Bruno Latour, Aramis, or the Love of Technology, PDF - Dss-edit.com

come back to print. The whole passage through hardware helps make thewritten history a little more credible. Bardet's affair was a tenuous dream:we weren't going along with it, it didn't work, they're pulling our leg.lamoureux's story and Cohen's and Gayot's is a story that works: peoplebelieve in it, Orly is behind it-yes, unquestionably it all holds together.The account of a fiction is generally easy to follow; you never departfrom its textual form and subject matter. Wherever you look in the narrativeof The Three Musketeers, Porthos, Athos, and Aramis always remainfigments of the text itself. The account of a fabrication is somewhat moredifficult, since any one of the figures may move from text to object or objectto text while passing through every imaginable ontological stage. In orderto follow a technological project, we have to follow simultaneously boththe narrative program and the degree of "realization" of each of theactions. For example, the rendezvous of Aramis' platoons is an actionprogrammed at the time of Bardet's earliest ideas, but its degree of realizationvaries according to whether we go from the earliest discussions withPetit to the patents, to Matra's plans, to the Orly site, to the imprinting ofthe chips, to the reports on the experiments, or to the report on the end ofPhase o. Depending on the point at which we look into the action, the"meeting of the branches," we will have ideas, drawings, lines in a program,trains running before our eyes, statistics, seductive stories, memoriesof trains running before the eyes of our interlocutors, photos, plans again,chips again. For the engineer substitutes for the signs he writes the thingsthat he has mobilized; he attaches them to each other so they'll hold up;then he withdraws a little, delegating to another self, in the form of a chip,a sensor, or an automatic device, the task of watching over the connection.And this delegating allows him to withdraw even further-as if there werean object. If only we always went from signs to things! But we also go inthe other direction; and we soon find ourselves not in a subway train butin a conference room, once again among signs speaking to humans-asif there were subjects!Alas, VAL speaks well for itself, holds up all by itself Why can't I?Oh, why did you never come to an understanding that would haveendowed me with the same depth, the same weight, the same breadthas VA L? Why did you argue about me instead of agreeing on a uniqueobject? Why was 1 words, and never the same ones, on your lips? WhyIS ARM,,\ IS FEASIBLE?