________________________________________________________________________________


 _____________________________________________________________________
 CTHEORY          THEORY, TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE        VOL 23, NO 1-2
 
 Article 84  05/10-11-17/00      Editors: Arthur and Marilouise Kroker
 _____________________________________________________________________

 Heat-Death
 ===================
 Emergence and Control in Genetic Engineering and Artificial Life
 ================================================================
 
 ~Luciana Parisi and Tiziana Terranova~
 
      Turbulence deviates from equilibrium. And the beginning of the
      vortex is the minimal angle of declination. The fact that life
      disturbs the order of the world means literally that at first,
      life is turbulence. [1] 

 The mechanics of fluids 
 -----------------------
 
 The origins of life are turbulent, because the origins of life are a
 matter of fluids. If, as McMenamin suggests, life on earth is an
 extension of the sea (Hypersea), water has been and is with us all
 the time. It does not just lie in the past, as a distant origin which
 has been left behind by the evolution of terrestrial life. [2] Water
 is not just the repressed unconscious, something we regress to, like
 the internal seas of the womb, but it is a ~present origin~. [3]
 Water is the condition of life and its ultimate currency, that which
 circulates and is circulated, the most immediate example of the
 fluidity of life.
 
 And yet the mechanics of fluids suffered a long period of neglect
 during the establishment of the disciplinary society, when the social
 body was solidified around the self and its institutional enclosures
 (prisons, factories, asylums, clinics). Disciplinary science was
 intrigued by the movements of solids, objects falling through spaces,
 but also by the constancy of energy and its irreversible processes
 marked by accumulation and discharge. The disciplined body is the
 thermodynamic organism, the hierarchical organizations of organs,
 bounded within a self, crossed by currents of energy tending towards
 entropy and death. For a long time "[f]luid mechanics was no longer
 really part of physics, the physicists would say. It was mere
 engineering." [4] It will take the social, cultural and scientific
 shifts of the twentieth century for the problem of fluids to come
 back to the centre of scientific research. The mechanics of fluids is
 foundational to chaos theory, molecular biology, genetic engineering
 and even artificial life. It accompanies a large shift from the
 question of the end (death and entropy) to the current obsession with
 the question of the beginnings (origins and turbulence). The moment
 of transition from solids to fluids is the moment of turbulence, of
 "whorls and eddies", a "whirling vortex that grows".
 
 If we remember that postindustrial capital, similarly, is held
 together by the circulation of decoded flows (flows of money, flows
 of culture, flows of people),[5] then it is clear why the mechanics
 of fluids, and hence turbulence, is also central to the current
 redefinition of the question of control. The dissolution of the solid
 walls of the disciplinary society, according to Gilles Deleuze, has
 not dismantled disciplinary power so much as released it throughout
 the social field. Post-disciplinary power operates in a space of
 flows, a liquid, turbulent space which it rules by way of modulation
 and optimisation. [6]
 
 This paper looks at the shift from discipline to control by focussing
 on its investment in the body. Our argument is that the renewed
 attention to the question of origins is of direct concern to the
 female body, which is now addressed differently than when it used to
 work out the death drive for Man through filiative reproduction. The
 turbulent body of molecular biology and chaos theory goes to the
 limits of death turning reproduction and finitude into infinite
 production. Death no longer marks the point of exhaustion and random
 accumulation which needs to be constantly re-channelled into
 reproductive lineage. Death is now stretched: cloning, digital
 agents, downloaded minds, transplanted organs, the whole gamut of the
 cyberpunk imagination scattered all over the cultural landscape. The
 female body therefore appears as no longer enclosed into the organism
 and limited exclusively to reproductive sex (meiotic sex). It is no
 longer exclusively defined by exchange, but by circulation. [7] In
 artificial life and genetic engineering, we witness a
 technoscientific descent into the molecular as female and therefore
 its immersion into turbulent flows. These female turbulent flows
 appear as the generalised 'condition of life and its ultimate
 currency, that which circulates and is circulated'. Confronted by
 these multiple entanglements of capitalism, technoscience and sex, it
 becomes clear how insufficient explanations based on technological,
 economic and sexual determinism really are. These are multiple
 movements which are not determined by any one apparatus, but they
 literally feed off each other and are worked through at multiple
 levels (macro and micro).
 
 Current technoscientific trends, we argue, witness the development of
 mechanisms of control which are adequate to the management of flows.
 Technoscience aims to put the turbulent flows to work, while at the
 same time holding on control by way of modulation, a movement which
 Gilles Deleuze defines as a 'sieve with variable mesh', literally
 fishing for the new, the different and the functional. The management
 of turbulence, however, is a tricky business in as much as turbulence
 is an ~unpredictable~ and ~uncalculable~ process of production. The
 control of turbulence is based on what is and can be produced. Within
 societies of control, power must modulate itself on turbulence,
 rather than vice versa (the power of modulation acts ~over~ rather
 than ~within~ a smooth space). [8]
 
 The thermodynamic organism: entropy, death and discipline
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 
 It is important to underline the complexity of the historical shifts
 outlined in this paper especially in their relation to our
 understanding of the body. We are not arguing that the body is
 constructed or represented by science. Such an approach would reduce
 the body to the status of unknowable noumenon, which becomes knowable
 only as a phenomenon of the self. The shift from a thermodynamic to a
 turbulent body is not about how science and technology construct and
 represent the body but involves a process of intensification of the
 perception of a body. This process entails its complexification as an
 assemblage of elements and forces both physical and biological which
 breaks with the Platonic world of representation.
 
 Our understanding of the body is inspired by the work of Baruch
 Spinoza, Frederick Nietzsche, Luce Irigaray and Gilles Deleuze. These
 thinkers have outlined the presence of ~a body~ as a material
 composition: fluids, forces, affects constitute a body which preceeds
 and exceeds the phenomenological self. It is important not to confuse
 a body with the organism, its most visible and recognizable form. If,
 as Spinoza argued, a body is not constituted by its form, but by
 relations of forces and velocities, and a capacity of affecting and
 being affected, than the organism is populated by bodies and bodies
 exist between organisms. A body is not pre-given (therefore
 universal), but always emerges within a process of relations
 (including relations of power) which defines its singularity. We will
 see how this Spinozian vision is fundamental to the technosciences of
 origins and how it can help us to think of bodies as entities which
 are not reducible to the properties of subjects established within
 the bio-political apparatuses of meaning and order.This body moves
 away from the dualisms that split a field of intensive forces into
 Cartesian mind as opposed to body, spirit to substance: for Spinoza
 the mind is an idea of the body. [9] We should return to the
 Spinozian question "we do not know what a body is capable of, what
 forces belong to it or what they are preparing for." [10]
 
 The relationship between technoscience and the body is an index of
 different historical formations. It is not a process of construction
 or representation as much as of perception, a perception which
 abstracts and produces power/knowledges through the body. So the
 organism is a mode of organization of the body which was not so much
 constructed as latched on by disciplinary science in the context of
 larger historical movements. Similarly the turbulent flows of
 molecular biology and chaos theory have been not so much constructed
 or represented as (literally) invested into by technoscience,
 experimented on and inserted into the technical machine of
 simulation.
 
 The disciplinary formation sees the emergence of a process of
 deployment and folding of the body. On the one hand, the body is
 opened up and turned into a tissual surface. Anatomy discloses the
 interior, enters the depths and the dens of organs, follows the
 arborescences of the veins, explores the connections between tubes
 and channels, which determine the function of organs. On the other
 hand, the body acquires a defined contour, derived from the
 localisation of organs and their consequential functions. Their
 hierarchy appears determined by the limitation of a body to the
 organism: the organization of organs responding to a centralised
 movement towards balance and equilibrium.
 
 The surfacing of organs outside the skin implied the necessity of
 establishing their specificities and belongings. As Foucault
 underlines, bio-power asked questions about the specificity of the
 human species and human sexuality as part of its larger process of
 discipline. The emergence of disciplining practices included the
 monitoring of the psychic and physical levels of a body, as is
 evident in the Freudian formulation of psychoanalysis and in the
 construction of enclosed spaces such as the nuclear family, the
 factory, the prison and the clinic. [11] The great confinement was
 essential to this process of reorganization of power in the interests
 of an emerging industrial capitalism. Thus the fluids which were
 circulating outside and between bodies, are folded onto themselves in
 order to be channeled within the solid walls of the
 organism/self/subject.
 
 Hierarchy and classification, however, are not the only ways to
 define the organism. Not only does discipline involve a taxonomic
 space of classification and individuated differences (it produces
 subjects and selves), but also presents a bio-physical pattern
 through which the organism came to be conceived as ~homeostatic~,
 borrowing energy from the Outside, from the fluids translated and
 "deadened into the 'constancy' required to give [them] form". [12]
 The thermodynamics of the disciplined body moves beyond the
 reversible time of Newtonian causality towards irreversibility and
 stability. The thermodynamic organism survives in equilibrium, which
 it maintains by engulfing energy from Outside its semi-closed cycle.
 This energy needs, then, to be discharged because its irreversible
 increase (entropy) threatens to destroy the organism. The organism
 must ward off death constantly by charging and releasing the energy
 thus accumulated: nothing must be dissipated, everything must be used
 up and discharged once it has exhausted its function.
 
 The organism was not so much produced as reinforced and given
 strength by the disciplinary society so that it could become the
 ultimate definition of what a body is. The body becomes abstracted
 and organised so that it can be trained: trained to reproduction
 within a thermodynamic cycle of accumulation and expenditure; and
 trained to work. The incorporation of fluids into a solid state also
 responds to the released energy of labour: the capacities of a body
 become subjected to the exploitation of its labour force . [13] The
 enclosures of disciplining apparatuses (the Foucauldian dispositif of
 power) are complementary to the deterritorializing movements of
 Capital. Discipline centralises the blockages and segments of the
 body, intensifies its reactive forces and delimits its function to a
 molar order. And yet, some forms of energy cannot be used or recycled
 by the system. Even when pushed outside they increase and turn into
 the threat of ultimate destruction: the universe moves towards
 heat-death and capitalism similarly towards the ultimate explosion of
 the revolutionary energies, the revolution of the proletariat.
 
 Although the Hegelian Marx explained the inevitability of the
 revolution in terms of the unfolding of the dialectic, a
 thermodynamic analysis of industrial capitalism (the triumph of
 discipline) points to the intrinsic mechanics of such outbursts.
 According to the second law of thermodynamics in any moving or
 energy-using system entropy (useless forms of energy) increases. The
 second law of thermodynamics, conceived during the Industrial
 Revolution, affirmed that in systems undergoing change, such as steam
 engines or electronic motors, a certain amount of energy is already
 unavailable for useful work. Thus, although the amount of energy in
 the system and its environment stays the same (i.e., the first law of
 thermodynamics, of conservation of energy, holds), the amount of
 energy available to do work decreases and entropy, as heat, noise and
 uncertainty, increase. [14]
 
 Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan define entropy as a form of energy
 which is not useful for work, which cannot be utilised by the machine
 of industrial capitalism, as embodied (as usual) by its technologies.
 
      In steam engines, coal was burned in carbon joined with oxygen,
      a reaction that, generating heat, made machine parts move. The
      left-over heat that was generated was unusable. The heat in a
      cabin on a snow-covered mountain seeks with seeming purpose any
      available crack or opening to mix with the cold air outside.
      Heat naturally dissipates. This dissipative behavior of heat
      illustrates the second law: the universe tends an increase in
      entropy, toward even temperatures everywhere, ~as all the energy
      transforms into useless heat spread so evenly that it can do no
      work~. [our emphasis] [15] 
 
 Entropy is energy which cannot be reabsorbed back into the industrial
 social machine; it is energy which becomes a threat to the
 disciplinary order once it is pushed outside its walls. Heat-death
 was not just the end of the universe in a far, far future; it was the
 necessary tendency of industrial capitalism, in as much as it had
 failed to use all the available energy, all the available flows, all
 the capacities of a body.
 
 Within a thermodynamic system, entropy is inevitable, it does not
 matter how efficiently the organism performs its charge/discharge
 cycle. Thermodynamics is a law of nature on which industrial
 capitalism built a technological, economic and biosocial order. The
 centrality of thermodynamic principles to its technological machines
 and its organization of the social body means that the entirety of
 the social order constructed by industrial capitalism was affected by
 its implications. It is not only the universe which one day will run
 towards heat-death, but also the social order which builds itself on
 thermodynamic principles. The threat of entropy was real to the
 natural and political sciences of industrial capitalism, it was a
 problem that needed a solution. This solution was temporarily and
 partially provided by the female body, whose subordination to
 reproduction came to guarantee the return to stability and completion
 of the cycle through a new beginning. The organism can reproduce
 itself only through the female body under the laws of filiative
 reproduction thus turning the latter into the fluid Outside which in
 turn lends energy to the thermodynamic cycle. At the same time as it
 wards off entropy, however, the female body also becomes the place of
 noise and heat, the site of, simultaneously, death and life . [16]
 Irigaray affirms that: "both by her and for her, the invisible work
 of death goes on. Relentlessly, woman reconnects the end to the
 beginning, though the end and the beginning are not ~hers~.
 (Re)calling death in utero". [17]
 
 This process is far from being a simple question of the construction
 of the body, an external superimposition on an original, playful
 heterogeneity. Quite the contrary, it marks a singular and historical
 perception of the body which is simultaneously defined and labored
 through processes of affection. The double movement of knowledge and
 power displays such processes and indicates the microphysical
 exercise of power on some aspects of the body. During the modern
 period, this body acquires a scientific denomination which is not
 simply ideological. Rather, our analysis of the disciplinary
 formation sees a deployment of the biological and physical layers
 that constitute a human body. On the plane of organization, the
 thermodynamic organism displays a high level of stratification
 including the transformation of substantial material, chemical
 elements and compounds which produce its cellular and organic
 environment. The organism is determined by consciousness and is the
 place where consciousness operates. It is the most visible and molar
 aspect of the human body. Stemming from the perception of a whole (at
 a distance), the organism is only one of the possible manifestations
 of a body. In some of the most famous pages of _A Thousand Plateaus_,
 Deleuze and Guattari describe the organism as a strata on the Body
 Without Organs[BwO]; the organism is "a phenomenon of accumulation,
 coagulation and sedimentation that, in order to extract useful labor
 from the BwO, imposes upon it forms, functions, bonds, dominant and
 hierarchized organizations, organized transcendences." [18]
 
 The organism is a reassuring answer to our historically persistent
 need for individuation, but it is also the source of anxieties about
 death which the circle of reproduction does not quite manage to
 solve. This is evident in Freud's formulation of the pleasure
 principle, where the complementarity of Eros and Thanatos is turned
 into an affirmation of the necessary link between life and death.
 Eros and Thanatos, according to Freud, are two energetic drives one
 directed towards life, the other towards death. Elizabeth Grosz
 explains how Freud derived the dynamics of the death drive from
 Fechner's constancy principle so as to demonstrate that the organism
 keeps the quantity of energy or excitation as low as possible. In so
 doing it never approaches death and keeps it low enough so as not to
 "overstimulate" the organism which will release the excessive energy
 that would otherwise accumulate. This marks the entropic tendency
 internally directing the organism, gradually forcing it towards
 death. The pleasure principle involves both Eros and Thanatos, it
 ties them together by ensuring both reproduction and the finitude of
 the individual: "The pleasurable sexual activities of individuals are
 closely linked to the reproduction of the species, and the
 reproduction of the species is contingently dependent on the life,
 reproduction and death of individuals. Sexuality introduces death
 into the world." [19] The pleasure principle turns death into the end
 which needs to be carried through in order for a new cycle, a new
 beginning to start. Death is the irreversible line of the finitude of
 the organism (entropy), a specific organization of a body and one
 which guarantees individuation, reproduction, and taxonomy.
 
 Heat-death, the final triumph of entropy, is both a scientific
 hypothesis about the end of the universe, a way to organise sexual
 relationships and a tendency of industrial capitalism. Entropy
 indicates an incapacity of industrial capitalism to absorb all the
 energies it has generated and the inevitability of death as an
 attribute of the individual as organism. It is the combination of
 these two anxieties which eventually called for the end of the
 disciplinary order. It is impossible to underestimate the role of the
 capitalist tendency towards the overcoming of its limits in spelling
 the end of the disciplinary formation. The thermodynamic order became
 not only an inefficient way of organising production, but also a
 dangerous one that eventually unleashed its destructive powers in the
 great bloodbaths of the first half of the twentieth century: the
 colonial uprisings, the communist revolutions, the world wars, and,
 finally, the atomic bomb.
 
 Turbulent matters: cybernetics, chaos and the control of origins
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
 There is obviously more to the body than the organism: in Spinozian
 terms what makes a body is always a relation of forces ~between~
 bodies, and a dynamic capacity of affecting and being affected. This
 is an intensive body never attaining a final state, or a defined form
 or function.
 
      A body is not defined by the form that determines it nor as a
      determinate substance or subject nor by the organs it possesses
      or the functions it fulfills. On the plane of consistency, ~a
      body is defined only by a longitude and a latitude~:in other
      words the sum total of the material elements belonging to it
      under given relations of movement and rest, speed and slowness
      (longitude): the sum total of the intensive affects it is
      capable of at a given power or degree of potential (latitude).
      Nothing but affects and local movements, differential speeds.
      [20] 
 
 If discipline is about the molding of fluids into solid, hierarchical
 and thermodynamic formations, control is about the management of
 these speeds and capacities of affection, in other words it is about
 the management of flows: "Confinement are ~molds~, different
 moldings, while controls are a ~modulation~,like a self-transmuting
 molding continually changing from one moment to the next, or like a
 sieve whose mesh varies from one point to another." [21] The
 autonomous, disciplined cells of the factory, the prison and the
 school, the great models of the society of disciplines, are
 increasingly opened up and diffused to the outside. As Brian Massumi
 puts it
 
      A "crisis of enclosure" has occurred (the "crises" long heralded
      in the media, among which the "breakdowns" of the family, of the
      judicial and prison subsystems, and of the school subsystems
      figure prominently). When the walls come down, disciplinary
      command functions are not dismantled, but rather released. They
      disseminate and vary, coming to be even more finely distributed
      and multiplied, and life channelings into even more intimate
      embrace. [22] 
      
 The shift from a disciplined, thermodynamic body to a controlled,
 turbulent body is a historical event, thoroughly entangled in the
 difference between the modern and the postmodern formations. Such
 difference should not be understood as a clean break: obviously the
 traces of the disciplinary society (as well as of what preceded it)
 are still operational within the current historical moment. However,
 we could argue that to emphasise the coexistence of different
 historical strata within a given moment is different than hanging on
 to the notion of 'tradition', development and evolution within which
 the question of continuity is usually framed. In _The Archaelogy of
 Knowledge_, Michel Foucault exposes the tendency to use continuity as
 a way to neutralise change and the necessity to think about each
 historical moment as an event which needs to be understood and
 problematised each time. The difference between discipline and
 control is about the way in which heterogeneous discursive and
 non-discursive elements are assembled in a specific moment, each
 element constituted in its turn by a multiplicities of
 micro-relations whose genealogy stretches through time. Our work,
 then, is not directed at the establishment of an all encompassing
 framework which totalises the heterogeneity of historical formations.
 We are interested in constructing maps which are based on the
 individuation of a "tendency", an abstraction based on an observable
 mutation in the way control, power and knowledge are reconfigured in
 capitalist technoscience.
 
 It could be argued that the thermodynamic body was already moving
 away from the realm of representation. It was already considered as a
 field of forces, but in the opposition of the inside to the outside
 based on a constant balance and tendency towards death, the body
 resulted enclosed into the organism (the organization of organs)
 aiming at reproduction and return to equilibrium. It is with the
 emergence of complexity theory that disequilibrium becomes a
 principle of reality. Rather than a return to the primary cause
 according to a linear development which regulates the origins of
 life, the perception of a body through complexity theory and
 molecular biology involves a break with its physiology. In these
 terms, a body no longer corresponds to the fleshy representation or
 phenomenon of the human subject, but rather is opened up to
 particles, waves and attractors, which constitute it as far from
 equilibrium system. What is perceived of the body is the movement of
 forces, the process of composition of differential elements which
 defines the origin of life as turbulent rather than derived from
 entropic collapse. In contemporary technoscience, lethal entropy
 becomes vital turbulence.
 
 As we have seen, the overcoming of the limits of industrial
 capitalism was a necessity if one wanted to avoid the heat-death
 which threatened from all sides the capitalist societies in the first
 half of the twentieth century.Cybernetics, the science of the
 'system', was obviously central to the material processes through
 which societies started to dissolve the disciplinary walls and manage
 the dangers of heat-death. The shift from the disciplinary society to
 the society of control passes through cybernetics, while not being
 just determined by cybernetics. While scientific fields such as
 complexity theory, chaos theory and connectionism are all concerned
 with this reabsorption of entropy into turbulence, it is cybernetics
 which translates these speculations into problems of control.
 
 In the first instance, early cybernetics warded off entropy and clung
 onto the organism by focussing on homeostasis. Norbert Wiener's work
 witnesses the existentialist twist of early cybernetics: life is a
 struggle against disorganization, chaos, and death. In order to save
 life from heat-death, the cybernitician constructs 'an enclave of
 organization in the face of nature's overwhelming tendency to
 disorder' [23]. First wave cybernetics, brought into life by the
 shock of world war violence, is paranoid about the questions of
 boundaries, but confident about its mastery of them. Control is
 homeostasis, it is the negative feedback of a system/organism which
 reacts to the stimuli coming from the outside as a threat. The
 ~homeostat~ is "an electrical device constructed with transducers and
 variable resistors, [which] when it received an input changing its
 state, searched for the configuration of variables that would return
 it to its initial conditions." [24] This early cybernetic control is
 therefore still permeated by the thermodynamic principles which
 contemporary technoscience has largely displaced. As with the
 thermodynamic, entropic organism the stabilisation of the internal
 self, the defense of a system against the forces of entropy is
 paramount.
 
 This means that early cybernetics managed but did not solve the
 problem of entropy: the early cybernetic system is ~reactive~ to
 entropy, it does not incorporate it as a principle of active
 generation of difference. In order for the useless work of entropy to
 become useful, entropy had to be worked on directly not just managed
 as an outside force. Katherine N. Hayles maps the trajectory of
 entropy from a thermodynamic, deterministic universe to a cybernetic,
 probabilistic one through scientists such as Ludwig Baltzmann, Leon
 Brillouin to the father of modern information theory, Claude Shannon.
 
 Ludwig Baltzmann accomplishes the first passage by separating entropy
 from its exclusive relation with heat engines and thermodynamic
 systems. In his theory, entropy becomes the equivalent of randomness,
 a concept which is more compatible with the contemporary shift to
 cybernetics. At the same time as Wiener was popularising his
 understanding of cybernetic systems as islands in a sea of entropy,
 Claude Shannon was reincorporating entropy into its theory of
 information. Reversing the trend established by Leon Brillouin who
 had defined information as negative entropy (negentropy), Claude
 Shannon "~identified~ information and entropy rather than opposed
 them. Heuristically, Shannon's choice was explained by saying that
 the more unexpected (or random) a message is, the more information it
 conveys." [25]
 
 Early cybernetics' stance against entropy was doomed in the long run.
 A system without entropy, a system which pushes entropy (in this new
 sense of randomness and noise) to the outside is bound to be too
 rigid to fit with the development of a socius which was increasingly
 dependent on the mobility and randomness of its social, cultural and
 biological components. The function of the disciplinary society was
 to establish islands of order on and against the undisciplined social
 body. However, there is only so much surplus value you can extract
 out of disciplined bodies within anti-entropic institutions, and
 while you do that, entropy keeps increasing. The orderly world of the
 factory, the prison, the school and asylum ensures a constant,
 dependable output, but does not leave much space for expansion,
 mutation and transformation. Its manageability and its specific
 capacity to organise a world which is cut out from entropic
 randomness are also its long-term flaws. Second-wave cybernetics,
 exemplified by the work of Varela and Maturana, eschews the problem
 of randomness and entropy altogether by concentrating instead on
 autopoietic systems. This mid-cybernetics starts from a system which
 closes down on itself and is completely engaged in its own self
 production. Autopoiesis insisted that the only purpose of systems is
 "to produce and reproduce the organization that defines them as
 systems. Hence they not only are self-organising but also are
 autopoietic or self-making..." [26] Autopoeitic units have "as their
 only goal the continuing production of their autopoiesis." [27]
 Structural coupling encompasses the possibility of communication
 between systems (a cell within the body), but it is self-production
 and the capacity to function autopoietically which gives second wave
 cybernetics its identity . [28]
 
 Autopoiesis however does not account enough for transformation and
 complexification in as much as it is still about organisms. Systems
 self-organise by establishing closure, but this closure is only one
 of the moments of life and one which will become less and less
 interesting for contemporary technoscience. Preservation of "vivified
 matter in the face of adversity and a universal tendency toward
 disorder" [29] is too conservative a goal for bio-cybernetic capital.
 
 It becomes clear, then, how the question of entropy needed to be
 rethought in order to access the level of indefinite production which
 is desired by capital and the forces unleashed by its historical
 development. Entropy ceases to be a threat to life and is displaced
 by a principle of universalised production able to engender and
 organise endless difference - a line between order and disorder,
 between predictability and chaos. If classical thermodynamics was
 concerned with "structures of decreasing complexity - machines that
 lose the capacity for work... non equilibrium thermodynamics studies
 entities, including living beings, which increase their complexity
 and gain a capacity for work." [30] Shannon's move of retaining a
 connection between entropy and information was a "crucial crossing
 point, for this allowed entropy to be reconceptualised as the
 thermodynamic motor driving systems to self-organization rather than
 as the heat engine driving the world to universal heat-death...as a
 result, chaos went from being associated with dissipation in the
 Victorian sense of dissolute living and reckless waste to being
 associated with dissipation in a newly positive sense of increasing
 complexity and new life." [31]
 
 Entropy, a child of the heat engine, will be partially reabsorbed by
 turbulence. The passage from the entropic drive to turbulence is
 central to the study of dissipative or far from equilibrium systems.
 In particular, Prigogine and Stengers' hypothesis on the origins of
 the universe reworks the Epicurian intuition about the emergence of
 the material world through the ~clinamen~ (or "swerve"): "a declining
 arrow of time" . [32] In pre-Socratic philosophy the ~clinamen~ is
 "the smallest angle by which an atom deviates from a straight line."
 [33] When atoms fall through the void, according to Lucretius, they
 deviate slightly from their course. This deviation (clinamen) is the
 generator of differential energy and matter, an anti-Platonic
 ontology of becoming.
 
 Epicurian clinamen appeared repeatedly in the science of our century,
 although always in relation to some kind or another of determinism.
 In chaos theory, however, the ~clinamen~ was paid crucial attention
 in as much as it helped to formulate the principles of a
 probabilistic, non-deterministic science through the laws of physics.
 The irreversible time of entropy pointed to heat-death as the
 ultimate end of the universe. The irreversible time of the clinamen
 (the arrow of time) is, on the contrary, a ~source of order~. The
 arrow of time does not create disorder but a different type of order,
 unpredictable, yet coherent - ~a fluid and turbulent order~. In
 _Hermes_ Michel Serres takes on Epicurian philosophy and science to
 demonstrate "the link between the ~clinamen~ as a generative
 differential element, and the formation of vortices and turbulences
 in so far as they occupy engendered smooth space; in fact the atom of
 the ancients, from Democritus to Lucretius, was always inseparable
 from a hydraulics, or a generalised theory of swells and flows. ~The
 ancient atom is entirely misunderstood if it is overlooked that its
 essence is to course and flow~." [our emphasis] [34]
 
 Rather than an ultimate collapse of the universe, we are confronting
 an indefinite and discontinuous process of production, where nothing
 gets lost or wasted, but everything becomes useful. Organisms decay
 because they are molar organizations of molecular life, which always
 works, always produces. What appears unuseful at the molar level of
 the organism looks different from the perspective of the molecular:
 we do not know what it is doing exactly, but that is no longer
 important, because the important thing is that it is doing it. This
 molecular order of the clinamen operates beyond the thermodynamic
 logic of the industrial apparatus: it cannot be controlled by
 enclosure, solidification, charge and discharge. It does not die and
 it is not born. In turning heat-death and entropic collapse into an
 unpredictable yet indefinitely mutating process, the noise and
 uncertainty of female flows no longer drive the self-reproductive
 cycle to finitude, but open up possibilities of infinite production.
 The search for origins which drives the patriarchal economy has
 undermined the notion of origins as a whole; there is no origin and
 no end just female flows ~emerging~ out of turbulent motions and
 imperceptible speed. This infinitely productive energy-matter which
 cannot be calculated, but only orientated towards an optimised
 reproduction, is the space where control tries out its new
 strategies.
 
 The difficulties for feminism lie in the fact that female flows ~are
 not attributes of the organism and therefore of the woman's body~.
 They are not defined by organization but by relations of matter and
 energy. Female flows escape the sex/gender organization of the body
 produced by the economy which sets up the self, the subject, the
 organism and the thermodynamic cycle of masculine pleasure (charge
 and discharge). The price to pay (and the challenge to feminism) is
 that a woman's body does not guarantee access to turbulence. Yet, at
 the same time, historically and biologically in a certain sense it
 always has: there is an affinity (not an identity) between turbulence
 and the female body. This affinity, in fact, is both the historical
 result of woman's confinement outside the thermodynamic cycle and her
 association with randomness, noise and death; and a matter of
 essence, which is not defined by the biology of forms and functions
 but by an ethics of turbulence and becoming. A female essence is an
 immanent mode of existence.
 
 These intricate connections between ancient philosophy, technoscience
 and sex confirm our hypothesis about the centrality of turbulence and
 fluid dynamics to the operations of bio-cybernetic capitalism. Again
 it is not a matter of how nature is discursively constructed, but how
 historical formations of power relate to different levels of
 matter/energy through an intensification of perception and
 experimentation (as will be further demonstrated by our analyses of
 artificial life and genetic engineering).
 
 It is not by chance that turbulence and flows are also increasingly
 central to the functioning of bio-cybernetic capital. The space of
 flows described by Manuel Castells is a flexible and yet hierarchical
 organization of space based on circuits of electronic impulses,
 nodes, hubs and the circulating elites. [35] The most volatile of
 these global flows, those of money, have the most intimate
 relationship with turbulence. On the one hand they are notoriously
 subjected to the unpredictability of turbulence; on the other hand
 they increasingly work through turbulence even by investing in it.
 Through venture capital, money looks for profitable innovations
 within fluidity, moving away from the solid state of planning and
 calculated risks to the hazardous, short-term world of upstart
 companies and emerging trends. It is not by chance that in this
 historical moment the decoded flows of capitalism show a marked
 preference for biotechnology labs and high tech firms, that is, for
 example, for a type of technoscience which makes fluidity, molecules
 and turbulence its central concern.
 
 This movement towards turbulence (as a way out of the entropic blasts
 of the first half of the twentieth century) cannot be simply
 celebrated as some kind of liberation of life from the shackles of
 discipline. The shift to turbulence inaugurates new strategies of
 control, strategies which might appear even more insidious because
 they seem directed at the most intimate levels (the fluid state of
 matter, the smallest particles of cellular life). As Deleuze puts it,
 however, " [I]t's not a question of asking whether the old or new
 systems is harsher or more bearable, because there is a conflict in
 each between the way they free and enslave us... It's not a question
 of worrying or of hoping for the best, but of finding new weapons."
 [36]

 Control without control: artificial life
 ----------------------------------------
 
 As we have argued, it is within cybernetics that general questions
 about entropy, chaos and turbulence are redefined as problems of
 control. Third-wave cybernetics is identified with new fields such as
 artificial life and more generally with bottom-up approaches
 stressing the production of ever-increasing levels of complexity out
 of the recursive combination of simple elements and rules. Third-wave
 cybernetics has taken on the consequences of the arrow of time which
 has identified a tendency of matter to self-organise in an
 unpredictable, yet coherent order. Characteristically, the latest
 developments in cybernetics show a marked preoccupation with the
 implications of this unpredictability for control. Popular accounts
 of such developments formulate the dilemmas engendered by third-wave
 cybernetics as the paradox of ~control without control~. [37]
 
 The field of artificial life (also known as ALife) has been central
 to this re-elaboration. ALife is quoted as further proof of the
 existence of self-organising processes which cross the entirety of
 social, natural and technological production, regardless of context.
 ALife is exemplary of the third wave of cybernetic thought, a field
 which incorporates and synthesises approaches coming from chaos
 theory, evolutionary biology and population ecology. [38]
 
 Computer scientists working in the field have to defend themselves
 from accusations that the computer cannot generate life because life
 is a property of carbon-based, aquatic life. Their experiments are
 therefore often dismissed as mere simulations of an authentic organic
 life. As we have said, however, turbulence is an absolute dynamic of
 matter/energy which can and does cross the boundaries of organic
 life. The origins of terrestrial life are watery, but fluidity is the
 essence of water. The question then is go beyond the real/unreal
 dichotomy of common understanding of simulation and conceptualise
 ALife as a specific instantiation of turbulence within a specific
 technical machine.
 
 The current interest in simulations of biological life within
 computer science is part of the generalised rejection of the second
 law of thermodynamics, that is of entropy as the prevalence of
 disorder and death over life. ALife is then part of the increasing
 obsession of contemporary technoscience for the questions of origins,
 which these scientists have decided to tackle through the computer.
 As Levy puts it, "[j]ust as medical scientists have managed to tinker
 with life's mechanisms in vitro, the biologists and computer
 scientists of ALife hope to create life in ~silico~." [39] ALife
 practitioners use simulations of biological life to evolve patterns,
 images, programs and more generally to formulate new strategies of
 control which are more adequate to the liquid space of informational
 capitalism. ALife tackles the question of turbulence by trying out
 strategies of control which operate like the Deleuzian ~modulations~,
 like a self-transmuting molding continually changing from one moment
 to the next, or like a sieve whose mesh varies from one point to
 another." [40] These modulations operate on an artificial smooth
 space "constituted by the minimum angle which deviates from the
 vertical, and by the vortex, which overspills striation." [41]
 
 Central to ALife is the belief in the existence of processes of
 self-organization which produce a dynamic, evolutionary complexity
 against the odds of Wiener's cybernetic entropy. Although ALife is a
 diverse project, involving a variety of fields and experiments, there
 are certain principles that seem to hold true. The basic principle is
 that life is "a property of the organization of matter rather than a
 property of the matter which is so organised." [42] The essential
 features of computer-based ALife models, in Christopher Langton's
 definition are:
 
      They consist of population of simple programs or specifications;
      there is no single program that directs all of the other
      programs; each programs details the way in which a simple entity
      reacts to local situations; there are no rules in the system
      that dictate global behavior; and any behavior at levels higher
      than the individual program is therefore emergent. [43] 
 
 What distinguishes the first two cybernetics from the ALife, then, is
 the latter's attempt to imagine a decentralised, potentially open
 model of self-organization which does not aim so much at reproducing
 itself as generating ~difference through self-organization~. This
 difference is not so much produced as it is said to emerge out of a
 problem space or genetic space. The concept of emergence, therefore,
 takes the place of homeostasis (first wave cybernetics) and
 auto-poiesis (second wave). Emergence "implies that properties or
 programs appear on their own, often developing in ways not
 anticipated by the person who created the simulation." [44] This
 usually happens by ways of "complex feedback loops in which the
 outputs of a system are repeatedly fed back in as input. As the
 recursive looping continues, small deviations can quickly become
 magnified, leading to the complex interactions and unpredictable
 evolutions associated with emergence." [45]
 
 These complex feedback loops are the means through which deviations
 are generated, therefore putting in motions the turbulent machine of
 life that we have identified above; life does not tend towards
 entropy but towards deviation, mutation and variation leading to
 increased levels of complexity. These levels of complexity are often
 not pursued just for complexity's sake, but they are directed at what
 they define as a second level of emergence, that which adds
 functionality to the system. ALife looks for searching devices able
 to roam over the problem/genetic space relentlessly looking for new
 forms and functional entities.
 
 There are different types of ALife experiments: Cellular Automata
 (CAs), genetic algorithms (GAs), autonomous agents, mobotics, and
 ecological models such as Tierra are the main models in development
 today. Although they all work with this notion of emergence, the
 degree of control is differently modulated according to the goals of
 a specific research project. Genetic algorithms exemplify the
 strongest mode of control: the programmer select a fitness function
 that determines the survival of the individual programs. The latter
 are made of chunks that correspond to genes that together make up the
 programs' genome. They have specific tasks to accomplish and they are
 rated on the basis of how well they perform them; the fittest
 programs are then reinserted in the ALife model until an optimal
 performance is achieved. [46] More recent experiments in Alife
 include the simulation of population of "ants", autonomous agents
 able to manage huge distributed systems like telecommunication
 networks. British Telecom, who is currently managing its network
 through a single powerful program called Customer Service System
 (CSS), has been involved in sponsoring ALife projects that could
 eventually replace the latter with lots of autonomous, smaller
 programs comparable to ants.
 
 All these different strands, however, insists that self-organisation
 from below is an exportable quality and the best way to manage
 complex system and/or produce continuous innovations. This
 self-organization is not autopoiesis, it does not tend towards
 closure. Self-organization opens up to turbulence in as much as it
 relies on an understanding of genetic/problem space as a liquid
 space, a space which is therefore subjected to the power not of
 entropy but of turbulence. ALife occurs in an area "where information
 changed but not so rapidly that it lost all connection to where it
 had just been previously. This was akin to a liquid state. Langton
 discovered that it was the liquid regime that supported the most
 engaging events, those that would support the kind of complexity that
 was the mark of living systems." [47] ALife is then based on a
 simulation of liquid space, it recreates the condition of fluidity
 and is therefore an experiment in the management of flows in ways
 which resonate with the post-disciplinary society of control
 described by Gilles Deleuze. The smooth space as outlined by Deleuze
 is a simulated liquid space, which offers the advantage of not
 trapping life within rigid structures or dissolving it into the
 menacing randomness of entropy.
 
 How does ALife channel the productive flows of turbulence? It is
 impossible to deny that turbulence does operate within ALife systems,
 it does produce difference which is not specifically programmed into
 them. This difference belongs to the middle space of turbulence,
 which typically takes place beyond the conscious perception of the
 experimenter. Typically, the ALife scientist sets up its experiment
 by introducing a limited number of programs and a set of simple rules
 and leaves the program running. When he returns, the miracle of
 turbulence has occurred and he wakes up to the spectacle of its
 unpredictable yet coherent order: his computer has been populated by
 a whole ecology of artificial life forms beyond his wildest
 expectations.
 
 This middle, dark space of turbulence gives ALife research its
 mystical tone. However, the mysterious work of turbulence emerges in
 the middle of a recursive process, between a carefully set up
 "before" and "after". When the experiment is first set up, a series
 of rules are introduced, specific types of programs are picked and a
 certain acceleration is imparted to the system. The experimenter,
 then, must be very careful in preparing the ground for turbulence in
 ways which guarantee that what he will find in the morning is not
 completely unexpected. This moment of pre-selection of elements and
 rules is the moment of ~simulation~. Simulation should not be
 understood as an element of unreality, it is not the unreal.
 Simulation is a specific mode of exercise of power which, as William
 Bogard explains, is based on "anticipation and perfect deterrence."
 [48] In ALife, however, simulation is used to produce the unexpected,
 which could seem as a contradiction in terms since the former seems
 to work by way of a pre-selection of limited scenarios. In this case,
 however simulation learns to become flexible by choosing variation as
 one of its components and by learning to reincorporate the products
 of this variation through an internal and recursive feedback loop.
 
 If simulation lies before turbulence and prepares the conditions for
 its controlled occurrence, a transcendent fitness function is what
 operates at the end of the cycle before the beginning of a new loop.
 In GAs experiments, the results of the moment of turbulence are
 selectively reintroduced into the simulation on the basis of their
 aimed functionality. The fastest, smallest, more efficient creatures
 are privileged for reinsertion into the loop, at the beginning of the
 simulation, and fed back into turbulence once again. The potential
 results of such a process are applications which can be used
 practically, such as more efficient software programs which are
 evolved rather than written by programmers.
 
 One of the strongest models of ALife, then, introduce control into
 the liquid space by setting up a transcendent fitness function and a
 system of rewards for successful organisms: in this sense the
 Deleuzian image of the "sieve whose mesh vary each time" seems
 particular resonant . [49] If ALife reproduces a liquid space as a
 genetic space, then it is easy to see the fitness function as that
 particular mesh used to select functional from dysfunctional
 organisms. ALife has been often criticised on the basis of its
 explicit reliance on neo-darwinist understandings of evolution and
 natural selection. Neo-Darwinism privileges a transcendent principle
 of selection which is almost external and finalised to the
 reproduction of the fittest (a notorious ally of social Darwinism).
 It is not by chance that genetic algorithms, which are directly
 inspired by evolutionary theory, take the gene, rather than the whole
 cell, as their main model: as we will see, nucleic DNA is the most
 hierarchical and stratified component of the cell, the most easy to
 bestow with the competitive individuality that is the mark of
 neo-Darwinism and genetic algorithms. Obviously, there is not just
 external selection in ALife, the moment of turbulence in the middle
 operates its own selective pressures whose workings are less easy to
 determine. However, in the more controlled ALife experiments this
 internal selection is eventually incorporated in the transcendent
 function.
 
 There is a double movement operating in ALife: on the one hand there
 is a return to origins, a rejection of entropy and an embrace of
 turbulence as the dynamic engine of life; on the other hand there is
 an attempt to reduce turbulence to a generalised system of rules
 ("Much progress could be made by determining what laws nature laid
 out, by programming these laws and allowing lifelike behavior to
 emerge in applying those algorithms"). [50] This tension has become
 even more apparent in the last few years, when the limitations of
 using fitness functions has become more apparent. An external,
 transcendent fitness function is appropriate when dealing with
 specific problems, but where control needs to be exercised on huge,
 distributed networks, even the former appears too inflexible. [51]
 And yet, telecommunications companies cannot quite bring themselves
 to trust the total immanence of turbulence: who can trust a
 population of small, autonomous, self-evolving programs loose in the
 network? Innovation and adaptation, turbulence and control rest
 uneasily together, still quite unable to settle in a definite form,
 even as variable as the mesh.
 
 Molecular assemblages: a clone is not a copy
 --------------------------------------------
 
 In spite of ALife cult status in cybercultural circles, molecular
 biology and genetic engineering are by far the most well-known and
 controversial examples of the current technoscientific engagement
 with the question of the origins. Experiments in cloning have caused
 widespread panic and a flush of legislation against what is perceived
 as a scientific interference with the integrity of life. The legacy
 of disciplinary science survives in molecular biology as a further
 development of biopower and its interest in producing and regulating
 life. Whereas traditionally biopower is reactive to death and the
 finitude of the organism, the developments inscribed in molecular
 biology turn against the organism and its entropic drive in order to
 emphasise the productive and heterogeneous processes of life. In this
 sense we can talk of a total subsumption of life to capital (no
 energy is lost to death, nothing escapes the circuit of production).
 
 The most well known aspect of molecular biology is its interest in
 genetic material. Molecular biology has abstracted the specific
 organization of a body from taxonomic knowledge and has drawn the
 genetic continuum line among species without accounting for types or
 degrees of variation (orders of magnitude). Taxonomic knowledge
 focused on grades of development and classified already individuated
 beings on the basis of types of forms: for example human beings are
 part of a bigger species called mammals, which are differentiated
 from birds; within mammals, human beings differ from primates because
 the latter are supposed to be less developed in the taxonomic chain
 of beings which culminates with homo sapiens. Molecular biology, on
 the other hand, concentrates on populations of codes and movements of
 territorialization. The type becomes the population and populations
 relate to each other through differential relations on a territory.
 In this new conception, human beings are no longer a specific type
 and no longer relate to other species in terms of degrees of
 development.
 
 For example, molecular biology and biochemistry have challenged the
 traditional distinction between plant and animal kingdom and the
 classification based on this division, in favour of the more
 fundamental difference in life between eukaryotes (cells with nuclei,
 among which mitochondria and, in the case of algae and plants,
 plastids) and prokaryotes, also called monera or bacteria (cells
 without membrane-bound nucleus). [52] This shift gives new centrality
 to nucleic DNA, which is recognised as a unidimensional line crossing
 species boundaries. Jacques Monod famously quipped that from the
 point of view of the DNA there is no difference between an elephant
 and a nucleated bacterium (~Escheria Choli~): as with ALife, the same
 code peoples diverse organisms. On the one hand this centrality of
 the DNA to molecular biology can (and has been) seen as a new
 reductionism of the heterogeneity of life to code; on the other hand
 it can also be seen as a positive moment of dissolution of species
 boundaries. However these positions are based on a partial
 misunderstanding of the function of the bounded DNA within the cell.
 Nucleic DNA is a macro-molecule, a hierarchical structure within the
 cell, caught in a chain of command with RNA and proteins, but is far
 from being responsible for the entire process of genetic inheritance,
 mutation and variation . [53]
 
 The abstract body of molecular biology presents the emergence and
 development of a genetic complexity which is not limited to the
 double helix. Although the universal code of DNA crosses species
 boundaries, it does not exclusively account for the genetic
 complexity of cellular and extra-cellular life which appears
 increasingly crucial to molecular engineering. The double helix is
 less to be conceived as the sole component of genetic complexity than
 as the organizing inductor of cellular life. The study of the
 emergence and development of genetic assemblages has presented a
 major deviation from Darwinian and neo-darwinian emphasis on the
 external machine of natural selection and survival of the fittest
 gene.
 
 The eucaryotic assemblage reveals that the nucleic DNA presents an
 articulation of genetic and substantial elements which renders it
 independent of them but at the same time constituted by them. As a
 matter of fact, the operation of proteic synthesis appears defined by
 the line DNA/RNA/Protein, but on a molecular level it is determined
 by proteic production, which Deleuze and Guattari call the "molecular
 unconscious" of the reproductive DNA. The linearity of the
 DNA/RNA/protein chain presents a machinery of genetic transcription
 and translation of information where the DNA appears as the "master
 molecule", presuming the molar expression of the self. However it is
 the proteins who are the labor force of the cell, who carry out the
 real work which is only induced and organised by the DNA. Similarly,
 the central function attributed to DNA in the action of fertilization
 results secondary to the embryogenetic developments and
 differentiation of parts of an egg cell. Whereas before, nucleic DNA
 was considered to be the veritable organizer, deciding the destiny of
 parts, it has been later understood that other genetic substances
 carry out a similar function and that the parts in a cell have
 themselves specific abilities and potentials for development unknown
 to the DNA. Thus, the stimulating and organizing function of DNA
 results in a mere induction, whose nature is a matter of
 indifference. [54] It is not an individuated DNA which determines
 development but a relation between different bodies within and
 outside the cell. Selective pressures are immanent to the symbiotic
 process of combinations of molecular entities hinging on a
 multiplicity of relations and affects. This has consequences for the
 principle of natural selection as understood in Darwinism and
 neo-Darwinism: mutations are not random occurrences which are then
 selected by an external force but are already guided by an immanent
 and creative selective pressure. [55]
 
 Nucleic DNA, then, is a master molecule, it possesses traits of
 segmented molarity, but it is not in absolute control of the cell.
 Rather it relies on an active assemblage of other cellular elements
 who do not just simply obey the DNA dictates, but transform them
 according to a turbulent motion. Nucleic DNA is not in charge but is
 part of a turbulent assemblage and ~is also turbulent itself~. Jacob
 talked about genetic drifting, the annexed connection among codes
 which is not imposed by linear movements of genetic inheritance and
 reproduction. [56] Both beneath and across the strata of the
 organism, fluid dynamics and molecular life display a different mode
 of existence of a body, one that exceeds the thermodynamic cycles of
 finitude trapping the organism. Molecular life, however, is not the
 unconscious, the pre-Oedipal, or Freud's death drive towards
 inorganic life; it is not a regression to a less developed layer of
 organization. The molecular level of the micro explored by molecular
 biology is not only as complex as the macro (indeed as Prigogine
 argues, it is the multiplicity that makes up the macro), but is also
 very far from being a power-free zone of playful exchange. Indeed,
 the fluidity of the micro is the level at which more recent
 strategies of control are excercised. Control works on elements that
 already exists within the cell, but it does not determine the outcome
 of the process in any strictly deterministic way.
 
 The turbulent, and yet segmented organization of nucleic DNA is, in
 fact, of crucial concern to genetic engineering, a technoscientific
 development which echoes third-wave cybernetics in its rechanneling
 of turbulence through control. This is particularly evident in the
 controversial experiments on mammal cloning, which in 1997 produced
 the first cloned sheep, Dolly.
 
 Mammal cloning simulates the embryological development of a
 multicellular organism. While ALife (following the neo-Darwinists)
 reduces life to replicating DNA, in this case the whole cell is
 involved. The levels of Dolly's cloning follow this pattern: firstly,
 her udder cell containing the nucleus to be cloned is removed and
 brought back to a primordial stage (zero degree of growth). This
 demonstrates how the biological development of cells is neither
 irreversible nor highly specific insofar as adult cells can be
 brought back to their virtual plane and reprogrammed for new
 functions. Meanwhile, from another female sheep X the egg cell has
 been retrieved, and its haploid nucleus (containing twenty-three XX
 chromosomes) extracted (only the body of the egg is used to
 accomplish the cloning). Finally, Dolly's diploid cell and the egg
 cell without nucleus undergo a fusion through an electric current.
 After fusion the egg cell presents a full complement of new DNA
 (Dolly's DNA) which at some "non-defined point" starts to divide and
 grow into an embryo. Such process is still quite obscure: scientists
 do not yet know how nucleated DNA is activated and reprogrammed by
 the egg cell. This activation is also called "reprogramming magic".
 [57]
 
 Mammal cloning simulates the degree zero of the egg cell and leaves
 turbulence to do the work. After this initial moment of simulation,
 which the cell answers by regressing to a degree of zero of
 development, the latter does not obey the scientists' orders in any
 deterministic way: there are no specific instructions to follow apart
 from the embryogenesis of the egg cell itself. We have seen that the
 cell is not merely constituted by nucleic DNA, replicating along
 flows of mutation and regularity but is also inhabited by other
 genetic material, such as the mitochondrial DNA, which participate in
 a bacterial mode of indefinite proliferation. Mammal cloning suggests
 that the immanent relations between nucleic and cytoplasmic genetic
 material within the processes of individuation are synthesised by
 turbulence.
 
 The level of control instantiated by this technology functions as a
 process of genetic combination and regulation of the velocities of
 cellular growth. Control operates as a trickster: the body of the
 cell is induced to re-program the genetic information of the starved
 and involuted nucleic DNA. The relation among the molecules of an egg
 cell is simulated and exposed to the turbulent order of
 embryogenesis, that is to a coherent yet unpredictable process of
 becoming. It is out of this process that scientists evaluate the
 conditions of existence of a body through the unfolding of genetic
 information and the development of extensive parts: they check
 whether the cell and the body within it are growing properly, whether
 there are any anomalies, and in general whether the clone has any
 chances of survival and development. The basic requirements for a
 successful cloning are not simply dictated by a transcendent
 principle of fitness but by an evaluation of the process itself,
 which is ultimately responsible for the development of the clone.
 
 This evaluation acts as a selection and distribution of endlessly
 profitable cultures, which do not obey the regime of waste. Even if
 the experiment is not successful, the scientists still evaluate what
 has happened, what can be extracted, worked on, and reinserted in
 other cultures. Nothing is wasted, everything is recycled. These
 practices are an answer to the ways cellular cultures work; cells are
 not controllable in the ways prescribed by disciplinary
 subjectification. They just do not do what is asked of them, but
 after the initial intervention they need to be left to develop
 according to their own, unpredictable order. This is why contemporary
 technoscience needs the highest level of proliferation. It needs
 innumerable cellular cultures before even a possibility of
 multicellular life actualises. The mechanisms of this
 materialisation, however, are not completely known even to the
 scientists themselves.
 
 This unpredictability is not the same thing as freedom. It is not
 about the forces of life rebelling against human manipulation. The
 tendency to order is inherent in matter, but this order is a
 turbulent one. Turbulence is in the middle, it is a zone of the
 unexpected, a diagonal line of flight between order and disorder.
 Control intervenes within this tendency of matter by orienting
 turbulence towards profitable production. Technoscience wants to make
 turbulence work for capital, but this means that it has to give the
 up the absolute control of discipline. Unlike current ALife
 experiments, the involvement of the whole cellular assemblage makes
 cloning partake even more of an autonomous turbulent order of
 production. Dolly emerges out of a long and frustrating process of
 simulation without warranties and in spite of the hype, she is not
 the perfect copy of the original sheep: cloning does not reproduce
 the Same. The turbulent relation between the body of the cell and
 nucleic DNA guarantees a difference within repetition. Even after
 selection and development, even under conditions of maximum control,
 there are no certain results. In 1999, worried scientists announced
 that their first living clone, Dolly the sheep, is ageing
 prematurely. Turbulence is unpredictable.

 Postscript on turboethics 
 -------------------------
 
 It is hard to feel nostalgic about discipline, its walls, its
 reduction of the body to a classified, solid entity trapped in a
 thermodynamic cycle of charge, discharge and death. Even as
 discipline was being successfully exported through outsourcing from
 the West, the relief for its decline was palpable in the early stages
 of postmodern theory. The latter got drunk on its glimpses of a
 different age, one based on proliferation, fragmentation, and
 fluidity and forgot that discipline was a historical formation not
 the ultimate form of power. Postmodern theory was weak in its
 understandings of modes of power which did not operate by enclosure,
 individuation and hierarchy and sometimes misunderstood the collapse
 of discipline for the end of power as such. Michel Foucault, however,
 always knew how short-lived the latter was, how it followed on a
 different mode of power (the sovereign society) and how it was going
 to be left behind by something else, what Deleuze called the society
 of control.
 
 The society of control marks a historical mutation of power, a
 redirection of its attention towards the turbulent levels of
 matter/energy. The emergence of control can be perceived through
 science, technology, economics, and culture, even if it is always
 enmeshed with previous modes of power. We have abstracted and mapped
 these lines as if they were the results of the internal pressures of
 capitalist and patriarchal power to continuously remould itself in
 order to deal with the mutations of the clinamen. The problem of
 power is a bio-geological question, rather than a psychoanalytic one:
 it is about fluidity as an immanent mode of matter/energy rather than
 an internalised pre-Oedipal state of undifferentiated bliss. We
 should be wary of the tendency to pose fluidity as some kind of
 ultimate political goal for postmodern cynics; when the disciplinary
 walls come down and their functions are released on a smooth space,
 fluidity becomes the field of power, not a safe haven outside it.
 Fluidity is not just where one ends up, then, happy but washed out
 after the wreckage of the disciplinarian fathership, but it is where
 control emerges as an immanent process of rechanneling of turbulent
 flows.
 
 Our analysis of technoscience shows that knowledge of the mechanics
 of fluids is fundamental to the elaboration of these strategies of
 control. These fluids correspond to a female mode of indefinite
 production, rather than one of simple reproduction of the Same. This
 quality of the female flows, their capacity to introduce a
 differential, yet coherent element within production is turned into
 an inexhaustible source of surplus value and its principles unfolded
 throughout the entirety of the socius. The mechanics of fluids is key
 to the larger management of the society of flows.
 
 Feminism has addressed these technoscientific shifts through the
 cyborg and the matrix, which were introduced as an answer to
 developments in the field of cybernetics. [58] The cyborg rejoiced in
 hybridity and transversal alliances, but did not give up the
 organization of the body through individuality, even if a patchwork
 one; the matrix emphasised the intrinsic affinity between women and
 the intricate connections of networked cybernetics, but overlooked
 the countermovements which were engendering new strategies of
 control. We are more interested in an approach which moves away from
 the organised, individuated body and yet pays attention to control.
 
 We have thus embarked on the complex search for this body without
 organs, that is for a body which is not already configured in terms
 of identities and selves, no matter how partial they are. Even if it
 is important to recognise individuation as one of the structures
 through which power operates, we should remember that it is not its
 only level. As Antonio Negri puts it, "this is a collective and
 materialistic horizon: we do not go back to individuality neither as
 principle nor as value, but as simply an element of the structure of
 being that continuously unfolds towards and through sociality." [59]
 We have learnt from Spinoza that a body is made of particles,
 assemblages and flows; from Deleuze and Guattari that the
 subject/organism is just one of the layers on the stratification of a
 body; and from technoscience that all the different layers of the
 body can be controlled and directed in innovative ways, even the
 least stratified. Most of all, we have learned not to identify the
 forms of control with the overall capacities of a body, which are
 always unknown but not unknowable. This implies that a productive
 engagement with turbulence should account for control but also
 elaborate an ethics of relations of power within a turbulent order.
 We have to come up with ways of dealing with turbulence that are
 based on ethics rather than control. As we have seen, control uses
 turbulence in the interests of profit, it is an intensification of
 the capitalist drive to overcome its limits and its tendency to
 increase the weight of dead labor over the vitality of matter/energy.
 Rather than looking for ways of extracting dead labour out of
 turbulence, ethics ~lives in turbulence~: it recognises the forces of
 desire and the economies of its directioning, watches out for
 blockages, segmentations and subtle modulations. Ethics always starts
 from a field of pragmatic relations, rather than from a planned set
 of rules or fitness functions. It is not a transcendent project, a
 metaphysics of modes and reality, but as Negri puts it, it is
 something which is inserted into and feeds off the history and
 politics of singular and collective life. Ethics must "cross the
 world of imagination and passions in order to turn it into the matter
 and constituting force of the reconstruction of the worlds". [60]
 
 Notes
 -----

 [1] Michel Serres, _Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy_
 (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1982): p.102
 
 [2] "Hypersea is a physical - or more precisely, biogeophysical-
 entity, composed of the bodies and fluids of all the land organisms
 with the nucleus bearing cells (plants, animals, fungi, and
 protoctists) and their symbionts". (Mark A. S. McMenamin and Dianna
 L. S. McMenamin, _Hypersea: Life on Land_ .New York: Columbia
 University Press, 1994: p.6)
 
 [3] In _Male Fantasies_, Klaus Theweleit summarises psychoanalyst
 Sandor Ferenczi's theory on the relation between femaleness and
 water. According to Ferenczi, penetration does not exist in acquatic
 life, because there fertilization takes place through simple contact
 with exposed, accessible organs: "On land, a battle over water
 erupted: Ferenczi suggests that females were forced to submit to
 being penetrated by the erectile penises the males had developed and
 to be "turned into oceans". From then on, the female interior was
 forced to serve as a substitute for the lost acquatic existence.
 Ferneczi concludes. That "~amniotic fluid is a sea that was
 "introjected", as it were, into the mother's body~, in which, as
 embryologist R. Hertwig says, "the delicate, vulnerable embryo
 carries out movements and swims ~like a fish in water~." (Klaus
 Theweleit, _Male Fantasies: Women, Floods, Bodies, History_.
 Cambridge: Polity Press,1987: p.292). Such a perspective turns on its
 head the symbolic view that sees the sea as standing for the mother:
 it is actually the other way around: "First comes ~la mer~, then ~la
 mere~." (ibidem )
 
 [4] James Gleick, _Chaos_ (London: Abacus Press, 1987): p.122
 
 [5] See Manuel Castells, _The Information Age: Economy, Society and
 Culture. Volume 1: The Rise of the Network Society_. (Oxford UK and
 Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell)
 
 [6] See Deleuze 1995; Massumi 1998.
 
 [7] The practice of exchange of women between men as commodities is
 foundational to the patriarchal economy of reproduction. Irigaray's
 discussion of this economy of exchange draws on Marx's critique of
 commodity in _Capital_ Vol. 1, which explains the capitalist order of
 reproduction and exploitation based on exchange value. However,
 unlike Marx, Irigaray considers the exchange value as the
 establishment of the economy of the Same, on the base of which women
 become commodities (Irigaray 1985a: pp.170-197).
 
 [8] See Gilles Deleuze, _Negotiation_, trans. Martin Joughin (New
 York: Columbia University Press,1995)
 
 [9] See Gilles Deleuze, _Spinoza: Practical Philosophy_. Trans.
 Robert Hurley. (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1988); and Antonio
 Negri _Spinoza_. (Roma: DeriveApprodi, 1998)
 
 [10] Gilles Deleuze, _Nietzsche and Philosophy_ .Trans. Hugh
 Tomlinson. (London: Athlone Press,1983): p.39
 
 [11] See Michel Foucault, _The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of
 Medical Perception_. Trans. by A. Sheridan. (New York: Vintage
 Books,1994)
 
 [12] Luce Irigaray, _This Sex Which is Not One_. Trans. Catherine
 Porter. (New York: Cornell University Press. 1985): p.115
 
 [13] To the process of overcodification of the body into specific
 individualities corresponds the capitalist movement of abstraction of
 the labour force. This process of overcodification is less a recoding
 of already coded flows than a limitation of the circulation and
 distribution of decodified flows. The concentration of such flows
 without identity into blocks of masses (i.e., workers, students,
 patients, prisoners) is indicative of the cycle of reproduction of
 industrial capitalism. Decodified flows appear trapped within the
 enclosure of organization resulting into a segmentation of the
 multiplicities of a body. Such segmentation includes the folding of
 forces into the Norm of work, money, the father, and sex (see Gilles
 Deleuze, _Foucault_. Foreword Paul Bove, trans., (ed) Sean Hand.
 Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1988)
 
 [14] See Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, _What is Life?_ (New York:
 Nevromont/Simon and Shuster 1995): p.22
 
 [15] Ibid., 23
 
 [16] See Theweleit, _Male Fantasies_.
 
 [17] See Luce Irigaray, _Speculum of the Other Woman_. Trans. Gillian
 C. Gill (New York: Cornell University Press,1985): p.146
 
 [18] See Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, _A Thousand Plateaus:
 Capitalism and Schizophrenia_. Trans. Brian Massumi (London: Athlone
 Press, 1987): pp.158-159
 
 [19] Elizabeth Grosz, _Space, Time and Perversion: Essays on the
 Politics of Bodies_ (London and New York: Routledge,1995): p.201
 
 [20] Deleuze and Guattari, _A Thousand Plateaus_, p.260
 
 [21] Deleuze, _Negotiations_, p.179
 
 [22] Brian Massumi, "Requiem for Our Prospective Dead (Toward a
 Participatory Critique of Capitalist Power)" in Eleanor Kaufman and
 Kevin Jon Heller (eds), _Deleuze and Guattari: New Mappings in
 Politics, Philosophy and Culture_ (London and Minneapolis: University
 of Minnesota Press, 1998, pp.40-64): p.57
 
 [23] Norbert Wiener, _The Human Use of Human Beings. Cybernetics and
 Society_ (London: Free Association Books, 1989): p.xiii.
 
 [24] Katherine N. Hayles, _How We Became Posthuman. Virtual Bodies in
 Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics_ (Chicago and London: The
 University of Chicago Press, 1999): p.65.
 
 [25] Ibid.,p.102.
 
 [26] Ibid., p.11.
 
 [27] Ibid., p.141.
 
 [28] Gregory Bateson was partially breaking with this model, in as
 much as he emphasised the pervasiveness of structural couplings
 throughout natural and social systems.
 
 [29] Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, _What is Sex?_ A Peter N.
 Nevraumont Book, Italy: Simon and Shuster Editions, 1997), 41.
 
 [30] Ibid., 32.
 
 [31] Katherine N. Hayles, _How We Became Posthuman_. 102-103.
 
 [32] See Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, _Order Out of Chaos,
 Man's New Dialogue with Nature_ (New York: Bantham Books, 1984).
 
 [33] Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, _A Thousand Plateaus_, p.361.
 
 [34] Ibid., p.489.
 
 [35] See Manuel Castells, _The Network Society_.
 
 [36] Gilles Deleuze, _Negotiations_. p.178.
 
 [37] See Kevin Kelly, _ Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines,
 Social Systems, and the Economic World_ (Addison Wesley Publishing
 Company, 1994).
 
 [38] See Hayles, _How We Became Posthuman_.
 
 [39] Steven Levy, _Artificial Life: A Report from the Frontier
 Computers Meet Biology_. New York: Vintage Books,1992): p.5.
 
 [40] Deleuze, _Negotiations_. p.179.
 
 [41] Deleuze and Guattari, _A Thousand Plateaus_. p.489.
 
 [42] Levy, _Artificial Life_. p.118.
 
 [43] Ibid., p.106.
 
 [44] Hayles, _How We Became Posthuman_. p.225.
 
 [45] Ibid.
 
 [46] See Michael Ward, _Virtual Organisms: The Startling World of
 Artificial Life_ (London: Macmillan, 1999).
 
 [47] Levy, _Artificial Life_. p.109.
 
 [48] See William Bogard, _The Simulation of Surveillance:
 Hypercontrol in telematic societies_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University
 Press, 1996).
 
 [49] ALife practitioners are increasingly polarised between those who
 favour the introduction of a fitness function from the outside and
 those who insists that evolution should be left to its own devices,
 that is that fitness should emerge from the field itself. The lines
 of separation seem to coincide with the difference between those who
 aim to produce specific applications for the market (such as those
 who aim to evolve software programmes) and those who are more
 concerned with breaking down the standalone computer limitations
 (such as its sequential characters, the competition for fixed memory
 and so on) (see Christopher G. Langton, _Artificial Life: An
 Overview_. Cambridge, Mass and London, England: The MIT Press, 1995;
 and Rodney A. Brooks and Pattie Maes (eds), _Artificial Life IV:
 Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Synthesis and
 Simulation of Living Systems_. Boston: MIT press, 1995).
 
 [50] Levy, _Artificial Life_. p.72.
 
 [51] It is hard to underestimate how important the computer has been
 for current scientific understandings of turbulence. After a long
 period of neglect, thefirst experiments on turbulence, those carried
 out by Harry Swinney and Jerry Gollub in 1975, used computers to
 store data about turbulent flows. The computational capacities of the
 machine allowed the two scientists to dispute Lev D. Landau's
 hypothesis that turbulence is just a piling up of competing rhythms
 (see Gleick, _Chaos_). In the special effects blockbuster _Twister_,
 a group of maverick scientists maps the internal structure of a
 tornado (the most spectacular of turbulent phenomenon) by sending a
 computer right into its centre.
 
 [52] See Dorion Sagan, "Metametazoa: Biology and Multiplicity" in
 _Incorporations_, J. Crary and S. Kwinter (eds), New York: Zone
 Books, 1992: pp.362/385.
 
 [53] See Jacques Monod, _Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Nature
 of Philosophy of Modern Biology_. Trans. Austrin Wainhouse,
 (London:Collins, 1972).
 
 [54] Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, _Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and
 Schizophrenia_ (London: The Athlone Press, 1983): p.91
 
 [55] In order to grasp the operation of selective pressures, it is
 necessary to mention their active process of synthesis indicated by
 Deleuze via Nietzsche. Selective pressures are enmeshed with
 Nietzsche 's will to power which determines the relation among
 forces. The will to power or selection produces a differential to
 each force in relation. The will to power as a principle does not
 suppress chance, but, on the contrary, implies it, because without
 chance it would be neither plastic nor changing. Chance is the
 bringing of forces into relation, the will to power is the
 determining principle of this relation.For further insights into an
 immanent understanding of selection as the Nietzschean will to power
 see Deleuze, _Nietzsche and Philosophy_.
 
 [56] Deleuze and Guattari, _A Thousand Plateaus_. p.53
 
 [57] See Elizabeth Pennisi et al, "Will Dolly Send In the Clones?"
 _Science_ ,Vol. 275, 7 March 1997, pp.1415-1416; and R. C. Lewontin
 "The Confusion Over Cloning", _New York Review of Books_, vol. XLIV,
 no. 16, Oct.23, 1997.
 
 [58] See Donna Haraway Simians, _Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention
 of Nature_. (London: FA Books, 1991); and Sadie Plant, _Zeros + Ones:
 Digital Women + The New Technoculture_. (London: Fourth Estate,1997).
 
 [59] Negri, _Spinoza_, p.200 (our translation).
 
 [60] Ibid., 123.
 
 Bibliography 
 ------------
 
 Bateson, Gregory (1973) _Steps to an Ecology of Mind_. St.Albans,
 Herts: Paladin Press.
 
 Baudrillard, Jean (1988) _Selected Writings_. Cambridge: Polity
 Press.
 
 Beniger, James R. (1986) _The Control Revolution: Technological and
 Economic Origins of the Information Society_. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
 
 Bogard, William (1996) _The Simulation of Surveillance: Hypercontrol
 in telematic societies_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
 Brooks, Rodney A. and Pattie Maes (eds) _Artificial Life IV:
 Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Synthesis and
 Simulation of Living Systems_. Boston: MIT press.
 
 Burgio, Alberto (1999) 'Titoli di Testa', _DeriveApprodi_ ,vol. 17,
 pp. 6-7.
 
 Castells, Manuel (1996) _The Information Age: Economy, Society and
 Culture. Volume 1: The Rise of the Network Society_. Oxford UK and
 Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.
 
 Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari (1987) _A Thousand Plateaus:
 Capitalism and Schizophrenia_. Trans. Brian Massumi. London: Athlone
 Press, 1980.
 
 Deleuze, Gilles (1983) _Nietzsche and Philosophy_. Trans. Hugh
 Tomlinson. London: Athlone Press.
 
 --- (1988) _Spinoza: Practical Philosophy_ .Trans. Robert Hurley. San
 Francisco: City Lights Books.
 
 --- (1988b) _Foucault_. Foreword Paul Bove, trans., (ed) Sean Hand,
 Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
 
 --- (1990) _The Logic of Sense_. Trns. M. Lester with Charles
 Stivale. Constantin V. Boundas (ed). London: Athlone Press, 1969.
 
 --- (1995) _Negotiation_, trans. Martin Joughin, New York:Columbia
 University Press.
 
 Foucault, Michel (1972) _The Archaeology of Knowledge_. London:
 Routledge.
 
 --- (1979) _Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison_. New
 York: Vintage Books, 1977.
 
 --- (1994) _The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical
 Perception_. Trans. by A. Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books.
 
 Gleick, James (1987) _Chaos_. London: Abacus Press.
 
 Grosz, Elizabeth (1995) _Space, Time and Perversion: Essays on the
 Politics of Bodies_. London and New York: Routledge.
 
 Hayles, Katherine N (1999) _How We Became Posthuman. Virtual Bodies
 in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics_. Chicago and London: The
 University of Chicago Press.
 
 Haraway, Donna (1991) _Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of
 Nature_. London: FA Books.
 
 Irigaray, Luce (1985a) _This Sex Which is Not One_. Trans. Catherine
 Porter. New York: Cornell University Press.
 
 --- (1985b) _Speculum of the Other Woman_. Trans. Gillian C. Gill.
 New York: Cornell University Press.
 
 Kelly, Kevin (1994) _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines,
 Social Systems, and the Economic World_. Addison Wesley Publishing
 Company.
 
 Kenney, Martin (1986) _Biotechnology: The University-Industrial
 Complex_. New Haven and London: University of Yale Press.
 
 Langton, Christopher G. (ed) (1995) _Artificial Life: An Overview_.
 Cambridge, Mass and London, England: The MIT Press.
 
 Levy, Steven (1992) _Artificial Life: A Report from the Frontier
 Computers Meet Biology_. New York: Vintage Books.
 
 Lewontin, R.C. (1997) "The Confusion Over Cloning" _New York Review
 of Books_, vol. XLIV, no. 16, Oct. 23 1997.
 
 Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (1995) _What is Life?_ New York:
 Nevromont/Simon and Shuster.
 
 --- (1997) _What is Sex?_ A Peter N. Nevraumont Book, Italy: Simon
 and Shuster Editions.
 
 Martin, Emily (1990) "Science and Women's Bodies: Forms of
 Anthropological Knowledge" in Mary Jacobus, Evelyn Fox Keller, Sally
 Shuttleworth (1990) (eds), _Body/Politics: Women and the Discourse of
 Science_. London and New York: Routledge.
 
 Massumi, Brian (1998) "Requiem for Our Prospective Dead (Toward a
 Participatory Critique of Capitalist Power" in Eleanor Kaufman and
 Kevin Jon Heller (eds) (1998) _Deleuze and Guattari: New Mappings in
 Politics, Philosophy and Culture_. London and Minneapolis: University
 of Minnesota Press, pp. 40-64.
 
 McMenamin, Mark A. S. and McMenamin, Dianna L. S. (1994) _Hypersea:
 Life on Land_. New York: Columbia University Press.
 
 Monod, Jacques (1972) _Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Nature
 of Philosophy of Modern Biology_. Trans. Austrin Wainhouse, London:
 Collins.
 
 Negri, Antonio (1998) _Spinoza_. Roma: DeriveApprodi.
 
 Pennisi, Elizabeth et al (1997) "Will Dolly Send In the Clones?"
 _Science_, Vol. 275, 7 March 1997, pp. 1415-1416.
 
 Plant, Sadie (1997) _Zeros + Ones: Digital Women + The New
 Technoculture_. London: Fourth Estate.
 
 Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers (1984) _Order Out of Chaos,
 Man's New Dialogue with Nature_. New York: Bantham Books.
 
 Prigogine, Ilya (1997) _The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos and the New
 Laws of Nature_. New York: the Free Press.
 
 Sagan, Dorion (1992) "Metametazoa: Biology and Multiplicity" in
 _Incorporations_ (eds) J. Crary and S. Kwinter, New York: Zone Books.
 
 Serres, Michel (1982) _Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy_.
 Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
 
 Terranova, Tiziana (1996) "Digital Darwin: Nature, Evolution and
 Control in the rhetoric of Computer Mediated Communications" _New
 Formations 'Technoscience'_, No. 29, Autumn 1996, pp. 69-83
 
 Theweleit, Klaus (1987) _Male Fantasies: Women, Floods, Bodies,
 History_. Cambridge: Polity Press.
 
 Ward, Michael (1999) _Virtual Organisms: The Startling World of
 Artificial Life_. London: Macmillan.
 
 Wiener, Norbert (1989) _The Human Use of Human Beings. Cybernetics
 and Society_. London: Free Association Books, 1950, 1954.
 
 _____________________________________________________________________
 Tiziana Terranova is a lecturer in media studies in the Dept. of
 Cultural Studies at the University of East London. She has published
 her work on technoscience and digital politics in _New Formations_,
 _Social Text_, _Derive e Approdi_ and _Science as Culture_ and is 
 currently completing a book on networked intelligence and collective 
 politics.
 
 Luciana Parisi has recently completed her PhD on sex, evolution and
 biotechnology at the University of Warwick. She teaches critical
 theory, culture and media studies at the University of East London
 and at Goldsmiths' College, University of London. She is currently
 working on a book project entitled _Abstract Sex: the emergence of an
 intensive body from bacteria to nanotechnology_. 
 _____________________________________________________________________
 
 * CTHEORY is an international journal of theory, technology
 *   and culture. Articles, interviews, and key book reviews
 *   in contemporary discourse are published weekly as well as 
 *   theorisations of major "event-scenes" in the mediascape.
 *
 * Editors: Arthur and Marilouise Kroker
 *
 * Editorial Board: Jean Baudrillard (Paris), Bruce Sterling (Austin),
 *   R.U. Sirius (San Francisco), Siegfried Zielinski (Koeln),
 *   Stelarc (Melbourne), Richard Kadrey (San Francisco),
 *   Timothy Murray (Ithaca/Cornell), Lynn Hershman Leeson 
 *   (San Francisco), Stephen Pfohl (Boston), Andrew Ross 
 *   (New York), David Cook (Toronto), William Leiss (Kingston), 
 *   Shannon Bell (Downsview/York), Gad Horowitz (Toronto), 
 *   Sharon Grace (San Francisco), Robert Adrian X (Vienna),
 *   Deena Weinstein (Chicago), Michael Weinstein (Chicago),
 *   Andrew Wernick (Peterborough).
 *
 * In Memory: Kathy Acker
 *
 * Editorial Correspondents: Ken Hollings (UK), 
 *   Maurice Charland (Canada) Steve Gibson (Sweden).
 *
 * Editorial Assistant: Grayson Cooke
 * World Wide Web Editor: Carl Steadman
 
 ____________________________________________________________________
                To view CTHEORY online please visit:
                      http://www.ctheory.com/
                     
             To view CTHEORY MULTIMEDIA online please visit:
                    http://ctheory.concordia.ca/
 ____________________________________________________________________
 
 * CTHEORY includes:
 *
 * 1. Electronic reviews of key books in contemporary theory.
 *
 * 2. Electronic articles on theory, technology and culture.
 *
 * 3. Event-scenes in politics, culture and the mediascape.
 *
 * 4. Interviews with significant theorists, artists, and writers.
 *
 * CTHEORY is sponsored by New World Perspectives and Concordia
 *   University.
 *
 * No commercial use of CTHEORY articles without permission.
 *
 * Mailing address: CTHEORY, Concordia University, 1455
 *   de Maisonneuve, O., Montreal, Canada, H3G 1M8.
 * 
 * Full text and microform versions are available from UMI,
 *   Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Canadian Periodical Index/Gale
 *   Canada, Toronto.
 *
 * Indexed in: International Political Science Abstracts/
 *   Documentation politique international; Sociological
 *   Abstract Inc.; Advance Bibliography of Contents: Political
 *   Science and Government; Canadian Periodical Index;
 *   Film and Literature Index.
 _____________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________________
no copyright 2000 rolux.org - no commercial use without permission. <rolux> is a
moderated mailing list for the advancement of minor criticism. more information:
mail to: majordomo@rolux.org, subject line: <rolux>, message body: info. further
questions: mail to: rolux-owner@rolux.org. <rolux> archive: http://www.rolux.org