal a phenotypic trope, in that
the notion of "pattern" refers to the "shape" of a developing and devel
oped organism and not just to the genotype, the shape, as it were, of its
genes. That is, "pattern" refers to the ongoing growth and development
of an organism, a thick description of the birth, growth, and life of an
organism, a cradle-to-grave biography. Note that Schrodinger is careful to
mark the importance of nomenclature by his use of quotes and the defini
tional gesture with which he begins.
From here, however, the rhetorical pattern shifts and displaces; fom
the detail and complexity of the living organism Schrodinger moves to
the chromosome. Because this "four dimensional pattern is known to be
determined by the structure of the . . . fertilized egg" and because that
cell itself is "essentially determined by the structure of only . . . the nu
cleus," Schrodinger turns his attention to genotype. "It is these chromo
somes, or probably only an axial skeletal fibre of what we actually see
under the microscope as the chromosome, that contain in some kind of
code-script the entire pattern of the individual's future development."9
No longer, then, is "pattern" to be seen in the exhibited characteristics
and functioning of an individual organism. Rather, it is now something
that is "contained" in the coded and scripted chromosome. No longer a
reflection or even a production of genotype, "pattern" is now literally
inside genotype. By "troping" the trope of pattern, Schrodinger literally
and grotesquely turns "pattern" and the "organism" inside out. With this
move-the metonymic substitution of" code" for " organism" -the entire
future birth, life, and death of the organism is "contained" or engulfed by
the chromosomes. This fantastic and impossible twist in the history of the
genetic substance must be seen as a fundamental reprogramming of the
rhetorical sofware of genetics, and by extension, molecular biology. As in
one of Freud's "absurd dreams" in which a patient "failed to distinguish
the bust and the photograph fom the actual person;' Schrodinger mis
takes or displaces the pattern of the organism by its " code-script," inject
ing the life of the organism into its description. 1
0
Thus, despite Schrodinger's care in his deployment of the terms of his
summary, "pattern" takes on an essentially diferent meaning, as the de
velopmental and physical complexity of the "four dimensional pattern" is
displaced by the genetic instructions for that pattern. Because we are
dealing with "scripts" or texts, an analogy drawn from literary theory
might illuminate for us the nature of this textual problem. Paul de Man
describes an analogous slippage that arises in theories of discourse:
It would be unfortunate, for example, to confuse the materiality of the signifier
with the materiality of what it signifies . . . . No one in his right mind would try
to grow grapes by the luminosity of the word "day," but it is very dificult not to
conceive the pattern of one's past and future existence as in accordance with
temporal and spatial schemes that belong to fictional narratives and not to the
world.
11
Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself 29
This passage speaks precisely to the "pattern" ofSchrodinger's move. By
placing a spatiotemporal series of events "within" a code-script, Schro
dinger is efectively put in the positi(n of trying to grow grapes by the
light of " day." More precisely, he confses the "organism" with its "es
sence" or its "recipe." It is this confusion that de Man labels "ideology."12
Schrodinger, at least in part, is aware of the possibility for confusion.
Aways attentive to the need for careful definition, he ofers a more precise
reason for the "code-script" metaphor: "In calling the structure of the
chromosome fibres a code-script we mean that the all penetrating mind,
once conceived by Laplace, to which every causal connection lay imme
diately open, could tell fom their structure whether the egg would de
velop, under suitable conditions, into a black cock or a speckled hen."13
The code is thus at once secret and transparent. The ideal, godlike reader
would be able to read the future of any given organism from the text of its
stable and indelible "code-script." 14 But Schrodinger seems to realize that
this is not an entirely satisfactory metaphor. Even to Schrodinger, the
temporal and spatial collapse he is speaking of seems to be undone by a
trope that requires both a code and a decoder folded into one: "the term
code-script is, of couJse, too narrow. The chromosome structures are at
the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they fore
shadow. They are law code and executive power-or to use another sim
ile, they are architect's plan and builder's craft in one."1 5 In his careful
attempt to articulate his description of the genetic substance, Schrodinger
ironically falls prey to what Freud characterized as a "verbal foolishness"
and what De Man labeled ideology. Ifhe had posited the chromosomes as
only a code-script that required a reading or a translation to produce an
organism, Schrodinger's model could be accommodated to the more
complex developmental model of "pattern" while ofering a useful heu
ristic or metaphor for the specific function of the chromosomes within
that pattern. 16 With this last move, however, Schrodinger places all the
power within the code and none within the development of the or
ganism. The insertion of "builder's craft" into the "plan" of genotype
represents the deletion of the organism and phenotype. This deletion
condenses a lifetime of development into a moment of "law code and
executive power."
A model for this deletion or exchange of one model oflife for another
can be found in Schrodinger's text itself, in the mechanism of" crossover":
"Before being separated in the reductive division, say the one in the
father's body, any two homologous chromosomes come into close contact
with each other, during which they sometimes exchange entire por
tions."17 Subject to chance, the encounter and exchange of one allele for
another takes place through crossover, the chiasmatic substitution of one
allele-a sequence of DNA that codes for a trait-for another. Each
crossover occurs via a chance chiasmatic encounter, and yet the frequency
of exchange can be mapped according to the distance between the respec
tive sites on the chromosome. The greater the distance between two sites
on a chromosome, the greater the likelihood that an exchange will take
place. This model, more specifically, the model of "unequal crossover;' in
which the exchange during crossover leads to the deletion of one allele
and "gametes containing the deletion chromosome will presumably die
or produce an inviable zygote," provides us with a literal model for the
metaphorical genesis of molecular biology. 18 That is, the encounter of one
"pattern" with another, and the subsequent deletion of or death of the
organism, are allegorized by the discussion of crossover in Wat Is Lie?
Schrodinger's legacy-the cascade of events that led to a "genetic
code"-was subject to chance, but this crossover from physics to biology
was in fact, according to our model, helped along by his distance from
biology, a distance sued up in his description of himself as a "dilet
tante." In the "father's body" of molecular biology, Wat Is Life?, the
chance encounter between the metaphor of genotypic and phenotypic
pattern, physics and biology, leads to a retooled conceptual and meta
phorical inheritance for molecular biology, an inheritance based on
Schrodinger's "code-script" OfI 943 . 19
These concentric chiasmata, in which the chiasmus or exchange be
tween the phenotypic and genotypic flavors of "pattern" is contained
within a crossover or chiasmus between physics and biology, is itself enve
loped within the interference pattern generated by Schrodinger's enfold
ing of the popular and the scientific in Wat Is Li? Here we might call
Schrodinger's reformulation of "pattern" a X-ray mutation, as this inter
face or crossover work marks with an X the constant chiasmatic operation
at work in science, what we might call the invaginaton of scientific and
popular discourse. Derrida has argued that philosophy cannot be extri
cated from its rhetoricity, most notably due to philosophy's reliance upon
metaphor. But the other side of this analysis also shows the extent to
which rhetoric is indebted to philosophy: "metaphor remains, in all its
essential characteristics, a classical philosopheme."2o Philosophy and rhet
oric thus mark not oppositions, but lines of diference, what Gilles De
leuze might call a "fold," or what Derrida explicates as "the contamina-
Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself 3 I
tion oflogic, the logic of contamination." These cross-pollinating models
all point to the ways in which discourses, like the chromosomes in Schro
dinger's text, cross over and "contain" each other. As a play of diferences
rather than a tool for meaning and communication, scientific discourse
can be seen to be both productively and hopelessly embedded in the
discourses of technology, philosophy, and, as we shall see, cartoons.
In the cartoon universe, space gets displaced, reversed, or enfolded. It
is this universe that, we might argue, is the universe Schrodinger borrows
from. In a cartoonlike gesture, Schrodinger pulls or injects a cartoon, an
impossible and perverse representation of "the new biology," out of the
future. In the 1 960s, physicist George Gamow-theorist of the Big Bang
and, along with Schrodinger, the man primarily responsible for the nO
tion that DNA is a "code"-drew and wrote a number of popular texts on
science. Among them was Mr Tompkins Inside Himself Adventures in the
New Biology, a text in which Gamow's fictional character and sometime
coauthor is, much like Schrodinger, impossibly injected into his own
body to better understand it (Fig. I) . A mammoth hypodermic sucks
Tompkins' body out jf the word and into . . . his body.
I amjust going to inject you into your own blood stream, so that you can see for
yourself the various cell colonies fom which you are formed . . . . As he spoke,
Dr. Streets put his hand into a pocket of his white gown, puled out a large
hypodermic syringe, and pointed its long shiny needle toward Mr. Tompkins.
There was a violent feeling of suction, and for a moment Mr. Tompkins felt just
as if he were a camel trying to squeeze itself through a needle's eye. Then
something pinched his arm above the elbow, the suction turned into pressure,
and Mr. Tompkins was forcibly ejected into a rapidly flowing mass of some
slightly yellowish transparent fluid.21
The structure of this nonserious but also nontrivial trope, which al
lows Tompkins to fold in on himself in an act of self-habitation and
manipulation, parallels Schrodinger's movement, as an organism, in his
own analysis from the position of a body in the world to a body inside of a
chromosome inside of . . . a text entitled Wat Is Lif? Just as Gamow
relies explicitly on a cartoonish trope as a narrative device to explain "the
new biology," so too does Schrodinger implicitly require a new rhetorical
software that allows the chromosomal engulfent of the organism that
made the "code-script" plausible. It also mimes the endless foldings and
refoldings of discourse that, I have tried to show, make science possible.
That is, the identification of an organism with its description or its al-
: I
I
I j'
,
('
I \
,
I
I
:
'
\

. -\ - " -- "
I " \ , '
Fig. I . Mr. Tompkins gives his body to molecular biology. Reprinted with
permission fom Gamow and Y cas, Mr Tompkins Inside Himsel p. 5 .
gorithm, and the rhetorical twist needed to manage such a conflation,
allegorizes the scientific dream of efacing its rhetoricity while deploying
it, "X-ing" it out.
Thus far fhave stressed the spatial reorganization of the organism and
the body necessary for the appearance and thinking of molecular biology.
Foucault's work on the place of incision and morbid anatomy, summed up
in the chapter title "Open Up a Few Corpses," marks the way in which
discursive practices have constituted the body-and, I might note, "liv
ing" -through new acts of spatialization, epistemological breaks that
Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself 3 3
could be found at the edge of a knife but that were constituted, Foucault
argues, by a new ontology, the "non-verbal conditions on the basis of
which it [medicine] can speak:'22 Here I want to claim that unlike Fou
cault's object and period of study, when "death became the concrete a
priori of medical experience . . . [and] detach[ed] itself from counter
nature and became embodied in the living bodies ofindividuals,"23 Schro
dinger moves beyond the point at which "the patient is hardly more than
an injected corpse, a half-filled barrel" to the point that no body, indeed,
no life, need exist at all outside of the "aperiodic crystal" Schrodinger
inadvertently injected himselfinto.24 No longer does the cadaver provide
the material and paradigmatic basis for the medical body; the body, and
life, have disappeared.
The question of the spatialization of the body, as Foucault has shown,
is always bound up with the power I knowledge dyad. In our case, the con
stitution of genetic disease, a regime of the gene in which "all disease is
genetic" and disease is figured as a time bomb waiting to explode on a
double helix, the localization of disease on a sequence of DNA and not a
body can be seen t
<
be intimately intertwined with Schrodinger's fantastic
intervention.25 But the power efects are not limited to the efects of spa
tialization. The ascription of agency-"law code and executive power . . .
architect's plan and builder's craft in one" -to the hereditary substance can
be seen as nothing less than a retooling of the concept oflife.26 "Crystals,"
not organisms, have agency in Schrodinger's universe, and it is this uni
verse, we shall see, that will be shared by early workers in molecular
biology like Watson and Crick. It is this paradox of scientific inquiry-the
increase of scientific "control" that leads to the deletion of agency-that
Foucault sums up: "Western man could constitute himself within his
language, and gave himself, in himself and by himself, a discursive exis
tence, only in the opening created by his own elimination:'27 Both
Tompkins and Schrodinger seem to take this move literally insofar as it is
only through their own elimination that they can be injected into bodies
or chromosomes.28
Of course, the mere fact that Schrodinger's rhetoric encodes the ge
netic substance-and, indeed, life-as a written code does not account for
why this rhetorical move was attractive, nor does it prove that this artic
ulation had any real impact. To jump to such a conclusion would be to
perform Schrodinger's error of mistaking a text for a complete develop
ment of an organism or a concept. It does, however, demonstrate that this
articulation was both feasible and available. It also demonstrates histor-
ically where at least some of the feasibility of tropes like the "book oflife"
comes from, as well as perhaps the importance of attending to the written,
rhetorical displacements that make up scientific discourse.
The power of this formulation is clear, insofar as Schrodinger's loca
tion of life inside the code-script inspired, among others, Francis Crick:
"A major factor in [Crick's] leaving physics and developing an interest in
biology had been the reading in 1 946 of Wat Is Lif? by the noted
theoretical physicist Erwin Schrodinger. This book very elegantly pro
pounded the belief that genes were the key components ofliving cells and
that, to understand what life is, we must know how genes act."29 What's
particularly instructive about Watson's formulation is that it draws atten
tion to precisely the conflation that I analyzed earlier. While it's perfectly
predictable that the virtual founders of molecular biology would empha
size the role of the genetic substance in life, this quotation strikingy
illustrates the efect, both scientific and rhetorical, of Schrodinger's de
scription. Not only did it provide the motivation for a migration of
physicists into the life sciences, but it also helped frame the question oflife
within a reductionist framework that sought and found the secret oflife in
a crystalograph and not an actual organism. "Absurd" or not, Watson and
Crick's dream of understanding "what life is" includes a Nobel Prize and
the beginnings of a research program to read the "book of life" whose
ultimate efects travel to the genome initiatives.
Thus, Schrodinger did not, in some sense, go awry. Rather, this epi
sode in the constitution of molecular biological discourse brings into
relief Derrida's remark quoted earlier that science is shot through with
writing and rhetoric, and rhetoric is saturated with diferences, difer
ences that make possible the moments of invention that, ideological or
not, make plausible diferent scientific regimes and researches. Scien
tificity itself is at least in part a rhetorical efect, an efect of the possibility
of the displacement and exchange of meanings and models both within
and across discourses. These exchanges need not obey the disciplinary
strictures that traverse their discourses; indeed, they need not be "possi
ble" in any strict sense. Applied to our example-the becoming molecular
of life and disease-Foucault's remarks resonate with uncanny understate
ment: "Every great thought in the feld of pathology lays down a config
uration for disease whose spatial requisites are not necessarily those of
classical geometry."3
0
Schrodinger's rhetorical and scientific exchange of
the trope of phenotype for the trope of genotype was not merely Freud's
"verbal carelessness"; it was a rhetorical plausibility condition of molecu-
Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself 3 5
lar biology. It made it thinkable and practical for Watson and Crick,
among others, to equate life with the structure of DNA and, eventually, to
seek to "decode" it.
And yet Schrodinger's rhetorical invention is still far from the Lapla
cian readers of the "book oflife" peering over electrophoresis gels today.
The trajectory of the "code" metaphor was far fom simple. While it is
true that codes were literally "in the air" during the years of World War II,
the impact of the specifc metaphorics of the " code" was less than clear.
The reductionist "deletion of the organism" discussed earlier was made
possible through the notion that the essence of life was contained in a
discrete unit of code-script, but it is only after the articulation of the
structure of DNA that the tropics of "code" get played out. In Crick and
Watson's "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxy
ribonucleic Acid;' which outlined the now familiar double helical struc
ture of DNA, no mention of the code metaphor is made. However, in
their next article, "Genetical Implications of the Structure of Deoxy
ribonucleic Acid;' they write: "in a long molecule many diferent per
mutations are possible, and it therefore seems likely that the precise se
quence of the bases is the code which carries the genetical information."31
Yet just what was meant by this "code;' besides the fact that it some
how related the sequence of DNA to proteins, remained suitably enig
matic. How this "genetic information" synthesized proteins was still un
certain. It remained for George Gamow-along with Mr. Tompkins, his
coauthor-to describe the "translation" of the genetic code, research that
I outline in chapter 3 . But rather than proceeding as if history unwinds
fom Schrodinger's catachresis purely in the context of the past, I want to
trace out a contemporary echo, repetition, or symptom of Schrodinger's
coding of the living. That is, in lieu of the historiographical convention of
providing context from the past to explain, causally, the origins of an
event exterior to any writerly intervention, I ofer the equally refractory
context of the present, that place from which I write and narrate the
rhetorical "origins" of the genetic code.
Smart DNA, Postvital Living
In his article "Self Organization and Living Systems: Is DNA an Artificial
Intelligence?," D. H. Adams attempts to reconfigure the distinction be
tween living and nonliving systems in terms of "intelligence:' While
eschewing the "discredited view that 'life' is dependent on some ill-
3 6 Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself
defined 'vital force' " Adams also takes issue with the claim that "all matter
has an inherent capability for spontaneous 'self organization' " and that
therefore the distinction between living and nonliving systems is one
of degree and not of kind.32 Instead, Adams argues that "a wide, fun
damental and probably unbridgeable gap exists between the incredibly
complex organization in living systems and what is claimed to be ' self
organization' in inanimate systems" (p. 223). To preserve the distinction
between the living and the nonliving while at the same time staving of
any (ill-defined) notion of "vitality;' Adams ofers a model of a kind
of "smart DNA" or DNA as an artificial intelligence: "DNA possesses
unique characteristics even within the small group of potential substances
enabling it not only-as a computer analogue-to store exceptionally
large amounts of 'information' but to translate and implement this by
operating as an artificial intelligence system:'33
What, among other things, is so stunning about Adams's formulation
is that it repeats Schrodinger's "inside/ out" gesture at the level of the
cyborg. No longer is "cyborg" a possible phenotypic metaphor in which,
for Donna Haraway, "we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated hy
brids of machine and organism."34 The cyborg now constructs and orders
the slave "body" in smart but lifeless immanence, fulfilling the function
of the "director to the board of an industrial corporation," while the
proteins work "by processes essentially resembling those of assembly
plant robots."35 In short, Adams's text announces that the cyborg no
longer needs tl;e organism to "implement" its program. In a reversal of
McLuhan, "man" becomes the extension of the nanotechnological, a
meat puppet run by molecular machines.36 While Schrodinger wrote
explicitly if marginally about the "life of the organism," Adams moves on
beyond vitality to intelligence. No longer is "life that in which all the
distinctions between living beings have their basis," as Foucault paradox
ically put it.37 Nor is the "animate" that which can be distinguished from
the "mechanical." The "fundamental" opposition, given that "DNA itself
consists of inanimate matter," is between "intelligent" and "dumb" en
tities, between those capable of self-organization and those that are not.
Thus, Adams's intervention avoids the dilemma with which he be
gan-choosing between the vital model and the self-organization of all
matter-by moving the focus of his inquiry away from "life" and putting
it on "intelligence." Both previous options depended on a comparison
with something called "life." Adams reconfigures the question as one of
intelligence, and thus he in some way moves beyond, or "post," life,
Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himself
3
7
"vital." The irony, of course, resides in the fact that Adams is only able to
conceive of the activity of DNA as an artificial technology, efectively
obliterating the physis Itechne distinction-and the distinction between the
animate and the inanimate-in the same gesture as he exchanges DNA as
the secret of life

for DNA as the secret of intelligence. DNA, of course,
is not "reduced" or defated in any way by this exchange. It r
e
mains
the talisman with which one passes from one order of complexity to an
oter. These orders of complexity-such as artificial intelligence (AI)
are mired in their own metaphysical quagmires and productions, but these
problems can be pursued without reference to "life." In the movement
from "living" to "thinking," "vitality" gets spliced out.38
I cannot hope to do justice here to the ways this retooling of techne and
the organic impact the political-that is the topic for another book-but I
want to suggest here that Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe's analysis of techne and
politics in Heideger Ar and Politics points the way. If Lacoue-Labarthe
is correct in defining techne as "the surplus of physis, through which
physis 'deciphers' and presents itself" -and thus "political organicity is the
surplus necessary for a nation to present and recognize itsel
,
39-then
Adams's announcement that it is only through techne that the organic is
possible, that the production of a "natural" body requires the nanotech
nological, can be seen as a scientifc figuring of this "surplus" as DNA
itself, at once both physis and techne, the organic and the machinic, "inor
mation becoming form."4o It would seem that with this casting of "DNA
as Artificial Intelligence," the problems of the organic and politics have
been injected into the body and that this calls not for a defense of the
organism but rather for a deconstruction of the organism itself, a refusal of
the privilege accorded life in its unity, a privilege that indeed molecular
biological discourse sometimes reinscribes even in the face of its oblitera
tion. In the name of the organism and its purity or "normalcy" some wil
hope to "debug" this artificial inteligence, the genome, and restore it to
its natural unity. One commentator has argued that "individuals have a
paramount right to be born with a normal, adequate hereditary endow
ment. . . . The idea of genetic normalcy, once far fetched, is drawing
closer with the development of a full genetic map and sequence."41
An explication of the precise ways in which the tropes of AI are made
feasible within Adams's argument would require an analysis of the rhetor
ical engineering of his text, which space/time forbids. However extreme
Adams's position might be, the possibility and cogency of his formulation
speaks to the fact that while the genome projects may rhetoric
a
ly be
3 8 Mr. Schrodinger Inside Himsel
about "the book oflife," they may also be about what lies "beyond" "life."
The triumphs of molecular biology are not only about the "reduction" of
"life" to "genes;' although they are in part about that. They are also about
the production of a new secret, a secret no longer of "life" but of that
which remains after, the leftovers of Modernity's "life;' the postvital. Of
course, what lies beyond is not an epoch "after" life but one in which the
metaphysics of vitality get posted to a new address, perhaps a computer
address, an address in which it becomes possible to rephrase philosopher
John Searle's aphorism "Can machines think? Obviously, yes. We are
precisely such machines" to "Can Machines think? Obviously, yes. Our
genes are precisely such machines."42
The displacement marked out by Adams's research is hardly inevitable
or univocal. But it does serve as a map of a transformation that has
overtaken (or at least taken place in) the life sciences, a transformation of
the very object of research. In my next chapter, I will tace out the gaps
that made possible a crucial movement in this transformation, the move
from codes to words.
CHAPTER 3
From Codes to Words :
George Gamow and
the Age of the World Scripture
In 1 954, less than a year after Watson and Crick's "wish" to suggest a
structure for DNA, a short, seemingly unambitious text appeared in Na
ture. George Gamow, cosmologist, physicist, and cartoonist, suggested a
conceptual model for the DNA-protein relation in which the synthesis of
proteins from the double helical structure of DNA could be explained. In
1952, unbeknownst to Gamow, A. L. Dounce had articulated in rough
form the now familiar DNA-RNA-proteins troika, but the question of
how nucleic acids were related to proteins was still a mystery. Gamow's
text, "Possible Relation between Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Protein
Structures," included a proposal-the so-called diamond code-that was
ultimately proved false, but his conceptual and rhetorical influence can be
seen in the configuration and solution of what Crick would later call the
"coding problem."l Gamow's conceptualization of the coding problem
that is, how four diferent bases produce or determine twenty diferent
amino acids-as a problem of translation played a key part in research on
the code, and it can be seen as a rhetorical shift from the previous em
phasis on the metaphorics of "templates:' It ofered a crucial rhetorical
algorithm to molecular biology, one that allowed for the possible explana
tion of the complex relation between the substance of heredity, DNA,
and the ongoing function of living systems. What I will trace here is
Gamow's precise discursive description of this "relation" as a "transla
tion," an articulation that begins with the metaphor of "numbers" and
40 From Codes to Words
ends with "organisms." This encryption and decryption of "life" within a
rhetoric of "numerology" and "translation;' I will argue, is not merely
one metaphor or heuristic among others-it was and is a structuring
technology of molecular biology, a technology that retools the depths of
the body as a secret, even sacred archive.
By locating and describing the double helix as a site of espionage,
Gamow set of the treasure hunt associated with the coding problem and
established the cell as a site of a lexical, textual problematic, a pool of
cytoplasm curled up with a good Book. Crucial to this project was the
implicit notion that this "book of life," like its intertextual counterpart,
the New Testament, ofered one proper reading, one story, one Truth. I
will return to this notion of univocality in my conclusion. In what follows
I will trace the rhetorical software Gamow used to recast the genetic body.
For despite the rhetorical and scientific displacement of the body as the
site of vitality, the body's metonymies nonetheless remain in a crypt, a
"hole" or gap where the magical arc between DNA and proteins, text and
flesh, past and future, crackles.2
Translating Gamow's Translation
In my account of the history and proto history of molecular biology, I
stagger fom Schrodinger to Gamow seemingly blind to Watson and
Crick's formulation of the double helical model of DNA. Volumes have
been written on this breakthrough-it is the stuf of the heroic history of
science, a story of mediocrity punctuated by great thoughts and great
humans.3 While I acknowledge the importance of the Watson/Crick
model, especially its rhetorical influence, my tracing of the emergent
molecular discourse on life leads to tacit shifts or factures that took place
both within and outside the labs and journals of the early 1950S. As I
argued in the first two chapters of this book, I see the transformation of
the life sciences less as a consequence of a major breakthrough that revolu
tionized the discipline than as an emergent phenomenon that grew out of
an ecology or rhizome of efects, efects that are themselves often the
result of assumptions, metaphor, presupposition.4 For example: by his
own account, Watson's work with Crick leading to the articulation of the
double helix resulted less from careful progress toward revelation than
fom a complex of gender efects, play, and a desire for

speed. This work
was itself, in turn, inflected by Schro
d
inger's seemingly marginal writings
of the 1 940s. Both of these texts-Schrodinger's and Watson and Crick's-
From Codes to Words 41
VCrC aQartC! tHCtraHs!CrmatCHHtHCVCrCCHCCQtC!!!C,atraHs!Crma-
tCH tHat Q!aCCO !!C H CrssHCHCC 5CHrCOH_Crs tt!C, Wat Is Lie?, a
QUCstCHtHatHaO, !CrsCVCra! CCHtUrCs at!Cast, sCCmCO CtHCrsC!!-CVOCHt
Cr HCHsCHsCa!. ^CrC tHaH a CrtQUC C!Vta!sm, tHC CHa!!CH_C tC tHC
HCtCH C!tHC `sQCCa!HCss C!Vta!tymaOCQCssD!C a DC!C_Ca! mCOC!C!
!!CtHataCtVC!_HCrCOtHC Cr_aHsm. HC!aCttHat!!Cs HCtDCCHOtHC
!aVsCQHsCs!COsV!t! tC a!Css CDVCUs CCHC!UsCH. tHat!!CsmCCrH_
H tHCDCOCCU!ODC CVCr!CCKCO. HtHC!astCHaQtCr, attCmQtCOtCsHCV
HCVCHC mCVCmCHt C!tHs trCQC tCCKQ!aCC, VHCrC 5CHrCOH_Crs mCta-
QHCrC! tHCCCOC-sCrQtsCCmCOtCQrCOUCCaHamHCsaC! tHCDCO. HtHs
CHaQtCr, !C!CVasm!arOsQ!aCCmCHtC!tHC CCrQCrCa!, atraHs!CrmatCH
tHat, VI!ar_UC, s maOCQCssD!CD asH!tHtHC CCHCCQtC!!!C tHat will
have already taken place.
LCCr_C LamCV, as a !mHa!, HtCrOsCQ!Hary sUDjCCt mCVH_ DC-
tVCCH CartCCHs, CCsmC!C_y, aHO CCOCs, QrCVOCs Us VtH aH a!!C_CrCa!
H_UrC !Cr tHCsC CCmQ!CX aHOja__CO OsCUrsVC DrCaKs H !!C. HC QCVCr
aHO Q!aUsDI!ty C!tHCsC DrCaKs, V! ar_UC, CaH DC traCCO tC tHC UHsaO
QrCsUQQCstCHsC
{
Lam CVstraHs!atCHC!tHC!aCtC!tHC OCUD!CHC!XHtC
a rCaOaD!C DCO. Hat s, ratHCr tHaH rCsOH_ H tHC CXQ!Ct CCHtCHt C!
LamCVs sCHCmC, tHCQCrsUasVC !CrCC C!tHC OamCHO CCOC CaHDC!CUHO
H VHat Vas silenced Cr at !Cast assumed D LamCVs aCCCUHt. H VHat
!C!CVs, V!!DC HQUrH_, rHCtCrCa!!, HtC tHC s!CHt CCHOtCHs C!tHC
QCssDI!t C!LamCVs mCOC! C!tHC CCOC. V!!Qa sQCCa! HCCO tC tHC
QrCsUQQCstCHs mCDI!ZCO D tHC mCtaQHCrCs C!`traHs!atCH, as t Vas
tHs mCtaQHCr tHat sCCmCO tC aHmatC tHC CCmmUHt C!sCCHtsts VHC
CraCKCOtHC CCOC.
HmUHVHOH_C!tHCrHCtCrCa!KHCtstDatstrUCtUrC LamCVs tCXt,
V!!HrsttU_CHatHrCaO,mCrC sQCCHCa!!, a `HDrC. `H a CCmmUHCa-
tCHHNature C!â3 0, Q. 964, ]. D NatsCH aHOF . L. LrCK sHCVCO
tHattHC mC!CCU!C C!OCCXyrDCHUC!CC aCO, VHCH CaHDC CCHsOCrCO asa
CHrCmCsCmC !IDrC, CCHssts C!tVC Qara!!C! CHaHs !CrmCO D CH! !CUr
OHCrCHt KHOs C!HUC!CCtOCs.` NHCH LamCV CCHsOCrs a DNA mC!C-
CU!C àsa CHrCmCsCmC HDrC, HCtraHs!atCs. s s aH attCmQttC HtCrQrCt
tHCDNA mCOC!QrCQCsCODNatsCHaHO LrCKVtHHa_rOC!tHC CCL.
NC HaVC a!rCaOsCCHHCV5CHrCOH_CrmHtCOtHCmCtaQHCrC!CHUmC-
sCmC HDrCs as `CCHtaHH_ a `CCOC-sCrQt. LamCVs !Irst trCQC HCrC s
tHCtraHs!atCHC!amC!CCU!CHtCa CHrCmCsCmC HDCr. HsOsQ!aCCs tHC
QUatatVC OHCrCHCC DCtVCCH a CC!U!ar [CtC!C_Ca!) Cr_aHZatCH aHO a
mC!CCU!ar CHC,QaVH_tHC Va !Cra traHs!CrmatCH C!tHC Cr_aHsm HtC
42 Frm Codes to Words
an efect of a univocal language oflife, an Esperanto of the molecule. That
is, what makes possible the elision of the diference between a chromo
some fiber-a somatic, cytological entity-and a DNA molecule is the
deletion of the very diference between "bodies" and "scripts" that
Schrodinger exemplified with his conflation, "code-script."6
And yet this universal language requires a space between the molec
ular and the cytological. That is, Gamow like Schrodinger, does not
merely contain phenotype within genotype or eface the somatic with the
molecular. Against the grain of the reductionist trope of modeling al
somatic processes on the physicochemical, Gamow "considers" the phys
icochemical as cytological, and this speaks not only to the pliability of the
cytological/ molecular distinction but also to the rhetorical and scientfic
need for a space of translation between these two orders, orders whose
diference is both implicitly denied and invoked. While the equivalence
drawn between a DNA molecule and a chromosome fiber certainly
speaks to molecular biology's claim to have found the physical and chemi
cal bases oflife, the description of a molecular entity in cytological terms
rhetorically inflects Gamow's project in another direction, namely, to
ward the postvital. This is the space of the new sublime object of biology,
a dynamic space where the implosion between the animate and the inani
mate is constantly enacted. "Possible Relation between Deoxyribonu
cleic Acid and Protein Structures" is not merely a case of the "molecular
ization oflife," a reduction of organisms to molecules. Rather, Gamow's
translation moves toward "considering" or figuring molecules in organ
ismic terms, inscribing molecules as themselves cellular entities. More
than treating the molecular as the basis for the living, Gamow's move
translates the molecular as no dierent from the living. Translation always
requires a third term, a space between two codes, texts, or speakers, and
Gamow's easy translation of a molecule into a chromosome points to the
discursive existence of an implicit translating point between the molecular
and the somatic that preceded any scientific model for such an equation.
This space, like the transparent body of C. elegans, which "contains al of
biology," is a space of no dierence: in the space of the postvital, there are
gasps of "that is al there is"; bodies, codes, and molecules al glide to
gether in a universal language that is itself not available for translation or,
what amounts to the same thing, does not require it.
Science, too, speaks a universal language here. Gamow's short article is
"about," among other things, the production and practice of science
through texts, in this case, Nature. We see that in this book of Nature, one
From Codes to Words
43
must open or begin with the book Nature. It is also written that in Nature
is a "communication," a communication that itself concerns communica
tion, or at least, as we shal see, "alphabets," "words," and their natures.
Thus, in the beginning, this is an intertextual afair, one that concerns
communication between the book(s) of Nature. The very fact of the
naming of this journal Nature, of course, speaks to the close proximit if
not identity of texts and Nature in the scientific practices described inside
its covers. One practice of science is thus literally the communication
between volumes o
f
Nature.
The communication "between" texts is, of course, what is at stake
here:
The hereditary properties of any given organism could be characterized by a long
number written in a four-digital system. On the other hand, the enzymes (pro
teins), the composition of which must be completely determined by the deoxy
ribonucleic acid molecule, are long peptide chains formed by twenty diferent
kinds of amino-acids, and can be considered as long "words" based on a 20-letter
alphabet. Thus the question arises about the way in which four-digital numbers
can be translated int

such "words."7
Between these two hands Gamow deals-the "digit" and the "word"
there must be a "translation." Gamow's articulation of what Francis Crick
will in I 957 only refer to as "the coding problem" codes the "relation"
between DNA and proteins as a linguistic project, specifically, a transla
tion between mathematical and nonphonetic, alphabetic language. The
order of the mathematical sign must be replaced by the order of the
linguistic sign. This trajectory-fom the mathematical to the linguistic
emerges fom the historical inheritance of Nature as both a mathematical
text and a linguistic one: Nature, Galileo writes "is written in a mathe
matical language, and the characters are trianges, circles, and other geo
metrical figures."8 And Descartes wishes only "to read in the great book
of Nature." The local protocols that govern these (and many more) invo
cations of the Book of Nature should not be overooked, but for my
purposes here I will stress the dual (even dueling) languages of Nature,
mathematics, and prose. It should not seem surprising that Gamow's text
finds itself between two orders of signifcation, two diferent books of
Nature, two diferent codes. Overooking the gap between the molecular
and the cytological in his "translation" of chromosomes into molecules,
Gamow redescribes the arc fom the chemcal to the vital as a secret, a
mysterious problem that nonetheless has an answer.9
This translation can be seen as a conversion of the digital into the
44
Frm Codes to Words
analog, the discrete into the continuous, something Gamow's correspon
dent and collaborator John Von Neumann was thinking through at
around the same tme. lO For Von Neumann, working on the problem of
self-reproducing automata, "the genes are digital, while the enzymes
control function analogically."ll By framing the problem of protein syn
thesis in the language of translation, Gamow made possible the deploy
ment of a cryptographic paradigm. 1
2
It allowed would-be crackers of the
code to look to the triumphs of Turing's Enigma project or the promises
of the cybernetic paradigm as precedents and tools for the ultimate de
coding of vitality.
These diferent "languages" -digits and words-require some site of
connection, some crossover, if they are to be translated. In the linguistic
realm, this can be seen to be analogous to the gap between words and
deeds, where the translating point, such as it is, takes the form of the
performative statement, a statement that is at once both word and deed. 13
This arc fom words to acton can, in a certain light, appear miraculous or
magical, as when the pronouncement of "abracadabra" fulfills its promise
with a puf of smoke and the disappearance of a body. In another light, the
bridging of the gap can appear as self-evident and seamless, as is the case in
Gamow's movement fom the molecular to the cytological. That is, when
Gamow "considers" DNA as a chromosome fiber, it, in a way, becomes
one for the purposes of this and, perhaps, other research. This move is not
an index of Gamow's rhetorical power; rather, it is a map of the presup
positions available to Gamow and his readers. Such rhetorics are what
Deleuze and Guattari call order-words, "the relation of every word or
every statement to implicit presuppositions . . . to speech acts that are,
and can only be, accomplished in the statement. Order-words do not
concern commands only, but every act that is linked to statements by
"social obligation." . . . The only possible definition oflanguage is the set
of all order-words, implicit presuppositions, or speech acts current in a
language at a given moment."14
No incision can separate completely the "order" and the "word"; they
are a part of what Deleuze and Guattari articulate as an economy of
"double causality." Thus, it is the "implicit presuppositions" that make
possible the arc from words to action. It is not simply a matter of context
it is in fact a question of what appears as context and what does not, the
unstated and incalculable conditions that form the basis of textual co
herence and authority. 1s These conditions cannot, it seems, themselves be
articulated fully.
From Codes to Words
45
A paradox of information theory wil help make this point: according
to information theory, the measure of a given message's information
content is directly proportional to its "surprise value," its improbability.
So, for example, the information value that "it will be cloudy in Seattle" is
much lower than, say, "it will snow in Miami." Thus, the quantity of
information contained in a message is related to the amount of diference
it communicates-Gregory Bateson even defined information as "the
diference that makes a diference." And yet, as theorist Mark C. Taylor
has pointed out, the unprecedented has the highest information content,
and yet is unreadable. 16 A truly singular, unprecedented phenomenon
would in some sense make no sense-we would lack the tools of significa
tion necessary to read or interpret it. This marks out the way in which all
communication is tied to unspoken precedent, an "unthought thought," a
present absence for which there can be no algorithm, insofar as the al
gorithmic articulation of the necessary preconditions of communication
would itself be unprecedented, unreadable. Rather prematurely, I will
suggest that for Gamow this "unthought thought" or assumption can be
found in the tacit notion that everything is readable, that the world itselfis
a kind of universal translation machine, an age of world scripture popu
lated by Nature, DNA, proteins, and the matrix of textual relations be
tween them.
Philosopher Martin Heidegger, in "The Age of the Word Picture,"
describes scientific research as a mechanism for capturing the future in
that it "sketches out in advance" the nature of Nature, forestaling the
recognition of any other version of nature, "all that is," any other version
of the future. It is true that science is a group of "procedures;' but for
Heidegger
Every procedure already requires an open sphere in which it moves. And it is
precisely the opening up of such a sphere that is the fndamental event in re
search. This is accomplished through the projection within some realm of what
is-in nature, for example-of a fxed ground plan of natural events. The projec
tion sketches out in advance the manner in which the knowing procedure must
bind itself and adhere to the sphere opened Up.17
More than tautological, Heidegger's model of scientific research points to
the structur
a
l openness of science, an openness that requires an extrasci
entific, ontological gambit to proceed. Heidegger describes the modern
moment as a moment in which this gambit takes the form of "the word
picture," which "does not mean a picture of the world but the world
4
conceived and grasped as picture."18 In other words, the modern scientific
description of the world presupposes in advance that humans encounter
the world as a picture, an entity that reveals itself through representation, a
representation set over and against human, scientific mastery.
This notion of the "open sphere" of research that scientific research
requires be "sketched out in advance" highlights the force of Gamow's
model of the diamond code as just such an ontological gambit, one that
finds the knowable world representing itself not as "picture" but as
"words" and "numbers." But Heidegger's model would apply to all mod
ern scientific research, and Gamow's gambit clearly had its own con
tingencies. Why, for example, does this issue of "translation" arise at all?
What is translation?
Benj amin and the Vital Connection
"Translation is so far removed fom being the sterile equation of two dead
languages that of all literary forms it is the one charged with the special
mission of watching over the maturing process of the original language
and the birth pangs of its own."19 Walter Benjamin, in an essay foreign to
the frenzied attempts to describe the mechanisms by which DNA is
"translated," nonetheless provides us with insights into and echoes of
Gamow's project. In "The Task of the Translator," Benjamin critiques the
traditional thinking of translation in terms of "fidelity" and "license,"
faithfulness to the original, and "the freedom of faithful reproduction."
2
0
For Benjamin, "Translation is a mode," and the task of the translator is
to "release in his own language that pure language which is under the spell
of another."21 Not all works are under the same spell, and thus "trans
latability is an essential quality of certain works." Translatability is an
attribute, a quality by which the translation gets its "kinship" with the
original: "We may call this connection a natural one, or more specifically
a vital connection. Just as the manifestations of life are intimately con
nected with the phenomenon oflife without being of importance to it, a
translation issues from the original-not so much from its life as from its
afterlife."
22
Thus, for Benjamin, translatability and vitality both speak to a space
between, between life and afterlife, between one language and another,
a space that expresses "the central reciprocal relationship between lan
guages;' languages that share a "central kinship" in which they "are not
strangers to one another, but are, a priori and apart from all historical rela-
From Codes to Words
4
7
tionships, interrelated in what they want to express."23 This "vital connec
tion" points to a site where vitality is joined with textuality, home of the
"living word" that expresses the Esperanto ofWorld.24 Only rarely does
the "obscure and impenetrable" task of translation lead to this "vital con
nection." Indeed, Benjamin translates this dificulty into geometric terms:
"Just as a tangent touches a circle lightly and at but one point, with this
touch rather than with the point setting the law according to which it is to
continue on in its straight path to infnity, a translation touches the original
lightly and only at the infinitely small point of the sense, thereupon
pursuing its own course."25 This tenuous and infnitely small connection
between the translation and the original and, by extension, between vi
tality and textuality, strengthens and expands in the case of the Holy Writ,
where "a text is identical with truth or dogma, where it is supposed to be
'the true language' in all its literalness and without the mediation i meaning,
this text is unconditionally translatable. . . . The interinear version of the
Scriptures is the prototype or ideal of all translations."26
Thus, behind the "prototype" of translation is the figure of a univer
sal, univocal language, a language where the vital connection between
original and translation exceeds its linear constraints and in which "origi
nal, language, and revelation are one without any tension."27 As the space
between translation and original disappears, we can see that what lay
between, the "vital connection," is the trace of a universal translatability, a
unity of both life and languages.
In his discussion of the emergence of biology as a science of life,
Michel Foucault traces the discursive break toward biology from natural
history to this "invisible focal unity" of life, "from which the multiple
seems to derive, as though by ceaseless dispersion. Life is no longer that
which can be distinguished in a more or less certain fashion from the
mechanical; it is that in which all the possible distinctions between living
beings have their basis."28 Much like Benjamin's "vital connection," the
"kinship" and diferences of the natural word derive from an underying
unity. In Foucault's analysis, this unity is cloaked by the body of living
organisms, organisms that themselves manifest great diferences even as
they are silently and invisibly joined in "life." The unity of Benjamin's
matrix, however, is found elsewhere, in a third space between two texts.
For Benjamin, this "interlinear" space is implicitly revelatory, a space
where words are guaranteed by a "living God."
This Benjaminian detour brings into relief the unspoken background
of Gamow's invocation of "translation." If as Benjamin claims, the pro-
4
totype of all translations is Scripture, writing that is "unconditionally
translatable," then the theory and practice of translation will always refer
to the possibility of a "vital connection" between the original and the
translation, a connection that can only succeed through a central unity
of language, a unity that is itself fgured as vitality. So, antecedent to
Gamow's question-"Thus the question arises about the way in which
four-digital numbers can be translated into such 'words' "-is a tradition
of translation based on an original, a translation, and the "vital connec
tion" between the two, a link built on the revelation of the universality of
life and language, "translatability." To think, model, or describe DNA as
"translated," then, is to describe it as a node of universal language, a
universal script that is itself figured as steeped in the unity of life. What
makes Gamow's invocation of the metaphor of translation plausible is a
culture or "context" of the Book, a culture whose model oflife, reason,
and truth is based on the translatability of the world.
By this account I do not want to imply that there was only one
possible efect of the metaphorics of translation; to do so would presup
pose a stability of meaning and efects that is clearly untenable, even
within a scientific context. Rather, I want to mark out the presupposi
tions that seem to accompany Gamow's invocation of translation. Biolo
gist Carl Woese, writing about the appeal of the notion of the "genetic
code," gives us an indication of what those presuppositions might have
been:
The great appeal of the genetic code derives not only from the importance of its
roll [sic] in the cell, but also fom man's innate fascination with certain kinds of
games and puzzles-chess, logic problems, crossword puzzles and the like. The
matching of the nucleic acid 'code words' to the amino acids seemed initially to
present this sort of challenge to the scientist. I think this explains why early
workers in the feld, Gamow, Crick, and others insisted that the solution to the
cryptographic facet of the code had to possess a logic, a discernible order.30
Several elem.ents of Woese's account help to highlight the unstated as
sumptions that traversed Gamow's text. On the one hand, the pleasure
and challenge of the code can be understood in light of Evelyn Fox
Keller's analysis of specific styles of objectivity in scientific practice. In her
account, some modes of scientific thinking are remarkably like that of the
paranoid's, where
Everything must fit. The paranoid delusion sufers not fom lack of logic but
fom unreality. Indeed, its distortion derives, at least in part, fom the very efort
From Codes to Words
4
9
to make all the clues fit into a singe interpretation. Once accomplished, the logic
is such as to leave no room for an alternative interpretation; the pieces are locked
into place by the closeness of their fit. So convincing is the result that "nothing
but" that interpretation can be imagined. In some ways, the paranoid resembles
the quintessentially meticulous scientistY
Thus, in its fguration as a "cryptograph" or a "puzzle," the notion of
the genetic code made possible a kind of positivist mysticism; all could be
understood within the simple algorithm of life: "the ingenious schemes of
Gamow, were prevaded by a feeling that the great code of life would
manifest a spectacular Pythagorean numerology from which its basic na
ture could be apprehended with almost no knowledge of the phenomena
involved."32 The pleasure or "fascination" that this version of order artic
ulates here can be aligned with Heidegger's notion of scientific research
discussed earlier, where the world itself appears as a representation, much
as, here, the word itself appears as puzzle.33 On the other hand, the
precise formulation ofWoese's analysis must also be attended to. While
the notion of the "innate" characteristics of organisms was the locus of
inquiry for Gamow and others who sought to "solve" the genetic code, it
is here ofered as an explanation for the interest in the genetic code. This
circular account can help underscore the role of the presuppositions at
play in Gamow's text. Rather than being the object of proof, the notion
that life had a "discernible order, a logic," was itself assumed. This assump
tion, in the light of Benamin's discussion, is a theological one; it assumes
that the diference between a translation and a source text can disappear,
that the project of translation is one of truth and univocality. In his expla
nation of the process of DNA translation and protein synthesis, Woese
articulates this quite clearly. Mter noting that a "strong analogy" exists
between gene expression and "language translation (or cryptography) ,"
Woese explains the notion of reading at play here: "the reading in alcases
consists of producing an output tape whose monomer units and mapping
rules are characteristic of the tape reader, but whose information content,
of course, reflects exactly that of the input tape."34
That which is presumed occupies the position of "of course." Of
course, dependent on a "strong analogy;' the very text that describes this
"reading;' Woese's, itself depends on an erasure of rhetoricity, even an
erasure of reading itself For "strong analogy" deploys the metaphor of
strength, a rhetorical device that can ony be understood in relation to
content and context, even as it claims the possibility of a reading that is
context- and even content-independent. Following and extending Hei
degger's notion of Modernity as "the age of the word picture," an age
when the world is "conceived and grasped as picture," the translatability
of Gamow's world depends on an age of world scripture, a world con
ceived and grasped as univocal, unambiguous, script.35
Gamow's Tropics of Absence
We have seen that Gamow implicidy found DNA "unconditionally trans
latable," at least in his movement or translation of DNA into a chromo
some fiber. By contrast, his explicit project of translation seeks a "vital
connection" between the DNA "digits" and protein "words." These two
orders of signifcation are themselves translated both textually and "visu
ally." To translate the gap between the digital and the linguistic, a gap that
Gamow himself identifies as the central problem of his text, Gamow
borrows from or relies on a third order of signification, the icon or dia
gram, or, more precisely, two diagrams that in the language of circles and
triangles help to tell the story of the translation of the genetic code into
proteins. What Gamow feels cannot be represented in the textual realm
gets drawn as a diagram. Thus, the diagram fills a certain "hole" in the
text; what the text itself cannot bring to light is filled in by the diagrams,
circles, and triangles that both occupy the space between the digital and
the linguistic and point to their "vital connection."36 Not unlike Watson
and Crick, Gamow calls on a visual model to aid him in his telling of the
story of DNA and proteins (Fig. 2) .
But this hole or gap between the textual and the visual, while briefly
filled by the diagram, returns, in that the diagram itself requires a textual
narrative, a narrative built on the description of the "schema" as being full
of "holes." Thus, the narrative gap that is bridged by the diagram opens up
again; far from translating the gaps in Gamow's text, a text that itself seeks
to efect translation, the diagram calls forth more translation, a tanslaton
itself full of gaps or holes. The upper part "shows schematically the struc
ture of the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule . . . . We see that each 'hole' is
defined by only three of the four nucleotides forming it . . . . It can easily
be seen that there are twenty diferent types of such 'holes' as shown [the
lower part]."37 Clearly, in some sense we do not "see" a "hole" in the
diagram; Gamow must translate the diagrams for us in terms of meta
phors, metaphors that just so happen themselves to name a gap-in this
case, the diagrammatic and the textual-that always leads to more transla-

2
1

1 C.
2 t
1

-

1 e < f

1

.
L. : j .

3

I
'1. 4 ".
1

I
q.
I '
;

: C.
3

3 ).
1
.
I 1<.
I

9 Q.

:
s.
From Codes to Words 5 1
I
.
I Q .
I

i h
1
.
3 t.
I

3 p.
3

L t. ,
Fig. 2. Gamow's Diamond Code. Reprinted from Gamow, "Possible Relation,"
p. 3 1 8, with permission from Nature. Copyright 1954 Macmillan Magazines Ltd.
tions, more metaphors. The chain of polypeptides and its relations are
described in terms of a chain of metaphors continually in need of transla
tion. This potentially endless chain of citations would seem to threaten
the very univocality of the " code," at least in terms of its communication
to readers.
But every code has a key, so these "holes" turn out to be keyholes. "It
seems to me that such translation procedures can easily be established by
considering the 'key-and-lock' relation between the various amino acids
and the rhomb-shaped 'holes' formed by various nucleotides in the
deoxyribonucleic acid chains."38 The metaphor of the "hole;' as well as a
hole in the text, leads to a "lock." The attempt to close the gap on
translation, which began as an arc from digits to words, has been finished
and put under lock and key. This particular trope of confinement is
instructive. While the alleged discrepancy between the order oflanguage
and mathematics made Gamow's text possible, opening up the question
and its translation in terms of icons and metaphors, the metaphor of the
lock and key opposes what Benjamin called the "freedom" of translation
to the finitude of the code. As both verb and nouri, "code" is itself the key
to the union of number and word, action and text. It would be tempting
at this point to speculate that Gamow's text, through its choice of meta
phors, allegorizes its fate as a text, a fate that could be characterized as
the attempt to achieve closure, an accomplishment that is only possible
through the very deployment of metaphor that calls closure into question.
The point at which Gamow's text seems to have become "true" is in fact
the point at which it is the "most" rhetorical. The solution to the problem
of translation outlined by Gamow, which is itself a solution to the problem
of how to get an organism fom a text, flesh fom a number or a word, can
only be named by metaphor, a metaphor that requires translation no less
than the gap between DNA and proteins. The solution, in fact, given the
absence of experimental evidence ("with almost no knowledge of the
phenomena involved," to quote Woese again) depends at least in part on
the persuasive power of the metaphor of lock and key, a metaphor that
suggests that everything fits together securely and that the problem of
translation can be contained. Nothing outside the text will threaten its
integrity. More specifically, we can see that the notion of translation
invoked by Gamow relies upon a revelatory, vital connection between
translation and original, a connection that is nonetheless impossible out
side of the "literalness" of Holy Writ. Gamow's is an attempt to locate a
model of communication without diference, as the DNA number gets
translated seamlessly into the protein word. But as theorist Mark C. Tay
lor puts it,
Al communication presupposes diference. Diference is something like a
boundary or margin that opens the space in which messages can be exchanged.
As such, the diference of the boundary is diferent fom the diferences whose
articulation it creates. Though it is the condition of the possibility of articulation
and communication, this diference is inartculate and incommunicable. It can be
coded neither analogically nor digitally. The membrane, margin, or boundary is
something like a not that cannot be undone.39
That is, any model of translation that, like Gamow's, presupposes the
possibility of undistorted communication is doomed to distortion, a dis
tortion that covers over or renders silent the very possibility of communi-
cation. Gamow's reliance on the tropics of absence-"holes" -announces
the specific tradition of translation being invoked, a tradition in which
"translatability" is based on the existence of a third space or gap occupied
by a key, a universal language grounded in the unity oflife. While Gamow
(despite his discussions of the genetic code as "the number of the beast" or
as "numerology") can hardly invoke God as the explicit guarantor of
translation here, he does invoke a theological paradigm with "translation,"
and thus the "vital connection" between DNA and proteins is figured as
"holes," metaphorical holes "between" where vitality and textuality can,
invisibly, become one. Thus, God here works in Her absence, as an
invisible presupposition, an uncoded, inarticulable platform that makes
possible the translation of DNA "numbers" into protein "words."
But there are other uncoded, inarticulable "boundaries" that are
"not" said or silenced but that nonetheless make possible Gamow's proj
ect: The reader and the body. Where is the reader of Gamow's text? It is
no news that technoscienti!c discourse often treats language as a trans
parent medium for reporting on reality. But what often gets overlooked in
debates over the epistemological and ontological status of language in
scientific discourse is an efect that a realist approach fosters: the elision of
the reader. Here the reader acts only as a container of information; knowl
edge is put into the empty space called "the reader," and thus the reader is
in some sense a (necessary) present absence, a "hole." The imagined
reader of scientific discourse is no reader at all; like the seamless operation
of the DNA translation described earlier by Woese, there is "of course" a
perfect "reflection" of information between the text and the reader. The
reader is thus hailed but not named, producing the efect of a reading
without reader, a transfer of information from the pages of a journal to the
mind of a subject. It is this very notion of "reading" that is inoculated into
molecular biological discourse through the rhetorical software of transla
tion. For if Gamow overlooks the vagaries of reading his " own" text-the
reader is a hole, a vessel, or blank space that information is dumped into
so too is the organismic body, as reader of the genetic code, occluded as a
present absence in the process of protein synthesis described in "Possible
Relation between Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Protein Structures." "It is
inviting to associate these "holes" with twenty diferent amino-acids es
sential for living organisms."4o
While the metaphor of the "lock" encourages us to think the case is
closed on the matter of the translation of code into proteins, of " digits"
into "words," Gamow reopens it and invites in life and organisms. What
54
Frm Codes to Words
makes DNA "translatable" is literally and topologically the space between
the "digits," the "holes" between nucleotides. These "holes;' in Gamow's
account, "defne" the "essence" of living organisms, amino acids. "We
see that each 'hole' is defined by only three of the four nucleotides form
ing it."41 With this move, Gamow attributes Schrodinger's "law and ex
ecutive power" to the DNA, as the "holes" or spaces between are, literally,
the organism itself. That is, in its flguration as a "hole," the space between,
everything else that makes possible the translation of nucleic acid "num
bers" into protein "words" follows a tropics of absence in molecular
biology.42 Here, the "organism" is deleted or covered up by the rhetorical
software that attributes the power of "definition" to nucleotides while
describing the space between nucleotides, proteins, an organism, as a gap,
an absence. Gamow's story of "holes" is, in a way, an allegory about the
"disappearance" of the body and the organism that have described as
postvitality, a space of non diference. As in a gestalt, where the eye fore
grounds one element of a visual field and backgrounds another, Gamow's
rhetoric of absence allows for a focus on the molecular, a backgrounding
of the somaticY Staring at a gestalt, of course, induces an oscillation
between foreground and background, and Gamow's metaphor too oscil
lates between occluding the body and recalling it, an oscillation that itself
recalls the sublime object of biology, an object that produces the constant,
uncanny astonishment that the secret of life houses no secret.
Thus, in this "hole" we find buried the "vital connection," a site
where, as in all translations, the arc between a text and its translation is
guaranteed by the possibility of a living word, in this case "living organ
isms." Gamow's model of translation presupposes as its model a site where
words can become fesh, and this manifests itself in a seamless, vital con
nection between words and essences.
And yet this is not the topic of Gamow's text. As have pointed out,
"Possible Relation between Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Protein Struc
tures" relates the story of the translation of " digits" into "words." What on
frst glance would seem to be a surreptitious introduction of yet another
problem of translation into this text-the complex transformation of pro
teins into organisms-is, for Gamow, not treated as a translation at all. The
gap that necessitates a translation between numbers and words, DNA and
proteins, simply does not exist "between" "words" (proteins) and living
organisms, much as there existed no gap between a DNA molecule and a
chromosome fiber. Between "proteins" and "life" is the relation of " es
sence." This would seem to accord with the antivitalist impulse that by
From Codes to Words
5 5
some accounts has provided much of the conceptual drive of molecular
biology, ifby "essential" we interpret the relation as being one of "imp or
tance," if not identity. "The ultimate aim of the modern movement in
biology is in fact to explain all biology in terms of physics and chems
try. . . . I believe the motivation of many of the people who have entered
molecular biology from physics and chemistry has been their desire to
disprove vitalism" (emphasis in original) . 44
Thus, by this account, Gamow's insight was to abstract the problem of
the relation of DNA and proteins fom the chemical and developmental
complexities of organisms, much as Schrodinger abstracted and retooled
the notion of "pattern." This insight was therefore partly a rhetorical one;
Gamow framed the problem with a new (recycled) metaphor of transla
tion.45 Here, Gamow's model could be seen to be of a piece with his work
as a cartoonist, as Gamow literally "sketches out in advance" the schema
in which the life sciences were to operate. Indeed, in his 1 955 follow-up
essay, Gamow copublished his paper with Tompkins, his fictional cartoon
character who was injected into himself in Mr Tompkins Inside Himself
Adventures in the New Biology. As I discussed in chapter I , both cartoons
and animation operate rhetorically through what they leave out, and, in
this case, Gamow productively leaves out or hollows out the organism,
depicting it as a hole. Why, then, is "living organism" introduced into this
simple exercise in translation? If the relationship between proteins and
organisms is simple and direct-that is, not in need of translation-what
role does the invocation of the living organism play, rhetorically, in
Gamow's text?
Our answer, as we might expect, calls for another, but not opposed,
translation of the "essential" relationship between proteins and the living
organism. Turning to our "code book" for English, the Oxford English
Dictionary, we find that
The "fifth essence" was a supposed substance distinct from the recognized four
elements. What this fifth essence was, and where existing, was much disputed.
Originally, it seems to have been the material of the starry heaven, as conceived
by those who hesitated to identif it with "fire." Among the alchemists, it was
usually supposed to be latent in al bodies, and to be capable of being extracted
fom them by some recondite process; many thought that alcohol was one of its
forms. Others regarded the discovery of the "fifth essence" as one of the unre
alized aims of science, and attributed to the hypothetical substance all sorts of
miracle-properties. Hence fifth essence or quintessence was used loosely in the
various senses "highly refned extract or essence" and "universal remedy."46
At the same time as Gamow invokes the simple, seamless relationship
between protein and living organisms, an entirely diferent and perhaps
strangely complementary resonance is produced. This is not to say that
Gamow's use of the metonymy of "essence" (substituting an efect of
living organisms, proteins, as the cause of living organisms) is only or
wholly consonant with the alchemical definition ofered earlier. 47 But it is
to argue that the polysemy of "essential" allows it to perform a very
transformative, if not alchemical, rhetorical function. It allows the rela
tionship between this "translation" and the tremendous, if not vital, com
plexity of the living organism to be transformed into one that invokes the
"vital" nature of this enterprise while simultaneously efacing the qualita
tive distinction between living and nonliving entities. It introduces a
"vital connection" that grounds the translation between DNA "digits"
and life in the latent body of the living organism. It also allows for the
"coding" oflife while preserving the attraction of an ontological mystery
in that it vitalizes the molecule as much as it molecularizes life. This
double allegorical relation that emerges as an efect of the implosion of lfe
and molecules can be seen in the rhetoric of contemporary research, a
rhetoric that claims that genome projects are only of scientific and medi
cal interest at the same time that they are sold as ontological research, an
investigation into the essence of humans.
The "living organism" is the space or "hole" in which Gamow's entire
discussion takes place, its condition of possibility. Even while the explicit
aim of the article, indeed of molecular biology generaly, is to determine
and articulate the fundamental chemical and physical mechanisms that
make up the "secret" or "book" of life, it is the very allure of the "es
sence" of life that helps drive the investigation. The sense of secrecy, nu
merology, and religiosity that is invested in the "essential" relationship
between DNA (numbers) , proteins (words) , and living organisms (life)
provides at least a rhetorical tension between the project of demystifing
"vitality" and discovering its "essence," a tension that takes place in a space
between vitality and mechanism, the postvital. The body of the organism
is assumed to be the place of the translation of the DNA "digital num
bers," and yet it is also the product of ths translaton. At once the body of
the organism is assumed to be both cause and efect of the process of
translation, although the organism's status as cause is silenced by the no
tion that DNA "determines" or "defines" the proteins. This ultimate
privileging of DNA as the site of bodily determination, I would suggest,
can be seen to be an artifact of a narrative that seeks a beginning, middle,
From Codes to Words
57
and an end, a narrative that begins with DNA and occludes its place in
a body.48 In the middle is a "hole," the postvital body, divested of life
but still living as the invisible housing or platform for the translation of
DNA.
Thus, "translation" had the efect of an "order-word," a bundle of
rhetorical software that straightens out the rather circular story of the
relations between proteins and DNA. The fee play of my interpretation,
however, in its emphasis on the slippages and associations of Gamow's
text, calls for some summation, some diagramming of the rhetorical ef
fects of translation. First, the very possibility and plausibility of Gamow's
inscription of protein synthesis as a process of translation marks out the
rhetorico-social matrix that framed the world as a kind of textual entit
waiting to be read. That is, the notion that DNA was a self-suficient text
that "determined" or ordered its translation rested on a tradition oftheol
ogy and metaphysics that Jacques Derrida has described as the meta
physics of presence. Many readers ofDerrida's account have focused pri
marily on the ways in which these metaphysics have invested speech with
the status of truth while subordinating writing to the role of a parasitic
or dangerous supplement, an untrustworthy technology for extending
speech in the absence of a speaker. But in my example-the figuration of
DNA as a text to be translated-Derrida's critique can be used to high
light the ways in which the DNA text was seen to dwell in self-presence,
without any need for a translating body. This body now itself takes on the
status of a supplement, an absence or "hole" in the text that nonetheless
can be shown to be a structural necessity for the "system" under descrip
tion, a necessity that shows up as the return of the "translator" in the form
of the "living organism" in Gamow's text.49 One could, of course, look to
later accounts to find the phonocentric recuperation of DNA, where the
transcription and translation apparatus of RNA gets figured, rather pre
dictably, as a technology that transcribes and edits the bundle of immanent
truth known as DNA. In either case, the Derridean strategies of supple
mentation and ecriture function as remarkable probes in the economy of
inscription that makes up the protein-DNA relation. ``
This logic of the supplement helps trace out as well the ways in which
"writing" operates in the scientific field as a tool, what I have been calling
rhetorical software. That is, while the ascription of a kind of sovereignty
to the DNA "text" speaks to the power of writing within an (unspoken)
cell, my analysis highlights the ways in which the rhetoric of"translation"
functioned as a rhetorical vector in molecular biology and not just as a
5
supplemental description of research. As vector, the rhetoric of translation
carried with it unspoken metaphysical narratives of "world scripture" and
theological narratives about translation. As a vector of force, "translation"
(usefully) flattened or straightened out the complexities of protein synthe
sis by ascribing to DNA the implicit power of an origin and making
possible the idea that a straight line leads fom DNA to proteins to "us."
Other rhetorical softwares would highlight a more complex interactive
geometry, metaphors that are being deployed more and more today. The
plausibility of the translation model, however, must be seen to be bound
up with the styles of thinking and metaphysics found in the age of the
world scripture, an age that is perhaps undergoing a displacement as the
new technologies of writing and representation install a software of in
scribed, hypertextual, or viral "truth."51
This displacement leads to the answer to a question that has not yet
been asked but that can be seen to be networked with thesis 2, "How does
language matter?" or who wrote the book oflife?52 It should be clear from
my account that the rhetoric of translation, as part oflarger metaphysical
narratives, operated beyond Gamow. That is, we cannot give the simple
answer, "George Gamow" or even "scientists," although it is of course
true that these rhetorics passed through the pens, mouths, typewriters,
and telephones of these human actors. Such a claim would rely on a
simple model oflanguage and consciousness that ignores the gaps of nar
rative and metaphor that make possible the kinds of insights and "com
munications" that fueled the rise of molecular biology. The proper answer
to the question "Who wrote the book of Life?" cannot be a "subject," a
"who" -we must instead point to the network of texts, technologies, and
agents that inscribed the rhetoric of translation on that metaphysical,
emergent entity called "life."53 This book is in part an answer to this
question, but in answering it I seek to reconfigure it as "How did the
Book of Life come to be written, and what efects does this have on
scientific practice?"
"Translation" also provides a rhetorical tension within Gamow's text
itself, as the possibly banal proj ect of translation is explained by recourse to
the most encrypted, "untranslatable" concept, life.54 By this I mean of
course not that in any sense life is "really" immune to translation; rather,
that its definition is fraught with the kinds of metaphysical and fictional
narratives that have made life, as an entity, opaque and endlessly available
to investigation. Foucault has argued that historically "Life does not con
stitute an obvious threshold beyond which entirely new forms of know 1-
From Codes to Words
59
edge are required. It is a category of classification, relative like al other
categories, to the criteria one adopts. And also, like them, subject to
certain imprecisions as soon as the question of deciding its frontiers
arises."55
The gap and border between DNA and proteins, numbers and words,
codes and organisms is both the site of imprecision and the site of meta
phorical intervention. The problem of "translating" life is one possible
way of deciding on and efacing the border between textuality and vitality,
a translation that appears within an episteme in which "Life becomes one
object of knowledge among others," an object in and oflanguage. It is a
solution made possible by the simultaneous rhetorical displacement of the
question of the organism and its return, a haunting trace oflife that stalks
the border between codes and bodies. This imprecision of life seems to
provoke a rhetorical crisis; each trope we deploy-code-script, translation,
program-seems to proyoke diferent conceptual blind spots, oversights
that then render any account ofliving systems inadequate, imprecise.
The quasisystematic nature of the rhetorical organization of this
"frontier" between life and nonlife, however, does accord us a diagram of
power. Foucault, writing of the shift from a culture of corporeal punish
ment to a culture of discipline, describes a prison camp as "the diagram of
a power that acts by means of a general visibility."56 Here Foucault traced
out the displacement of the body as a site of punishment and its replace
ment by the "soul," the well-studied subjectivity of the criminal. Molecu
lar biological discourse and its precursors ofer us similar diagrams of
power, a technoscientific power that works by producing an invisibility of
the body, whose object is no longer the living organism. It is instead an
object beyond living-ready to live,57 beyond the finitude of an organism
and its ongoing interactions with and constructions of an environment.
Its object is not tied to the specificities of any organism and its processes of
metabolism and reproduction but is instead a universal efect of a mole
cule. Of course, organisms still live-as in Gamow's invocation of the
"living organism" -but this notion of the process of life is only one
moment for the object of the new molecular life sciences, one part of an
object folded across life, time, and space. A comparison of this model of
living systems with the history of the notion of "organisms" will help
bring this new morphology of vitality into relief.
Population geneticist Richard Lewontin, in Biology as Ideology: Te
Doctrine i DNA , connects the emergence of Darwin's evolutionary the
ory to the rhetorical description of organisms in terms of "inside" and
`CUtsIOC. jCaH-1aQtIstC amarCK, CVCHtH ar_UCs, HC!O tC tHC IHHCrI-
taHCCC!aCQUIrCOCHaraCtCrIstICsas arCsU!tC!aHCstICmCOC!C!HatUrC,H
VHICH `VHat Vas CUtsOC aHO VHat Vas IHsIOC VCrC Qart C!tHC samC
VHCC sstCm aHO CHC CCU!O IHHUCHCC tHC CtHCr. . . . H tHIs VCV,
HCtHH_ sCQaratCs VHat Is CUtsIOC VtH VHat Is IHsOC DCCaUsC CXtCrHa
atCratCHs VCU!O CHtCr IHtC tHC Cr_aHIsm aHO DC QCrQCtUatCO H !UtUrC
_CHCratICHs.` arVHs aCHICVCmCHt, _VCH tHIs rUDrIC, Vas tC sCQaratC
tHCsC tVC sQHCrCs aHO mCOC! Cr_aHIsms as CHtItICs tHat CCH!rCHt, ratHCr
tHaHjUst rCsIOC IH, tHC `CUtsOC C!CHVIrCHmCHt. NHat CVCHtIH OUDs
tHC àICHatICH C!tHC Cr_aHsm!rCm Its CHVIrCHmCHt_VCstHC CCHCCQt
C!aOaQtatCHtsQUrCHasC CHCVCUtCH,tHCCHVrCHmCHt, IHtHIssCCHCrC,
DCCCmCstHCQrCD!CmtHatCr_aHsmsOCCrOC HCtsCVC.
1tHCU_HHC HOIVOUa Cr_aHsmCaH CVC!VC UHOCr tHs sCCHarIC, aO-
aQtatCHOCCstaKCQ!aCCtHrCU_HaHOVtHCr_aHsms, Cr_aHIsms CH_a_CO
IH astrU__CVtH tHCr CHVrCHmCHt aHO!CCatCOH aQartICUarmCmCHt
H tImC. 1 CCHtrast, tHC mCOC! C!tHC Cr_aHsm ImQICt HVCKCO D
LamCV HCrC s CHC tHat CXsts CUtsIOC C!tImC aHO sQaCC. atHCr tHaH
DCIH_tHCQrImarCHaraCtCrstCC!!VH_CHtItCs, tHCCH_CIH_HtCraCtICH
VtH [aHO, !Cr CVCHtH, CCHsuUCtCH C!) aH CHVrCHmCHt s DUt a Va
statICH !Cr tHC tmCCss Dt C! mmaHCHCC tHat rCsOCs H aH Cr_aHIsms
_CHCs. atHCr tHaH DCH_ tHC QCssD!Ity CCHOItCH CrmatrIX !Cr aOaQta-
tCH, Cr_aHIsmsDCCCmC `!UmDCrH_rCDCts, traHsQCrtVCHC!Cs !Cr _CHCs
tHatarCtHCURmatC CrCatCrs.
HUs, LamCV a!CHatCs 1 !rCm Cr_aHIsmsjUst as arVIH a!CH-
atCO Cr_aHsms !rCm tHCIr CHVIrCHmCHt. HIs tCratCH C! aCHatCH,
HaVC trICO tC sHCV, CH! maKCs sCHsC I! tHC OCQCHOCHCC C! _CHCs CH
Cr_aHsmsaHOCHVIrCHmCHtsIstsC!CCC!UOCO. LamCVs !I_UratCHC!tHC
Cr_aHIsmas aHCC OCCs HCt`CaUsC tHIs CCCUsCH, DUtIt OCCs HCQ maKC
t QCssDC, as a rHCtCrICa! OIsCQ!IHIH_ C!tHC Cr_aHIsm aHa!C_CUs tC tHC
OIsCIQ!IHIH_C!tHCDCOCUt!HCOD !CUCaU!t. HmHCXt CHaQtCr, !CCUs
CHa!UrtHCrrHCtCrICamaHa_CmCHtC!tmC aHOsQaCC, asjaCQUCs ^CHCO
aHO!raHCIsjaCCD CCHtaHDCtHVItHIH tHC _CHCmC. HCHaQtCr 5, VI
!CCUs CHsCmCCasCstUOCs C!tHC OIHCUtyC!maQQH_CUrrHCtCrCs CHtC
tHC OHamICs C! !VH_ sstCms, DUt !Cr HCV VaHt tC HCtC tHat tHC
rHCtCrCa! `D!aCK HC!C C!VIta!ty trCUD!Cs mCrC tHaHjUst tHC mC!CCUar
DICC_ICaaCCCUHt. CrrOaHCtCstHatQUCstICHs C!VItaIt sCCmtCQUHC-
tUrCC_a!OIsCCUrsC,
in particular, in all the places where one may remark what is called today, more or
less calmly, 'juridical voids,' as if it were a matter of filing in the blanks without
From Codes to Words 6r
re-doing things fom top t o bottom. There is nothing surprising i n the fact that it
is most often a question of the property and proper nature ofli [Ia propriete de la vie l ,
of its inheritance, and of its generations (the scientific, juridical, economic, and
political problems of the so-caled human genome, gene therapy, organ trans
plants, surrogate mothers, fozen embryos, and so forth.)59
!Cr HCV, CaH CH! sU__Cst tHat tHs QrCQCrt C!!!Cts tCHOCHC tC
QrCVCKC rHCtCrCa!, CCHCCQtUa! CrssmarKs t as a stC C!a OHCrCHO,
VHatjCaH-!raHCs CtarO Has CHaraCtCrZCO as à CasC C!CCHHCt, DC-
tVCCH[at!Cast) tVC QartCs, tHat CaHHCtDCCQUtaD!rCsC!VCO!Cr!aCKC!a
rU!C C!jUO_mCHt aQQ!CaD!C tC DCtH ar_UmCHts.'' H tHs CasC, tHC tVC
QartCs arC `tCXtUa!ty aHO `VIa!t, aHO VC aVC HC QrHCQ!C C! ]UO_-
mCHtVtHVHCHVCCaHOCtCrmHC tHCQrCQCr rHCtCrC C!!!C, tHCQrCQCr
tCXtUa!aCCCUHts C!Vta!ItytHata!!CV!CrtHCQrCQCr!C_a!OsCUssCHC!tHC
HatUrC C!!!C. HOCCO, QCrHaQs tHC VCr HCtCH C! tHC QrCQCr mUst DC
OsCarOCOHCrCHtHatt1CQrCQCrCrCCmQ!CtCaCCCUHtC!!!CVasQrCCsC!
tHC C!am C!HasCCHt mC!CCU!arDC!C_, CHC C!tHC QartCs tC CUr OsQUtC.
1s VC HaVC sCCH UCm 1CHjamH, C! CCUrsC, !!C Has a!sC QrCVOCO tHC
_UaraHtCCCr_rCUHOIH_!CrtHCVCrQ!aUsD!tC!traHs!atCH, aHOtstHs
OCUD!C OCQCHOCHCC C!tCXtUa!t CHVta!t aHOVta!ty CHtCXtUa!tytHat
CCmCs tC_CtHCrH LamCVstCXtUa!mCOC! C!1.
Hs CHasmUs Cr !C!OH_DCtVCCHVta!t aHO tCXtUa!ty s C!CCUrsC
HCt a HCV CHC. 1Ut tHs CrCssCVCr tHat taKCs Q!aCC at tHC stC C! tHC
QCstVta!a _CHCra! CCCHCm C!!VH_ aHO HCn!VH_ sstCms tHat Os-
Q!aCCs tHC CQQCstCHDCtVCCHVta!smaHOmCCHaHsmOCCsHCtmCrC!
marK CUt a OsQ!aCCmCHt H tHC CCHCCQt C!!!C. t CHCCts aHO maQs CUt a
HCV HVCstmCHt H!aH_Ua_C, a!aH_Ua_C C!HCV!CUHO OCHsty tHat CCasCs
tC DC aH HstrUmCHt aHO DCCCmCs, H a Va, aH a_CHt, aH aUtCHCmCUs
CHttyHtHC VCr!ODCCHO tHC sQCaKH_ CrVrtH_sUDjCCt Ca!!CO `maH.
H!raHCsjaCCDs VCrOs, `HC HtCHtCH C!a QsCHC Has DCCH rCQ!aCCO
D tHC traHs!atCH C! a mCssa_C.'' HC HCVs C! a `_CHCtC !aH_Ua_C
sQCKCH D HC HUmaH DUt aCtH_ tHrCU_HCUt tHC HstCr C!!!C, as VC!! as
tHC CDsCrVatCHs C!a HCV [strUCtUra!st aHO/Cr aCaHaH) tHHKIH_ tHat
C!amCOtHat!aH_Ua_C sQCaKs `maH, aHOHCtVCCVCrsa, HC!QCOCCHsttUtC
!aH_Ua_C as a CCHtra! QrCD!CmatC C! VHat Has CCmC tC DC KHCVH as
`QCstmCOCrHt. HCHaQtCr5 V!!!CCKattHCVas HVHCHtHsa_CHC
_CtsHsta!!COH!aH_Ua_CasDCH_, HQart, aHCHCCtC!tHC mCtaQHCrC!tHC
_CHCtC CCOC. !CrHCV, V!!taKC arCCUrsVC !CCKattHC HarratVa!matrX
C!tHC QrCsCHt, aQrCsCHtsatUratCOVtHtHCQrCmsCs C!rCVC!atCHs.
No Revelations, Not Now
"And whosoever was not found in the book of life was cast into
the lake of fire."
-Revelation 20: I 5
NHIC It sHCUO DC CCar tHat tHC rHCtCrICa CCHstrUCtICH C!tHC 1-
QrCtCIHrCatICHasa`traHsatICH HCQCOCCHstrUCt1asasItCC! QCVCr
VHICCDsCUrIH_tHCCCaHOItsCHVIrCHmCHts, sHCUOasCsasCmCtHIH_
HCrC aDCUt aHCtHCr OIa_ram C!QCVCr, CHC tHat !CCVs tHC trCQC C!tHC
`DCCK C!I!C. HIs trCQCCHC CCHstaHt trCttCO CUtImQICItaHO CX-
QICItDtHC_CHCmCIHItIatIVCsCH_CHOCrsaHCtHCrOIsQaCCmCHtIHtHC
sCHCmC C!traHsatICH. !Cr VHIC LamCVs rHCtCrIC ImQICIt QCsItCO a
1 tHat Vas, IH a Va, sC!-traHsatIH_ as VC as sC!-CQICatIH_, tHC
mCtaQHCrC!tHCDCCKC!I!C traHs!CrstHC rCaOIH_QraCtICCCUtC!tHC OCU-
DCHCIXaHOIHtC tHCaD. ^CVIH_!rCmtHC CC!tC tHC OataDasC, tHC CCH-
tCmQCrartraHsatICHC!HUCCICaCIOsIsHCVCHCCtCODtHCDICC_IstaHO
HCrHCVrCa_CHt, IH!CrmatICH. HtHCOrama OCQICtCOD tHC mCtaQHCrC!
tHC DCCK C!!1!C, sCICHtIsts taKCCH tHCrCC C!aHa_CHC C!a!tCrI!C, as tHC
DCCK C!I!C Is aVas rC0O!Cr tHC OCaO Cr, at Cast, as VC CCUO sa tCOa,
Cr_aHIsmsDCCHOIVIH_.
1stHCCQI_raQHC!tHIs sCCtICHsU__Csts, aCH_VItH LamCVs OCsCrIQ-
tICH C!tHC !CUr-OI_Ita sstCm C!tHC 1mCCCUC as `tHC HUmDCr C!
tC DCast, tHC _CHCmC as `tCXt maKCs CVCatICH QCssIDC. tIHsCrIDCs
tHC _CHCmC VItHaHCrmCHCUtIC C!OIsCCsUrC, CHC tHataCVs tHC rUtH
tCDCUHVCICOas a sCCrCttCXttHatHasDCCHVaItIH_tC DC rCaOalaCH_. t
asC QrCmIsCs tHC QCssIDIIt C!aH CHOIH_, a CCsUrC, aH aHsVCr I!HCt a
`CCmQCtC sCUtICH. HC mCtaQHCr C!tHC DCCK C!I!C QrCmIsCs Us tHat
CXIstCHCC, a!tCral, CaHDC !I_UrCOCUtI!VC CHHaVCtHCQatICHCCtCrCaO
tHrCU_H UHtI tHC ast Qa_C. \HCss C! CCUrsC VC HHO tHat It rCaOs, a a
Finnegans Wake, `5CCQa_C CHC.
Hs jCKC QCIHts CUt sCmC C!tHC QIaDIIt C! tHC DCCK mCtaQHCr,
a QIaDIIt tHat CCHtrasts VItH tHC ImQICIt UHIVCCaIt C! aH_Ua_C IH
LamCVstCXt. HC QCVCrC!LamCVs OCsCrIQtICH rCsIOCs IHIts aDIIt tC
OCmCHstratC HCV 1 CaH OCtCrmIHC QrCtCIHs. HIs OCmCHstratICH OC-
QCHOs CH aHCXtrCmCstaDC `traHsatICH, CHCIH VHICH QrCtCIH sUDjCCts
rCCCIVCtHCUHOIstCrtCOVCrOC! 1OICtatICH. HCmCtaQHCrC!traHs a-
tICH, QartICUar a traHsatICH tHat QrCCCCOs VItH tHC HCQ C!a `KC,
sCCms QCr!CCt sUItCO !Cr sUCH a tasK.jUst as LamCV UHOCrstCCO CCar
aHOCCrrCCt!NatsCHaHOLrCKsCCmmUHCatCHHNature, sCtCCOCtHC
QrCtCHs ÙHOCrstaHO tHC VCrO C!1. 1UtjUstas LamCVs mCOC C!
traHs!atCH mQCt rCQUrCs aH `CUtsOCa CC!!, aH Cr_aHsm, aH CH
VrCHmCHt, a rCaOCrtC aCHCVC traHsatCH, sC tCC OC CCHtCmQCrar
HtCrQrCtatCHsaHOtraHs!atCHs C!_CHCtC H!CrmatCH OCQCHO CHatCCH-
HCa! aHO CUtUra! matrX !Cr tHCr CHCCts. ârK L. a!Cr traCCs CUt
tHC CHCCt C!H_H_HtH_tHs CCHsttUtVC, aHO HCtmCrC sUQQ!CmCHta,
`CUtsOC HHsmCVC!rCmtHC DCCK C!HatUrCtC tHC [CrrOCaH) tCXtC!
HatUrC.
If . . . language is interpreted as a nonsystematic play of diferences that is riddled
with gaps and lacunae, then the body, and by extension, nature must be read like a
text. Unlike the book, the text retains a certain unreadability that infnitely defers
total comprehension a.nd absolute knowledge. Thus the suggestion that the body
is structured like a language does not imply that we can truly know it. To the
contrary, the linguisticality of the body might harbor an unknowability that can
never be overcome.62
HUs, tHC rHCtCrCs C!tHC `DCCK C! !!C, VHCH arC HCtVCrKCO VtH
LamCVs C_aC C!traHs!atCH, CHCCUra_C tHC HCtCH C!a _CHCtC rCVCa-
tCHaVa!aDC CH!tCtHC maHCarHs C!DCtCCHHCC_Ca!rCsCarCH,DUtthC
asC QrCmsC aH amD_Uty aHO CCHtH_CHC tHat sUDVCrt tHC HCtCH C!a
mastCr!U rCaOCrH CCmmaHO C!tHC _CHCtC tCXt. OO!COVtHHC!Cs aHO
aCUHaC C!CCHtH_CHC, tHC rCaOH_ C!tHC `DCCK C!!C DCH_ UHOCr-
taKCH tCOaH tHC !Crm C!tHC HUmaH _CHCmC HtatVCs QrCmsCs tC DC
Css !KC CVC!atCH aHO mCrC !KC Te Crying o Lot 49, VHCrC s_Hs
QrC!CratC H HVCrsCQrCQCrtCHtCaH sUDjCCtCrrCaOCrs aD!ttC Cr_a-
HZC tHCmHtC aHCHCCHtraOCtCr, CCHCrCHt `_raHOHarratVC.'` HCrCs
aH CtHCs tC DC !CUHO tHCrC, HHCHCHsHCVC!C!sCUCss aHOQaraHCa,
aH CtHCs C!CCHtH_CHC. ratHCr tHaH !CCUsH_ CH tHC sCCrCt KCrHC, tHC
Vta CCHHCCt
H tHat _rCUHOs aHO C!CsCs a HarratVC, HCHCH maKCs

QCssDC amCVCmCHtDCCHO sCCrCC, arCaOH_tHat rCCC_HZCs tHC sCCrCt
tsC!!as aH attCmQt tC CCVCrCVCrtHC CCHtH_CHCCs aHO aCCOCHts C!!C.
HCOCCQHCrmCHttHatsCCHstaHttHVartCOaHOCHCrCOH Te Crying of
Lot 49 HCVCrarrVCs,aHOtstHstrUCtUra!!OC!CrrCOHatUrCC!rCaOH_a
rCaOH_tHat DCtH maKCsQCssD!C aHOrCQUrCs a!UtUrC, aHCtHCrrCaOH_
tHatVC CCUOa!_HVtHtHC HCtCH C!tHC!UtUrCQCr!CCt, tHC_rammatCa!
tCHsCC! VHatV!!HaVC DCCH, atCHsCHHCCtCOtCVarOtHC!UtUrCDUt!U!C!
HCtHH_ DUt CCHtH_CHC. LItC 1HOrCV ^CCHHa VrtCs tHat `tHC !U-
tUrC QCr!CCt . . . s tHC tCmQCra! mCOat, Cr at !Cast tHC _rammatCa
6
4
Frm Codes to Words
traHs!atCH, C!HstCrCa!DCCCmH_Halts CQCHHCss,Ha!! tsrCsstaHCCtC
!a!sCtCta!ZatCH.'"HC!UtUrCQCr!CCtrCQUrCstHC !UtUrC, tsCCHtH_CHt
CH tHC Ct-tC-CCmC, CCHtH_CHt CH CCHtH_CHC. !ts rHCtCrCs arC C!
H!CrmatCH, tHC _rammar C!HasCCHt mC!CCU!ar DC!C_y Vas, s, tHat C!
tHC !UtUrC QCr!CCt. !Cr !LamCVs mCOC! C!1 traH8!atCH Q!aCCO tHC
Cr_aHsmC DCO H a rHCtCrCa! HC!C, t Vas a _aQ HC!CVCO CUt D, CCH-
sttUtCOtHrCU_H, tHC!UtUrCa!UtUrC C! QrCtCns,a!UtUrC C!KHCV!CO_C, a
!UtUrC C!CtHCrrCaOH_s, rCaOH_sHCCtCOD tHC CCHtH_CHCCs C!HstC-
rCs, CHVrCHmCHts, CHCCts, aHODCOCsCttC CCmC.
CHAPTER 4
I t's a Nucleic Acid World:
Monod, Jacob, and Life's Future
* Each of science's conquests is a victory of the absurd.
-Jacques Monod
The specific rhetorical investments of molecular biology, as the preceding
chapters have made clear, are hardly homogeneous. The multidimen
sional and sometimes stochastic attempts to constitute a new scientific
model of "life" proceeded not through seamless chains of sylogisms but
rather through the displacements and cracks of an emergent discourse.
The accidents and inventions that have made up these rhetorics of vitality
and postvitality, however, do share common sites, rhetorical spaces or
topoi that have made possible the various inflections of research while
allowing at least the appearance of a common paradigm. In this chapter, I
want to analyze the work of Fran<ois Jacob and Jacques Monod on "in
duction" and "genetic regulation" in terms of their investments in what I
will call a "nucleic acid world," a world where Schrodinger's "law and
executive power" is safely ensconced in the sacred, essential space of the
gene, a space paradoxicaly outside of space and time. In doing so, I follow
Evelyn Fox Keller's work on the pacemaker concept in theories of ag
gregation in cellular slime mold. She suggests that "the story of pace
makers in slime mold aggregation provides an unusualy simple instance
of the predisposition to kinds of explanation that posit a single central
governor."l In looking at Jacob and Monod's works of the early 1 960s, I
want to assess the role of preconceptions about the nature of" control" in
their work on genetic regulation, preconceptions that manifest them
selves in some rather fantastic rhetorical configurations, configurations
which I will outline in detail. In particular, I will outline the ways in
which Jacob and Monod's rhetoric makes possible the collapse of the
66 It's a Nucleic Acid Word
CCmQCX sQatIa! aHO tCmQCra rCQUIrCmCHts C!_CHCtIC CXQrCssICH IHtC a
sIH_C, ImmaHCHt HCOC CaCO `tHC _CHCmC. HIs rCtCCIH_ C!tHC trIQ
!rCm C__mCrC sQCCIHCa!, _CHCtC CHICKCH Is aCCCmQ!IsHCO, VI!
ar_UC, CH!tHrCU_H sCmC CCmQ!CX tCXtUa! aDCr.
A Nucleic Acid Word
`1CCCrOIH_ tC Its mCst VIOC aCCCQtCO mCOCrH CCHHCtatICH, tHC VCrO
`_CHC OCsI_HatCs a 1 mCCCUC VHCsC sQCCI!IC sC!!-rCQ!ICatIH_ strUC-
tUrCCaH, tHrCU_HmCCHaHIsmsUHKHCVH,DCCCmCtraHsatCOIHtC tHC sQC-
CIHC strUCtUrC C!aQCQCQtIOC CHaIH. H `LCHCtICC_UatCr^CCHa-
HIsms IH tHC 5HtHCsIs C!rCtCIHs,jaCCD aHC ^CHCO, HCtUH!IKC1rVIH
5CHrCOIH_Cr,taKCastHCIrQCIHtC!OCQartUrCaHaCtC!OCHHItICH,aIH_UIs
tIC rC_U!atICH tHatVI!!QrCH_UrC aHOIH!CrmtHC mCOC! C!_CHCtIC rC_Ua-
tICHQrCOUCCOIHtHCIrtCXts. HmattCmQttCIsCatCtHCrHCtCrICaCCHOI-
tICHs tHat maOCjaCCD aHO ^CHCOs rCsCarCHQaUsIDC, VI attCmQt tC
sItUatC tHIs DC_IHHIH_ IH tCrms C!VHat It CaH tC! Us aDCUt jaCCD aHO
^CHCOs rHCtCrICa! CCHH_UratICH C!tHC _CHCtIC mCCHaHIsm, aH artICUa-
tICH tHat VC mI_Ht Ca! a HUC!CIC aCIO VCrO, aVCrOVHCrC !I!C CamC tC
rCsIOC IH HUC!CIC aCIOs aHO HCt DCOICs. NC HaVC sCCH HCV 5CHrCOIH_Crs
!aHtastIC rHCtCrICa! IHtCrVCHtICH CmQCVCrCO tHC `CHrCmCsCmC !:DrCs
aHO `CCOC-sCrIQt VItHaV aHO CXCCUtIVCQCVCr, aH CmQCVCrmCHttHat
OCQCHOCOCHtHC assImIatICHCrOI_CstICH C!tHC Cr_aHIsmD Its OCsCrIQ-
tICH. HjaCCD aHO ^CHCOsVCrK, tHC rHCtCrICa aHO sCICHtIHC tasKHaO a
OIHCrCHt IHHCCtICH. HC rCOUCtICH C! Cr_aHIsms tC tHCIr rCCIQCs QrC
CCCOCO aQaCC IH tHC sCVCHtCCH Cars tHat sCQaratC Mat Is !jjc !rCm
`LCHCtIC C_UatCr ^CCHaHIsms IH tHC 5HtHCsIs C! rCtCIHs. NItH
NatsCH aHO LrICKs VIsH IH J tC `sU__Cst a strUCtUrC !Cr tHC sat C!
OCCXyrIDCHUC!CIC aCIO [..1. ), tHC sCCrCt C!I!C CCU!O DC CCaIZCO CH
aH 2-ra QHCtC_raQH.`jaCCD aHO ^CHCOs rCsCarCH CH E. cli attCmQtCO
tC _raQQ!C VItH tHC QUCstICHs CrC_U!atICH aHOCXQrCssICH, HCVtHC ratC
aHO tQC C!QrCtCIH sHtHCsIs Is a!tCrCO tHrCU_H IHOUCtICH. CrC VI!
DrICHOCsCrIDCtHCmCCHaHICsaHOtHCImQCrtaHCCC!IHOUCtICHaHODC_IH
m OCsCrQtICH C!HCV tHIs sCICHtI!IC VCrKVas a Qart C!a mCrC _CHCra
rCOCsCrIQtICH C!tHC DCUHOar DCtVCCH tHC CtCQ!asm aHO tHC _CHCmC,
VHat VC mI_HtHaZarO tC Ca! tHCItCraDCUHOar DCtVCCH tHC IHsIOC C!
tHC Cr_aHIsm aHOtHC CUtsOC, tHCIHsIOCaHOCUtsIOC C!sCICHCC.
HtHC Cars tHatsCQaratC tHC OCsCrIQtICH C!CHrCmCsCmCs as a CCOCO
arCHIVC C!IHHCrItaHCC aHO J C, tHC CarC!jaCCD aHO ^CHCOs sCmIHa
It's a Nucleic Acid Word 67
QUD!ICatICH, 1 _arHCrCO mCrC aHO mCrC QCVCr aHO a_CHC. 1HZ-
matIC aOaQtatICH, HCVCVCr, QrCsCOtCO a QCssID!C CHa!!CH_C tC tHC sCV-
CrCI_Hty C!1 as tHC sItC C!CCHtrC!. H CHZmatIC aOaQtatICHVHat
^CHCO rCOC!IHCO IH I as `CHZmC IHOUCtICHCHZmCs arC CH!
QrCOUCCO D CCs IH rCsQCHsC tC aH CHVIrCHmCHta!tHat Is, CXtCrHa!
a_CHt. !Cr CXamQ!C, E. coli CaHHCt mCtaDC!IZC !aCtCsC VItHCUt tVC CH-
ZmCsQCrmCasC aHO 1-_aaCtCsIOasC. HCsC CHZmCs arC tHCmsC!VCs
QrCOUCCOCHIHtHCQrCsCnCCC!!aCtCsCIHmCst straIHsC!E. coli. HUs, IH
sCmCVa tHCQrCsCHCC C!!aCtCsCsCCmstCtrI__CrtHC CXQrCssICHC!a_CHC.
HIs sU__CstCO tHat tHC sHtDCsIs C!QrCtCIHstHC traHs!atICH C!_CHCtIC
`HUmDCrs IHtC `VCrOs OCsCrIDCO D LamCVVas a CCmQ!CmCHtar
aHaIr IH VHICH tHCrC arC, IHjaCCD aHO ^CHCOs VCrOs, `CCmQ!CmCHtar
CCHtrIDUtICHs C!_CHCsCHtHC CHCHaHO, aHOsCmC CHCmICa!!aCtCrsCHtHC
CtHCr IH OCtCrmIHIH_ tHC HHa! strUCtUrC C!QrCtCIHs. ^CHCOaHOjaCCDs
IHsI_Ht, IH `LCHCtIC C_U!atCr ^CCHaHIsms IH tHC 5HtHCsIs C!rC-
tCIHs, Vas tC CXQ!aIHHCV CHVIrCHmCHta! CHCCts CCU!O DC OCsCrIDCO IH a
Va tHat,IrCHICa!, QrCsCrVCOtHCCCHtraQCVCrC!tHCOCUD!CHC!X. CrC,
tHC rHCtCrICa! CHCCt Vas HCt sC mUCH a 5CHrCOIH_CrIaH IHjCCtICH as a
CCHstrUCtICH, asjaCCD aHO ^CHCO DUI!t aHUC!CIC aCIOVCrO!CrtHC HCV
a_CHC Ca!CO 1. HC _rCUHO rU!Cs aHO tCC!s !Cr tHC CCHstItUtICH C!
tHIsVCrO, VI!!ar_UC,VCrCrHCtCrICa!aHO!aHtastIC, CVCHVHatVCm_Ht
HCV Ca!! `VIrtUa!. 1CCCrOIH_tCjaCCD, tHC CCHC!UsICH tHat tHC rCQrCssCr,
aH ImQCrtaHt Qart C! tHC rC_U!atICH mCCHaHIsm, HCV KHCVH tC DC a
QrCtCIH, Vas 1 [rIDCHUC!CIC aCIO) `Vas DasCO CH CCmQ!CtC! stUQIO
rCasCHs." HIs OCsCrIQtICH, VHatCVCrIts Q!aUsIDI!Ity CrmCtIVatICH, rCIH-
!CrCCO tHC HCtICH tHat HUC!CIC aCIOs, I!HCt tHC _CHCmC, `CCHtaIHCO tHC
QattCrH C!tHC !UtUrC C!aH Cr_aHIsmaHOtHatHUC!CIC aCIOsVCrC tHCrC!CrC
tHC CCHtra CCHtrC! sItC C!tHC Cr_aHIsm. HIs QC!IC C!CCHtaIHmCHt, as IH
5CHrCOIH_Cr, Vas QCssID!C CH! tHrCU_H a sCrICs C!rHCtCrICa! s!IQQa_Cs,
OIsQ!aCCmCHts tHat HC!QCO masK tHC sQatIa aHO tCmQCra CHCCts C!tHC
mCtCHmICsUDstItUtICHC!amC!CCU!C!CrDaCtCrIa,E. coli !CrC!CQHaHts. H
tHIs CHaQtCrVI! attCmQttCsHCVHCVtHCOIsQ!aCCmCHt C!!I!CDC_UHD
5CHrCOIH_Cr _Cts rCtCC!COIHaVIrtUa rCaIt VCr!O C!HUC!CIC aCIOs.
NH `VIrtUa!:CVCaHVCOCQ!CtHC tCCHHC!C_ICa!rHCtCrICC!tHC
ICtCOCsCrIDCtHCrHCtCrICatCCHHC!C_ICsC!tHC Car JCs:1sIHm
aHa!sIs C!5CHrCOIH_Cr, VI!!!CCUsHCrC CH tHC Vas IH VHICHtHCrHCtCr-
ICa sC!tVarC C!DC!CCU!ar DIC!C_y sCU!Qts sCICHt!IC aHO rHCtCrICa sQaCC
aHCV. HtHCIrVCrK attHCDCUHOarC!CHVIrCHmCHtaHOCr_aHIsmaHO,
IHOCCO, IHsCmCVastHCOCHHCOtHIsDCrOCr jaCCD aHO^CHCOCHaCta
68 It's a Nucleic Acid World
tCQCs, arHCtCrCasQaCC CrstC tHat CXCCCOs tHC DCUHOarCs C!HtCrCrty
aHOCXtCrCrtytHatCr_aHZCstHCrVCrK. amHtCrCstCOHtHssQaCC HCt
DCCaUsC tsCmCHCVÒstCrtCO tHCrCaCHttyCa!COE. u/t.atHCr, am
HtCrCstCO H tHC Va H VHCH a `QaraOCXCa! sQaCC Vas OCQCCO D
jaCCD aHO^CHCO H CrOCr tC artCU!atC tHC CCmQ!CXtCs C!sUCHa !VH_
Cr_aHsm, aH artCUatCH tHat C!HCCCssty !CrC_rCUHOCO sCmC asQCCts C!
tHC !VH_ Cr_aHsm aHOrCHOCrCOCtHCrsHVsD!C.`
HCQrCD!Cm C!_CHCtC CXQrCssCHVas tsC!Qart C!a rHCtCrCa! aHO
sCCHt!IC CasCaOC tr__CrCOD tHC HCtCH tHat _CHCs, as mCtCHmCs !Cr
!!C,VCrCQrmartCXtUa,sCQUCHta!mCCHaHsms. HCHaQtCr3 , trCOtC
sHCV HCV tHs HCtCH OCQCHOs CH tHC HCsCaQaD! CXtrasCCHtHC DaCK-
_rCUHOC!aHa_C C! VCt!OsCrQtUrC, aHCtCHtHatOsartCU!atCs CrrCHOCrs
HVsDC tHCsC CHtC!C_Ca! asQCCts C! tHC VCrO tHat rCsst aH smQ!C
sCrQtUra!!ramC. NtHHtHssCrQtUra!!ramC,jaCCD aHO^CHCOstasKVas
tC OCtCrDHC mCCHaHsms tHat maOC t QCssD!C !Cr 1 tC `traHsatC
tsC!, sCa!CO CH!rCmtHC HCsC aHCs_Has C!aH CHVrCHmCHt. C OC sC,
V! ar_UC, tHC HaO tC rCCast DCtH tHC tCQC!C_y aHO tCmQCraty C!E.
m/t!C!CVH_ LamCV, tHC CHaCCO tHC sCCrCt tHat `rCaOH_ taKCs UQ
sQaCCaHOtmC. HsCOCH_,jaCCDaHO^CHCOrCtCC!HCtjUsttHCmQ!Ct,
VrtUa! DCUHOarCs DCtVCCH tHC HsCC C!tHC Cr_aHsm aHO tHC CUtsOC,
tHCasCrCCCHH_UrCtHC rCatCHsHQDCtVCCHQrCsCHtaHO!UtUrC.
HC CXQCrmCHts attHC astCUr HsttUtC VCrC, aCCCrOH_tCjaCCD, à
sstCm!CrCCHCCCtH_ CXQCCtatCH, a maCHHC !CrmaKH_ tHC !UtUrC . . .
tHC_amCVastHatC!CCHtHUa!HVCHtH_aQCssDCVCHO, CraQCCC C!a
QCssDC VCr!O, aHO tHCH C! CCmQarH_ t VtH tHC rCa VCr!O.' V
ar_UC tHat tHs stC C!CCmQarsCHDCtVCCHtHC aCtUa aHOtHCQCssDC s a
VrtUa, UHsaO, DUt CCHstrUCtCO stC, UHDCHCOCH tC CCmmCHsCHsC sQaCC
Cr tmC, a stC C!!aHtas HCt UH!KC !raHCsjaCCDs DCHCCO DCOrCCm.
1arHtHCmCrHH_,jaCCDVCUOHVCHttHCVCrOHaHtCQatCHC!tHC
Oa.
The return to the confnes of life . . . before resuming my identity, while my
mind was free from any past, at just that instant, the game was beginning. I had to
remain motionless, flat on my stomach, my arms clasping the pillow, eyes shut
tight. It was forbidden to move a muscle. Before I could perceive the world
around me, see it, hear it, I had to reinvent it and set it in place, as much by
imagination as by memory. In immobility, in the stillness of the morning, I
started mentally to do some heavy moving of furniture, walls, houses, streets,
cities, continents. To begin with, I reconstructed my room: it oranized itself around my
bed . . . . In short, in afw minutes I would re-create the universe. (emphasis added?
It's a Nucleic Acid World 6
9
âHtHIH_sarC rCmarKaD!C aOCUttHIs Qassa_C, aHO VI!!rCtUrH tC It
as aH a!C_CrICa! _rIO VItH VHICH VC CaH UHOCrstaHO tHC QCr!CrmatIVC
HatUrC C! jaCCD aHO^CHCOsVCrK. !CrHCV, mCrC!VaHt tC !CrC_rCUHO
tHC ImQCssID!C tCmQCraIt atVCrK HCrC.jaCCD, DCtH IH HIsDCOrCCmaHO,
V attCmQt tC sHCV sHCrt!, IH HIs aD, maKCs HIs DCO DC!CrC HC maKCs
tHC UHIVCrsC. H sHCrt, jaCCDs Car mCrHIH_ artIstr Cr LCHCsIs !aHtas
HaO a VCr QartICUar aHO QCCUIar CrOCr. H aH IHstaHCC C!VHat CrrIOa
VCU!O Ca!! ÌmQCssID!C rCtrCaCtIVIt,jaCCD CCHstrUCts a rCCm aHO a! C!
Its CCHtCHtsDC!CrC tHCrC CXIsts aVCt!OtC `HCUsC It. C OC sC,jaCCD HaO
tC !IVC IH tHC !UtUrC, a tCmQCra aHO sQatIa sItC tHat aHtICIQatCs tHC CXs-
tCHCC C!a UHIVCrsC tHat Is ItsC!UHOCr CrCatJCH.C_ICa, C!CCUrsC, tHIs
Is ImQCssID!C, aHO IH sCmC Vas It Is UHtHIHKaD!C, jUst as 5CHrCOIH_Crs
mCtCHmC sUDstItUtICH C! `CCOC-sCrIQt !Cr `QattCrH !CaOs CHC tC a
CC_HItIVC sstCms CrasHVHCH It Is HCtICCO. NHat maKCs tHs ImQCssIDC
rCtrCaCtIVIt QaUsID!CtHat Is, CHC rCasCHVHjaCCDs CrCatICH rCassUrCs
Hm ratHCr tHaH maKCs HIm aHXICUsIs tHC !aCt tHat jaCCD HCCO HCt
CCHstrUCt CrUHI] HIs CVHDCO. HC UHtHCU_Ht, taCIt _rCUHO CHVHICH
tHIs UHIVCrsC IsDUItCaHDC!CUHOCHtHCUHmCVIH_aHOsmsHCU!OCrs C!
tHCCUH_!raHCIsjaCCD. HC CHtrC!a DCCa tVItCH, tHC mCVCmCHt
C!a mUsC!CCCUO, !IKC aDUttCrH tHats rCaO CHaCs tHCCr, CHaH_C tHC
UmVCrsC.
NHatHasDCCHtaKCHaVaOUrIH_tHCHI_HtQCrHaQsDQCrVCrsCaHO
VICICUs CVCsIs tHC UHIt C!tHC VCrO, aUHItytHatmUstDC CCHstrUCtCO
CUt C!tHCC!tCVCrtHatIsjaCCDsDCO. C `rCtUrH tC tHC CCHHHCs C!!I!C
aHO,QCrHaQs,tCtHCICsCICHCCs, jaCCDtraVc!s CHamCtCHm, arCVCrsaC!
CaUsCaHOCHCCttHattHC QH!CsCQHCrL!CsCCUZC OCsCrIDCsastHCrCUtC
D VHICH CCHsCICUsHCss Cams Ìts aH_UIsH. `CV OCCs CCHsCICUsHCss
CamItsaH_UIsH:CVCaH1OamIma_IHCHmsC!!HaQQaHOQCr!CCt: . . .
5IHCC It CH! taKCs IH CHCCts, CCHsCICUsHCss VI!! satIs] Its I_HCraHCC D
rCVCrsIH_tHC CrOCr C!tHIH_s, D taKH_ CHCCts!CrCaUsCs. . . . H tHIs Va
It VI!! taKC ItsC!!Cr tHC !:rst CaUsC, aHO VI!! IHVCKC Its QCVCr CVCr tHC
DCO.
10
tIstCC Car!VCUODCQUttIH_tHC CartDC!CrC tHC HCrsC, CCUHtIH_
m CHICKCHs DC!CrC tHC HatCHCO, Cr HatCHH_ CHCKCHs aHO CCUHHH_
C__stCmaKCaHCaImsaDCUttHC rC!atICHDCtVCCHtHIsaUtCDIC_raQHI-
Ca!aHCCOCtC aHOjaCCDaHO^CHCOsVCrK. DrIH_ItUQCHtCjUXtaQCsC
It VtH tHC Q!aCC C!tHC DCO, sQaCC, aHO tCmQCra!Ity IH tHC rHCtCrICa
sC!tVarC C!tHCIr rCsCarCH CH _CHCtIC rC_U!atICH. Al C!tHCsC trCQCs tC-
_CtHCr arC HCtVCrKCO tC QrCOUCC a UHIty, aH Cr_aHIsm, `Cr_aHIZCO
arCUHOaDCaUtIUQCr!CrmaHCC C!aHtICIQatICH, aQCr!CrmaHCC tHat OCVC-
ta!s VC VItHjaCCDs ICtrCsQCCtIVC OCsCrIQtICH C!tHC HCaO Oas C!tHC
1astCUr HstItUtC. ` !IVCO IHtHC !UtUrC. . . . HaOtUrHCOm aHXCty IHtC
mQrC!CssICH.
I I
A Definitive Perormance
tIs HCtmCrC !CrtUItCUs tHatjaCCDaHO^CHCODC_IHVItH a OCHHItICH
C!tHC _CHC. HC VCrK tHat tHC VCrC QUrsUIH_ IH I C Vas D Its VCr
CssCHCC UHOCHHCO, aHO tHIs VCrK IH sCmC Vas rCOC!IHCO tHC _CHC as a
strUCtUraCHtIty, astrUCtUrCtHatVasIHtHC astIHstaHCC tHC sItC C!CCHtrC!
!CrtHCQrCOUCtICHC!CHZmCs aHOQrCtCIHs, atCastIHE. coli. Hat Is, CVCH
VHIC CHZmatIC aOaQtatICH sCCmCOtC tHrCatCH tHC Va!IOIt C!tHC strUC-
tUra _CHC HQCtHCsIs, IH VHICH `tHC 1mCssa_CIsDCtHHCCCssaraHO
sUHCICHttCOC!IHCtHCstrUCtUrCCaQrCtCIH,jaCCDaHO^CHCOsOCsCrIQ
tICHC!CHZmatICIHOUCtICHIH!aCtrCsCUCOtHCstrUCtUra_CHCHQCtHCsIs
D asCrIDIH_ a sUQQ!CmCHtar !UHCtICH tC rC_UatCr _CHCs. HC mCCHa
HIsmC!QrCtCIHsHtHCsIsaHOrC_UatICH, Vas, IHtHCIrVCrOs, ÙHKHCVH
aHO tHUs VItHCUt DCrOCrs, !ImIts, Cr OC!IHItICH. HCIr mCOC C!_CHCtIC
CXQrCssICH ItsC!!rCQUIrCO CXQrCssICH, aHO, IKC tHC _CHC ItsC!!, tHCIr tCXt
CaHHCt sa CVCrtHIH_ at CHCC. HC rCQrCssICH C!tHIs QCssIDIIty C!HCIsC
CaOstHCmtCCstaD!IsHtHCrUCsC!tHCIrOIsCCUrsC, rUCstHatVIOC!IHCCr
!Imt tHC IHtCrQrCtatICH C!tHCIr VCrK. !Cr jaCCD, VrItIH_ IH Hs aUtC-
DIC_raQH, tHIs `sUDstItUtICH C!CrOCr !Cr OIsCrOCr marKs tHC traHsItCH
!rCm ÒrCams tC sCICHCC.
To write an account of research is to immobilize these ideas; to freeze them, like
describing a horse race with a snapshot. It is also to transform the very nature of
the research; to formalize it. To substitute an orderly train of concepts and
experiments for a jumble of disordered eforts; of attempts born of a desperate
eagerness to see more clearly; and also of visions, dreams, unexpected connec
tions . . . . In short, writing a paper is to substitute order for the disorder and
agitation that animate life in the laboratory. !2
jaCCDsartICU!atICHC! tHC traHs!CrmatICHtHatrCsCaICHUHOCr_CCsasIt
mCVCs !rCm tHC !aD tC tHC QCH, tQCVrItCr, Cr mCUtH Is QartICUar! IH
strUCtIVC !Cr Us DCCaUsC It aHtICIQatCs tHC IHsCrIQtICH C! aH `CrOCr CH
rCsCarCH. H QartICUar, Its H_UratICH HI_HI_Hts tHC Vas IH VHICH tHC
VrItIH_C!rCsCarCHsCCmstO IHHCCtrCsCarCHVItHasCQUCHtIaCrOCrCHC
HCrsC a!tCraHCtHCrCHOIH_araCC, CHC CCHCCQt a!tCraHCtHCrIHaH CrOCr!
It's a Nucleic Acid World
7
1
traIH. A IH C!CUZCs CDsCrVaOCH QUCtCO Car!ICr, VC sCC HCrC tHC CUt-
IHCs C!rHCtCrIC tHat !UHCtICHs, at !Cast IH Qart, as a Va C!CstaD!IsHIH_
tHC QrICrIty C! `CCHsCICUsHCss CVCr VHat VC HaVC Ca!!CO tHC VIrtUa!
Cr tHC UHtHCU_Ht IH sCICHCC, VHat jaCCD rC!Crs tC as `VIsICHs, OrCams,
UHCXQCCtCO CCHHCCtICHs. HC à_ItatICH, HCVCVCr, Is HCt CrasCO DUt
OIsQ!aCCO, IH tHC ÒCsQCratC Ca_CrHCss tC sCC mCrC C!Car, jaCCD aHO
^CHCOs asCrIQtICH C!CrOCr tHrCU_H tHC trCQC C!OCUHItICH CDsCUrCs as
mUCH as It C!arIUCs. `1CCCrOIH_ tC Its mCst VIOC! aCCCQtCO mCOCrH
CCHHCtatICH,tHCVCrO`_CHC OCsI_HatCs a1mC!CCU!CVHCsCsQCCIUC
sC!!-rCQ!ICatIH_ strUCtUrC CaH, tHrCU_H mCCHaHIsms UHKHCVH, DCCCmC
traHs!atCOIHtC tHCsQCCIU CstrUCtUrC C!aQC!QCQtIOC CHaIH.'`
H a sCHsC, tHC ÒCsI_HatICH C!`tHC VCrO `_CHC Is a QCr!CrmatIVC
OC!IHItICHIt CHaCts Cr, IH tHC mCtaQHCrICa! sCHsC, CarrICs CUt tHC tasK C!
VHICHItsQCaKs, mUCHas tHC QICHCUHCCmCHt C!`HUsDaHO aHO`VI!CIH
amarrIa_C CCrCmCH CarrICs CUt tHat ImQCssID!C tasK. Hat Is, tHC ` OC
C!a marrIa_C CCrCmCH Is a ÒCIH_, It Is HCtjUst a sQCaKIH_, aHOIt Is a
OCIH_tHatVI!!HCVCrCCasC UHtI!OCatH CrOIVCrCC. tIs aQUmIsCtHatIsIH
sCmCsCHsCa!Vas OC!CrrCOtCa!UtUrCOatC.'"HIsQCr!CrmatIVCOCUHItICH
OCCsHCtCCmC CXHIHI!C, C!CCUrsC.CDHItICHs, !CrjaCCDaHO^CHCO, arC
!CUHOIH CCHsCHsUs, arCsU!t C!tHC sCCIa!HC_CtIatICH aHO àCCCQtaHCC C!
!aH_Ua_C aHO mCaHIH_. LHC CCHsCQUCHCC C! tHC sCCIa! HatUrC C!!aH-
_Ua_CIHOCCO,ItsVCrOC!IHItICHIstHattHCmCaHIH_saHOOCQ!CmCHts
C!!aH_Ua_C arC CCHtCstCO aHO CCHtCstaD!C. 1 C!assIC trCQC !Cr CCHtaIHIH_
tHCQ!aC!OCUHItICHsVItHIHa_IVCHtCXtIs, C!CCUrsC, OCUHItICHItsC!!. '`
1HO Ct It Is QrCCIsC! tHC statUs C!OCDHItICH as a trCQCaH CHtIty VItH
VICH aH ar_UmCHt uCVCs, QIVCts, Cr _Cts Cr_aHIZCOtHat rCmIHOs Us C!
tHC !UHOamCHta! ImQCssIDI!Ity C!CCHtaIHH_tHC OIsQ!aCCmCHts aHOsCm-
CsIsC!atCXt. HC `sCCIa! HatUrC C!!aH_Ua_CDCtHrCQUIrCs tHCIHtCrVCH-
tICHC!tHC trCQCC!OCUHItICHaHOmaKCs ItImQCssID!C.
sHCU!O QCrHaQs OCUHC m tCrms mCrC C!Car! HCrC. HC tasK C!
OCUHItICHIs, IHtHC sCHsCjUst UsCO, ImQCssID!C IHtHat ItHCVCrrCaCHCs tHC
CHO, !IHItUOCItCaHHCtOCtCrmIHCtHC CHOCrDCrOCrC!tHCmCaHIH_sC!a
VCrO, CVCH a sCICHtIUC VCrO !IKC gene. HC rHCtCrICa! HatUrC C! tCXts,
VHICsUDjCCttC rCQrCssICH, CaHHCVCrDC CXOH_UIsHCO. HC CHO!Css CHaIH
C!OC!IHItICH CaH aHOVI!!CCHtIHUC CH VItHCUt CHO, IH LCOCIaH!asHICH
tHCrCVI!a!Vas DCaHCXtraOCUHItICH!UrKIH_ arCUHOtHC CCrHCr, CVCHI!
ItIsCH!tHC OCDHItICHC!dgnition ItsC!.
1HC Ct, C! CCUrsC, CHC CaHHCt mCrC! sa Cr VrItC aHtHIH_ IH tHC
HamC C!OCUHItICH. C tC tHIs HCtICH Is tHC `CrOCrCO HatUrC C!OCUH-
7
tICHs rCsCUtICH, OCsQItC Its ImQCssIDIIty, OC!HItICH mUst CCCUr VItHIH
aH QartICUar rC_ImC C!trUtH aHO OIsCCUrsC,jUst as tHC CUH_ !raHCIs
jaCCD mUst, ImQCssID, IHVCHt HIs !ra_mCHt C!a rCCm DC!CrC HC Cr tHC
VCrOCaH CXIstas aVHCC. 1C!CrC tHCrC CaHDC a `VIOC aCCCQtCOmCO-
CrH CCHHCtatICH C!gene, CHC mUst DC CHCrCO. 1HOCt CHC CaH Cn DC
CHCrCCIH CHC [CItaDC) IHstaHCC DC!CrC Its statUs as ÒCsI_HatICH IsQCssI-
DCCrsCCUrC. HCsUCCCssCr!aIUrC C!aOC!HItICH,tHCrC!CrC, VCUOsCCm
tC HIH_C CHIts aDIIt tC CCHtaIH CrImIt tHC maH mCaHIH_s aHOaCtICHs
attaCHCO tC asQCCCHaCt, sUCCCss VHICHtHCrC!CrC CaH CH CCCUr rCtrCaC-
tIVC. HIsQCVCrtCImItCrOIsQaCCCtHCrmCaHIH_s, tC HaVC CHCmCaH-
IH_staHO!Cra!CtHCrsIHtHCsamCVa tHatasHaQsHCt, IHjaCCDsaCCCUHt,
sUDstItUtCs!CraH CHtIrCraCC, CCQCHOs CHCtHCr, UHsaIOVIrtUaCCHOItICHs.
H tHC IHstaHCC C!tHC HCrsC raCC, tHC sHaQsHCt Is aDC tC sUm UQ tHC raCC
IHsC!ar as tHC CDsCrVCrQaCCs tHC DI_HCstQrICrIty CH tHC CUtCCmC C!tHC
raCCaHOHCtCHtHCCVCHtItsCI. LCttIH_aHCaOC!msC!, VIsU__CsttHat
jaCCD aHO ^CHCOs OCHHItICH C!
"
gene
"
aHO
"
genome
"
OCQCHOs CH tVC
rHCtCrICa sUDstratCs. a mCtCHm tHat aCVs tHC _CHC tC ÌVC IH tHC
!UtUrC, tC taKC tHC _CHC as CaUsC aHO HCt [asC) CHCCtIHtHC1-QrCtCIH
rCatICH, aHO a sHCCOCCHC tHat aCVs tHC _CHCmC tC DC tHC Qart tHat
staHOs !CrtHC VHCC, a sItC IH tHC 1-QrCtCIH rCatICHtHat staHOs !Cr a
VHCC sQatIa aHO tCmQCra QrCCCss C!tHC CC mUCH as a sHaQsHCt staHOs
!Cr a VHCC HCrsC raCC. HCsC tVC sUDstratCs, HCQC, VI I!UstratC tHC
Vas IHVHICHtHC `traHs!CrmatICH C!rCsCarCHtHatjaCCD Cas `VrItIH_
CrOCrsaHO CCmQCrts rCsCarCHasmUCHas It OCsCrIDCs It.
NCHaVC arCaO sCCH CHCC!tHC asQCCts C! jaCCD aHO^CHCOstCXtUa
CCmQCrtmCHt. HC rHCtCrICa OIsIHtC_ratICH C! `LCHCtIC C_UatCr
^CCHaHIsms IH tHC 5HtHCsIs C!rCtCIHs Is aVCIOCOD tHC IHtrCOUCtICH
C!aOC!HItICH, a ÒCsI_HatICH.HCImQCssIDCtasK C!tCXtUa rC_UatICH
IHjaCCD aHO ^CHCOs tCXt rCICs CH tHC rHCtCrICa aHO sCICHtI!C QrCOUC-
tICH C! _CHCtIC rC_UatICH VItHIH It, `_CHCtIC CCHtrC IH sCmC sCHsC
CXtCHOs HCtjUst tC tHC sHtHCsIs C!QrCtCIHs DUttC tHC `sHtHCsIs C!tHIs
tCXt. H tHIs CasC, OCHHItICH Is IHOUCCO DjaCCD aHO ^CHCODCtH C!
VHCm, It CCUO DC saIO, VCrC `sICK VItH tC VrIttCH VCrOtHrCU_H a
mCtaQHCrICaIHKVItH tHC HCtICH C!`_CHCs as `CCOC Cr àH_Ua_C.''
1saHCDjCCt tC DC `traHsatCO, tHC _CHC IsOCHHCO HCrC asDCIH_ItsC!a
KIHOC!tCXt,asCtC!IHstrUCtICHs, arCCIQCCraDUCQrIHt.NHatCHsUrCstHIs
OCDHItICHC!tHC `_CHC,HCVCVCr, IsadCUDCtraHsatICHC!tHCQraCtICC C!
OCHHItICH, a traHsatICH `VHICHtHrCU_HmCCHaHIsms UHKHCVH DrIO_Cs
tHC_aQDCtVCCHtCXtaHOQrCtCIH.NHatVI OCsCrIDCastHC^CDIUsstrIQ
7
3
mCVCmCHtC!OC!IHItICHmaKCstHC CCmQCrtmCHtC!DCtHtHC tCXtaHOtHC
Cr_aHIsm QCssID!C D a OCuD!C sstCm C! mCtCHmIC aHO sHCCOCCHa!
`rCQrCssICH. H CrOCr tC traCK tHIs, VI!! QrCDC mCrC OCCQ! IHtCjaCCD
aHO ^CHCOs OCQ!CmCHt C!tHC ar_umCHts aHO trCQCs C!OCHHItICH aHO
traCCtHC `VIrtua!sQaCC IHVHICHtHCIrVCrKuH!C!Os.
Definition's Ends
NHat, tHCH, Is tHC `mCstVIOC!aCCCQtCOmCOCrH CCHHCtatICH C!dfni
tion? `C statC QrCCIsC!, tC sQCCI] Cr `tC OCtCrmIHC tHC DCuHOar Cr
sQatIJ! CXtCHtC! Cr `C maKC a tHIH_VHatIt Is, tC _IVC a CHaraCtCr tC,
CHaraCtCrIZC, tC CCHstItutC tHC OCHHItICH C!. HCsC OC!IHItICHs C!dfni
tion CaH tHCmsC!VCs DC Cr_aHIZCOarCuHOtVC OIHCrCHt a!tHCu_HQCrHaQs
HCtCXC!usIVCrC_IstCrsC!mCaHIH_, rC_IstCrsVCmI_HtCa!!tHCtrCQC!C_ICa!
aHOtHC tCQC!C_ICa!. HC aQQCa!tC `CCHHCtatICH Is aHaQQCa!tC tHC Hrst
OCHHItICHjust _IVCH,ItsCCKstCmaKCa_CHCra!statCmCHtaDCutVHatVC,
mCrC sQCCIHCa!!, mC!CCu!ar DIC!C_Ists C!J C, mCaH[t) Dgene. HIs VC
mI_Ht OCsCrIDCasa `trCQC!C_ICa! usC C!ÒCHHItICH IHtHattHC CQCHIH_
C!`LCHCtIC C_u!atCr^CCHaHIsmsIHtHC5HtHCsIsC!rCtCIHs aQQCa!s
tC tHC OCsI_HatICH C! a CCmmCH _rCuHO, aH CIOCH DC_IHHIH_ C!tHC
suDstItutICH C! CrOCr !Cr OIsCrOCr tHat jaCCD Ca!!CO VrItIH_. Lur HCXt
rHCtCrIC C!OCHHItICH, HCVCVCr, a!sC rC!ICs CHIts tCQC!C_ICa! Va!CHCC. `!Ct
us assumC tHat tHC 1mCssa_C CCHtaIHCO VItHIH a _CHC s DCtH HCCCs-
saraHOsuU:CICHttCOCHHCtHCstruCturC C!aQrCtCIH.HC C!CCtIVC CHCCts
C!a_CHtsCtHCrtaHtHC struCtura!_CHCItsC!!IHQrCmCtIH_CrsuQQrCssIH_
tHC sHtHCsIs C!a QrCtCIH must tHCH DC OCsCrIDCO as CQCratICHs VHICH
CCHtrC! tHC ratC C!traHs!Cr C!struCtura! IH!CrmatICH UCm _CHC tC QrC
tCIH.' 1HCtHCr sIOC C!OCHHItICH, tHCH, Is sQatIa!. HC mCVCmCHt !rCm
`mCssa_C tC `struCturCIstHCs!IQQa_C!rCmÌH!CrmatICH Cr`CCHHCta-
tICH tCàrCHItCCturC Cr`sHaQC.HIs_aQ,tHC_aQDCtVCCH `_CHCs aHO
`Cr_aHIsms, Is C!IOCO D tHC OCuD!C _CsturC C!OC!IHItICH, VHICH ItsC!!
sI_HI!ICs, sCmCtImCs, sCmCtHIH_ CH DCtH sIOCs C! tHC trCQC!C_ICa!/tC-
QC!C_ICa! DCrOCr. HC OCuD!C rCsCHaHCC C!ÒCHHC a!!CVs `/mCs-
sa_C tC DCtH IHstruCt [sCHO a mCssa_C, sQCCI]) aHO CCHstruCt [OCHHC
struCturC) at tHC samC tImC, tC amCuHCC _CHCtIC CCmmaHOs aHO tC CX-
CCutC tHCm. HC CsCI!atICH CHaHODCtVCCHtHCsC OCuD!COCQ!CmCHtsIs
a mCVCmCHt IHtC aHO Cut C!tHC HuC!CIC aCIO VCr!O, a VCr!O sImu!ta
HCCus! IHtCrICr aHO CXtCrICr tHat, !IKC a ^CDIus strIQ, CCHtaIHs VItHIH
ItsC!!DCtH sQaCCs. Hat Is, tHIs OCuD!C sI_Ha! QrCOuCCO D tHC trCQC C!
7
4
OC!IHItICH a!CVsjaCCD aHO ^CHCOtCDCtHsCaCHtHC _CHC UCm `CXtCr-
Ha! a_CHts aHO IHCCrQCratC tHCsC a_CHts as `CCHtaIHCO VItHIH tHC _C-
HCtIC QrC_Iam. ' `HC OIsCCVCr C!rC_U!atCr aHO CQCratCr _CHCs, aHO C!
rCQrCssIVC rC_U!atICH C!tHC aCtIVIt C!strUCtUra _CHCs, rCVCa!s tHat tHC
_CHCmC contains not only a series of blue-prints, but a co-ordinated program of
protein synthesis and the means ofcontrolling its execution. [CmQHasIs aOOCO) '
HUs, IH amCVC IsCmCrQHIC tC5CHrCOIH_Crs CCHtaIHmCHt C!QHCHCtyQC
VItHIH CHrCmCsCmC HDCrs,jaCCD aHO ^CHCO CCHtaIH rC_UatICH IH tHC
_CHCmCItsC!IHsC!aras tHC _CHCmC CCHtaIHsHCtCHtHCIHstrUCtICHsCr
DUCQrIHts DUt tHC `mCaHs tC Carr tHCm CUt5CHrCOIH_Crs `CXCCUtIVC
QCVCr.
t Is HCt jUst tHatjaCCD aHO ^CHCC OCQC a trCQC IH tVC OIHCrCHt
Vas, VItH OIUCrCHt IHHCCtICHs. HIs Is, a!tCr a, VHat rHCtCrICs OC.
atHCr, amC!aImIH_tHattHCOCUD!CCHCCtsC! tHCtrCQCC!OCHHItICHHC!Q
CIOC tHC_aQ DCtVCCHtVCsCICHtIHC rHCtCrICs, arHCtCrIC C!ÌHstrUCtICH
aHO a rHCtCrIC C!`CCHstrUCtICH, VHICH QCrmCatC `LCHCtIC C_UatCr
^CCHaHIsmsIHtHC 5HtHCsIs C!rCtCIHs. HIsrHCtCrIC CaH a!sCDC!CUHO
IHjaCCDs OCsCrIQtICH C!tHC UH!COIH_ C!HIsVCrKCH_CHCtIC rC_U!atICH,
VHICHHC OCsCrIDCOasVCrKIH_`!IKCaH arCHItCCtsVIsICHtHatmatCrIa!IZCs
IHtHCCCHstrUCtICHC!aQa!aCC.'HDCtHHIsOCsCrIQtICHC!sCICHCCaHOHIs
OCsCrIQtICH C!QrCtCIHsHtHCsIs, tHCH, tHC _aQ DCtVCCH ÌHstrUCtICH aHO
`CCHstrUCtICH Is CCCUtCO, aHO tHC VCrK C!DUIOIH_ DCOICs Cr QaaCCs
`C!t CUt, CCHtaIHCOVItHIH tHC QUrC ImmaHCHCC C!_CHCmCs aHO D!UC-
QrIHts. HIsstrUCtUrCC!aHtICIQatICHVCrKs tHrCU_HmCtCHm DtaKIH_
tHC _CHC as a CaUsC aHO HCt [asC) aH CHCCt, rCQrCssIn_ tHC rC!C C!tHC
Cr_aHIsm, aHOtHrCU_HsHCCOCCHCD taKIH_tHC _CHCmIC IHstrUCtICHs as
tHC `VHCC, aHOHCtjUstaQart, C!tHCprocess C!IHOUCtICH.'
1QUttIH_strUCtUra_CHCsIHtHCQCsItICHC!ÒC!HIH_tHCstrUCtUrC
C!aQrCtCIH,jaCCDaHO^CHCOCHCCtIVC!CIOC, CratCastmar_IHaIZC,tHC
QCVCr C! HCHHUCCIC aCIO !aCtCrs !IKC QrCtCIHs, CHVIrCHmCHt, aHO tHC
CCmQ!CXItICs C!OCVCCQmCHt aHO tHUs CHsUrC 1 Its statUs as `âstCr
^C!CCU!C. HC OCsCrIQtICH C!tHC strUCtUra _CHC as DCIH_ HCCCssar aHO
sUCICHtVHI!C asC OCQCHOCHt CH QrCmCtCrs aHO rCQrCssCrs CCHtaIHs aH
ImQICIt C!aIm tHat tHC rCQrCssICH aHO QrCmCOCH C!QrCtCIH sHtHCsIs
rCQrCsCHtCH!aCHaH_CIHOC_rCCaHOHCtIHKIHO, aQUaHtItatIVC aHOHCta
QUa!ItatIVC OIHCrCHCC. `NI!O tyQC E. coli CC!s _rCVH IH tHC aDsCHCC C!
_aaCtCsIOCCCHtaIHaDCUt I tC 1 0 UHItsC!_a!aCtCsIOasCQCrm_OrVCI_Ht,
tHat Is, aH aVCra_C C! . 5 tC 5 aCtIVC mCCCUCs QCr CC!! Cr 0. 1 5 tC I . 5
mCCCUCs QCr HUCCUs. 1aCtCrIa _rCVH IH tHC QrCsCHCC C!a sUItaDC IH-
7
5
OUCCr CCHtaIH aH aVCra_C C!IO, OOO UHIts QCrD_Or VCI_Ht. HIs Is tHC
IHOUCtICH CHCCt.
1HOCttHC!IDIt CasC C!tHIsar_UDCHtIsCtHa!. HC `C!CCtIVC CHCCts
C!rC_UatICH, sCCDIH_! sUQQ!CDCHtar IHjaCCD aHO ^CHCOs aCCCUHt,
ItCra DaKC tHC OIHCrCHCC DCtVCCH !I!C aHO OCatH. `1CCCrOIH_ tC tHC
strICt! strUCtUra CCHCCQt, tHC _CHCDC Is CCHsIOCrCO as a DCsaIC C!IH-
OCQCHOCHt DCCCU!ar D!UC-QrIHts !Cr tHC DUIOIH_ C!IHOIVIOUa CC!!U!ar
CCHstItUCHts. H tHC CXCCUtICH C!tHCsC Q!aHs, HCVCVCr, CCCrOIHatICH Is
CVIOCHt!C!aDsCUtCsUrVIVaVaUC.`HatIs,tHCCXQrCssICHC!tHCstrUC-
tUra! aHO rC_U!atCr _CnCs, OCHHCs Cr CXCCUtCs tHC IDIts C!tHC QrCtCIH
strUCtUrC, aHODCXtCHsICHtHCDCO, àDsC!UtC."HCsCQrCCCssCstraH-
sCCHO tHC DCrOCr CrOCHHItICH C!tHC _CHCtHC arC, CVCH HCrC IHjaCCD
aHO^CHCOs aCCCUHt, CCDQCXIHtCraCtIVC aHaIrs C!IHstrUCtICHaHOCCH-
strUCtICH. HCsIDQCaHCDrUta!QCssIDIItyCCHOItICH!CrCXQrCssICHIs aH
Cr_aHIsD, aH Cr_aHIsDtHatDUstIH sCDCsCHsC CXIst!IVC`DC!CrC tHC
CCHstrUCtICH C!ItsC!tHrCU_H a straHO C!1 aHO Its DCssCH_Cr. 1
`CCHtaIHIH_ tHC DCaHs C!QrCtCIH sHtHCsIs VItHIH tHC _CHCDC, jaCCD
aHO^CHCOasCCCHtaIHtHCtIDCHCCCssar!CrtHatCXCCUtICH. HC C!aID
tHat tHC _CHCDC, I!HCt tHC strUCtUra! _CHCs a!CHC, Is HCCCssar aHO sU:-
CICHt !Cr tHC ÒCHHItICH C!tHC strUCtUrC C!QrCtCIHs OCQCHOs UQCH tHC
CrasUrC C!tHC HUC!CIC aCIOs OCQCHOCHCCCHtHC CtCQasDaHOtHC Cr_aH-
IsD, aHCrasUrCtHatIsDaOCQCssIDCDtHCs!IQQa_CDCtVCCH ÌHstrUCtICH
aHO `CCHstrUCtICH IHjaCCD aHO ^CHCOs rHCtCrIC C! OC!:HItICH. HIs
sIQQa_C CHaCCs tHC QrCCCss C!QrCtCIH sHtHCsIs, a QrCCCss tHat rCQUIrCs
tIDC aHOaHCr_aHIsD, HCtjUst a _CHCtIC Hat.
1 IDQICIt! asCrIDIH_ sUCH tCDQCra!, sQatIa!, aHO HICrarCHICa QrI-
CrIty tC 1, IHOCCO, tC HUCCIC aCIOs IH _CHCra!, jaCCD aHO ^CHCO
OCQCHOCH aQCsItICH C!IDQCssID!C rCtrCaCtIVIty. CrtHCD,1 OCDHCs
Cr CCHstrUCts tHC Cr_aHIsD DC!CrC tHCrC Is aH Cr_aHIsD tC `DCUsC tHC
_CHCDC, jUst as tHC CUH_jaCCD DaOC HIs DCO DC!CrC HC DaOC tHC UHI-
VCrsC CH tHC DasIs C!aH UHsQCKCH, UHDCVIH_DCO. HCrC CXIsts a taCIt,
uHsQCKCH sItC tHat DaKCs QCssIDC tHC VCr CXQrCssICH C!a _CHC aHO tHC
CCHstrUCtICH C! a QrCtCIHHaDC, tHC !IVIH_ `DCO C! E. coli. HIs
UHsQCKCHsQaCC C!QrCtCIHsHtHCsIsIsa!sC, tCDQCra!!, OCVC!CQDCHt.
Living in the Future
The fundamental problem of chemical physiolog and of embryolog is to un
derstand why tissue cells do not all express, al the time, al the potentialities
7
inherent in their genome. The survival of the organism requires that many, and in
some tissues most, of these potentialities be unexpressed, that is to say repressed.
Malignancy is adequately described as a breakdown of one or several growth
controlling systems, and the genetic origin of this breakdown can hardly be
doubted.25
HC rCtUrH tC tHC CmDrC s a rCtUrH tC tHC !UtUrC. HC mQCssD!C aHtC-
rCrty C!a _CHC aDstraCtCO !rCm a OCVCCQCO Cr_aHsm, aH aDstraCtCH
QCrHaQs aOCO aHO aOCttCO D E. t0/t s H_H-VCCCty [sQCCO-C!-!_Ht) rC-
QrCOUCtCH, rCtUrHs HtHC !CrmC!tHCQrCD!CmC!CmDrCC_y, tHC OsC-
Q!HC tHat OCa!s VtH tHC OCVCCQmCHt C!Cr_aHsms CVCr tmC, tHC VCr
tmC OC!CtCOHCrCDtHCsHCCOCCHCC!tHC_CHCtCQrC_ram. HC _CHCtC
Cr_H C!tHs `DrCaKOCVH s tHC OCDHtCH C!gene. LH a tHCss tHat
QCsts tHC _CHCs Qrma aHtCrCrt aHO U!tmatC aUtHCrty, a _CHCmC
DUrstH_VtHmmaHCHCC`!aV CCOCaHOCXCCUtVCQCVCrVCUO!aCC
tHCQUCstCH C!HCVtHs QCVCr!UstCaVCOs CVCrOCsC, à!! tHCtmC. 1
QrV!C_H_tHC sQata aHO tCmQCra QrCrty C!1,jaCCDaHO^CHCO
QrCVCKC aHCVQrCD!CmHamC!, HCVs tHC CCHtra stC C!CCHtrC! tsC!!
CCHtrC!!CO: HC aHsVCr CaH Cn! DC !CUHO H tHC !UtUrC, a !UtUrC C!a
CCVC!CQH_CmDrC HCtCCHtaHCOHtHC_CHCmC tsC!.'
HC!UtUrC QrCDCm C!CmDrCC_y stHCHtHCQrCD!Cm C!tHC!UtUrC
tsC!!, mCrC sQCC!ICa!!, tHC QrCD!Cm C! HCV tHC _CHCmC DCrrCVs aH
Cr_aHsm !rCm tHC !UtUrC H CrOCr tC rC_U!atC tsC! CmCmDCrtHat tHC
astCUrHsttUtCVas à sstCm !CrCCHCCCtH_CXQCCtatCH, amaCHHC!Cr
maKH_ tDC !UtUrC. . . . HC _amC Vas tHat C! CCHtHUaL HVCHtH_ a
QCssDC VCrO, Cr a QCCC C!a QCssDC VCt!O, aHO tHCH C!CCmQarH_ t
VtHtHCrCaVCrO. NHC, CrVHat, s tHCa_CHCC!CCmQarsCHHCrC:
HtHC CasC C!tHC asICUrHsttUtC, t VCU!OsCCm CCar tHat tHC a_CHts
jaCCD HmsC!!, mUCH as t sjaCCD VHC maOC QCssDC tHC sHtHCss C!tHC
VCrO CaCH mCrHH_. 1HO Ct tHs `sC!! tsC!!rCQUrCs a KHO C!tmC
traVC!CrtsHtC_rty.
As diferent as these selves making up my life may seem now, for more than sixty
years they have, every morning upon awakening, recognized each other . . . .
Each time they have had the feeling of resuming the same role, afer the nightly
intercession, at the exact point it left of the night before. This consciousness of
unity is not only that of my body, its habits, its inclinations. Even more, it is made
of those memories that travel through time in fashes.28
CrCjaCCDVrtCsC!astrUCtUrCC!aHtCQatCHtHatsaQrCjCCtCH!CrVarO
HtmC aHO HCtmCrC!arCmCmDraHCCC!tHH_sQast. tasCrDCsaUHtytC
77
tHC sC!!tHrCU_H a HarratVa! aHtCQaHCH.' 5C tCC, jaCCD aHO ^CHCO
aHtCQatC tHC CXstCHCC C! aH Cr_aHsm tHat V!! aCt as tHC a_CHC C!
CXQrCssCH!CrstrUCtUra!_CHCsHtHCCC!!aQsC C!`HstrUCtCH aHO `CCH-
strUCtCH tHattaKCs Q!aCC, amCH_CtHCrQ!aCCs, tHrCU_H tHC rHCtCrCs C!
OCHHtCH. rCHCa!!, !Cr^CHCO,aHarCHCHCmC!tHC!aH_Ua_CC!tC!CC!-
C_ H DC!C_, tHs OCHHtCH HsCrts aH mQ!Ct tC!Cs H tHC _CHCmC H
tHat t `CCHtaHs ts CVH QUrQCsVC OCVC!CQmCHt, OCVC!CQmCHttHatm-
Q!Ct!OCQCHOsCHtHCaD!ty C!1tC `!VC HtHC!UtUrC.
LrtC 5!aVCj
_
ZCKCXQ!aHsHCVtHsjCUrHCHtC tHC!UtUrCVCrKs at
tHC!CVC! C!s_HH CatCH.
What is a 'Journey" into the fture ifnot this "overtaking" by means of which
we suppose in advance the presence in the other of a certain knowledge . . . .
This knowledge is an illusion, it does not exist in the other, the other does not
really possess it, it is constituted aferwards through our-the subject's-signifier's
working; but it is at the same tme a necessay illusion because we can paradox
ically elaborate this knowledge only by means of the illusion.3o
HstrCQCtHatrUHssCCHCCHCtCH,tmC traVC!,stHUsaHCHaD!H_HCtCH
!CrjaCCD aHO ^CHCOs sCCHCC. t s a HCtCHa!, rHCtCrCa! sC!tVarC HCt
CCVCrCO UQ DUt CVCr!CCKCO, `CCHtaHCO DjaCCD aHO ^CHCOs OCUD!C
OCQ!CmCHtC!OCHHtCH.jaCCD aHO ^CHCO assUmC H aOVaHCC tHCQrCs-
CHCC C! a `CCrtaH KHCV!CO_C H tHC _CHCs tHat CaHHCt DC CXQrCssCO
CXCCQt tHrCU_H a DCO tHat tHC _CHCs tHCmsC!VCs a!!C_CO! CXCCUtC aHO
CCHstrUCt. C stCKtC tHC mCtaQHCrs C!mCssa_Cs, CCOCs, aHOQrC_rams, t
s as !a CCmQUtCrQrC_ram CCU!O CCHstrUCt a CCmQUtCr tC rUH tsC!) DUt
tHC CD Va H VHCH tHC QrC_ram CCU!O aCQUrC tHC CCmQUtCr tC rUH
tsC!! `Cr_Ha!! VCU!O DC tC traVC! HtC tHC !UtUrC C!tsC!!. 1HO tHs
UtUrC, D HCCCssty, CaH CD DC aCCCssCO tHrCU_H a HCtCO. COa, tHs
QrCD!CmatC !VCs CH H tHC rHCtCrC C! `smart _CHCs, rCsCarCHCr 1rC
aVOsCHs HCmCHC!atUrC !Cr_CHCstHatCaH ÙHOCrstaHO CtCQ!asm s_-
Ha!s. `^Cst C!tHC_CHCsHCCmQ!CXCrCatUrCs,tsCCms,mUstassCmD!CCH-
OCarOQrCtCH CCmQUtCrs DC!CrC tHC CaHDC traHsCrDCO.`' HC QaraOCX
HCrC, C! CCUrsC, rCsOCs H tHC !aCt tHat tHC _CHCs sCmCHCV àssCmD!C
tHCsC `QrCtCH CCmQUtCrs DC!CrC tHC arC tHCmsC!VCs traHsCrDCO, H-
OCCO,DC!CrC tHCarCHsCmC sCHsC_CHCs ata!!.`'
HC rCCCHt H!m Terminator aHO ts sCQUC! Terminator 2: Judgment Day
QrCVOC UsVtH aH aHa!C_CUsQrCD!CmatCC!atCCHHC!C_yDCrrCVCO!rCm
tHC !UtUrC. HC `tCrmHatCr, a `CDCrHCtC Cr_aHsm sCHt !rCm tHC !U-
tUrC,arrVCsH tHCQrCsCHtVtHtHCtasKC!QrCtCCtH_a!UtUrC !CaOCr!rCm
7
aHCtHCr tCrmHatCr, a mImCtIC-a!C VIaIH CaQaD!C C! rCQ!ICatIH_ aH
sHaQC aHO sQrCUtIH_ KHIVCs UCm Its `DCO. 1s a Qart C!HIs mIssICH, tHC
rCOCmQtIVC tCrmIHatCr a!sC QartaKCs IH a KIHO C!tCCHHC!C_ICaQatrICIOC,
OCstrCIH_ a CCmQUtCr CHIQ aHOrCDCtIC armtHatVCrC tHCmsC!VCs traCCs
C!aHCtHCrtCrmIHatCrsCHtUCmtHC!UtUrC, tCCHHC!C_ICsrC!CrrCOtCIHtHC
H!m Cn! as Ìt. t Vas CH! tHrCU_H tHCsC tCCHHC!C_ICs, IH a tCCHHC
!C_ICa!`sCCOIH_UCmtHC!UtUrC, tHatarCVC!UtICHar CCmQUtCr aOVaHCC
tCCKQ!aCC, VHICHItsC!!_aVC rIsC tC aCCmQUtCr-_CHCratCOHUC!CarHC!C-
CaUstaHOtHCsUDsCQUCHtVarDCtVCCHHUmaHsaHOmaCHIHCs. HatIs,ItIs
CH!tHrCU_H aHImQCssID!CDCrrCVIH_ Cr `sCCOIH_ !rCm tHC !UtUrC tat
tHIs rCOCmQtIVC CDCrHCtIC Cr_aHIsm CHCCUHtCrs Its `QrCCUrsCr, Har
ratIVC! ÌmQCssID!C DCCaUsC Ìt Is DCtH CaUsC aHO CHCCt C!tHC rCVC!U-
tICHartCCHHC!C_ICaaOVaHCC tHatmaKCs Cr `DIrtHs tHC tCrmIHatCrs.
^ aIm HCrC Is HCt tC QCIHt CUt HarratIVa HC!Cs sHarCO D a sCICHCC
HCtICH H!m aHO a sCICHHHC aCCCUHt C!QrCtCIH sHtHCsIs. atHCr, aD
CCHCCrHCOVItH tHC CHCCtC!tHCsC HC!Cs CH tHC HarratIVC CaCHartICU!atCs.
NHat Is QrCOUCCO tHrCU_H tHIs ImQCssID!C rC!IaHCC CH tHC !UtUrC Is HCt
ImQCssIDI!It DUt tCHsICH, a sUsQCHsICH Cr CsCI!!atICH DCtVCCH tCmQCra!-
ItICstHataCVtHCCCmQ!CXItyC!aOHamICsstCmtCDC OCsCrIDCO.HCrC
Is HC a QrICrI rCasCH VH CUr !aH_Ua_C sHCU!O DC UQ tC tHC tasK C!OC-
sCrIDIH_sUCHOHamIC sstCms as aVCrO UHOCr CCHstrUCtICH, `!UtUrIH_
( Terminator 2) , CraHCr_aHIsmUHOCr OCVC!CQmCHt, aHOItIs CH!tHrCU_H
rCCCUrsCtCsUCH `QaraOCXICa! sQaCCsaHOtCmQCraItICstHatsUCH OHamIC
sstCms CaHDCOCsCrIDCOata!. HC CHQrCD!CmVItHsUCHsUsQCHsICH,as
a sCICHtI!IC Cr sCICHCC !ICtICHa rHCtCrICa! tCCHHIQUC, Is VHCH C!CsUrC, aH
CHOtCtHCsUsQCHsICH,Is aCHICVCO.HIsIsQrCCIsC!tHC CHCCtC! jaCCD aHO
^CHCOs `CCHtaIHmCHt C!QrCtCIHsHtHCsIsIHtHC _CHCmC.
H lHC CHCCUHtCr C!aH CHtItCr_aHIsm, _CHC, Cr a_CHtVItH tHC
traCC C! Its CVH !utUrC, OCatH, Cr at !Cast aH CXQ!CsICH, a!mCst a!Vas
rCsU!ts. HC rHCtCrICa! CXQrCssICH C!tHC traCC C!tHC !UtUrC VarICs !rCm
H!m tC !I!m, DCCK tC DCCK, sCICHCC tC sCICHCC HCtICH, DUt tHC rCsU!t Is
amCstaVas tHC samCmUrOCr, CXQ!CsICH, tHC aHHIHI!atICH C!tHC OaH-
_CrCUs!OCUD!CO!UtUrC. HCUrCXamQ!CC!QrCtCIHsHtHCsIs, tDCQrCtCIHs,
mCrCsQCCI!ICa, tHCDCOC!tHCCr_aHIsm,IstHCtraCC C! 1sUtUrC,a
traCC ItDCtHrCQUIrCstC `CXQrCss ItsC!!aHOatraCC ItmUst CCHtaIHVItHIH
tHC _CHCmC I!1 Is tC maIHtaIH Its sCVCrCI_Ht CVCr tHC QrCsCHt aHO
CHCCtC!CsUrC.``NHat HaQQCHs VHCH 1 CHCCUHtCrs ItsC!!as a traCC C!
tHC!UtUrC,VHCHItDCCCmCsC!CartHat1mUstDCrrCVaDCOImQCssI
D! CUt C!tHC !UtUrC IH CrOCr tC traHsmIt Its CCmmaHOs: 1t tHC !CVC! C!
79
IHOUCtICH,jaCCD aHO ^CHCO UsC tHC CXamQ!C C!a traHsmIttCr aHO sCmC
DCmDs. `NC saV tHIs CIrCUIt as maOC UQ C!tVC _CHCs. traHsmIttCr aHO
rCCCIVCr C!a CtCQ!asmIC sI_Ha, tHC rCQrCssCr. H tHC aDsCHCC C!tHC IH-
OUCCr, tHIs CIrCUIt D!CCKCO tHC sHtHCsIs C!_aaCtCsIOasC . . . mUCH as a
traHsmIttCr CH tHC _rCUHO sCHOs sI_Ha!s tC a DCmDCr. `C HCt OrCQ tHC
DCmDs. CHCtOrCQ tHC DCmDs. "34
Crma, tHCH, QrCtCIHs arC rCQrCssCO tHrCU_H _CHCtIC CCmmaHOs,
DUt 8t tHC VCr mCmCHt C!QrCtCIH sHtHCsIs tHC `DCmDs arC rC!CasCO.
rCtCIH sHtHCsIs Is tHUs artICU!atCO VItH CXQCsICH, aHO as a rCsU!t tHC
Cr_aHIsmsC!-OCtCHatCs, CrasIH_Its Q!aCC IHtHC CCCHCm C!sCmatIC QrC-
OUCtICH, CHaCIH_tHCDCOastHC traCC C!1sh1tUrC. HtHCIrmCOC!C!
QrCtCIH sHtHCsJs,jaCCD aHO ^CHCO a!!C_CrIZC tHCIrOIsIHtC_ratICHC!tHC
DCO C!tHC Cr_aHIsm, QrCsCrVIH_ 1 as a sItC C!CCHtra! CCmmaHO D
H_UrIH_QrCtCIHsasVCaQCHs, HCt-sC-smartDCmDs.
Structure, Sign, and Pla
y
in the Discourse of
the (Human) Genome
CVIs IttHatsUCH a mCOC! C!QrCtCIHsHtHCsIs, IHVHICH1 Is sCCH
tC DC DCtH CCHtCr aHO QCrIQHCr at tHC samC tImC, IHstrUCtCr aHO CCH-
struCtCr, QrCsCHtaHO!UtUrC, IsmaOCQ!aUsID!C: HI!CsCQHCrjaCQUCs Cr-
rIOa, IH HIs OIsCUssICH C!tHC HIstCr aHO CHCCts C!tHC HCtICH C!strUCtUrC
IHNCstCrHQHI!CsCQHICaOIsCCUrsC, HCtCstHat `strUCtUrC Hasa!VasDCCH
CmDCOOCOIHarHCtCtIC C!CCHtra!It.
The function of this center was not only to orient, balance, and organize this
structure-one cannot in fact conceive of an unorganized structure-but above
alto make sure that the organizing principle of the structure would limt what
we might call the fee play of the structure. No doubt that by orienting and
organizing the coherence of the system, the center of a structure permits the fee
play of its elements inside the total form. And even today the notion of a structure
lacking a center represents the unthinkable itself. 35
Hat Is, at !Cast IHQHI!CsCQHICa!OIsCCUrsC, `strUCtUrC Has aVas rC!CrrCO
tCsCmCtHIH_IKCa`CCHtra!Cr_aHIZCr, asItCC!CCHtrC!aHO`Da!aHCCtHat
a!CVs!CrtHC tCHUCUs OIa!CCtICOCtVCCH `!rCCQ!a aHOUHIt. 1OOtHIstC
tHC !aCt tHat `D!UCQrIHt, CHC CIjaCCD aHO ^CHCOs CtHCr OCmIHaHt
mCtaQHCrs, ItsC!!HasaHIstCr DasCO CHImmUtaDIIt, aHOVC CaHDC_IH tC
sCCtHat`strUCtUra!_CHCstHatarC`D!UCQrIHtsrCsCHatCVItHtHCQaraOCX
C!aH CtCrHa!!CrmtHatIs HCHCtHC!CssDUI!t.
Plato conceived of the being of entities in terms dawn fom human manufactur
ing . . . His concept of the ideal "form" -that which is eternally present and
unchanging and ultimately real-was drawn from the role played by the blueprint
or model in the work of a craftsman. Just as the craftsman's blueprint provides the
structure for the thing he makes, so too the eternal form provides the structure
for things which come to be in the temporal-empirical world. 3
6
1 VC HaVC CCH, tHC IDDaHCHCC C! tHC _CHCDC, D jaCCD aHO
^CHCO aCCCUHtIH`LCHCtICC_U!atCr^CCHaHIDIHtHC5HtHCIC!
rCtCIH, I IDQCID! UQQCrtCO D CCHtaIHIH_ tHC CCHtrUCtICH C!tHC
Cr_aHIDVItHIHtHC _CHCDC, tHCHUCCICCCHtCrC!CCHtrC, aHOtHCUDC-
QUCHtDar_IHa!IZatICH C!CHZDC aHO OCVCCQDCHt. tI a!DCta I!tHC
trCQCC!`trUCtUrC aHO`DUCQrIHt CHCCUra_C,I!HCtOCDaHO,aCCHtCr
C!tHCCr_aHIDtHat`QrCVIOCtHCtrUCtUrC!CrtHIH_VHICHCCDCtCDC
IH tHC tCDQCra!-CDQIrICa VCHO C!tHC Cr_aHID. 1HO Ct, a VC HaVC
CCH, tHI IIDQCIDC. HC tCDQCraaHO QatIa!OCDaHOC!tHC Cr_aHID
arCDCtDaHCH_CIH_IHtCraCtICHaHO`traH!atICH DCtVCCHHUCCICaCIO
aHO QrCtCIH, jUt a a D!UCQrIHt rCQUIrC a Cra!tQCrCH, tCCHHIQUC, aHO
DatCrIa!tC DCtraH!atCOIHtC aHartI!aCtHCtVItHtaHOIH_jaCCD OrCaD
C!àH arCHItCCt VIICH tHat DatCrIaIZC IH tHC CCHtrUCtICH C!aQaaCC
DIraCUCU!. HI C!IICH C! `trUCtUrC OCQCHOCHCC CH aH CXtCrHa
CCCHCD, tHCVaIHVHICH tHC _CHCDC CaH DC DCtHtHC IHtrUCtICH !Cr
tHC Cr_aHID aHO `CCHtaIH tHC DCaH C!CXCCUtIH_ tHCC IHtrUCtICH,
I a!!C_CrIZCO D tHC QH!CCQHCa! HItCr C! trUCtUrC. 1CCCrOIH_ tC
CrrIOa,
Center . . . is the point at which the substitution of contents, elements, or terms
is no longer possible . . . . Thus it has always been thought that the center, which
is by defnition unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which
governs the structure, while escaping structurality. This is why classical thought
concerning the structure could say that the center is, paradoxically within the
structure and outside it. The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since
the center does not belong to the totality (is not a part of the totality) , the totality
has its center elsewhere. The center is not the center.37
HU,VCHaVC aKCtCtHCQ!aUIDItC!a_CHCDCtHatIDCtHQrICrtCaHO
attHCCCHtCrC!tHCCr_aHID.HCtrUCtUra_CHCCCHtItUtCtHCCCHtCrC!
tHCCr_aHID, tHC CHCIDDUtaD!C ItC atVHICH ÙDtItUtICHC!CCHtCHt
I HC CH_Cr QCIDC, aH aHtCrICr, CtCrHa !CrDVaItIH_ tC DC CXQrCCO.
HC rC_U!atCr _CHC, CH tHC CtHCr haHO, arC tHC _CHCDC DrIO_C, a
tCCHHCC_ytC tHC `CUtIOC C!tHCHUC!CarDCDDraHC, tHC CtCQaD, tHC
It's a Nucleic Acid World 8 1
QrCtCIHs. HCsC rC_U!atCry tCCHHCC_ICs C! QrCtCIH sHtHCsIs, tHC `CH-
DCarOQrCtCIH CCmQUtCrs, arC UtImatC CD!ItCratCO as techne tHrCU_H Its
CCHtaIHmCHt IHtHC HatUra, ImmaHCHt, CVC1 saCrCO sQaCC C!IHC _CHCmC.
HUs,1sstatUsas aH ImmaHCHt, Cr_aHIC, CtCrHa!CrmIs sCCUrCO, tHC
`CCCtIVC CHCCts C!CHZmCs aOOIH_ a mCrC sUQQCmCHta QCIsH tC tHC
CtCrHa!!CrmC!tHC Cr_aHIsm `CCHtaIHCO VItHIHtHC _CHCmC.
HC tVIstCC tCmQCra!Ity C!a straHO C!1 DUI!OIH_ItsC!aH `CH-
DCarO QrCtCIH CCmQUtCr DC!CrC It Is ItsC!CXQrCssCO CaH a!sC DC UHOCr-
stCCO at !Cast IH Qart as a OIsCUrsIVC, HarratIVa! CHCCt. !Cr, C!Car, OCsQItC
m rHCtCrIC C!ÌmQCssIDIIty, tHC tCmQCraIty at VCrK IH tHC CCHtaIH-
mCHtC!tHCCr_aHIsmVItHIHtHC_CHCmCVasVCrQ!aUsIDC.NHICsUDsC
QUCHt rCsCarCH Has a!tCrCO sCmCVHat tHC IHHCCtICH C! OCsCrIQtICHs C!
_CHCtIC CCHtrC!, CaHIH_ mCrC tCVarO a `HCtVCrK QaraOI_m C!smart
_CHCs rCsQCHOIH_tCCtCQ!asnICsI_Has,jaCCDaHO^CHCOsIHItIamCOC!
C!_CHCtIC CXQrCssICHHas `tUrHCOCUttCDCrCsCUHOIH_! CCrrCCt.`1sIH
tHC
_
IZCK QUCtatICH_IVCHCar!ICr, VCUO ar_UC tHat tHC sCCmIH_! QCr-
VCrsCtCmQCraItC!tImCtraVC!rCQUIrCODjaCCDaHO^CHCO IH`\CHCtIC
C_U!atCr^CCHaHIsmsIHtHC5HtHCsIsC!rCtCIHs CaHHCtDCsCQaratCO
UCm tHC Cr_aHIsms statUs as a sI_HI!ICO. Hat Is, tHC VrIttCH, HarratIVa!
CHaraCtCrC!tHIs rCsCarCHIHstas atCmQCra!ItytHatIsDCttCrUHOCrstCCOas
tHC tCmQCra!ItyC!sI_HIH CatICHtHaHtHCtCmQCraItyC!`CCmmCHsCHsC,
Cr CVCH tHC tCmQCra!Ity C! IVIH_. 1s IH m Car!ICr OIsCUssICH C! tHC
rCtrCaCtIVCVCrKIH_C!ÒC!IHItICH, sI_HI!ICatICHIH_CHCra! sCCmstCVCrK
CCHtrar tC CUr CXQCCtatICHs. !CraCaH,!CrCXamQC,
The signifier is the source of the signified. The latter is never anything but an
"efect" of these couplings and encroachments of signifiers, a "signified efect" in
the sense in which we speak, for example, of a "Larsen efect" or an "optical
illusion" (iet d'optique) . This signifed is truly nothing-nothing that would in
efect be caused or produced by the signifier. In accord with the theory of value,
meaning is never anything but an illusion, produced "between" signifiers, which
themselves have no meaning-a sort of rainbow that eludes our grasp as soon as
we try to approach it.39
HC ÌHOUCtICH CHCCt, tHCH,HamCsmCrCtHaHaH IHstaHCC C!_CHCtIC
CXQrCssICHItHamCstHC Va IHVHICH1as `sI_HIHCr CCU!ODC sCCH
tCDCtHCsCUrCC C!tHCCr_aHIsmas `sI_HIDCO, aHCr_aHIsmtHatIsItsC!!aH
IUsICH, at !Cast as a tCta!It. HIs OCCs HCt mCaH, C! CCUrsC, tHat tHC
`Cr_aHIsm Is HCt rCa!, ratHCr, It Is a DUHOC C!rCa DUt IHCCmQCtC mCt-
CHms tHat CCmC tC OCHHC It as a VHCC. HC CCHtIHUa! CrCssCVCrs tHat
sCCm tC CHaraCtCrIZC tHC rHCtCrIC C!tHC Cr_aHIsm!rCm `Cr_aHIsm tC
`CCOC-sCrIQt, ÌHstrUCtICH tC `CCHstrUCtICH, `QrCsCHt tC`!UtUrC, `C!-
!CCt tC `CaUsCmUst DC sCCH as smQtCmatIC C!tHC mU!tIQCIt aHO
CQaCIty C!VHat Has DCCH CaCO ÌVIH_ D mCOCrH DIC!C_ICa OIsCCUrsC.
HIsOIsCCUrsC,VHI!CHCtHCmC_CHCCUs,HasartICUatCOtHCCQaQUCsItCC!
Ì!C as a sItC C!CHO!Css, sUDstItUtaDC OIHCrCHCCs DCtVCCH Cr_aHIsms Cr
CVCH Cr_aHs, OIHCrCHCCs tHat tHCH !UHCtICH as mCtCHmICs !Cr aH Cr_aH-
Ism, CrIHCCCO!C as VHC!C. HCsC OIHCrCHCCs `QrC!I!CratC CHtHC sUr!aCC,
DUt OCCQCr OCVH tHC !aOC, mCr_C, aHO mIH_C, as tHC aQQrCaCH tHC
_rCat, mstCrICUs, IHVIsIDC !CCa UHIty, !rCmVHICH tHCmUtIQC sCCms tC
OCrIVC, as tHCU_HD CCasC!Css OIsQCrsICH."'
HCsC Cr_aHIsmIC OIHCrCHCCs, sUCH as aHtCHHaC, !Cr CXamQC, CaH DC
sCCHtCsHCCOCCHa! rCQrCsCHttHC `VHCCmCOCC!!I!CC!aHIHsCCt,jUst
as_CHCtICIHOUCtICH CCmCstCstaHO, rCtrCaCtIVC\, !CrtHCVHC!C OCVC!CQ-
mCHt, CCHstrUCtICH, aHO rC_UatICH C!aH Cr_aHIsm. rCHICa!!, It Is tHC
OCsCrIQtICH C!tHC Cr_aHIsm as a UHIty tHrCU_H sCCCtCO mCtCHms tHat
maKCs tHIs QCssID!C. HC Cr_aHIsms maH tCmQCra aHO sQatIa CHCCts,
IH CCHtaCtVItH !aH_Ua_C, QrCOUCC tHC OIHraCtICH QattCrH VC Ca! `Cr-
_aHIsm. HICsCQHCr aHO HIstCrIaH C!sCICHCC ÎCHC 5CrrCs QCIHts tC
tHs VHCH HC VrItCs `HC !IVIH_ Cr_aHIsm, CHtC_CHCsIs aHOQH!C_CHCsIs
CCmDIHCO, Is C!al tImCs. HIs OCCs HCt at almCaH tHat ItIs CtCrHa, DUt
ratHCrtHatItIs aH CrI_IHa!CCmQCX, VCVCHCUtC!OIHCrCHttImCstHatCUr
IHtCCCI sUDjCCts tC aOa!sIs Cr tHat CUr HaDIts OIstIH_UIsH Cr tHat CUr
sQatIa CHVIrCHmCHt tCCratCs."' NHat VCU!OsU__CstHCrC Is tH1tsCICH-
tIHC VrItIH_, IH Its HaDIt !Cr HarratIVC aHO InCar tCmQCraIt aHO IH Its
CCHsCQUCHt sCCCtICHC!Qarts !CrVHC!C, Cr_aHIZCs aHOUH!ICs tHC Cr_aH-
Ism aHO tHUs HI_H!I_Hts Cr OCmarCatCs tHC IVIH_ aCCCrOIH_ tC tHC tCm
QCraIty C!sI_HIHCatICH, VHICH ItsC!!mUst DC HIOOCH !Cr tHC HarratIVC tC
!UHCtICH."I HaVCHI_H_HtCOtHstCmQCra!It, CXQCsCOIttHrCU_HItsHCCO
!CrtImC traVC! aHOtHCCCaQsCC!IHstrUCtICHIHtCCCHstrUCtICH. V! Ca!!
tHs CHCCttHC _aQ DCtVCCH HarratIVC VHCrC tHC IUsICH C!tHC VIrtUa!
Cr_aHIsm aQQCars as a KIHO C!raIHDCV OIHraCtCOD tHC !IVIH_tHC `Cr-
_aHIsm CHCCt. HC HCtICH C!tHC Cr_aHIsm CHCCtUHOCrsCCrCs tHC sCCrCt
C!Ì!Cs CCmQ!ICItyVItHtHC sCCrCts C!sI_HIHCatICH, sCCrCts tHatOC HCt
IC!OtHCmsC!VCs tC tHC samC sCrts C!aHasIs as a _CHC.jUst asVCCaHHCt
aDstraCt a tHCCr C! _CHCtIC CXQrCssICH !rCm tHC taCIt CXIstCHCC C! aH
Cr_aHIsm,HCItHCrCaHVCaDstraCttHCCr_aHIsm!rCmarC_ImCC!sI_HIHCa-
tICHtHat Cr_aHIZCs:t, Its rHCtCrICa!sC!tVarC."`
1arICr, ar_UCO tHat tHCrC Is HC a QrICrI rCasCH tC DC!ICVC tHat CUr
rHCtCrICs arC aOCQUatC tC tHC CCmQCXIt C!CItHCr a HCtICHa! tCCHHC!C_y
sUCHastImC traVC!CrtHCVCrrCa!CCmQCXC!QrCCCssCstHatCCHstItUtCaH
Cr_aHIsm.1tHIs, OCHCtIHtCHOtCmarKCUtasKCQtICaOCHIa!C!aHC!
tHC C!aImsC!mCCCU!arDIC!C_y, HCramtaKIH_UQ aVItaIst QCsItICH tHat
CaIms tHat Ì!C Is sCmCHCV DCCHO CUr sCICHtI!IC KCH. 1Ut OC IHtCHO
tC QCIHt tC tHC ImIts C!rCCCHt aHO CCHtCmQCrar sCICHtIHC rHCtCrICs.
atHCr tHaH IHtCrQrCtIH_ tHCsC ImIts as sImQ!C ÒIstCrtICHs, QrC!Cr tC
trCat tHCm as maQQIH_ QraCtICCs. HC traHs!CrmatICH C!tHC IrrC_Uar!
sQHCrICa _!CDC IHtC a Hat maQ rCQrCsCHts a !amIIar OIsjUHCtICH DCtVCCH
CHC rHCtCrICa! mCOaItytHrCC-OImCHsICHa! CDjCCtsaHO aHCtHCrHat
maQs. CrC am QCIHtIH_ tC asImI!ar OIsjUHCtICH, tHC s!IQQa_C DCtVCCH
tHC tCmQCra aHO sQatIa OHamICs C! aH Cr_aHIsm aHO tHC rHCtCrICa
QraCtICCs VItH VHICH VC artICUatC sUCH Cr_aHIsms. HCCHCrCHCICs arIsC
VHCH tHIs OIsjuHCtICH Is C!t UHmarKCO. L!CCUrsC, !aHtastIC CrHCt, DCtH
maQs aHC rHCtCrICs C!IVIH_ sstCms `VCrK, DUt DCtH VCrK DCCaUsC C!,
aHO HCtOCsQItC, tHC CCHstItUtIVC! CHaDIH_HCtICHs. H tHC CasC C!aVCrO
maQ [!CaVIH_ asIOC mattCrs C!QCrsQCCtIVC) , CCHtIHCHta! 1UrCQC CaH DC
mCrC Cr Css aOCQUatC rCHOCrCO CH tHrCU_D a massIVC IHHatICH C!
LrCCHaHO CrtHC sHrIHKIH_C!1!rICa. âQQIH_a!VasIHVCVCs sUCH Cra-
sUrCsCrIHHatICHs.^tasKIHtHIsDCCKIstCQCIHtCUtsCmCC!tHCCrasUrCs
CCHstItUtCO D tVCHtICtH-CCHtUr !I!C sCICHCCs. H tHIs stCr, 1 Has
mUCHIH CCmmCHVItH LrCCHaHO.
VI ICtUrH tC tHCsC aQQarCHt OIsjUHCtICHs DCtVCCH rHCtCrICa!QraC-
tICCs aHOtHC CCmQCXIty C!Cr_aHIsms IH mHCXtCHaQtCr, DUt !CrHCV
VaHttC CmQHasIZC CHC C!tHC ImQ!ICatICHs tHIss!QQa_CHas!CrtHC CDjCC-
tIVIty C!sCICHtI!IC OCsCrIQtICH. LHtHIsVICV, CHC mI_HtOUD arHCtCrICa!
CmQIrICIsm, sCICHtIHC OCsCrIQtICHs tC tHC stCr HCItHCr C!rCaIst `CD-
jCCts HCr C! `sCCIa CCHstrUCtICH. HstCaO, sCICHtIHC aCCCUHts C! Cr-
_aHIsms DCtra tHC !ImIts C!CUr tCXtUa artICUatICHs, !ImIts tHat rCHOCr
OUDICUs aH strCH_ CaIm tC tHC CDjCCtIVIt C! sCICHtIHC OCsCrIQtICHs.
HCtCrICa CmQIrICIsm OIHCrs !rCm aH aHtIaH !CrmU!atICH IH tHat It
rC!UsCs a OIstIHCtICH DCtVCCH tHCsC rHCtCrICs aHO `tHIH_s tHCmsC!VCs,
QCsItIH_
IHstCaO a mCsH C! rCatICHs amCH_ OCsCrIQtICHs, HUmaHs, aHO

CtHCr CDjCCts. CtC tHat IH m CXamQ!C C!tHC traHs!CrmatICH C!a _CDC
IHtCamaQ, VrCtCHCtC!rCQrCsCHtatICHDUtC!transormation. HIsUHOCr-
sCCrCs aH aHasIs C! CHCCts, CHCCts tHat sCmCtImCs IHC!UOC attCmQts at
`rCQrCsCHtatICH DUtarCHCt_CVCrHCODtHCm.
HIsCmQIrICIsmIHsIststHattHC`HatUrC C!tHCrCatICHsDCtVCCHtCXts
aHOVCr!OsIsaHCQCH, CmQIrICa!QUCstICH, asIstHC `HatUrC C!tHCrC!atICH
8
4
DCtVCCH sUDjCCts aHO sCICHtI!IC QraCtICCs. t asC atCrs tHC QCarIt C!tHC
`CCHstraIHts CH sCICHtIHC tCXt, ratHCr tHaH QrCsCrVIH_ a rCsIOUa sItC C!
tHC rCa tHat rCsIsts tHC CQHCmCraIt C!tCXts, tHIs aCCCUHt!CCUsCs CH tHC
a-tCC-rCa ImIts C!CUr OCsCrIQtICHs, CUr rHCtCrICa, OIsCIQIHar QraC-
tICCs."" t Is tHCsC ImItatICHsaHO HCt tHC rCCK C!tHC rCaVItH VHICH
VCmUstCrICHt, aHOHCt_rCUHO,CUraCCCUHts C!sCICHtIUCQraCtICCs. HIs
CrICHtatICH, as IH m CarICr aHasIs, OVCs CH tHC QrCOUCtIVIt C!OI!-
!CrCHt rHCtCrICa QraCtICCs. L!CaCH sCICHtIHC OCsCrIQtICH, It asKs, `NHat
OCCsItQrCOUCC: NHatHasIttraHs!CrmCO:NHatmaKCsItQCssIDC:"`
H a CCHtIHUatICH C!tHC OrCam C!KHCVIH_ `VHat I!C Is DC_UH D
NatsCH aHO LrIC, jaCCD aHO ^CHCO traHs!Crm a tHrCat tC tHC sCV-
CrCI_HtyC!1IHtC aH a, CHCtHat CCHstItUtCs DCtHtHCsCVCrCI_HtyC!
1 aHO tHC mastCr C!tHCmsCVCs. H tHC samC mCVC IH VHICHjaCCD
aHO ^CHCO CCHtaIH tHC I!C C!tHC Cr_aHIsm, tHC CCHtaIH Cr CVCrCCmC
OCatH aHO tHC CHCCts C!tImC. !CrjaCCD, tHIs QrCOUCCs a sCHsC C!CCstatIC
VCHOCr.
Wonder at having, with this model of gene regulation, penetrated one of the
mysteries oflife. Of having reached the very essence of things. Of having gained
access to a primordial mechanism. A mechanism fundamental to alliving beings
fom their very beginnings, and that would persist as long as they exist. And with
this idea that the essence of things, both permanent and hidden, was suddenly
unveiled, I felt emancipated fom the laws of time: More than ever, research
seemed to be identifed with human nature. To express its appetite, its desire to
live. It was by far the best means found by man to face the chaos of the universe.
To triumph over death!46
tmUstDC saIOtHattHIs `CssCHCC Is HCtCH UHVCICOItIsasC CCaKCO.
CtrCattHC _CHCmC as tHatCssCHCCa CCHtra, UHIVCrsa sItC C!CCHtrC
jaCCDaHO^CHCOsCCrCtCOQrCtCIHs, ImQCssID stCrIH_tHCmaVaVItHIH
tHC _CHCmC.
H J J , Ì!C aHO tHC `Cr_aHIsm CHaH_CO. HCIr sQatICtCmQCra
mCrQHCC_ICsarCaOtUrHCOIHsIOCCUtD5CHrCOIH_CraHOOCsCrIDCOas
a `HCC D LamCVDCCamC tHat C!a ^CDIUs strIQ VHCsC CCHtCr Is tHC
_CHCmC. CrHaQs tHCsC HCtICHs HaVC aVas DCCH QrCOUCtIVC HCtICHs,
QHaHtCm CHCCts C!VHatÎCHC 5CrrCs Cas tHC `!raHtIC CsCIatICH C!tHC
OCmaIHs C!mtH, sCICHCC, aHO ItCratUrC, aH CsCIatICH tHat CHOs IH a
straHOC!OC!IHItICHs. 1UtVHatIHOUCCtHCsC CHCCts ratHCrtHaH CtHCrs arC
rHCtCrICs, H_UrCs tHat, IKC tHC CHZmCs tHC OCsCrIDC, trIQ Cr trI__Cr a
rCOCHHItICH C! tHC sQaCC tHat CCCUQICs tHC DCrOCr DCtVCCH physis aHO
nomos, tHC IHtCrHa aHO tHC CXtCrHa! !aVs. t amCst sCCms tHat tHCsC
QHaHtCmCHCCtsarCasmQtCmCtHCVCrIHtCrrC_atICHC!tHCIHsIOCaHO
tHC CUtsIOC C!tHCCr_aHIsm, `HatUrC aHO`CUtUrC. HmHCXtCHaQtCr,
CCKat tHrCC CasC stUOICs C!tHC à!!Cr_y QrCVCKCOD tHC mCtaQHCr C!a
`_CHCtIC !aH_Ua_C IH IH_UIstIC, QHI!CsCQHICa, aHO sCICHtI!:C OIsCCUrsC.
CHAPTER 5
Allergies of Reading:
DNA, Language, and
the Problem of Origins
* The deciphering of the DNA code has revealed our
possession of a language much older than hieroglyphics, a
language as old as life itself, a language that is the most
living language of al.
-George and Muriel Beadle, Te Language o Lie
This epistemological ambivalence of metaphor, which
always provokes, retards, follows the movement of the
concept, perhaps finds its chosen field in the life
scien.ces . . . . Where else might one be so tempted to take
the metaphor for the concept?
-Jacques Derrida, Marins of Philosophy
H tHC a_C C! tHC VCrO sCrQtUrC, tHC VCr!O aQQCars as 5CrIQtUrC, as a
sstCD C!DarKs, sI_Has, _CstUrCs, tCXts, CrQIXCs, s_Hs tHat CHCr a sCCrCt
tC DC UHVC!CO Cr OCCCOCO. Ì!C, DCtH as aH CDjCCt C!sCICHtI!IC KHCV-
CO_C aHO as aH CDjCCt C!CXQCrICHCC, s HC CXCCQtCH tC tHs sCrIQtUra
!raDC. H tHCQrCCCOH_CHaQtCrsHaVCattCDQtCOtC artICUatC tHC rHCtCr
ICa CCHOtICHs tHatHaVCDaOC tHC HCV OsCUrsIVC aI_HDCHt C!`!C aHO
àH_Ua_C QCssDC, !CCUsIH_IHar_C Qart CHtHCVas H VHICH IDQICt
DCOCs C!aH_Ua_C aHO tCXtUaty HCQCO CCHstItUtC KHCVCO_C IH DC-
CCUarDCC_y. 1UttHC HCV OCsCrIQtCH C!1as aaH_Ua_C QrCOUCCO
rHCtCrCa VCCtCrs IH DCrC tHaH CHC OIrCCtCH. HC OsCUrsVC rCatCH
OCtVCCH 1 aHO aH_Ua_C asC IDQaCtCO tHCCrCs C!aH_Ua_C. H tHC
sQHCrCs C!sCDCtICs aHOIH_UstCs H QartCUar, tHC HCtCH tHattHCDasCs
C!1VCrC H_UIstICUHItsQrCVIOCODaHVItHtHCHC_raI C!strUC-
tUra!sD,VHat!CUCaUtHasOUDDCOIHaOHCrCHtCCHtCXt`tHCsCarCH!Cra
C_Cs tHat VCUO DC KC tHC DrtHQaCC C!al NCstCrH CasCH.' HC
OCUDC HC!X QrCDIsCO a OCUDC CrI_H, as a sItC C!`sC!-OUQICatICH It
Al ergies of Reading 8
7
QrCVIOCO tHC !I!C sCICHCCsVItH tHC sCurCC C!I!C, a!ItCra!DIrtHQ!aCC. 1s a
`!aH_ua_CItQrCVIOCOtHC HumaHsCICHCCsVItHaHaCCCuHt C!tHC `DIrtH
C!CuturC. 1ut tHIs OCuDC aI_HmCHt Vas HCt HCCCssarI a smCCtH CHC,
DCtVCCH tHC tVC aCCCuHts C!tHC CrI_IH C!!I!C aHO CuturC tHCrC Vas a
tCHsICH Cr tCrsICH. H tHC sCCtICHs tHat !C!!CV VI!!attCmQt tCmarKCut
sCmC C!tHC rHCtCrICa!CCHOItICHs tHatmaOC QCssIDCtHIsHCVaI_HmCHt,
CCHOItICHs VI!! tCHtatIVC! OIa_HCsC as àCr_ICs C!rCaOIH_.
Hm rCsCarCH, HaVC CHCCuHtCrCO CCHtIHua rCaCtICHs tC tHC mCta-
QHCr C!a `_CHCtIC!aH_ua_C. HC rHCtCrIC C!aH a!!Cr_y, tHIHK, QrCVIOCs
usVItHaHCHCrI_IHarOCsCrIQtICHC!tHIsOIsCursIVC rCaCtICH, aCCHtIHua!
sCHsItIVIty aHO `!aIurC tHat sCCms tC CCCur VHCrCVCr tHC HCtICH tHat
`1IsaaH_ua_CIs CXQCsCOtCQuCstICHsC!CrI_IHs. HOCsCrIDIH_tHIs
tCXtua CHCCt as aH aCr_y HCQC msC!tC aVCIO tHC a!!Cr_y C!CrI_IHs.
`HC tCrm aLCr_y Vas IHtrCOuCCO D L!CmCHs `CHIrQuCt IH J C, tC
OCsI_HatCaHatCrCOrCaCtIVItytCa!CrCI_HsuDstaHCCa!tCrQrICrCXQCrICHCC
VItHtHC samC matCrIa, VHCtHCrtHIs rCsQCHsCVasHC!Q!u! CrHarm!u! tC
tHC HCst. Hat Is, tHC CrI_IH C! tHC a!Cr_IC rCaCtICH Is mu!tIQ!C aHO
CsCVHCrC, tICO HCt tC tHC aLCr_CH ItsC!Dut tC aH IrrCtrICVaDC aHO IH-
HumCraD!C sCrICs C!CVCHts, `QrICr CXQCrICHCC, VHat ÎCHC! 5CrrCs Has
CaLCOIHa OIHCrCHt CCHtCXt `CrI_IHa!CCmQCXIty. 1CrQrCsCHtIH_tHrCC
CasC stuOICs C!tHIs a!!Cr_IC smQtCm, VI! su__Cst Vas IH VHICH Cur
KHCVCO_C C!tHIs smQtCmCaHHC!Q usrCtHIHKOCsCrIQtICHs C!I!C IHtHC
I!C sCICHCCs. 1rHCtCrICauHOCrstaHOIH_ C!tHIs a!!Cr_yQrCVIOCs usVItH a
VCCaDua aHO a CCHCCQtua !ramCVCrK !Cr OIsCussIH_ tHC CHCCts C!a!
tCrItyIH OIsCCursCtHC CtmC!C_ICa! `_CHCtIC CCOC !Cr a!!Cr_yIs IH!aCt
`tHCVCrK C!tHC CtHCr.` CtHIHKIH_tHC trCQCC_y C!CrI_IHs IHtHC!I!C
sCICHCCs as aH aLCr_, aH CHCCt C!rHCtCrIC, su__Csts tHat QCrHaQs It Is tHC
rCsQCHsC C!a KIHO C!OIsCursIVC ImmuHC sstCm, tHC tCXtua! !CrCCs tHat
Cr_aHIZC a OIsCCursC as aH ICCHtIty.just as à!!Cr_y Is tHC QrICCVC Qa !Cr
maIHtaIHIH_ aH CHCCtIVC ImmuHIty a_aIHst QatHC_CHs," VIL ar_uC tHat
tHIsCHCCtC!VrItIH_, tHC aCr_yC!rCaOIH_, Is aQrICCQaIODsCmCtCXtsIH
tHC!I!C sCICHCCs!CrtHCIr CVH CCHstItutICD. CrC m C!aImrCsCHatCsVItH
tHC VCrK C!uCC rI_ara, !Cr VHCm tHC !CmIHIHC Is a sItC C!QCrsIstCHt
ÌmQrCQrICty, aH ImQrCQrICty tHatHCHCtHCCssmaKCsQCssIDC tHC DCCt-
straQQIH_ C!NCstCrH !C_Cs.` 1 aHa!C_, m ar_umCHt su__Csts tHat tHC
aQCrIa assCCIatCOVItH rCCCHt rHCtCrICs C!tHC !I!C sCICHCCsmaKCs QCssIDC
tHC sCICHtIHC artICuatICH C!I!C.
HC CHaQtCr VI QrCCCCO as !C!CVs. !Irst, VIL try tC HI_HI_Ht tHC
!aIurCstHCIr tyQC aHO !CCatICHassCCIatCO VItH tHC OIsCussICHs C!tHC
88 Al ergies of Reading
`1-s-a-aH_Ua_C rHCtCrIC as !CUHO H OIsCCUrsCs as OVCrsC as aQHI-
!CsCQHICa! tCXt !rCm 1 966, a !rCHCH tCCVIsICH DrCaOCast C! 1968, aHO a
tCXtCHtHCCrCtCaDICC_yUCm 1 968. HCH VI attCmQttC UsCtHC !aCt
aHOtHCQCrsIstCHCCC! tHCsC!aIUrCstCar_UC!CrtHCQaCCC!arHCtCrIC,aHO
HCtjUst aC_C, C!!I!C. 1 tHs HCQC tC ar_UC tHat r_CrCUs tHCCrCtICa
aCCCUHts C!!VH_ sstCms mUst IHCUOC tHCIr statUs as IHsCrIQtICHsrHC-
tCrCasC!tVarCs HCtVCrKCOtC_CtHCrVItHHUmaHaHOHCHHUmaHaCtaHts
artCU!atIH_I!C.
Case I: Vivre et Parler
LH!CDrUar 1 9, 1968, sCmC C!tHC _rCatsaVaHts C!tHC!rCHCHHtC!_CH-
tsa aQQCarCO CH tC!CVsICH tC OIsCUss tHC `raQQCrt DCtVCCH CU!tUrC aHO
HatUrC, sQCCIDCa, tHC HCtICH tHat `CCmmUHCatCH QrCVIOCO a CCm-
mCH, strUCtUra!matrIXVtHVHICHtCstUOtHC HatUraaHOsCCIaVCr!Os.
" Vivre et Parler
"
!CatUrCO tHC OIsCUssICH aHO rCHCCtCHs C! tHC aHtHrC-
QC!C_Ist L!aUOC CV-5traUss, tHCIH_UIstCmaHjaKCDsCH, tHC mCCCU-
ar DC!C_Ist !raHCIsjaCCD, aHO tHC _CHCtCIst HIIQQC CrItICr. !I!-
tCCH Cars a!tCr LamCVs attCmQt tC mCOC tHC mCCHaHIsm C!QrCtCIH
sHtHCsIs as a `traHsatCH, tHC mCVCmCHt !rCm 1 `HUmDCrs tC
QtCtCH`VCrOs, LCrarOLHCUCHaHaHO^C
_
CrC_UCr_atHCrCOtHC!CUr
tC assCss tHC mQaCt C!tHC HCtICH C!a _CHCtIC `!aH_Ua_C CH t!C HUmaH
sCCHCCs aHO sQCCIHCa Its mQaCt CH tHC OCDatCs CVCr strUCtUrasm IH
!raHCC. CrC, VHCHCVCrQCssIDC, VaHttC !CCUs HCtjUst CHtHC CCHtCHt
C!tHC OsCUssCH `Vivre et Parler"
DUtasC CHtsmCOUmaHOIts!Crm. ^
rCsCarCH, D HCCCssIty, VI! aHaZC HCtHCr tHC tCCCastHCrIts taQC, ratHCr,
m rCaOH_ C!tHIs OsCUssICH C!tHC CCHHatICH Cr CHIasmUs DCtVCCH tCX-
tUatyaHOVItatVCrKs!rCmtHC tCXt C!tHCCVCHttHatVasQUD!sHCOIH
Les Lettres Franraises H 1 968. Hs tCXtHastsC!DCCH CCQCO !rCmmCrC-
Hm tC QaQCr, sQCCO tC_CtHCr ImQCr!CCt! DUt C_D !rCm mCOIUm tC
mCOIUm. 1 traHsatICHsUCm tHC CrI_Ha!arCmCVH.
HaVC arCaO HCtCOtHCCU!tUraUamC, asQCIHtCO CUtH tHC tCXtsIH-
trCOUCtICH, C!a OsCUssCH C!tHC `raQQCrt DCtVCCHHatUrCaHO CUtUrC.'
Rapport HmaHC!ts HHCCtICHs, QCHts arCaO tC tHC HC_CmCH C!tHC
CCmmUHICatIVC QaraOI_m. tHC D_UratCH C!tHC rCatICHDCtVCCH HatUrC
aHO CU!tUrC as aCCHHCCtCH, CXCHaH_C, Cr OIaC_. HOCCO, tHs Is tHC CCH-
tCXtC!tHCOIsCUssCH. `tHIHKtHatCHC C!tHC mCstImQCrtaHttHIH_s tHat
VC HaVC CarHCOHtHC Qast!CVCarsstHattHCrCIsaCCmmUHICatICHss-
tCmatCVCrDIC
_
_Ca!!CVC, !rCmtHC sImQCstCVC, !rCm CC!!s tC Cr_aH-
Allergies of Reading 89
Isms,tHCCCsC! mUtICCUarCr_aHIsmsCrtHCCr_aHIsmstHCmsCVCs,CVCH
IHOIVIOUas IH sCCICty.'1s a CCHtCXtUa!ramC, C!CCUrsC, tHIs HCtICH tHat
CCmmUHICatICH Is a CCmmCH!aDrIC C!HatUrC aHO CUtUrC CXCUOCs CtHCr
CCmmUHICatICHs, !CrCXamQC, tHC CHtry C!tHC aUOICHCC. HtHIs tCCVIsCO
HCOUC C!KHCVCO_C VC HaVC aH aC_Cr !Cr tHC H_UratICH C!1 as
aH_Ua_C as a `CCHtrIsm, atCrrItCrIaIZatICHC!DCtHtHC DCOaHOCUtUrC
as CXtCHsICHs C!rCmCtC CCHtrC, CCHtraZCO sItCs C!KHCVCO_C aHOtechne.
!CrCXamQC, tHCDrCaOCastItsC!!CCVs tHC sCHCmaC!tHC CCHtra OC_ma
C!mCCCUar DICC_yIH!CrmatICH HCVs CUt C!tHC HUCCUs DUt HCVCr
DaCKIH. 5CtCCIHtHC CasC C!tHCDrCaOCasttHCaUOICHCCIstCrCCCIVC, DUt
HCVCr_IVC, IH!CrmatICH. `C rCtUrH, aCVmC tC CmQHasIZC tHCQCVCrC!
tCCVIsICHtC CrCatC sUCHOIsCUssICHs, aHO!UrtHCr,ItsCaQaCIttC aCVmI-
ICHs tCQartICIQatC. amHCtsQCaKIH_C!`sQCCtatCrs,DCCaUsCtHCVIDC
aUOICHCCmCmDCrs, aHaUOICHCC!CrVHCmtHC CamCra VIQrCVIOC aHaU-
tHCHtICOCDatCDCtVCCHtHIHKCrs,aHOtHCsCsamCtHIHKCrsVIsQCaK,IstCH,
aHOrCHCCtCHtHCIrVCrKasIHtCCCtUas.
HC Cr_aHIZatICH C! tHIs OIsCUssICH CaH DC sCCH as aH IHstaatICH
tHrCU_HtHC CHs C!tCCVIsICH C!CHC C!tHC smQtCms C!`C_CCCHtrIsm,
tHCCVC C!HCarIH_ CHCsC!sQCaK.jUstas1 CaHDC sCCH as aH IHsUatCO
CHamDCr!CrtHC sCVCrCI_HsI_HIHCr, tHC `âstCr ^CCCUC tHatVIDC-
CCmC a mCssa_C, sC tCC OCCs tHC `CmIssICH CaCO " Vivre et Parler" rC
jCICC IH HCarIH_ ItsC!rC!CrrCO tC as `HUmCrC UHC, tHC CrI_IH C!KHCV 1-
CO_C, tHC VCrK C!IHtCCCtUas tHat Is sHarCO, DrCaOCast tC mIICHs. HC
CrI_IHC!KHCVCO_C aDCUt tHC CrI_IHs C!HatUrC aHOCUtUrC CaHDC!CUHO
sIttIH_arCUHO a taDC IH tHC !Crm C!CVI-5traUss, jaKCDsCH,jaCCD, aHO
CrItICr. HC CrI_IH C!KHCVCO_C Is IH OIsCUssICH DCtVCCH saVaHts,
VHICHIstHCHsHarCOVItHtHC aUOICHCC [des auditeurs] .
1UtthIs CCmmUHICatIVC!ramC!CrtHC OIsCUssICH1IsCCmmUHI-
CatICH aHO CCmmUHICatICHIs tHC DasIs C!CUtUrC, tHCrC!CrC tHCrC Is sCmC
strUCtUraDasIs!CrDCtHDrCaKsOCVHCrDrCaKs CUtVHCHCXQCsCOtCtHC
QUCstICHC!tHC CrI_IHC!CCmmUHICatICH aHOmaH.
L'Heritier: I really think that it is language and verbal tradition [l'heredite verbal ] ,
with their rules, that created man.
Jakobson: It's the reverse! It is man who created verbal tradition! [heredite verbal]
Jacob: That's a little bit like the egg and the chicken.9
1t tHIs mCmCHttHC mCmCHI at VHICH ÎCHC rC_UCr rCmarKs tHat
`HIs Is arCaO a QHICsCQHICa OCDatC, tHIHKtHC OCsCrIQtICH C! jUst
VHatIsmCaHtDtHCCCmmCHHCXUsC!`VIH_ aHO`sQCaKIH_DCCCmCs
UHCCrtaIH. NHCrCas tHC DrCaOCast DC_aH as a OIsCUssICH C!tHC Vas IH
VHICH CCmmUHICatICHQrCVIOCs UsVItHaQaraOI_m!CrtHIHKIH_QasttHC
OIVIsICH C!HatUrC aHO CUtUrC, tHC QUCstICH C!tHC CrI_IH C!CCmmUHICa-
tICH rCHOCrs tHIs mastCr QaraOI_m CQaQUC, CaOIH_ tC tHC !CrCC C!CX
CamatICH marKs aHO tHC H_UrC C!aH IHHHItC rC_rCss, tHC CHICKCH Cr tHC
C__, l'oeuf et la poule.
NHat QrCVCKCs tHIs mCst `QHICsCQHICa ar_UmCHt: t Is OIUCUt tC
sa, aHOD QCIHtHCrCIs tC QCIHtCUttHCsmQtCms C!tHCaCr_, HCttC
CXQaIH tHCm. 1Ut !Cr HCV, VaHt tC QCIHt CUt tVC asQCCts C!tHIs CUt-
DrCaK C!QHI!CsCQH CH!rCHCH tCCVIsICH. !Irst, tHIs OIsCUssICH aDCUttHC
Vas IH VHICH a QaraOI_m C!CCmmUHICatICH CaH artICUatC a CCmmCH
OHamICC!HatUrCaHOCUtUrC,tVCQCCstHatHaO!CrmCHDCCH CQQCsCO,
ItsC!sUHCrs a CCmmUHICatICH DrCaKOCVH. t Is HCt tHat tHC OIaC_ DC
CCmCs mCaHIH_Css DUt tHat It !aIs tC CstaDIsH a CCmmCH aH_Ua_C tHat
tHC QartICIQaHts CaH OCQC, HC CCmmUHICatICH CrQCrsUasICH taKCs QaCC
VHCHItCCmCstCtHC OCsCrIQtICHC!tHC rCsQCCtIVC CrI_IHsC!aH_Ua_CaHO
HUmaHs. HCmCaHIH_CrCHCCtC!tHIs `CCmmUHICatICHDrCaKOCVHVI
DCsItUatCOVItHIHtHC CtHCrCasCs OIsCUssCOatCr.
1HCtHCr, rCatCO, asQCCtC!tHIs DrCaKCUt C!QHICsCQHIs tHC !aCttHat
It!Cr_CtstCCCatCItsC!as aHaCtIVItC!CCmmUHICatICH. C DCsUrC, tHCrC
Is a OIsCUssICH C! tHC VCHOCr aHO sQCCtaCC C! a tCCVIsCO, IHtC!CCtUa
OIsCUssICH, DUt tHCrC Is HC OIsCUssICH C!tHC !aCt tHat tHIs OIsCUssICH taKCs
QaCC CH tHC DasIs C!a mCtaQHCr tHat Has IHHaDItCO DCtH IH_UIstCs aHO
DICC_. HC CCHjUHCtICH Cr aHaC_y C!I!C aHO aH_Ua_C Vas UsCO D
jaKCDsCH tC _rCUHO aHO C_ItImatC tHC sCICHCC C! IH_UIstICs VItH tHC
HHOIH_s C!mCCCUarDICC_y. HCIrCH HCrC, C!CCUrsC, Isthat aCCCrOIH_
tCjaKCDsCHs CVH aCCCUHt, tHC tCrms C!mCCCUar DICC_y arC DCrrCVCO
!rCm IH_UIstICs aHO CCmmUHICatICH tHCCr. '' HIs CXCHaH_C C! mCta-
QHCrs, UCm CCmmUHICatICH tHCCr tC mCCCUar DICC_ aHO DaCK a_aIH
tCCCmmUHICatICHtDCCr, IH_UIstICs, aHtHrCQCC_y, aHO_CHCtICsCHtCC-
VIsICH, traCCs Ct aHCtHCr CIrCUIt C!CrI_IHs tHat Is !Cr_CttCH, a !Cr_CttIH_
tHat taKCs tHC !Crm C!a !Cr_CttIH_ C!HCtVCrKs. Hat Is, VHat Is I_HCrCO
HCrCDCtHIHtHCIHstaHCCC!tHC CHICKCH/C__DrCaKCUt, aHOmCrC_CHCr-
a IH tHC aCK C!a _CHCaC_ IH " Vivre et Parler" Is tHC QaCC tHat tHIs
OIsCUssICHtaKCs IH aHCtVCrK C!QrCCCssCs, VHCtHCr It DC tHC IHtCraCtICHs
aHOrCQrCOUCtICHstHatCaOUCm CHICKCHtC C__CrC__tC CHICKCH CrtHC
CUtUraHCtVCrKtHat CCHstItUtCs DCtH `HatUrC aHO `CUtUrC IHtCrms C!
aH_Ua_C. HC !CCVIH_ QUCtatICH!rCmaCaHIUstratCsVC tHC!Cr_Ct-
Alergies of Reading 9 I
tIH_ at Q!a HCrC. `HCrC Is aH CssCHtIa !IHK VHICH mUst DC maOC rI_Ht
aVaVHCHCU OraV araDDItCUtC!aHat, Its DCCaUsCCUQUtIttHCrCIH
tHC!IrstQaCC.' ' NHatmaKCsQCssID!C tHC!Cr_CttIH_C!tHC rC!C C!`CCm
mUHICatICH IH " Vivre et Parler"? 1_aIH, it is difcult to say, aHO VaHt tC
!CCK tC CtHCr CUtDrCaKs IH aH attCmQt tC maQ tHCm tC_CtHCr. LUr HCXt
CasCV!HCQQrCVIOCUsVItHtHCtCCstC OCsCrIDC tHCmCCHaHIsmC!tHCsC
QrCDCmatICs C!CrI_IH.
Case 2: The End of the Book and the
Beginning of the Gene
t ma sCCm tHat tHC HCtICH tHat 1 Is !aH_Ua_C VCU!O DC !ar aHC!O
!rCmjaCQUCs CrrIOas CrItIQUC C!mCtaQHsICsIH L_Grammatology. Cr-
rIOa tHCrC C!aIms tHat `tHC mCOItatICH UQCHVrItIH_ aHO tHC OCCCHstrUC-
tICHC!tHCHIstCrC! QHICsCQHDCCCmCIHsCQaraDC.'CrrIOasIHsI_Hts
mCVC IH tHC sQaCC CQCHCOD QHICsCQHs rCatICH tC Its CVH VrItIH_. H
tHC sty!C C!QH!CsCQH CrrIOa HHOs tHC marK C!DCtHVrItIH_s OCQC-
mCHt aHO Its rCQrCssICn IH tHC HIstCr C!QH!CsCQH. HC ImQ!ICatICHs C!
tHIs IHtCrVCHtICH, IH VHICH tHC VCr!CUHOatICHs C!mCtaQHsICs aHO sCI-
CHCCarC OIsCCatCO,arCCHCrmCUs,!CrCrrIOa, ItmarKsHCtHIH_!CsstHaH
tHCQCssIDC OIsQ!aCCmCHtC!QrCsCOCC IHa!!ItsrC_IstCrstHCHCtICHC!tHC
QrICrIty C!sQCCCHCVCrVrItIH_ aHO tHC HCtICH C!tHC sUDjCCt, IHOCCO, C!
tHC IVIH_ sUDjCCt. HCVICVIH_ CrCI-LCUrHaHs tCXt L Geste et la Parole,
IH HIs `L! LrammatCC_ as a CsItIVC 5CICHCC, CrrIOa VrItCs tHat
`CrCI-LCUrHaHHC !CH_Cr OCsCrIDCstHC UHIty C!maH aHOtHC aOVCHtUrC
tHUsD tHCsImQCQCssIDI!Ity C!tHC _raQHICIH_CHCra!, ratHCrasa sta_C Cr
aH artICU!atICHIH tHC HIstCr C!!I!CC!VHat HaVC CaCO OIHCraHCCas
tHCHIstCrC!tHC_rammC.'`
CrC CrrIOa CCatCs a sHI!t IH tHC artICU!atICH C!tHC HUmaH. C
CH_Cr Is `maH tHC UHIQUC sUDjCCt C! !aH_Ua_C. HstCaO, VHat Is Ca!!CO
aH_Ua_C_CtssItUatCOVItHIHa!ar_CrCCCHCmC!CHaH_C aHOOIHCrCHCCs,
tDCVCrOIHCrCHCCs tHatIH !aCtmaKCaH_Ua_C, VrItIH_, aHO tHC HUmaH
QCssIDC, sUCH as tHC OIHCrCHCC DCtVCCH sI_Hs tHat maKCs tHC !IH_UIstIC
CCCHCm _C arCUHO aHO arCUHO. atHCr tHaH marKIH_ maH CH!rCm
CtHCr sQCCICs, VrItIH_`tHC _raQHIC IH _CHCra!marKs tHC HUmaH as
CnC C!tHCjCIHts CrDIts C!QCssIDIIt tHat artICUatCs aHO maKCs QCssID!C
aHCtHCr CH_CIH_QrCjCCt,!I!C. CrC CrrIOa a!I_HstHC HIstCr C!!I!C VItH
tHC HIstCr CVrItIH_ [`tHC _rammC) tHrCU_H tHC [HCH) CCHCCQt `Jg
92 Allergies of Reading
Jernce.
" 1!sCVHCrC, IH aH Cssa C!tHC samC HamC, CrrIOa CHCrs aQrCVI-
sICHa!OC!IHItICH C!difrance: `VC sHa!!OCsI_HatCD tHC tCrm dif erance tHC
mCVCmCHt D VHICH !aH_Ua_C, Cr aH CCOC, aH sstCm C!rC!CrCHCC IH
_CHCra!, DCCCmCs `HIstCrICa!! CCHstItUtCOas a!aDrIC C!OIHCrCHCCs.'"
artICU!ar attCHtICH sHCU!O DC Q!aCCO HCrC CH tHC VCCtCr C!`mCVC-
mCHt IHCrrIOas CHCrIH_HCrC. tIHsIsts CHmarKH_tHC sQatICtCmQCra!
!CrCCsaHOCHCCtsC!tHHKIH_,amCH_VHICHarCtHCtCmQCraaHOmatCrIa
OHamCD VHICHVHatVCVCU!O Ca CItHCr `CCmmUHICatICH Cr`HIs
tCr HaQQCHs. LCHCCIVCO as sstCms C!OIHCrCHCCs, ratHCrtHaH, !Cr CX-
amQ!C, tHC UH!C!OIH_ C! a !IHC !rCm sI_HIH CO tC sI_HI!ICr, HIstCr aHO
!aH_Ua_C mUst tHCH DC sCCH tC CVC tHCIr QCssIDty tC aH `CUtsIOC C!
dif erance tHat D ÒCHHItICH mUst OIsaQQCar, CtHCrVIsC rIsKIH_ Its rC_Is-
tratICH as tHC 5amC. HmCrC sCICHtIstIC tCrms, VC CCU!O QaraQHrasC Cr-
rIOas C!aIm as CHC tHat QCIHts tC tHC mUtUa rC!atICH C!sI_Ha! aHO HCIsC,
VHCrC HC sI_Ha! CaH aQQCar as sI_Ha! VItHCUt a DaCK_rCUHO CrHCXUs C!
HCIsC, DUt VHCrC tHC CCHCCQt C!`HCIsC Is aVas IHaOCQUatC tC aCCCUHt
!Cr tHC atCrIty C! `HCIsIH_, sIHCC tHIs CCHCCQtUa!IZatICH IH !aCt tUHCs
HCIsCIHtCa`statC, HXCOsI_Ha!. CrrIOaa!!UOCstCtHIsQrCD!CmatICIHHIs
rCsCarCHtHrCU_HtHCVrItH_C!difrance tHrCU_HtHCIHtrCOUCtCHC!aH a
tHatIss!CHtIH tHC sQCKCHrC_IstCrDUtHCHCtHC!Css aQQCars, sCmCtImCs, as
`sI!CHt IH HIs IHtCrVCHtICHs. HC raH_C C!tHC ImQ!ICatICHs C!tHIs QrCD-
!CmatIC Is CHCrmCUs aHO OIHUsC,DUt!CrHCV VaHtmCrC!tC CmQHasIZC
tHCVaIH VHICH OCCCHstrUCtICH HaQQCHs tHrCU_H tHC aQQCaraHCC C!aH
atCrIty tHat OIs!CCatCs CrCHa!!CH_CstHC QCssIDI!It CCHOItICHs C!NCstCrH
CCOCICUsHCss. H CUr CXamQ!C, CrrIOa [aHO CrCI-LCUrHaH) CHa!CH_Cs
tHC HUmaH sCVCrCI_Hty CVCr !aH_Ua_C tHrCU_H tHC CCUHCtICH C! tHC
HIstCrC! !CVItHtHCHstCrC!VrItIH_,VHICHIs!CUHOIHVHatCrrIOa
CHtIt!Cs, IHHIs!IrstCHaQtCrC!OJGrammatology, `HCrC_ram.
1 mXH_ Cr a!I_HIH_ tHC HIstCr C!!I!C aHO tHC HIstCr C!VrItIH_,
CrrIOaVrItCs CUt C!tHC tCQCs HC IHHaDIts, asQaCC/tImC VHCrC tCXts CH
tHCtCXtUa!ItyC!!CHCV!astaHOtHICK. ttHUs sHCU!OHCtsUrQrIsC UstHat
CrrIOarCCCIVCstHCHCVs C!tHC _CHCtIC CCOC as CVIOCHCCO!VHatHCCa!s
tHC `CHOC!tHC DCCK aHOtHCDC_IHHIH_C!VrItIH_ .
It is an emergence that makes the gramme appear as such (that is to say according to
a llew structure of nonpresence) and undoubtedly makes possible the emergence
of the systems of writing in the narrow sense. Since " genetic inscription" and the
"short programmatic chains" regulating the behavior of the amoeba or the an
nelid up to the passage beyond alphabetic writing to the orders of the logos and of
a certain homo sapiens, the possibility of the gramme structures the movement of
its history according to rigorously original levels . . . It at once and in the same
movement constitutes and efaces so-called conscious subjectivity, its logos, and
its theological attributes.
IS
HatIs,!CrCrrIOatHCaQQCaraHCCC!mCOCs C! VrItIH_tHat CCCUrCUtsIOC
C!tHC rCam C!a sQCaKIH_ sUDjCCt_IVCs Us tHC CQQCrtUHIt tC CHCCUHtCr
VHat VrItIH_ (ecriture) `s. IstCrCa!, VrItH_Has DCCH OCsCrIDCO aHO
tHCU_HtC!as asUQQCmCHttCsQCCCH, asCCCHOarrCQrCsCHtatCHVItHCUt
tHC!UstatUsC!tHCCr_IHa!, CCHsCCUs,VIH_, sQCaKIH_sUDjCCt.NrItH_,
IHCrrIOasaHa!sIs,aVasQCsCOatHrCattCNCstCrHCCHsCCUsHCss, CVCH
asItHstaCO It. CHCC, atCs rCQrmaHO.
[ ritten words] seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask
them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on tell
ing you just the same thing forever. And once a thing is put in writing, the com
position, whatever it may be, drifts all over the place, getting into the hands not
only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have no business with
it; it doesn't know how to address the right people, and not address the wrong.
1
6
NItH tHC aQQCaraHCC C!HCV !Crms C!VrItH_ sUCH as tHC _CHCtIC CCOC,
CrrIOaar_UCs, tHsC_CCCHtrIsmtHCQrmaC C!sQCCCHCVCrVrItH_
CaH DC _mQsCO as a mCtaQHsICs aHO HCt trCatCO as a HatUra QrCrty.
HOCCO, CrrIOa HCQCs tC OCCCHstrUCt tHC HC tHat CQQCsCs HatUrC aHO
CUtUrC.
1HOCttHC HCVs tHatCrrIOarCCCIVCs C!tHC `_CHCtIC HsCrIQtCH s
C!CCUrsCtsC! VrttCHHIHCs. NHatCrrIOaQCrCCVCs tCDCasI_HC!tHC
CHO C!tHC DCCK aHO tHC DC_HHH_C!VrItIH_IsItsC!asI_H C!tHC ÌHC,
mCrC sQCCI!ICa!, tHCIrrCVCrsIDC VCCtCrsHtHC CCHtra! OC_maC!mCCCU-
ar DCC_. CrC VC !IHO CVOCHCC H CrrOa C!tHC VCr HattCHH_ C!
Ì!C IHsCrIDCO D mCCCUar DICC_y, VHCrC tHC CCHtra OC_ma rCaOs
[CVCHtCOa, mCrC CrCss) `1maKCsQrCtCHs, QrCtCIHsmaKCUs. HC
IHCC!QCVCraHOIH!CrmatICHtHatHCVs!rCmtHC _CHC tC tHC `DCO Is,
UHOCrtHC CCHtra OC_ma, IrrCVCrsDC. 1, H tHIs aCCCUHt, Is aHCIHtCO
VItHastCC!sCVCrC_HtyraOICaat COOsVItHtHCCrrIOCaHaCCCUHt C!
VrtIH_VtHCUtCrI_IHs. '1HOCt,CrrIOarCCsUQCHtHs aCCCUHtHHIs
aHasIs, tHC VCraHass tHat CHCrs tHC _CHC as CVIOCHCC !Cr tHC _ram
matCC_ICaDrCaK, VHCrC `1 asCVmCVCnCH\VHCsCHCCCssItIsHarO
QCrCCQtIDC, CVCrtHIH_ tHat !Cr at Cast tVCHty CCHtUrCs tCHOCO tCVarO
aHO !IHa!! sUCCCCOCO IH DCIH_ _atHCrCO UHOCr tHC HamC C!aH_Ua_C Is
DC_IHHIH_tC Ct ItsC!DCtraHs!CrrCO tC, CratCastsUmmarIZCOUHOCr, tHC
HamC CVrtIH_.
1 8
94 Allergies of Reading
HssuDsttutCHC!`VrtH_ !Cr àH_ua_C, tHC CmCr_CHCC C!Vrt-
H_astHCQaraO_m!Cr!aH_ua_C, Hsta!!s,aCCCrOH_tCCrrOa,atCasttHC
QCssDty C! aH CCCHCm VtHCut Cr_Hs. `Ct D HVCstH_ `_CHCtC
HsCrQtCH VtH tHC QrVC_C aCCCrOCO t D mCCCuar DC!C_y, mCrC
QartCu!ar! D CCHHatH_tHC aCtVt C!tHC _CHCVtHtHC `DCHaVCr C!
Cr_aHsms, CrrOarCHsCrDCs1VtHtHCQrV!C_C C!aHCr_H, suD-
sttutH_ `_CHCtC HsCrQtCH !Cr `HCrCOty aHO `HCrCOt !Cr `!C.'
CrHaQs mCrC OaH_CrCus!, CrrOa asC HHatCs tHC _CHC HtC a KHO C!
`DCHaVCra aHOCutura CCHtrC CCHtCr. NH!C tHs s!QQa_C !rCm 1
tC Cr_aHsms ma sCCm HHCCuCus at tHC CVC C! tHC amCCDa, H tHC
CCHtCXt C!atC-J Cs mCCCu!arDC!C_, VHCrC `NHats truC C!1. LCs
truC!Cr tHC C!CQHaHt,' tmustDC sCCHasamarKCrC!tHCmCmCHtumaHO
OaH_CrC!tHC HHatCHs aHO CCHHatCHsQrCVCKCODtHC trCQC C!_CHCs as
aH_ua_C. rCHCa, CrrOaDC_Hs OJGrammatology VtHa OsCussCH C!
tHC OCmHaHCC C!trCQCsC!`!aH_ua_C.
However the topic is considered, the problem oflanguage has never been simply
one problem among others. But never as much as at present has it invaded, a such,
the gobal horizon of the .most diverse researches and the most heterogeneous
discourses, diverse and heterogeneous in their intention, method, and ideol
ogy . . . . This inflation of the sign "language" is the infation of the sign itself,
absolute inflation, infation itself Yet, by one of its aspects or shadows, it is itself
still a sign: this crisis is also a symptom. It indicates, as if in spite of itself, that a
historico-metaphysical epoch must finally determine as language the totality of its
problematic horizon.21
tVCu!ODCtCCsmQ!CaHOQCrHaQstrVa!tCVrtCtHatCrrOasVrtH_s
arC tHCmsC!VCs smQtCms C!tHs HHatCH. s HCtCH C! dif ernce, OC-
sCrDCOCar!Cr, H!aCtCHCrsusa!CrCC!utrCQCVtHVHCHtCOCCCHstruCt
tHC CCHtraOC_ma. V!! Cam!atCrCHHtHsCHaQtCrtHattasCCHCrsus
a QCrsQCCtVC VtHVHCH tC CXQaH tHC _aQs aHO !aurCs tHat QCQu!atC
sCmC aCCCuHts H tHC !C sCCHCCs. 1ut HCrC CrrOas rHCtCrC a_aH,
tHHK, DCtras aH HOCDtCOHCss tC a stC C! `_CHCtC OCtCrmHsm, a
smCtHCrH_ C!dirnce HCtuHKC tHC CCHtra! OC_ma. Hat s, tHC C!am
tHat àHstCrCC-mCtaQHsCa CQCCH must HHa OCtCrmHC as !aH_ua_C
tHC tCtaty C!tsQrCDCmatC HCrZCH aC_CrZCstHC !CrCC aHOHCCCssty
C!a!HCar_CHCtCVrtH_, CHC tHat!CCVstHC!HC!rCmtHC OCuDCHCX
tC a `CCrtaH HCmC saQCHs, VHat CrrOa CHttCs, !C!!CVH_ !raHCs
jaCCD, amCH_ CtHCrs, `HC rC_ram. Hus, `_CHCtC HsCrQtCH, tHC
tCrm usCO VHCH `tHC CCHtCmQCrar DCC_st sQCaKs C!VrtH_ aHOpro-
Alergies of Reading 95
grm H rC!atCH tC tHC mCst CCmCHtarQrCCCssCs C!H!CrmatICH VtHH
tHC !IVIH_ CC, s HCt CHC CXamQC amOH_CtHCrs. t s aCrUCa!, !HCt tHC
CrUCa!, QICCCC!CVOCHCCC!tHC CmCr_CHCC C!VrtIH_VItHCUt aH Cr_IH,
aVrtH_ HCt OCHHCO D àCCOCHta! OCUD!H_ aHO !aCH sCCCHOarty.
Hs VrItH_ CmCr_Cs VHCH `HCarIIyVHICH s HCt Css Cr aDsCHCC DUt
tHCrCQrCssCHC!Q!Ur-OmCHsCHa!smDCCtHCU_HtrC!aXCs Its CQQrCs-
sCH DCCaUsC t DC_Hs tC stCr!ZC tHC tCCHHCa! aHO sCCHtIHC CCCHCm t
Has CH_!aVCrCO.`
HUs, VHat QCVCrs, !UC!s, Cr HHatCs tHC mCtaQHsCa! mCmCHt C!
`HC rC_ram s a _CHCtIC, sCICHt!IC aCCCUHt tHat mCtaQHsCa!! QrV-
IC_Cs QrCCIsC tHC IHCarty tHat CrrOa CrtIQUCs. HIs IH tsC!!s HCt
sUrQrIsIH_, HCr OCCs t HCCCssar! Ca!! !Cr CrtIQUC. 1Ut tHC stC C!tHs
IHHatCH C!`HC rC_ram HtC a sI_H HCtjUst C!DCHaVCra rC_UatICH,
DUt, QCrHaQs, C!mCtaQHsICa HCCCssIt, Ca!s !Cr QUCstCHH_. HC a!_H-
mCHt C!tHC `HstCrC!I!CVtH tHC HstCr C!VrItH_, tC DC sUrC, CHCrs
tHC QCssD!Ity C!OIsrUQtH_ tHC `HC tHat !CaOs !rCm HUCCC aCIOs tC
Ùs~tHssH!aCt CHCC!tHC tasKs C!tHsOCCK. 1utattHCsamC tImC, D
HsCrIDH_`HCrC_ram, HCVCVCr mar_Ha!! aHO stratC_Ca!!, VItHtHC
!CrCC C!!!C aHO mCtaQHsCs, CrrIOa rsKs IHCrCasH_tHC sCVCrC_Ht C!
tHC `âstCr ^C!CCU!C, 1." Hs OCUDH_ C!tHC CCHtra! OC_ma as
DCtH a OIa_ram C!_CHCtIC aHO mCtaQHsCa! HCCCssIt rsKs rCCUQCratIH_
tHC `_UaraHtCC tHatIs tHrCatCHCOD tHC HHatCHC!tHC s_H `!aH_Ua_C.
NItHH tHC staDtyC!tHC CCHtra OC_ma, `_CHCtIC IHsCrQtICH taKCs CH
tHC VCr CHtC-tHCCC_Ca attrDUtCs OCCCHstrUCtICH s mCaHt tC OIsrUQt.
Hs OCsCrQtCH C!_rammatC!C_ysImQ!ICatCHH tHC CCHtra! OC_ma
IsmCaHtasmCrCtHaHmCrCaHIrCHICmarKCrC!tHCHtCrUHaDCaHasIs
C! OCCCHstrUCtCH, a sHCKCrH_ trICKstCr CatCHH_ CrrOa at HIs CVH
_amC. atHCr, t Is a traCC C!tHC !CrCC aHO mCmCHtUm C!tHC trCQCa!
a_HmCHt C!1 VItH !aH_Ua_C. ^CrC tHaH a CasC C!tCCHHCC_Ca!
mCmCHtUm,HVHICHa_IVCHtCCHHC!C_`sHCVDasItsC!! aHCassCCatCO
tCCHHC!C_ICs IHtC CXstCHCC, tHC trCQIH_ C!1 aHO aH_Ua_C CCU!ODC
sCCH HCrC as a trCQH_ C!mCmCHtUm ItsCI HC !CrCC tHat `HHatCs tHC
trCQCsC!!aH_Ua_C, HamC, ÌHHatCHItsC!{ CCU!ODCsCCH astHCCCHtCm-
QCrarQHCUma, tHC sQarK CrsCCrCt C!!!C aHOCUtUrC, `1. 1tHIs
mCaHtHattHCCCaZatICHC!I!CHamCCCU!C, aHOItssUDsCQUCHtartICUa-
tCH as a !aH_Ua_C, Vas HCt smQ aH CHCCt C!1 _CttH_ CCCCO Cr
CCHstrUCtCO as aH_Ua_C. atHCr, tHCsC!atCHC!tHC _CHCtC CCOC!rCm
5CHrCOH_Crs mCtaQHCrCa! tVst tC LamCVs sCHCmC C! traHsatICH
9
maOCaOIHCrCHCC.1satCCHHCsCICHtIHCCVCHt,ItHaOa!CrCCatHrCU_HtHC
`!aDrIC C!UIHCrCHCCs tHat HIstCrICa!! CCHstItUtCO!aH_Ua_CaHOI!C. HC
!CrCCItHaO,HCVCVCr,VasHCtmCrC!aQrCOUCtC!tHCHCVsty!CC! mastCr
CVCr VItaIt QrCHCrCO D NatsCH aHO LrICKs OCUDC HC!ICa mCOC C!
1. HCrHCtCrICa!CrCC C!mC!CCUarDICC_yCmCr_Cs CUtC!VHatVC
CaH CH IHCQt! Ca dif rance, tHC HCtVCrK C! `HCHVCrDa CCHOItICHs CH
tHC DasIs C!VHICHItCaH sQCaK.`
HUs, tC asCrIDCaHCrI_IHarQCVCrtCtHCQHsICCCHCmICaQCVCrsC!
tHC OCUDC HCIXIs tC CCC!UOC tHC sI!CHt OIsCUrsIVC QCssIDIIt CCHOItICHs
!CrtHC CmCr_CHCC C!mC!CCUarDIC!C_ytHC sUDstItUtICHC!CCOC-sCrIQts
!Cr Cr_aHIsms, tHC IHsUatICH C!tHC _CHC !rCm tHC CHVIrCHmCHt, aHO tHC
CCC!UsICH C!tHC CCmQCXItICs aHOQrCDCms C!OCVC!CQmCHt, amCH_CtH-
Crs. HCsCarCOIsCUrsIVCQCVCrstHat HaVC trICOtC maQ, I!CH!sCHCmat-
ICa!, aHO tHC a sUCCCCOCO at Cast IH Qart tHrCU_H tHC diernce tHat
maKCsaH_Ua_CQCssID!C. HatIs,tHCtrCQCsC!aH_Ua_CtHatstICKtC1
arC HCt mCrC Vas C!`rCQrCsCHtIH_ a QrCCXIstCHl rCa!It C!a OCUD!C
HC!IX, tHC arC HCt IH_UIstIC mCOCs tHat rC!Cr DaCK tC aH CrI_IH, a sI_-
HI!ICO.atHCr,tHCmCtaQHCrsC!1asaH_Ua_CVCrKQrCCIsC!DCCaUsC
C!tHCIr!aCKCrCXCCss C!aH CrI_IH. HC !CUHOIH_CQaCItyC!tHC sCICHCCs
C!I!CaHO aH_ua_C a!CV DCtH C!tHCsC HUmaH sCICHCCs tC `DCCtstraQ
tHCmsCVCs tHrCU_H tHC CC!!IsICHaHO `sC!-rC!CrCHCC C!tHCIrCVHmCta-
QHCrs, trCQCs VHCsC CXCCss C!mCaHIH_ Cr QC!sCm tHVarts aH HHa
tCtHCrIH_ tC aH CrI_IH.' NItH 1 as a HCXUs !Cr DCtH tHC CrI_IH C!
HatUrC [`!I!C) aHOCU!tUrC [`!aH_Ua_C) , VC CaH sCC a!CrCC!U assCmD!a_C
C!tVC C!tHC CrI_IH maHIas C!mCOCrH CCCIOCHta! CUtUrC, !aH_Ua_C aHO
I!C. HOCCO, CrrIOas OIsCUssICH C! dierance as aH àssCmDa_C ItsC!
marKstHC CrCssCVCrDCtVCCHtHCsCmaHIasCVCHasHCOCCCHstrUCtstHCmIH
tHat HIs rHCtCrIC C! tHC assCmD!a_C rCaOs IKC a OCsCrIQtICH C! 1s
`sC!!-rCQICatICH. `LH tHC CtHCr HaHO, tHC VCrO ` assCmD!a_C sCCms
mCrC aQt!CrsU__CstIH_tHattHC KIHOC!DrIH_IH_tC_CtHCrQrCQCsCOHCrC
HastHCstrUCtUrCC!aHIHtCraCIH_, aVCaVIH_CraVCD,VHICHVCUOaCV
tHC OIHCrCHttHrCaOs aHO OIHCrCHt!IHCs C!sCHsCCr!CrCC tCsCQaratC a_aIH,
asVC!!as DCIH_rCaOtCDIHOCtHCrs tC_CtHCr.'
1t tHC samC tImC tHat VC HI_HI_Ht tHC àssCmDCO HatUrC C!tHCsC
trCQCs, VC mUstHCtI_HCrC1as aKIHO C!rCCCQtCr aHO traHsmIttCr C!
tHCsC OIsCUrsIVC CHCCtsHUCCIC aCIOs arC HCt mCrC! a D!aHK s!atC CH
VHICH tHC OIsCCUrsC C!tHC _CHC Is IHsCrIDCO. H tHC !C!!CVIH_ sCCtICH
VI attCmQt tC IsC!atC tHC Vas IH VHICH difrance mUst DC sCCH tC DC
aH aCtaHt IH IVIH_ sstCms. VI maQ CUt tHC aQCrIa assCCIatCO VItH
`_CHCtIC aH_Ua_C IH a rCCCHt attCmQt tC CCmQIC a ÒICtICHary C!tHC
_CHCtIC CCOC. VI a!sC maQ CUt tHC Vas tHat tHCsC !aIUrCs CQCratC IH a
tCXt CH tHCCrCtICa! DIC!C_y, !Cr tHCsC !aUrCs, HCQC, V1HCQ artICU!atC
tHCsHCrtCCUH_sC!mCstHarratIVa aCCCUHtsC!!IVIH_sstCms. ^CrCCVCr,
VI!! attCmQt tC at Cast QrCVIsICHa sHCV, tHrCU_H rCCCUrsC tC tHC _aQs
aHO !aI!UrCs C!aCCCUHts IH tHC I!C sCICHCCs, tHat HC DIC!C_ICa aCCCUHt
CaH I_HCrC Its rHCtCrICa CQCratICHs aHO !IVC UQ tC tHC tCrms C!Its CVH
sCICHtIHCIt.
Other Cases: Biological Encounters with Dierance
Philosophy wil
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine.
-Keats, Lamia I
1 Ib, 1OVarO . rI!CHCV aHO `CKCr 1rCHOC VCrC QUrsUIH_ aH
CXtraCrOIHarI straI_Ht!CrVarO aHO sCCmIH_ !ItCra! rCsCarCH QrC_ram tC
CCmQIC a ÒICtICHar C!_CHCtIC CCOCs. !C!CVIH_ tC Its CCHC!UsICH tHC
QrCmIsC/mCtaQHCr tHat 1Is aIH_UIstIC CHtIty, rI!CHCV aHO1rCHOC
DC_aHtHCmammCtHtasKC!!raUH_tHC2H_Ua_CC!tHC_CHCIHtHC_CHrC
C!tHC OICtICHarattHC Ur_IH_C!tHC _CHCs tHCmsC!VCs, CratCast C!tHCIr
!IDrarICs. `LCHtIHUCUs_rCVIH_IDrarICsC!HUCCCtIOC sCQUCHCCs [aDCUt
mIICH !CttCrs D HCV) Ur_C Us tC OCCCOC aHO tC rCaO tHC _CHCtIC
aH_Ua_C. HIs Hrst CCmQI!atICH C! `VCrOs C!tHC !aH_Ua_C Is mCaHt tC
assIst IH tHIs tasK, as aH OICtICHar VCUO OC !CraHHUmaHaH_Ua_C.
rCHICa!!, tHC QrCD!Cm C!tHC HamC C!tHIs aH_Ua_C C!tHC _CHCmC
QCsCOaQrCDCm. HCrC Vas HC OICtICHar `!Cr aHHUmaH aH_Ua_C tC
VHICH rI!CHCV aHO 1rCHOC! CCU!O tUrH tC OCtCrmIHC tHC QrCQCr HamC
!CrtHIs!aH_Ua_C C!tHC _CHC, as tHIs Vas IH!aCttHCVCr OICtICHar DCIH_
CCmQICODrI!CHCVaHO1rCHOCtDCmsCVCs.HCaHsVCrtCtHIs1Cr_C-
sIaHQUaHOararCsC, IrCHICa!!, UCmtHC HaVHaHCtHCrOICtCHar.
From the very inception of this work we felt that the name "nucleotide se
quences" was not an appropriate name for this lingua prima of life. None of many
suggestions conformed with a vague idea of what would be proper. One day, one
of us was editing a manuscript by a computer program which checks spelling. The
program based on a rather commonly used dictionary couldn't master some tech
nical terms. Thus, when it came to "genomic" the computer suggested "gnomic"
instead. According to Webster's dictionary, "gnomic" means "wise and pithy,
expressive, full of meaning" -all certainly attributes of the language of genes. 29
98 Alergies of Reading
HUs, tHC IrCHa OICtICHar QrCjCCt!CUHOCO CH a sQCIH_ CrrCr. CrC
VC CaH sCC tHC CH!CrCCmCHtC!tHCIH_UIstIC trCQIH_C!1tHrCU_HtHC
CCmQUtCr, tHCVCr OIHCrCHCC DCtVCCH_cn0mc aHO_n0mcIs CDItCratCOIH
Its assImI!atICH IHtC OIsCCUrsC, as 1 CCmQCtCs Its trCQIH_ IHtC aH-
_Ua_C, tHC _HCmIC aH_Ua_C. HC sICHt, CrraHt OCCtICH C!tHC c !CCVs
tHCQattCrHC!tHCtrCQCC_C!mCCCUarDICC_aCCHstaHtsICHCIH_C!
tHC OCO, CHVIrCHmCHt, CraH CtHCr HCIsC tHat tHrCatCHs tHC sCVCrCI_Ht
C!1. CrC, HCV CVCH tHC VCrO_cn0mc Is tCC HCIs, tCC OICUt tC
`mastCr, as I!tHC e VCrC tCC mUCH tHC rCmIHOCr tHat I!C Is sCmCtHIH_
CtHCrtHaHaH_Ua_C, aDarrICrtC tHC _HCsIs C!tHC _HCmC, tHC `CHC VHC
KHCVs.
1t tHC samC tImC, tHC VCr OCCtICH C!tHC caHaC_CUs tC CrrIOas
IHtrCOUCtICH C!aH IHtC J_crntcaHHCUHCCs tHC rCtUrH C!a `ma_ICa
ratICHaIsm.`1ttHCVCrmCmCHttHC OIHCrCHCCDCtVCCHaaH_Ua_CaHO
a sCQUCHCC C!HUCCIC aCIOs sCCms tC HaVC al DUt CVaQCratCO, a _HCmC
aQQCars. HC HamIH_ C!tHC _CHCmC aH_Ua_C `_HCmIC, IH Its QCr!Cr-
maHCC,Qas J_cmntcItsCUC. HatIs,tHCaC_CrtCODaHCOItCr, aVCrO
QrCCCssCr, aHO tHCIr HCXUs Is astCrC!tHC aCK aHOmUtIQICItC!CrI_IHs
tHat !UCs aHO IHHCCts tHIs QrImCrOIa OIsCCUrsC CHaH_Ua_C aHO I!C. C
OCsI_H, HC OCsI_HCr, Cra!tCOtHCsI_HIDCr `_HCmIC, ratHCr, ItCmCr_Cs,IKC
Its rC!CrCHt, !rCmtHC HCCKs aHO CraHHICs C!a OIsCCUrsC HCtVCrK. CsQItC
tHC aQQCaraHCC C!a IHCarOCtCrmIHIsm IH a QrCjCCt tC UHCCVCr tHC VCr
CrI_IHs C!I!C aHO aH_Ua_C, tHIs CHCCCQCOIC rCsCarCH ItsC!Is, !rCm tHC
start, a QrCOUCt C!a CHaHCC IHtCraCtICH. ^CrC CXaCt, It arms, OCsQItC
ItsC!, tHC CCCUtCO CCHHCCtICHs DCtVCCH CHaHCC, CrrCr, aHO tHCVCrHC-
tICH C! CrI_IH ItsCI t taKCs `CrrCr as Its HamC, tHC VCr attCmQt tC
CCrrCCt Is a mIstaKC, aHO tHat mIstaKC Is aUrmCO as tHC HamC C! tHIs
ÌH_Ua QrIma C!I!C. HC `Hrst QrIHCIQC CraH_Ua_C C!I!CIstHUsItsC!
IH `CrrCrItsCrI_IHCaHHCtDCsImQCCatCOIHaQaCC CratImC,ratHCr,
ItIs tC CCHsCQUCHCCC!aHCtVCrKC!sI_HsIH CC!IsICH CrCC!UsICH.`'HIs
CCIsICH rCsUts HCt !rCm QUrQCsC DUt !rCm a QrCOUCtIVC tHVartIH_ C!
mastCr`HC QrC_ram DasCO CH a ratHCr CCmmCH! UsCO OICtICHar
CCUOHtmastCrsCmC tCCHHICa! tCrms. C QaraQHrasC ICtZsCHC, tHC HIs-
tCrC!tHC_HCmICaH_Ua_CIs aHIstCrC!aHCrrCr.
NHat OCCs tHIs smQtCmtHC CmCr_CHCC C!tHC _HCmIC aH_Ua_C
!rCm aH CrrCrtC!! Us CCHCrCtC aDCUt tHC QrCjCCt C! a OICtICHar C!
_CHCtIC CCOCs: CrHaQs It tC!s Us tHat tHC HCtICH C! CrI_IH Is ItsC! a
mIstaKC. HC QrC!aCC C!rI!CHCV aHO 1rCHOCs DCCK Ln0mtt CCmmCHts
CHtHC CQI_raQH, VHICHrCaOs
Alergies of Reading 99
"In the beginning was the Word . . . . ": The nature of the beginning and the
foundations of life are central issues in man's spiritual and scientific quest. Goethe
had his Faust struggle with this in trying to interpret the first verse of St. John's
gospel. . . . Was it really to mean "word" in this context or had it to be translated
as "Thought" or "Deed"? Whatever the answer, the literal domain of words
language-is surely associated at least with the beginning of man, and with the
understanding of man. 32
HC CCHstaHt assCCatCH C!aH_Ua_C aHO!!C VtHDC_HHH_s aHO !CUH-
OatCHs, as VC as _HCmCs HCCO tC aCCCUHt !Cr ts CVH Cr_Hs, !CrC-
_rCUHOstHCmaHHCrHVHCHtHsstCC!rCasCHH__raVtatCs tCVarO tHC
DC_HHH_asVC!astHC CCHtCr, `tHCDC_HHH_aHOtHC!CUHOatCHsC!!!C
arC CCHtra! ssUCs. Hs rHCtCrC C! DC_HHH_s VCrKs !KC a rCVCrsC sQa-
tCtCmQCra!CCHtr!U_C, sQHHH_aHO _atHCrH_rCsCarCHaHOtHHKH_ tC-
VarO CHCstCC!CCHtrC, CHCDC_HHH_, aHOCHCCr_H`H tHC DC_H-
HH_ Vas tHC NCrO. HC suU__!C tC HtCrQrCt tHs `NCrO as OCCO,
tHCU_Ht, Cr `VCrO CH!rCH!CrCCs tHs CCHtrsm, as a!VCCtCrs C!QCVCr
!IHa CmaHatC, !rCmtHC start, !rCmtHs DC_HHH_, C_Cs.``
ÛCHC!tHsDCCKHasDCCHamCOatOCCCHstrUCtH_sUCHaCCCUHtsD
OsQaH_ mC!CCU!ar DC!C_s OCQCHOCHCC CH CXtrasCCHt!IC aHO mCta-
QHsCatrCQCsaHOOsQaCCmCHts. 1ttHs QCHtHmaHass,HCVCVCr,
VCU!O a!sC !KC tC sU__Cst tHat a rCaOH_ QraCtCC C!tHs sCrtCHC tHat
Qas HCCO tC tHC rCC C rHCtCrCty aHO dierance H sCCHtHC aCCCUHts
as VC as sCCHtHC `CDjCCtsm_Ht a!sC CCHtrDUtC tC a rCtHHKH_ C!
mCOCs C!!VH_sstCms.
HC sCCmH_! mar_Ha! rHCtCtCs C!Cr_HsH_HCmC CHCrUsa CasC
H QCHt. tmaDC OU:CUt tC CCatC tHC CO_Cs C!OCCC_ H sCCHtHC
QraCtCC,tHCsCQaCCsVHCrCsCCHCCmCsttaKCsCHaHÒCCC_Ca! HHCC-
tCH H tHat tHs HHCCtCH C!tCH CQCratCs QrCCsC! tHrCU_H a s!CHCH_.
CQrCssCH s tCC smQC a mCOC HCrC, a OHCrCHta! mCsH s QCrHaQs a
mCrC sats]H_ tCQCC_Ca! mCtaQHCr !Cr tHC rHCtCrCa traHsmssCH C!
sCCHCC. HUs, tHC mQCrtaHCC C!tHC `CO_Cs C!sCCHt!IC tCXts, tHCsC
Q!aCCs VHCrC t maKCs ts CUts, ts OCCsCHs aHO HCsCHs. Hs s VHCrC
diJernce CaHDC!CUHO,QrC!aCCs, mCtaQHCrs, Oa_ramsaHCtC CrHaVCrC!
diJerance tHat DCtH Cr_aHZCs aHO OsrUQts sCCHtHC tCXts. H tHC CasC C!
gnomic, m CmQHass CH tHC CCHOtCHs C!tHCQrC!aCC aHOtHCHamH_ Cr
`Cr_H C!tHC OCtCHar H_H_Hts tHC rHCtCrCs C!CCHtrC! aHO Cr_H
tHatma CtHCrVsC HaVC _CHC UHHCtCCO. Hat s, tHC!QsrasCtHC QUCs-
tCH C!tHC stC aHO _CHrC C!rCsCarCHtHatr!CHCV aHO1rCHOC!QUrsUC.
NH!C tHCtCra!ZatCHC!tHCmCtaQHCrC!a`_CHCmCaH_Ua_CHatUra!-
roo Alergies of Reading
ZCstHCQrCjCCtC!CCmQI!H_ aOICtCHar C!a!aH_Ua_CVItHHCHamC aHO
HC sQCaKCrs, tHC OCtaI!s aHO CrrCrs C!tHC QrC!aCC OCCUmCHt tHC Vas H
VHCHtHCOCsCrQtCHsC!tHssCCHCCQrCOUCCaHart!aCt.HOCCO,HsCmC
sCHsC tHC QrC!aCCs stCr C!`_HCmC CrCatCH tQs Us CHtC tHC !aCt tHat
_HCmCsCn!art!aCt, aCCHstIUCtCHC!asCCHtHC CU!tUrC tHat sCCKs tHC
DC_HHH_HtHCNCrOaHOtHattrCats `!!CasaUHHCOCHtt!CCa!ZCOH
aHOCaUsCOD a!aH_Ua_C.
Lr, at !Cast, tHats HCV m rCaOH_ _CCs. !Cr C!CaU, tHC OCa tHat
`_CHCtC !aH_Ua_C s CCHstrUCtCO CarrCs ts CVH Cr_H stCr, CHC tHat
QrCVCKCs tHC VCr aCr_ C!rCaOH_ tHat tHs CHaQtCr s H_H!_HtH_. C
sUstaH tHC mQ!CatCH tHat tHC 1!aH_Ua_C s aH àrt!aCt, VC VCU!O
DrCaK CUt H aQCra, CHC tHat taKCs tHC sHaQC C!`tHCrC s HC CUtsOC tHC
tCXt. Hs aQCra Has tsC!!DCCH rCaO a!!Cr_C a!!H tHat t s HVCKCO tC
sUstaH tHC C!am tHat OCCCHstrUCtCH s a!UHOamCHta!! sC!QsstIC CHtCr-
QrsC, VtH HCtHIH_ DUt `tCXts CCHsttUtH_ tHC `VCUO. 1Ut CHCC VC
rCaO DCtH sOCs C!tHC statCmCHt, `tCXt aHO `CUtsOC, at tHC samC tmC,
`CUtsOC, VC CaH sCC tHat VHat s at staKC HCrC s !Css a statCmCHt C!
C!CsUrCtHCrC s HCtHH_ DUt tCXt~tHaH a statCmCHt C!a QrCD!Cmat
C, a
Q!aCC VHCrC a tCXt s CCHstaHt! satUratCO D aH `CUtsOC tHat t CaHHCt
CCHtrC!J_ rntc. HUs, ratHCrtHaH OCC!aIH_, at tHs QCHt, tHC smQ!C
`CCHstrUCtCH C!tHCmCtaQHCrC!1asa!aH_Ua_C, VaHttCtraCCtHC
CHCCtsC!tHC CC!!IsCHC!tHCsC tVC tCrms, tCXtstHat CCHstaHt! CQCH UQtC
aH CUtsOC C!`HHHtC rC_rCss CrCrrCr.`"
HCsCsmQtCms CrCrrCrmCssa_Cs tHat HaVC attCmQtCO tC !CCatC H
tHrCCratHCrarDtrartCXtssU__Csta!aCtaDCUttHC OCsCrQtCHC! 1H
!n_UstC trCQCs. sUCH rHCtCrCa! sC!tVarC QrCOUCCs QCrsstCHt aHO sCmC-
VHatsstCmatCmstaKCs. 1aCHtmC tHC QUCstCH C!aH Cr_Hs QUrsUCO
tHrCU_H tHC _rO C!tHC mCtaQHCrCs C!`1 s a!aH_Ua_CtHC QUCs-
tCH C!!aH_Ua_C aHO tHC HUmaH HjaCCD Ct a!. , tHC QUCstCH C!aVrtH_
QrCr tC HCmC saQCHs H CrrOa, aHO tHC VCr CQ_raQH aHO HamC C!
r!CHCV aHO 1rCHOC!s tCXt~a !aI!UrC CCCUrs. 1aCH tmC, tC !C!!CV tHC
QUCtatCH!rCmCrrOaVtHVHCHtHsCHaQtCrDC_aH, CHCCCU!OsatHat
amCtaQHCrVas mstaKCH!CraCCHCCQt.
1tHs mCaH, C!CCUrsC,HCttHat CaCH aUtHCr CrsQCaKCr_CtCarrCO
aVaVtHtHC!tCrarCXCCssC!arHCtCrCtHatHCCrsHCCmQ!CCO, H!aCt,
mCaH QUtC tHC CQQCstC. 1aCH tmC tHC trCQC C!`_CHCtC !aH_Ua_C
QrCVCKCs aH CUtDrCaK C!CrrCr CraQCra, t CaHDC sCCH as aH CHCCt CaH
HsU:CCHt! rHCtCrCa! OCQ!CmCHt C!tHC mCtaQHCr. 1aCH sQCaKCr Cr
aUtHCr !Cr_Cts tHat CCHCCQts arC mCtaQHCrs, HsC!ar as mCtaQHCr s tHC
Alergies of Reading ror
HamC _IVCH !Cr aItCrar stratC_ DUt CHrC!atICHs. ^CtaQHCr CaHHCtDC
CXtrICatCO !rCm Its rC!IaHCC CHtHC mCVCmCHt aHO Q!a C! tHC rC!atICH C!
OIHCrCHCCsamCH_tHC tCrms tHatmaKC ItQCssIDC.
5UCH arHCtCrICa!rCaOIH_, CHC tHat!CrC_rCUHOs tHCrC!atICHa!CQCrat-
IH_ CCHOItICHs C!tHC rHCtCrICa! sC!tVarC Ca!CO `_CHCtIC aH_Ua_C, CaH
HCVCr, strICt!sQCaKIH_, sUCCCCO. HCOCCCHstrUCtICHC!tHC CQQCsItICH C!
mCtaQHCraHOCCHCCQtVDCIHOCtCrmIHaD!CIHtHatHCVCHCCHCCUHtCrs
tHC ÌH!IHItC rC_rCss C!tHC OCtCrmIHatICH C!tHC mCtaQHCr CrmCOC C!
mCtaQHCrCHCIsOCQ!CIH_IH tHIsrHCtCrICarCaOIH_.
1Ut tHC QUasIsstCmatIC HatUrC C!tHCsC !aI!UrCsUC !aCt tHat sUCH
rHCtCrICs !CaO tC aCr_ICs C!rCaOIH_CaH DC rCaO as amarKCrC!tHC rC!C
tHatrHCtCrICs C!tHC `_CHCtIC aH_Ua_C HaVCQaCOIH tHC OCsCrIQtICH C!
!IVIH_ sstCms sIHCC tHC asCCHt C!mCCCUarDICC_. 5QCCIHCa, IH tHCIr
QCrsIstCHt !aI!UrCs, tHCsC rHCtCrICs tC!!Us aDCUttHC `!aH_Ua_C C! !I!C.IKC
asCCrCtmCssa_C CCHtaIHCOIHtHC tCXts C!mC!CCU!arDIC!C_y, tHCsC!aI!UrCs
maQ CUt, IH a Va, a `sCCrCt C!!I!CtHat HC sImQC traHsCCHOCHta! QCsI-
tICH CXIsts !rCm VHICH CHC CaH OCsCrIDC !IVIH_ sstCms. HC matrIX Cr
assCmD!a_C tHatCCHstItUtCsa ÌVIH_sstCmIHCUOCsHUmaHs as rHCtCrs,
rHCtCrs VItHCUtaHsImQC traHsCCHOCHta!, CXtCrICrQCsItICH !rCmVHICH
tC OCsCrIDC !I!C, rHCtCrs VHC OCQ!C DUt OC HCt OCtCrmIHC rHCtCrICa
sC!tVarCs. H CHaQtCr 6, wl OIsCUss a CCHtCmQCrar smQtCm C!tHIs
!aCta !aCt tHat IH!Crms tHC CCHtCmQCrar OIHCrCHO arCUHO tHC OC!IHI-
tICHC!!I!CIHtHC tCXts aHCQraCtICCs C!artI!ICIa!!I!C. !CrHCV, VI!!!CCK
at a tCXt !rCm 1 969 D tHC tHCCrCtICa! DIC!C_Ist CVarO attCC !Cr aH
CXamQC C!Ct aHCtHCr !Cr_CttIH_, aH aCr_y C!rCaOIH_ tHatQCIHts tHC
VatCVarOaQrCD!CmatIC C!OCsCrIQtICH!Cr!IVIH_CrCCmQCXsstCms.
Life, Incommunicado
I would say that the secret of good communication in general lies in knowing
what to ignore rather than in finding out in great detail what is going on.
-Howard Pattee, "How Does a Molecule Become a Message?"
Now I am quite sure that it will be a long time before this point is generally
agreed to by everybody, if ever; namely, whether or not what one overlooks in
this simplification had really better be forgotten or not.
-John von Neumann, Teor o SelReproducng Automata
CVarO attCC, a tHCCrCtICa DIC!C_Ist assCCIatCO VItH L. . NaOOIH_-
tCHs Towards a Teoretical Biology, VCUmCs QUD!IsHCO DCtVCCH 1 968 tC
1 972, aHOaCCHtrIDUtCrtCtHC!IrstQrCCCCOIH_s CHartIUCIa!I!C, QUtsaHHC
1 02 Alergies of Reading
QCHt CHtHC QUCstCH tHat, H aVa, tHs DCCKHas asKCOaaCH_. `CV
OCCs a mCCCUC DCCCmC a mCssa_C: !Cr attCC, tHC QUCstCH C!!C s
HtCrtVHCOVtHQUCstCHsaDCUtCCmmUHCatCH. ` amHtCrCstCOHtHC
Cr_H C!!C, aHO am CCHVHCCO tHat tHC QrCDCm C!tHC Cr_H C!!C
CaHHCtCVCHDC!CrmUatCOVtHCUtaDCttCrUHOCrstaHOH_C!HCV mCC-
CU!Cs CaH!UHCtCH smDC!Ca!!, tHats, as rCCCrOs, CCOCs, aHOs_Has. Lr,
as mQ H m ttC, tC UHOCrstaHO Cr_Hs, VC HCCO tC KHCV HCV a
mCCCU!CDCCCmCsamCssa_C.` attCC CaHDCsCCHHCrCtCDCH!HCVtH
tHC mCCCU!ar DC!C_Ca traOtCH tDat UsCs tHC rHCtCrCa sC!tVarC C!
CCOCs aHO mCssa_Cs tC OCsCrDC!VH_ sstCms. 1Ut VHats s_H!ICaHt !Cr
m aCCCUHt arC tHC Vas tHat attCCs aCCCUHt OVCr_Cs !rCm Cr CVCH
OCCCHstrUCts tHC CCHtra OC_ma, tHat s, tHC trQarttC HarratVC C!!VH_
sstCms tHatCr_HatCs H 1. !Cr attCC C!ams tHatVHat sHtCrCstH_
aDCUt1stHatts amCssa_C, aHOmCssa_Cs, as attCCsrC!CrCHCCtCHs
CVH tt!C mQ!Ct! QCHts CUt, rCQUrC a CCHtCXt. 1_aHst tHC _raH C!a
mC!CCUar DCC_Ca aCCCUHt tHat CCHsttUtCs 1 as a sC!!-CCHtaHCO,
sCVCrC_H stC C! CCHtrC! H tHC VH_ Ct_aHsm, attCC CmQHasZCs tHC
sstCmCrHCtVCrKtHat mC!CCUCs rCQUrC tCDCCCmCamCssa_C.
!CrCXamQC, attCC CHCrs tHC CasC C!VHatHC Ca!s tHCsmQCstmCs-
sa_C. tCtUrHsCmCtHH_CH.attCCtraCCstHC!mts C!tHssmQCmCssa_C,
tHC QCssDt CCHOtCHs !Cr a mCssa_C tC CXst at a!. `! tHC smQ!Cst
mCssa_C s tC tUrHsCmCtHH_CH, tHCHVC a!sC HCCO tCKHCV tHCQHsCa
Cr_HaHO!mtsC! tHCsmQ!CstOCVCCtHatVaCCCmQ!sHtHsCQCratCH.
5UCHaOCVCCsCCmmCHCaCOasVtCH.`'HsmCVCtCVaIOsmQ!Cty
stCms !rCm attCCs aXCmatC statCmCHt QUCtCO at tHC DC_HHH_ C!tHs
sCCtCH, tHat CHC mUst_HCrC a _rCat OCa tC CCmmUHCatC CHCCtVC!. H
CCatH_tHCsmQCst`mCssa_C,attCCHHOstHattsHCtsmQCata, tHat
sVtCHCsHaVC mCaHH_ CH! H aCCHtCXt. `taKCHD tsC!, CUtsOC tHC CC
CrtHC CCHtCXt C!sCmC!aH_Ua_C, ` tUrH CH s HCtrCa1 amCssa_C sHCC t
mCaHs HCtHH_ UH!Css VC KHCV UCm VHCrC tHC s_Ha CamC aHO VHat s
tUrHCO CH as a rCsUt C!ts traHsmssCH. . . . ` UrH CH maKCs HC sCHsC
UDCss t s rCatCO D a tCmQCra as VC as a sQata HCtVCrK.` Hs
aQQarCHttrVa rCCC_HtCH C!tHC OCQCHOCHCC C!mCssa_Cs CHmatCra!
sQatCtCmQCra CCHtCXts CCmCs HtCrCC!VHCHjUXtaQCsCOVtHtHC rHCt-
CrCs C! mC!CCUar DC!C_y HaVC CUtHCO H tHC QrCVCUs CHaQtCrs.
NHCrCas,HaVCar_UCO,5CHrCOH_Cr, LamCV, aHOjaCCDaHO^CHCOHaVC
a! CmQHasZCO 1 as a KHO C!sC!!-CCHtaHCO Cr_H, attCC CXQCt
!CrC_rCUHOs tHC OCQCHOCHCC C!mCCCU!ar `sVtCHCs CH tHCr CCHtCXt.
HOCCO,HtHHKH_C!tHCCr_HsC!!!C,attCCVaHts tC CCHsOCrmCssa_C
Allergies of Reading 1 03
matrICCs mUCHar_CrtHaH tHC CC!. `1HIsCatCO sVItCHIHHatUrC, CVCHI!
VC CCUO CXQaIH Its CrI_IH, VCUO HaVC HC !UHCtICHIH tHC sCHsC tHatVC
CCmmCH UsC tHC VCrO. NC sCC HCrC mCrC tHC sImQCst QCssIDC IH
staHCC C!VHatIsQCrHaQs tHC mCst!UHOamCHtaQrCDCmIHDICC_ytHC
QUCstICH C!HCVar_CasstCmCHCmUstCCHsIOCrDC!CrCDICC_ICa!!UHC-
tICHHasmCaHIH_.` H CCHtrast tCjaCCDaHO^CHCOs VCrK CH tDC CQ-
CrCH, VHCrC tHC_CHCmC Is rCCCHstItUtCO as tHCa_CHt C!mCaHIH_!U DIC-
C_ICa!UHCtICH,attCCs`sstCDCaHHCtDCCCaIZCOCr`CCHtaIHCOIHa
_CHCmIC CrCVCHCr_aHIsmICHCOC.
attCC ar_UCsQCrsUasIVC tHat CHCmUstCCHsIOCrHCtjUsttHC CC!!DUt
tHC CCmmUHICatICH C!CC!!s VItH aHCUtsIOCCHVIrCHmCHttHatCCHstItUtCs
tHCmatrIXC!CVCUtICH. CrHaQstHIsIs CHCU_H. LIVCHtHC CCHtCXt C!tHC
QrCDCmatIC C!CrI_IHstHatHaVC CUtIHCOIHtHIs CHaQtCr, QCrHaQsa!!tHat
Is rCQUIrCO Is a CHaH_C IH IHHCCtICH tHat sCCKs aH IHtCraCtIVC, rCatICHa!,
OIHCrCHtIa aCCCUHtC!`DCCCmIH_ aHOI_HCrCs sImQC CrI_IHs. 1Ut_IVCH
attCCs aXICmtHat CHC mUstI_HCrC IH CrOCrtC CCmmUHICatCVC!VC
mI_Ht asK aDCUt tHC HCtVCrK tHat Has maOC QCssIDC tHIs mCssa_C. NHat
OIHCrCHCCs HaVC DCCH I_HCrCO IH tHC HamC C!CCmmUHICatICH: LUr aH
sVCrIs sU__CstCOOattCCs aHasIs C!tHC sVItCH.
The switching event which produces a singe choice fom at least two alterna
tives is not symmetrical in time and must therefore involve dissipation of energy,
that is, loss of detailed information about the motions of the particles in the
switch . . . . It is physically impossible for a switch to operate with absolute
precision . . . . All devices have a finite possibility of being "of" when they
should be "on," and vice versa.39
HIs OCsCrIQtICH C!tHCImItsC!sVItCHCsaHOmCssa_Cs, a!CH_VItHattCCs
CaImtHat IH tHCmCVC UCm tHC OI_ItatC tHC aHa!C_, UCm a sVItCH tC a
mCVCmCHt, `HC traHsCrIQtICH QrCCCss asC OCtCrmIHCs tC aar_C OC_rCC
tHC sImQICIty as VC!! as tHC rCIaDIIt C!tHC !UHCtICH, aHHCUHCCs tHC
ImQCrtaHCC C!attCCs IHQUt Cr traHsCrIQtICH HCrC. Cr attCC !Cr_Ct, !Cr
tHC saKC C!HarratIVC sImQICIt, tHat It IsCQUa!sImQC !Cr a sVItCH tC DC
`CH as `CH, DCtHarC mCrC mCVCmCHts C!tHC _atC IH aHCtVCrKtHat,
attCC HasQaIHstaKIH_ QCIHtCO CUt, _IVCstHC mCssa_C Its mCaHIH_. HC
!aCttHatattCC CHCCsCstHC `CH sVItCHDCsIOCsa!!UOIH_tCa `start Cra
`DC_IHHIH_ CUtsIOC C!aHsUCHHCtVCrK,tHC!IrstsVItCHCrmCssa_CasIt
VCrC, a sVItCH tHattUrHs CH tHC I_Ht. Let there be !_h/aHHCUHCCs HIs
QaCCIHtHCHCtVCrK. HatIs, tHIs `CHCICC C!aH `CH sVItCH, CHattCCs
CVHaCCCUHt,DaKCsHCsCHsCIHIsCatICH, ItmUstDCCCHHCCtCOtCaar_Cr
104 Al ergies of Readg
HarratIVC IHVC!VIH_ tHC QraCtICC C!attCCs `traHsCrIQtICH, aQraCtICC tHat
HasDCCH sstCmatICa!! CVCr!CCKCOCr `tUrHCOCH. L!CCUrsC, tHIsrCtUrH
C! tHC `CH sVItCH IH `CV CCs a ^C!CCU!C 1CCCmC a ^Cssa_C:
CCHHrmsattCCsmCssa_C. HC sVItCH, HC mCssa_C Is sCQrCCIsC as tC CCm-
Q!CtC!CXC!UOCItsCtHCr. "'
1HCtHCrVa C!OCsCrIDIH_tHIsImQrCCIsICHC!CVCH tHC sImQ!CstmCs-
sa_C Is tC OCsCrIDC sUCH sImQ!ICIty as a !Cr_CttIH_ Cr CVCrCCKIH_ C!tHC
CCmQ!CXIt C!sCICHtIHC rHCtCrIC, IHC!UOIH_ attCCs.jUst as tHC mCst QrC-
CIsCsVItCHCaHHCtCCmQ!CtC!CXC!UOC Its CCHtrar statC, HCItHCrCaHat-
tCCs `mCssa_CsImQ!aHOUHamDI_UCUs!traHsmItCHCsImQ!CaHOsIH_!C
HarratIVC. HstCaO, VC HHO aH IrrCOUCID!C Va_UCHCss, aVa_UCHCss C!maH
stCrICs, CHC C!VHICH, tHrCU_HaCCHsQICUCUsaDsCHCC, OCsCrIDCstHC Q!aCC
C!!aH_Ua_C aHO aUtHCrsHIQ IH tHIs OCsCrIQtICH C!DIC!C_ICa! mCOC!s. "'
attCCs !aI!UrC tC OCsCrIDC HIs CVH rHCtCrICa! CQCratICH as a Qart C!tHC
!ar_C sstCm tHat CCHstItUtCs `!IVIH_ sstCms tC!!s Its stCr tHrCU_H Its
sCHCC."ttC!!stHC stCr, tHatIs, C!CHC C!sCICHtIHC OIsCCUrsCs CQCratIH_
CCHOItCHs CrCCHstraIHts. tHat rHCtCrIC aHOtHC aUtHCrarC CXtCrHatC aH
sstCm UHOCr OCsCrIQtICH. "` 1Ut It Is QrCCIsC! tHIs !Cr_CttIH_, Cr VHat
attCC VCU!O QrCDaD! Ca! HIs I_HCrIH_, C!tHC CCmQ!CXIty C!HIs CCm-
mUHICatICH tHat QrCVCKCs, tImC aHO tImC a_aIH, VHat HaVC Ca!CO tHC
a!Cr_ICs C! rCaOIH_. H a !CCV-UQ Cssa tC `CV CCs a ^C!CCU!C
1CCCmCa^Cssa_C: attCC CHCCUHtCrstHC a!Cr_IHtHC!C!CVIH_!Crm.
`HUs VC HaVC tHC CHICKCH-C__ QaraOCX IH a HCV !Crm. `NHICH CamC
!Irst, tHC!aH_Ua_C CrtHC CCHstraIHt:""
HIs a!!Cr_y, a_aIH,QCIHtstC a!aCt, tHC VCrKIH_ C!tHC CtHCrIH sCICH-
tIHC OIsCCUrsC. 1 tHIs mCaH tHat tHCsC aQCrIa QCIHt tC tHC IHtCraCtIVC,
HCn!CCa!IZCOQUa!ItyC!sCICHtIHC OCsCrIQtICH, tHC sstCms C!!aH_Ua_C aHO
CCHtCXt tHatmaKC sUCH `mCssa_CsQCssID!C. 1sIHrI!CHCVaHO1rCHOC!s
Gnomic, tHCsC s!IQUQs aHHCUHCC tHat tHC sImQ!C QUCstICH C! CrI_IH Is a
mIstaKC IH tDat It ImQ!ICs a HarratIVC tHat CaH !CCa!IZC a sstCm VHCsC
CCmQ!CXIty OC!Cats sUCH a rCOUCtICH. HIs HCCO HCt DC Cn! aH CHCCt C!
VHat _Cts Ca!!CO `!I!C, IH !aCt, It CCU!ODC aHCtHCrVCrKIH_ OCHHItICH C!
CCmQ!CXIty. a sstCm, CVCHt, CrCDjCCttHatsCCmstC OC!CatsImQ!C CrI_IHa!
aCCCUHts. LCmQUtCr sCICHtIst aHO matHCmatICIaH jCHH VCH CUmaHH
CamC tC asIm!arCCHC!UsICHIHHIs attCmQts tC OCsCrIDC CCmQ!CXsstCms
!IKC aUtCmata, DCtHHatUra!aHOartIHCIa!. `HCrC Is a_CCOOCa!IH!Crma!
!C_ICs tCIHOICatC tHattHC OCsCrIQtICH C!tHC UHCOCHsC!aH aUtCmatCHIs
sImQ!Cr tHaH tHC aUtCmatCH ItsC!!, as !CH_ as tHC aUtCmatCH Is HCt VCr
CCmQ!ICatCO, DUttHatVHCHCU _Ct tC HI_HCCmQ!ICatICHs, the actual object
Al ergies of Reading lO5
is simpler than the literary description" [CmQHa aOOCO) ."` VaHttCDC CCar
tHatam HCtar_UH_!CrCmCVtatCCHCCQtCH C!a!C tHat OC!Cat CUr
attCmQttC OCCrDCt. atHCr, VaHttCH_H_HttHCCCmQCXtyaHO
UC tH tCrm H a C tHaH CCHtHC CHCC!tHC `tCrar OCCrQtCH
C!VH_ tCm, tHC mCa_C tHatmaKC UQ tHC !C CCHCC. H CD-
CrVatCH HCQ U _VC a QrCVCHa aHVCr tC a QrCDCm tHat VCXCO
attCC. `NH arC a! DCC_Ca !UHCtCH C OU:CUt tC mCOC:NH t
C OUICUt tC mtatC CmCtHH_ VHCH CCK C mQC:"' LHC QrCV
CHa aHVCr tHat VC CU_Ht tC CCK tC CUr mCOCH_QrCCCC !Cr tHC
`CUrCC C!tHC OUICU|. Hat , tHCrC HC a QrCr rCaCH VH tHC
OHCUty HCUO arC CH !Cm tHC HatUrC C!VH_ tCm, m mtCO
aHa,aCH_VtHVCHCUmaHHCDCrVatCH,U__CttHattmaaC
DCaHCHCCtC!CUrrHCtCrCaC!tVarC. HCCKH_atCUrrHCtCrC,VC CaH
!CCVattCC CXQCrCHCC CCHCCrHH_CCmQUtCrmUatCH. `NHCt
rCatVC Ca tC ma_HC aO HCC ` tHCU_Ht maCHHC tHat V! QCr!Crm
VC-OC!IHCO !UHCtCH, tHC trUCtUrC C!rCamaCHHC aVa CVCVCO
tHrCU_H tHC CHaCH_C tC tHC CHVrCHmCHt tC VHat arC Hta VCr
QCCr OC!IHCO!UHCtCH. HCC CHaCH_C UUa HaVC mCrC tC OC VtH
HCV tHC maCHHC!a tHaH HCVtVCrK."
5C tCC, VaHt tC ar_UC, CaHVCCarH CmCtHH_!rCm tHC !aUrC C!
tHC `mCa_C aHO mCOC C!VH_ tCm, VHat VCH CUmaHH CaCO
`tCrar OCCrQtCH aHO HaVC Ca!CO rHCtCrCa C!tVarC. Hat , tHC
QCrtCHt `CrrCrmCa_C C!UCHrHCtCrC, mCa_C mCt Ca CCH H
tHC!CrmC!tHCCHCKCH/C__aQCra,HCUOCaOUtCrCtHHKCUrrHCtCr-
Ca mCOC C!VH_ tCm, tHC HarratVC aHO trCQC VtH VHCH VC
OCCrDC tHC CDjCCt C!DCC_y. 5UCH!aUrCrCmHOUC!tHC mQCrtaHCC
C! UCH `traHCrQtCH H tHC CCHt!IC QrCCC, DCtH H t rCC a a
`mQ]H_a_CHtaHOHtHC UDCQUCHt CCHtrUCtCHC!CCHtUCmCO
C aHO KHCVCO_C DaCO CH UCHmQ!ICatCH. LHC mUt atCat rCC-
C_HZCaHO CVCH !CrC_rCUHO tHatrHCtCrCaC!tVarC CQCratC H OCCrQ-
tCH, a DCtH mQ!]H_ aHO CCmQCatH_ tCC C!CCHtHC rCCarCH."
HC QUCtCH C!VHCH mQHCatCH tC CHaCt aHOVHCH tC _HCrC CaH
HCVCr DC `CttCO, tHat VCUO rCQUrC a traHCCHOCHta QCtCH !rCm
VHCH tCjUO_C UCH !Cr_CttH_ tHat CUr CmDCOOCOHC H tHC HCtVCrK
rCHOCrmQCDC.
H QCtCH CaH DC a_HCOVtH CHHa araVa HCtCH C!`tU-
atCOKHCVCO_C, VHCrC `CDjCCtVtytUrHCUttCDCaDCUtQartCUaraHO
QCCHC CmDCOmCHt. . . . LH Qarta QCrQCCtVC QrCmC CDjCCtVC
VCH." ^ aCCCUHt, HCVCVCr, CCK tC H_H_Ht HCt tHC `CCatCH C!
106 Alergies of Reading
CUr KHCV!CO_C C!DIC!C_ICa! sstCms`VHC sQCaKs, UHOCr VHat CCHOI-
tICHs,VItHVHatIHstrUmCHts:DUtratHCrtCUHOCrsCCrCtHC dislocation at
Q!aIHatCCHHCsCICHtIHCaCCCUHts,tHC rCsIstaHCC C!sCICHtIHCQraCtICCstC
tHC mCOCs C!OCsCrIQtICHtHat VC CmQ!C. araVas aCCCUHt C!a QartIa!
VIsICH, VHI!CHC!Q!U!IHItsIHsIstCHCCCHaH CDjCCtIVIttHatIsHCttraHsCCH-
OCHta!, Is ItsC!!HIHOCrCO D a traHsCCHOCHta! _CstUrC. !Cr `tC DC sCmC-
VHCrCIHQartICU!ar, as araVa OCmaHOs, Is tCDCarrCstCO,QaraOCXICa!,
CUtsIOC C!sQaCCaHOtImC IH amaHHCrtHatIC!OssUCHarCHCCtICH Cr CVCH
rC!raCtICH C!a `!CCatCO aCCCUHt C!sCICHtIHC KHCV!CO_C. ^ HCQC Is tC
CCHtrIDUtC tC araVas attCmQt tC CCHCCQtUa!IZC CDjCCtIVIt D HI_H-
!I_HtIH_ tHC !aCttHatsUCH`!CCatICHIsa!Vas aHO CH! arCtrCaCtIVC CHCCt
C!a HCtVCrK C!rHCtCrICs, QraCtICCs, aHO matCrIa!ItICs, a HCtVCrK HCt
HCCCssarI! aVa\!aD!C tC sC!!-rCHCCtICHCrCVCH `sItUatICH.`'
CrCjUOItH1Ut!Cr, rCVCrKIH_ CrrIOas VCrKCHQCr!CrmatIVIty, C!-
!Crs Us tCC!s !Cr tHIHKIH_ aDCUt sCICHtIHC QraCtICC as a sCt C! ItCratIVC
QraCtICCs tHrCU_H VHICH DCtH tHC KHCV!CO_Cs C! tHC sUDjCCt aHO tHC
sUDjCCt HCrsC!! CmCr_Cs. CCatICH, CH tHIs VICV, ratHCr tHaH a QCsItICH
!rCmVHICHKHCV!CO_CIsCCHstrUCtCO,artICU!atCO, CrCDsCrVCO,IsItsC!!aH
CHCCt C! tHC ItCratIVC QraCtICCs C!tCCHHCsCICHCC, QraCtICCs tHat IHC!UOC
tHC HarratICH C!!CCatICH, CVCH I!tHat !CCatICH DC tHC _CO-trICK C!`HC-
VHCrC aHOCVCrVHCrC.`' CCatICH, IHtHCsCHsC artICU!atCODaraVa,
CmCr_CsVItHIHtHCVCrCQCratICHs C!tCCHHCsCICHCCtHatIt Is IHtCHOCOtC
_rCUHO. 1s sUCH, !CCatICH ÌtsC!! CaHHCtDC !CCatCO, sUCH amCVCVCU!O
rCQUIrC rCCCUrsC tC a Q!aCC Cr mCmCHt CUtsIOC C!tHC CH_CIH_ QraCtICCs
tHatCU!tIVatC sUDjCCts aHOtHCIrsCICHtI!ICKHCV!CO_Cs.`
HUs, ratHCr tHaH!CCatIH_tHC HarratIVCs tHat arC OCQ!CCO IH tHC!I!C
sCICHCCs IH tCrms C!tHC sUDjCCt QCsItICHs Cr CCrQCrCa!ItICs C!tHCsC HU-
maHs tHat rCHOCr tHCm, VaHt tCHI_HI_HttHC CCHtrIDUtICH C!tHC HCH-
HUmaH aCtaHts, tHCsC UH!CCataD!C aHO OIs!CCatIH_ aICs C!sCICHtI!IC QraC-
tICCs. 1HCmQHasIsCHrHCtCrICa!sC!tVarCs Is C!aQICCCVItHtHIs.NHI!CIt
rIsKs tCXtUa! OCtCrmIHIsm tC HI_H!I_Ht tHC rC!C C! UHsQCKCH aHO CVCH
UHKHCVHOIsCUrsIVCQraCtICCsIHtHC CU!tIVatICHC!sCICHtI!ICKHCV!CO_Cs,
HaVC trICOtC CmQHasIZC tHC Vas IH VHICHrHCtCrICa! sC!tVarCs CHaVC
CHCCts tC tHC CXtCHt tHat tHC arC HCtVCrKCO. HOCCO, IH sCmC sCHsC
rHCtCrICa!sC!tVarCs arCHCtHIH_DUt CCHHCCtICH.``
NHat _CVCrHs tHC OCQ!CmCHt C!sUCH rHCtCrICa! sC!tVarCs: 5UsaH
Lama, IHHCraHa!sIs C!tHC HCtICH C!`CCHtIH_CHC asItIs UHOCrstCCO
IH aCCCUHts C!OCVC!CQmCHta! DIC!C_, !CCUsCs CH tHC mar_IHaIZatICH C!
`CCHtIH_CHC IH OCsCrIQtICHs C!OCVC!CQmCHta sstCms. H `HC 1CCI-
OCHta LHCrOatC, Lamaar_UCs `!Cra HCtICH C!OCVC!CQmCHt IHVHICH
CCHIIH_CHCIsCCHtraaHOCCHstItUtIVC, HCtmCrC!sCCCHOarC!aDCratICH
C!mCrC !UHOamCHta!, `QrC_rammCO !Crms." Lamas ar_UmCHt DrI-
IaHt!CCatCs a CCHHatICHDCtVCCH CQIstCmC!C_ICa! aHO CHtC!C_ICa! CCH-
tIH_CHC, a CCHHatICH tHat aDCts tHC QrCjCCt C!rCHOCrIH_ CCHtIH_CHC
QCrIQHCra! tC OCVC!CQmCHt. HUs Lamas aHa!sIs Is a CasC stUO IH tHC
QCVCr C!a IHCtCrICa! !CrmU!atICH`CCHtIH_CHCtC IHHCCt CUrmCO-
C!s C!!IVIH_sstCms.1Ut Lama a!sC CXtCHOstHIsHCtICHC!CCHtIH_CHC
tC tHCCrIZIH_ÌtsC!!.
If theorizing about contingency is itself contingent in the ways I have sug
gested . . . it is equally important to recognize the "choices" we have already
made, however unreflectively or tacidy. Indeed, it is essential to articulate them
and own them, or even, on second thought, once we have looked at them closely
and related them to our other beliefs and concerns, to put them aside and make
better ones. Taking some factor for granted or including it in a ceteris paribus
clause doesn't mean it plays no formative role, or that it will always be there,
something we realize with growing alarm as developmental, social, and ecologi
cal systems go awry, forcing closer attention to those "background" conditions
that account for both the robustness and the vulnerability of developmental
systems. 55
CrC VCU!O !IKC tC CXtCHO tHIs HCtICH C!CCHtIH_CHC tC Lamas
tHCU_Hts aDCUt tHCCrIZIH_. atHCr tHaH DCIH_ sUQQ!CmCHta! !aCtCrs tHat
CHC CaH tHCH `CVH, Cr `QUt . . . asIOC, CCHtIH_CHC CXtCHOs tC tHC
OCQ!CmCHtC!aHO rCHCCtICH CHrHCtCrICa! sC!tVarCs sUCH as CCHtIH_CHC.
jUstas CCHtIH_CHCmUstDC sCCH tC DC mCrCtHaHasCCCHOarC!aDCratICH
C!amCrC!UHOamCHta!!CrmIHOCVC!CQmCHta!DIC!C_y, CCHtIH_CHCmUst
DCCastas CCHstItUtIVC, sCmCtImCs, C!sCICHtIHCQraCtICC.`'HOCCO,IHsCmC
sCHsCtHIsIsVHCVCarCassUDjCCts C!sCICHtIICrCsCarCH.DCIH_sIHtHra!tC
a CCHtIH_CHC VC CaHHCt mastCr. HstCaO C!mastCr Cr `CVHCrsHIQ, tHC
attItUOC tCVarO tHCCrIZIH_ aHO rHCtCrICs tHat am sU__CstIH_ HCrC Is aH
`CmQIrICa rCamIH_ arCUHO, a raOICa! CmQIrICIsm tHat CXtCHOs tC tHC
rHCtCrICa!!CrmU!atICHs OCQ!CCOIH sCICHtIHC QraCtICC.'
UtaHCtHCrVa, rHCtCrICa!sC!tVarCs [a!aaraVasmatCrIa!sCmICtIC
aCtCrs) HI_hI_HtHUmaHDCIH_s QartIa!Q!aCCIH tHC CCCHCm CrHCtVCrK
C!OCsCrIQtICH IH tHC !I!C sCICHCCs as VC!! as tHC CCmQ!CXIty C!tHC tasK C!
OCsCrIOIH_ sUCH sstCms. HrCU_H tHC !CHs C! VCH CUmaHHs !C_ICa!
CDsCrVatICH, VC CaH sCC tHattHCItCrar CrrHCtCrICa!OCsCrIQtICH C!!I!C Is
CXtraCrOIHarI!CCmQ!CXaHCtHattHIsCCmQ!CXItyaCCmQ!CXIttHatQCr
HaQs CaH DC sCCH IH VHat HaVC Ca!CO aCr_ICs C!rCaOIH_~Is a sICHt
lOS Alergies of Reading
mCssa_C CrOCsCrIQtICH CCHCCrHIH_!I!C, a QattCrH tHat QCIHts tC tHC QrCs-
CHCC C!CtHCrHarratIVCs aHOHCtVCrKstHat OIsrUQttHC sImQ!C!CCaIZatICH
C!!I!C.`C `!I!C CXIsts, as sUCH, CXtCrICrtC tHC CCCHCm C!OCsCrIQtICH
aHO rCsCarCH, It Is !CrCVCr aHO CCmQ!CX! CmDCOOCO IH a HCtVCrK tHat
CaHHCt DC sImQ! CCmmUHICatCO, DCCaUsC, as attCC QCIHts CUt, sUCH
CCmmUHICatICH OCmaHOsaH aCt C!I_HCraHCC Cr!Cr_CttIH_. aCaH CCm-
mUHICatCs tHIs as VCas CaH DC CXQCCtCO. Ì!C Is CH!CaU_HtUQ IH tHC
smDC!IC QICCC-mCa!, OCCCmQCsCO. HC HUmaH DCIH_ HImsC!!Is IH Qart
CUtsIOC!1!C, HCQartaKCs C!tHC OCatHIHstIHCt. LHtHCrC CaHHC CH_a_CIH
tHC rC_IstCrC!!I!C.`
araOCXICa!, It Is QrCCIsC! CUr Q!aCC IH a `smDC!IC HCtVCrK OC-
sCrIDIH_ !I!C tHat QrCVCHts CUr CCmQ!CtC OCsCrIQtICH C!!I!C. HIs IHaDI!It
tCartICU!atCaCCmQ!CtC OCsCrIQtICHCaHDC tHCU_Ht C!asC!a`QICCCVItH
HUmaHHHItUOC,tHC!ImIts, OCatHs, aOO!Cr_CttIH_s,tHC `CHsVItCHCs tHat
asC CCmQrIsC tHC HUmaH HarratIVC. Hm HCXt CHaQtCr, V1!! !CCKat tHC
Vas IH VHICH VCrKCrs IH artIHCIa! !I!C HaVC attCmQtCO tC CVCrCCmC tHIs
!IHItUOC, tHIs !aCK C!atraHsCCHOCHta!QCsItICH. HIs attCmQt IsIHtCrCstIH_
HCtCH!CrItsCVH!Cr_CttIH_s C!HarratIVIty, a!tHCU_H tHCsC arC tHC sUD-
jCCtC!maHasIs. `1-!I!C asCIustratCstHC !aCttHatVHat HaVC Ca!CO
rHCtCrICasC!tVarCs CCHstItUtCIHVCHtIVC aHOQCVCr!U!mCOC!sC!CCmQ!CX
sstCms, mCOC!s tHat !C!!CV VHat VC CCU!O Ca! tHC `!IH_UIstIC tUrH IH
tHCCrCtICa!DIC!C_y, Crat!Cast aQCstVIta! tUrH tC tHC CCmQUtCr. HIs tUrH
!CCVs L. . NaOOIH_tCHsC!CsIH_VCrOsIHtHCHHa!VC!UmC C!Towards a
Teoretical Biology as VC as attCCs aHasIs C! !aH_Ua_C as `sVItCHCs.
`DasIC sCHtCHCCs IH!aH_Ua_C arC QrC_rammCs, HCt statCmCHts. 1HO ItIs
!aH_Ua_C IH tHIs sCHsCHCt as a mCrC VCHIC!C C!VaCUCUs IH!CrmatICH
tHat sU__CstmaDCCCmCaQaraOI_m!CratHCCrC!LCHCra!1IC!C_y.
60
1t tHC CHO C!CHaQtCr4, sU__CstCOtHatVHatmarKstHC a_C C!VCr!O
sCrIQtUrC Is tHC IOCa tHat !aH_Ua_C sCmCHCV `sQCaKs tHC HUmaH. Cr-
rIOas IHtCrVCHtICHs, as HaVC aUOCO tC tHCm CarICr, sCrVCO tC OCCCHtCr
tHC CatC_Cr C!tHC HUmaH tHrCU_H aQCrsIstCHt stratC_y C!amQ!I]IH_ Cr
HI_HI_HtIH_ tHC atCrIty at VCrK VItHIH HUmaH OIsCCUrsC. HIs _aVC rIsC
tC a QUCstICHIH_ C!tHC QCssIDI!ItICs C!a_CHC aHO sUDjCCtIVIt a!tCr tHC
ÌH_UIstIC tUrH, VHCrC HUmaHs arC sCCH as!aH_Ua_C UsCrsVHC arC HCVCr
IHaQCsItICHtCOCmIHatC!aH_Ua_C. NItH tHC !IH_UIstIC tUrH IHtHCCrCtICa
DIC!C_y, CHC tHat maKCs QCssID!C artI!ICIa! !I!C, VC CVCHtUa sCC aH COO
aHOtHCrCU_H! mCtaQHsICaaQQrCQrIatICHC!tHIs trCQCastHC IOCC!C_ICs
C!sCVCrCI_HtyaHO aUtCHCm tHat HaO CHaraCtCrIZCO `LartCsIaH sUDjCC-
tIVIty_CtOIsQ!aCCOCHtC `QrC_rams.
CHAPTER 6
Emergent Power: Vitality and
Theology in Artifcial Life
* To talk about "another" world than this is quite pointless,
provided that an instinct for slandering, disparaging and
accusing life is not strong within us: in the latter case we
revenge ourselves on life by means of the phantasmagoria
of "another," a "better" life.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Twliht o the Iols
1CHIHO Cr QamC tC tHC tCCHHCsCICHCC C!mCCCUar DICC_y, tHCrC Is a
mCtaQHsICs.tassUmCsmaHmCrQHCC_ICs, aHOCaCHC! mCHaQtCrstHUs
!arHasDCCH,IHQart, aHattCmQttCmaQ CUttHCsCmCtaQHsCstHrCU_HtHC
OCCtICHs aHO sUDstItUtICHs C!mCCCUar DICC_ICa OIsCCUrsC. 1Ut tHIs Is a
CHaQtCr CH tHC VItaIZatICH C!CCmQUtCrs, aHO sC HCrC CHCrmCtaQHsICs
UHOCr CCmQrCssICH. jamCs NatsCH, CCOIsCCVCrCr C!tHC OCUDC HCICa
strUCtUrC C! OCCXrIDCHUcCIC aCIO, sUmmCO It UQ CCHCIsC VHCH HC
VrCtC C!!raHCIs LrICKs mCtIVatICH !Cr rCsCarCH IH tHC I!C sCICHCCs. `C
UHOCrstaHOVHatI!C Is, VC mUstKHCVHCV_CHCs aCt.NHICtHC sCICH-
tIUCsUCCCssCsC!tHIsrCOUCtICHIsta_CrItHmarCUHOCHIaDC,ItsrCmarKaDC
rHCtCrICa aHO CHtCC_ICa ImQaCtstHC ImQICIt UHOCrstaHOIH_s C!VHat
I!C Is~HaVC DCCH CssVCmarKCO. HC CCHHatICH C!VHatI!C Ìs VItH
tHC àCtICH C!a CCH!I_UratICH C!mCCCUCs CCHVCHtICHa rCQrCsCHtCO
DaHaQHaDCtC!`1LLQrCOUCCOaHamCstVU_aHItCratraHsatICH
C! jaCQUCs CrrIOas !amCUs rCmarK, "I n'y a pas hors du texte.
"
ItCra,
tHC rHCtCrIC C! mCCCUar DICC_y ImQICO, tHCrC Is HC CUtsIOC C! tHC
_CHCtIC tCXt. C DCO, HC CHVIrCHmCHt, HC CUtsIOC CCUO tHrCatCH tHC
sCVCrCI_Ht C!1. H tHC !Irst !IVC CHaQtCrs C!tHIs tCXt, HaVC at-
tCmQtCO tC CUtIHC tHC OrastIC aHO OramatIC rHCtCrICa sUDstItUtICHs aHO
OIsQaCCmCHts tHat HaVC aCCCmQaHICO aHO maOC QCssIDC tHIs QCstVIta
mCtaQHsICs. H tHIs CHaQtCr VaHt tC !CCUs CH a mCrC rCCCHt CHCCt Cr
smQtCmC!tHIs CCmatICH C!VItaItaHOtCXtUaty, HamC, artI!ICIaI!C,
Cr`1-I!C.
1 10 Emergent Power
H aH Cra VHCH DCC_ys HCV rCa_CHt s H!CrmatCH, tHC rHCtCrCa,
CCHCCQtUa! mCVC UCm tHC HCtCH tHat !C s a `tCXt tC tHC OCa tHat
`H!CrmatCH CaHDC `!!C s asHCrtCHC, DUtts amCVC VCUOKCtC
traCCVtHsCmC CarC HCrC. HC HCtCH tHat CCU!ar aUtCmata, CCmQUtCr
VrUsCs, Cr rCDCts CCU!O DC saO tC !VC s, C!CCUrsC, CHCCUra_CO D tHC
trCmCHOCUs sQCCO, QCVCr, aHO aVaaD!ty C!QCrsCHa! CCmQUtCrs. 1Ut,
V! ar_UC, tHC `QCVCr C!QCVCrlU CCmQUtCrs OCCs HCtsmQ!rCsOC H
tHCr C!CCK sQCCOs Cr tHCr mCmCr, ratHCr, tHC rC CH tHCr rHCtCrCa
sC!tVarC, tHC trCQCs tHat maKCQaUsD!C tHC tCCHHCa! mQCssDC Cam
tHat artHCa! !C CrCatUrCs `!VC. ^QCHt HCrC s HCt tC OCDUHK1-!!C,
ratHCr, amtCUsC1-!CasaHCXHDtC!tHCCCHtCmQCrarrCCCHCCQtUa-
ZatCH C! !C aHO as a CasC stUO !Cr tHC matCra mQCrtaHCC C! tHC
rHCtCrC C!sCCHCC, tHC s!OH_s_H!ICrs sUCH as `H!CrmatCH aHO `!C
tHatmaKCQCssDCDCtHtHCsCCHtHCaHOÒCCC_Ca CHCCtsC!rCsCarCH.
HrCU_HaHaHa!ssC!tHsrHCtCrC, VsU__CsttHatVHatCmCr_Cs!rCm
1-!CsHCtCH!!!CDUtasC atraCC CraC_CrC!QCVCr.
HHVCKH_QCVCrHCrC, !C!!CV!CUCaUtsar_UmCHtsCCHCCrHH_tHC
QrCOUCtVt C!QCVCr. atHCr tHaH CDstrUCtH_ KHCVCO_C Cr OsaD!H_
sCCHtHC tHCU_Ht, QCVCr CH tHs aCCCUHt CHaD!Cs KHCV!CO_C QraCtCCs,
maKCs tHCm QCssD!C. !CUCaU!ts CVH QrC]CCt Vas CCHCCrHCO VtH tHC
HstCrCtyC! QCVCr, asHHsCCsCrQtCHC!tHCsH!t!rCmtHCDrUta!ty aHO
sCVCrC_HtC!tHCsCaHC!OtCtHC `HUmaHty aHO`sCCHtHCt atQaH
tHC HCrma!ZH_ OsCCUrsCs C!CrmHCC_ aHO QsCHatr, QraCtCCs tHat
m8dC tQaUsD!C tC OC!IHC tHC `CrmHa!. HmaCCCUHt, VattCmQt
tC Oa_ram tHC QraCtCCs aHO taCtCs [VHat !CUCaUt Has OUDDCO a `tCCH
HC!C_Ca! CHsCmD!C) tHatmaKC Q!aUsD!C artHCa !!Cs Cam tC OCtCr-
mHC tHC `!Crma QrCQCrtCs C!VH_ sstCms H tHC UnKC arCHa C!
CCmQUtCrsCCHCCaHOrCDCtCs. HCtCrCa!sC!tVarCsQ!a aCrUCataCtCa
rCC H tHs rC_mC C!QCVCr, as t s tHrCU_H rHCtCrCs tHat tHC UHCaHH
CCHHCCtCHDCtVCCHtHC maCHHC aHOtHC Cr_aHsms Hsta!CO aHOmaH-
a_CO. sQCrsCO !rCm tHC UHt C! tHC Cr_aHsm, !C _Cts HCtVCrKCO,
CCatCO,aHOartCU!atCOtHrCU_HaCCDQUtCrsCrCCH.
Artifi cial Life and Its Rhetorical Substrates
One aspect of organic life that is lacking in Artificial Life is history.
-Tom Ry, artificial life researcher
1-!!C, H ts QrCsCHt !Crm, CmCr_CO !rCm a CCH!CrCHCC HC!O H 5aHta !C,
CV^CXCC,H 1987. 1 1 sHtHCtCmCmCHtHtHCHstCr C!sCCHCC, t
Emergent Power I I I
Vas a sC!-CCHsCICUs attCmQt tC Crsta!!IZC aHO CataZC VCrK CH VHat
LHrIstCQHCr aH_tCH, Cr_aHIZCr C!tHC CCH!CrCHCC, VCU!O Ca! tHC `Cs-
sCHCC C!artIHCIa!I!C.1HCCmQassIH_OIsCUssICHs C!CCmQUtCrsImU!atICH
aHO DIC!C_ICa mCCC!IH_, CrI_IH[s) C! !I!C, CVC!UtICHar tHCCr, sC!!-
rCQrCOUCIH_ aUtCmata, aHO tHC HIstCr C!aUtCmata aHO artIDCIa! Cr_aH-
Isms, tHC CCH!CrCHCC CHCrCO OIVCr_CHt mCtHCOC!C_ICs aHO tHCU_Hts CH
tHCIHtCrsCCtICH DCtVCCH !I!C aHO IH!CrmatICH. HtHCQrCCCCOIH_s C!tHC
CCH!CrCHCC, aH_tCHCHCrs amaHI!CstC!Cr1-I!C asaOIsCUrsIVC CCHtCr!Cr
tHCVarICUsVCCtCrs C!rCsCarCH.
Artificial Life is the study of man-made systems that exhibit behaviours charac
teristic of natural living systems. It complements the traditional biological sci
ences concerned with the analysis of living organisms by attempting to synthesize
life-like behaviors within computers and other artificial media. By extending the
empirical founda
t
ion upon which biology is based beyond carbon-chain life that
has evolved on Earth, Artificial Life can contribute to theoretical biology by
locating life-as-we-know-it within the larger picture oflife-as-it-could-be.2
VaHt tCmaKC It CCartHat tHIsHCVCtHCs C!!I!C as `DCHaVICr staHOs
IH starK CCHtrast tC tHC OIsQaCCmCHt C!, !Cr CXamQC, aH Cr_aHIsm D Its
`CCOC-sCrIQt, as IH1rVIH5CHrCOIH_Crs 1 944 OCsCrIQtICHIH Wat Is !
5CtCC OCCsItOIHCr!rCmjaCCDaHO^CHCOsCQCrCHmCOCC!rC_U!atICH,
VHCrCtHCa!!-QCVCr!U_CHCmC `CCHtaIHsHCtCH!asCrICsC!D!UC-QrIHts,
DUtaCC-CrOIHatCOQrC_ramC!QrCtCIHsHtHCsIsaHOtHCmCaHsC!CCHtrC!-
!IH_ItsCXCCUtICH.`HstCaOVCHHOarCtUrHtCtHCa_CHtsC!!I!C.aH_tCHs
OCsCrIQtICH C!1-I!C rC!ICs CH Cr_aHIsms, CH_CIH_QrCjCCtsIHHC_CHtrCQ,
aHC sC!-Cr_aHIZatICH. NHIC !Cr Car [aHO sCmC sUDsCQUCHt) VCrKCrs IH
mCCCUar DICC_ tHC sCCrCt C!!I!C Vas tC DC !CUHO at tHC !CVC! C!tHC
mC!CCUC aHO Its CHCCts, 1-!I!C sCCKs CHCC a_aIH tC OCsCrIDC VHat It Ca!!s
tHC sCCrCt C!I!Cs DCHaVICrsHCCKIH_, sCHCCIH_, aHO sCX. HC !aCt tHat
tHCsC DCHaVICIs CCCUr CsCVHCrC, IH a VIrtUa! sCUQ C!DIC!C_ys HCV rC-
a_CHt, IH!CrmatICH, mUst HCt CDsCUrC tHC !aCt tHat 1-I!C CCU!O IH !aCt
rCHCCt a HCV _Cstat IH tHC sCICHCCs C!!I!C, CHC tHat CmCr_Cs CUt C!tHC
ImQCsICHC!I!C aHOIH!CrmatICH.
HC CtHCrCDVICUs, aHOQCrHaQsmCrCQCCU!Iar, HCtICH tC DC!CUHOIH
JaH_tCHsmaHI!CstCIs tHC IOCatHattHCCrCtICaDIC!C_yIs sCmCHCVHam-
strUH_ D Its IHaDI!It tC ÒCrIVC _CHCra tHCCrICs HCm sIH_!C CXamQCs.
Biology is the scientific study of life-in principle anyway. In practice, biology is
the scientific study of life based on carbon-based chemistry. There is nothing in
its charter that restricts biology to the study of carbon-based life; it is simply that
this is the only kind of life that has been available for study. Thus, theoretical
I 12 Emergent Power
biology has long faced the fundamental obstacle that it is dificult, if not impossi
ble, to derive general theories from singe examples.4
HIs Ca! !Cr a CCDQaratIVC DIC!C_y Is a Ca! !Cr a traHsCCHOCHta! CCD-
QarIsCH, aH CXtCrHa! aHa!sIs C!!I!C !rCD a OIstaHCC, a !I!C CUtsIOC C!Cr
aDCVC !I!C às VC KHCV It. ICtZsCHC, VrItIH_ IH Twilight i the Idols,
OCsCrIDCs aHaHa!C_CUs, strUCtUraQrCD!CDIHtHC `jUO_DCHt C!I!C, CHC
tHatQCIHts tC àHCtHCrrCasCH.
Judgements, value judgements concerning life, for or against, can in the last resort
never be true: they possess value only as symptoms, they come into consider
ation only as symptoms-in themselves such judgements are stupidities. One
must reach out and try to grasp this astonishing finesse, that the value of life
cannot be estimated. Not by a living man, because he is a party to the dispute,
indeed its object, and not the judge of it; not by a dead one, for another reason.s
ICtZsCHCsIHQUIrCrIHtC!I!C!CCUsCsCHQUItC aOIHCrCHtIssUC, C!CCUrsC
tHC value C!!I!CDUtHIsIHI_HtIHtCtHCQrCD!CDC!aCHICVIH_atraHsCCH-
OCHta! QCsItICH !rCDVHICH tCjUO_C Cr stUO!I!C rCDaIHs. NHat VCU!O
sCCDtCDCaHtHIH_DUtaQCIHt rCQUIrIH_HHCssCtHC OIa!CCtICa! CQQCsI-
tICH C!!I!C aHO OCatHDUst DC HHCssCO tHrCU_H tHC rHCtCrICa! Q!aCC C!
àHCtHCrrCasCH. HIs CtHCrrCasCHIs tHC !IDIt C!rCasCH, rCasCHs CtHCr,
IHsC!ar as ItDarKs a strUCtUra! !IDIt CH tHIHK!H_ aDCUt aHOjUO_IH_ !I!C.'
!CraH_tCH, tCC, tHC CssCHCC C!!I!C Is CCCU!tCO, HIOOCHD CUr statUs
as tCrrCstrIa!, CarDCH-DasCO HCsta_Cs. 5C tCC VCU!O HC sCCD tC DC !C!t
VItHCUt aH a QrICrI OC!:HItICH C!!I!C tHat VCU!O _UIOC HIs stUO. `Ct
aH_tCHsCCs aVa CUt C!tHIs IDQassC, aHO Its VIrtUa! OCCrCrmCOIUDIs
tHC CCDQUtCr. CCs aH_tCH, arDCO HCt VItH ICtZsCHCs HaDDCr DUt
VItHsI!ICCH, CVCrCCDC tHC IDQassC, CrsHCU!O HCDC sCCH as CHCC!ICtZ-
sCHCs sDQtCDs: C HHO CUr aHsVCr, VI! !CCK Hrst tC tHC rHCtCrICa
QatHaH_tCHtaKCs IHtHIsrCtUrHtC tHC Cr_aHIsDIH tHC a_C C!tHC DC!C-
CU!C. VI!tHCH sQCCU!atC, IHtHCDaHHCrC!aHCrI_IH-C!-I!CCCsDC!C_Ist,
CHtHC aCCIOCHta!CrI_IH C!artI!:CIa!I!C.
aH_tCH taKCs tHC rCUtC C!artIHCIa!I!C, tHC `sHtCsIs C!Cr_aHIsDs,
VItHtHCHC!Q C!rHCtCrICa!QrCCUrsCrs aHO sCDC HCVtCCHHC!C_ICs. 1C!UC
tC sCDC C!1-!I!Cs rHCtCrICa! OCDts CaH DC !CUHO IH tHC CQI_raQH tC tHC
!:rst VC!UDC C!tHC I987 CCH!CrCHCC QrCCCCOIH_s, a QUCtatICH !rCD tHC
rCDarKaD!C QC!DatH L. . NaOOIH_tCH. `t Has a!Vas DCCH C!Car tHat
VCVCrCHCtsCOCCQ!IHtCrCstCOIHtHC tHCCrC!aHQartICU!arDIC!C_ICa
QHCHCDCHCH!CrIts CVHsaKC, DUtDaIH! IH sC!ar as ItHC!Qs tC a _rCatCr
CCDQrCHCHsICH C!tHC _CHCra! CHaraCtCr C!tHC QrCCCssCstHat _C IH !IVIH_
Emergent Power I 1 3
as CCHtrastCOVtH HCH-VH_sstCms.' Hs `_CHCra CHaraCtCr, tHCH, s
tHC HQUr HtC tHCsC QUa!tCs aHO QrCCCssCs sHarCO D a!VH_ tHH_s.
^CHC!CUCaUt,VrtH_H Te Order qTings, CHaraCtCrZCOtHsHCtCH
C!tHC UHty C!!!C as a DrCaK !rCm tHC CassCa! CmQHass CH taXCHCm, a
mCVC tCVarO tHC UHOCt!H_ UHt C!tHC mCOCrH HCtCH C!!!C. H tHC
mCOCrH CCmQarsCHC!VH_DCH_s,
The diferences proliferate on the surface, but deep down they fade, merge, and
mingle, as they approach the great, mysterious invisible focal unity, from which
the multiple seems to derive . . . . Life is no longer that which can be distin
guished in a more or less certain fashion from the mechanical; it is that in which
althe possible distinctions between living beings have their basis.8
HCtCrCa aHO sCCHtHCa, tHC OCsCrQtCH C!!C CHaH_COH tHC
HHCtCCHtH CCHtUr. 5QCCHCa, !!C DCCamC aH HVsDC UHty, a CCH-
CCaCOCCHHCCtCH,VHat!CUCaU!tCa!!CO`tHCsHtHCtC HCtCH C!!!C, aH
CDjCCt!CrsCCHtHC HQUr. ts tHs HCtCH, !CUCaU!t C!amCO, tHatmaOC
DCC_ QCssDC H tHat t UH!ICO tHC OVCrst C!!VIH_ DCH_s HtC aH
CDjCCt C! KHCVCO_C aHO HCt jUst aH CDjCCt amCH_ CtHCrs, sUDjCCt tC
CassHCatICHD tHC HatUra! HstCraHVHC `s tHCmaHCCHCCrHCOVtHtHC
strUCtUrC C!tHC VsDC VCt!O aHO ts OCHCmIHatCH aCCCrOH_ tC CHaraC-
tCrs. Ct VtH !!C. 1CC_ys QrCjCCt Vas, H sCmC sCHsC, tC maKC tHC
HVsDt C!!!CVsDC Crat!CastartCUaD!C.
HUs, tHCDC!C_sts tHC CHC !CrVHCm!!C s aHssUC. !ar!rCm sC!-
CVOCHt, tHCHVsD!CUHtC!!!C DCCCmCs,DtHCmIO-tVCHtCtHCCHtUr,
CmDCOOCOH tHC rHCtCrC C!sCCrCts, CCOCs, aHO QrC_rams. !CrNaOOH_
tCH, VHCsC Towards a Teoretical Biology sCU_Ht tHC ÙHOCrH_HatUrC C!
VH_sstCDs, `DasCsCHtCHCCsHaH_Ua_CsarCQrC_rammCs. . . . 1HOt
s!aH_Ua_C HtHs sCHsCHCt as amCrCVCHCC C!VaCUCUsH!CrmatCH
tHat sU__Cst ma DCCCmC a QaraO_m !Cr tHC tHCCr C!LCHCra 1C!-
C_y.'`HsOUa!artCUatCHC!!CaHO!aH_Ua_CasQrC_rams!UC!CO [!Cr
NaOOH_tCH) DCamLHCmsKstHCCrCsC!aH_Ua_CmaKCsQaUsDC
tHC aHaC_y DCtVCCH 1 aHO a CCmQUtCr QrC_ram. NHat HaVC
CUtHCOQrCVCUs!H tHs DCCKas `tHCa_C C!VCHO sCrQtUrC, amCmCHt
H VHCH tHC VCrOaQQCars aVaaD!C H ts CHtrCt as a CCOC, s a CrUCa!
QrCUHOCrstaHOH_!CrtHC!H_UstCrC!CrmUatCHC!tHC_CHCraQaraO_m
C!DC!C_. HUs, tsHCsUrQrsCVHCHVCrCaO`LHtHC 5CatC!tHC5CU
H tHC sCCCHO VCUmC C! Towards a Teoretical Biology, VHCrC CCmQUtCr
sCCHtst LHrIstCQHCr CH_UCt-__Hs CQCHs UQ tHC QUCstCH C! CCm-
QUtCrsaHOVtat. `LCmQUtH_sCCHtstsa_rCCtHattHCOCaVHCHmaOC
I 14 Emergent Power
tHCr VHC!C sUDjCCtQCssDCVas tHat C!tHCstCrCOQrC_ram. NC,tsCCms
tHat HatUrC maOC tHs OsCCVCr aDCUt 1 ,000 m!!CH Cars a_C.' HC
CCmmCH rHCtCrC C! tHC `QrC_ram CCmmCH tC DCtH Car mC!CCUar
DCC_y aHO CCmQUtCr sCCHCC maOC QaUsDC tHC HCtCH tHat CCmQUtCrs
CCU!ODC à!VC. Hs HCtCH C!tHC QrC_ram, C!CCUrsC, CaHDCtraCCO tC
tHC `taQC C!UrH_s maCHHCs. 1s a UHVCrsa! maCHHC, a UrH_ ma
CHHC CCU!O tHCCrCtCa ÒC CVCrtHH_ . . . CHC QartCUar maCHHC
CCU!O smUatC tHC VCrK OCHC D aH maCHHC.'` NtH NatsCH aHO
LrCKs mCOC! C! tHC OCUD!C HCX, `CHC CaH HCV QCHt tC aH aCtUa
QrC_ramtaQC H tHC HCartC!tHC CC!, HamCtHC1mCCCUC.'"
NC saV CatCr tHat VtH tHC rsC C!DCC_y, !C s HC !CH_Cr sCCH
as CQQCsCOtC tHCmCCHaHCa!.1!tCrCrDCrtNCHCrs Cybernetics trCatCO
DCtHtHC maCHHC aHO tHC aHma! as CCCHCmCs C!CCHtrC, tHC `taQC Cr
`QrC_ram CaH DC sCCH tC OrVC DCtH CCmQUtatCH aHO !!C. CH_UCt-
__Hs, H `LHtHC 5Cat C!tHC 5CU!, VrtCs,
Are you suggesting, then, that life is just programmed activity, in the computer
scientists' sense of "program"? because if so, you will find yourself driven into
saying that a computer is alive-at least when it is executing a program, and that
strikes me as mildly crazy? . . . Fair enough. But I wouldn't put it past computing
scientists to construct a machine which we would have to treat as ifit were alive,
whatever our metaphysical objections to doing SO.
15
Hs rCtCCHCC, tHC HCtCH C!a CCmQUtCrs Vta!t as `mO CraZ,
aHO tHC !ICtCHa, Oa!C_Ca styC C! `LHtHC 5Cat C!tHC 5CU marK tHC
rHCtCrC C! CCmQUtatCHa Vta!ty as sQCCU!atVC aHO tHCCrCtCa!. Hs
sQCCU!atCH, HCVCVCr, s HCt !rCC-HCatH_!aHtas, t s a OrCam _rCUHOCO
H tHC HstCr C!aUtCmata aHO!C, a OrCam DasCO CH tHC sCCHtHC OCsrC
tC `KHCVVHat!C s. CtC, !CrCXamQC, tHat!CrCH_UCt-__Hs, tHC
CCmQUtCrVCs as aHHOVOUa!, CmDCOCOCr_aHsm, CHCtHatrCQUrCstHC
aHmatCHC!HarOVarC DsC!tVarC. Hs CaHDC sCCH tCDC C!aQCCCVtH
tHC LartCsaH tHCCr C!aUtCmata, H VHCH tHC aHma!s DCO s aH aU-
tCmatCHssHC àHmatCO DtHC sCU!. 5CtCCVtHtHC _rCataUtCmataC!
HstCrmCOCVa C!CCK `jaCKs VHrCOVtH tHC HVsDC !CrCC C!tmC,
àUCaHsCHs OUCKatCtCsUstaHtHC `stCHCH C!tsDCO, aHOsmartDCmDs
arC CmDCOCO CHaQ!at!CrmC!CamCra, mssC, aHO_UOaHCC tCCHHC!C_y,
tHCr OCHtt CCHsttUtCC D tHCr tar_Ct. 1 CCHtrast, tHC `DCO C!
artHCa!Cs C!tCHHCtHH_mCrC tHaHaQXC, a HasH C!s_Ha HCt UHKC
aQCrtCHC!tHCVHtC HCsCVC sCCVtHtHCmQaCtC!a smartDCmD.
CsCarCHCrsCHrPt!aHaHO^CsHCCQQC, H `HCLCUar LCm-
Emergent Power I I S
QUtCr/. rC_ram Crata:, rCCCHt CrItIQUCO tHC rHCtCrIC C!1
as `QrC_ram. HCQCIHtCUttHatVHI!CItIs trUC tHattHC _CHCtIC CCOC
tHC !CUr DasCs C!1 mC!CCU!CsaHO sCmC C!Its CXQrCssICH Is VC
UHOCrstCCO, sImI!ar C!aIms CaHHCt DC maOC !Cr tHC rC!atICH C!1 aHO
CC!_rCVtH aHOOIHCrCHtIatICH.
Therefore, the idea of a computer program written in the DNA and controlling
the sequence of events which characterizes cell growth and diferentiation is
more a metaphor than a result of a detailed analysis of DNA structures as carriers
of a real programming language. No real computer-like program organized ac
cording to syntactic and semantic rules can be identified.1
6
1taH aHO CQQC!s rCsCarCH UHOCrsCCrCs tHC QCVCr C!rHCtCrICa! _rIOs
UsCO tC artICU!atC aHO Cr_aHIZC sCICHtIHC rCsCarCH. LH tHC CHC HaHO, tHC
QrC_rammCtaQHCr, aHOmCrC _CHCra! tHC HCtICH tHat1IsIH!Crma-
tICH, CrstaIZCO aHO/Cr !ramCO rCsCarCH CH CVCrtHIH_ UCm rC_U!atICH
tC OCVC!CQmCHt, as IH tHC VCrK C! jaCCD aHO^CHCOOIsCUssCOIH CHaQtCr
4. `HC OIsCCVCr C!rC_U!atCr aHO CQCratCr _CHCs, aHO C!rCQtCssIVC rC_-
U!atICH C!tHCaCtIVItC!strUCtUra!_CHCs,rCVCa!stHattHC _CHCmC CCHtaIHs
HCt CH a sCrICs C!D!UC-QrIHts, DUt a CC-CrOIHatCO QrC_ram C!QrCtCIH
sHtDCsIs aHO tHC mCaHs C! CCHtrC!IH_ Its CXCCUtICH.'' LH tHC CtHCr
HaHO, tHC HCtICH C! a QrC_ram !CrC_rCUHOCO tHC ImmaHCHt QCVCr C!
1, rCIH!CrCIH_ Its statUs as `âstCr ^C!CCU!C VHI!C CCC!UOIH_ tHC
CCmQ!CXItICs C!OCVC!CQmCHtaHO_rCVtH. 1taH aHOCQQC!ar_UC tHatIt
Is tHC mCtaQHCr C!1 as QrC_ram tHat Has CHCCUra_CO a rCOUCtICHIst
HCtICH C!DIC!C_ICa! !UHCtICH, a QaraOI_m tHat Has maOC Q!aUsID!C tHC
HUmaH _CHCmC QrC_rams. !CrtHCm, tHC mCtaQHCr C!1 as QrC_ram
masKs a!aCKC!UHOCrstaHOIH_.
Nevertheless this lack of a theoretical famework has not prevented the pro
posal of a research program to sequence the DNA of a whole human genome as a
kind of ultimate goal in understanding human nature . . . . Implicit in this pro
posal is a literal understanding of the genetic program metaphor, looking at the
sequence of al the DNA base pairs of a genome as the listing of a computer
program.18
L!CCUrsC, sCICHtIHC OIsCCUrsC C!tCH OCQ!Cs mCtaQHCrs aHOIma_Cs !rCm
tHCmCstrCCCHt tCCHHC!C_ICs IHItstHCCrICs,aHO1taH aHOCQQC! _C CH
tC OCQ!CmCrC tImC! Qara!!C! CCmQUtCr rHCtCrICs IH tHCIr OIsCUssICH C!
1. 1Ut tHIs DC_s tHC QUCstICH C!VH tHC trCQC C! tHC `taQC Cr
`QrC_ram sCCmCO tC HCV CasI! !rCm HCH!IVIH_ tC !IVIH_ sstCms. H a
I 1 6 Emergent Power
sCHsC, It CaH DC sCCH as IsCmCrQHIC VItH tHC mCtCHmIC OIsQaCCmCHt C!
aH Cr_aHIsmDaCCOC-sCrIQttHat CUt!IHCO Car!ICr. HC HCtICHtHatI!CIs
a sCQUCHCC C!IHstrUCtICHs, ratHCr tHaH QrCOUCCO D tHC IHVCHtICH C!tHC
CCmQUtCr, saCtUa!rHCtCrICa!!!CasIDCDC!CrC tHCVIOCsQrCaOHCtICH C!
tHC CCmQUtCrQrC_ram. HOCCO,VHatmaOC tHC CQUatICHDCtVCCHVItaIt
aHOIH!CrmatICHQCssIDCVasasHI!tHCtjUstIHtHC tCCHHCC_yC!IH!Crma -
tICHDUtIHtHCartICUatICHC!I!C.
HC_aQ rCmaIHs, HCVCVCr, DCtVCCH 5CHrCOIH_Cr, LamCV, aHO jaCCD
aHO^CHCOsartICU!atICHC!I!CastHCCHCCtC!aQrC_ramCHtHCCHCHaHO
aHO tHC CmCr_CHCC C!artIUCIaI!C CH tHC CtHCr. CsQItC tHC assUmQtICH
tHat1Is aQrC_ram, tHC IOCa tHat CCmQUtCrs CaHtHCrC!CrC ÌVC Vas
rCC_atCOtC sCICHCCDCtICH CrmatHCmatICa! sQCCUatICH. HC CCHCUsICH
C!DCst C!tHC mCtaQHCrICa CrCssCVCrs DCtVCCHmaCHIHCsaHO Cr_aHIsms
Vas tHat Cr_aHIsms VCrC maCHIHCs, HCt tHat maCHIHCs VCrC Cr_aHIsms. '
1VCH LaUOC 5HaHHCH, aUtHCr C!The Mathematical Theory i Communica
tion, VarHCO IH Ja_aIHst CXa__CratIH_ tHC aQQICatICH C!IH!CrmatICH
tHCCrtCDICC_y.
I personally believe that many of the concepts of information theory wl prove
usefl in these other fields-and, indeed, some results are already quite promis
ing-but the establishing of such applications is not a trivial matter of translating
words to a new domain, but rather the slow tedious process of hypothesis and
experimental verification. If, for example, the human being acts in some situa
tions like an ideal decoder, this is an experimental and not a mathematical fact,
and as such must be tested under a wide variety of conditions.
20
HUs, CVCH IH tHC HCaO Oas C!CDCrHCtICs, IH VHICH DCtH IVIH_ aHO
HCHIVIH_ sstCms VCrC sCCH tC DC CCCHCmICs C! CCmmUHICatICH aHO
CCHtrC, tHC CCmQarIsCH C!VItaIt aHO IH!CrmatICH QrCCCssIH_ Vas jUst
tHata CCmQarIsCH. L!CCUrsC, as a tHCCrCtICa aHO rHCtCrICa tCC, tHIs
aHaC_yHaO _rCat CHCCt, aHOrCsCarCHCrs as OIVCrsC asNaOOIH_tCH,jaCCD,
aHO 1arDara ^CLIHtCCK al UsCO tHC D_UrC C!tHC CCmQUtCr tC CXQaIH
aHO !ramC tHCIr VCrK. L!CCUrsC, tH:s HCVCr CO tHCm tC VCrK CH sImU-
atCOratHCr tHaH CCHVCHtICHa Cr_aHIsmstHIsHaOtCVaIt!CrjCHHCr-
tCHLCHVas _amC C!Ì!CIHtHC Car! J,Cs.'
LCHVa, a LamDrIO_C matHCmatICIaH, IHVCHtCO tHC _amC C!I!C, a
CC!!Uar aUtCmatCH, IH aH attCmQt tC _CHCratC CCmQCX QattCrHs CUt C!
sImQC rUCs. HCssCHCC, tHC _amC CCHsIsts C!a_rIO, aH ÙH!ImItCOCHCss-
DCarO [!I_. 3) . 1aCH CC!! CH tHC _rIO Has CI_Ht HCI_HDCrs, aHO CaCH
HCI_HDCrsstatC [CmQtyCrCCCUQICO) IsOCtCrmIHCODtHC!C!CVIH_rUCs.
Emergent Power I 17
Fig. 3 . A Life matrix. Adapted from LifeMaker 2. I freeware by Jesse Jones,

1990-
9
4
.
I!a CCL Is CmQt, It stas CmQty UH!Css CXaCU tHrCC C!Its HCI_HDCrs arC
CCCUQICO, IHVHICHCasCItVI DC CCCUQICOIHtHCHCXt_CHCratICH. 1 CC!!
rCmaIHs CCCUQICO as !CH_ as tVC Cr tHrCC C!Its HCI_HDCrs arC CCCUQICO.
HCsC sImQ!C rU!Cs _CVCrHIH_tHC CCCUQatICH CrCVaCUatICH C!CC!sVCrC
traHs!atCO IHtC statCs. CCCUQICO = à!IVC, CmQty = ÒCaO.
CVOIOtHC CC!statCs CCmCtCDCrC_arOCOas à!IVC CrÒCaO: HC
CCHstr
g
IHts C! tCXtUa! artICU!atICH maKC It OIU:CU!t tC OCmCHstratC tHC
UHCaHH mCVCmCHt C!Ì!C CCs, DUt It Is tHC sCCmIH_ aUtCHCm\ aHO
UHQrCCICtaDIIt C!CC! statCs tHat QrCVCKC tHIs VItaIty CHCCt. âtHC
matICIaHar!5I_mUHOsOCsCrIQtICHQCIHtstCtHIs àUtCHCm CHCCt,ItIs
tHCHCtICHtHatsCmCHCVHUmaHsarCsUQCrHUCUs tC tHC _amC.
Li is not a two-person game like chess or checkers; neither is it a one-person
game like patience or solitaire. It is a no-person game. One computer sufices.
Even that is not strictly required, in fact, but it helps to follow the game. The ro
i
e
of human participants is reduced to that of onlo
?
kers. Apart fom watching the
game, one has just to decide fom which position to start. Althe rest proceeds by
itself23
wl rCtUrH tC tHIs C!aIm tHat sCmCHCV I!C aHO artI!ICIa! !I!C CaH DC
sCQaratCO !rCm tHCIr OCsCrIQtICHs aHO CDsCrVatICHs. !Cr HCV, VaHt tC
HCtCa tCHsICH DCtVCCH tHIsOCsCrIQtICHC!aUtCHCmaHOaHCtHCr C!aIm, a
C!aIm tHat 5I_mUHO maKCs !Cr Ì!Cs mCtHCO C!QrCQa_atICH. `H tHC
CaH I,Cs,atatImCVHCHCCmQUtCrVIrUsCsVCrC HCtCtaHaltCCCCm-
mCH Q!a_UC, tHCrC Vas aHCtHCr tyQC C!CQIOCmIC CaUsIH_ a!arm amCH_
CCmQUtCrCVHCrs. t I!C| UsCO tHC HUmaHDraIH as IHtCrmCOIatC HCst."
5I_HIHCaHtHCrCIstHCrCCC_HItICHtHatHUmaHs CCCUQICOaCrUCIa!Q!aCCIH
tHCHCtVCrKC!maCHIHCs aHO CCOCs tHatmaOCI!CQCssID!C. 1s aH ÌHtCr-
mCOIatC HCst, tHC VCrC a HCCCssar C!CmCHt C!I!Cs CCC!C_y. HUs,
VHIC It Is trUC tHat HC IHOIVIOUa! mCVC IH I!C HCCCssItatCs aH HUmaH
aCtICH, tHC _amC ItsC!!rCQUIrCO HUmaH `VCtVarC. 1HO VHIC It Is HC
OCUDt trUC tHat tHC Q!a!U! asQCCts C!I!C VCrC C!a CC_HItIVC KIHO, tHC
HUmaHDraIHstHCmsC!VCsOIOHCtaVCaHUHmCOIatCOaCCCsstCI!C,tHC
I I 8 Emergent Power
rCQUIrCOaCrUCIa!IHtCr!aCCIH CrOCr tC rUHI!C. tHatIs, !aH_Ua_C, rHCtCrI-
Ca!sC!tVarCs, CtHCrHUmaHsVItHVHICHtCOCQ!CtHCsC sC!tVarCs.
5tI!!, OCsQItC tHC QCQUarIty C!I!C, ItVas C!t tCaH_tCH tC!IHK tHC
Car!CHCrts C!NaOOIH_tCHs tHCCrCtICaDIC!C_ _rCUQCVarO attCC,
ÎCHaC!1rDID,aHOCtHCrsVItHtHCHCVHarOVarCaHOsC!tVarCaVaIaD!C
IH 1 987. 1HOCttHIsIHKVas HCt OCtCrmIHCOD tHC CXQCHCHtIaIHCrCasC
IHCCmQUtCrQCVCrtHattCCKQaCCDCtVCCH I ,2tHC!astCCH!CrCHCC CH
tHCCrCtICa DIC!C_yaHO 1 987. atHCr, It Vas tHC tCHUCUs rCsUt C!tHC
IHtCrsCCtICH C!tHC rHCtCrIC C!I!C as IH!CrmatICH, aH aCCIOCHt, aHO sCmC
VIIOHs.
A Vision of A-Life
`5masHIH_IHtC tHC _rCUHO sHCCK aVHCC DUHCH C!HCUrCHs CCsC . . .
Vas IH aHO CUt C!CCHsCICUsHCss VHI!C Vas CH tHC _rCUHO, aHO It Vas
IHtCrCstIH_tC !CC m CCHsCICUsHCss sCrt C!DCCtstraQQIH_ItsC!UQ, _CIH_
CUt, tHCH CCmIH_ DaCK UQ a_aIH.` LHrIs aH_tCH, IH aDIZarrC rCVrItIH_
C!tHC CarUsmtH, DrCKC 3 5 DCHCsIHaHaH__IOCr CrasHaHOCXQCrICHCCO
a VIsICH C!artIHCIa! !I!C. `rCQa_atIH_ IH!CrmatICH strUCtUrCs HCO tHC
sQaCCDCtVCCHCCHsCICUsHCss,DCCtstraQQIH_, aHOtHC VCIO, aHOaH_tCH
or whoever was able to situate Langton: lack of consciousness-found tHCHIOOCH
mCaHIH_C!tHCCmCr_IH_CHIasmUsDCtVCCHIVIH_aHOHCHIVIH_sstCms.
NHat Crysta!!IZCO 1-I!C aHO aCVCO It tC CmCr_C as a OIsCIQIHC, aH Cm-
QIrICa! aHO QraCtICa! sCICHCC, Vas a CCmDIHatICH C! tHrCC VCCtCrs, CHC
CaOIH_!rCma rHCtCrIC tHatCQUatCO!IVIH_aHOHCHIVIH_sstCms [`QrCQ
a_atIH_ IH!CrmatICH) , HCV sCUrCCs C! CHCaQ aHO QCVCr!U! CCmQUtCrs,
aHO a !CUHOIH_ CVCHt rCmIHIsCCHt C!rCI_ICUs, HCt sCICHtIHC, HarratIVCs.
^QCIHtIHIHVCKIH_LHrIsaH_tCHsCrasHIs HCttCIHOU_C IHQCtty
QsCHC!C_y Cr tC trIVIaIZC tHC QaIH tHat HC CXQCrICHCCO. rC!Cr tC It
CH! IH tHC !Crm C!a sC!-OCsCrIQtICHDHIm, a OCsCrIQtICH tHatDHCV
Has taKCH CH HCat! mtHICa! attrIDUtCs IH tHC 1-I!C CCmmUHIty. mCH
tICH ItHCrC IH aH attCmQt tC UHOCrstaHO tHC _CHCsIs C!P-I!CtC !CaVC It
CUt VCUO DC tC CVCr!CCK CHC C!tHC majCr trCQCs mCDIIZCO D 1-!I!C
QartICIQaHts.'
!Cr It Is as a trCQC tHat aH_tCHs CrasH Is IUstratIVC. !aCCO VItH a
HCrrID!CaHOIHartICUaDCCVCHt, aH_tCHCXQ!ICatCstHCCVCHtIHtraHsCCH-
OCHtatCrmstHrCU_Ha CCHsCICUsHCss raOICa CXtCrICrtC tHC CVCHtHC Is
`HImsC! CXQCrICHCIH_. 1CtH IH aHO CUtsIOC C! tHC CVCHt, aH_tCHs
HarratIVC rCICs CH tHC QCssIDI!Ity C! CCC!UOIH_ tHC !aCt tHat `HC Vas
Emergent Power I I9
IHVCVCO. aH_tCH HattatCs tHC CtasH as I!HC VCtC VatCHIH_ sCmC CtHCt,
OCQCIH_sCmC `CtHCttCasCH.
HUs, ItIsHCtjUstaHHattatIVC tCCHHIQUC tHataH_tCHOCQCs~ItIs
CHC tHata!CVs HIm tC OtaV!tUIt!U! CH tHC CXQCtICHCC as aH CtI_IHat
mCmCHt C!1-I!C. HIs taCtIC, VI!at_UC, Is ItCtatCO aCtCss tHC OIsCCUtsC
C!1-!C aHO Is IH !aCt CCHstItUtIVC C!1-I!C as Ì!C. tIs aH CCmCHt C!
VHat1tIaHCtmaHHasCa!!COtHCmCtaCCOCIHtHCCCHtCXtC!asCmCtICs
C!matHCmatICs. NHICCtmaHtC!Cts tC matHCmatICs QtCQCt~tHC saHC-
tICHCOsI_Hs !Ct CCHOUCtIH_ matHCmatICs~as tHC `LCOC, HC at_UCs tHat
sUCH aCCOCCaHCQCtatCQCtsUasIVCCD!tHtCU_HtHCOCQCmCHt C!`tHC
metacde, tHCQCHUmDta C!IH!Ctma, UHtI_CtCUs CCUtICHs VItHIH HatUta
aH_Ua_C IHVCVCOIH taKIH_ aDCUt, tC!CttIH_tC, aHO OIsCUssIH_tHC LCOC
tHat matHCUatICIaHs saHCtICH.' 5ImaH, VCUO IKC tC at_UC tHattHC
OIsCCUtsCC! 1-I!CIs [ItCta!) maOCUQC!CCOC[tHCCCmQUtCtIHsttUCtICHs
Ct tCCIQCs !Ct CCHsttUCtICHs C! tCDCts) aHO a mCtaCCOC [tHC mCaHs C!
QCtsUasIVC CXQICatIH_ 1-I!C QtCjCCts as Ì!C.) H `HC LassICa 1_C
C!1UtCmata,jCaH-LaUOC1CaUHC VtItCs C!tHC ImQCttaHCC C!tHIsKHO
C!mCtaCCOC CttHCtCtICa sC!tVatC!CtaUtCmata.
An automata is not just a machine, it is also the language that makes it possible to
explicate it. At a more general level, the automaton is the language that endows
the people who are meant to know and communicate it with the privileges of
totality which rational man thought he no longer had to confont. It is an
experience devoid of rest, pity, or distance; the limit of technology becomes the
language of the technostructure.28
HsHCtt,
attHCIa I!C~attIHCIa! Ct_aHIsmsmUst DC sCCH HCt CHas a

QtCOUCt C! tHC tCCHHICa IHQUts C!HatOVatC aHO sC!tVatC. atHCt, It Is
HCtVCtKCOVItHtHC mCOCs C!CXQCatICH tHatmaKC ItQCssIDC tC tCCC_-
HIZC 1-I!C as Ì!C, tHCtCtICa sC!tVatCs tHat at tHCmsCVCs HCt CXQICIt
CDjCCts C!1-I!C. NHat maKCs It QCssIDC tC CXQICatC attIHCIa! !C, VHat
maKCs tHC CaIm tHat sHtHCtIC Ct_aHIsms atC IH !aCtaIVC, Cat, HaVC sCX,
aHOsCCH,IsaDCVC a tHCHCtICHtHatIH CssCHCC, Ct_aHIsmsatCsCQUCHCCs,
aHO tHCsC sCQUCHCCs atC sCmCHCV CCmQCtC CXtCtICt tC tHC HUmaH
CCCHCm tHat Has CCIHCIOCO VItH tHCIt tCQICatICH. aH_tCHs CtasHa
CtasH tHat, as VC sHa!! sCC, CaVCs Its ttaCCs CH 1-I!CCaH DC sCCH as aH
CtI_IH stCt C!amCsttCI_ICUsKIHO, a CCmDIHCO CatUs aHOtCsUttCCtICH
mtH, aHCVstCtCttaHsCCHOCHta!ItytCOIHaHCO!Ctm.
1CtH ItCtaL aHO mCtaQHCtICa!, tHC aCCIOCHta _CHCsIs C!artI!ICIa
I!C CaH DC sCCH as Qatt C!a VHat 1aVIO aVCt Has Ca!!CO a CUtUtC C!
120 Emergent Power
`sQaCIHCss, a CUtUrC IH VHICH tHC CXtratCrrCstrIaImQCratIVC rUHs suCH_
aHO OCCQ.NHIC It sCCms HatUra, at tHIs QCIHt IH 1mCrICaH CUtUrC, tC
rCCrCatCDy _CttIH_CHtHC CartH, VCUOsU__CsttHattHCOCsIrCtC aCHICVC
aQCsItICHasatraHsCCHOCHtaCDsCrVCr, tCDC CHtHC CartH, CUtC!tHCDCOj
CrDCCHOtHC IVIH_, HCtVCrKs tC_CtHCraH_tCHs sQCrt, HIs VIsICHs, aHO
HIs VCrK C!CHCICC. 1 CCsCr CCK at DCtH aH_tCHs 1980 tCXt `1rtI!ICIa
I!C aHOtHC OCtaIs C!Its _CHCsIsVIHCsH CUt aHOsUQQCrtmCaIm.
tIsCDVICUs,C!CCUrsC, tHataHaH__IOCrIsatCCHHCC_tHatQrCOUCCs
I!t, amaCHIHCVItHVHICH CHC CaHCaVC tHC CartH, CCKOCVH, aHOCHjC
tHC VICV. t Is, IH tHIs ItCra sCHsC, atraHsCCHOCHtamaCHIHC, aQCasUrC Cr
sQCrt C!CCKIH_ OCVH aHO CVCr. t Is asC CCar tHat aH_tCH, as aH CD-
sCrVCrC!HIsCVHCss aHO aCQUIsItICHC!CCHsCICUsHCss, sCmCHCV, ImQCs-
sID CCCUQICs a sImIar traHsCCHOCHta [Cr at Cast raOICa rCHCXIVC aHO
HarCIssIstIC) QCsItICH. t Is QCrHaQs HCt sC CDVICUs tHat tHC OrIVC DCHIHO
1-I!C,tHCOCsIrCtCstUOatCrHatC, HCHCarDCH-DasCOI!C!Crms, asCtaKCs
a traHsCCHOCHta sHaQC. HC mCtaQHCrs C!1-I!C HCQ attCst tC tHIs. `1r-
tI!ICIaI!C starts attHCDCttCm, VICVIH_aH Cr_aHIsm asaar_CQCQUatICH
C!sImQCmaCHIHCs, aHOVCrKs UQVarOs sHtHCtICa!rCmtHCrC.`'
NHICItVCUO, C!CCUrsC,DCHastytCCCHCUOC!rCmtHIs CCHVCr_CHCC
C!sQatIaaHOsQaCCmCtaQHCrstHat1-I!Cs !CrmamCtaQHCrICastrUCtUrC
maQsCHtCtHCmatCrIastrUCtUrCC!HaH__IOIH_,!UrtHCraHasIsC!aH_-
tCHs tCXt VI a!!CV tHIs rHCtCrICa matrIX tC CmCr_C. HC taKCCH C!
artIHCIa I!C Vas HCQCO aCH_ D a _IOCr. H HIs OIsCUssICH C! CCUar
aUtCmata [L1), aH_tCH sCCs a _IOCr. `âH C! tHCsC CCHH_UratICHs
sCCm tC HaVC a I!C C! tHCIr CVH. CrHaQs tHC sIH_C mCst rCmarKaDC
strUCtUrC Is KHCVH as tHC _IOCr. . . . HC _IOCr Is CHC IHstaHCC C!tHC
_CHCra Cass C! QrCQa_atIH_strUCtUrCsIH L1. HCsCQrCQa_atIH_IH!Crma-
tICH strUCtUrCs arC CHCCtIVC sImQC maCHIHCsVIrtUa maCHIHCs.`' CI-
tHCr a DrIC! _ImQsC HCr a CarC!U stuO C!tHC QattCrH C! tHC `_IOCr
rCVCas tHC CssCHtIa _IOCr mCrQHCC_y C!tHC QattCrH C!QIXCs. HstCaO,
VHat aCVs tHIs `_IOCr aUtCmatCH tC CmCr_C, VHat CXQICatCs It as a
`_OCr, Is tHC rHCtCrICa aHOmCtaQHsICaDaCK_rCUHO C!1-I!C, aDaCK-
_rCUHOCCHstrUCtCOCUtC!, amCH_ CtHCrs, tHC sQatIamCtaQHCrs C!`DCt-
tCm UQ, `CmCr_CHCC, aHO `_IOCrs, mCtaQHCrs tHat sItUatC 1-I!C as a
traHsCCHOCHtaQaCC UCmVHICH tC VICV traOItICHa, CarDCH-DasCO I!C
ICtZsCHCs àHCtHCrI!C a_aIHstVHICHVCCaHCCmQarCCUrCartH CHC.
HC rHCtCrICs aHO _Cstats C! CmCr_CHCC rCsCHatC VItH a `VICV UCm
aDCVC, VHat CHHa araVa Has OUDDCO tHC `_CO trICK, a _aZC UCm
Emergent Power 121
HCVHCrC aHO CVCrVHCrC tHat CHaraCtCrZCs tHC OsCmDCOCO CDjCCtIVIty
C!tCCHHCsCICHCC.
HOCCO, tHC `_OCr mCrQHCC_yVasHCtIHVCHtCODaH_tCHDUtD
ICHarO LU. NCrKIH_VItH LCHVas _amC C!!C, LU CDsCrVCOCHC
CCHU_UratICHC!tHC smQ!C CH/CHCCstHatmCVCO `QUrQCsC!U!!.
When the configurations tumbled of the single Go board, the players would
hastily place sheets of paper on the carpet and draw squares on them to extend the
grid. It was, in fact, on the carpet that Guy found the glider. Once the glider
managed to get away from the main configuration, of course, it headed of the
papers, out of the room, and in theory, out of Cambridge, out of England, out of
everywhere.32
UmDH_ aHO HCt CrasHIH_, tHC CmCr_CHt _!OCr HCats aDCVC `CVCr-
VHCrC, rCaCHH_atraHsCCHOCHtaDCCHO, aH `CtCrHamst.
HIs Is HCt, C!CCUrsC, tC sa tHat tHCmCtaQHCrs tHat HCat arCUHO
1-I!C OCtCrmHC tHC CmQrICa QraCtCC C!1-I!C Cr tHat tHCsC rHCtCrCs
sCmCHCVtUrH aH CmQIrICa!QraCtCC HtC a mCtaQHsCa, traHsCCHOCHta
CHC. atHCr, mCamstHattHCsC rHCtCrICsarCtraCCs C!aVCrQartCU!ar
styC C!traHsCCHOCHtat, CHC tHat sCCKs sCICHCCs traOItCHa!, ÒCtaCHCO
QCstICH CHtHC CartH DUt HCt CUt IH sQaCC. aH_tCH CHCCsCs tHC sIICCH
QatH,HCttHCCXtratCrrCstrIa! CHC, DUt1-I!CHCHCtHCCsssCCKs tCCaVC tHC
CartHDCHIHO, VCrKH_UQVarOs . . .
1ar!Cr, sU__CstCOtHCQrCDCmatCHatUrCC!aH_tCHssC!!-rCHCCtICH,
IHsC!ar as t rCQUIrCO HImtC aDstraCtHmsC!!!rCm HIs CVH CCHsCICUsHCss
tCmCOItatCCHHIsCVHaCKC!CCHsCCUsHCss, aQrCDCmatC traHsCCHOCH-
taQCsItICH. 5Imat!, tHCQrCjCCtC! 1-!C,HItsC_ICa!jUstUCatICH, rCICs
CH tHC VCr traHsCCHOCHta!, mCta!CQCstCHtHattsCCKs. 1-I!C, a!tCral,
arsCsCUtC!tHCOCsrCtCUHOa_CHCratHCCrC!!VIH_,atHCCrtHattaKCs
H tHC!U!VICV C!tHC `_CHCra! QHCHCmCHCH C!!C!CVrt-ar_CaCrCss
alQCssD!C matCrIa!sUDstratCs.``1-I!C sCCKs tC OCrVC tHC !CrmaHatUrC
C!tHC VH_ sstCm, !!Cs a!_CrtHm, D aDstraCtIH_ t !rCm ts matCrIa,
CarDCH-DasCOQrsCH. `!I!C, as aQHsICa!QrCCCss, CCU!O `HaUHt CtHCrQHs-
CamatCrIa.`"CVCrIH_aDCVCtHC sCCHCC C!tHC aCtUas tHC sCCHCC C!
tHCQCssIDC, 1-!Cs CDjCCt`!!C-as-It-CCUO-DC.
1HOCt HCVVCUOVC aUtHCHtCatC a sItH_C!tHs HaUHtH_: LVCH
tHat tHC _CHCtIC QrCDCm C!1-I!C s tHC aCKC!aH aOCQUatC OC!:HItCH C!
!C,VHCHCC CCmCs CUr CrItCra!CrsC!CCtH_tHCQrCQCrCDjCCtsC!artI!:CIa
!C!rCmtHC QrCtCHOCrs: HCaHsVCrs, C!CCUrsC, IHQraCtICC. HCQCr!Cr-
maHCCC! 1-I!C,_VCHtHCaCKC!mmUtaD!C CrItCra!Cr`!!C,rCICsCHts
122 Emergent Power
rHCtCrICa sC!tVarC !CrIts QaUsIDIt aHO Its !asCIHatICH. "A aUtCmata Is
HCtjUstamaCHIHC,ItIsasCtHCaH_Ua_C tHatmaKCsItQCssIDCtC CXQICatC
It. HIs aH_Ua_C, mCtaCCOC, Cr rHCtCrICa sC!tVarC, OCsQItC aH_tCHs
_CaC!HHOIH_tHC `CssCHCC C!I!C,IH!aCtVCrKstCVarOaHCtHCr_Ca, tHC
CVaQCratICH C!tHC OIHCrCHCCDCtVCCHIVIH_aHOHCHIVIH_sstCms. `NC
VCUOIKC tC DUIOmCOCs tHat arC sCI!CIKC tHat tHCVCUO CCasC tC DC
mCOCs C!I!C aHO DCCCmC CXamQCs C!I!C tHCmsCVCs.` H tHC aDsCHCC
C! aH aOCQUatC QrC_IVCH OC!IHItICHs C! I!C, tHC QaUsIDIIt C! 1-I!C
CrCatUrCsrCstsCHtHCIraDI!IttCsImUatCsCmCtHIH_!CrVHICHVCHaVCHC
CrI_IHa, `!CIKC DCHaVICr.`'
HUs,VCCaHsCCaCCHtra, CCHtCrIH_CCHHICtIHtHCrHCtCrC C!artIH-
CIa I!C. LH tHC CHC HaHO, aH_tCH, !C!!CVIH_NaOOIH_tCH, sCCKs atHCC-
rCtICaDasIs !Cra_CHCratHCCr C!I!C. C sCCKs aCCCss tC sCmCtHIH_IKC
tHC ÌHVIsIDC UHIt tHat !C HaO DCCCmC D tHC HIHCtCCHtH CCHtUr, a
QrCCCss aVas aHO CVCrVHCrC tHC samC DUt CCCUtCO. L!CCUrsC, aH_-
tCHs UHIVCrsa I!C HCCO HCt DC CCCUtCO, tHCrC Is HC strUCtUra ImIt tHat
mUst HIOC I!C, as VItH ICtZsCHCs àHCtHCr rCasCH. CVarO tHat CHO,
aH_tCHsCCKsVHatHCCa!!s tHC `CssCHCC C!artIHCIaI!C, tHCmCCHaHIstIC
!Crma DasIs C!a!VIH_sstCms, CarDCH Cr CtHCrVIsC, VHICH `mUstsHarC
CCrtaIHUHIVCrsa!CatUrCs. HOCCO, tHCraIsCHOCtrC C!1-I!CIs asCUrCCC!
I!C DCCHO CarDCH-DasCOI!C, aVICV !rCm aDCVC VHCrC a _CHCra tHCCr
C!I!C CCUODC !CUHO. H tHIs sCHsC,1-I!C Is aHattCmQttC OCtCrmHC tHC
!Crma [I!HCt aCtUa) CrI_IH C!I!C, tHC QCssIDIIt CCHOItICHs !rCmVHICH
aHI!C CCUO CmCr_C. LH tHC CtHCr HaHO, aH_tCHs QUCst !Cr CrCatUrCs
tHatDUrtHCDCUHOarICs DCtVCCHIVIH_aHOHCH!IVIH_ sstCms, sImUatCO
aHO rCa I!C, HI_H!I_Hts tHC QaraOCX tHat1-I!C OCQCHOs IH Its sImUatICHs
CH tHC aDIJItC!CCmQUtCrs tC _CnCratC mCOCs C!I!C VItHCUt aH CrI_IH
CrÌHVIsIDC UHIt. HCarC `sHtHCtIC CrCatICHs, maQs!CrVHICH tHCrC
IsHCtCrrItCr. HatIs, VHatmaKCsQCssIDC tHC sUDstItUtICHC!tHC sI_HsC!
I!C !Cr I!C Is tHC rCQrCOUCIDIt C!Ì!CIKC DCHaVICr, a rCQrCOUCIDI!It
tHat UtImatC QCIHts tC tHC !aCt tHat 1-I!C Cr_aHIsms arC tHCmsCVCs
rCQrCOUCtICHs, sImUatICHs CUt CU!rCm aH `CssCHCC C!I!C. NItH HC
CrI_IH IH VItaIt, HC `QarCHts, tHC CmCr_CHt CrCatUrCs C! 1-I!C HCat
UHattaCHCO tC aH aHtCrICr CssCHCC. HIs ÙHmCCrCO HatUrC C!1-I!C
sImUatICHs tHrCatCHs tHCVCrQrCjCCt C!a UHIHCO aCCCUHt C!I!C as tHC
CCHtIHUatHrCatCH tHC OC!IHItICHaCCHCrCHCCC!Ì!C.
art C!tHCsC sImUatICHstHC Cra!tIH_ C!I!CIKC DCHaVICrarC tHC
rHCtCrICs aHO OCsCrIQtICHs C!tHC 1-I!C QrCjCCt. NItHCUt arHCtCrICa aHO
HIstCrICa tCHOCHC tC mCtaQHCrIZC I!C IH tCrms C!IH!CrmatICH, artI!ICIa
Emergent Power 123
!I!C, asaQraCtICC, VCU!O DCC! HCDCrC IHtCrCst tHaH CtHCr aDstraCt tHCC-
rCtICa!QrCD!CDs C!CCDQUtaDI!It. 1-I!C rCsCarCH, aCH_VItHDaH CtHCr
DraHCHCs C!CCDQUtCrsCICHCC,VCU!ODCrC!OCCCHCCrHCOVItHVHatItIs
QCssID!C tC QrCOUCC VItH a CCDQUtCr, VHat tHC!IDIts C!tHC !UHCtICH C!
CCDQUtCrsDI_Ht DC. HIs IsCr at!Cast CaH DCaVCrOIHCrCHtQrCjCCt
tHaHOCtCrDIHIH_tHC!IDItsC!!I!C. HC_CHCsIsC! 1-!I!CIHaDC__COQUCs-
tICH aHO a CrasDCO _!IOCrarC DCrC tHaHjUst CCH!:rDatICH C!CUr HUHCH
tHattHC CXtrasCICHtIUC sUHUsCs sCICHCC. atHCr, tHC tCXtUa! stratC_ICs aHO
!CUHOIH_ CVCHts C!1-!I!C QCIHt tC tHC UHsQCKCH rHCtCrICa! !raDCs, tHC
!IDIts C!tHC tCCHHCsCICHtI!:C strUCtUrC tHatDaKC1-!I!CQ!aUsID!C.
. Baudrillard and Life's Fatalit
y
`HC a_C C!sIDU!atICHtHUs DC_IHsVItH aIQUIOatICHC!a!! rC!CrCHtIa!s
VCrsC. D tHCIr artHCIa! rCsUrrCCtICH IH sstCDs C! sI_Hs. . . . t Is HC
!CH_CraQUCstICHC!IDItatICH,HCrC!rCOUQICatICH,HCrCVCH C!QarCO. t
IsratHCraQUCstICHC!sUDstItUtIH_sI_HsC!tHCrCa!!CrtHCrCa!ItsC!!.`HC
CDsCCHIty aHO _IOOIHCss VItH VHICH jCaH 1aUOrI!!arO `CHa!!CH_Cs tHC
QUCstICHs C!tHCCr aHO HIstCr sIDU!atCs aH ÌDQ!CsICH C!tHC UHIVCrsC
aHO Its OCsCrIQtICH, aH IDQ!CsICH tHat HC C!aIDs Is a!!C_CrIZCC D sUCH
tCCHHCsCICHtIUC CVCHts as tHC traHsCrIQtICH C!tHC _CHCtIC CCOC aHO tHC
OCtCrrCHCCDaCHIHC C!HUC!CarVCaQCHs. 5QCCIU Ca!1, HCOIa_HCsCsaVCrI-
taD!C OIsaQQCaraHCC C!tHC rCa, a ÒCsCrtC!tHCrCa! VHCrC a tHC OrCaDs
C!OIstIH_UIsHIH_DCtVCCH aUtHCHtIC aHOsIDU!atCOCXQCrICHCC arC IDQCs-
sID!C.NHIC OIsa_rCC VItH1aUOrI!!arOs CDsCCHC! aDsC!UtC VIsICH C!tHC
CXHaUstICH C!aUtHCHtICIty, HIs aHa!sIs C!tHC sDQtCDs C!sIDU!atICHs
CCHHatICH1CtVCCHtHCrCa!aHOItsDCOC!sHC!Qs CXQ!aIHtHCQ!aUsIDI!ItyC!
tHC QraCtICCs C!artIUCIa! I!C. 5QCCIU Ca!, 1aUOrIarOs aHa!sIs C!tHC a_C
C!sIDU!atICH HIstCrICa!! aHO tHCCrCtICa! sItUatCs tHC rHCtCrICa! sQarK
tHatIsIHVCstCOIHCCDQUtCrDCOCs. HtHIs sCCtICH V! CUUIHCtHCVas
IH VHICH VHat 1aUOrI!!arO Ca!!s tHC `QrCCCssICH C!tHC sIDU!aCra QrC-
OUCCs CHC-Ha!! C! tHC CCHtra QrCD!CDatIC C!tHC rHCtCrICa! sC!tVarC C!
artI!ICIa!I!C, tHC KHCt C!CCHtraOICtICH !CrDCOVHCH aH CssCHtIa!IstQrCj-
CCt_Cts IHtCrtVIHCOVItH sIDU!atICH.
1rtIUCIa! !I!C, as HaVC attCDQtCO tC sHCV, Is IH tHC DUsIHCss C!CrC-
atICH, tHC QrCOUCtICH C!DCOC!s tHat QaraOCXICa !aCK aH CrI_IHa!. C
DUHO!CC!traItsCrCHCCtsarCsUU:CICHttCOCDHCtHCÌVIH_. LHCCHCUsCO
IH aH IHVIsID!C UHIt, tHCH a `sCCrCt, !I!C HCV !:HOs ItsC!!VItHCUt aH
aOOrCss. !Cr1aUOrI!!arO, tHC OCUHItICH C!tHCrCa!Is IH a sIDIarQCsItICH.
I24 Emergent Power
`HC VCr OCHHtCH C!tHC rCa DCCCmCs. tHat C!VHCH t s QCssDC tC
_VC aH CQUVaCHt rCQrCOUCtCH.` H CCHtrast tC tHC CassCa tHCCr C!
rCQrCsCHtatCH, H VHCH mCOCs rCHCCt tHC DasCrCa!tyC!HatUrC, Cr tHC
mCOCrHHCtCHC!tHC OstCrtH_CHCCtC!tHC mCOC, tHCa_C C!smUatCH
rCOCHHCs tHC rCa as tHat VHCH CaH DC rCQCatCO. HC VCr OstHCtCH
DCtVCCH tHC UHVCrsC aHO ts OCsCrQtCH OsaQQCars, t s,HCt, as Has !rC-
QUCHtDCCHCamCO, tHattHCrCa HCCH_CrCXsts, atHCU_H1aUOr!!arO
!rCQUCHt sOCs HtC tHs Usa_C. atHCr, tHC rCa disappears, HC CH_Cr
aVa!aDC tC tHC HQUrH__aZC, as t DCCCmCs arCC!C!smUaCra. CtHCr
tHatVHCHQrCVCKCs rCQrCsCHtatCH [CassCa) HCrtHatVHCHrCsstsrCQrC-
sCHtatCH [mCOCrH) , tHC rCaHtHC a_C C!smUatCHs tHatVHCH CaHDC
CCQCO. Hs C_C C!tHC smUaCrUm, tVCUOsCCm, CXtCHOs tC !C, aHO
HCtjUst r/gtt/ !C. 1CCCrOH_tCCHarOaVKHs, asCCCDCC_st aHO
CHC C! tHC Hrst 1-!C CCH!CrCHCC QartCQaHts, à!! !C CVCVCs D tHC
OHCrCHta sUrVVa C! rCQ!CatH_ CHttCs. `taJt tCC, H tHC a_C C!
smUatCH, stHatVHCHCaHDC `XCrCXCO."'
1HOCt aH CHCCt C!XCrCXH_ s tHatVC C!tCH !Cr_Ct tHC Cr_Ha. H
!aCt,1aUOrarO, !C!!CVH_aHO!Cr_CttH_1CH]amH, CamstHattHCCr_-
HaOsaQQCars H tHC CHO!Css QrC!CratCH C!rCQCaHts. CQCatCH asC
aCVs !Cr_Cr, aHOtHUs tHC QrCDCm C!aUtHCHtCty HaUHts tHC rC_mC C!
rCQCatCH.1aUOr!arOOCQCstHCaHaC_yC!a!C_HCOHCsstHatHaUHts
mCOCHC. `!Cr !aHsmQtCm CaH DC `QrCOUCCO, aHO CaH HC CH_Cr DC
aCCCQtCO as a !aCt C! HatUrC, tHCH CVCr HCss ma DC CCHsOCrCO as
smUataDC aHO smUatCO, aHO mCOCHC CsCs ts mCaHH_ sHCC t CD
KHCVs HCV tC trCat `trUC HCssCs DtHCrCDjCCtVC CaUsCs."'
HC rCQrCOUCDt C!`!CKC DCHaVCr aHO tHC UtmatC sUDsttU-
tCHC!tHCs_HsC! !C!Cr!CasCCaOtCaQrCDCm!CrtHCCrCtCaDCC_y
H tHat t CD KHCVs HCV tC stUO `trUC !C. atHCr tHaH aHCHCrH_
DCC_yVtHatraHsCCHOCHta, CCmQaratVC QCrsQCCtVC, tHC smUatCHC!
!C aHHCUHCCs tHC aDsCHCC C!aH Cr_Ha, UH!ICO HCtCH C!!C H CCH-
tCmQCrar DCC_. t aUHCHCs DCC_y HtC tHC a_C C! smUatCH, H
VHCH !C s HCt CH! tHat VHCH CaH DC rCQrCOUCCO, DUt tHat VHCH s
aVas arCaO, QCssD, rCQrCOUCCO.
1HOCt tHCsC artHCa !C CCHstrUCtCHs arC mCOCs C!HCtHH_, HC
tHH_. `tat, as a CCHtCstCO sCrCs C!CHCCts ratHCr tHaH a OCtCrmHatC,
CCaZaDC CssCHCC, s tHC rCsUt HCt C!mmCss DUt C!smUatCH, VHCrC
smUatCH HCCO HCt rC!Cr tC aH staDC Cr_Ha. H 1aUOrarOs tCrms,
`HC rCa s QrCOUCCO !rCm mHatUrsCO UHts, !rCm matrCCs, mCmCr
Emergent Power 125
DaHKs aHO CCmmaHO mCOC!saHO VItH tHCsC It CaH DC rCQrCOUCCO aH
IHOCHHItC HUmDCr C!tImCs. t HC !CH_Cr Has tC DC ratICHa!, sIHCC It Is HC
!CH_Cr mCasUrCO a_aIHst sCmC IOCa! Cr HC_atIVC IHstaHCC. t Is HCtHIH_
mCrC tHaH CQCratICHa!."
1rtI!ICIa!!I!Cs CQCratICHa! rCaIt CrQ!aUsIDI!Ity Is at CHCC CssCHtIast
aHO CCHstrUCtIVIst. 1 tHIs mCaH tHat HC ÌOCa Cr HC_atIVC IHstaHCC
rC!CrCHCCs tHC VItaIt C! aH 1-!I!C CrCatUrC, aHO Ct tHIs rC!CrCHCCa
_CHCra! tHCCr C!tHC !IVIH_Is QrCCIsC! tHC _Ca C!artI!ICIa! !I!C. HIs
QrCOUCCs a !rCHZCO sQIra! C!CXQCrImCHtatICH, QCr!CrmaHCC, aHO OCDatC
arCUHO tHC D!UrrCO!IHCs DCtVCCH !IVIH_ aHO HCH!IVIH_ sstCms. NItHCUt
HarOaHO!ast CrItCrIa !Cr!I!C,1-!I!C taKCsrC!U_CIHVHat1aUOrI!arO Ca!s a
KIHO C!`mI!Itar QsCHC!C_y. `1VCH m!Itar QsCHC!C_y rCtrCats !rCm
tHC LartCsIaH C!arItICs aHO HCsItatCs tC OraV tHC OIstIHCtICH DCtVCCH tHC
trUC aHO!a!sC, DCtVCCHtHC `QrCOUCCO smQtCmaHOtHC aUtHCHtIC smQ-
tCm. `!HC aCts CraZ sC VC!, tHCH HC mUst DC maO. "` 5Im!ar, I!aH
artI!ICIa!!I!C CrCatUrC sImU!atCs !I!C sC VC!!uh/cvcr /h/ my mcntHCH
It mUstDC aIVC. HC `1rtIHCIa! I!C q 5HCV, a OIsQ!a at 1-I!C CCH-
!CrCHCCs C! tHC !JtCst 1-I!C CrCatUrCs, Is, sCCH IH tHIs !I_Ht, a DarCQUC
CXHIDIt C!tHC aDsCHCC, HCttHC QrCsCHCC, C!!I!C!IKC DcHaVICr. HaH a_C C!
sImU!atICH, VItH HC CrI_IHa!, HC rC!CrCHCC staHOarO!Cr!I!C!IKC DCHaVICr,
`HCaCtC!HatUrCtC_rCUHO1-!I!C mCOC!s, 1-!I!CCXHIDItsarCQ!a!U! aHC
QCVCr!U! CXQCrImCHts, CrCatICHs C!aHCVCrOCrC!CCmQ!CXIt aHOQCVCr,
aH CrOCr CHaraCtCrIZCO HCt D Its rC!atICH tC aHQrCCXIstCHt mCOC! C!!I!C
DUtIatHCrtCaQCr!CrmaHCCC! QCVCrtHatCCHCCa!sItsC!!as sUCH, tHat!CCKs
`!IKC !I!C. HC arC at tHC samC tImC aH attCmQt tC rCstCrC !I!C tC Its
!CUHOatICHsDOCtCrmIHIH_tHC!Crma!HatUrCC!a!!!I!C, sIHCC `tHIs OCatH
C!tHCOVIHCrC!CrCHtIa!HastCDC CXCrCIsCOat alCCst.""
Life's Sovereignt
!Cr, U!tImatC!, CrQCrHaQsUCmtHCDC_IHHIH_, tHIs `QUCst!CrCrCatICH Is
a QUCst !Cr a !IttC DIt C! rC!CrCHtIaIty. 5QCCIHCa!!, tHC sCarCH !Cr tHC
ÙHIVCrsa HatUrC C!!Cs CHaraCtCrtC!!s aHa!C_Cr C!QCVCr, a stCr C!a
_HCstIC HCtICH C!!I!C tHat rCstCrCs !I!C as a UHI!ICO CCHCCQt. L. . NaO-
OIH_tCH,VHCQrCVIOCOsCmCC!tHCUr-tCXts!CrartIHCIa!!I!C, VrCtC C!tHC
QrC!CUHOImQaCtCtHIs HCtICH CHHIs VCrK.
The world egg. "Things" are essentially eggs-pregnant with God-knows-what.
You look at them and they appear simple enough, with a bland definite shape,
126 Emergent Power
rather impenetrable. You glance away for a bit and when you look back what you
find is that they have turned into a fufy yellow chick, actively running about and
all set to get imprinted on you if you will give it half a chance. Unsettling, even
perhaps a bit sinister. But one strand of gnostic thought asserted that everything is
like that.45
HIsmCtaQHsICa!DaCK_rCUHOC!NaOOIH_tCHssCICHtIHCVCrKVHatHC
Ca!!CO `sC!tVarCCHCCUra_CO HIsIHtCrCstIH QrCCCss, tHC NHItCHCaOIaH
HCtICH tHat sCICHtIsts stUO `CCCasICHs C!CXQCrICHCC, UHItICs tHatUH!CO
CVCr tImC, ratHCr tHaH rCOUCtICHIst HUHKs C!stUH. aH_tCH, tCC, CXQCrI-
CHCCO tHC CHCCtC!tHIs `_aHCC aVa.
The computer was running a long Life configuration, and Langton hadn't been
monitoring it closely. Yet suddenly he felt a strong presence in the room. Some
thing was there. He looked up, and the computer monitor showed an interesting
configuration he hadn't previously encountered. "I crossed a threshold then," he
recalls, "it was the first hint that there was a distinction between hardware and the
behavior it would support . . . . You had the feeling there was really something
very deep here in this little artificial universe and its evolution through time.4
6
tIstHIs `_aHCC aVa, Cr `CCKIH_UQ,aHOtHCCVCHtstHattaKCQaCC DC-
tVCCH CDsCrVatICHs, tHatVaHttC!CCUs CHHCrC. HCraOICaQCtCHtIaIty
C!`VCrO as C__ maKCs QaUsIDC tHC rCmarKaDC QUCstICH DC__IH_ VItH
VHICH 1-I!CDC_aH. CO HCsta_C IHatCrrCstrIa, CarDCHQrIsCH, 1-I!Crs,
IKC tHC LHCstICs, sCCtHCQCtCHtIa!CrI!C CsCVHCrC, IHHCHCarDCH-DasCO
`C__s. 1-I!CQrC_ramsarCat CHCC CXtCrICrtCHUmaHDCIH_sHCHCCtHC
CCK aVa, tHC sCHsC C!aUtCHCmaHOOIstUrDIH_ ImQICatCO IH tHCm.
à!! sCttC _CtImQrIHtCOCHCUI!CU _IVC tHCmHa!tHC CHaHCC.
HUs, 1-I!C CQCratCs IH a QCstVIta sQaCC, a sQaCC C! HC OIHCrCHCC
DCtVCCH IVIH_ aHO HCHIVIH_ CHtItJCs. LCsmCC_ICa, CHC 1-I!Cr rC-
marKs tHat `VCHaOHCQrCC!tHattHIsUHIVCrsC IHQartICU!arVas HCtaL1
CCUaraUtCmata| ,rUHHIH_CHtHC CCmQUtCr C!sCmCma_HIHCCHtHaCKCr
IH HCaVCH."' L!CCUrsC, It Is asC trUC tHat HC QCsItIVC CVIOCHCC CXIsts tC
sU__CsttHatItÌs. 5ImIaH, HCQCsItIVC CVIOCHCCCXIststCsU__CsttHatI!C
Is HCt CCHHHCO tC CarDCH. atHCr, 1-I!C rCsts CH a HarratIVC, a DCIC!
DUttrCssCOD _aHCCstHrCU_Ha_HCstIC, sImUatCOCHs. HIs CHsVHCsC
CQtICs OCtCrmIHC VHat Is sCCH at a_aHCC aHOVHatIs CCHCCaCOIs VHat
HCQs aH_tCH `CrCss tHC tHrCsHCO tCDCIC!IH artIHCIa I!C. t Is aVIsICH
VHCsCCHCCtIs `tC OIsCarOCrI_HtCHatHCmattCrC!tHIsVCrO, tHatIstHC
straH_CCHOtHC LHCstICs QUrsUCO. . . . 1HO sCIH tHC LHCstIC mtHCC_y,
LHrIst, !Cr CXamQC, Vas IOCaIZCO as a DCIH_VHC atC aHO OraHK DUt OIO
Emergent Power I 27
HCt OC!CCatC. 5UCH Vas tHC strCH_tH C!Hs CCHtIHCHCC tHat !CCOs OO HCt
CCrrUQtHm."
Hat Is, tHC HI_Ht !rCm tHC `CUrsC C!tHC VCr!O, tHC OCsrC tC _Ct
aDCVC `CVCrVHCrC, s a!sC aH attCmQt tC sHCO, Cr at !Cast !I_HtCH, tHC
DCO. H à !CCK QrC_HaHt VtH _CO KHCVs VHat, a !CCK tHat `CrCssCs a
tHrCsHC!O,VCHarOaVKHs_!aHCCsCUtHsVIHOCV.
It is raining DNA outside . . . . Up and down the canal, as far as my binoculars
can reach, the water is white with foating cottony flecks, and we can be sure that
they have carpeted the ground to much the same radius in other directions too.
The cotton wool is made mostly of cellulose, and it dwarfs the tiny capsule that
contains the DNA, the genetic information . . . . It is the DNA that matters. The
whole performance, cotton wool, catkins, tree and al, is in aid of one thing and
one thing only, the spreading of DNA. This is not a metaphor, it is the plain
truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were raining foppy disks.49
NHataVKHs sCCs, aHOOCCsHCtsCC, tC!!stHCstCrC![1mCrCaH) 1-!I!C.
NtH aKHOC!2-ra VsCH, aVKHs sCCs tHrCU_H tHCH UHC!CC!!U!CsC
aHO!CCatCstHCCssCHCCC!!!C,1.HsCssCHCCsCVCrVHCrC, às!aras
m DIHCCu!ars CaH rCaCH, HCatH_, aHO t s HCt a mCtaQHCr. t Is tHat
VHICH CaHDC rCQ!CatCO, tHatVHICH Is rCa!, tHatVHCH CaH!IVC. 1HO tHs
VsCH Is ItsC!!mCtaQHCrCa!, ratHCr tHaH sImQ! !CCKH_ tHrCU_H tHC HUH
aHO `sCCH_ tHC KCrHC! C!CssCHCC, 1, IHsCC, aVKIHs C!ams tC!It-
Cra!ZC tHIs VsICH, rCHOCrItQ!aH tHrCU_H tHC OCQ!CmCHt C!a mCtaQHCr
tHat Is OCHCO mCtaQHCrICa! statUs. 1HO Ct tHIs VsCH HIOCs as mUCH as
It rCVCa!s. as1t!aHaHO 1CQQC!, amCH_ CtHCrs, QCHt CUt, tHC `QrC_ram
Cr HCQQ OIsK C!1 s HCt ItsC!! sUU:CICHt !Cr !I!C. HC `HUH tHat
aVKIHssQara_CsHtHCHamCC!`Q!aHtrUtH IsmCrCtHaHamCrCHUsK
CrtCC!,HtsmCVCmCHtaHO`QCr!CrmaHCCIt!tCramaKCs!I!CQCssD!C.
H a sCHsC, It Is HCHsCHsCa!, Cr at !Cast CCrtaH! HCt `tHC Q!aIH trUtH, tC
sQCaK C!tHC sQrCaO C!1 VtHCUt rCmCmDCrH_ tHC sQrCaO C!Cr_aH-
sms. 5C tCC VItH aH_tCHs rCCC_HtCH C!tHC `QrCsCHCC H tHC !CrmC!
aH `HtCrCstIH_ CCHH_UratICH CH tHC sCrCCHt rCQUrCs a OC!CtCH Cr
CVCr!CCKIH_ C!tHC CCmQUtCr H tHC _aZC at tHC `Cr_aHsm CH, H, tHC
sCrCCH. HC CXtra HUsKCrCCHtaHCrC!tHC sHtHCtC Cr_aHsm, tHC CCm-
QUtCr,Is trCatCO as amCrCHUH, aQ!at!Crm!Cr tHCrCa!, artHCa!!I!C. Cm
as OCsCrQtCH C! Hs Crra QrC_ram, CHC C!tHC Car!Cst aHO DCst-
KHCVH1-!I!CQrC_rams, I!!UstratCstHsasVC!!.
Synthetic organisms have been created based on a computer metaphor of organic
life in which CPU time is the "energy" resource and memory is the "material"
128 Emergent Power
resource. Memory is organized into informational patterns that exploit CPU
time for self-replication. Mutation generates new forms, and evolution proceeds
by natural selection as diferent genotypes compete for CPU time and memory
space. 50
5HtHCtICCr_aHIsmsDasCOCHaCCmQUtCr`mCtaQHCr, IHOCCO, DasCOCHa
computer. 1sIH1taH aHOCQQC!sCrItIQUC C!tHC _CHCmCQrCjCCts,VHCrC
`mQ!ICItIH tHIsQrCQCsa!Is a!ItCra!UHOCrstaHOIH_C!tHC _CHCtIC QrC_ram
mCtaQHCr, !CCKIH_ attHC sCQUCHCCC!atHC1 DasC QaIrs C!a_CHCmC
astHC!IstIH_C!aCCmQUtCrQrC_ram.' 5CtCC, HCmasasICrraQrC-
_ram CrCatCs `_CHCmCs CCmQCsCO C!ÌH!CrmatICH QattCrHs. H CrOCr
!Cr tHCsC `_CHCmCs tC DC sCCH as `sHtDCtIC Cr_aHIsms, amUst, IKC
aVKIHs, sCC tHrCU_H tHC HUHC!tHC CCmQUtCr. Hat Is, tHC samC VIsICH
tHata!CVs aVKIHs tC!ItCra CQUatC aHCQQOIsKaHOa `CCttCHHCCK
a!!CVs a tC CVCrCCKtHCOUa!Q!at!CrmC!mCtaQHCraHOCCmQUtCrtHat
a!CVs HIs sHtHCtIC CrCatUrCs tC CmCr_C. aH_tCH m_Ht Ca tHIs aH at-
tCHtICH tC tHC !C:ma! asQCCts C!!I!C, DUt a C!CsCr !CCK at as QrC_ram
sHCVs tHat HIs aDstraCtICH rC!ICs CHtVC mCtaQHCrs tHat arC sstCmatICa!!
CCC!UOCO.
!Irst,tHCIOCaC! 1asaQrC_rammaKCsQCssID!CtHCVCrIOCatHata
`_CHCmC CCU!ODC QrCOUCCO CH a CCmQUtCr. HIs rHCtCrICKC aV
KHssHCtICH tHat1 Is aHCQQ OIsK Ìs HCt amCtaQHCr, It Is tHCQ!aIH
trUtH. tCCU!OHtDCaHQ!aIHCrI!ItVCrCraIHIH_HCQQOIsKssstCmat-
ICaOCQ!CsmCtaQHCrsVHI!CrC!UsIH_tHCm. HCVCrHCtICHtHat1
Is CQUIVa!CHt tC a HCQQ OIsK rCQUIrCs Us tC !Cr_Ct tHat, UHIKC a HCQQ
OIsK, 1matCrIa! `CCHtaIHs tHC IHstrUCtICHs !Cr tHC rCQ!ICatICH HCt
jUst C!ItsC!!, DUtC!aHCr_aHIsm, Its `rCaOCr. L!CCUrsC, HC 1 ÌtsC!!
CaHOCtHIs, asVC HaVC sCCHtHrCU_HCUttHIsDCCK,sUCHaCCmQ!CXsstCm
CmCr_Cs !rCm tHC rC!atICHs DCtVCCH Cr_aHIsms aHO tHCIr CHVIrCHmCHts.
5CCCHO, VHCH VC !CCK at tHC sCrCCH !U C!1-!I!C Cr_aHIsms, VC mUst
!Cr_CttHC `DCO C!1-!I!C, tHC tCCHHC!C_ICa! CHsCmD!C C!OIsCCUrsCs aHO
CCmQUtCr tHat arC Its !CCO, CHVIrCHmCHt, DCO, aHO CXQ!ICatICH. !Cr tHC
CCmQUtCr OCCS HCt OIsQ!a CmCr_CHt DCHaVICr, HC CCmQUtCrHarOVarC Is
rCQ!ICatCOCn! tHC ÌHtCrCstIH_ CCHH_UratICH CH tHC sCrCCH QrCOUCCs
tHIsKHO C!QCr!CrmaHCC. HUs, tC sUCCCCO, aH 1-!I!C QCr!CrmaHCC mUst
HIOC a sHtHCtIC Cr_aHIsms OCQCHOCHCC CH a CCmQUtCr, aH CQCratIH_
CHVIrCHmCHt, aHO Its rHCtCrICs jUst as mC!CCU!ar DIC!C_ Has C!tCH CC
C!UOCOtHC OCQCHOCHCCC!1CHIts Cr_aHIsmIC CCHtCXt.
HUs, D taKIH_ tHC mCtaQHCr C!`QrC_ram !ItCra!!, a, aVKIHs,
aHOCtHCr1-!I!CrCsCarCHCrsrCQCat,VItHaOIHCrCHtIHHCCtICH,sCmCC!tHC
Emergent Power 129
rHCtCrICa mCVCs tHat maOC HasCCHt mCCCuar DICC_ QausIDC. 1taH,
CQQC, aHO CtHCrs QCIHt Cut tHC QCVCr C!tHC `QrC_ram tC CrICHt I!C
sCICHCC rCsCarCH tCVarO sCQuCHCIH_ at tHC CXQCHsC C!VCrK CH tHC CCm-
QCXItICs C!CXQrCssICH aHO OCVCCQmCHt. 1!CCusIH_ CH tHC `_CHCmCs
C!sHtHCtIC Cr_aHIsms, 1-I!C QCr!CrmaHCCs suCCCCO IH QrCOuCIH_ tHC
CHCCt C!Ì!CIKC DCHaVICr IH a CCHtCXt C!sImuatICH, VItH HC CrI_IHa.
HC tHus CHCCtIVC masK tHC aDsCHCC C!aH uHIHCO HCtICH C!!C IH
CCHtCmQCrarI!C sCICHCC DQrCsCrVIH_ tHC IOCatHat tHCrC Is sCmCtHIH_
CaCO Ì!C, _IVIH_a sCHsC C!rC!CrCHCC tC tHC CCHCCQt C!I!C CVCHas ItIs
DCIH_ OIsQaCCO. 1ut tHIs QCr!CrmaHCC Has a QrICC. 1 !CCVIH_ tHC Im-
QICItmCOCC!I!Cas aKIHOC! QrC_ram,1-I!C CDsCurCs tHCVCrQuCstICHs
C!mCrQHC_CHCsIs, _rCVtH, aHO CXQrCssICHtHCsC CVCHts tHat taKC QaCC
OurIH_!HC `_aHCC aVatHatmCtIVatC tHCsCarCH!Cra `_CHCratHCCr
C!!C.
tma sCCm tHat sCmC C!tHC !uHOamCHta VCCtCrs C!DCtH 1-I!C aHO
_HCstIC tHCu_Ht arC CCHtraOICtCr, Cr at Cast IH tCHsICH. !Cr CXamQC, It
ma sCCm uQCH rCHCCtICH tHat tHC HCtICH C!aVCtO IH astatC C!DCCCm-
IH_, aNaOOIH_tCHIaH `VCrOC__, VCuODCIH CQQCsItICH tC tHCHCtICH
C!a CursCO VCHO C!HumaHs sHaCKCO tC DCOICs. 1ut tHIs tCHsICH _Cts
mCOIatCOtHrCu_HtHCImQICItmCOCC!tHCDCOIHDCtHartIHCIaI!CaHO
_HCstIC tHCu_Ht. NHC tHC rC_ImC C!mCCCuar DICC_y, VHICH uHOCr
5CHrCOH_Cr, ItCra!!Cr_CttHCDCOas ItCCHtaIHCOItIHtHC CCOC-sCrIQt,
artIHCIa I!C CQCratCs CH a mCmCr C!tHC DCO. NHCrCas tHC IOCa C!a
1CCOC-sCrIQt, aQrC_ram,Cr`sCHsH_CHCs tCHOCOtC, asIHaVKIHss
_aZC, CVCtCCKCr!Cr_CttHC DCO C!tHC Cr_aHsm, artI!ICIa!C OCQCs a
mCOCC!tHC DCOIHVHICH_CHCtIC sCQuCHCCsare DCOICs, ÌH!CrmatICHa
QattCrHHat CXQCIt L\ tImC !Cr sC!-rCQICatICH.` LHC sI_H C!tHIs
Is tHC `sQCHtaHCCus sCXuat C!Cm as ICrra Cr_aHIsms, IH VHICH
tHC `sCQQ rCQICatCrs . . . a!CV !Cr rCCCmDIHatICH aHO rCarraH_CmCHt
C!_CHCmCs. 5CX HCrC Is QurC CXCHaH_C VItHCut aCtICH Cr _CsturC, HC
VCrO VCrK HCCO CCHtamIHatC tHC QurC `DCOICs C!1-I!C Cr_aHIsms.
5uCH Is tHC strCH_tH C!tHCIrCCHtIHCHCC tHatsCX OCCs HCt CCrruQt tHCm.
Hus, as CH_ as tHC `_aHCC aVa masKs tHC VCrK C! CmCr_CHCC
VHCtHCrItDCtHCstru__IH_CHICK CrtHCHasHIH_C!aQIXCtHCQurItyC!
tHC 1-I!C Cr_aHIsm rCmaIHs IHtaCt, Its _rCVtH a QrCOuCt CH C!tImC.
HOCCO,IHtHC CasCs C!DCtHtHC _amC C!I!C aHOtHC CHICK, ItVICHDC
amattCr C!tImC DC!CrC tHC sCCK tC CaVC tHC CursCO CartH tC HCat CrH
àDCVC CVCryVHCrC.
t sCCms CCar tHat tHC uHIVCrsaIt C!tHC _CHCtIC `QrC_ram DCtH
1 30 Emergent Power
QrCVCKCs aHO CHCCUra_Cs tHC HCtICH tHat [ J) tHCrC CXIst UHIVCrsa! at-
trIDUtCs C!I!CIHOCQCHOCHt C!sUDstaHCC aHO (2) tHat tHIHKIH_tHatQrICrI-
tIZCsaHOCssCHtIaIZCs 1aCVs !CrtHCCrCssCVCrDCtVCCHIH!CrmatICH
aHOI!C.` 1Ut tHIs CXQ!aHatICH !aI!s tC aCCCUHt!Cr tHC aQQCa C!1-I!C IH
QartICU!ar.jCaH-LaUOC1CaUHC _IVCs UsaC!UC. `sHarIH_IH tHC trICKCr C!
tHC aUtCmatCH Is mCrC!aHCtHCrVa tC OCHHC CUrsCVCs as HUmaH, tHat
Is,asDCtHDCIH_aHOHCtHIH_HCss, QrCsCHCC aHOaDsCHCC,tHCaUtCmatCHIs,
IH aVa, CUrmIrrCr . . . CrCUrCVI!CC."HaH a_C C!sImU!atICH,VHCrC
HC CrI_IHa!staDCrC!CrCHt!Cr Ì!CsUrVIVCs, 1-I!CQrCVIOCsHCtamIrrCr
DUtasCrCCH!CrtHCOCHHItICHC!!I!CaHOtHC HUmaH. HCsCrCCHmasKstHC
`sIHIstCr mCOIatICHC!_CHCtQCtCQHCHCtQC aHOQrCVIOCsaQaCC!CrUs
tC _aHCC, `tC HCtICC sCmCtHIH_ VCr OCCQ HCrC IH tHIs !IttC artIHCIa
UHIVCrsC aHO Its CVCUtICH tHrCU_H tImC. HC art C!tHC aUtCmatCH Has
a!Vas DCCH tHC `trICKCr tHat CCHCCa!CO tHC OIHCrCHCCs DCtVCCH ma-
CHIHCs aHO HUmaHs. HC art IH artIHCIaI!C HCV CCHCCas tHC aDsCHCC C!
tHIssamC OIHCrCHCC, asa C!I!C,artIHCIaaHOCtHCrVIsC, DCCCmCs `QrCQ-
a_atIH_IH!CrmatICH. CsQItC [CrDCCaUsC C!) tHC !aCKC!aUHI!ICCOCHHI-
tICH, 1-I!C QrCm1sCs tC sHCV Us VHat !I!C Is. HC QCVCr C!QCVCr!U!
CCmQUtCrs CH!CrCCstHCrHCtCrIC C!I!C as QrC_ram, aH CH!CrCCmCHtQCssI-
D!C tHrCU_H tHC QCVCr C!CCHCCaIH_ aHO rCVCa!IH_ tHatHas rCsHaQCOtHC
sCICHtIHC CCHCCQt C! !I!C IH tHC atC tVCHtICtH CCHtUr. HC CCmQUtCr
maKCs!CasIDC5CHrCOIH_CrsOrCamC!tHCCCOCasDCtHàVaHOCXCCUtIVC
QCVCr, DUtIt Is !CasID!CCHasCH_as tHC CCmQUtCrItsC!, aHOIts [rHCtCr-
ICa!) `QCVCr, Is HIOOCH as tHC matrIX tHat maKCs It QCssID!C !CrIH!Crma-
tICH tC DCCCmC aH Cr_aHIsm aHO !Cr Cr_aHIsms tC DCCCmC IH!CrmatICH.
HIs HCCO HCtjUst !Cr aV DUt !Cr `CXCCUtIVC QCVCr IH tHC CCOC-
sCrIQt Cr sCQUCHCC Has CaO tC a taKCCVCr, VHat CrI_IH-C!-I!C tHCCrIst
1. L. LaIrHs-5mItH Has Ca!CO a _CHCtIC taKCCVCr, C! tHC DCO D tHC
maCHIHC. 1Ut tHIs Is HCt ataKCCVCrC!tHC sCrt OIsCUssCOD LaIrHs-bmItH
Cr !aHtasIZCO aDCUt D CCmQUtCr sCICHtIst aHs ^CraVCC. atHCr, It Is a
OIsCUrsIVC taKCCVCrtHatrCCr_aHIZCs,DUtOCCsHCtOIsQCHsCVItH,tHCDCO.
`NHat aVaIts Us Is HCt CD!IVICH, ^CraVCC VrItCs IH Mind Children, DUt
ratHCra!UtUrCIH VHICH
It is easy to imagine human thought feed from bondage to a mortal body-belief
in an afterlife is common. . . . Computers provide a model for even the most
ardent mechanist. A computation in progress-what we can reasonably call a
computer's thought process-can be halted in midstep and transferred, as pro
gram and data read out of the machine's memory, into a physically diferent
computer, there to resume as though nothing had happened. Imagine that a
Emergent Power 1 3 I
human mind might be freed fom its brain in some analogous (if much more
technically challenging) way. 55
`1s tHCU_H HCtHH_ HaO HaQQCHCO. tHs sH!t H tHC HCtCHs C!!C aHO
H!CrmatCHVCrKsQrCCsC! tHrCU_H ts UDQUty, tsDaHaty, aHOts !aCK
C!VsDt. H Te Birth o the Clinic, ^CHC!CUCaU!tHassHCVHHCVtHC
ÒstrDUtCHs C!!HCss HaVC DCCH HstCrCa! CCHsttUtCO. HC mCOCrH
_CCmCtrC!OsCasC, HVHCHsCKHCsss!CCa!ZCOHtHCDCO, ssHCVHD
CUCaUt tC DC CHC maQ amCH_ CtHCrs C!tHC ilDCO. Hs maQ, DCsOCs
CCa!ZH_ OsCasC, a!sC QrCVOCs UsVtHaH CUtHC C!tHC mCrQHCC_yC!
QCVCr, a QCVCr tHat sC!CCts, CUt!HCs, aHO Cr_aHZCs tHC DCO aHO ts
rCatCHs. Hs s, H !aCt, VHat QCVCr s !Cr CUCaUttHC HCtVCrK C!
rCalCHs tHat maKC UttCraHCCs aHO KHCVCO_Cs QCssD!C. 5C tCC, VCU!O
sU__Cst, CaHtHCOstrDUtCHsC!`!CsH!ttHrCU_HDCC_ysHCVrHCtCr-
Ca! sC!tVarC, trCQCs tHat DCtH H_H_Ht aHO CDsCUrC OHCrCHt maQs C!
`Vta!t. HC `_!aHCCaVa tHatHstasHCVCCHCCQtsC! Vta!tysa_aZC
DUI!tCUt C!a_aQ, astrUCtUra!D!HOHCss, aD!HOHCss tHatrCQUrCsDUt OCCs
HCt sCC DCOCs, t sCCs CH! sCQUCHCCs, _CHCmCs tHat arC DCOCs. ^CHC
5CrrCs Has OUDDCO tHs `DUrCaUCratC QCVCr, H VHCH `HCmaHUa!a-
DCrCrHas tC DC D!HOHrCatCH tC tHCQara!ZCOHtCCCtUa!. HC HC!ms-
maH Has HCQCrtHC!C. . . . Hs CDCrHCtCs _Cts mCrC aHO mCrC CCmQ!-
CatCO, maKCs a CaH, !Crms a HCtVCrK. `Ct t s !CUHOCO CH tHC tHC!t C!
H!CrmatCH, QUtC a smQC tHH_. . . . H tHC CHO, QCVCr s HCtHH_
C!sC.`'
atHCr tHaH DCH_ DasCO CH a `tHC!t C!H!CrmatCH, VCU!O ar_UC
tHattHs HCtVCrKsDasCOCHCCHHCCtCHs.NHatmaKCsQCssO!CtHC CXQ!-
CatC) C!tHC mCmCHts C!tHC `_aHCC aVa s VHat HaVC rC!CrrCO tC
QrCVCUs! as tHC mCtaCCOC CrrHCtCrCa! sC!tVarC. 1H CXamQ!C !rCm CHC
C!Cmas rCCCHt QaQCrsHCQsmaKC tHsQCHt.
Modern evolutionary theory is firmly based on the duality of the genotype and
the phenotype. However, Barbieri (1985) has described a new view, in which life
is based on a trinity of genotype, phenotype and ribotype. At the molecular level,
the genotype is the DNA, the phenotype is the proteins, and the ribotype is the
collection of molecules and structures based on RNA, i. e. , the mRNA, tRNA
and the ribosomes. The latter group of molecules, referred to collectively as the
ribosoids, perform the critical function of translating the genotype into the
phenotype. 57
a _CCs CH tC Cam tHat H Hs sstCm t s tHC ÒCCCOH_ UHt tHat
QCr!Crms tHs rDCtQC !UHCtCH. 1Ut sUCH aH aCCCUHt CVCr!CCKs aHO
1 3 2 Emergent Power
OsaVCVs tHC CCHHCCtCHs aHO traHs!atCHs !Cr_CO D 1-!C rCsCarCHCrs,
VHC, !KCtHC `HUmaHDraHs tHat HCstCOtHC HtaQrCQa_atCH C!LCH-
Vas !I!C, arC CrUCa C!CmCHts C!tHC 1-!!C CCC!C_y. 1-!!C rCsCarCHCs,
CXQ!CatCO as !!C aHO HCt mCrC! as HtCrCstH_ tCsts C!CCmQUtatCH, arC
CHmCsHCO VtH tHC traHs!atCHaQraCtCCs tHat traHs!Crm tHC `_CHCtQC
[tHC CCOCs C! Crra) HtC QHCHCtyQC, `!VC! CrCatUrCs, traHs!atCHa!
QraCtCCs tHat HC!UOC tHCr CVH OsaVCVa!. HOCCO, H sCmC sCHsC A -lifers
are part qf the phenotype qfTierra.58
1Ut!KC tHC `sC!HsH _CHC OsCUssCODCHarO aVKHs, H VHCH
Cr_aHsms arCmCrC! `!UmDCrH_ rCDCts tHat CXIst CH!!CrtHC QUrQCsC
C!QrCQa_atH_ CCQCs C!a _CHCmC, Crra Cr_aHIsms arC !C!OCO aCrCss
tmC aHO sQaCC. HC arC DCCHO!VH_, Cn OCsCCHOH_ tC Vta!ty mC-
mCHtarI. HCraDI!ty tC `!VC VtHCUttmC CrsQaCC, Cr at!Cast tC DC
sUsQCHOCO aCrCss tmC aHO sQaCC, s sUmmCO UQ H a rCCCHt QrCQCsa!
VrttCHDa. `tsHCVQCssD!C tC DrH_tHCsstCmOCVHaHOtHCHUQ
a_aHHtHCmOO!CC!arUHVItHCUt!CssC!H!CrmatCH. tsa!sCQCssD!C
tC !U rCCCVCr !rCm a HarOVarC CrasH, aHO CCHtHUC tHC rUH VtHCUt
HaVH_tC startCVCr.`
1rtHCa! !!C, VHCrC DCOCs HasH as QXC!s, CXCCUtCs tHC NatsCHaH
!aHtas C! KHCVH_ `VHat !!C s. NatCHH_ 1-!C Cr_aHsms CH tHC
sCrCCH, HaCCrtaHVaaCVsUstCVatCHtHC strU__C!CrQCVCr,!QCVCr
s VHat aCVs !CrC_rCUHOH_ C!sCmC CHCCts aHO QrCD!Cms CVCr CtHCrs.
KC a!! C!assC aUtCmata, t s VHat VC OC HCt sCC, as VC as VHat s
smU!atCO, tHat aLCVs sCmCtHH_ !KC `!!C tC `CmCr_C. CrC a_aH
!C!!CV CtZsCHCs QrCsCCHt Oa_HCss. NHIC HCVrCtC C!tHC arVHaH
`strU__!C !Cr!C, Hs aHa!ss sCCms mCrC !It !Cr aH aCCCUHt C!1-!!C H
tHC tV!_Ht HCt C!OC!s DUt C!Vtat. `NHCrC tHCrC s a strU__!C, t s a
strU__C!CrQCVCr.'`HatQCVCr,HaHa_C C!smU!atCH, s tHCQCVCrtC
aCHCVCtHC `mQCssD!CtC mImC aHaDsCHt Cr_H, `!!C.
Reference Matter
Notes
LHaQtCr I
I . We could compare this facturing of "life" to the magnification of a line in
mathematics, where what appears to be a continuum breaks up into multiple,
divergent, and discrete points. My thanks to Brian Rotman for this insight.
2. There will be many more, but here I ofer embarrassment no. I . In The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tippler, the
definition of life becomes a defining moment in this grand, or not so grand,
narrative. Through an almost Pynchonian methodology, in which Barrow and
Tippler notice that "over many years there had grown a collection of largely
unpublished results revealing a series of mysterious coincidences between the
numerical values of the fundamental constraints of nature . . . . These relation
ships and many other peculiar aspe
c
ts of the universe's make up appear to be
necessary to allow the evolution of carbon based organisms like ourselves." And
yet, faced with the task of defining life, Barrow and Tippler's come up murky.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to rephrase the anthropic principle as follows:
the universe appears to be such that beings incapable of defining life must appear.
See Barrow and Tippler, Anthropic Cosmological, pp. 5 I 1-23.
3. Here I roughly follow Barbara Johnson's algorithm for the strategy of de
construction: "In its elaboration of a critique of the metaphysical forces that struc
ture and smother diference in every text, a de constructive reading thus assumes:
(I) That the rhetoric of an assertion is not necessarily compatible with its explicit
meaning. (2) That this incompatibility can be read as systematic and significant as
such. (3) That an inquiry that attempts to study an object by means of that very
object is open to certain analyzable aberrations . . . . (4) That certain levels of any
rigorous text will engender a systematic double mark of the insistent but invisible
contradiction or diference . . . which is necessary for and in the text's very
elaboration." See Derrida, Dissemination, translator's introduction, p. xvi.
1 3 6 Notes t o Pages 2-7
4. For an exhaustive and nuanced account of the institutional imprinting of
life science, see Kay, Molecular Vision ofLife.
5.
Z
izek, Sublime Object ofIdeology, p. 43

6. Schafer and Shapin, Leviathan and the Air Pump, p. 61 .
7. Nietzsche, Untimely Meditations.
8. Derrida, Margins ofPhilosophy, pp. 219-20.
9. In the life sciences themselves, we could look to the work of D'Arcy
Thompson for a description of ways the "conformation" or morphology of
organisms are maps of the forces that make them up: "In short, the form of an
object is a 'diagram of forces
,
' in this sense, at least, that fom it we can judge of or
deduce the forces that are acting or have acted upon it . . . . In an organism, great
or small, it is not merely the nature of the motions ofliving substance which we
must interpret in terms offorce (according to kinetics) , but also the conformation
of the organism itself, whose permanence or equilibrium is explained by the
interaction or balance of forces, as described in statics" (On Growth and Form,
p. I I) . Here, in like fashion, I would suggest that we may also read out the forces
of rhetorics by tracing out the "virtual" bodyI discuss later.
10. Indeed, in this sense one could point to the gene as an "obligatory passage
point" in Bruno Latour's sense, insofar as any contemporary account of life,
cognition, or behavior must "pass" through the site of genetics. See Latour,
Science in Action, p. 245.
1 1 . See Derrida, "Signature, Event, Context
,
" in Marins ofPhilosophy, p. 309.
12. Deleuze and Guattari, Wat Is Philosophy? p. 1 1 7.
1 3 . Ibid., I I 6.
1 4. Ibid. , I I 8.
1 5 . Judith Butler highlights this relational and temporal account of matter in
her Bodies That Matter: "In both the Latin and the Greek, matter (materia and hyle)
is neither a simple, brute positivity or referent or a blank surface or slate waiting
an external signification, but is always in some sense temporalized. This is true for
Marx as well, when 'matter' is understood as a principle of traniormation, pre
smning and producing a fture" (p. 3 I) . Obviously, this notion of "faming"
bears some resemblance to Heidegger's account of the gestell.
16. This was the title that Donna Haraway gave to a conference at the
University of California Humanities Research Institute. Interestingly enough,
that title was rejected as the title for the book of essays that emerged from the
conference, now entitled, Are Genes Us? Social Implications ci the Human Genome
Initiatives (Rutgers, 1994) .
17. Judith Butler, following Derrida, formulates a notion of the performative
that operates according to a similar "falling away": "a performative works to the
extent that it draws on and covers over the constitutive conventions by which it is
mobilized. In this sense, no term or statement can fnction performatively with
out the accumulating and dissimulating historicity of force" (Bodies Tat Matter,
Notes to Pages 8-10 1 3 7
p. 227) . My inflection toward the functive rather than the performative in this
book is an attempt to think the force of rhetoric in domains other than that of
subjectivity and identity. As Butler has pointed out, the example of the wedding
ceremony in Austin's account of the performative is not merely one example
among others; it marks the manner in which the performative "operates as the
sanction that performs the heterosexualization of the social bond" (p. 226) . So
too would I argue that the persistent invocation of the "I" as the site of the
performative-however coherently and brilliantly problematized-renders the
performative less useful as a concept for techno scientific discourse, a discourse
populated with actants unable to enunciate "I" but that nonetheless seem to
exercise force.
1 8 . For an aggressive reading of the rhetoric and fetish of the fetus, see Harold
Bloom's Te American Religion: The Emergence ofthe Post- Christian Nation. Hans
Moravec's Mind Children: The Future ofRobot and Human Intelligence is a kind of
manifesto for the overtaking of fesh by silicon (see also chapter 6 in this volume) .
Donna Haraway's Simians, Cybors, Women wonderfully articulates and empowers
the subject positions named. Avital Ronell's Dictations traces the remote-control
efect within the structure of a literary haunting, and her The Telephone Book
describes a technobody neither alive nor dead but on the line: "Desire has been
rerouted, computerized, electrocuted, satellited according to a wholly other
rhetorical order" (p. I IO) . Strangely, Te Telephone Book has barely begun to
haunt discussions of contemporary techno science. This volume will attempt to
highlight one element of the rhetorical ordering that Ronell has networked: the
role of molecular biology in inscribing an a-vital or postvital body through DNA
and its softwares.
19. Massumi, User's Guide, p. 46.
20. Keller, Secrets ofLi: "What counts as a usable, efective, and communica
ble representation is constrained, on the one hand, by our social, cultural, and
disciplinary location, and on the other hand, by the recalcitrance of what I am
left, by default, to call 'nature' " (p. 6) . It is precisely the recalcitrance, the refusal
of univocality, of the term nature that demands more "hands." That is, there is no
reason to think that the network of interactions that makes possible and plausible
technoscientific interactions obeys this discursive anatomy. While I would agree
that there is something other than "social, cultural, and disciplinary" inputs into
technoscience, the rhetoric of evenhandedness here encourages the opposition
between cultural, rhetorical, and disciplinary practice and the "material" or even
"nature." In chapter 5, I attempt to articulate this "recalcitrance" through a
Derridean rhetoric of" dif erance" by mapping out the style of morphology of this
"recalcitrance;' a resistance that may have as much to do with our rhetorics as
with "nature."
21 . Foucault, Order ciings, p. 128.
22. Ibid. , p. 277.
1 3 8 Notes to Pages I I -I 8
23 . Ibid. , 265.
24. See Rotman, Signifing Nothing, for a well-wrought articulation of the
signification of absence.
25. Deleuze, Foucault, p. 3 8 .
26. Foucault, Order cThings, p. 268.
27. Ibid. , 278.
28. Canguilhem, Te Normal and the Pathological, p. 91 .
29. Foucault, Order ofThings, p. 273 .
30. Ibid., 273 .
3 1 . Jacob, Logic ofLi, p. 3 06.
32. Ibid. , pp. 300, 254.
3 3 . Roberts, Science, 1 3 1 0-1 3 . 3 4. Ibid., p. 1 3 IO.
35. Foucault, Order ofThings, p. 1 72. 36. Roberts, Science, pp. 1 3 I O-1 1 .
3 7. Alberts, Bruce, et al. , Molecular Biology c the Cell, p. 903 .
3 8 . Ibid., p. 901-2.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., p. 905.
41. Evelyn Fox Keller has ofered the phrase "the discourse of gene action" as
an algorithm for the articulation of genes as the site of organismic control. See
Keller, "The Discourse of Gene Action."
42. Deleuze and Guattari, Thousand Plateaus, p. 8.
43 . This demonstrates that the claim that each cell "contains the same . . .
built-in program" relies on a model of information that preexists its interpreta
tion. A genome with identical bases of nucleic acids produces diferent informa
tion-it informs cels diferently in diferent cell states. For an articulation of
DNA as "data" rather than "program," see Atlan and Koppel, "Cellular Com
puter DNA," 3 3 5-48.
44. Indeed, even when the projects encounter dificulties with this scheme,
the notion that the organism and its description are indistinguishable remains.
Susan Oyama, in her article "The Accidental Chordate: Contingency in De
velopmental Systems" (South Atlantic Quarterly, 1995, p. 5 I O) , writes of Sydney
Brenner's frustration: " [As] reported in an article by Roger Lewin caled 'Why Is
Development So Illogica
l
?' . . . Brenner complained that cell lines were 'ba
roque; and that there seemed no shorter way of describing what happened than
simply giving an account of the sequence of events" (p. 5 IO) . Here Brenner
complained of an inability to locate an algorithm for C. elegans's development but
evidentally held to the rhetoric of a "complete description." See chapter 5 in this
volume for a discussion of the problem of "complexity," Von Neumann's name
for an entity whose "literary description" is more complex than the object itself
45 . Quoted in Roberts, Science, p. 1 3 I I .
46. For a compelling and high-resolution account of the situated and con
structed nature of physical maps, see Fortun, "Making and Mapping Genes."
47. Roberts, Science, 1 3 12.
48. Ibid.
Notes to Pages I9-24 I 3 9
49. Te OxJord English Dictionary: Te Original OxJord English Dictionar on
Compact Disc, version 4. IO, s.v. "resolution." New York: Oxford University
Press, I987.
50. Here I fail to properly account for this much-contested Kantian figure. I
find
Z
izek's reading useful as a probe for the narrative of life science, but for the
reader looking for a more definitive account, see Paul Crowther's Te Kantian
Sublime: From Morality to Art. While impressive in its focus and scope, Crowther's
account, in its insistence on the tropics and method of defnition, msses the
murkiness and lack of precision that seem to inhere in the philosophical discourse
of sublimity.
5 I . Lyotard, Te Inhuman, p. I 36.
52. Indeed, Kant's reading of the sublime was also intertwined within the
thinking and metaphors of vitality: "the feeling of the sublime is a pleasure that
only arises indirectly, being brought about by the feeling of a momentary check
to the vital forces followed at once by a discharge althe more powerful." Kant,
Critique cif Judgement, p. 9I .
5 3 . Baudrilard, Ecstasy ojCommunication, p. 3 I .
54. Again, Lyotard: "Nature is no longer the sender of secret sensible messages
of which the imagination is the addressee. Nature is 'used,' 'exploited' by the
mind according to a purposiveness that is not nature's, not even the purposiveness
without purpose implied in the pleasure of the beautifl" (Te Inhuman, p. I 3 7) .
5 5 .
Z
izek, Sublime Object, pp. I 3 4-3 5 .
5 6. Franyois Jacob's autobiography resonates uncannily with this sublime
body or statue: "I see my life less as a continuity than as a series of diferent
selves-I might almost say, strangers . . . . And yet, as diferent as these selves
making up my life may seem now, they have, every morning upon awakening,
recognized each other . . . . This consciousness of unity is not only that of my
body, its habits, its inclinations. Even more, it is made of those memories that
travel through time in fashes . . . . Thus, I carry within a kind of inner statue, a
statue sculpted since childhood, that gives my life a continuity and is the most
intimate part of me, the hardest kernel of my character" (The Statue Within,
pp. I 5-I9) . This unity of "memories" is a unity of narrative that makes the
autobiography possible, animated "flashes," a sublime body or statue that graphs
or grafts together the strange discontinuities of Jacob's life. This narrative struc
ture-which, in Kantian fashion, relies on an intimate and yet unknowable es
sence or "kernel" that lies beyond the partiality and diference of life-also
informs Jacob's theory of the integron, an attempt to recuperate, if not "life," then
at least something beyond the molecule. See Jacob, Logic ojLife, pp. 299-3 24.
57. Gilbert, "Towards a Paradigm Shift
,
" p. 99.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Derrida, writing in a very diferent context, isolates the role that the
140 Notes to Pages 24-26
"unity" of life plays in Edmund Hussed's thought, and I ofer it here for its
resonances with the projects of postvitality, a new name for a new practice of
inscribing vitality. Derrida locates "life" as the guarantee that grounds Hussed's
attempt to ground a "genuine philosophy": "Living is thus the name of that
which precedes the reduction and finally escapes all the divisions which the latter
gives rise to . . . . But if this ultratranscendental concept of life enables us to
conceive life (in the ordinary or the biological sense) , and if it has never been
inscribed in language, it requires another name" (Derrida, Speech and Phenomena,
p. IS) . Wrenching Derrida out of context, we can say here that the tropes of
finality in postvital discourse are ultratranscendental insofar as they speak fom a
transcendental position about the lack of life beyond the molecule, "that is all
there is."
61 . Rotman, Signifing Nothing, pp. 87-97.
62. For detailed instructions on the networks available for locating such
dislocated life, see the Usenet newsgroup sci. cryonics on the Internet. The fol
lowing is fom their list of "Frequently Asked Questions":
How can I pay for my own revival and rehabilitation, and keep some of my financial assets
after revival?
The Reanimation Foundation is set up to enable you to "take it with you" and
provide financial support for your reanimaton, reeducation, and reentry. It is based in
Liechtenstein, which does not have a Rule Against Perpetuities, and thus allows financial
assets to be owned by a person long after the person is declared legally dead.
Reanimation Foundaton
c/o Saul Kent
16280 Whispering Spur
Riverside, CA 92504
(800) 841-LIFE
LHaQtCr2
1 . U.S. Congress, Mapping Our Genes, p. 85.
2. Ibid. Positive eugenics denotes the cultivation of attributes in human
populations through genetic interventions into the germ line, whereas negative
eugenics refers to the prevention of "pathological" conditions through genetic
management
:
3 . Here I am merely pointing out the continual and perhaps structural in
ability of contemporary technoscientific discourse to coherently account for
itself, to give good and consistent reasons why we should pursue one line of
research rather than another. Even while technoscience's narratives claim con
tinual and constant "mastery," it is easy enough to watch the persistent "unhing
ing" of technoscientific accounts, the trace of its "wl to knowledge." One
E-mail signature fom the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena captures this
Notes to Pages 27-30 141
honestly and insightfully: "If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call it
research."
4. Foucault, "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History," in Language, Countermemor
Prctice, p. 146.
5. The OxJord English Dictionar tells us that accident itself has a history of
chaotic atemporal substitutions not unlike the history of the genetic substance:
"Accident-As in many other adopted words, the historical order in which the
senses appear in Eng. does not correspond to their logical development, a fact still
more noticeable in their derivatives-'anything that happens, 'disaster,' ' chance
or fortune,' 'an occurring symptom,' 'to materialize or inform' " (s. v. "accident") .
6. Indeed, almost all of the eary workers in the new nexus between physics
and biology attributed much influence to Schrodinger's text: "They all read
Schrodinger: yet what they took fom him varied. Crick was aroused by . . . its
message that biology could be thought about in a new way and that great discov
eries were imminent" (Judson, Eighth Day i Creation, p. 245).
7. Schrodinger, Mat Is Lie? p. 21 .
8. Ibid. , pp. 21 -22.
9. Ibid. , p. 22.
10. Freud, Interpretation i Dreams, p. 463 .
1 1 . de Man, Resistance to Theor, p. 1 1 .
12. Given the rhetorical status of all the operative terms here, including
organism, it would be more correct perhaps to label this "confusion" a substitu
tion. A crucial point, however, is that this confsion seems to be a confusion on
Schrodinger's own, carefully delineated terms.
1 3 . Schrodinger, . Mat Is Lif? p. 22.
14. Samuel Butler ofers us a similar formulation for seeing the future in the
"Book of the Machines" described in his novel Erehwon: "The only reason why
we cannot see the future as plainly as the past, is because we know too little of the
actual past and the actual present; these things are too great for us, otherwise the
future, in its minutest details, would spread out before our eyes, and we should
lose the half of our sense of time present by reason of the clearness with which we
should perceive past and future" (Erehwon, 198).
15. Schrodinger, Mat Is Life? p. 23 .
16. See, for example, Susan Oyama, Ontogeny ojIrformation, for a review of
developmental discourse and its rhetorics; see also Haraway, Crstals, Fabric, and
Fields.
17. Schrodinger, Mat Is Lie?, p. 22.
1 8. Suzuki et al., Introduction to Genetic Analysis, p. 1 79.
19. The encounter also recuperates the element of chance that Schrodinger
seeks to overcome with his notion of an "all penetrating mind, for whom there
would be no such vector. Even as Schrodinger writes of the possibility of a
"code-script" that would transmit the future (the development of an organism) ,
142 Notes to Pages 30-3 8
his own "script" is overtaken by precisely the kinds of rhetorical movements that
make such a prescription exceedingly improbable.
20. Derrida, "White Mythology;' in Marins ofPhilosophy, p. 219.
2 I . Gamow and Y cas, My Tompkins Inside Himself, p. 5.
22. Foucault, Birth ofthe Clinic, xix.
23. Ibid. , 196.
24. Ibid. , 1 62.
25. The "time bomb" motif can be traced to, of all places, Los Alamos
National Labs, where researcher Robert Moyzis uses a slide featuring such
an equation between demolition, disease, and DNA. Thomas Friedman, a re
searcher at the University of California, San Diego, claimed that "all disease is
genetic" during a talk given at UC Irvine in 1991 .
26. Schrodinger, What Is Life? p. 23.
27. Foucault, Birth o the Clinic, p. 197.
28. This move is consonant with the dispersal or dislocation of life I outlined
in chapter 1 . Dorion Sagan, in his wonderfl essay "Metametazoa: Biology and
Multiplicity," notes that one could even see the contemporary manipulation of
genomics not as a triumph of human mastery over the book of nature but rather
as an extension of bacterial omnisexuality. He writes: "a radical refashioning of
the human genome into new species, is bacterial omnisexuality-bacterial om
nisexuality ministered, 'engineered' by human hands" (Incorporations, p. 378) . In
this view, one I root for wholeheartedly, human beings could be cast as pawns of
bacteria in search of new opportunities for gene trading. The challenge of this
view, of course, is to think the "agency" of bacteria without anthropomorphizing
them. Unfortunately, Sagan appears to afirm the categorical integrity of "life"
even as he chalenges many of the grounding distinctions of biology such as or
ganism/ environment, animal/plant; this afirmation risks just such a humanism.
29. Watson, The Double Helix, p. 1 3 .
3 o. Foucault, Birth ofthe Clinic, 3 .
3 I . Watson and Crick, "Genetical Implications."
32. Adams, "Self Organization," 223-29.
3 3 . Ibid.
34. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, p. 21 2.
3 5 . Adams, "Self Organization," 223-29.
36. "Nanotechnology;' 29-3 5.
3 7. Foucault, Order o Things, p. 269

3 8 . For more analysis of the recuperation of vitality in such a postvital econ-
omy, see chapter 6 in this volume.
39. Lacoue-Labarthe, Heideger, Art and Politics, p. 69.
40. Suzuki et al. , Introduction to Genetic Analysis, p. 4.
41 . U.S. Congress, Mapping Our Genes, p. 85.
42. Searle, "Minds, Brains, Programs," p. 34.
LHaQtCr3
1. Crick, "Coding Problem;' pp. 163-217. For a thorough discussion of the
coding problem and its history, see Y cas, Biological Code.
2. For an explication of metonymy as a kind of wormhole through which
time collapses or is displaced, jump to chapter 4.
3 . See, especially, HoraceJudson's Eighth Day ojCreation.
4. The importance of presupposition is characterized by Deleuze and Guat
tari as the encounter between language and its "outside": "What makes a propo
sition or even a single word a 'statement' pertains to implicit presuppositions that
cannot be made explicit" ( Thousand Plateaus, p. 140). Deleuze and Guattari, in
their attempt to deploy a "pragmatics;' argue instead for the mapping of state
ments as components of an assemblage. My eforts here are focused on the
rhetorical components of such an assemblage, components that themselves resist
explicit articulation.
5 . Gamow, "Possible Relation," p. 3 1 8 . Note that this "fibre" weaves us back
into Schrodinger's signing of the "code-script," a textualization that makes life
"citational" in the sense that Schrodinger's rhetorical accident or intervention
can be transplanted into the context of Gamow's 1954 article, a context that as we
shall see reverses Schrodinger's description even as it (implicitly) deploys it. The
"fibre" also highlights my intervention here, tying all these citations into a
narrative.
6. For the reader skeptical of this seemingly semantic distinction between a
DNA molecule and a chromosome fiber, I have two (perhaps Whiggish) re
joinders. First, it has become increasingly clear that the DNA's "packaging" in
the chromosomes is of crucial and unknown importance in the expression of
genetic loci, as in variegated position efects in the expression of eye color in
Drosophila (see Suzuki, Introduction to Genetic Analysis, chapter 14) . Second, in
1954 there was no established reason to assume that chromosome fibres were only
DNA molecules, which forces us to ask, why did Gamow find this equivalence
unproblematic? In addition, even if it were accepted in 1954 that chromosome
fibers were DNA molecules, the contrary statement is quite simply not factual.
Al chromosome fibers are DNA, but not all DNA molecules are chromosome
fibers. The "consideration" must therefore be taken as a rhetorical one.
7. Gamow, "Possible Relation," p. 3 1 8 .
8. Quoted in Curtius, European Literture, p. 324.
9. Here, Gamow, by describing the DNA-protein relation as textual, fulfills
what we could call Heidegger's articulation of the technological imperative: "that
nature reports itself in some way or other that is identifiable through calculation
and that it remains orderable as a system of information" (Question Concerning
Technology, p. 23).
ro. Von Neumann, in work on an analogous problem of self-reproduction,
showed mathematically in the appendix to Gamow and Y cas's "Statistical Cor
relation of Protein and Ribonucleic Acid Composition" that the distribution of
proteins relative to the distribution of possible codons (DNA bases) was not
random (Y cas, Biological Code, p. 30) . The possibility that proteins are (randomly)
composed disturbed Von Neumann, who wrote in a letter to Gamow, "I shudder
at the thought that highly eficient purposive organizational elements, like the
protein, should originate in a random process." See Heims, John Von Neumann
P
I54

I I . Von Neumann, Teor ofSelfReproducing Automata, p. 22. See also chap
ter 4 in this volume, where this diference collapses as the distinction between
"instruction" and "construction" is displaced by Jacques Monod and Francois
Jacob's rhetoric of "the program."
I2. For an analysis of the phantasmatics of that search for secrets, see Keller,
Secrets i Li, pp. 39-55

1 3 . Austin describes this as "the sense in which saying something produces
efects on other persons, or causes things." Quoted in Massumi, A User's Guide,
p. I 5 3 . Austin's articulation of the force of words resonates with the Gorgianic
tradition of rhetoric, where the force of speech is compared to love, drugs, and
magic. See also Derrida's short but forceful text "Signature, Event, Context" in
Margins ofPhilosophy, pp. 309-30.
I4. Deleuze and Guaiari, Thousand Plateaus, p. 79.
1 5 . In "Signature, Event, Context," Derrida argues that the very notion of
"context," in its usual figuration, "harbors very determined philosophical pre
suppositions" (p. 3 10) . I deploy it here as a strategy for marking out the virtual
conditions on the basis of which "translation" could become the figure for
protein synthesis and not to indicate some simple morphology of a cultural frame
placed on "meaning." A much more jagged morphology is invoked here, not the
fractal but the fracture.
I6. Taylor, Nots, p. 266n21 .
17. Heidegger, "The Age of the World Picture," i n Te Question Concerning
Technology Essays, p. I I 8.
I 8. Ibid.
I9. Benjamin, "Task of the Translator," Illuminations, p. 72.
20. Ibid.
21 . Ibid., pp. 70, 80.
22. Ibid., p. 71 .
23. The "vital connection" between originals and translations must take place
somewhere between the life and afterlife of a work. According to Benjamin it is
only after they have been translated that originals "mark their stage of continued
life," what he called the "afterlife . . . transformation and renewal of something
living." That is, by virtue of translation, the original is transformed, thereby
undermining its status as "original" in any static sense. Illuminations, p. 73 .
Notes to Pages 47-50 I45
24. Both Old and New Testaments are, of course, in the background of this
figuration. In the Old Testament, the unity of life-the fact that everwhere, the
essence of "living" is seen as the same, as a branch of the "tree of life" -is
guaranteed by the fact that God is "the living God." "The God of life . . . his very
nature is life, and he is able to impart it to the creatures. For this reason, life is
basically the same in all that moves on earth! " This unity is also the essence that
makes possible the translation of the unbridgeable gap between the earthly and
the spiritual: "This does not mean, however, that with the gift of life creatures
partake of the divine nature, but rather that by God's grace they are enabled to
communicate with their Creator." Vitality here is the link to communication, the
possibility of translating God's words into earthly flesh. The New Testament is
basically consistent with this articulation and figures God's gift of life as "the
inheritance of God's children," an inheritance of life nurtured by God's "Living
words." See The Interpreter' Dictionary ofthe Bible (New York: Abingdon Press,
I962), pp. I 24 -30. See also Benjamin's notion of the "unconditional trans
latability" of Holy Writ, discussed later in this chapter.
25. Benjamin, in "Task of the Translator," in flluminations, p. 80.
26. Ibid. , p. 82.
27. Ibid.
28. Foucault, Order i Things, p. 269.
29. Donna Haraway has characterized this semiosis, one that emerges out of
the national security state, as "world-as-code." See Simians, Cybors and Women,
P
58.
30. Woese, Genetic Code, p. vii.
3 1 . Keller, Rdections on Gender and Science, p. I 21 -22.
32. Woese, Genetic Code, p. 1 .
3 3 . Nietzsche, too, ofers us a formulation of this implosion: "the text has
finaly disappeared under the interpretation." Although Nietzsche here deploys
this notion of world as text, it difers signifcantly from the way I have described
the "age of world scripture." For Nietzsche the world as text-as opposed to
Scripture-implies the irreducible rhetoricity of our knowledge. See also, "On
Truth and Lies in the Extra Moral Sense," in Friedrich Nietzsche on Rhetoric and
Language.
34. Woese, Genetic Code, p. 5.
3 5 . The site and apex of this translatability, the very stuf of Benjamin's "vital
connection," is what writers as diverse as Jacques Derrida and Philip K. Dick have
diagnosed as a condition or sickness of the theological/scientific matrix called
the "book of nature." See also in chapter 2 my discussion ofSchrodinger's notion
that the chromosome "script" is readable only to "the all penetrating mind, once
conceived by Laplace, to which every casual connection lay immediately open"
( Wat Is Lie? p. 22) . This materializes a particular notion of rhetoric, and not just
any notion of reading is ascribed to the DNA-RNA couplet here; a very specific
strand of the history of hermeneutics i s drawn on, even if only implicitly, and
materialized.
36. Brian Rotman has characterized the use of diagrams in mathematics as
one element of the "metacode," a set of semiotic practices that are, according to
the implicit rules of the mathematics community, trivial or nonrigorous supple
ments to the "real" work of mathematics. Rotman, in an argument that parallels
Derrida's notion of the logic of the supplement, argues that real mathematical
work, as a semiotic, persuasive practice, cannot be extricated from its reliance on
the metacode. His formulation is fortuitous in that Gamow here draws on the
metacode, a diagram, in order to explicate his model of the genetic code.
37. Gamow, "Possible Relation," p. 3 I S.
3 S. Ibid.
39. Taylor, Nots, p. 23S.
40. Gamow, "Possible Relation," p. 3 IS.
41 . Ibid.
42. For an analysis of the ways in which Western aesthetics has overlooked
the constitutive power of the "space between," see Martin Heidegger's "The
Thing" in Poetr, Language, Tought. Here he writes of this "void" and its role in
the making of a jug: "if the holding is done by the jug's void, then the potter who
forms sides and bottom on his wheel does not, strictly speaking, make the jug.
He only shapes the clay. No-he shapes the void. For it, in it, and out of it, he
forms the clay into the form. From start to finish the potter takes hold of the
impalpable void and brings it forth as a container in the shape of the containing
vessel" (p. 169).
43 . Gilles Deleuze helps to problematize this notion offoreground and back
ground through the fold, a topological articulation that would avoid the opposi
tion between "code" and "body," "hole" and "organism." Rather than a hole,
then, the space between nucleotides would be better figured here as a pleat.
Interestingly, Deleuze draws much of his theoretical articulation of the fold fom
a reading of the history of biology. In a nonoriginary account of " essence," he
writes, "The essential is elsewhere; basicaly two conceptions share the common
trait of conceiving the organism as a fold, an originary folding or creasing (and
biology has never rejected this determination ofliving matter, as shown nowa
days with the fundamental pleating of globular protein.)" Deleuze, Te Fold, p. 4.
44. Crick, OJMolecules and Men, pp. IO, 24.
45. That Gamow reformatted the question of the relation between DNA and
proteins is certain. What remains to be sorted out is the precise relationship
between his paradigm of translation and the metaphorics of "code." Gamow
himself never mentioned "code" in "Possible Relation between Deoxyribo
nucleic Acid and Protein Structures," although by November of the same year he
writes in "Numerology of Polypeptide Chains" that "there must exist a unique
coding procedure that permits one to translate long sequences formed by four
Notes to Pages 55-57 I47
diferent elements (bases) into equally long sequences formed by about twenty
diferent elements (amino acids)" (p. 779).
Nothing about this "translation," of course, demands that it be a "code"
since neither the DNA molecule nor the proteins were secret or unknown. But
Schrodinger's metaphor of the " code-script" allowed for the ambiguity of "lan
guage" and "code," an ambiguity that also allowed for the metaphorics of "in for
mation." These metaphors bridge together, even translate, the metaphors of
"genetic language" and " genetic codes," metaphors that wil allow Francois Jacob
not to speak of a "book of life," but of "The Program," a metaphor that will
compete with the metaphor of the genetic "book." See chapter 4 for my discus
sion of "program."
46. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "essence." If the reader fnds this invocation
of the OED less than persuasive, all the better: for imagine the consequences for
Gamow's translation and reading scheme if we were to introduce this problem of
the reader, which determines the proper or improper "definition" of each word
of English, each DNA number . . .
47. By metonymy I mean here the taking of cause for efect. Organisms create
proteins, not just vice versa, and yet "the essence of living organisms" reads as if
proteins "produce" organisms, that organisms are the result of this translation and
not the producers of it, the translators, as it were. Of course, all this is circular, and
that is precisely why narratives of translation break down. See my discussion of C.
elegans in chapter I for another place in which cause/ efect narratives run up
against rhizomatic systems.
48. The overlooking of the body here-an overlooking that I will highlight
quite often in this text-also speaks to the dream of a text that would read itself
That is, the deletion of the body in Schrodinger and Gamow is also a deletion of
the "translator."
49. Brian Rotman's analysis and critique of the status of mathematical signs
help us to recognize one of the vectors that made the description of DNA as
"a long number," rather than some other linguistic formulation, possible: "In
contrast to the secondarity ruling alphabetic writing, mathematical signs do
not code, record or transcribe anything extramathematical: mathematical items
evoke and mean what they mean, what they are to signif, directly and not as
intermediates for something else." Dwelling in self-presence, the DNA "num
ber" nonetheless clearly required an "outside" for its instantiaton: hence, the
trace of the body in the fall fom DNA "numbers" to protein "words." Rotman
critiques the Platonist view of mathematics with a semiotic account of mathe
matics as thought experiments. His insistence on the inclusion of the counting
body in the theorization of mathematics-a theorization that leads to the in
creased difculty of counting over time, rupturing the possibility of the infinite
inflects my desire to include the so-caled "living" body and its ecologies in any
biological account. See Ad Infnitum, p. 25.
50. Indeed, one must not proceed too quickly here and denounce the de
scription of a DNA text as "mere" metaphor. I would, and will, . argue that the
field of protein synthesis is well served by a descripton that takes into account the
diferential and performative nature of writing as described by Derrida, or, alter
natively, the model of the rhizome as described by Deleuze and Guattari. See
chapter 5 for such an attempt.
5 1 . For a description of this shift, see Derrida, OfGrmmatology, pp. 6-26.
52. The formulation was taken from the title of a talk by Lily E. Kay, "Who
Wrote the Book of Life?," given at Harvard University in fall 1 993 . Kay's an
swer-"scientists" -seems to me to function as an artifact of her question, which
presupposes some subject "who" writes.
5 3 For a varied and rigorous engagement with such questions of the subject
after deconstruction and psychoanalysis, see Cadava, Connor, and Nancy, Jo
Comes After the Subject?
54. As the figure through which "translatability," "the vital connection," is
grounded, "life" must be seen in this rhetoric as itself refusing translation. The
"vital connection" itself is not translatable; rather, it is the steady link to God or
the original that makes possible the "inheritance of God's children" or the "kin
ship" of the translation.
5 5 . Foucault, Order ofThings, p. 1 61 .
56. Ibid. , Discipline and Punish, p. 171 .
57. Ecology, too, has struggled with the shifting conceptions of vitality,
particularly with respect to the question of Gaia and the superorganism. For a
useful account of the history of ecology, see Mcintosh, Background ofEcology.
5 8 . Lewontin, Biology a Ideology, p. ro8.
59. Derrida, Specters, p. 1 84. 60. Lyotard, The Dijerend, p. xi.
61 . Jacob, Logic o Life, p. 2. 62. Taylor, Nots, p. 221 .
63 . As an example, we could look to the disjunction between the massive
proliferation of nucleotide sequences and our ability to "make sense" of these
DNA sequences by determining the end product of such sequences, the tertiary
structure of proteins that are useful in living organisms. A recent collection pub
lished by the American Association for the Advancement of Science makes this
point clearly: "With recent breakthroughs in genetic engineering technology, the
speed at which the nucleotide sequences of genes can be determined has far
outstripped the rate at which the protein products can be isolated and character
ized. Yet much of the information in these sequences-most notably the three di
mensional structure of the gene product-can not presently be reliably extracted.
The Human Genome Project will rapidly increase the appearance of such se
quences" (Gierasch and King, Protein Folding, p. vii) . Clearly, the very notion of a
"code" that had been "cracked" encouraged the occlusion of the complexities of
protein folding. But in their fascinating discussion of "The Origami of Proteins "
Duke University Medical Center researchers Jane S. Richardson and David C.
Richardson argue that protein folding is analogous to origami and point out that
"Another major point of the metaphor is that both activities begin with a very
uninteresting object. For origami it is a single piece of paper, normally square . . .
two dimensional, flat and unmarked. A protein starts of as a one-dimensional
amino acid sequence, which has a lot of potential but no remarkable chemical or
biological properties in the unfolded state. In both cases, however, the final result
of folding is a meaningful, fnctional object" (in ibid., p. 5). Thus, while
Gamow's formulaton of the DNA-protein relation as a "translation" of a "code"
seems to be the final word on living systems, we can see here that the transforma
tion of an amino acid into an organism, an object with "meaning," is contingent
on processes for which the " code" metaphor (indeed, the metaphor of "meaning
ful object") is simply inadequate. See chapter 5 for my discussion of the inade
quacy of our rhetorics of living systems, and chapter 4 for a discussion of the role
of a temporal, as well as a spatial, origami in the rhetorical topology of organisms.
64. Quoted in Silverman, Postmodernism and Continental Philosophy, p. 232.
M
)
thanks to my colleague Jefrey Nealon for pointing me in this direction.
LHaQtCr4
1 . Keller, Riections on Gender and Science, p. 1 5 5 .
2. Jacob and Monod, "Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms," p. 3 1 8.
3 . Crick and Watson, "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids," pp. 737-3 8.
4. Judson, Eihth Day ofCreation, p. 570.
5. This notion of a paradoxical space has been formulated by feminist geogra
pher Gillian Rose in order to afirm a notion of spatiality that resists any opposi
tion of "inside" and "outside," an opposition Rose links to the masculinist subject
of social science. Significantly for my project, her afirmation of a space that
resists such a topology brings into relief those spaces that are inarticulable to the
"inside/ outside" schema. See Feminism and Geography, pp. 1 5 1 -55. My thanks to
Susan Squier for this reference.
6. Jacob, Te Statue Within, p. 8.
7. Ibid., pp. 25-26.
8. Derrida, "Declaratons oflndependence," New Political Science 1 5 (1986):
7-1 5 .
9 . The analogies between the bedroom and the lab are implicitly drawn by
Jacob himself. Whie at the Pasteur Institute, Jacob continued his childhood habit
of "concocting the future": "Every morning I ran to the laboratory to set up my
experiments . . . . The next morning I got the results just in time to put together
a further experiment . . . . I lived in the future . . . . I had turned my anxiety into
my profession." The Statue Within, pp. 8-9.
10. Deleuze, Spinoza: Prctical Philosophy, p. 20.
1 1 . Jacob, The Statue Within, p. 9.
1 50 Notes to Pages 70-74
12. Ibid. , p. 3 1 8 .
1 3 . Jacob and Monod, "Genetic Regulatory Mechanism," p. 3 1 8.
1 4. For an extended meditation on performativit and its deferral, see "Sig
nature, Event, Context" in Margins ofPhilosophy, where Derrida performs on the
theme of performative and constative speech acts in J. L. Austin's How to Do
Tings with Words.
1 5 . Paul de Man, in "Pascal's Alegory of Persuasion," traces the crossovers
and rhetorical struggles associated with the "definition of defnition" in Pascals's
Riexions sur la geometrie en general; De I' espirit geometrique et de L'Art de persuader.
De Man's essay is in Greenblatt, Allegory and Representation, pp. 1-25.
16. The phrasing here is Jacob's. "I have become obsessed by reading. I am a
maniac for words. A man sick with the written word" ( Te Statue Within, p. 3 8) .
Monod's obsession with nomenclature and definition-an obsession that makes
this definiton of dtnition all the more significant-can be found in "Terminol
ogy of Enzyme Formation." This 1953 Nature article attempted to replace the
rhetoric of "enzyme adaptation" with "enzyme induction" a move that betrays
(at the very least) the fact that, for Monod, language matters. The precise way in
which Monod seeks to remove the language of teleology fom biology here is
instructive in that he presumes a "constant genetic background" for induction,
while taking care to situate the fact that enzymes have "inducibility" only as a
property of "enzyme forming systems." Here I anticipate Jacob and Monod's
ascription of spatiotemporal priority to the genome as a site of information that
erases or overlooks its place within such a "system" or cellular economy. See
Cohn and Monod, "Terminology of Enzyme Formation," p. I096.
17. Jacob and Monod, "Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms," p. 3 1 8 .
1 8. Michel Serres describes this beautiflly when he writes, "the organism is
a barrier of braided links that leaks like a wicker basket but can still function as a
dam" (Hermes, p. 75).
19. Jacob and Monod, "Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms," p. 3 54. The rhe
torical role of "program" here is important, as it provides a descriptive language
for a "message" or a "code" or a "blueprint" that also performs an action, a series
of calculations or commands.
20. Jacob, Te Statue Within, p. 306. It is perhaps significant-given the
discussion of narrative in chapter I-that Jacob's model of induction emerged
fom the flicker of a "movie theatre."
21 . This could induce general questions and defenses of reductionism, a word
with, ironically, as much or more polysemy as dtnition. Sufice it to say that what
is interesting here are not reductionist moves per se but rather the specific shapes
and locations of reduction. In our example, we see a persistent reduction of the
role of factors other than nucleic acids. This leads me to suggest that besides the
"stupid factors" cited by Monod earlier, the idea that the repressor was a nucleic
acid was at least in part encouraged by this overvaluation of nucleic acids.
22. Jacob and Monod, "Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms," p. 321 .
23 Ibid. , p. 3 54.
24. Jacob and Monod acknowledge this in their conclusion: "It is clear that
the cells could not survive the breakdown of more than two or three of the
control systems which keep in pace the synthesis of enzyme products" ("Genetic
Regulatory Mechanisms;' p. 3 54). Here we see that regulation represents more
than a change of degree; it is a system of expression, not " contained" within the
genome, that in some way defines the organism.
25. Ibid.
26. Why does this problem get displaced on to the embryo? Besides the
classic problematic of the chicken/ egg, where we can see that it is precisely the
plasticity of our notions of temporality and living that allow us to prioritize either
the chicken or the egg, we might also look to the spatial aspects of embryological
development for a clue to the ways in which development is uniquely situated as
a kind of spatial and temporal navel in our discourse on living. According to
George Gamow, himself an aficionado of the inside/ out universe (see chapter
2) , "Your body also has the shape of a doughnut, though you probably never
thought about it. In fact, in the very early stage of its development (embryonic
stage) every living organism passes the stage known as 'gastrula; in which it
posseses a spherical shape with a broad channel going through it . . . . Since you
are a doughnut . . . try to transform your body into a double apple with a
channel within . . . . you will find that . . . the entire universe, including the
earth, moon, sun, and stars, will be squeezed into the inner circular channel"
(One Two Tree, pp. 59-60) . I cannot hope to resolve here the question of the
extent to which this inside/ out, Mobius gesture is a symptom of signification or
of the living, but I would like to suggest that this may be an efect of the collision
or difraction of "signification" with "living." For another analysis of the function
of "holes" in Gamow's scientific discourse, see chapter 3 in this volume.
27. Jacob, The Statue Within, pp. 8-9.
28. Ibid. , p. 17.
29. For more on narratival anticipation and integration, see my discussion of
the sublime in chapter I. See also Daniel Dennet's Consciousness Explained (Con
sciousness Explained, Boston: Little, Brown, 1991) for a discussion of the role of
narrative in "consciousness."
30.
Z
izek, Slavoj . Sublime Object ofIdeology, p. 56. This Lacanian matrix can
be seen to be in alignment with Deleuze's analysis of the metonymies of con
sciousness described earlier.
3 1 . Beardsley, "Smart Genes," p. 89.
32. Genes refers here to sequences of DNA that code for proteins. Of course,
Davidson is carefl to point out that "most" and not algenes must construct such
"computers," preserving the possibility of some "bootstrapping" genes and pre
serving the centrality of a genetic account while changing its infection.
3 3 . In Terminator 2, the future leader John Connor requires this borrowing
from the future for his sovereignty: the expression of himself as "leader" requires
him to lead and protect even his own past.
34. Jacob, The Statue Within, p. 304. Coincidentally, Terminator 2 can itselfbe
described as a signal struggle, an attempt to send a signal fom the future that will
prevent a nuclear exchange-in efect, a message that reads: Do not drop the
bombs, Do not drop the bombs . . . .
3 5 . Derrida, "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human
Sciences," in Writing and Dif erence, pp. 278-79.
36. Zimmerman, Heideger' Confrontation, p. x.
37. Derrida, "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sci-
ences," p. 279.
3 8 . Beardsley, "Smart Genes," p. 91 . 39. Borch-Jacobsen, Lacan, p. 177.
40. Foucault, Order ofThings, p. 269. 41 . Serres, Hermes, p. 75.
42. For another analysis of the slippages that inhabit such narratival descrip
tions of what Deleuze and Guattari would call "rhizomatic" systems, see chapter
I in this volume.
43. At this point it can be suggested, though not fully argued, that "life" as a
unity, as one mode of being that is shared in some baseline way by all organisms,
can be seen as itself a containment of the multiplicity of efects at play in the
living. The productive confusion spawned by the fuzzy definitions of life (as for
example, in the debates over artificial life) can be read as a symptom of "life's"
metonymic and retroactive production. See chapter I in this volume.
44. This problem-the limits of the articulation of scientific practices-is
somewhat analogous to problems of computability in the computer sciences.
Physicist David Ruelle traces out the implications of the limits of computability,
implications that may apply analogically to the limits of articulation: "I like to
think of the paradox of someone (the predictor) who uses the determinism of
physical laws to foresee the future, and then uses fee will to contradict the
predictions . . . . How do we handle this paradox? We could abandon either
determinism or fee will, but there is a third possibility: we may question the
ability of any predictor to do the job so well that a paradox arises. Let us note that
if a predictor wants to create a paradox by violating forecasts about a certain
system, then the predictor must be a part of the system in question. This implies
that the system is rather complicated. But then the accurate prediction of the
future of the system is likely to require enormous computing power, and the task
may exceed the capabilities of our predictor. This is a somewhat loose argument
about a loosely stated problem, but I think it identifies the reason . . . why we
cannot control the future" (Ruelle, Chance and Chaos, pp. 32-3 3) . Analogously, I
am suggesting that the task of narrating and/ or describing systems as complex as
"living" systems may prove too much for our current rhetorics. Thanks to Paul
Harris for helping with these, and many other, observations.
Notes to Pages 84-90 1 53
45. As it seeks out an encounter with the conditions of scientific production
that are other than those under the spell of the human, this rhetorical empiricism
is also an ethics, if we follow Levinas's formulation of ethics as thinking that
concerns itself with the relations to the Other. For Levinas, subjectivity "realizes
these impossible exigencies-the astonishing feat of containing more than it is
possible to contain" ( Totality and Infnity, p. 27). The impossibility of the techn
scientific subject in language "containing" the fux and alterity at the heart of
scientific practice, which includes the alterity at play in the scientific "object,"
marks out the debt of humans and scientific practices to the other. In his alterna
tive to the tradition of thinking subjectivity as a closed "case," Levinas figures
subjectivity as "welcoming the other, as hospitality" (Levinas, Totality and In
fnity, p. 27) . Analogously, I would like to consider technscientific practice and
subjectivity as cultivating a hospitality to the other, actively allowing what Hans
Jorg-Rheinberger has called "unprecedented events" in scientific practice. On
this view, the sklls of scientific practice become the skil of allowing for the
alterity of the experimental practice, for not doing science "scientifically."
46. Jacob, The Statue Within, p. 3 1 7. The "statue within" that Jacob describes
as himself is thus a postvital statue that triumphs over life and death and exists
"between" both. See chapter I for my discussion of the postvital body (thesis 3 :
"What Body?"). For further-and insightfl-probing of this figure of the statue,
see Borch-Jacobsen's Lacan, "The erection of the ego is always the erection of a
statue that I see, over there-triumphant, unshakable, fixed for eternity" (p. 49).
Is this not an uncanny double for Jacob's statue, one that triumphs over time and
space?
\HaQtCr 5
1 . Foucault, Foucault / Blanchot, p. 1 5 .
2. Fireman and Slavin, Atlas ofAlleries, p. I .
3 . The fact that the meaning of this encounter with the other is now articu
lated as pathological perhaps provides further evidence of the normativity of the
normal as discussed by George Canguilhem in his Te Normal and the Pathological.
4. Fireman and Slavin, Atlas ofAllergies, p. 1 .
5 . Luce Irigaray, "Is the Subject of Science Sexed?" in Tuana, Feminism and
Science, pp. 58-68.
6. In L'Heritier, Jacob, Jakobson, and Levi-Strauss, " Vivre et Parler:' Les Lettres
Frncaises, p. 4.
7. Ibid.
8 . Ibid., p. 2.
9. Ibid., p. 6.
ro. "Here again we come across a quite natural penetration of a linguistic
concept and term into the research of biologists" (quoted in Masters, Semiotica,
I S4 Notes to Pages 91 -96
p. 307) . Natural is the key, and unexamined, term here. To ascribe a natural
penetration of both biology and linguistics by a linguistic paradigm is to beg the
very question of the relation of the two disciplines under discussion. Indeed, this
origin story gets even more problematic when one takes into account the infu
ences of genetics onJakobson's early work.
I 1 . Lacan, Seminar cif Jacques Lacan, p. 8 1 .
12. Derrida, OfGrmmatology, p. 4.
1 3 . Ibid. , p. 84.
14. Ibid. , Speech and Phenomena, p. 141.
IS. Ibid. , OfGrammatology, p. 84
16. Plato, Collected Dialogues, 27se. The tensions within the Platonic account
of writing-its tendency to repeat the same, its tendency to distort-are pur
sued by Derrida through the fgure of the pharmakon in "Plato's Pharmacy," in
Dissemination.
17. Derrida, of course, wants to foreground the fact that such writing is not
supplemental to a human voice, that it is in some sense "prior" to such a voice, a
priority of course that Derrida would also deconstruct as an artifact of the search
for origins. This disrupts the opposition that has been inscribed between nature
and culture in that we find a writng in the gene not unlike the inscriptions in
sand that philosophers oflanguage are so fond of in their discussions of human
intentionality. But at the level of an organism, this disruption of human sov
ereignty over language is reinvested in the sovereignty of the gene, as can be seen
in the vector of power that leads fom DNA to "behavior."
1 8 . Derrida, OfGrmmatology, p. 6.
19. Here Derrida can ironically be aligned with the Schrodinger efect ana-
lyzed in chapter 2.
20. This was a favorite dictum of Jacques Monod.
21 . Derrida, OfGrmmatology, p. 6.
22. Ibid., p. 7.
23. Ibid. , p. 86.
24. To be sure, Derrida discusses not DNA but "genetic inscription" or "The
Program," thus including the process by which DNA becomes proteins. But the
notion of "program" and translation and transcription to which he refers-to
the extent that he remains indebted to the notions of genetic "reading" and
"writing" -nonetheless maintains the sovereignty of the gene.
2 S . Foucault: Birth ofthe Clinic, p. xix.
26. Hence, the persistence of the driving question of even a postvital life
science-what is life? Artificial life (see chapter 6) can be seen as the latest attempt
to settle this question of an origin, to determine a "general theory of living
systems," while the practice of A-life tends to fagment the very notion of a
single, unified "life," precisely through its success at demonstrating the lack of any
"organic" ongIn.
27. Derrida, Speech and Phenomena, p. 1 32.
28. Trifonov and Brendel, Gnomic, p. 3 .
29 Ibid., p. 5.
Notes t o Pages 96-I 04 1 5 5
30. In this phrasing, I follow Donna Haraway's coinage "magical rationalism"
to describe the contemporary stew of mysticism, magic, and instrumentalism
that animates technoscience. Personal correspondence with author, February
1992.
3 1 . This is "correct" in as much as much evolutionary theory also claims
error as an ongm.
32. Trifonov and Brendel, Gnomic, pp. 3 -4.
3 3 . A similar style of thinking has been analyzed by Evelyn Fox Keller in her
research and discussion of theories of slime mold aggregation. Here the notion of
a "pacemaker cell," a central site of control that triggers cellular diferentiation in
the remarkable transition from single-celled to multicelled organisms of Dic
tyostelium discoideum appeared more "natural" in the milieu of mathematical biol
ogy- than did a more interactive account, one that required no prior pattern or
diference. It seems to me that this episode-where the application of a rhetorical
matrix of origins and control implicitly shaped research-is but one example of
the ways in which biological accounts are shot through with ideologies of control
and a metaphysics of origins.
34. The scare quotes serve here, inadequately, to mark the fact that such an
infnitist rhetoric is impossible. What I am interested in here, in fact, is the fact
that such regresses do not proceed infnitely; the closure that occurs at such
aporias, however temporary, is a trace of power. See chapter 6 in this volume and
Brian Rotman's Ad Infnitum for a detailed critique of infinitist metaphysics in
mathematics.
35. Pattee, "How Does a Molecule Become a Message?" p. I .
36. The fact that Pattee forgets that a message to turn "of" would be equally
simple should not go unnoticed. Why does Pattee forget, or turn of, this
message?
37. Pattee, "How Does a Molecule Become a Message?" p. 6.
3 8 . Ibid. , p. 7.
39. Ibid.
40. Thus, here we have an empirical encounter with one of the truisms of
deconstruction.
41 . This language of the "irreducible," of course, evokes Polanyi's essay,
"Life's Irreducible Structure," but cannot be reduced to it. Polanyi's persistent
deployment of the boundary conditions oflanguage betrays his a priori belief in
the perfect "switch" that Pattee claims is impossible. This switch delimits, once
and for all, the distinction between, for example, "style" and "content" in lan
guage, ignoring what Hayden White has called the content of the form: "you
cannot derive grammar from a vocabulary; a correct use of grammar does not
account for good style; and a good style does not supply the content of a piece of
prose" (polanyi, p. 43). I do not argue that these boundaries are meaningless; only
that their meaning derives from their play, their leakiness, and the imperfections
of Pattee's switch.
42. " Wen the phenomenon i forgetting comes into play, it becomes all the more
interesting to me. I fnd that to be a part i the message as well. I add these negative
phenomena to the reading ofthe meaning. I also recognize them a having the function i a
message" (Lacan, Seminar ofJacques Lacan, p. 125, (emphasis in original) .
43. For a brief discussion of the notion of scientific authorship, see Foucault,
"The Order of Discourse," in Archaeology ofKnowledge.
44. Pattee, "Laws and Constraints, Symbols and Languages" in Waddington,
Towards a Theoretical Biology, vol. 4, p. 248.
45. Von Neumann, Theory ofSelf-Reproducing Automata, p. 47.
46. Pattee, "How Does a Molecule Become a Message?" p. I I .
47. Ibid. For more on the productivity of such "failure;' see Winograd and
Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition.
48. For example: the very formulation of the aporia of living systems in terms
of a "chicken/ egg" problem testifies to the trace of a humanist, heterosexualist
orientation at play in these accounts. For such a formulation appears problematic
only in the context of a privileging of "origins" and the use of a specifically
heterosexual paradigm. For example, ferns reproduce through spores, gameto
phytes and "full grown ferns." No one questions "which comes frst," although
primacy is usually accorded to the "full grown plant" when narrativized. Chick
ens and eggs reproduce themselves sexually; each reproduces the other, but the
paradox usually revolves around the priority of one over the other. The use of
this, rather than any of the other examples of reproduction, as the paradigm for .a
bootstrap problem is emblematic of a heterosexualist inflection of thought. Only
a subjectivity oriented around sexual diference thought a opposition rather than
network would be ensnared in such a bootstrap problem. By contrast, the "fern"
spore, gametophyte, full-grown plant-is seen as all one organism, smeared over
time.
49. Haraway, Simians, Cybors, Women, p. 190.
50. See Doyle, "Dislocating Knowledges;' 47-58.
5 I. "But of course infinite vision i s an illusion, a god-trick" (Haraway,
Simians, Cybors, Women, p. 189) .
52. For an insightful account of situated knowledges and N. Katherine
Hayles's notion of "Constrained Constructivism;' see Lenoir, "Was the Last Turn
the Right Turn?"
5 3 Indeed, rhetorical softwares can be seen as one more player in the ecology
of "articulation work" described by sociologists of science as "keeping every
thing on track through little bits of local ' knowledge that keep the enterprise
functioning" (The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Centur Life Sci-
ences, edited by Joan Fujimura and Adele Clark [Princeton, N..: Princeton Uni
versity Press, 1992.] , p. 276).
54. Oyama, "Accidental Chordate."
55. Ibid.
56. Indeed, this raises the possibility that contingency also qualifies as a
nonhuman actant in scientific practice in that it is something absolutely necessary
to scientific work.
57. The phrase is Derrida's: ';In marking out diference, everything is a
matter of strategy and risk . . . . In the end, it is a strategy without finality. We
might call it blind tactics or empirical errance, if the value of empiricism did not
itself derive all its meaning fom its opposition to philosophical responsibility"
("Diferance" in Speech and Phenomena, p. 1 3 5) . Hans-Jorg Rheinberger has
translated the phrase "empirical errance" as "empirical roaming around" ("Ex
perimental Systems," p. 71) .
58. Historian of science, philosopher, and molecular biologist Hans-Jorg
Rheinburger has described this refsal of material systems to be localized in terms
of a temporalit of the (Derridean) trace, a nonhuman actor known as time: "An
experimental system has more stories to tell than the experimenter at a given
moment is trying to tell with it. It not only contains submerged narratives, the
story of its repressions and displacements; as long as it remains a research system, it
also has not played out its excess. Experimental systems contain remants of older
narratives as well of fagments of narratives that have not yet been told" ("Experi
mental Systems," pp. 65-8 1) . Thus, rhetorics of living systems must be seen as
constantly in play, traces of old narratives becoming the present, the present
narratives inscribing the past and the fture, life tracing its way through such
narratives diferentially.
59. Lacan, Seminar of Jacques Lacan, p. 143 .
60. Waddington, "Epilogue," in Towards a Teoretical Biology, vol. 4, p. 289.
LHaQtCr
I . Marcello Barbieri, in The Semantic Teor ofEvolution, points out that in
terms of producing lifelike objects, "synthetic biology" actually goes back to at
least 1 907. "Stephane Le Duc's 'The Mechanism of Life' featured a group of
mushrooms, a colony of algae and a cell undergoing mitosis. In fact they were all
inorganic artifacts that Le Duc had created in saturated solutions of potash with
dyes, phosphates, chlorides and other salts" (p. 89) .
2. Langton, Articial Li, p. I .
3 . Jacob, and Monod, "Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms;' p. 3 54.
4. Langton, Artifcial Life, p. 2. Of course, the idea that the diversity of life
somehow constitutes a "single example" is itself historically constituted. See my
subsequent discussion of Foucault and thesis 3 , "What Body?" of chapter I .
1 58 Notes to Pages I I2-I 6
5 . Nietzsche, Twilight ofthe Idols, p. 30.
6. Here Nietzsche discusses the limit that calls for the "beyond" discussed in
chapter 1 . This lmit is itself, of course, a poor approximation of the finite nature
of reason. For another reason, see my discussion in chapter I under the sign of
narrative, where the gaps that inhabit "resolution" and other such limits are
exposed as fissures or "nooks" and not solid, impermeable, absolute walls.
7. Langton, Articial Li, p. xiii.
8. Foucault, Order cThings, p. 269.
9. Ibid., p. 254
10. Waddington, Towards a Theoretical Biology, vol. 4, p. 289.
I ! . See Niels K. Jerne, "The Generative Grammar of the Immune System;'
Science 229: 1 057-59.
12. Longuet-Higgins, "Seat of the Soul," pp. 236-41 .
1 3 . Hodges, Alan Turing, pp. I 02-3 .
14. Waddington, Towards a Teoretical Biology, vol. 2, p. 241 . Of course, what
becomes important for our purposes is the overlooking of the platform for the
tape; as in molecular biology's persistent " overlooking" or forgetting of the body,
accounts of Turing machines often forget that tapes must be read by some agent,
machinic or otherwise.
I S . Ibid., 236.
16. Atlan and Koppel, "Cellular Computer DNA," p. 3 3 5 .
17

Jacob and Monod, "Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms," p. 3 54.
1 8 . Atlan and Koppel, "Cellular Computer DNA," p. 346.
19. On the one-way relationship of the analogy between machines and
organisms, historian of science Georges Canguilhem writes: "The relationship
between machine and organism has generally been studied in only one way
Neary always, the organism has been explained on the basis of a preconceived
idea of the structure and functioning of the machine; but only rarely have the
structure and function of the organism been used to make the construction of the
machine itself more understandable." (Canguilhem, "Machine and Organism,"
p. 45, in Crary and Kwinter, Incorportions.)
20. Shannon, "The Bandwagon," pp. 2-3 .
21 . By contrast, the history of automata-as opposed to computer life-is full
of these reversals in which the model displaces the "original" as the object of
study. Jacques de Vaucanson, for example, had plans to produce "an automatic
figure whose motions will be an imitation of all animal operations, such as the
circulation of the blood, respiration, digestion, the movement of muscles, ten
dons, nerves and so forth. He claims that by using this automaton we shall be able
to carry out experiments on animal fnctions, and to draw conclusions fom
them which will allow us to recognize the diferent states of human health, in
order to remedy his ills" (Beaune, "Classical Age," p. 434) . Of course, no claims
Notes to Pages I I 7-22 159
were made that this automata lived-this would have to wait for the modern
notion oflife outlined in this volume.
22. One of Freud's paradigmatic examples for the uncanny or "unheimlich" is
the inability to distinguish between living and nonliving entities. See "The Un
canny:' in Collected Works, vol. 1 7, p. 242.
23 . Sigmund, Games ciLie, p. 1 0.
24. Ibid.
25. Regis, Great Mambo Chicken, p. 193 .
26. Anthropologist Stefan Helreich, who has studied the community of
A-life researchers at the Santa Fe Institute, confirms this observation. Personal
communication with author, February 1996. See his Replicating Reproduction.
27. Rotman, "Towards a Semiotics;' p. 1 5 .
28 . Beaune, "Classical Age of Automata," p. 43 5.
29. Lavery, Latefor the Sky.
30. Langton, Articial Lie, p. 2.
3 1 . Ibid. , p. 20.
32. Remarkably, Freeman Dyson's plans for an artificial life mission to Mars
relies on the same Icarus imagery, this time with Icarus planning on the big
meltdown: "Dyson turned his imagination to the cosmos and proposed a self
reproducing automaton sent to the snow-covered Saturnian moon Enceladus. In
his vision, this particular machine would draw on the distant sun's energy to
create factories that produced a long stream of solar-powered sailboats, each
carrying a block of ice. The sailboats would head toward Mars, and the fiery ride
into the Martian atmosphere would melt the ice blocks" (Levy, Artifcial Lie,
P
3 3)
3 3 Langton, Articial Lif, p. 2.
34. Ibid.
3 5 . Quoted in Regis, Great Mambo Chicken, p. 1 92.
3 6. Donna Haraway invests microelectronics with this capability: "Micro
electronics is the technical basis of simulacra; that is, copies without originals"
(Simians, Cyborgs, Women, p. 165). Here I want to highlight the linguistic artifacts
necessary to produce the efects of such simulation, what Beaune refers to as the
"language of the technostructure." While microelectronics are themselves "writ
ten" artifacts, it is also true that they are limited by their rhetorical softwares,
textual artifacts that make possible the explication of the simulation and produce
the experience of " originality" or "life." These softwares themselves reach their
limit at both the limits of the hardware and the limits of wetwares, the threshold
at which the rhetorical software becomes inarticulate, disjointed, unable to expli
cate anything but its own inadequacy. The problematic of "definition" in artifi
cial life is one such threshold.
37. Howard Pattee sums this up well when he writes "the fact that human
thought can be simulated by computation is treated as evidence in support of the
Physical Symbol System Theory. But, since virtually everything can be simulated
by a computer, it is not really evidence for the theory at all" (Pattee, in Langton,
Articial Life, p. 67). Similarly, we have no evidence from A-life for a general
theory concerning living systems; the simulations of life tell us more about the
capabilities of computers (and their operators) than about the formal attributes of
all living systems.
3 8. Baudrillard, Simulations, p. 4.
39. Ibid. , p. 146.
40. Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker, p. 206. A further twist on this logic of the
simulacrum occurred in central Pennsylvania at a store that ofered for sale "Gen
uine Xerox Copies."
41 . Baudrillard, Simulations, pp. 5-6. Note that the limit of this argument
arrives the moment one attempts to fake death and medicine becomes the arbiter
of "true" death, a determination that seems to take on a higher degree of ar
bitrariness in the age of postvitality.
42. Baudrillard, Simulations, p. 3 .
43 Ibid. , p. 7
44 Ibid. , p. 9
45. Waddington, Towards a Theoretical Biology, vol. 2, p. 75.
46. Levy, Articial Life, j. 95.
47. Ibid., p. 58. 48. Lavery, Latefor the Sky, p. I I 2.
49. Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker, p. I I I . 50. Ray, Tierr Abstract.
5 1 . Atlan and Koppel, "Cellular Computer DNA," p. 346.
52. Ray, Tierr Abstrct.
5 3 . See, for example, Adams, "Self Organization and Living Systems," in
which Adams writes: "if in fact the nature of life is embodied in a unique
molecular electronic structure of DNA, this would suggest that any extrater
restrial life would probably resemble the forms occurring on this planet" (p. 224).
Here we can see the way in which the notion that DNA is formally a "program"
or "artificial intelligence" argues for the universality of form, if not substance, in
the processes oflife.
54. Beaune, "Classical Age of Automata;' p. 437.
55 Moravec, Mind Children, p. 4.
56. Serres, The Parasite, p. 37.
57. Ray, grant proposal.
58. Thus, A-life researchers do not simply "construct" A-lfe creatures; A-life
organisms are real entities that use up energy and space and are not simply the
result of human will. Like viruses, however, they require a host, and A-lifers are
such hosts; and, as usual, the host is transformed in the process. Thus, following
traditional usage in which viruses are only alive when they have colonized a cell,
A-life creatures are never in themselves alive; it is only through the ecolog of
Notes to Page 1 3 2 1 61
wetwares, sofwares, and hardwares that such emergent phenomena occur. When
A-life organisms are alive, they are not, strictly speaking, artificial, as they include
corporeal traces of organic elements-humans. When they are not networked
with humans, they are not alive but are artificial. In this sense, the A-life creature
is beyond living.
59. Ray, grant proposal.
60. Nietzsche, Twilight ofthe Idols, p. 75.
Bibliography
Adams, D. H. "Self Organization and Living Systems: Is DNA an Artificial
Intelligence?" Medical Hypotheses 29 (1989) : 223-339.
Alberts, Bruce, Dennis Bray, Julian Lewis, Martin Raf, Keith Roberts, and
James D. Watson. Molecular Biology ofthe Cell. 2d ed. New York: Garland,
1989.
Atlan, Henri, and Moshe Koppel. "The Cellular Computer DNA: Program or
Data?" Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 52, no. 3 (1990) : 3 3 5-48.
Austin, ]. L. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1 962.
Barbieri, Marcello. The Semantic Teor ofEvolution. New York: Harwood, 1985.
Barrow, John D, and Frank]. Tippler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Baudrillard, Jean. The Ecstasy o Communication. Trans. Bernard and Caroline
Schutze. Ed. Slyvere Lotringer. Brooklyn: Autonomedia, 1988.
-. Simulations. Trans. Paul Foss, Paul Patton, and Phillip Beitchman. New
York: Semiotext(e) , 1983.
Beadle, George, and Muriel Beadle. Te Language of Lie: An Introduction to the
Science i Genetics. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1 966.
Beardsley, T "Smart Genes." Scientifc American 265, no. 2 (August 1991): 86-95.
Beaune, Jean-Claude. "The Classical Age of Automata: A Impressionistic Sur
vey fom the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century." In Fragments for a History
ofthe Human Body. Ed. Michael Fehrer and Nadia Tazi, pp. 43 1 -80. New
York: Zone; distributed by MIT Press, 1 989.
Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. Trans. by Harry Zohn. Ed. Hannah Arendt.
New York: Schocken, 1986.
Bloom, Harold. The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.
Borch-Jacobsen, Mikkel. Lacan: Te Absolute Master. Trans. Douglas Brick. Stan
ford: Stanford University Press, 1991 .
1 64 Bibliography
Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits ofSex. New York:
Routledge, 1993 .
Butler, Samuel. Erewhon. Ed. Peter Mudford. Harmondsworth, u.K.: Penguin,
1970.
Cadava, Eduardo, Peter Connor, andJean-Luc Nancy, eds. Jio Comes After the
Subject? New York: Routledge, 1991 .
Canguilhem, Georges. L Connaisance de la Vie. 2d ed. Paris: ]. Vrin, 1965.
-. Ideology and Rationality i n the Histor of the Lie Sciences. Trans. Arthur
Goldhammer. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1988.
-. The Normal and the Pathological. Trans. Carolyn R. Fawcett, i n collaboration
with Robert S. Cohen; with an introducton by Michel Foucault. New
York: Zone, 1989.
Clark, Adele, and Joan Fujimura, eds. The Riht Tools for the Job: At Work in
Twentieth- Centur Lie Sciences. Princeton, N..: Princeton University Press,
1992.
Cohn, Melvin, and Jacques Monod. "Terminology of Enzyme Formation." Na
ture 172 (December 12, 1953) : 1096.
Cranor, Carl, editor. Are Genes Us? Social Implications of the Human Genome
Initiatives. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1994.
Crary, Jonathan, and Sanford Kwinter. Incorportions. New York: Zone; dis
tributed by MIT Press, 1992.
Crick, Francis. OfMolecules and Men. Seattle: University of Washington Press,
1 966.
-. "The Recent Excitement in the Coding Problem." Progress in Nucleic Acid
Research in Molecular Biology I (1963): 163-217.
Crick, Francis, and James Watson. "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A
Structure for Deoxyribonucleic Acid." Nature 171 (1953): 737-3 8.
Crowther, Paul. The Kantian Sublime: From Morlity to Art. Oxford: Clarendon
Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Curtius, Ernst Robert. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans.
Willard R. Trask. New York: Pantheon Books, 1953.
Dawkins, Richard. Te Blind Watchmaker: Jy the Evidence ofEvolution Reveals a
Universe Without Design. New York: W. W. Norton, 1987.
Deleuze, Giles. Te Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Trans. Tom Conley. Min
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1 993 .
-. Foucault. Trans. and ed. Sean Hand. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 198 8 .
-. Spinoza: Prctical Philosophy. Trans. Robert Hurley. San Francisco: City
Lights Books, 1988.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Tousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophre
nia. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
DeLillo, Don. Te Names. New York: Knopf, 1 982.
Bibliography 165
de Man, Paul. The Resistance to Teor. Foreword by Wlad Godzich. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1986.
Derrida, Jacques. "Declarations ofIndependence:' New Political Science 15 (1 986) :
7-1 5
-. Dissemination. Trans. Barbara Johnson. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 198 I .
-. Margins ofPhilosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1982.
-. Of Grmmatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1 976.
-. Specters o Marx: Te State of the Debt, the Work of Mouring, and the New
International. Trans. Peggy Kamuf, with an introduction by Bernd Magnus
and Stephen Cullenberg. New York: Routedge, 1994.
-. Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl' Teory ofSigns. Trans.
David B. Allison. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973 .
-. Writing and Dif erence. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1978.
Dounce, A. L. "Duplicating Mechanism for Peptide Chain and Nucleic Acid
Synthesis" Enzymologia 1 5 (1952): 25 1 -58.
Doyle, Richard. "Dislocating Knowledges, Thinking Out of Joint: Rhizomatics,
Caenorhabditis elegans and the Importance of Being Multiple." Confgurations I
(1994) : 47-58.
Fireman, Philip, and Raymond G. Slavin, eds. Atlas ofAlleries. New York:
Gower, 199I .
Fortun, Michael. "Making and Mapping Genes and Histories: The Genomics
Project in the United States, 1 980-1990." Ph.D. diss. , Harvard University,
Department of the History of Science, 1 993 .
Foucault, Michel. Te Archaeology ofKnowledge. Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith.
New York: Pantheon, 1972.
-. Birth o the Clinic: An Archaeology o Medical Perception. Trans. A. M. Sheridan
Smith. New York: Pantheon, 1973 .
-. . FoucaultlBlanchot. Trans. Brian Massumi. New York: Zone; distributed by
MIT Press, 1 987.
-. Language, Countermemory Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Trans.
Donald E Bouchard and Sherry Simon. Ed. Donald E Bouchard. Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1 977.
-. The Order of Things: An Archaeology i the Human Sciences. New York:
Pantheon, 1 97I .
Freud, Sigmund. The Interretation i Dreams. Trans. and ed. James Strachey. New
York: Avon, 1 965.
Gamow, G. One, Two, Tree . . . Infnity: Facts and Speculations i Science. With
illustrations by George Gamow. New York: Bantam, 1966.
1 66 Bibliography
-. "Possible Relation between Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Protein Struc
tures." Nature 173 (1954) : 3 1 8.
Gamow, George, and N. Metropolis. "Numerology of Polypeptide Chains."
Science 120 (1954): 779-80.
Gamow, George, and Martin Y cas. My. Tompkins Inside Himself Adventures in the
New Biology. With illustrations by George Gamow. New York: Viking, 1967.
-. "Statistical Correlation of Protein and Ribonucleic Acid Composition."
Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Science 41 (1955): 1 01 1 -19.
Gierasch, Lila M. , and Jonathan King, eds. Protein Folding: Deciphering the Second
Half ofthe Genetic Code. Washington, D. c. : American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1990.
Gilbert, Walter. "Towards a Paradigm Shift in Biology." Nature 349 (January 1 0,
1991): 99

Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. Allegor and Representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 198 I .
Haraway, Donna. Crstals, Fabrics, and Fields: Metaphors ofOrganicism in Twentieth
Centur Developmental Biology. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
1 976.
-. Simians, Cyborgs, Women: The Reinvention ofNature. London: Free Associa
tion, 1990.
Heidegger, Martin. Poetr Language, Thought. Trans. Albert Hofstadter. New
York: Harper and Row, 197 I .
-. Te Question Concering Technology and Other Essays. Trans. William Lovitt.
New York: Garland, 1 977.
Heims, Steve J. John Von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: From Mathematics to the
Techn"logies of Life and Death. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1980.
Helmreich, Stefan. "Anthropology Inside and Outside the Looking-Glass Worlds
of Artificial Life." Ph.D. diss. , Stanford University, Department of Anthropol
ogy, 1 995

Hodges, Andrew. Alan Turing: Te Enigma. London: Burnett, 1983 .
Jacob, Fran<ois. The Logic ofLif: A History oHeredity. Trans. Betty E. Spillmann.
New York: Pantheon, 1973 .
-. Te Statue Within: An Autobiogrphy. Trans. Franklin Philip. New York:
Basic, 1988.
Jacob, Fran<ois, and Jacques Monod. "Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms in the
Synthesis of Proteins." Joural ofMolecular Biology 3 : 3 1 8.
Judson, Horace. Te Eihth Day o Creation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979.
Kant, Immanuel. The Critique ofJudgement. Trans. James Creed Meredith. Ox
ford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
Kay, Lily. Te Molecular Vision ofLife: Caltech, the Rockiller Foundation, and the
Rise of the New Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993 .
Bibliography I67
Keller, Evelyn Fox. "The Discourse of Gene Action." Tanner Lectures, Univer
sity of Utah, February I 993 .
-. A Feeling Jor the Organism: The Li and Work of Barbar McClintock. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman, I98 3 .
-. Riections o n Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, I985.
-. Secrets oJLif, Secrets oJDeath: Essays on Language, Gender and Science. New
York: Routledge, I992.
Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar cJacques Lacan: Book I, The Ego in Freud' Theory and
in the Technique c Psychoanalysis, 1954-1955. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. Ed.
Jacques Alain Miller. New York: W. W. Norton, I988.
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe. Heideger Art and Politics: Te Fiction c the Political.
Trans. Chris Turner. Cambridge, Mass. : Blackwell, I990.
Langton, Christopher G. Articial Li: The Proceedings ojan Interdisciplinary Work
shop on the Synthesis and Simulation ojLiving Systems. Redwood City, Cali:
Addison-Wesley, I989.
Latour, Bruno. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Trough
Society. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Unversity Press, I987.
Lavery, David. LateJor the Sky: The Mentality of the Space Age. Carbondale: South
ern Illinois University Press, I 992.
Lenoir, Tim. "Was the Last Turn the Right Turn? The Semiotic Turn and A. J.
Greimas." Confgurations I (I994) : I I9-36.
Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infnity: An Essay on Exteriority. Trans. Alphonso
Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, I 969.
Levy, Steven. Articial Life: Te QuestJor Creation. New York: Pantheon, I992.
Lewontin, Richard. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper
Perenial, I 992.
LHeritier, Philippe, Francois Jacob, Roman Jakobson, and Claude Levi-Strauss.
"Vivre et Parler." Les Lettres Francaises, nos. I22I-23, I968.
Longuet-Higgins, Christopher. "The Seat of the Soul." In Towards A Theoretical
Biology, ed. C. H. Waddington, vol. 2, 236-41 . Chicago-Aldine, I968-72.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois. Te Dirend: Phrases in Dispute. Trans. Georges Van Den
Abbeele. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, I988.
-. The Inhuman: Riections on Time. Trans. Geofrey Bennington and Tachel
Bowlby. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, I991 .
Massumi, Brian. A User' Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations fom
Deleuze and Guattari. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, I992.
Masters, Roger. "Genes, Language, and Evolution:' Semiotica (I968): 3 07.
McIntosh, Robert. The Background ci Ecology: Concept and Theory. New York:
Cambridge University Press, I985.
Miller, Jefrey H. , and William S. Reznikof, eds. The Operon. Cold Spring
Harbor, N.Y: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, I978.
168 Bibliography
Moravec, Hans P Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Friedrich Nietzsche on Rhetoric and Language. Trans. and ed.,
with a critical introduction by, Sander L. Gilman, Carole Blair, and David J.
Parent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
-. Twilight i the Idols; and, Te Anti- Christ. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale, with an
introduction by Michael Tanner. New York: Penguin, 1990.
-. Untimely Meditations. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale, with an Introduction by J. P
Stern. New York: Cambridge University Press, 198 3 .
Oyama, Susan. "The Accidental Chordate: Contingency in Developmental Sys
tems." South Atlantic Quarterly 9, no. 2 (199S): S09-26.
-. The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1985 .
Pattee, Howard H. "How Does a Molecule Become a Message?" Communication
in Development, Developmental Biology, Supplement 3 (1969) : 1-16.
Plato. The Collected Dialogues, Including the Letters. Ed. Edith Hamilton and Hun
tington Cairns. Princeton, N.. : Princeton University Press, 1989.
Polanyi, Michael. Knowing and Being: Essays. Ed. Marorie Grene. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.
Ray, Tom. "Grant Proposal." Available on the internet by anonymous fp fom ftp:
/ / alife.santafe.edu/pub/SOFTWARE/Tierra/ doc/proposal.tex. 1 995.
-. Tierra Abstract. Available on the internet by anonymous ftp fom ftp: / / alife.
santafe. edu/pub/SOFTWARE/Tierra/ doc. 1992.
Regis, Ed. Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly over
the Edge. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley, 1990.
Rheinberger, Hans-Jarg. "Experimental Systems: Historiality, Narration and
Deconstruction." Science in Context 7, no. I (1994): 71 .
Roberts, Leslie. "The Worm Project." Science 248, no. 4961 (June I S , 1990) :
1 3 1 0-1 3 .
Roland, J. "Nanotechnology: The Promise and Peril of Ultratiny Machines."
Futurist 2S, no. 2 (March-April 1991) : 29-3 S .
Ronell, Avital. Dictations: On Haunted Writing. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1 986.
-. The Telephone Book: Technology Schizophrenia, Electric Speech. Lincoln: Uni
versity of Nebraska Press, 1989.
Rose, Gillian. Feminism and Geography: Te Limits of Geogrphical Knowledge.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1 993.
Rotman, Brian. Ad Infnitum, the Ghost in Turing' Machine: Taking God Out of
Mathematics and Putting the Body Back In: An Essay in Corporeal Semiotics.
Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1993 .
-. Signifying Nothing: The Semiotics ofZero. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1 987.
-. "Towards a Semiotics of Mathematics." Semiotica 72 (1988) : I S .
Bibliography 1 69
Ruelle, David. Chance and Chaos. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press,
199r .
Sagan, Dorion. "Metametazoa: Biology and Multiplicity." In Incorporations, ed.
Jonathan Crary and Sanford Kwinter, 362-8 5 . New York: Zone, 1992.
Schafer, Simon, and Steven Shapin. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle,
and the Experimental Lie. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 198 5 .
Schrodinger, Erwin. Wat Is Lif? The Physical Aspect o the Living Cell & Mind and
Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 967.
sci. cryonics (Usenet newsgroup) "Frequently Asked Questions." Available on the
internet.
Seare, John. "Minds, Brains, Programs." In Artifcial Intellience: Te Case Against,
25-47. Edited by Ranier Born. New York: St. Martin's, 1987.
Serres, Michel. Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy. Ed. Josue V Harari and
David E Bell. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
-. The Parasite. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1 982.
Shannon, Claude. "The Bandwagon." IRE Transactions (1956) : 2-3 .
Sigmund, Karl. Games o Lie: Explorations in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1993 .
Silverman, Hugh, and Donn Welton, eds. Postmodernism and Continental Philoso
phy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.
Suzuki, David, Anthony J. E Grifiths, Jefrey H. Miller, and Richard C. Lewon
tin. An Introduction to Genetic Analysis. 2d ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman,
198 r .
Taylor, Mark C. Nots. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1 993 .
Thompson, D'Arcy Wentworth. On Growth and Form. Abridged ed. Ed. John
Tyler Bonner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Canto Edition,
1992.
Trifonov, E., and Volker Brendel. Gnomic: A Dictionar oj Genetic Codes. Re
hovot, Israel: Balaban, distributed by VCH, 1986.
Tuana, Nancy. Feminism & Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989.
U.S. Congress. Ofce of Technology Assessment. Mapping Our Genes: The Ge
nome Projects: How Big, How Fast? Washington, D. c. : GPO, 1988.
Von Neumann, John. Teory i Self-Reproducing Automata. Ed. and completed by
Arthur W. Burks. Urbana: University ofIllinois Press, 1 966.
Waddington, Conrad Hal, ed. Towards a Teoretical Biology. 4 vols. Chicago:
Aldine, 1968-72.
Watson, James D. The Double Helix: A Personal Account oj the Discovery o the
Structure of DNA. Ed. Gunther S. Stent. New York: W. W. Norton, 1980.
Watson, James D, and Francis Crick. "Genetical Implications of the Structure of
Deoxyribonucleic Acid." Nature (May 30, 1953) : 171, 964-67.
Winograd, Terry, and Fernando Flores. Understanding Computers and Cognition.
Norwood, NJ.: Ablex, 1986.
170 Bibliography
Woese, Carl. The Genetic Code: Te Molecular Basis for Genetic Expression. New
York: Harper and Row, 1 967.
Y cas, Martin. Te Biological Code. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1969.
Zimmerman, Michael E. Heideger Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Pol
itics, and Art. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1 990:
Z
izek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object ofIdeology. New York: Verso, 1989.
Index
In this index an "f" after a number indicates a separate reference on the next page, and an
"i" indicates separate references on the next two pages. A continuous discussion over two
or more pages is indicated by a span of page numbers, e.g., "57-59." Passim is used for a
cluster of references in close but not consecutive sequence.
"Accidental Chordate, The" (Oyama),
106-7, 1 3 8n44
Accidents, 26-27, I4In5
Adams, D H. , 3 7; "Self Organization and
Living Systems: Is DNA an Artificial
Intelligence?," 3 5-36
Adaptation, 60
"Age of the World Picture, The" (Heideg
ger), 45-46
AI. See Artifcial intelligence
Alberts, Bruce: Molecular Biology of the Cell,
I 5f
A-life, see Artificial life
Alleles, 30
Allergy, 87, I04
Amino acids, 5-6, 39
Arbib, Michael, II 8
Artificia intelligence (AI), 36-37
Artificial life (A-life), 2, 8, 25, I09, 126f,
1 30, 1 ]2, I 59n]2, I60-6I n58; rhetoric
of, I IO-I 8, 121 -23; culture and, I I9-
20; replication and, 124-25; program
and, 128-29
"Artificial Life" (Langton), 120
Atlan, Henri, 127, 129; "The Cellular
Computer DNA: Program or Data?,"
I I4-I 5
Austin,]. L. , 5 , I 44nI3
Automata, I I9, 1 ]2, I 5 8-59n2I . See also
Cellular automata
Automaton, 1 30
Barbieri, Marcello: The Semantic Teor of
Evolution, I 57nI
Baudrillard, Jean, 20, 123-25
Beadle, George: The Language of Li, 86
Beadle, Muriel: The Language of Life, 86
Beaune, Jean-Claude, 1 30, I 59n36; "The
Classical Age of Automata;' 1 19
Behavior, I I I
Belief, 3
Benjamin, Walter, 46-48, 61 , I44n23 ,
I45n3 5
Beyond, the, 1 7, 23
Bible, I45ll24
Biology, 1 , 47, I 4I n6, I 57nI ; theoretical,
I I I -I 3
Biology as Ideolog: Te Doctrine of DNA
(Lewontin), 59-60
Birth of the Clinic, The (Foucault), 13 I
Blueprint, 79-80, I 50nI9
Body, bodies, 8-9, 33, 69-70, I47n48,
I 5 I n26; and molecules, 1 3-1 4
Bootstrap problem, I 56n48
1 72 Index
Brendel, Volker, 97; Gnomic, 98-99
Brenner, Sydney, 1 4, 1 3 8n44
Buder,Judith, 106, 1 36-37nnI 5, 1 7
Buder, Samuel, 1 4I nI 4
CA, see Cellular automata
Cairns-Smith, A. G., 1 30
Canguilhem, Georges, I
S
8nI9
Cartoons, 21 -22
C. elegans, 1 4-1 5, 20f, I 38n44; cell
choices and, 16-17; physical mapping
of, 17-18
Cell, 16-17
Cell lineage, 18
Cellular automata (CA), 120
"Cellular Computer DNA: Program or
Data?, The" (Adan and Koppel) , 1 14-
I
S
Center, Centrality, 79f
Chiasmata, 30
Chomsky, Noam, I I 3
Chromosomes, 28, 29-30, 3 I, 4If, 1 43n6
"Classical Age of Automata, The"
(Beaune), I I9
Code, 5-6, 25, 28f, 145n29. See also
Code-script; Coding problem
Code-script, 29, 3 1 , 41 , 42, I I I , I I6, 129,
143n5
Coding problem, 39f, 43
Communication, 43, 45, 89-90, 91 , 102
Communication theory, 90
Computability, I 52n44
Computers, 2, I I I , 128, 1 5 In32, 1 59-
60n37; and vitality, I I 3-1 4, I I6, I I7-
1 8, 1 30
Contagion, 3
Contingency, 106-7, 1 57n56
Control, 65
Conway, John Horton, I I 6-I 7
Crick, Francis, 27, 33f, 39f, 1 09, 1 14;
"Molecular Structure of Nucleic
Acids," 3 5
Crossover, 29-30
Crowther, Paul: The Kantian Sublime: From
Morality to Ar, 1 39n50
Crying o Lot 49, The (Pynchon), 63
Cryptographic paradigm, 44, 49
Culture, 88-90, 1 19-20
Cuvier, George, 12
Cybernetics, II 6
Cybernetics (Wiener), 1 14
Cyborgs, 25, 36
Darwin, Charles, 59-60
Davidson, Eric, 77
Dawkins, Richard, 124, 127f, 132
Death(s), 21 , 1 60n41
Definition, 1 47n46, 1 50n2I , 1 52n43; na
ture of, 71 -72; connotation of, 73-75;
of organisms, 8 1-82
Deleuze, Gilles, 7, 9, 30-3 1 , 44, 69,
1 43n4, 1 46n43, 148n50; A Tousand
Plateaus, 16; What Is Philosophy?, 6
De Man, Paul, 28f
Department of Energy, US. , 26
Derrida,Jacques, 30f, 34, 57, 79f, 108,
109, 1 39-40n60, 1 44nI 5, 1 45n3 5,
1 48n50, I 54nnI7, 24, 1 57n57; on meta
phor, 3-4; on vitality, 60-61 ; Margins o
Philosophy, 86; OfGrammatology, 91 ,
92-93 , 94-95
Descartes, Rene, 43
Description, 104-5
Determinism, textual, 7
Development, 77
Dick, Philip K., 1 45n3 5
Dif irance, 91-92, 94, 96-97, 98f, 1 37n20
Discourse, scientific, 3 I, 32-3 3
Disease, 33f, 1 3 1
DNA, 2, 9, 27, 35, 43 , 60, 66, 127f, 143n6,
1 46-47nn45, 49, 148-49lll50, 63; as
code, 5-6; as artificial intelligence, 36-
37; protein synthesis and, 39, 62f as
model, 4If, 50; translatability of, 54,
56-57, 62; power and agency of, 67, 81 ,
84, 95, 109; definition and, 73f; time
and, 77, 78-79; as language, 86, 87-88,
89, 95-96, 97-98, 100-101; as pro
gram, I I4, I I 5-1 6, 160n53
Double causality, 44
Double helix, see DNA
Dounce, A. 1. , 39
Dyson, Freeman, 1 59n32
E. coli, 66, 68
, 74-75
Embryology, 76
Empiricism, rhetorical, 83-84, 1 53n45
Enzymes, 67, 70, 1 50nI 6
Essence, 55-56
Ethics, 1 53n45
Eugenics, 26, 14on2
Evolutionary theory, 59-60
Experiments, 3
Expression, 75-76
Fifth essence, 55
Foucault, Michel, 26-27, 32-3 3 , 47, 86,
I IO; Te Order of Things, IO-I I , I I 3 ; on
life, 58-59; Te Birth of the Clinic, 1 3 1
Future, 76-79
Future perfect, 63-64
Galileo Galilei, 43
Gamow, George, 2, 8, 27, 3 5, I I6, 143n9,
146-47nn3 6, 45, 46, I 48-49n63,
1 5 I n26; Mr Tompkins Inside Himself:
Adventures in the New Biology, 3 1 , 55;
"Possible Relation between Deoxyri
bonucleic Acid and Protein Structures,"
39, 42, 53f; on translation, 40f, 43-44,
48f; on tropics of absence, 50-61 ; on
DNA, 62-63
Gaps, textual-visual, 50-6 I
Genes, 27, 66, 1 5IllP, 1 54nI 7; definition
of, 70f; and life, 109, 1 36nIO
Genetic code, 30, 35, 48-49
Genetic expression, 68, 70, 75, 76-77, 81
Genetic inscription, 94-95, 1 54n24
Genetic language, 61 , 87, IOO-IOI
"Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms in the
Synthesis of Proteins" (Jacob and Mo
nod), 67, 72f, 80f definition in, 73-75
Genetics: Schrodinger on, 27-28,29-30,
33-34
Genome projects, 23, 37-38; human, 26,
1 I 5 , I48-49n63
Genomes, 2, 66, 72, 84, I I I , 1 3 8n43 ; ex
pression of, 75-76; and organisms, 78,
80-81 ; language of, 97-98; and artifi
cial life, 128f See also Genome projects
Genotype, 28, 34-3 5
Geste et la Parole, L (Leroi-Gourhan), 91
Gilbert, Walter: "Towards a Paradigm
Shift in Biology," 22-23
Index 173
Gnomic (Trifonov and Brendel) , 98-99
Gnomic language, 98-100
Grammatology Of(Derrida), 91 , 92-93 ,
94-95
Guattari, Felix, 7, 9, 44, 14304, 1 48n50; A
Tousand Plateaus, 16; Wat Is Philoso
phy?, 6
Guy Richard, 121
Haraway, Donna, 25, 36, I05f, 120,
1 36nI6, 1 45n29, 1 55n30, 1 59n36
Heidegger, Martin, 50, 143n9; "The Age
of the World Picture," 45-46; "The
Thing," 1 46n42
Heideger, Art and Politics (Lacoue-
Labarthe), 37
Heredity, 2, 5, 27
History: of life and writing, 91-94
Hodgin, Jonathon, 1 5
Holes, 5 3 , 54, 56-57. See alo Tropics of
absence
Horvitz, Robert, 1 8
"How Does a Molecule Become a Mes-
sage?" (Pattee), IOIf, I 04
Human identity, 7
Husser, Edmund, 1 39-40n60
Hyperreal, 20f
Induction efect, 81 , 1 50n2o
Information theory, 45
Inside and outside, 59-60
Intelligence, 3 5 -36
Irigaray, Luce, 87
Jacob, Franois, 8, 1 3 , 25, 65f, 68-69, 70,
77, 84, 88, 94, I I I , I I 5f, 139n56,
1 4401 1 , 1 49n9, 1 50nnI6, 20, 15I n24,
153n46; on life, 61, I 02f "Genetic
Regulatory Mechanisms in the Synthe
sis of Proteins;' 67, 72f, 80f on defini
tion, 71 , 74f on DNA, 78-79; on
blueprints, 79-80
Jakobson, Roman, 8, 88, 90
Judgment, I I2
Kant, Immanuel, 19f, 1 39n52
Kantian Sublime: From Morality to Art, The
(Crowther), 1 39n50
174 Index
Kay, Lily E. , 148n52
Keller, Evelyn Fox, 10, 65, 1 5 5n33
Knowledge(s) , I , 89, 105-6
Koppel, Moshe, 127, 129; "The Cellular
Computer DNA: Program or Data?;'
1 14-1 5
Lacan, Jacques, 21 f, 25 , 81 , 90-91 , 108
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe: Heideger, Art
and Politics, 37
Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste, 60
Langton, Christopher, 1 1 1f, 1 1 8-19, 122,
126f; "Artificial Life," 120
Language, 4, 63, 61 , 1 5 5-56n4I ; interrela
tionship of, 46-47; DNA as, 86, 87-88,
89, 95-96, 97-98, 100-101; gnomic,
98-100; and d!ferance, 91 -92
Language o Life, Te (Beadle and Beadle),
86
Laplace, Pierre-Simon de, 29
Lavery, David, 1 19-20
Leroi-Gourhan, Andre, La Geste et la
Parole, 91
Leviathan (Schafer and Shapin), 3
Levi-Strauss, Claude, 8, 88
Lewontin, Richard: Biology as Ideology: Te
Doctrine of DNA, 59-60
LHeritier, Philippe, 8, 88
Lre, 2, 100, 1 10, 1 39-40n60, 1 48n54,
1 57n4, 160n53; Foucault on, 10-12,
58-59; power of, 1 3 , 1 9; defining, 23-
24, 25, 86-87, 1 1 1f, 123-24, 1 35n2,
1 52n43; intelligence and, 3 5-36; con
cept of, 41 , 84, 122, 13 5nr; vitality of,
60-6 I ; history of, 9 I -9 3 ; origins of,
102-3 ; rhetorical descriptions of 107-
8; and genes, 109, 1 36nro; sovereignty
of, 125-32
Life, game of, 1 16-1 8, 121
Life science, 1-2, I 1 , 47
"Life's Irreducible Structure" (Polyani) ,
1 5 5 -56n41
Linguistics, 25, 43f
90, 97, 1 53 -54nro
Literary description, 105. See also Rhetor-
ical software
Living organism, 56
Location, 106
Lock and key metaphor, 5 1-52
Longuet-Higgins, Christopher, 1 1 3; "On
the Seat of the Soul," 1 14
Lyotard,Jean-Franois, 19, 61 , 139n54
Machines, 1 1 6, 1 30, I 58nn 1 4, 19
McClintock, Barbara, 1 16
McKenna, Andrew, 63-64
Mapping, 1 7-1 8, 83, 1 36n9
Marins ofPhilosophy (Derrida), 86
Markov chain, 9
Mathematics, 43 , I I9, 1 35nr , 1 46n36,
1 47n49
Matter, 1 36n1 5
Memory, 127-28
Metacode, 1 19, 122, 1 46n36. See also Rhe
torical software
"Metametazoa: Biology and Multiplicity"
(Sagan), 1 42n28
Metaphor, 3-4
Metaphysics, 91 -92, 109, 126, 1 3 5n3
Metonymy, 1 47n47
Mind Children (Moravec), 1 30-3 1
Mr. Tompkins Inside Himsel: Adventures in
the New Biology (Gamow), 3 I , 55
Mobius strip, 72-73, 84, 1 5 I n26
Modeling, 104-5, I I I
Modernity, 50
Molecular biology, 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 22-23 ,
25, 90
Molecular Biology ofthe Cell (Albert et aLl,
1 5f
"Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids"
(Watson and Crick), 3 5
Molecular switches, 1 02-4
Molecules, 25, 41-42
Molecules and bodies, 1 3-1 4
Monod, Jacques, 8, 65f, 68, 77, 84, I I 5,
1 16, 144nl l , 1 50n16, 1 5 1n24; "Ge
netic Regulatory Mechanisms in the
Synthesis of Proteins," 67, 72f, 80; on
definition, 71 , 74; on DNA, 78-79;
on life, 1 02f, I I I
Moravec, Hans: Mind Children, 1 30-
3 1
Moyzis, Robert, 1 42n25
Narratives, 23. See also Text(s)
National Institutes of Health, 26
Nature, 1 39n54; as text, 42-43 ; and cul-
ture, 88-90
Nature, 43
Nematode, 1 5-16, 21
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 3 , 120, 122, 1 32,
1 45n3 3 , 1 58n6; Twiliht ofthe Idols, lO9,
I I2
Nothing, 23
Numerology, 40
Order of Tings, Te (Foucault), 10-I I, I I 3
Order-word, 57
Organism efect, 82
Organisms, 60, 83, 1 36n9, 14InI2,
147n47, 1 50nI 8, 1 58nI9, 160-6In58;
life in, I I-I2; description of, 28f, 32;
and genetic expression, 75-77; devel
opment of, 78-79; and genome, 80-8 I ,
I 54nI 7; definition of, 81 -82, 84
Organization, 36
Oyama, Susan: "The Accidental Chor
date;' lO6-7, 1 38n44
Pasteur Institute, 68, 76, 1 49n9
Pathology, 34
Pattee, Howard, lO3, 108, I I 8, 1 59-
60n37; "How Does a Molecule Be
come a Message?;' lOIf, lO4
Pattern, 28-30
Performative, the, 1 36-37nI7
Phenotypes, 22, 27-28, 34-35
Philosophy, 30-3 I, 89-90
Physicochemical processes, 42
Physics, 14In6
Pictures: word as, 45-46
Polyani, Michael: "Life's Irreducible
Structure," 1 55-56n41
"Possible Relation between Deoxyribo
nucleic Acid and Protein Structures"
(Gamow), 39, 42, 53f
Poststructuralism, I
Postvitality, 3 8, 42, 65
Power: of life, 13, 19
Presence, 57
Program, I I 3 , 1 50nI9, 1 54n24; DNA as,
1 14, I I 5-16, 160n53 ; artificial life and,
128-29
Protein computers, 77
Index 175
Protein folding, 148n63
Proteins, 1 43-44nIO, 1 46-47n45
Protein synthesis, 39, 66f, 74-75, 78-79,
1 47n47; regulatory mechanisms of,
80-81
Ray, Thomas, 127-28, 129, 1 3 1 -32
Reader, 53
Real, the, 124
Reanimation Foundation, 1 40n62
Reductionism, I 50n21
Regulation, 75
Replication, 124-25, 129
Representaton, 83
Research, 70-71 , 1 40-4In3
Resolution, 1 8-1 9, 20-21 , 1 58n6
Rheinberger, Hans-Jarg, 1 57n58
Rhetoric(s) , 2f,
4-5, 59, 71, 85, 1 3 5n3,
1 36n9, 1 44nI 3 , 1 45-46n3 5; ofmolecu
lar biology 7-8, 65; Schradinger's, 27-
28, 29-30, 3 3-3 5; and philosoph
y
, 30-
3 1 ; translation and, 39-40, 44, 62; of
empiricism, 83-84; of life, 109-10; of
artificial life, I lo-I 8. See also Rhetori
cal software
Rhetorical sofware, 6-8, 67-68, 105,
lO8, I IO, 1 56-57n53 , 1 59n36; writing
as, 57-58; deployment of, ro6-7; of ar
tficial life, I I9, 121 -23
Rhetoricity, 25f, 32
RNA (ribonucleic acid), 57, 67
Ronell, Avital, 1 37nI 8
Rose, Gillian, 1 49n5
Rotman, Brian, 24, 1 19, 1 46n36, 147n49
Roundworms. See C elegans
Ruelle, David, 1 52n44
Sagan, Dorion: "Metametazoa: Biology
and Multiplicity;' 142n28
Schafer, Simon: Leviathan, 3
Schradinger, Erwin, 2, 8, 3 1 , 40, 66f, 74,
I I6, 1 41-42nn6, 12, 1 9, 1 43n5,
145n3 5, 1 46-47n45; Wat Is Life?, 27,
30, 34, 41 , I I I ; rhetoric of, 27-28, 29-
30, 33-3 5 ; on code-script, 42, 129
Science, 6
Scientific research, 45-46
Scripture, word, 47-48, 50, 86
176 Index
Searle, John, 38
"Seat of the Soul, On the" (Longuet
Higgins) , 1 14
"Self Organzation and Living Systems: Is
DNA an Artificial Intelligence?"
(Adams), 35-36
Semantic Teory ofEvolution, The (Bar-
bieri), 1 571I
Sequencing, 24
Serres, Michel, 82, 84, 87, 13 I, I 5011I 8
Shannon, Claude: "The Bandwagon," 1 16
Shapin, Steven: Leviathan, 3
Sigmund, Karl, 1 17
Signification, 8 I
Simulacra, 1 23f, 159n36, 160n40
Simulation, 123-24, 1 30, 1 32, 1 59-
60nn36, 37
Situated knowledges, 105
Slime mold, 65, I 5 5n33
Software, 1 26. See also Rhetorical software
Sovereignty, I 52n33, I 5411I7; of life, 125-
32
Space, 69-70, 73
Structure, 79-80
Sublime, the, I9f, I 39nn50, 52
Sublime body, 21 -22
Sultson, John, 1 7-1 8
Taylor, Mark c. , 45, 52, 63
Technicity, 25f
Technoscience, I 37nlI8, 20, 1 40-4Ill3
Television, 8
Temporality, 69-70
Terminator, 77-78
Terminator 2: Judgment Day, 77-78,
1 52nn3 3 , 34
Text(s) , 43, I 09f, I 45nn29, 33
Textuality, 47
"Thing, The" (Heidegger) , I 46n42
Thompson, D'Arcy, I 36n9
Tousand Plateaus, A (Deleuze and Guat-
tari), 1 6
Tierra program, 1 27-28, 1 29
Time: and genetic expression, 76-79
"Towards a Paradigm Shift in Biology"
(Gilbert), 22-23
Towards a Teoretical Biology (Waddington),
1 01 , 108, I I 3
Transformation, 83
Translation, translatability, 39-40, 49, 62;
Gamow on, 41, 43 -44, 50-61 ; and vi
tality, 46-48
Trifonov, Edward N., 97; Gnomic, 98-99
Tropics of absence: in genetic code, 50-61
Turing machines, 1 1 4, I 5811I4
Twilight o the Idols (Nietzsche), 109, 1 1 2
Unthought, 69
Value, 45
Vanishing point, 1 2
Vaucanson, Jacques de, I 58-59n2I
Virtual reality, 67
Vitality, 37, 46-48, 56, 124, 1 3 1 , I 48n57;
and life, 60-61 , I 45n24; rhetoric of, 65,
I 39n52; of computers, I I 3-I4, I I6
Vivre et Parler (television program), 88-90
Von Neumann, John, 44, 104-5, 1 07,
I 43-4411IO
Von Pirquet, Clemens, 87
Waddington, C. H. , 1 12, 1 16, 1 22; To
wards a Teoretical Biology, 1 01 , 108, 1 1 3 ;
and word egg, 125-26, 1 29
Watson, James D., 3 3 , 40f, 109, I I4; "Mo
lecular Structure of Nucleic Acids," 3 5
Wiener, Norbert: Cybernetics, I I 4
Vli'at Is Life? (Schrodinger) , 27, 30, 34, 41 ,
I I I
Vat Is Philosophy? (Deleuze and Guat-
tari), 6
Woese, Carl, 48-49, 53
World egg, 1 25-26, 1 29
Writing, 1 54n1lI6, 17; as rhetorical soft
ware, 57-58; and life, 91 -94
Xenomoney, 24
YAC. See Yeast artficial chromosome
Yeast artificial chromosome (YAC), 1 9
Zizek, Slavoj, 2-3, 21 , 77, I 39n50
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Doyle, Richard.
On beyond living : rhetorical transformations of the life sciences
/ Richard Doyle.
p. cm. - (Writing science)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8047-2764-3 -ISBN 0-8047-2765-1 (pbk.)
1 . Life (Biology)-Philosophy. 2. Biology-Philosophy.
1 . Title. II. Series.
QHS OI . D68 1 997
S74' OI-dc20
96-38493
I This book is printed on acid-fee, recycled paper.
Original printing 1997
Last figure below indicates year of this printing:
06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97
eIP

On Beyond Living - Rhetorical Transformations of The Life Sciences - Richard Doyle

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

On Beyond Living - Rhetorical Transformations of The Life Sciences - Richard Doyle

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LP bXLP

CaH!CCKattaHOsa` tHats a!!

H tHat _rCUHOs aHO C!CsCs a HarratVC, HCHCH maKCs

IHstCaO a mCsH C! rCatICHs amCH_ OCsCrIQtICHs, HUmaHs, aHO

Fig. 3 . A Life matrix. Adapted from LifeMaker 2. I freeware by Jesse Jones,

attHCIa I!C~attIHCIa! Ct_aHIsmsmUst DC sCCH HCt CHas a

Potrebbero piacerti anche