|
|
|
||
|
Unconcluding |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
I long delayed the publishing of these pages due to the naive - although still widespread - opinion that they should have a conclusion. But first, it appeared to me that concluding about what
computer
science, software programs and digital
telecommunications may mean in a surrealist perspective would
certainly not be reasonable. Further I noted that conclusions are not needed to people who really intend to use the contents of a text. As they are much more interested in their own action than with what the author thinks, they rather pick up here and there what they find useful in a text long before reaching the end of it. If some of the ideas in the above pages happen to be of any help, then I am assured that the ones who will use them shall care about giving them the right sort of conclusion. I fully trust the others for taking care of the rest, such as style, spelling, correctness of the English, logic, clarity and good order in the expression of ideas they do not essentially care about. More precisely, people whose minds and practices are so
firmly stuck in the
bourgeois illusion and who are so deeply lost that they fail to
understand that
there is no difference of nature between a computer and a bicycle
wheel, are not likely to understand how strange science and
technique may look when considered from a simultaneously close and
distant eye. Finally, I saw that concluding would be a means to allow the reader to drop the question and start caring about somethinge else, which is the exact opposite of what I am trying to do and also exactly what Michael Richardson's paper attempted to reach. But I am assured that this will not happen. |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|
||
Back | ||||