E, E
, F ,
M M H
E
 F E
F
”  O  O IS
” A
I N TI T F Y:  O TH E
M
T O D N M IS
N S G  
,  ” N  O IT
N F E A :
A S S N U IO ND
O
I A H
E
SO E
S TI IO  O O
I M TY
M RK S N IO IN AT A T F :
 OI CA A
T N F P , I
G A IE T T C N D O TY P C I
O  O  “ E U
A OM O E I A N I O N  I  
“ BR
I I T N M N
T C O R I A N U
R A O  O
F I
M P T
I T
RE  “ TH A R
I C AB AT N IO IN  O
F
FA A
B
F RI
C TI N N
M , A IO IS
”
CO E
S
E F
K
D R
M  O N A
B A F M IO T T NR T A N O HE E A
B IC T ES , O
M
AR
O ON A -F
O F E C
GM H O A I O T
I T TH
A A
S E A T -F M R , C
F
A D E AB
R C I  S M
: TI N
I
IN H P
O GM Y: E
Y A IO N T , M ND
B
IN OR A A I
C N ND TH F F M R A A E AB
R  “ A T R
IT C T O D E A N -F
F M UI E
G NU RI A  EM S AN IM N  O  IN H A FA
B N N ND FTH  O E, NO M O
IN B K O S T M I IO A H
E
D ON M NT
I O S 
T A OR R N
T I K N T I  
S K
N F F A IO S” AT R  O ND
, HE A AT N N T TI T O Y: R N
O - I A
E T M M IO A D A ” C T A O
C HE IN M A
T
 S
M M K
S A IM D R R AT N N IC IS A
, UI M S 
T NN RTE M IIE R E R N T O O A EO A O ” OAN F M I N R ES M IN R K  OD  O E ORN “PO -F RE M ETI IS ,N IN- -F R ATN O IO FAB I G T E AR S NA KS OM -F N E A S O A N KN F  I ON S OM R M IE I ON I MN -F R AT ON T N HE “P , M MF CO SO REMO , AR KS NIO AR Y:  I  O  O : S E R O  O I M E  OT M T N N M O “P AM KS   S Y F  KS N N-F R T  O : M  I O O O - O O D N TIM A R SA E  I K T M TY E NM RE A K OM R U S T I  S N F OR AR R S  I -F N IO ” IAG U O E EM  AR S NR E TIN K A AR U :  IC  OR I IN TY N N N-F A K N IN A T S N  S K OM N A M I O O I EM M R  OE N S ON CA SI M R, M TI Y: O ME E R S A
SO O EM B
R
RE ON
T U S TI  R R
A K  O I IN I
E E N IT : S M R M K
: , C R FA E C TI RK CA  O
N E E EM R S AT BR O IM O U Y O E E R S
Y A M , N
M
A M R
A P C N T S A K
IT E EMA RI KS SO O E EM AR
K M
O R F
A  “ T” IA, T UI : Y O
M R
M E
M R
U G M TH S
O M C M B R : : S O E O
F
M R IS M  M O
N IN IT : S M R
E A
N MA  S
O
D Y: ,AG A R
E FA A Y FT H S G T Y
M : T E E EM I IT
Y O E - N C U O E
N U : S AEM R ,IN T D IO OIE A , N IN ITM O : SA M RE, TY A UI M U : E I N N E, M M H R N U T Y E YAG O T E TI IN ITY SO E ON N AT “P E, M , C N N T SO E TM U I S T U : OM A I I  M M ITI N IO T IM M : D M N N N Y S S N IC F M AG A O T U Y: O O UTI T N T E, O IY M C N N T  S S NN A O ” IT AN SO CO O TI UIT : RK O C Y TI ABR  T M G , O TI I Y: : N ” , IC : , N T A S E A A C N NU T TYO M NT, IS IM U N Y A , O IN I M A F IO I M M GM A,O A U M O I UI I O , ,R T
, C O A S ” I
N TI IT M M C NT E E
E
M E T U G , IN R R H CA
T ES TI E,
T U A
A I
A C N C M
-F I IS N A N A G A O T E O T I O ” IM , M G
M
A, O
N
TI TI
N M I
G O M I A C F P S A C N N A
, G T
GM  IN A P
A ”
A N M  “ IE
S CO R T M M
N - R M M
, O N E, , AG
M , O M D “ I T E M , O S
, F O AF O E OM , C S N 
IN BAN FA OF
 S ” M , G A C O G , M
O IE
I
IS E T
I E A M , , C A E ES
S M N 
O A  
I  “
P M N- , C MI TI IM
M G
K F G  A T E
, A IA Y: O N  O M M IM IT S IUO HE ON “P IES M G A A FS” I , A M , IM O OR T IO  O A N M S” ” IM , M AG U K AT T I F O SI T E M E” M T P  A ” T M  O , M G G M ”  “ N EM IS A N , S AG SI IS TS T E N R PM I A M E SND CA  O  “ IYSI TI E A AO ” M M TI S F O HE S IC IO E K IE E ” IM , T M R A I N F P E S IM E, , S” ESI O TI TR IE R T IM R , M O I IS  T E N E O N BR IO O I E N EA O S M O “R F T   O SI T” M M SI OI IO ICA D MB A E P ” N I AN O“PO A IC TF R ” EM IM F “ “P IE IS TI C -E O A F P E I, R S F O S ” A M  IN TI F CA IO  O  “ OI IS T T IE “P T B  SIF E B I R T O P E S N A E R AT N F S ” ” O  A N :A S ”   O “ I I M O O M H B O  O  “P IE IS IS P F “  O RIC FA IO N TY , O TH F IE E IS ON T ON M N F PO S S C I S  E AG : S T O S EOR FA RI T ON F P IE E F N B H A S NUI AO D E PO O ES TI IO O “ I A MN H “ S I  MA T N F PO , ITY RK F ND O I O A M KT   N-A A HE I  “ O IU A FAB IC T N F R A O “PO PO ON I F T R R T AGA F Y: PO IC C IO  O  “ E TD I F M IN M  I N T OE B IC TI  F N F “N TI E D O A NO T “ T N I N O A ICA N F MO N  I  R R A O T E O I D H F R A O  O O A R TH A M OB O  T  N  IN- E C ,
TI A N U F A B IC I N ” N R  T N T B
E
C I , F
N IO IN  O F A T S O E S A A E FA RI T N
C B D R A M  O
A O T T N F R A IO I C M K M N D
N I
H A N I
O N E TI N
M I A N O E E BAB IC T S , O R R O AN T E A IC
A IO IO BRT F
A
T T  
O M M
T C E N
A S G ” IO
A I O TI TH H F R ECA I A  S
A O I D H F R AM F T N T B C
A
CA F H IO RM K S
O A IS T IO
M R T, C A D E AB I O M
:  - A N I T R : M S A T
R B A IC N D H P G
Y EF BR  “ A IT R  IN M TI
O A D HE FAN BR
I E T O A Y
A N N T B
R A
TH D -F M IT E
, E IC A
O F R A O
I R M
-F GM B N A
T
D E FA OFH , M
R A N M M
E N  IN
U E
M ON FO M TI
O A
N ND
E FA FA D A R IN RE U B
R
N A N E H N N O  I
N TI “P FA FO
 I H AM F IO IO A
T
HE N M T SO S IN
-
OR A IO A
T
HED H
E A IO -F
N E T S” F -O N  O E N RET T
D , HEE A T N N
D T IO I ON : M I IT RK M  
N M A IO A D AT ” C T
Y A ON
 -FN OR
AT N
T I M IO
N N T T ONA AT  I S O O S N T
H N E
A IM R M
D S
T N N C S , I M   F R T N N N
D TI M KON R Y:
 
A,
C IE IO O M
N T D OSOR A O A
I -
MRI S A NU E KS N N O A IO A A A OR S 
D  
N AF I M I R O I M M M IT M “P
O T N S O
IO ” A - -F RM
A S
S NN AT O AB I
E G T R S  -FE A R
N
AT O ON R -F K E U G F
 IC A K  N R Y:
SI ON N 
I  IN FO M T
I F PO A“ M O
N M M RK  O
N
 IN O M TIF TI FO  IN- R A - A
R R IN A O R O A IT
IE TI O N - R A E  C O E S N A
E T M N ABN M , T
I
EM U
PO A S  
O  IN FO M TH
,
OF E A,  
S R A K  O  IN O M M  IN O
N F A N
“ M S N - R
: M R S -F R R  R
E OM O E IOM E M R TIT ”K
F R R K  O  IN F
O
ND
E
N IMT M T
Y NM RE A K O IN O O O
N KS E : S
C I R E S
O R - O G I O M R S F
, A H N I
O A A S N N A
- -F T M
 F TI S” A NU  S E E A K N IN N KS
 R M Y A ” IC T FO
I A O
O
IT D C
O ES
N- EM M R
K  O  I N A OSI M I Y: OM R M R  N  R M : S U G
M S
SI B
R
AN  IN
-
: S , I N
 I R NRE A S O IO IC E E
, NT IT  S E
E A S O N A E Y N A E A Y
A PO AM
ON E E M R
K
S T
R K O
E A BR O
I
IM O U Y:
M E M R S O E S 
R
EM TE I NT
I M OI
F N T
, E N I G  
“ N
 M M R A K A P T C IN T  S M R A K K R U E “P H TI
O  O U A O
S S IN  O
F
TI
K O M R S SO E E A OR
M F F 
“
S” A
, T I : O O M
E M N N
U
TY  S E
M R M N  T K A
R E:  O I I M R AI : M A
R E O TI C I
M F A N
: M R M  O M M : S N A, T  O ND
T
F M
R N E, O M
TY Y O RE E - TH S G T A O I RI IT  S R IN ON IE A , C N NU ITY  SO E RE E SOR TY COM  M IS” N A ORO EM C IMT AT FO  SONU U Y: M IO E N ND TI PO , M A OM C U : : I , G S I N -F R A, ” IC - Y:I IN IT  S M  O A A  “ E G , ONT N Y O E E Y U AI E T O NT T : O C M A T UIT A N S R IU S I F A Y: S M M IT IN M M OI CAO O U T G , P I ATI  I E M I BY N N M AG ES A ON ITON N IN IT : S K O I M C N N T S S N N E “ R O O I F  NU “CO T U Y R TI ABR  O T  A  A N ” M GE, A A, CO NTI I Y: : MTI O IM F B R S  S M O E S TI F, ON IN IT M A F IO IS M M A, O INU IT YIT ON , C E, M T O FA O K Y: E, “P KA T S M G U ” N -F R IT M  TH R N OOC A N M , N INU E M E T T U A FG R OREH CAMIE TI AE, A RM EO ” M M G A, C N IN NT , C M IM IS O H IN A U TI O CA T I O KS, O T TI A G T I M  ES T T N E IN ” N AND EM , IOA A T
M M , C N
E
O M N-
F
G ND
P S I A
BR  “ SI T E M M ,
C
ON N M A S” I CAG O G M I O I N
D  O R NT IS IO N
R M CA
, A A O IM , C S N A FA OF IE IS
” IM E, AT A M ,
C , C
S E E G I
 A E
, P
ES  “ R AB K M C
O IE
S T O A R K
M : N  O S M M G A A M I N R O , O C
A TI OM M B AR
E, A
G A
M TY S 
O
IO H
E
ON P
” I ,
 “ IE IS T E A M M
M
I M G E
,
TI PO  O
F A I A
I F I
O A A: S AM  “
P
BR M Y:
 S E, F M
IM , M AG U K AT T T F PO ES S” M
E
T E N R D A O “ I I T
I E, A A
G IM “ N E T M Y R M E
M I A M N T S
” F O H A E T G R
C I R I A O
F FA O IT TI H E
IM , T M R A I ON
 
F O SP ”IE S IM E,
M M
E,
M ” ES
I  O AT
T
S N D OR E N
U
, M N
 E -F NU ”
T M
T E ONM E FO N B
R I  O  “ O SI T M M SI I
E
C N M I E IO H  I
N TI IS ND O I
TI C
R T ” O IO I -F O T T T N N S A  S O
, E  IN
- IO A A ON I AF OF “P IE IS T T
I IE P T R N S N IM A D O O IE Y: “P
S” A M A
T
N E RI
C
AT
I N F
 
PO ES S” S” O
“ B I  O
F CA A O
N
N : T C NP S
 C O
I F I TY , C ” RI A K , P IO
N
IT F
 
SI GM SO  O M TH R AB C I
O  O  “ OI S
I SI  “  O R E T  O I A IS B N R A  “
U
AT N N 
O
E A : S O F RI T N F F N B A S UA S A O A M F I
OI M TY K D-F N E B IC TI
O  O “P I
E E
N  O O
I  O O A TH N M II F RM FRK TI G IE E AT EM A
G
N 
O M T IO R
“P E,
I AR N A H A A F P P N T E D O A N A O M O O
R ON AT AM
F IM N
U M  I N T
F BR C IO  O  “I  “ OF I C
A H M P H M R F C
TI E N O D HE A R AT N O OF AT RI T A
N -F M O ,  “ T R E , TIE - , I
C E
 O T NN RI O TI N-T FF B IC IO N  IIC B DAN  R
E , C E F D O N R R
N ” S A E A T N N O N E A M  O N -
F OM IM IC
A  I AM B E
IS CO E
A N
M K M N ND H F BR CA IO IO R F
A A TIB  O M GM
TI N A IN  S T R  O G F
A M  
ES A, O A
R R O A TI HE I T T
 : ” A O N
S O D FA R A A FA HE
N A S ” O N Y B S E
I  M T N T B C C IO RM RK : S
O A IS TI IO ON IT I
S FAS K ,
M H : S O
O T
I
P GM Y: E N-
F A O AN E A RI I E T T Y ,
M ES C
A AT  O A I S NU IE E A
R E T Y
“ A IT R I M TI ND H F B BR H D A F M IT E IOI R M NK I O TH M IM D IT A  R N T T N M - M R T P E T N U RICF M U E N A O A E A A A N E U I P B R A N “ A IN O E, IN OM O FO M R  D R BT S - R ATI N ND TH F F DE E N N O N I R IN T  “O A F E T ” F FA O-F EM CO OF AN E IS” IM S N O I D H H A IO - O N S O E N ,  M S ION NT FA U
TI O
N : RK
I
Y N -F R
M AT ON N T T N T I
N S OM
N
A O A  CO S
I N I R E T
O E I
C T A O N O M I D K S E O T
H N E A N ONO SO I A , CM I O H NT
A, UI M S  
I
N -F R AT ON A
N
AN
D TI M N  , I I O M I : M A T
N E K N O I A OR S 
O : PAR Y A OT M “P A
T
AN
D S O AG AT AT Y “ R M D OI K  S C M IT F O G N , C
AG
M TI R R S 
O  I -F RM T M MA O
N N F K U G  ICE AA NN N I O RN O I Y
: , M I R U O -F A A A AT
M O M M K  O  I F M T T FO
R N- R RE N A OF R ONI A I  B I AM M IT E B
R O IN N N
R - R A -  E T A T M A F T O
 I , M ON GM RM
E, , C  S
O N A NRE A S O N M N ,K E  IDN O M M  IN O E M O E IO F A R INU -TI F IN ON TI N E TI A OM A : M OI R -F R R E   M A M FM TY EM RE A KS ON N N S R SO C IM T E M E T S” H N C CA S TI M , N-T G UI O M R S  I -FO O-F  O K E : , T A H R M N I T O , I K ” R E  I IA N  S E E A K N IN N KS R M Y A ” IC T FO O CO ES D S A RM R O  I A - M BR A IS O IM N AT, M TI Y: O EM R S N N R M : SO IT GM IS BR ND  S , I N K A S -F T OT S E A A E UY N A ES A A N IN Y: A O A R AG F EM IE  CE N R IN ” S IM O I : K O O I I F T M “P N A M E R O  IS K RI C NU Y  R M N I  BT SOM E NT I M REM R S S EM TE I NT , O E IO  O G F O M , H P S R, I : AM RK U A I E T E “ O E A AKA T U Y O RE R OM INU O E P S EM  “ TH AT K IN M N O AT R IM D OM F S OI M FEM ON IN EIT : S M RE AM A M  S NT , C TI F RM A O D M A NT , O M E T O K EG T Y O : E I M AN : S  R “P R HA , C N NU T S E RE E SO TY CO M S”I ON N R M O IM T OR O ” N A  TTI I H 
A
M R  I G I F
O E , C T CA
S N
-F : S SI O IT
Y IO M OF
E
M A O T U Y: O E E Y: U , A S T N - R A ” I
M
N Y E I U AT RE N
 O AN
D
E, M , C N IN T S M T N A M IE A IO  IN E M IS R  I IT I AT IN IC O  S
M G A O T UI : O OMA Y U
I TI GM , PO IC TC N S E A N OM
G S ABA E ON
:
M N T  S N N “ R O I F  N
U “P
O M T R E TI Y ONM IE
, M G A, O TI UI Y: Y:
 R
TI O
A
IM F B RM S I
 
M : S , M O E S T F O CO
N B O A IT IA C U O
,
A S I A
T P A
E
M M GM ,
C N N T T N C , T O FA O K Y E “P K F F  “I I I ,   : N  M
I , A O T U U O A E ” N E -F AR IT IM F T
H R OON  N- A,A N I E TYH AB
R
TI M F G
T E A M , C N IN IN , C M IM IS O H IN U T O D M ,
C IO N I IM NN  N GM T U F O FO
R  O A
IM , M AG A CO T T A G T E
S T T  I ” E A T M
M N N M A ” I A D N RE T S O
N A R M A O N ES A N
D I H , C
- ON ,
T E N
M , M G A, O O G M ISC PO IC
O N I I N C M T  I TI O E S
TI E A M , , C A E
,
ES  “ R A
N E
KS M CO
S T O EE A I M A
G RI K A T A M  R E, ONN D M ON C
A TI :
” M M G A M I B N R O , O
I
, A M F A C T O M
B A M O C  I T
Y
S TI E A M , I O O F O A S A P R
I A  S , FA M TI TI , A
N AG KS BR
”
I I
S UI
S ” IM , M AG AG
M E T “P N T
I
M E M Y:
 M  “ B M Y: ER M E RES BI ”  ICA E TAG F A I T I H S” A
A
E S F O H F O I I M GM
N , M R A S IN
I SI T E T I I A O T
F
E IO E A IE T A
PO IE S
” IM
M M SI  O T T M R, ” U  E -F U ” T S R, A TE E S E N A D OR E N , M N H IN IN S D OM IE FO M A TI
M EM HE
N
PO O
“ I T I I C N M I E O I - M R T  “ C E
M
F PO ES ” M M SS O
O I -F T
“ I TI I E P T
I R A N SO N IM AT
I T  T S AN  S O N E, R ” E D F , R
 O  I T I  “ A B N  I : O T C N
D  O
N
ON IE N Y:
P
F O S ” ” O A I S C O O T F 
“  I M O IS M N  O AM E
ON
N I
P -
F
O “ IE IS S C O
Y C I T
I “P OF I F I ON T , ” R
A K , “P TI U  O  O ” IN IE
S A M
 T I S N A  S  : S
O N G O
N F 
N O
S A
PO E ES
  R E I S
O AO I I OF N AB H M KS
 U A SI AB O
 
“ O A
R M F A IN N K IS N PO Y IO
I A
T M Y: E
T N F O O N I F T
IN GM E F TIR R T A I E A EM
G  O M T IO R S O  “ IT T ,
P P T O A N OR
N T M
A “ E D O A N M O O A
T A IEM O KS
 F U A C E
O O “ O A M
I M UI O
IC TI  F F TI IC H AN
M P H M R I F C C  O IN R BRF M O , - E P TI
S
N - ,  “ T R E T , I R T I
N : 
BR
N
CA O
O A Y
IO   O CA R
T IN E , C E F D E N R R  
“ A N ” T
I T N N I B
N  R
ND O N A IM  O N F
O M M CA  I A B E F M IO O -F F TI M IS N I
R A IO IO R F
A A TI  O
E M T N AM  IN
-
: S
O T I N G A M  O E AT C  IN H
E O U O
B C B G ” O N ” B
R
S 
O A F ,E O N R IC A N T IE
S C N  S
A I AT AT A E A
I
S :
R O
I N Y S S O , T YF B IC C F TH IO
N M K S A IS T IO O T I FA K , M  I E M A  H : R M  
O D O A N T
E I E T R R Y: , ES
P I
A R O A I IC A
T S NU
I S
IE E AR E
T TYM D I CA
T OM AB G KS N  “
M O U
H F B BR H D A F M IT E K H S F
A AR F A
G C N
T E A A T AN
- , I
RM N M
O R RM R T
I PO T EM TI N U RI
 
Y: E , M A ON  O M A TF T
TH F ND N O  
I NRE NU TI “P
B
I  A O A N  
“ D R ” A I B
E E N T ” F F F M O F N S N T A I
T H E I N , N I
F E T M E
M T O E GM O U
D H H AT I
O N-  O M N IS  O HE
- E C  O A E I U A IN , M S IO O
N F N D TI R M T IM A , CI R I
N
N  N N E T E I N E A T M A T
AN T T I S O O S N A O I A C T ” RD N
N N ND TI
O A H C ,
M ON
 K  S , C IE IO
T ON
E A
: D  M M TI
O
TI
O : S PO M A
, T N N IS
”
OM FO RI S E GM O
A A A R S A
R
TY A
G
PO AT N S SO A A A T
Y  “ R M D O O S S - B SIC E  N IM A , C
N N RM -F
O K M M A K C I FE U
I G  “ IC R : MF N Y ,
M
RI R U O -F
O G IAN , T I Y:  I FA IE T M A COO O R A R N  N A
O
I A N A A P IT N E O S” E, M ,
AT AT
I FO
N T E O M
- N“ I
N A R I M  O O I B I N I M M “  O P I G A
N MPE NT , NIFAB TIM M I E M E O A REM NU TIR OR  O I ION KS R O O M E M T ”F  E : S , C TTI H R E N SCA T EO M SO SI IM A -F ”T O N , IO G R F NUF N N I E H “A S M AE  I O T O I  KS T F E TI M MH N C CAT  OS M A M F  O T D OTI M , N- N N R N  OI ” , AGT  O A, RI RK ” R E  I IO A N PCO M A O  “ SIS E MN- S AR OM TY AM S” I D -F O C E D S M B A IS FO IM N AT E N I MF I E, I RK S I G I BR N N : S , OI N K A M S - T  O , R O TG O IE TN EM : NU A IES A A  Y A P A AR A F E IE  IN S” S RIC A I A  O MA S” IO M R TY I M I F N N IT GM M E T C N“ N P TI T O O  O M , M HE R O N I K B G M A I I, E  F P S R A O M BR TIO  “ S ”E E U N P IO F E S IER M N O E  “ TH T KS INU A O TI RE E T E AM  M “ O E A S RM A M F S I M F , M : O FA CA  O OI SI OI A N E P D
SO T , C TI F
T ,
 O D M A
R N E IO RM
E I ND SO O K PO E E E TY -F E I N “P I  “ N
ON
M TA N R O M ” A :
 N AR  “ R T
H IM I N H BR IO F ” N A M C I T O O S N Y O F E I P
O A
M S O A S I T I M D T N
U  T TN O
F
C G SI IO N F E , T C -F : S O I T E  O M N ” I O D F
A
CA  
O  “ NN F N
 
IO
A
M IE A
T IO  IN
- R A ” I IN Y E TI TS R I NU A R N O S  N E
I O T
O C T E GM I B  I
T O A I IC E IO : 
S A SI N S A H R O  
O I
I N OA N K T
B TI N T A B
“P R M  O O
M A IE
S A ON T E A M A
S M F  IN
U
 “
P RM ON B
R M ATO C IT
Y IO OI
C R ON D FA A IO C R F
AB
, A I C I
OR
S : , PO E KS T OF
T N I T O E
F K Y E “ H R N  -F
O C FA P A R: S U E
F R T  T O N , E Y BR
I
IN
A
M  “ M
T A
EM A A R B -F H
- I M F A N I A H T T R OF AG R M ON T
H B IC A N T
IN A U TI C  
A R FA R F I
M N  O ND M , IO N
I N
GM T U F O FO N
 M E O TI ND E AB E ON
 D
E E - MTI ” N A R A ATS  O A N E , F H
AN ,
R N I IO N E M C S M N
D I H , C IN IO A A H F
S T
-
T  T
E SO IN M N T E
T
O O K
S N A
C IE A I A
G RI K , A T A M   R D O M
C T OM M B AR E N CO
N
D M N A I : O D H R I
O I A , A IM IO N G S 
O IC T TY N O TIO F AN T
N T
R ” I  - A D A
A
M A A
G
“P R M : 
S E F EM T T A
, A A
M K B IS NU KS  INB Y A N M N N
N E M
A R T IM E R ” M ,
O RM ,
F O I T H E IS M G IO E A
R FA ES TI R N R IO
A
O TI
R E
-F U
N
” T S
I A O T A E FO IM
IN IN S D OM IE FO
R A AT IM EM HE PO O
N M S -F A IO M - T
T I N MS O - , M T R T  “
E
, C R K  I
N RM AT R
M
SO  I
N
S”Christoph Lischka S A  RON IE N Y:  “P  IN EM O IS” E D F A AR N O M FO : ON IC O O IT F N TI E S-F S OM AN N O M M  O -F R - TY  E“P TI U  O  O G M E S N O” IN IE I  IN I S I
F A IN N S S  O Y:
 S O F U K O
K I N P O
N IO A  S R RK N N- N IN
M T O “ T TI A
T , M Y: E A  O  I  O T A
R “P
O R N TI
S
AR E  O  II S F U A IC E I
T OM SEM S N
M
K ON K O E
-F
O O A M O K O N MC C R I
M U S R  R R
N , RI R
E “P R
 C
A N
 TI OR AB T IN :
R
I T Y E
A KS A A, E
B E F
 A IO ” MM O
N -F F S N IT M M R E M MM A M  O E T C IN E S
I O U SO R
E A
G F A ,  H C N  M RE AG : S
O
A R I E
M HE : S
O ON E IC A N TO OI
:
I A
, T Y E RE M M TY
T Y AT OM
R M  D P M N IT M O , I
D T A
B
AG K
S AN  “ G CO U S
O E
 M  S
E U
N UI IC : S F M R N OF A
N :
E A  M A
, TI Y SO TY
: IM IN
A IN BR TY H E, M IO N , M N IT  I
T NT
NT FA UI T E
: ”T M E O G O U Y NU IS O
O E IN ND
A I T C
C T
I R M M A C N I I SAT I M , TI U T E A,” E R T
TH NT A S M O IC ” ,
A N IN ON
I
N M
O M
D CO O ES
I O -F R S
E O
I  S N B S
I IM AG C N
T
, C
P
 “ AG
AN A, AT
:
OI Y  I FA IE T” , M A
,
CO A OF MM  ,
GM M  “
P
UI
T
 O
N O
HE S
M , E
R S  “
P I ES M AG A A
G ON IMA
M FO  O
F
TI
N T F
RK D O I
E TI M IGM
- N  O ” , A E,
M
AT TN N ”IN IO O A P S
E C S
N T C EM
A
N IO
N  “ I M I I
, F ES TI
M , IM R ES
O CA A R O A
T O I E TM ” A
B I
RI GM
E AT
I C N O S” I S F O
B A M
I
M R IO  “
P I T SI E PS ”  “
FA M S
O R AB AT OF
E
  OI SI
S IE TH
: O
F
E, Y FO F IC
O
- E P E
P D
IM I
T N H BR IO
N  “ OI  
“
ANF
T NU N 
I T
I FA A
T  O
F “P  O
T O D IC F
 N O
N
N S AN HE R IO
N
 O IO AT
I
CO RK N T
T
AB AT NIO CA MA IO D F C I
M T N E I AT R O
R
E A AR M N T
H
AB
R
IC B -
F
R FA  IN
OR
O F
TI ND E AB E ON-F A A F H  
IN RM
H
N T E T S
O IO ND H N
D K
-F AT A
T
D A A
R
N M N N N EMI O A O R
FO
R I TI
- A
T ON A E
IN RM AT
I M
OR
M
SO 
FO :
N- OR
M -F
IN IT
Y
I F  U
 IN
-
 O
N N
N S NT
I
O
AR
K
CO
EMR
1.
The Fabrication of Life is probably one of the most ambitious, but at the 
same time one of the most controversial research fields within so-called con-
verging technologies.1 Whether Synthetic Biology2, Artificial Life3, or Bio Art4
– all these fields are concerned either way with the manipulation or synthesis
of living beings.
It is well known, that organisms can be manipulated to some extent by 
altering their gene expression and this sort of research is already placed 
E
M
: S
O
Y under quite heavy, political control. What is still less well known, and long 
UI
T A,
IN
AG
M
HE
, M T since lurking behind the scenes, is artificial abiogenesis – the synthesis of E F D
TI
M  ON A
N
IO ONT I ONA T S life “from scratch”. This type of research – strangely enough – is done almost C A
BR
I K
OR
M
A A
R
F -F EM
 IN R A, N completely unnoticed by the general public. Bio Art, on the other hand, sel-
ON
E
 M GM TI
O
KS : S
O A A
R Y , M I
C
IT E
R
U M A
B dom bothers with all those technologies – it just “applies” them, from a more 
IN T
I F
NT S”
E
I TH N O
, C
O S
OI
E NDA RK
S or less critical stance.
 “
P A
F IO
N
O T RE
M
 E
,
A M
ON E IRM M T” A crucial question which soon comes to mind, though, is: what could 
FO
O
 S S N- : SI IO
N 
IN TYI OI
E AT
 O IN
U “P M
F O
R “fabrication of life” actually mean? Of course – the less precise the definitions, 
T O F
CO
N  N- ,
ON  I
A
M
A, I
M A
T  O
N
S A
G
IC M the easier we could describe beings as “alive”. Thus, for the following, we R RK E,B A M ON
FA I I
E RE
M T T
H ”
A
T E I
S M
S R assume that a “living being” is a “being-for-itself” (“subject”), that it is a being 
OM ES O
I -F
O
 N E,
Y: P “ N 
I M
UI
T I
 O
F  O T
N S ” with its own proper world (“Umwelt / Innenwelt”), and that “life” is creative: I ON K ISI R S
CA
T A IE S
I RE
M PO K
BR F 
“ AR
E M that there is an emergence of “otherness”. This very process of emergence of A M  O RE
: S
O N
Y TI
O E
M
UI
T CA SOI : something new – other – will be called “poiesis” or “in-formation” in the fol-
IN BR TY
E
FA UI T
H
HE TI
N D
T A
N ”
ON N I
S
S lowing. And we mean explicitly “fabrication”: bringing life into existence (what 
ND O
A,
C E
AT
I I
M M “P
O
AG OR F
 
M F  O has been referred to already as artificial abiogenesis). We do not talk about , N-E  I IONT
ON A A,
KS
 IC M E
R AB
R G M “manipulation”.
A A O
M FE E,
M  S
TY
:
TH MTI U
I
ND ” IN N Is such a project imaginable? Can we expect to become “life engineers” in A IS T  O
N S N SIE , C
O
RK
PO“ A
A
F GM E
M the near future, building “Living Machines”?5
R
N 
O A
M E
O ME,
IM : S
O
T TY N A lot of people think it is. Some of the most advanced projects in this 
UI  
O
IN K
S
NT A
R ON
CO
 
EM KS respect are those which are collected under the umbrella of the 6th Framework 
A, R R
M E
A ON 
AG
M
OM E S
: S R
K
Y EM A
R
T Program of the European Union, as there are SynthCells, PACE, Uniroma3,I O EM KS
NU : S R R
NT
I
TY E
A
UI
M
OM E
IN : S R and Protocell Assembly for instance. All these projects are focussing on single T Y E
ON UI
T OM E
, C IN Y:
 S
T O
M
N IT : S cell organisms which, as general “building blocks” of more complex multi-Y
, C
O NU T
A NT
I
NU
I
M O TIG
, C ONA C A
, cellular organisms, should, nonetheless, fit the aforementioned definitional 
GM , G
M
A A ONA
M GM M, T
I
E A E
,
CA “requirements”.
E,
M M I
TI BR
M
TI IS
” FA
S E
OI
E TH F O Now, in order to discuss the problem of “life engineering” we want to 
“P ND ONA I
OF T E ON A M
ON TI RI
C SOI A  B Y: exclude from the very beginning any framework which relies on some sort 
OR
M FA IT
-F H
E IN
U
T T
N 
IN D ON of “vital force” or a specific “bio-substance”; we don’t want to introduce any 
AN C
N A
,
O M
AT
I
AG
RM E,
M
TI
M 1 Bainbridge/Roco 2006; Roco/Bainbridge 2004
2 ETC Group 2007
3 Bedau passim
4 Kac 2006
5 Hasslacher/Tilden 1995
161
type of transcendental dualism either, e.g. phenomenology. We want to stay 
as close as possible to contemporary scientific approaches. Having said that, 
however, we don’t think that mainstream reductionism works. Reductionism’s 
underlying assumption is that living beings are machinic (in the sense of 
a mechanism). This assumption is a consequence of a much deeper reduc-
tionist belief which is that biology has to be anchored within contemporary 
physics; and – usually – physics is here confined to Newtonian physics. This 
reductionism is not feasible for at least two reasons: first of all, sciences can-
not treat “creativity” appropriately, and secondly, sciences cannot deal prop-
erly with subjectivity. As it will turn out, the ultimate cause for this failure is 
a profound inability to theorise time. In physics, there seems to be no notion 
of time at all.6 And insofar as the “sciences” in general are desperately fixated 
on physics, they are suffering from the same problem, too. The humanities, 
on the other hand, are unable to bring their concepts of “subjective time”
(and/or “social-historical time”) into any consistent contact with those “sci-
ences”. As a result, the dialogue between sciences and humanities either 
stops, or creates amusingly bizarre “discourses” – most often, for example, in 
the neurosciences with its perennially recurring debates about the problem 
of, e.g., freewill.7
One could thus get the impression that this very problem of fabrication
of life indicates a paradox – it would be simply impassable. Even within biol-
ogy, doubts exist about whether this reductionist strategy will work. Robert 
Rosen, e.g., argues, that physics “is inherently inadequate to accommodate 
the phenomena at the heart of biology. No amount of sophistication within 
these limitations can compensate for the limitations themselves.”8 In particu-
lar, since Newtonian-style physics produces analytic knowledge (i.e. knowl-
edge, how a system works), and this knowledge does “not entail how it is 
created”,9 the problem of fabrication simply cannot be solved. 
Stuart Kauffman also considers the possibility, that contemporary phys-
ics has to be changed to become appropriate for biology. His main concern 
is that for principle reasons we “cannot finitely pre-state the configuration 
space of a biosphere.”10 What he is speculating about is “glimmers … of some-
thing like a fourth law, a tendency for self-constructing biospheres to enlarge 
… the dimensionality of their adjacent possible.”11 We can’t go into the details 
6 Barbour 1999
7 There is no doubt that the life sciences can produce results of some (limited) use, 
despite their dubious conceptual and methodological premises, e.g. in medicine with its 
often spectacular progress in diagnostic and therapeutic technologies, particularly in the 
neurosciences, see Hagner 2006.
8 Rosen 2000, p. 256
9 Rosen 2000, p. 258
10 Kauffman 2000, p. 135
11 Kauffman 2000, p. 244
162
here, but we just mention in passing that Kauffman expects a “new physics” 
– which eventually respects biological phenomena – to be a physics carrying 
on the ambitious efforts tackling the challenges of quantum gravity.12
Both Rosen and Kauffman, in a way, suggest that we have to change the 
underlying conceptual framework of mainstream reductionism, and, most 
important, have to explore alternate ontologies, the main emphasis of which 
is on being-for-itself, creativity, and “becoming”. We can go even further. Why 
should we conceptualise nature in terms of a “state space”, introducing a 
“mind-body-problem” – just to “reduce” it to “materialism” or “idealism”? And 
why should we continue rendering the “ego” as a spectator of an external 
“world” – mirroring predictable trajectories and desperately trying to stay the 
course? There is no compelling reason at all to believe in these somewhat 
accidentally sedimented clichés, acting – at the best – as a common-sense 
“doxa”.
We should be aware, though, that taking non-reductionist frameworks 
into consideration often means to be accused of “vitalism”, “speculative 
thinking”, et cetera – as we already mentioned above. Authors like Spinoza, 
Nietzsche, and Bergson are usually condemned as belonging to the “bas-
tard line of philosophers” (Deleuze), and there is rarely a chance to engage 
mainstream “scientists” in a profound debate.13 An exception might be A. 
N. Whitehead, whose “process philosophy” happens to be discussed as an 
alternate ontological framework for quantum physics.14 But Whitehead is still 
seen as quite an esoteric thinker.
Among the (maybe) less suspicious philosophical authors who are deeply 
concerned with the problem of “creativity” Castoriadis comes to mind. A read-
ing of Castoriadis seems to be rewarding from at least two points of view. As is 
well-known,15 he advocates the crucial role of “radical imagination” in human 
subjectivity. And, additionally, he develops an ontology of the “magma”, which 
– as will hopefully be shown in this paper – allows a rethinking of “creativity” 
in such a way that it sheds a new, interesting light on “fabrication of life”.
12 Kauffman 2000, p. 243ff
13 See the pubertal and amazingly ignorant “discussion” by Sokal/Bricmont 1998.
14 See, for instance, Hättich 2004.
15 Castoriadis 1986, 1997, 1998, 2007; Curtis 1997
163
2.
Castoriadis’ philosophy, and especially his ontology, remained unfinished. 
It always had a strong momentum, most notably in his late writings,16 which, 
as I would suggest, can even be read as constituting first “building blocks” for 
a proprietary process philosophy.
From its very beginning his philosophy is centreed around the concept 
of autonomy. Autonomy is the result of a process of self-constitution or self-
creation, both on the individual and the social-historical level. We will only 
briefly touch on this topic here, although it opens many opportunities for 
criticising current approaches in neuro-, brain and cognitive sciences, first 
and foremost in neuropsychoanalysis.
The genealogy of autonomy is driven by imagination, “radical” as well 
as social-historical. Imagination as radical turns out to be the “differentia 
specifica” of human beings, compared with animals in general, which exhibit 
imagination in a functional organic context only. Humans, in contrast, have 
their imaginative capacities detached from any functionalisation – imagina-
tion becomes free floating: radical. During individuation – a process of psychi-
cal “sense- or meaning-making” – radical imagination evolves into both an 
“interior” (psychical) and an “exterior” (social-historical) equilibrium of rep-
resentational pleasure, implying a compossible coupling with the underlying 
organic functions as well as a proper embedding into social-historical imagery. 
This “individuation” might fail – in the worst case resulting in psychosis.17
Thus, subjectivity of humans is anything but a fixed, rationally behav-
ing “agency”; this might be the case, according to Castoriadis, with animals 
and their “hard-wired” (yet still representational!) pleasure, entwined with 
organic functionalities. Whereas with human beings, it’s just the opposite: 
subjectivity is the felicitous result of an emergent creative process of radical 
imagination, susceptible to failure, but also open to revolutionise the world 
by creating “other” imageries.
The first lesson we can learn from Castoriadis, therefore, concerns the 
processual character of subjectivity, thwarting the mainstream caricature of 
rational agency. If at all, the latter turns out to be a (cynical) zoomorphism, 
turning the creative capacities of human imagination into pre-determined 
sensor-actor-circuits, receptible for computational or dynamicist models. 
And Castoriadis even gives us arguments against a naive adaption of the 
Freudian project. Whereas the latter confines psychoanalysis to the private 
context of the doctor’s couch, Castoriadis emphasises the role of the social-
historical mediation of imagination. That which happens at the border of 
16 Adams 2003
17 Castoriadis 1997a
164
“Unconscious” and “Consciousness” is not just the “personal” fluctuation of 
imageries; both its genealogy and its actual virulence are deeply entangled 
with the exterior, social-historical. The subject is always “a bastard construct, 
combining in various proportions elements of the psyche, of the social-histor-
ically instituted understanding and reason, and of the self-reflecting activity 
of the social individual at a certain stage of history.”18
As mentioned already, Castoriadis’ philosophy needs to be thought of “in 
terms of a shift from a regional ontology of the social-historical towards a 
transregional ontology of physis”, as Suzi Adams puts it.19 What becomes 
the main concern throughout Castoriadis’ later writings is the logical as well 
as ontological difference between determinacy and indeterminacy. In order 
to unfold the complex interplay of both these “dimensions” of being, we first 
have to become aware of the stratified character of his “transregional” ontol-
ogy. Physis subsists as a dynamic multiplicity of (strata of) being, which 
“is an irreducible, primary datum.”20 As such multiplicity “formally entails 
unity”.21 Without unity, multiplicity would cease to be multiplicity, and would 
become an “in itself dispersed and disconnected Infrachaos”.22 Now, there are 
actually two ways how multiplicity exists – as difference, and as otherness.
This distinction belongs definitely to the core of Castoriadis’ conceptual appa-
ratus, and it is immediately entangled with determinacy and indeterminacy, 
respectively.
Let us start with an example: a square is different from a rectangle, but 
Kafka’s “The Castle” is not different from the Rolling Stone’s “Satisfaction” – 
they are other. According to Castoriadis, two forms are different “if there is 
a set of determinate transformations (‘laws’) allowing the deduction or pro-
duction of this form.”23 “Determination” has to be taken in its most general 
reading, as being an identitary element of an ensemble – i.e. set-theoretically. 
Because of its overarching importance Castoriadis coined a new term for this 
“ensemblistic-identitary” logic: ensidic. This logic is “hard-wired” into our lan-
guage; it is the basis for all mathematical constructions, and is the underlying 
logic of our sciences.24 Theorising along ensidic lines results in a construction 
of hierarchies of sets, equipped with relations and rules of deduction. Ensidic 
thinking “spatialises” multiplicities insofar as it constructs unities by identi-
fying elements and collecting them as an ensemble. It neglects any intrinsic 
18 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 377
19 Adams 2003, p. 106
20 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 400
21 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 399
22 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 399
23 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 392 (with the author’s emphasis)
24 Castoriadis 1997c, p. 295
165
characteristics and figures these elements simultaneously, yet coexisting as 
different ones just by external organisation.
There is no depreciation of ensidic descriptions (in contrast, e.g. with 
Heidegger’s “Vorhandenheit”), rather the opposite is the case – they constitute 
the dominant form of our world representation. Because the “first natural 
stratum” itself allows for ensidic constructions, social-historical imagination, 
individual humans are capable of instituting viable representations of their 
respective worlds. The problem arises if we exclusively turn our attention to 
ensidic narratives, reducing the multiplicity of being to simply a differential
one. A world made up only out of differences wouldn’t change anymore, and 
nothing new would happen. All is determined, only differences exist: the rep-
etition of the same. But the “new is not the unforeseeable, unpredictable, 
nor the undetermined.”25 The (unpredictable) next number in roulette, for 
instance, still remains “the trivial repetition of a form”, as does the undeter-
mined, “sheer repetition of a given form” in quantum mechanics.26 The “new” 
requires the indeterminate, the magma, which allows for the emergence of 
new determinations, of new laws; this “is the meaning of form – eidos.”27
How does this in-formation (poiesis), the emergence of the “other”, arise? 
We already mentioned the second way of how multiplicities exist: as other-
ness. Otherness cannot occur out of ensidic space. Ensidic space only knows 
of differences, forms, where each form can be derived or produced from other 
forms, by determinate laws. No new forms emerge. Hence, we might consider 
time. New forms emerge in time, don’t they? – It depends.
Castoriadis’ extensive analyses first show us why “creation”, the emer-
gence of “otherness”, can’t be described by physics and related sciences. The 
reason is simple: they see “time” exclusively as ensidic time – social identitary 
time, which leans on the ensidic dimension of the first natural stratum.28
This, in turn, implies the spatialisation of time in the sciences, and results in 
the reduction of temporal multiplicities to differential ones.
Therefore, time in general does not really help. We have to take into account 
the magmatic dimension of time. The emergence of forms (in-formation) is the 
ultimate character of time. The “before” and “after”, the irreversibility of poietic
time, is “given through the scansion of creation and destruction.”29 Poietic 
time forces a self-deployment of new forms in ensidic space and time as recep-
tacles of the first natural stratum, where they become organised through sub-
jective – both social-historical and individual – constructions. Forms as forms 
are not caused by something, in the sense of determinate necessary and 
25 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 392
26 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 392
27 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 392
28 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 387
29 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 397
166
sufficient conditions; they emerge – given appropriate (innumerable, but only 
necessary) conditions. “The conditions allow the emergence of the form – but 
the converse is meaningless.”30 In-formation is ex nihilo, which does not mean 
in nihilo, or cum nihilo. The magma allows for in-formation, but it cannot be 
exhausted; the ensidic is indefinitely “dense” in the magmatic.
3.
As previously suggested, we could start reading the late Castoriadis as 
process philosophy. In particular, if we focus on his text “Time and Creation”,31
we will detect a clear prominence of time over space – the two “receptacles”. 
When Castoriadis asks whether there is “a possibility for an essential distinc-
tion between time and space”32, in the end he gives priority to time: without 
time there would be “no thing (nothing)”33. Nonetheless, time and space are 
intimately entangled for multiplicity exists both as difference and as other-
ness, and “otherness entails difference”34. This, in turn, implies that every 
form – in order to be – has to be “identical to itself”, it has to persist for a 
while, qua pure repetition in ensidic time – differing with itself “only by being 
placed in a different (identitary) time”35. Thus, every form has “necessarily 
an ensidic dimension”. And Castoriadis’ ontology establishes a clear priority: 
being is time. “The fullness of being is given – that is, simply is – only in and 
through the emergence of otherness which is solidary with time.”36
Finally, then, in-formation (or poiesis) – the “surging forth” of otherness as 
characteristic for being – forces the fragmentation and stratification of being. 
Qua self-deployment, being forces the proliferation of otherness, dispersing 
new forms both in poietic and ensidic space and time. As poietic receptacles, 
space and time ensure alterity; as ensidic, they establish the Being of being 
at all. Thus, the emergence of otherness, in-formation, does not contradict 
determinism; it rather contradicts “the paradoxical, if not absurd, idea of 
a homogeneous universal determinism that could reduce level or strata of 
being (and their corresponding laws) to a single ultimate and elementary 
level.”37 Creation ruptures the smoothness and continuity of being, it foils 
reductionism.
30 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 397
31 Castoriadis 1997b
32 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 397
33 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 399
34 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 400
35 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 400
36 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 401
37 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 393
167
It might be worthwhile looking at contemporary sciences with respect to 
their concept of emergence. Emergence – as is well-known – is currently often 
seen as a new “weapon” in the hand of reductionists. Teeth-gnashing, physicists 
are beginning to accept that there are “levels” or “strata” of being – probably 
forced by their very problems with thermodynamics and quantum mechan-
ics. Yet ideally, these strata are communicated as hierarchically ordered, with 
a one-way determinism from the bottom up. For example, the (phenomeno-
logical) variables of thermodynamics (like “temperature”), which constitute 
a “higher level” of description, are reduced to the movement of molecules 
– a “lower” descriptive level, more “fundamental”, and thus explaining the 
macroscopic phenomenon. This example illustrates exactly what Castoriadis 
complains of as “homogeneous universal determinism”. Admittedly, more 
advanced conceptualisations of “emergence” are “emerging”38 – it might be 
promising to relate them with Castoriadis’ “Logic of Magmas”39.
Castoriadis tried several times to elucidate his concept of “magma”, the 
most detailed attempt probably is his paper “The Logic of Magmas and the 
Question of Autonomy”.40 I don’t want to comment on this paper here explic-
itly; rather I would like to emphasise his reference to quantum mechanics. 
In this paper he mentions Mugur-Schächter, a physicist, talking about her 
reflections during theory-building in quantum mechanics. In the end, she 
finds herself within a “semantic mud”, and “it is only here, in this mud, and 
when we force our gaze to make out the moving forms, that we can perceive 
the contrasts between what is not done and what is partially done and thus 
initiate something anew.”41 Mugur-Schächter alludes to their problems with 
the vanished subject-object separation in quantum physics, and the difficul-
ties of handling these problems semiotically.
This reminds us – and that is probably the reason why Castoriadis quotes 
her – of his account of subjectivity. Again, in his paper “Time and Creation”42,
Castoriadis develops his concept of space and time, and how they relate to 
subject and object. Just remember: the world is socially constituted (via 
imaginary institutions), and it “appears as the deployment of two recepta-
cles, social space and social time, filled with objects organized according to 
relations, etc., and vested with meaning.”43 Receptacles appear to a subject. 
But they lean on the first natural stratum with “respect to [their] ensidic 
dimension”44. Every living being (being-for-itself) “know(s) … at least some-
38 Bishop/Atmanspacher 2006
39 Castoriadis 1997c
40 Castoriadis 1997c
41 Castoriadis 1997c, p. 303
42 Castoriadis 1997b
43 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 386
44 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 387
168
thing of the world.” This implies that the world “is knowable”; but it has to 
be “constructible” as well.45 The world “must contain the … equivalent of 
an identitary dimension.”46 We don’t have a chasm between “subject” and 
“object”, however – as is still the case in mainstream thinking, as long as 
it relies on Newtonian physics. It is rather a chiasmus (Merleau-Ponty) of 
subject and object; their respective parts of these constructions cannot be 
disentangled. Yet, our effort to separate them is not “… meaningless, on the 
contrary; but it is bound to be interminable.”47
We might understand better now, why Castoriadis was seduced by quan-
tum physics: the latter turns out to be the reference for our interaction with 
the world. The fundamental interactional pattern between subject and object 
is quantum mechanical, and not Newtonian. Our world is a world of “Zing!”48
Jean-Yves Girard is one of the first logicians who strongly emphasises that we 
have to stop imposing an ensidic logic (to use Castoriadis’ term) in theorising 
about nature (as so-called quantum logic does); rather we should take non-
commutativity seriously, and create a new logic which picks up the insights 
of quantum physics, and develop a logic along the lines of the principal imbri-
cation of observer and system.49 One of the most fascinating results of this 
approach is the relativisation of set theory – it simply becomes “local”, a sub-
jective “viewpoint” of an observer. If we recall Castoriadis’ attempt to describe 
the interplay between the magmatic and the ensidic, the emergence of “new” 
determinations during the interaction of being-for-itself and its proper world 
– maybe with Girard’s “Geometry of Interaction”50 we have found a promising 
departure for the conceptualisation of the “everywhere dense” ensidic within 
the magmatic – in-formation.
4.
If we now turn back to our very question – How is fabrication of life possi-
ble? – we should first stress the fact that Castoriadis’ philosophy/ontology in
general seems to be an attractive, competitive framework for theorising about 
life and technology – from single cell organisms up to the attempts of the 
neurosciences to model human behaviour. Unlike Heidegger, or other philoso-
phers in the phenomenological tradition – with their often exposed techno-
phobic attitude – , Castoriadis has a brilliant background both in mathemat-
45 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 387
46 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 389
47 Castoriadis 1997b, p. 389
48 Fuchs 2002
49 Girard 2007a, 2007b
50 Girard 2006, 2007b
169
ics and in the sciences, which often allows him to avoid bizarre conclusions 
and misinterpretations.
Secondly, there exists an explicit examination of Varela’s approaches 
to biology,51 focussing mainly on the concepts of autonomy and being-for-
itself. The crucial question is whether we can think “the living being as a 
fully ensemblistic-identitary automaton”; an automaton, that “has in itself 
the principles of its generation and corruption as well as of its alteration.”52
Castoriadis simply does not know. Yet he doubts that it could be possible, for 
the following reasons. Even if it would be possible to create a complete ensidic 
description (and construction) of a dog – including an isomorphism between 
the dog’s own significations and constructions within its proper world, and 
the external ensidic description of the automaton – even then, this “artificial” 
dog wouldn’t be “new”, it would be just a replica of an already existing system, 
whether this is “in the head” of the engineer, or a natural “template”. And 
this, according to Castoriadis, seems to be implicit in ensidic logic: we would 
never have the reason, nor the criterion for fabricating the dog, if “the dog did 
not already exist.”53
We could go beyond Castoriadis (and Varela), and might consider implicit
fabrication. This would generally imply the ensidic determination of a “param-
eter space” – whether discrete or continuous. It would need a (determinate) 
“quality measure” as well as a (determinate) “procedure”, driving the system 
through the parameter space. Eventually, a being-for-itself might “evolve”. Two 
cases can be considered. First, the system “emerged”, it worked as intended, 
and nothing “extra” happened. This wouldn’t change the scenario at all, the 
same arguments as before would still be valid. In the second case, though, 
we could imagine that this being-for-itself does not match the “target require-
ments” (or perhaps there were no requirements in the first place), but beyond 
exhibiting its proper world, it would also exploit the magmatic dimension 
of the world during the construction of this very world – due to the (poten-
tial) exploitation of this magmatic dimension during “evolution”. Yet, what we 
have got now is a completely different concept of fabrication. There is almost 
no control anymore – neither of the “result”, nor of the schedule of the process 
itself. And this leads us to the last issue.
Populating the world with beings-for-itself is just a special, though very 
prominent, case of the emergence of otherness – poiesis. Thus, the question 
of the fabrication of life entails the question of the fabrication of poiesis, and 
as we have just seen, this implies a change of the concept of fabrication. With 
fabrication we have actually two choices: we can lean on the ensidic, or we 
51 Castoriadis 1997d, pp. 337-339, 1997c, pp. 308-310
52 Castoriadis 1997c, p. 309
53 Castoriadis 1997c, p. 310
170
adhere to the magmatic dimension of being. In the first case we start creat-
ing ensidic constraints, determining “primitives”, production rules, and try 
to minimise alterity – producing forms by repetition and difference. We try 
to occupy the magmatic dimension of the world, so to speak, and substitute 
it by our own radical and social-historical imagination, eventually blowing 
out the poiesis of the world. We should be honest: as cowardly as we are (as 
a species), this world would end up in an eternal return of the ever same 
– boredom.
The second choice we have would be to exploit the poiesis of the world. We 
would “listen” to the world – intensifying the emergence of otherness, enjoying 
the fecundity, and subversively reinforcing the overwhelming proliferation of 
different strata of being, disrupting continuity and thereby undermining the 
totalitarian pretense of the ensidic.
Fabrication of poiesis, then, means keeping open the surging forth of phy-
sis: alloiosis. It works out to be simply waiting for the right moment, the 
kairos – with Gelassenheit.
If you want – an ethics of in-formation.
171
References
6th Framework Program of the European Union (2008). Online available: <http://cordis.
europa.eu/fp6/> (last access: June 2008).
Adams, Suzi (2003): »Castoriadis’ Shift Towards Physis«. Thesis Eleven 74, 105-112.
Bainbridge, William Sims/Roco, Mihail C. (Eds.) (2006): Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno 
Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society, New York: Springer. Online avail-
able: <http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/3/NBIC3_report.pdf> (last 
access: June 2008).
Barbour, Julian B. (1999): The End of Time, New York: Oxford University Press.
Bedau, Mark A. (Ed.) (1993ff.): Artificial Life (Journal), Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bishop, Robert C./Atmanspacher, Harald (2006): »Contextual Emergence in the 
Description of Properties«. Foundations of Physics 36(12), 1753-1777.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1986): Crossroads in the Labyrinth, Cambridge: The MIT 
Press.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1997): World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, 
Psychoanalysis, and the Imagination, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1997a): »The Construction of the World in Psychosis«. In: Cornelius 
Castoriadis, World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and 
the Imagination, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 196-210.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1997b): »Time and Creation«. In: Cornelius Castoriadis, World 
in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and the Imagination, 
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 374-401.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1997c): »The Logic of Magmas and the Question of Autonomy«. 
In: David Curtis (Ed.), The Castoriadis Reader, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 290-318.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1997d): »Phusis and Autonomy«. In: Cornelius Castoriadis 
(1997): World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and the 
Imagination, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 331-341.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1998): The Imaginary Institution of Society, Cambridge: MIT 
Press.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (2007): Figures of the Thinkable, Stanford: Stanford University 
Press.
Curtis, David (Ed.) (1997): The Castoriadis Reader, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
ETC Group (2007): Extreme Genetic Engineering: An Introduction to Synthetic Biology. 
Online available: <http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/602/01/synbiore-
portweb.pdf> (last access: June 2008).
Fuchs, Christopher A. (2002): Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only 
a little more). Online available: <http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205039v1> 
(last access: June 2008).
Girard, Jean-Yves (2006): Le Point Aveugle: Tome 1. Cours De Logique, Vers La 
Perfection, Hermann. Online available (english): <http://iml.univ-mrs.fr/~girard/
coursang/coursang0.pdf.gz> (last access: June 2008).
172
Girard, Jean-Yves (2007a): »Truth, modality and intersubjectivity«. Online available: 
<http://iml.univ-mrs.fr/~girard/truth.pdf> (last access: June 2008).
Girard, Jean-Yves (2007b): Le Point Aveugle: Tome 2. Cours De Logique, Vers 
L’imperfection, Hermann. Online available (english): <http://iml.univ-mrs.
fr/~girard/coursang/coursang0.pdf.gz> (last access: June 2008).
Hagner, Michael (2006): Der Geist bei der Arbeit: Historische Untersuchungen zur 
Hirnforschung, Göttingen: Wallstein.
Hasslacher, Brosl/Tilden, Mark W. (1995): »Living Machines«. Robotics and Autonomous 
Systems 15(1-2),143-169.
Hättich, Frank (2004): Quantum Processes. A Whiteheadian Interpretation of Quantum 
Field Theory, Münster: agenda.
Kac, Eduardo (2006): Signs of Life: Bio Art and Beyond, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kauffman, Stuart A. (2002): Investigations, New York: Oxford University Press.
PACE. Online available: <http://www.istpace.org/> (last access: June 2008).
Protocell Assembly. Online available: <http://protocells.lanl.gov/> (last access: June 
2008).
Roco, Mihail C./Bainbridge, William Sims (Eds.) (2004): Converging Technologies 
for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information 
Technology and Cognitive Science. Berlin/New York: Springer. Online available: 
<http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/1/NBIC_report.pdf> (last access: 
June 2008).
Rosen, Robert (1991): Life Itself, New York: Columbia University Press.
Rosen, Robert (1999): Essays on Life Itself, New York: Columbia University Press.
Sokal, Alan/Bricmont, Jean (1998): Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ 
Abuse of Science, New York: Picador.
SynthCells. Online available: <http://www.synthcells.org/> (last access: June 2008).
Uniroma3. Online available: <http://www.plluisi.org/grl_res_index.html> (last access: 
June 2008).
173