Reading time: 21 minutes
Translation by AB – December 21, 2024
1. Organizations
Individuals
We can only understand our environment as consisting of stable existing beings, over which our words have some hold and with which we can identify. Today, however, it is riddled with technical phenomena of all kinds, unprecedented and complex. In this turmoil, it becomes difficult to distinguish individuals who appear, disappear or transform. The term “individual” is to be understood here not just as a member of the human race, but in the broad sense[1]: “Existing as a distinct entity; separate”, “Single organism as distinguished from a species, community, or group” or even simply “indivisible”.
This theme of the individual may seem secondary, but it is in fact at the heart of the phenomena linked to digital progress, and it is no coincidence that researchers in information sciences, the very people who are developing our artificial informational agents (AI, robots…), are currently conducting research in this area close to biology (The « Individual » in the light of information theories). They may be planning, when the time comes, to welcome their artificial creations into the category of creatures (if they haven’t already done so…).
But it is not so much the individual considered by these researchers as an artificial, pseudo-living organism that interests us here as, say, the individual in the broad sense stemming from various individuation processes. In fact, in today’s world, it is these processes that abound, from which emerge individuals of all kinds, often still indistinct, in particular those we will call here “Organizations”[2]: companies, social groups, or even states… within which and with which human beings interact.
If we pay attention, the action of technical progress is undeniably transforming the structure of Organizations into genuine (and no longer merely metaphorical) Machines. The human being, while still the essential element, is correlatively undergoing a process of “technical de-individuation”, perhaps one of the major sources of the malaise currently running through democratic societies, where the “offer” in terms of Organizations is the most unbridled.
Progress
In the previous section, dealing with the particular case of the division of labor into skills and of the worker into functions (Machine and Individual (1) The case of “soft skills”), we noted that technological progress always proceeds in more or less the same way. It takes hold of each stable existing being (concrete or abstract thing), breaks it down and thus strips it of the intensive qualities that characterize its individuality[3], then recomposes or reassembles it as a “subsystem” with nothing more than functions and cranks. Descriptively, progress is not so much a creative process as a process of transformation that begins by dividing, and thus destroying, the individual in its “natural” state, and ends by reconstituting a “distinct entity”, and thus sometimes a new individual of a technical and artificial kind.
Here we come across the notion of “grammatization” as taken up by Bernard Stiegler to designate the “discretization of a symbolic apparatus into reproducible units”[4], and we read his words (emphasis added)[5]:
The worker is no longer the technical individual because the machine has formalized his gestures, and this is how he becomes a proletarian – having been replaced by the machine, which has become the technical individual, of which he himself is only the servant.
This is how, in fact, Machines individuate themselves under the repeated assaults of a progress that decomposes (“discretizes”) in order to recompose. We read further on[6]:
The machinic formalization of the worker’s gestures is the result of analysis and synthesis – achieved as an artifact by technoscience.
The “pre-informatization” field of the individual is thus turned upside down, and we can ask ourselves, for example, whether the “artifacts” that are the Internet, social networks, chatbots, robots with exceptional physical performance, or even Organizations such as X, Amazon, Google or the ideocracies that share the world… are not ultimately all Individuals of this new technical species, and even the real “winners” of the technical selection of Individuals in the Informatization Age?
Individuation
The old Scholastic principle of “individuation”, which is associated with the concept of the individual, has been interpreted in different ways over the ages[7]. Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Schopenhauer… all took up the mystery of individuation, right up to its revival by Carl Gustav Jung in analytical psychology. But it was Gilbert Simondon (1924-1989) who came up with the masterly idea of applying it to “technical objects” themselves (Gilbert Simondon, philosopher of information?).
This was an extraordinary idea because, for the first time, the technical object was envisaged not as a tool entirely determined by design and produced by craft or industry, but as a dynamic essence with its own internal necessities, constantly actualized in existence through its own process of individuation (which Simondon called “concretization”). To put it in a somewhat scholarly way, the technical object is the result of an “ontogenesis” which progressively gives it, through successive improvements and adaptations to its environment, its own characteristics and even its quality of being.
We then understand better why this question of the individual is pivotal today. For, although the concept of the technical object is no longer as clear-cut as it was in Gilbert Simondon’s time, we observe that information technologies are producing beings and technical environments of a totally new kind, with unprecedented dimensions and incomparable power, all things that individuate themselves in the sense that they appear distinct and autonomous, improve themselves, and thus present themselves to us without our feeling of total control or even full understanding.
Among these individuating things, we see the emergence of formidable, hyper-powerful, sprawling Organizations, whether they are companies, associations, ideological structures, or even entire countries… all of which are becoming “machinized”. What we still think of as typical organizations are in fact changing profoundly in structure with information technology, and are therefore changing in nature. These Organizations no more actualize themselves by obeying an implacable original “design” than the internal combustion engine, turbine or transistor studied by Simondon. They individuate in the Simondonian sense of the term, becoming Individuals in their own right, responding above all to their internal needs, which are now mechanical and computational, as well as to their own objectives. These objectives may be diverse, but they are all subsumed under this only one: growth. These objectives may be diverse, but they are all subsumed under this only one: growth. And so, these Organizations, all pre-individually loaded with the possibility of being totalitarian, are effectively individuated in totalitarianism, because technology not only allows it, but demands it.
Organizations
We live in a world of organizations. We are born in organizations called hospitals; are subsequently educated, employed, entertained, and exasperated by all sorts of other organizations; and finally are buried by organizations called funeral homes.[8]
It is very easy to sum up the opinions concerning our relationship with technology. On the one hand, there are the “technoptimists”, who are more unleashed than ever (Technology between sideration et radicalization), swearing by the eternal possibility of technology solving all problems – to the absurd point where it becomes necessary to create problems in order to maintain the unbridled pace of progress (Jacques Ellul and the Technological System) – and on the other, the “technopessimists”, who denounce indiscriminately the ecological ravages or the dehumanization of a humanity subjugated to the Machine. But the vast majority of us have no strong opinion, and retreat into a “techno-indifference” fueled by a fascinating and somewhat overwhelming “objective convergence of interests”[9].
However, Organizations widely escape this basic prism, as they are not really discerned as purely technical emanations, and even less as organized, autonomous “Individuals”. There is no technoptimism, technopessimism or even techno-indifference about them. Perhaps they are now too big, too powerful, too complex and have already exceeded the capacities of human understanding…
Most of the time, our relationship with technology is only considered in terms of our immediate environment, either physical, i.e. objects and interfaces that fall within reach (the smartphone, the car…), or intellectual, with very general concepts (Technology, Science, Politics). In the middle, so to speak, Organizations are neither immediate, fully visible (concrete) phenomena, nor pure idealities. And yet, they do indeed individuate themselves and now constitute stable existing beings of Mundus Numericus. The overall vision even leads us to consider these Organizations as genuine “technical objects” typical of the Age of Informatization. We said that their structure had changed: they are now Machines[10]. We said that their nature had consequently changed: they are now genuine Individuals[11] with all the qualities of organisms in the bio-logical sense of the term.
Proxy
We could mention countless examples of these Individuals of the new species (companies, technocracies, social networks, blockchains, etc.) who seem to be doing “something” for us, while at the same time doing something else entirely, following their own ontogenesis. To illustrate our point, we have selected the X social network and the Bridgewater investment fund, a Machine we had already explored in Dalio’s Machine. In the ideocratic field, we have added a few references to Russian and Chinese Machines, an opportunity to evoke the work of the philosopher Jean Vioulac to which we will return one day.
But before coming to these examples, we need to clarify what we ourselves become in our relationship with these Organizations. This relationship is not identical for everyone but is clearly differentiated. Simply put, some control these Organizations, while others – the vast majority – are part of them in the truest sense of the word.
In the 19th century, industrial progress was already fragmenting Western societies into two main categories: the “capitalist” who owned the machines, and the “worker” who provided the labor power. In the same way, progress in information technology is leading to new social fragmentations. Of course, there are still “capitalists” and “workers” (Jeff Bezos and the Amazon warehouse worker, Travis Kalanick and the Uber driver, and so on), but the new Organizations also and above all operate with a third type of individual that we will call, for want of a better term at this stage, a “proxy”, that is to say a representative or a representation that can act in place of the original “thing”.
The proxy therefore refers to the virtual Individual that information technologies make it possible to assemble or, more precisely, to individuate, and who participates in the very functioning of Organizations: the consumer, the (tele)worker, the moderator, the friend on the social network, but also the citizen, the voter or the “you” of the famous formula “If the product is free, you’re the product”. All these Individuals are totally fictional, like the personas of Design Thinking. These “proxies” are digitized distillates or “ideats” of real people.
Thus, progress in the Informatization Age has produced a historically unprecedented phenomenon: each individual is no longer a unique, undecomposed individual (a “black box”), but is technically dispersed into proxies that Organizations use to individuate themselves. We (the worker, the customer, the voter…) were part of their external milieu: they have now incorporated us by “proxification”.
2. Examples
The “X” Machine
In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, Elon Musk declares in his own “X” machine: “You are the media now”[12]. How are we to understand this statement, and in particular who is this “You” to whom it is addressed? There is no doubt that it is not us in the flesh, our “I” if you will, but rather our proxies, these functions and cranks of the social network “X” which provide information and engagement. We still struggle to see that technology has radically changed the situation: this “You” is not the good little soldier of an old-fashioned ideocracy who has learned to execute the party’s algorithm to the letter, i.e. the same fully trans-formed individual, but “You” is a new technological being distinct from the original individual identifiable as our “I”.
Let us add that, ultimately, the Machine is constantly optimizing itself to meet quantitative growth objectives. The freedom of expression summarily praised by Elon Musk has nothing to do with the individual freedom to express one’s own opinions, which must be based on a contractual form, rules of the game and therefore have limits. The only reason for the X Machine is to grow without limits and therefore we must first understand this freedom of expression as the lifting of all numerical constraints. “Freedom of expression” means indeed “maximum of expression”. Thus (emphasis added)[13]:
Independent online creators aren’t encumbered by any of this hand-wringing over objectivity or standards: They are concerned with publishing as much as they can, in order to cultivate audiences and build relationships with them. For them, posting is a volume game. […] It’s easier to build a relationship with people when you’re in their ears 15 hours a week: Letting it all hang out can feel more authentic, like you have nothing to hide.
This is how Musk’s X Machine works and, individuating itself by the very fact of constantly growing, becomes a totalitarian Individual. Let us add that, in our opinion, there is nothing definitive to be hoped for in trying to “fight” it from within[14], because, technical reason being superior, these Organizations can only be de-individualized by attrition, like any other organism.
We therefore retain that the X Machine does not individuate itself by integrating “the real, corporeal man, with his feet firmly on the solid ground” as Karl Marx said[15], but a technical fiction made up of computerized data that it calls “You” and that we call a “proxy”. Secondly, it individuates itself by constantly aiming for the maximum size, in this case the maximum quantity of proxies, to whom are therefore promised a total “freedom of expression”, therefore totalitarian and anti-democratic.
Dalio’s Machine
When building a “machine,” design precedes people because the type of people you will need will depend on the design. As you design, create a clear mental image of the attributes required for each person to do their job well.
Ray Dalio[16]
Back in 2017, we reported on the emblematic case of Ray Dalio, founder of the American investment fund Bridgewater in 1975 (Dalio’s Machine). Dalio designed his Organization as a Machine that must be constantly informed of the “truth”, both external (economy, financial markets…) and internal (meetings, decisions, opinions…), in a concern for “radical transparency”. To this end, he has put together a set of “200 principles”, a mix of practical advice, morals and injunctions, turning Bridgewater into a kind of software-enterprise powered by IT and AI[17].
Dalio sold Bridgewater in 2022 and declared[18]:
I transitioned my control of Bridgewater to the next generation and I feel great about the people and ‘machine’ now in control.
In this “machine”, employees are not really considered as people (even functional ones), but they offer themselves already recomposed as proxies. Even Greg Jensen, the co-CEO that Ray Dalio had initially chosen between 2010 and 2016 to succeed him, had not escaped it[19]:
Mr Dalio tells executives to “manage as someone who is designing and operating a machine”, and once described Mr Jensen as having “the best package of character attributes I’ve seen”, which made him sound like an advanced android.
Ray Dalio is the grand master of design, and he encourages his own managers to act as designers of their local Machines. The design must meet objectives and must, through a methodical grammatization, typical of informatized progress, select functions which are as many physical, cognitive or emotional “components” presenting the adequate technical qualities, such as for example certain well-selected “soft skills” (Machine and Individual (1) The case of “soft skills”).
These functions are partly performed by proxies (people) equipped with the right “package”. For technical and economic reasons, however, these proxies should be kept to a minimum, or even completely replaced by robotized functions. Human beings are tricky to control, because although they do not act as individuals in Dalio’s Machine, they are still individuals in their own right. From a design point of view, therefore, they manifest “parasitic” functions that need to be attenuated, controlled or even borrowed in order to make the most of them.
So, for example, the numerous personality tests associated with the schematization of soft skills allow for better control of “human hardware”, insofar as there remains something of the individual in each person. Each personality type has its best place in the organization, its residual advantages and disadvantages, its avenues for progress and, so to speak, its user manual. Thus, the “imaginer” personality type of the PCM model by American psychologist Taibi Kahler “is effective if tasks are clearly explained and he/she can work alone”, while the “rebel works well in an environment rich in stimulating and playful contacts”[20], etc.
What we take from this overview is that Dalio’s Machine does not individuate itself by integrating “the real, corporeal man, with his feet firmly on the solid ground”, but a technical fiction, a package of aptitudes that Dalio calls a “person” and that we call a “proxy”. It also individuates itself by constantly aiming for maximum size, in this case maximum profit, which depends entirely on the “truth” that its software relentlessly tracks down.
Chinese Machine, Russian Machine
Political Organizations are not left out. Here are two examples.
We opened the Chinese file in 2018 (in French – China et IA: imperial !), noting that China has long assumed the “being” of the digital technical system, which is to support a society of surveillance and radical transparency. China’s individuation process, unhindered by an objective convergence of interests between the population and the ruling superstructure, transforms the country into a quite concrete Machine. Let us quote the French philosopher Jean Vioulac (our emphasis)[21]:
“Contemporary China thus draws the figure of a totalitarianism of the future, which exhibits its terrorist face in its genocidal policy against the Tibetans and the Uighurs and the tracking down of its opponents, but most of the time it does not need terror, since it is the object of a broad consent of populations who devote themselves only to consumption in indifference to everything else: ‘A small, weak and obscure feeling of uniformly widespread mediocre well-being, a general Chineseness improved and pushed to the limit – could this be the ultimate image of humanity?’”
Thus China, an Organization that has become a very concrete Individual, takes up the techno-totalitarian torch of the West (while castigating it, of course) because it itself, like all the Organizations of the world, has submitted to technical reason, and its age-old culture offers little alternative, or even inflection, in the face of this imperious reason.
In a similar vein, Jean Vioulac refers to the Soviet Union as “the Leviathan”, a colossal monster made possible by technical and scientific reason. This reason, as in the case of Machines X, Bridgewater or the Chinese Communist Party, always ends up sweeping away “designers” apparently unaware of the powerful individuation dynamics of the Organizations that they subject to technology[22]:
Lenin thus found himself in the position of the bourgeoisie, according to Marx and Engels, which “resembles the sorcerer who no longer knows how to dominate the infernal powers he has invoked”: at the very moment when he gave the Party the mission of industrializing the country, scientifically organizing production and controlling labor discipline – which immediately imposed the bureaucratic proliferation of management apparatuses – he noted the tendency of this apparatus to become autonomous and thus escape all control: “If we consider the bureaucratic machine, this enormous mass, who then leads and who then is led” Lenin asked. “I doubt very much whether it can be said that the Communists are in the lead.”
Within these powerful ideocratic Individuals, whose only aim is to grow, citizens are themselves handled like proxies. Let us insist one last time: digital technology has made concrete, in the Simondonian sense of the word, what were paradigms not so long ago (“bureaucracy”, “megamachine”, etc.).
3. Western Machines
Leibniz
This is how the contemporary dynamic of individuation of Organizations works. Information technology equips them with a concrete machinic structure: these Organizations are not like machines, but are in fact Machines within which the virtual and the real merge. Having thus become quasi “technical objects” (too vast, however, for us to perceive them as objects), they undergo their own process of technical individuation, or concretization, which has three effects. Firstly, they become authentic Individuals whose names are “network X”, “Bridgewater”, “Amazon”, “Chinese state”, “Russian state”, “Bitcoin” and so on. Secondly, as Individuals, these Organizations obey only their own “telos”, uninterrupted growth, and their own reason, which is purely technical. Finally, the “corpo-real” human being is virtually foreign to these Organizations, which achieve their machinization by integrating the human being in the form of a proxy, a fictitious recomposition that is the only one capable of functioning, and made concretely possible by what we still call “informatization”.
We must remember that Western culture has long considered the possibility, and even the necessity, of such Organizations, which were initially entirely paradigmatic. This thought was thus in germ with the Greek logos, absolute order without opposite, but it was Leibniz who in some way completed the machinic principle of the Organization, as Jean Vioulac reminds us in his last work “Métaphysique de l’Anthropocène” (quotes from Leibniz)[23]:
Leibnizian metaphysics is based entirely on digital reason, it breaks with graphic reason, it cannot take the form of a book but that of a universal algorithm capable of “inventing theorems” and producing all possible knowledge: “Just as, with the help of God, we will discover this universal calculator, we will prepare the tables of this combinatorial art for a machine capable of knowing everything”, Leibniz’s metaphysics is that in which the logos has become software.
This Total Organization is the universe itself, where everything unfolds according to pure causal relationships. Thus (emphasis added)[24]:
Leibniz shows that automatism is inherent in the logic of a metaphysics whose structure is machinic. […] the whole functions without foreign intervention, not even that of God […].
We thus understand how Leibniz prepares Science to investigate the machinic structure of the Universe and, correlatively, technology to produce not just tools for real Man, but also structures of “small” Universes, i.e. Organizations. Thus, equipped with software, a vague figure of logos, Vladimir Lenin, Ray Dalio, Elon Musk, or, from now on, the Chinese Communist Party, have been able to commit the “design” of their Organizations, all joining Leibnizian thought “as an expression of the regime of phenomenality characteristic of Western thought, the regime of truth or ontological regime of which it is the elucidation: the machination”[25].
Software
The more technical politics becomes, the more democratic competence declines.
Edgar Morin[26]
“Machination” is therefore the universal ontogenetic principle of Organizations and information technology its instrument of concretization. We have considered the historical example of the USSR and the more recent one of China, but “democracies” have themselves been, for a long time, Machine-Individuals that must grow and therefore take control over the rest of the world. The Russian philosopher Alexander Zinoviev (1922-2006) invented the expression “totalitarian democracy” to signify an ideocratic regime based on the absoluteness of principles such as “global society”, “market economy”, “individual freedom”, “human rights” etc., absoluteness that must take the concrete form of hegemony.
We are not passing judgment here on these principles, nor, moreover, on the anti-colonialist or anti-Western”rhetoric that structures equally “colonializing” or “Westernizing” Organizations, but we do want to emphasize that the criticism of this or that ideocratic regime underestimates or ignores the real reason why modern Organizations, whatever they may be, have gone astray, which is their technical individuation.
So, without technology, now information technology, there can be no “globalization”, no “free market”, no “soft power”, no “financial totalitarianism”, no “mass surveillance”, not even “individual freedom”, etc. These ideological and political concepts, praised by some and reviled by others, are the small logos of Organizations that would not exist without the techno-logy that enables them to be concretized in small software, and the expressions “cultural software” and “ideological software” have been able to pass into everyday language without astonishing many people[27]:
In this great movement of technical individuation of Organizations, “the real, corporeal man, with his feet firmly on the solid ground” is no more than a residue surrounded by his proxies, packages of “skills” for companies, aggregates of data for digital Organizations or idealized and now classified citizens for ideocracies. Thanks to information technology, Organizations are completing a process of individuation that involves the decomposition or de-individualization of all other Individuals, human and non-human alike. This undoubtedly reflects a Darwinian victory for pure power, which software technology enables us to condense as never before into global, total machines capable of releasing it at any moment.
1. ↑ The Free Dictionary – Individual
2. ↑ As in the previous section, we capitalize the terms “Machine”, “Organization” or “Individual” when these terms refer to general concepts that can be understood in their common sense.
3. ↑ See Miguel Benasayag and the question of the “living” for more on this point.
4. ↑ (in French) Wikipédia – Grammatisation
5. ↑ (in French) Bernard Stiegler / Documentaliste-Sciences de l’Information, Vol. 42(6), 354-360 – 2005 – Individuation et grammatisation : quand la technique fait sens… – “L’ouvrier n’est plus l’individu technique parce que la machine a formalisé ses gestes et c’est ainsi qu’il devient prolétaire – ayant été remplacé par la machine qui est devenue l’individu technique dont lui-même n’est plus que le servant.”
6. ↑ “La formalisation machinique des gestes du travailleur résulte d’une analyse puis d’une synthèse – réalisée comme artefact par la technoscience.”
7. ↑ Wikipedia – Individuation
8. ↑ Henry Mintzberg / California Management Review, 66(2), 30-43. – 2024 – Four Forms That Fit Most Organizations
9. ↑ The interest in health, for example, where health industries, public authorities and citizens have interests that are not divergent but disparate in the development of a powerful technical health system. Technology can therefore be considered “transductive” to use this Simondonian notion, relating disparate elements by objective convergence of interests. Some other disparate interests are: security, freedom from worry, consumption…
10. ↑ As in the first section, we have capitalized “Machine” to designate any artificial structure providing mechanical or cognitive “work”.
11. ↑ Capitalized “Individual” here refers to anything that is technically individuated.
12. ↑ Charlie Wazel / The Atlantic – November 8, 2024 – Bad News
13. ↑ Ibid. 12
14. ↑ The debate is raging in France among the traditional media, caught in an overwhelming objective convergence of interests: (in French) Brice Laemle / Le Monde – November 25, 2024 – Rester ou non sur X : la grande interrogation des médias
15. ↑ Karl Marx – Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
16. ↑ Principles by Ray Dalio
17. ↑ (in French) Sébastien Seibt / France 24 – December 27, 2016 – Finance : le roi des hedge funds rêve d’un algorithme pour lui succéder
18. ↑ Allison Morrow / CNN Business – October 4, 2022 – Billionaire hedge fund founder Ray Dalio cedes control of Bridgewater – « I transitioned my control of Bridgewater to the next generation and I feel great about the people and ‘machine’ now in control »
19. ↑ John Gapper / Financial Times – February 19, 2016 – Bridgewater is troubled over ‘radical transparency’
20. ↑ (in French) Institut Repère – Modèle de la pcm : Les types de personnalités
21. ↑ Quoted from Denis Collin’s blog: Jean Vioulac, Logique totalitaire (I) – Denis Collin quotes Jean Vioulac, so the quotation marks are his – “La Chine contemporaine dessine ainsi la figure d’un totalitarisme d’avenir, celui-ci exhibe sa face terroriste dans sa politique génocidaire contre les Tibétains et les Ouïghours et la traque de ses opposants, il n’a cependant la plupart du temps pas besoin de terreur, puisqu’il fait l’objet d’un large consentement de populations qui ne se consacrent plus qu’à la consommation dans l’indifférence à tout le reste : “Un petit sentiment faible et obscur de bien-être médiocre uniformément répandu, une chinoiserie générale améliorée et poussée à bout – serait-ce là l’ultime image de l’humanité ?”
22. ↑ Ibid. 21 – “Lénine se retrouvait ainsi dans la position de la bourgeoisie selon Marx et Engels, qui « ressemble au sorcier qui ne sait plus dominer les puissances infernales qu’il a invoquées » : au moment même où il donne au Parti la mission d’industrialiser le pays, d’organiser scientifiquement la production et de contrôler la discipline de travail – ce qui imposait aussitôt la prolifération bureaucratique des appareils de direction –, il constate la tendance de cet appareil à s’autonomiser et à échapper ainsi à tout contrôle : « Si nous considérons la machine bureaucratique, cette masse énorme, qui donc mène et qui donc est mené ? », demandait Lénine. « Je doute fort qu’on puisse dire que les communistes mènent. »”
23. ↑ Jean Vioulac / PUF – April 2024 – Métaphysique de l’Anthropocène II : Raison et destruction – p.113 – “La métaphysique leibnizienne relève de part en part de la raison numérique, elle rompt avec la raison graphique, elle ne saurait prendre la forme d’un livre mais celle d’un algorithme universel susceptible d’ « inventer des théorèmes » et de produire tout savoir possible : « De même que, avec l’aide de Dieu, nous découvrirons ce calculateur universel, nous préparerons les tables de cet art combinatoire pour une machine capable de tout savoir », la métaphysique de Leibniz est celle en laquelle le logos est devenu logiciel.”
24. ↑ Ibid. 23 – p. 114 – “Leibniz met en évidence que l’automatisme est inhérent à la logique d’une métaphysique dont la structure est machinique. […] l’ensemble fonctionne sans intervention étrangère, pas même celle de Dieu […]”
25. ↑ Ibid. 23 – p. 118 – “en tant qu’expression du régime de phénoménalité caractéristique de la pensée occidentale, régime de vérité ou régime ontologique dont elle est l’élucidation : la machination l’ensemble fonctionne sans intervention étrangère, pas même celle de Dieu […]”
26. ↑ (in French) Edgar Morin / Revue du MAUSS, no 28(2), 59-69. – 2006 – Les sept savoirs nécessaires
27. ↑ Google Books – Ngram Viewer