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.
I have been pleading for surrealist presence and action on this playground and basically, this is all there is to say. What may or may not come out of it is not within my reach.
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.
They will probably not understand either how surprising it may be after all that such things as science and technique "work", how strange it is that human poetry succeeds in building a way through time and what such a situation means regarding the nature of the world and more specifically regarding the power of the mind.
I am not even sure that those people would care if they could guess.
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.