What do you think?
Rate this book
Το παράσιτο
Το έργο του Michel Serres είναι καινοφανές επειδή επινοεί μια νέα μέθοδο. Όχι πια έναν μονογραμμικό λόγο που κομίζει πάντοτε τα ίδια αποτελέσματα, ανεξάρτητα από τα αντικείμενα που εξετάζει, αλλά έναν λόγο πολλαπλό, ο οποίος ανταποκρίνεται στην πολυπλοκότητα για την οποία μιλά.
Σε αντίθεση με τα προγενέστερα έργα του, ο Serres δεν αναφέρεται απλώς στους τοπικούς όρους και στα τοπικά όρια της επικοινωνίας· μεταβαίνει από την τοπική στη σφαιρική διάσταση. Εξ ου και ο τίτλος όπως και το αντικείμενο του βιβλίου: το παράσιτο μπορεί να είναι ένας ανεπαίσθητος θόρυβος, ένας μικροσκοπικός οργανισμός, ή ένα ζιζάνιο, αλλά και ένας άνθρωπος που εισβάλλει ως τρίτος όρος σε μια ερωτική σχέση για να τη διαταράξει.
Το παράσιτο παρεμβαίνει και παρεμβάλλεται ως γενικός τελεστής σε κάθε μορφή σχέσης, τόσο εντός της φύσης όσο και εντός του πολιτισμού, αποσταθεροποιώντας όλα τα βιολογικά και κοινωνικά
συστήματα. Συνάμα, όμως, είναι όρος δυνατότητας για τη δημιουργία τάξεων υψηλότερης πολυπλοκότητας. Το μήνυμα του βιβλίου προς τους ορθολογιστές παλαιάς κοπής είναι χαρμόσυνο: η αταξία, η ασάφεια, ο θόρυβος δεν είναι πια ατυχήματα του ορθού λόγου, αλλά συστατικά στοιχεία του. Όπου υπάρχουν δίαυλοι επικοινωνίας, υπάρχουν και παράσιτα.
Σε αντίθεση με τα προγενέστερα έργα του, ο Serres δεν αναφέρεται απλώς στους τοπικούς όρους και στα τοπικά όρια της επικοινωνίας· μεταβαίνει από την τοπική στη σφαιρική διάσταση. Εξ ου και ο τίτλος όπως και το αντικείμενο του βιβλίου: το παράσιτο μπορεί να είναι ένας ανεπαίσθητος θόρυβος, ένας μικροσκοπικός οργανισμός, ή ένα ζιζάνιο, αλλά και ένας άνθρωπος που εισβάλλει ως τρίτος όρος σε μια ερωτική σχέση για να τη διαταράξει.
Το παράσιτο παρεμβαίνει και παρεμβάλλεται ως γενικός τελεστής σε κάθε μορφή σχέσης, τόσο εντός της φύσης όσο και εντός του πολιτισμού, αποσταθεροποιώντας όλα τα βιολογικά και κοινωνικά
συστήματα. Συνάμα, όμως, είναι όρος δυνατότητας για τη δημιουργία τάξεων υψηλότερης πολυπλοκότητας. Το μήνυμα του βιβλίου προς τους ορθολογιστές παλαιάς κοπής είναι χαρμόσυνο: η αταξία, η ασάφεια, ο θόρυβος δεν είναι πια ατυχήματα του ορθού λόγου, αλλά συστατικά στοιχεία του. Όπου υπάρχουν δίαυλοι επικοινωνίας, υπάρχουν και παράσιτα.
552 pages, Paperback
First published January 17, 1980
77 people are currently reading
1383 people want to read
About the author
Michel Serres
188 books213 followersMichel Serres was a French philosopher, theorist and author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
December 7, 2023
Ein Außenseiter der Philosophie – an der Grenze der Sprache, der Kultur, das Unaussprechliche erforschen. Ein Denken im freien Fall.
Michel Serres hat keine Denkschule begründet. Sein Denken bleibt zu mysteriös, zu singulär, zu allegorisiert. Es erlaubt kein Freund-Feind-Denken. Es untergräbt solche Dichotomien. Es provoziert, rüttelt an festgeglaubte Maßstäbe. Er denkt als Wissenschaftler gegen die Wissenschaft, als Kulturarbeit gegen die Kultur, als Geistesarbeiter gegen den Geist, aber nicht wie Michel Foucault, um dem großen Raunen des Diskurses das Wort zu reden, und auch nicht wie Jacques Derrida, um die Diffèrance in allem obsiegen zu sehen. Er denkt gegen das Denken als Denker:
„Die Geschichte ist der Ort der zureichenden Ursachen ohne Wirkung, der gewaltigen Wirkungen aus unbedeutenden Gründen, der starken Folgen aus schwachen Ursachen, der strikten Effekte aus zufälligen Gründen. Wir wissen endlich, dass diese Logik in der physikalischen und der lebendigen Welt am Werk ist, wir müssen noch lernen, dass sie in der Geschichte am Werk ist. Die Geschichte ist der Fluss der Umstände und nicht länger die alte Bahn der Mechaniker, die mit ihren Konflikten und Kräfteverhältnissen ausgestattet ist.“
Michel Serres geht es um eine Kommunikationstheorie des Rauschens. Er weiß und davon geht er aus: Bringt der Sender eine Nachricht an den Empfänger, hört die Kommunikation für einen kurzen Moment auf. Wird die Übermittlung der Nachricht aber gestört, rauscht es, zapft etwas an der Leitung, wiederholt sich der Sender und der Empfänger hört weiterhin zu. Die Kommunikation hält an. Serres denkt systemtheoretisch, kybernetisch vom Standpunkt der Evolution aus. Was erhält ein System, wie erhalten sich Systeme, wie wachsen sie, wie zerfallen sie?
„Der Parasit ist ein Operator, er ist ein generalisiertes clinamen […] Die Zeit der Geschichte beginnt, sobald eine im Sinne der Evolution parasitäre Art sich daranmacht, Botschaften anzuzapfen, und zum Parasiten im logischen Sinne wird; sobald der Sinn des Wortes sich vervollständigt; sobald das Tier am Tische des Wirtes speist und den Austausch vom Logischen des Sinnes seines Signals gegen Materielles erfindet.“
Serres Begriffsbildungen bieten keine klaren Fronten. Er unterläuft die Begriffe Wissen und Einbildung, Information, Rauschen, System und Umwelt. Ihm geht es um die schmerzhafteste aller Fragen: unter welchen Umständen wird ein Kraut zum Unkraut, ein Unkraut zum Kraut. Er bietet keine Antwort, aber seine Gedankengänge durchforsten unter diesem Gesichtspunkt die Klassiker der abendländischen Buchgeschichte: Fabeln von Jean de La Fontaine, Platons Das Gastmahl, Molières Tartuffe, die Sage um die Joseph-Brüder, aber auch die systemtheoretische Situation des Fußballs wird hinzugezogen:
„Erfreuen wir uns im Vorübergehen an der Metapher, die Rudyard Kipling nicht verachtet hat: Die Rote Blume hält die Tiger fern, und der goldne Zweig ist nicht weit. Der Ball ist das Subjekt der Zirkulation, die Spieler sind nur Stationen und Ruhepunkte. Der Ball kann sich in einen Zeugen der Ruhestation verwandeln; Zeuge, das heißt auf Griechisch Märtyrer.“
Michel Serres liest sich nicht leicht, aber bietet viele Anknüpfungspunkte für bspw. an Niklas Luhmann Interessierte, oder an Michel Foucault Verzagende, oder von Jürgen Habermas Provozierte. Serres bietet ein altes Denken, ein Denken gegen sich, gegen die eigene Sprache, gegen die eigenen Mythen. Wer ist Parasit? Wer ist es nicht? Wer profitiert wie, wodurch und wovon? Hält der Parasit nicht das System am Laufen?
Dass die Antworten ausbleiben, nur angedeutet werden, schwächt den Text nicht. Es stärkt ihn. Er ist von Wort zu Wort durchdrungen von einer großen Liebe zum Reden und Leben, wie auch seine Alterswerke bezeugen, die da heißen: Erfindet euch neu!: Eine Liebeserklärung an die vernetzte Generation und Was genau war früher besser? Ein optimistischer Wutanfall.
Michel Serres bietet die genuinste Form des utopischen Denken und das kann, weil Denkgrenzen überschreitend, nie leicht und eingängig sein. Es zieht einem den Boden unter den Füßen weg, auf dass das Denken endlich das Fliegen lerne.
Michel Serres hat keine Denkschule begründet. Sein Denken bleibt zu mysteriös, zu singulär, zu allegorisiert. Es erlaubt kein Freund-Feind-Denken. Es untergräbt solche Dichotomien. Es provoziert, rüttelt an festgeglaubte Maßstäbe. Er denkt als Wissenschaftler gegen die Wissenschaft, als Kulturarbeit gegen die Kultur, als Geistesarbeiter gegen den Geist, aber nicht wie Michel Foucault, um dem großen Raunen des Diskurses das Wort zu reden, und auch nicht wie Jacques Derrida, um die Diffèrance in allem obsiegen zu sehen. Er denkt gegen das Denken als Denker:
„Die Geschichte ist der Ort der zureichenden Ursachen ohne Wirkung, der gewaltigen Wirkungen aus unbedeutenden Gründen, der starken Folgen aus schwachen Ursachen, der strikten Effekte aus zufälligen Gründen. Wir wissen endlich, dass diese Logik in der physikalischen und der lebendigen Welt am Werk ist, wir müssen noch lernen, dass sie in der Geschichte am Werk ist. Die Geschichte ist der Fluss der Umstände und nicht länger die alte Bahn der Mechaniker, die mit ihren Konflikten und Kräfteverhältnissen ausgestattet ist.“
Michel Serres geht es um eine Kommunikationstheorie des Rauschens. Er weiß und davon geht er aus: Bringt der Sender eine Nachricht an den Empfänger, hört die Kommunikation für einen kurzen Moment auf. Wird die Übermittlung der Nachricht aber gestört, rauscht es, zapft etwas an der Leitung, wiederholt sich der Sender und der Empfänger hört weiterhin zu. Die Kommunikation hält an. Serres denkt systemtheoretisch, kybernetisch vom Standpunkt der Evolution aus. Was erhält ein System, wie erhalten sich Systeme, wie wachsen sie, wie zerfallen sie?
„Der Parasit ist ein Operator, er ist ein generalisiertes clinamen […] Die Zeit der Geschichte beginnt, sobald eine im Sinne der Evolution parasitäre Art sich daranmacht, Botschaften anzuzapfen, und zum Parasiten im logischen Sinne wird; sobald der Sinn des Wortes sich vervollständigt; sobald das Tier am Tische des Wirtes speist und den Austausch vom Logischen des Sinnes seines Signals gegen Materielles erfindet.“
Serres Begriffsbildungen bieten keine klaren Fronten. Er unterläuft die Begriffe Wissen und Einbildung, Information, Rauschen, System und Umwelt. Ihm geht es um die schmerzhafteste aller Fragen: unter welchen Umständen wird ein Kraut zum Unkraut, ein Unkraut zum Kraut. Er bietet keine Antwort, aber seine Gedankengänge durchforsten unter diesem Gesichtspunkt die Klassiker der abendländischen Buchgeschichte: Fabeln von Jean de La Fontaine, Platons Das Gastmahl, Molières Tartuffe, die Sage um die Joseph-Brüder, aber auch die systemtheoretische Situation des Fußballs wird hinzugezogen:
„Erfreuen wir uns im Vorübergehen an der Metapher, die Rudyard Kipling nicht verachtet hat: Die Rote Blume hält die Tiger fern, und der goldne Zweig ist nicht weit. Der Ball ist das Subjekt der Zirkulation, die Spieler sind nur Stationen und Ruhepunkte. Der Ball kann sich in einen Zeugen der Ruhestation verwandeln; Zeuge, das heißt auf Griechisch Märtyrer.“
Michel Serres liest sich nicht leicht, aber bietet viele Anknüpfungspunkte für bspw. an Niklas Luhmann Interessierte, oder an Michel Foucault Verzagende, oder von Jürgen Habermas Provozierte. Serres bietet ein altes Denken, ein Denken gegen sich, gegen die eigene Sprache, gegen die eigenen Mythen. Wer ist Parasit? Wer ist es nicht? Wer profitiert wie, wodurch und wovon? Hält der Parasit nicht das System am Laufen?
Dass die Antworten ausbleiben, nur angedeutet werden, schwächt den Text nicht. Es stärkt ihn. Er ist von Wort zu Wort durchdrungen von einer großen Liebe zum Reden und Leben, wie auch seine Alterswerke bezeugen, die da heißen: Erfindet euch neu!: Eine Liebeserklärung an die vernetzte Generation und Was genau war früher besser? Ein optimistischer Wutanfall.
Michel Serres bietet die genuinste Form des utopischen Denken und das kann, weil Denkgrenzen überschreitend, nie leicht und eingängig sein. Es zieht einem den Boden unter den Füßen weg, auf dass das Denken endlich das Fliegen lerne.
August 4, 2018
Εξαιρετικό!! Ιδιοφυές!!
October 4, 2019
3.25/5stars
okay THIS was actually interesting to read - give me parasites and metaphors and philosophy not literal nonfictional scientific facts about mosquitoes, thanks
okay THIS was actually interesting to read - give me parasites and metaphors and philosophy not literal nonfictional scientific facts about mosquitoes, thanks
July 5, 2025
Veel dank aan vertaler René ten Bos voor de papieren versie van dit boek.
Voor een afgestudeerd filosoof heb ik een afwijkend carrièrepad gekozen, maar zeker de laatste jaren is mijn plezier in het lezen van filosofische teksten weer aangewakkerd. Toch was het alweer een tijdje geleden dat ik een ondoordringbaar primair werk las; het soort werken waarmee ik tijdens mijn studie veelvuldig in aanraking kwam en waarbij het doorgronden van zo’n tekst een project van de lange adem was. Ik was eigenlijk een beetje klaar met dit soort ingewikkelde teksten, maar dankzij De Parasiet van Michel Serres heb ik toch weer gemerkt hoe ongelooflijk veel voldoening en plezier je uit het lezen van een ingewikkelde tekst kunt halen.
Serres laat in De Parasiet zien dat iedere intermenselijke relatie en iedere relatie tussen het ik en zijn omgeving een parasitair karakter heeft. De relatie tussen gastheer en genodigde is de meest duidelijke vorm van een dergelijke relatie, maar de mens parasiteert ook op zijn ouders (en dan de zogende moeder in het bijzonder), op de natuur en eigenlijk op iedere relatie die de mens met zijn omgeving aangaat. Maar ons parasiteren is niet per se iets slechts. Parasieten zijn ook in staat om ruimtes te creëren waarin ze met nieuwe ideeën of kunstuitingen de omgeving kunnen beïnvloeden en veranderen.
Authentiek
Ik merk al langer bij mezelf dat het me in filosofie of literatuur eigenlijk al lang niet meer gaat om de ideeën of het verhaal zelf, en het boeit me in veel gevallen eigenlijk ook nauwelijks wat ik zelf nu precies van bepaalde ideeën vind. Waar ik wel wat van vind, dat is hóe bepaalde ideeën en thema’s voor het voetlicht gebracht worden. De meeste ideeën en verhalen zijn verre van uniek, maar de manier waarop deze ideeën en verhalen overgebracht worden kan wel heel authentiek en uniek aanvoelen. Juist die specifieke, authentieke vorm waarin ideeën gegoten worden, kan iets groots binnen in mij teweegbrengen; waren dezelfde ideeën in een andere, drogere vorm gegoten, dan hadden ze me waarschijnlijk totaal koud gelaten.
In het geval van De Parasiet is het vooral ook de vorm die me enorm aanspreekt. Het boek kent geen lineair verloop, waarbij met verschillende argumenten langzaam toegewerkt wordt naar een grote hoofdconclusie, waarbij de argumentatiestructuur een klassieke hiërarchische vorm aanneemt. In dit werk daarentegen cirkelen de verschillende hoofdstukken steeds om het thema van de parasiet heen, waarbij ons begrip van de parasiet telkens verder uitgediept wordt, maar waarbij het onmogelijk is om een hiërarchische structuur in Serres’ argumenten te ontwaren.
Ondoorgrondelijk
Daarnaast is Serres’ stijl nogal ondoorgrondelijk. Naar filosofische begrippen zou je de stijl zelfs ‘literair’ kunnen noemen. Dit is geen Heidegger waarbij iedere zin moeilijk, maar toch uiteindelijk begrijpelijk is, en waarbij je iedere zin móet begrijpen om de volgende te kunnen snappen. Serres’ zinnen zijn mooi, doorspekt met verwijzingen naar fabels en andere schrijvers en denkers, en vergen naast een filosofische ook een poëtische blik. Met enkel de ratio kom je er niet in het geval van De Parasiet; het gaat ook om het aanvoelen van wat Serres bedoelt en het tussen de regels door lezen. Ik durf wel te zeggen dat ik een heleboel niet begrepen heb van dit boek, maar dat ik wel gevoeld heb wat er op het spel staat, dat het ertoe doet wat Serres schrijft en dat ik ook van de zinnen die ik niet begreep genoten heb.
Nu denk ik zeker dat slimmere, filosofisch meer onderlegde mensen dan ik veel meer uit de tekst zouden kunnen halen dan ik heb gedaan na deze eerste lezing. Het punt dat ik wil maken is dat het er bij De Parasiet niet per se toe doet hoeveel je er nou precies van snapt. Toen ik eenmaal accepteerde dat ik niet alles zou kunnen begrijpen van deze tekst, bleef er alsnog een ongekend prikkelend filosofisch werk over dat mijn denken én voelen de afgelopen maanden gekleurd heeft. Qua vorm neemt De Parasiet absoluut een bijzondere plek in binnen de filosofische geschiedenis.
Ondergaan
En misschien slaat het wel helemaal nergens op wat ik nu allemaal opschrijf. Een bespreking van een tekst is immers ook een parasitaire daad, waarbij je altijd je eigen ideeën projecteert op andermans woorden, waardoor je die woorden toch altijd op een bepaalde manier geweld aan doet. Wat Serres nou exact te vertellen had, daarover tast ik voor het overgrote deel nog in het duister, maar laat me je zeggen dat het zeker de moeite waard is om De Parasiet te ondergaan, om te ervaren hoezeer je kan genieten van een filosofische tekst die je niet (helemaal) begrijpt, om te voelen hoe het is om filosofie, gegoten in zo’n unieke, authentieke vorm, te mogen lezen.
blogpost
Voor een afgestudeerd filosoof heb ik een afwijkend carrièrepad gekozen, maar zeker de laatste jaren is mijn plezier in het lezen van filosofische teksten weer aangewakkerd. Toch was het alweer een tijdje geleden dat ik een ondoordringbaar primair werk las; het soort werken waarmee ik tijdens mijn studie veelvuldig in aanraking kwam en waarbij het doorgronden van zo’n tekst een project van de lange adem was. Ik was eigenlijk een beetje klaar met dit soort ingewikkelde teksten, maar dankzij De Parasiet van Michel Serres heb ik toch weer gemerkt hoe ongelooflijk veel voldoening en plezier je uit het lezen van een ingewikkelde tekst kunt halen.
Serres laat in De Parasiet zien dat iedere intermenselijke relatie en iedere relatie tussen het ik en zijn omgeving een parasitair karakter heeft. De relatie tussen gastheer en genodigde is de meest duidelijke vorm van een dergelijke relatie, maar de mens parasiteert ook op zijn ouders (en dan de zogende moeder in het bijzonder), op de natuur en eigenlijk op iedere relatie die de mens met zijn omgeving aangaat. Maar ons parasiteren is niet per se iets slechts. Parasieten zijn ook in staat om ruimtes te creëren waarin ze met nieuwe ideeën of kunstuitingen de omgeving kunnen beïnvloeden en veranderen.
Authentiek
Ik merk al langer bij mezelf dat het me in filosofie of literatuur eigenlijk al lang niet meer gaat om de ideeën of het verhaal zelf, en het boeit me in veel gevallen eigenlijk ook nauwelijks wat ik zelf nu precies van bepaalde ideeën vind. Waar ik wel wat van vind, dat is hóe bepaalde ideeën en thema’s voor het voetlicht gebracht worden. De meeste ideeën en verhalen zijn verre van uniek, maar de manier waarop deze ideeën en verhalen overgebracht worden kan wel heel authentiek en uniek aanvoelen. Juist die specifieke, authentieke vorm waarin ideeën gegoten worden, kan iets groots binnen in mij teweegbrengen; waren dezelfde ideeën in een andere, drogere vorm gegoten, dan hadden ze me waarschijnlijk totaal koud gelaten.
In het geval van De Parasiet is het vooral ook de vorm die me enorm aanspreekt. Het boek kent geen lineair verloop, waarbij met verschillende argumenten langzaam toegewerkt wordt naar een grote hoofdconclusie, waarbij de argumentatiestructuur een klassieke hiërarchische vorm aanneemt. In dit werk daarentegen cirkelen de verschillende hoofdstukken steeds om het thema van de parasiet heen, waarbij ons begrip van de parasiet telkens verder uitgediept wordt, maar waarbij het onmogelijk is om een hiërarchische structuur in Serres’ argumenten te ontwaren.
Ondoorgrondelijk
Daarnaast is Serres’ stijl nogal ondoorgrondelijk. Naar filosofische begrippen zou je de stijl zelfs ‘literair’ kunnen noemen. Dit is geen Heidegger waarbij iedere zin moeilijk, maar toch uiteindelijk begrijpelijk is, en waarbij je iedere zin móet begrijpen om de volgende te kunnen snappen. Serres’ zinnen zijn mooi, doorspekt met verwijzingen naar fabels en andere schrijvers en denkers, en vergen naast een filosofische ook een poëtische blik. Met enkel de ratio kom je er niet in het geval van De Parasiet; het gaat ook om het aanvoelen van wat Serres bedoelt en het tussen de regels door lezen. Ik durf wel te zeggen dat ik een heleboel niet begrepen heb van dit boek, maar dat ik wel gevoeld heb wat er op het spel staat, dat het ertoe doet wat Serres schrijft en dat ik ook van de zinnen die ik niet begreep genoten heb.
Nu denk ik zeker dat slimmere, filosofisch meer onderlegde mensen dan ik veel meer uit de tekst zouden kunnen halen dan ik heb gedaan na deze eerste lezing. Het punt dat ik wil maken is dat het er bij De Parasiet niet per se toe doet hoeveel je er nou precies van snapt. Toen ik eenmaal accepteerde dat ik niet alles zou kunnen begrijpen van deze tekst, bleef er alsnog een ongekend prikkelend filosofisch werk over dat mijn denken én voelen de afgelopen maanden gekleurd heeft. Qua vorm neemt De Parasiet absoluut een bijzondere plek in binnen de filosofische geschiedenis.
Ondergaan
En misschien slaat het wel helemaal nergens op wat ik nu allemaal opschrijf. Een bespreking van een tekst is immers ook een parasitaire daad, waarbij je altijd je eigen ideeën projecteert op andermans woorden, waardoor je die woorden toch altijd op een bepaalde manier geweld aan doet. Wat Serres nou exact te vertellen had, daarover tast ik voor het overgrote deel nog in het duister, maar laat me je zeggen dat het zeker de moeite waard is om De Parasiet te ondergaan, om te ervaren hoezeer je kan genieten van een filosofische tekst die je niet (helemaal) begrijpt, om te voelen hoe het is om filosofie, gegoten in zo’n unieke, authentieke vorm, te mogen lezen.
blogpost
March 9, 2021
"Yet the irrational infinitely keeps its differences and distances without ever ceasing to be mathematic. Okay. The book of differences, noise, and disorder would only be the book of evil for someone who would prohibit the Author of the universe, through calculation, from a world that is uncorruptibly dependable. This, however, is not the case. The difference is part of the thing itself, and perhaps it even produces the thing. Maybe the radical origin of things is really that difference, even though classical rationalism damned it to hell. In the beginning was the noise" (p.13).
October 23, 2025
There is no system without parasites.
It's interesting to see Serres develop a framework of relations, most importantly production and communication, all built on parasitic corruption. He defines a parasite in three ways, through biology, social relations, and lastly, the French meaning of static noise or information disruption. There were times when I was reminded of Deleuze and Girard. He's smirking at the Marxists as well. I'm not sure if this was super helpful for me, but I'm intrigued by Serres. Definitely need to finish Genesis soon.
It's interesting to see Serres develop a framework of relations, most importantly production and communication, all built on parasitic corruption. He defines a parasite in three ways, through biology, social relations, and lastly, the French meaning of static noise or information disruption. There were times when I was reminded of Deleuze and Girard. He's smirking at the Marxists as well. I'm not sure if this was super helpful for me, but I'm intrigued by Serres. Definitely need to finish Genesis soon.
August 11, 2011
Serres can be unecessarily unclear at times, but overall this web of gems, this song of haiku, inherits the best of Deleuze and (really) Bataille. Who parasites whom? Interruption, static, and the drinking of the host's blood intermingle in the same space, as mythology and especially fable inform economy and a close reading of Rousseau. Worth the price of entry, philosophically.
May 14, 2008
A beautiful book that needs multiple readings
October 27, 2008
I use this book to think about strategies for change in all aspects of life.
January 16, 2009
the noise...hermes?
February 7, 2024
A Certified Lost-In-The-Sauce Classic™ without equal. Ambarabà ciccì coccò. Three owls on the chest of drawers. The text that killed the first iteration of the Thoughtful Homies Club. Sure, we limped on for a stretch, but the momentum was thoroughly lost. We had dared fly too close to raw noumena and were seized, at last, by the demands of this mortal coil.
In that time-honored academic tradition, Michel Serres uses The Parasite to grab ahold of the titular word and work it for insight far longer than any sane person would consider reasonable. Noting its three meanings (in French, at least) – biological parasite, social parasite, and static/noise – he posits that at the synthesis of the three lies a fundamental comment about humanity’s relationship to modernity. "Real production is rare, for it attracts parasites that immediately make it something common and banal. Real production is unexpected and improbable; it overflows with information and is always immediately parasite," he writes. This infinite, recursive string of parasitic relationships (‘semiconduction’ as he calls it) is a vector always leading in one direction, a trophic cascade, a natural law. We are parasites for we clothe ourselves in our host (the animals, the plants, the fibers of this world). We are parasites for we scurry about gathering crumbs in the dark – the remnants of a glorious banquet. We are parasites for we feast on God.
Despite its negative connotation, Serres appears to be arguing for a reconceptualization of the parasitic relationship – proposing it as an essential, driving force. He depicts a sweeping, multi-layered genesis sequence. The parasite forcing irreversible currents into being. Irreversible physical time (the origin of universe born of static with noise), irreversible living time (life’s origin found in phages/parasites), irreversible historical time (the human parasite reaping a natural bounty from which it might craft its wonders). In the parasite, there exists a reconciliation of Serres’ two paradoxical yet irreversible flows: entropic and Darwinian, one leading to destruction and the other to complexity. As he notes, "Organization, life, and intelligent thought live between order and noise, between disorder and perfect harmony. If there were only order, if we only heard perfect harmonies, our stupidity would soon fall down toward a dreamless sleep; if we were always surrounded by the shivaree, we would lose our breath and our consistency, we would spread out among all the dancing atoms of the universe." The parasite – this irritant, this exploiter, this inefficiency, this source of tension, this third – creates relations and movement by exciting the channels between different stations such that their connections to not “disappear into immediacy.” It both creates and disrupts such relations. And it encourages its own counterforces, which thereby inflame the systems into states of glorious intricacy. Organisms evolve to see off parasites. Societies develop stabilizing mechanisms to transform their parasitic growths into towering creations. As it turns out, white noise forces neurons to decrease their response range and thereby better distinguish between similar tones – a study eerily perfect for Serres given his penchant for metaphors involving both mice and static.
Serres’ parasite thereby helps him elaborate on his central preoccupation: the fuzzy, ineffable, utterly exuberant interrelation of all things. "We are surrounded by noise. And this noise is inextinguishable. It is outside – it is the world itself – and it is inside, produced by our living body. We are in the noises of the world, we cannot close our door to their reception, and we evolve, rolling in this incalculable swell. We are hot, burning with life, and the hearths of this temporary ecstasy send out a truceless tumult from their innumerable functions." Many have positioned him, therefore, as a ‘posthumanist’ thinker seeking to decenter the individual from our conceptual understanding of the world and tear down the narcissistic blinders that obfuscate humanity’s connection with and dependency on the anarchic fecundity of its environment. There is a particular emphasis on the manner in which we define and direct our activity relationally around so-called quasi-objects. "We are buried within ourselves; we send signals, gestures, and sounds indefinitely and uselessly. No one listens to anyone else. Everyone speaks; No one hears; direct or reciprocal communication is blocked," he contends. Parasitic systems unto ourselves. At all levels shunted from immediacy by exploitative brakes in the flow.
In many ways, one could almost consider Serres’ project to be an attempt at ‘prehumanism.’ His is a primal philosophy that draws heavily on fables seeking to elucidate – viscerally, energetically, rather than through the cold chains of logic – atavistic tendencies that might better describe the cosmically baffling position in which we find ourselves. "I want to think without error, communicate without a parasite. So I set the house on fire, the house of my ancestors." However, while you rebuild, the rats return in the night. "Noise is part of communication, part of the house. But is it the house itself?" There has never been a system without static, he seems to be arguing. Static is not some nettlesome superfluity but rather an essential component. And yet, we set ourselves to work attempting to abolish the parasites. "Before daybreak, I am drawn to white revelation. Time is dense and incandescent," he writes. But before long, the call is too great. "I work myself to death so that so that amidst all this mess something transparent remains, so that a bit of light can be saved in this medley. I am expelled from paradise; I work; I shall die, drowned by disorder; I lie down among all this sadness and misery; I have lost my immortality." Herein, Serres describes humanity’s fundamental triumph and tragedy. The parasite rouses us from a dreamless slumber, from eternal nirvana. We seek to extinguish it through all our great acts. Our work is an attempt to purify a system powered by impurity. And therein we find our glory, our futility, our demise.
They’d filled the barrels in the basement with about half a foot of water each – just enough to drown a mouse once it exhausts itself treading water. Across the top of the open bin was placed a coke can skewered lengthwise by a wooden rod. I’d been asked to smear a dab of peanut butter on the tin so the mice would be drawn out onto its unstable surface and get shucked into the water. I couldn’t do it, though. They were parasites, but certainly no more than I. It was the holidays, and I grew frustrated with my family’s approach to gift giving. I couldn’t see the point in soliciting a list of desired items from each other and then ordering them online. It was a perfectly efficient, reversible loop without thought or serendipity or friction or spark. It was a push towards tautology. Towards soulless ceremony. An end to the last ounce of magic that exists in this world. Yes, I will admit that Serres’ work can be as affecting as it is messy. “The world is divine and is full of divine things. This sea, this plain, this river, this ice floe, the tree, light and life. I know it, I see it, I feel it, I am illuminated by it, burning... Yes, the divine is there; I touch it; these things are improbable miracles; I have never stopped loving the world and seeing that it is beautiful. Yes, my philosophy is adjectival; it is awe-struck. The real is not rational; it is improbable and miraculous,” he admits. His attempt to touch the real is admirable – imitate the structureless blend of personal and scientific and folkloric and metaphysical lenses through which we interpret the world. I can appreciate it. But it was not for me.
For every islet of lucidity, a morass of casuistry. To put it bluntly, I simply could not enjoy the process of trying to parse Serres’ unending torrent of free association and obscurantist spirals for meaning (how unsporting, I know). It was like reading Markov chain poetry. Or a manuscript written in some strange dream language. "The world is my diarrhea," Serres exclaims on page 146. I couldn’t help but put the book down for a second and laugh. In many ways, that’s exactly how this seems. A thinker ingesting the world and… well, let’s just say there’s certainly a lack of consistency to the output. The text is awash in esoteric symbology. Obsessed with stories and semantics. I couldn’t quite understand how a project that is theoretically so skeptical of human constructs could feel comfortable relying so heavily upon them for interpretative framing. I can only imagine that much of the shine was lost in translation, but that only helped make clear how much of this book relies on wordplay. And how hollow all that linguistic mesmerism appears when it loses its edge. When its unable seduce the reader with its pretty nonsense, a dearth of rigor is all that remains.
Or, perhaps, – nay, likely – the fault lies entirely with me: a lack of training and brain power needed to appreciate this work in all its splendor. "The parasite doesn't stop. It doesn't stop eating or drinking or yelling or burping or making thousands of noises or filling up space with its swarming or din. The parasite is expansion; it runs and grows. It invades and occupies. It overflows, all of a sudden, from these pages. Inundation, swelling waters... It is finally separate from me. Thus the horrible insect slowly left my room, through the creaking door." On that we can agree, sir. I sit here, all these decades later, doing my work – deliriously attempting to purge the world of static, locate perfect harmonies in your noise. I am engulfed in the world. I feed off your parasite and it does nothing but spawn a horrible insect of my own. This fruitless task further defining me, further killing me. I know I have not created order. I know I have found no forevers. I’m so sorry homies. We tried. But we will call it here. For I can be free of it at last. Come feast off this poisoned meal, O hallowed web crawlers. Consume me until there is nothing left. And together we will be immortal.
THC #13
In that time-honored academic tradition, Michel Serres uses The Parasite to grab ahold of the titular word and work it for insight far longer than any sane person would consider reasonable. Noting its three meanings (in French, at least) – biological parasite, social parasite, and static/noise – he posits that at the synthesis of the three lies a fundamental comment about humanity’s relationship to modernity. "Real production is rare, for it attracts parasites that immediately make it something common and banal. Real production is unexpected and improbable; it overflows with information and is always immediately parasite," he writes. This infinite, recursive string of parasitic relationships (‘semiconduction’ as he calls it) is a vector always leading in one direction, a trophic cascade, a natural law. We are parasites for we clothe ourselves in our host (the animals, the plants, the fibers of this world). We are parasites for we scurry about gathering crumbs in the dark – the remnants of a glorious banquet. We are parasites for we feast on God.
Despite its negative connotation, Serres appears to be arguing for a reconceptualization of the parasitic relationship – proposing it as an essential, driving force. He depicts a sweeping, multi-layered genesis sequence. The parasite forcing irreversible currents into being. Irreversible physical time (the origin of universe born of static with noise), irreversible living time (life’s origin found in phages/parasites), irreversible historical time (the human parasite reaping a natural bounty from which it might craft its wonders). In the parasite, there exists a reconciliation of Serres’ two paradoxical yet irreversible flows: entropic and Darwinian, one leading to destruction and the other to complexity. As he notes, "Organization, life, and intelligent thought live between order and noise, between disorder and perfect harmony. If there were only order, if we only heard perfect harmonies, our stupidity would soon fall down toward a dreamless sleep; if we were always surrounded by the shivaree, we would lose our breath and our consistency, we would spread out among all the dancing atoms of the universe." The parasite – this irritant, this exploiter, this inefficiency, this source of tension, this third – creates relations and movement by exciting the channels between different stations such that their connections to not “disappear into immediacy.” It both creates and disrupts such relations. And it encourages its own counterforces, which thereby inflame the systems into states of glorious intricacy. Organisms evolve to see off parasites. Societies develop stabilizing mechanisms to transform their parasitic growths into towering creations. As it turns out, white noise forces neurons to decrease their response range and thereby better distinguish between similar tones – a study eerily perfect for Serres given his penchant for metaphors involving both mice and static.
Serres’ parasite thereby helps him elaborate on his central preoccupation: the fuzzy, ineffable, utterly exuberant interrelation of all things. "We are surrounded by noise. And this noise is inextinguishable. It is outside – it is the world itself – and it is inside, produced by our living body. We are in the noises of the world, we cannot close our door to their reception, and we evolve, rolling in this incalculable swell. We are hot, burning with life, and the hearths of this temporary ecstasy send out a truceless tumult from their innumerable functions." Many have positioned him, therefore, as a ‘posthumanist’ thinker seeking to decenter the individual from our conceptual understanding of the world and tear down the narcissistic blinders that obfuscate humanity’s connection with and dependency on the anarchic fecundity of its environment. There is a particular emphasis on the manner in which we define and direct our activity relationally around so-called quasi-objects. "We are buried within ourselves; we send signals, gestures, and sounds indefinitely and uselessly. No one listens to anyone else. Everyone speaks; No one hears; direct or reciprocal communication is blocked," he contends. Parasitic systems unto ourselves. At all levels shunted from immediacy by exploitative brakes in the flow.
In many ways, one could almost consider Serres’ project to be an attempt at ‘prehumanism.’ His is a primal philosophy that draws heavily on fables seeking to elucidate – viscerally, energetically, rather than through the cold chains of logic – atavistic tendencies that might better describe the cosmically baffling position in which we find ourselves. "I want to think without error, communicate without a parasite. So I set the house on fire, the house of my ancestors." However, while you rebuild, the rats return in the night. "Noise is part of communication, part of the house. But is it the house itself?" There has never been a system without static, he seems to be arguing. Static is not some nettlesome superfluity but rather an essential component. And yet, we set ourselves to work attempting to abolish the parasites. "Before daybreak, I am drawn to white revelation. Time is dense and incandescent," he writes. But before long, the call is too great. "I work myself to death so that so that amidst all this mess something transparent remains, so that a bit of light can be saved in this medley. I am expelled from paradise; I work; I shall die, drowned by disorder; I lie down among all this sadness and misery; I have lost my immortality." Herein, Serres describes humanity’s fundamental triumph and tragedy. The parasite rouses us from a dreamless slumber, from eternal nirvana. We seek to extinguish it through all our great acts. Our work is an attempt to purify a system powered by impurity. And therein we find our glory, our futility, our demise.
They’d filled the barrels in the basement with about half a foot of water each – just enough to drown a mouse once it exhausts itself treading water. Across the top of the open bin was placed a coke can skewered lengthwise by a wooden rod. I’d been asked to smear a dab of peanut butter on the tin so the mice would be drawn out onto its unstable surface and get shucked into the water. I couldn’t do it, though. They were parasites, but certainly no more than I. It was the holidays, and I grew frustrated with my family’s approach to gift giving. I couldn’t see the point in soliciting a list of desired items from each other and then ordering them online. It was a perfectly efficient, reversible loop without thought or serendipity or friction or spark. It was a push towards tautology. Towards soulless ceremony. An end to the last ounce of magic that exists in this world. Yes, I will admit that Serres’ work can be as affecting as it is messy. “The world is divine and is full of divine things. This sea, this plain, this river, this ice floe, the tree, light and life. I know it, I see it, I feel it, I am illuminated by it, burning... Yes, the divine is there; I touch it; these things are improbable miracles; I have never stopped loving the world and seeing that it is beautiful. Yes, my philosophy is adjectival; it is awe-struck. The real is not rational; it is improbable and miraculous,” he admits. His attempt to touch the real is admirable – imitate the structureless blend of personal and scientific and folkloric and metaphysical lenses through which we interpret the world. I can appreciate it. But it was not for me.
For every islet of lucidity, a morass of casuistry. To put it bluntly, I simply could not enjoy the process of trying to parse Serres’ unending torrent of free association and obscurantist spirals for meaning (how unsporting, I know). It was like reading Markov chain poetry. Or a manuscript written in some strange dream language. "The world is my diarrhea," Serres exclaims on page 146. I couldn’t help but put the book down for a second and laugh. In many ways, that’s exactly how this seems. A thinker ingesting the world and… well, let’s just say there’s certainly a lack of consistency to the output. The text is awash in esoteric symbology. Obsessed with stories and semantics. I couldn’t quite understand how a project that is theoretically so skeptical of human constructs could feel comfortable relying so heavily upon them for interpretative framing. I can only imagine that much of the shine was lost in translation, but that only helped make clear how much of this book relies on wordplay. And how hollow all that linguistic mesmerism appears when it loses its edge. When its unable seduce the reader with its pretty nonsense, a dearth of rigor is all that remains.
Or, perhaps, – nay, likely – the fault lies entirely with me: a lack of training and brain power needed to appreciate this work in all its splendor. "The parasite doesn't stop. It doesn't stop eating or drinking or yelling or burping or making thousands of noises or filling up space with its swarming or din. The parasite is expansion; it runs and grows. It invades and occupies. It overflows, all of a sudden, from these pages. Inundation, swelling waters... It is finally separate from me. Thus the horrible insect slowly left my room, through the creaking door." On that we can agree, sir. I sit here, all these decades later, doing my work – deliriously attempting to purge the world of static, locate perfect harmonies in your noise. I am engulfed in the world. I feed off your parasite and it does nothing but spawn a horrible insect of my own. This fruitless task further defining me, further killing me. I know I have not created order. I know I have found no forevers. I’m so sorry homies. We tried. But we will call it here. For I can be free of it at last. Come feast off this poisoned meal, O hallowed web crawlers. Consume me until there is nothing left. And together we will be immortal.
THC #13
January 26, 2025
Na ander, interessant werk van Serres zag ik in deze vertaling van Le parasite, een mooie kans om mij verder te verdiepen in het denken van deze bijzondere Franse wetenschapper en filosoof. Helaas is het voor mij een onleesbaar boek, vol (schijnbare?) tegenspraken. De tekst lijkt bovendien eerder een "stream of consciousness" dan iets anders. Zonder uitgebreide (of expert)kennis van de Franse cultuur en literatuur vanaf de 18de eeuw, een gedegen kennis van de wetenschappen, in zonderheid de thermodynamica, geraak je niet zo ver. Dankzij een in wetenschap én filosofie beslagen vriend, hoop ik de these van dit werk begrepen te hebben, maar kan er niet veel over navertellen. Jammer.
December 31, 2015
DU PARASITE AUX SYMBIOTES
Ce livre inaugure une nouvelle phase dans l’œuvre de Michel Serres, après sa série des cinq HERMÈS, où il abandonne le style universitaire trop "conceptuel" pour parler par images et par personnages inventés. Publié en 1980, le livre garde toute sa pertinence à la pensée actuelle et au monde contemporain. Michel Serres part d'une vision négative du parasite, qui "prend et ne donne rien". Le parasite doit donc être exclu, autant que possible, pour maintenir l'ordre (informatique, vital, ou social). Cependant l'analyse montre que le parasite est capable de provoquer une réorganisation, un nouvel ordre, et que c'est le geste d'exclusion qui s'avère plus nuisible que le parasite. Une réponse plus habile et plus éthique serait de tenter d'intégrer les parasites, tout en neutralisant leur nocivité. Dès lors, le titre s'avère trompeur, et derrière la figure du parasite (au singulier) se dessine celle des symbiotes (au pluriel). Au lieu de l'exclusion, il faudrait privilégier l'inclusion. La logique du parasite exclu est binaire, il faudrait, dorénavant, composer avec une logique du tiers inclus.
Ce livre inaugure une nouvelle phase dans l’œuvre de Michel Serres, après sa série des cinq HERMÈS, où il abandonne le style universitaire trop "conceptuel" pour parler par images et par personnages inventés. Publié en 1980, le livre garde toute sa pertinence à la pensée actuelle et au monde contemporain. Michel Serres part d'une vision négative du parasite, qui "prend et ne donne rien". Le parasite doit donc être exclu, autant que possible, pour maintenir l'ordre (informatique, vital, ou social). Cependant l'analyse montre que le parasite est capable de provoquer une réorganisation, un nouvel ordre, et que c'est le geste d'exclusion qui s'avère plus nuisible que le parasite. Une réponse plus habile et plus éthique serait de tenter d'intégrer les parasites, tout en neutralisant leur nocivité. Dès lors, le titre s'avère trompeur, et derrière la figure du parasite (au singulier) se dessine celle des symbiotes (au pluriel). Au lieu de l'exclusion, il faudrait privilégier l'inclusion. La logique du parasite exclu est binaire, il faudrait, dorénavant, composer avec une logique du tiers inclus.
August 22, 2025
Le Diable s'occupe-t-il d'autre chose que du Diable ? Connais-toi donc toi- même, et jamais un autre.
September 19, 2016
Not sure what I just read
May 31, 2019
This review is combined with thoughts on Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing's The Mushroom at the End of the World: https://wp.me/p4LPys-mJ.
November 25, 2025
3 ‘Was the noise really a message? Wasn’t it, rather, static, a parasite? A parasite who has the last word, who produces disorder and who generates a different order.’
5 ‘The host is not a parasite in this sense, but in order to live in the house of the tax farmer, within his walls, in his larder, he is a parasite in the biological sense, like a common louse, a tapeworm, like mistletoe, an epiphyte.’
8 ‘In this somewhat fuzzy spot, a parasite is an abusive guest, an unavoidable animal, a break in the message.’
11 ‘What passes might be a message but parasites (static) prevent it from being heard, and sometimes, from being sent. Like a hole in a canal that makes the water spill into the surrounding area. There are escapes and losses, obstacles and opacities.’
38 ‘And that is the meaning of the prefix para- in the word parasite: it is on the side, next to shifted; it is not on the thing, but on its relation.’
84 ‘The fact that there is always a hare in the garden, an insect in the vineyard, or a serpent in Eden proves that they are open. All relations would have to be removed, a monad with neither hole nor door.’
144 ‘Parasite. The prefix para- means “near,” “next to,” measures a distance. The sitos is the food. In this open mouth that speaks and eats, what is next to eating, its neighboring function, is what emits sound. Para measures a difference between a reception and, on the contrary, an expansion. The latter makes one’s own what is in common and what will soon be even more one’s own, the living body. It already eats space.’
182 ‘A microscopic parasite can be introduced into an equilibrated pathological environment, or a good-sized parasite into an economically stable system, or a noisy parasite into a dialogical message; in any case, a (hi)story will follow’
184 ‘Noise in the sense of disorder, and thus chance, but noise also in the sense of interception, an interception that changes the order and thus the meaning, if we can speak of meaning. But that changes the order above all. The interception is a parasite ; we could have guessed as much. The new order appears by the parasite troubling the message. It disconcerts the ancient series, order, and message ; and then composes [concerte] new ones.’
184 ‘The introduction of a parasite in a system is equivalent to the introduction of a noise.’
185 ‘The parasite is an element of relation; it is the atom of relation, the directional atom [...] The theory of being, ontology, brings us to atoms. The theory of relations brings us to the parasite.’
187 ‘The parasite permits us to understand this maximal divergence. Its excessive demands make it always move further down [...] In this capacity, it exposes every system to ruin, it tends to exhaust reservoirs; it can kill everything it meets. But at the same time it multiplies the complexity which can be either suffocation or novelty’
196 ‘The parasite is an inclination toward trouble, to the change of phase of a system.’
210 ‘The experiment introduces a noise in the message of the box, a parasitic noise. There is no intervention without interception.’
217 ‘How does the parasite usually take hold? He tries to become invisible. We must speak of invisibility again. He becomes invisible by becoming very small. Bacterium, worm, virus, bacillus, phage—seldom if ever larger than the size of an insect.’
218 ‘He becomes invisible by making, on the contrary, a lot of noise. One can hide by being too visible or too perceptible. The parasite hides behind the noise and to-do of the devout. He becomes invisible by being impossible. Impossible, absurd, outside reason and logic. That is what is interesting; that is the point; that is what must be thought about. He becomes invisible in the inconceivable. Absurdity is the third included in the world where the excluded third dominates.’
248 ‘I carry the symbol on me and in me. You carry the symbol on you and in you. Like a hyphen [trait d'union] . This is mine, on me; it is in you, yours; tessera of exchange, a hyphen, a "trait of union." The symbol is a quasi-object and a quasi-subject; undoubtedly you are and I am a symbol.’
253 ‘The parasite doesn't stop. It doesn't stop eating or drinking or yelling or burping or making thousands of noises or filling space with its swarming and din. The parasite is an expansion; it runs and grows. It invades and occupies. It overflows, all of a sudden, from these pages. Inundation, swelling waters. Noises, din, clamor, fury, tumult, and noncomprehension.’
5 ‘The host is not a parasite in this sense, but in order to live in the house of the tax farmer, within his walls, in his larder, he is a parasite in the biological sense, like a common louse, a tapeworm, like mistletoe, an epiphyte.’
8 ‘In this somewhat fuzzy spot, a parasite is an abusive guest, an unavoidable animal, a break in the message.’
11 ‘What passes might be a message but parasites (static) prevent it from being heard, and sometimes, from being sent. Like a hole in a canal that makes the water spill into the surrounding area. There are escapes and losses, obstacles and opacities.’
38 ‘And that is the meaning of the prefix para- in the word parasite: it is on the side, next to shifted; it is not on the thing, but on its relation.’
84 ‘The fact that there is always a hare in the garden, an insect in the vineyard, or a serpent in Eden proves that they are open. All relations would have to be removed, a monad with neither hole nor door.’
144 ‘Parasite. The prefix para- means “near,” “next to,” measures a distance. The sitos is the food. In this open mouth that speaks and eats, what is next to eating, its neighboring function, is what emits sound. Para measures a difference between a reception and, on the contrary, an expansion. The latter makes one’s own what is in common and what will soon be even more one’s own, the living body. It already eats space.’
182 ‘A microscopic parasite can be introduced into an equilibrated pathological environment, or a good-sized parasite into an economically stable system, or a noisy parasite into a dialogical message; in any case, a (hi)story will follow’
184 ‘Noise in the sense of disorder, and thus chance, but noise also in the sense of interception, an interception that changes the order and thus the meaning, if we can speak of meaning. But that changes the order above all. The interception is a parasite ; we could have guessed as much. The new order appears by the parasite troubling the message. It disconcerts the ancient series, order, and message ; and then composes [concerte] new ones.’
184 ‘The introduction of a parasite in a system is equivalent to the introduction of a noise.’
185 ‘The parasite is an element of relation; it is the atom of relation, the directional atom [...] The theory of being, ontology, brings us to atoms. The theory of relations brings us to the parasite.’
187 ‘The parasite permits us to understand this maximal divergence. Its excessive demands make it always move further down [...] In this capacity, it exposes every system to ruin, it tends to exhaust reservoirs; it can kill everything it meets. But at the same time it multiplies the complexity which can be either suffocation or novelty’
196 ‘The parasite is an inclination toward trouble, to the change of phase of a system.’
210 ‘The experiment introduces a noise in the message of the box, a parasitic noise. There is no intervention without interception.’
217 ‘How does the parasite usually take hold? He tries to become invisible. We must speak of invisibility again. He becomes invisible by becoming very small. Bacterium, worm, virus, bacillus, phage—seldom if ever larger than the size of an insect.’
218 ‘He becomes invisible by making, on the contrary, a lot of noise. One can hide by being too visible or too perceptible. The parasite hides behind the noise and to-do of the devout. He becomes invisible by being impossible. Impossible, absurd, outside reason and logic. That is what is interesting; that is the point; that is what must be thought about. He becomes invisible in the inconceivable. Absurdity is the third included in the world where the excluded third dominates.’
248 ‘I carry the symbol on me and in me. You carry the symbol on you and in you. Like a hyphen [trait d'union] . This is mine, on me; it is in you, yours; tessera of exchange, a hyphen, a "trait of union." The symbol is a quasi-object and a quasi-subject; undoubtedly you are and I am a symbol.’
253 ‘The parasite doesn't stop. It doesn't stop eating or drinking or yelling or burping or making thousands of noises or filling space with its swarming and din. The parasite is an expansion; it runs and grows. It invades and occupies. It overflows, all of a sudden, from these pages. Inundation, swelling waters. Noises, din, clamor, fury, tumult, and noncomprehension.’
October 3, 2024
I'm giving this two stars because I couldn't get into it, but I know it's supposed to be a very important work in certain convoluted academic fields, and I just know there are some profound things in here, but they're very hard to pick out or parse. The writing style is... boring. The author starts out his 'playful' work talking about city and country rats, which is indeed playful compared to dry academic works where people spend 400 pages trying to prove something either fairly inconsequential or obvious, but most of the work is an annoying/boring writing style that says nothing every few sentences or so, repeats itself over and over (just like the translator and the person doing the introduction and the author note multiple times that 'parasite' can have 3 -- not 2 senses in French versus English)... Later the book feels like a mix of nonsense and name-dropping as Serres relates various fancy works throughout history etc. etc.
Now, I did find some cool stuff in here. There are chunks of quality holding forth hither and yon, but most of the books seems a filler akin to the ramblings of a mad man, or someone who spends far too much time alone (despite one of the points of the book apparently being that humans are not as autonomous as they think, and are, or should be, interdependent with people and things around them.) Apparently somewhere in here, Serres posits that parasites aren't so bad, and act as catalysts for change -- which I'm picturing as someone you work with who doesn't do anything but gets paid well and constantly represents the need for change which can motivate and represent a goal for the organization/staff to achieve, or an obstacle to overcome eventually. I got a breakdown summary of the book from here, because I most definitely skimmed this puppy.
I don't think I'm cut out for Poststructuralism and perhaps Posthumanism and Information Theory. So far I find works in these areas to be a waste of my time. It could be that I'm not smart enough to appreciate them -- definitely a possibility. Certainly I don't possess a wide knowledge of various esoteric works to understand all the allusions and points in Parasite.
Anywho, here are a few bits I found interesting:
- On production (or creation) and parasitism, page 4:
"...In the beginning is production: the oil crusher, the butter churn, the smokehouse, the cheesemaker's hut. Yet I would still like to know what produce means. Those who call production reproduction make the job easy. Our world is full of copiers and repeaters, all highly rewarded with money and glory. It is better to have interpret than compose; it is better to have an opinion on a decision that has already been made than to make one's own. The modern illness is the engulfing of the new in the duplicata, the engulfing of intelligence in the pleasure [jouissance] of the homogeneous. Real production is undoubtedly rare, for it attracts parasites that immediately make it something common and banal. Real production is unexpected and improbable; it overflows with information and is always immediately parasited.
- Master / Slave, 58:
"Struggle is rare, an exceptional case, in which the master has allowed himself to be found; it is the most optimistic figure in history. In fact, the master is afraid; he lives as if he is hunted; he lies down and hides. He sends out emissaries, sends lieutenants to fight in his place. If the one-instead [tenant-lieu] wins, the master wins; if he loses, it is not the master who has lost. As soon as the master is master, he fears death and lives with death, the reality of his power.
July 27, 2024
Dit – oorspronkelijk in 1980 verschenen – boek van wetenschapsfilosoof Michel Serres (1930–2019) ontregelt. Ontregelen is ook de taak van een parasiet: het onderbreken en verstoren van systemen. Door te spelen met de informatietheorie, thermodynamica, etymologie, parasitologie, theologie en literatuurgeschiedenis verkent en exploiteert Serres de verdwijning van het substantiedenken (de filosofische gedachte dat materiële entiteiten op zichzelf belangrijk en wezenlijk zijn), en de vervanging daarvan door een wereld die volledig bestaat uit relaties of structuur.
Serres werkt met het begrip “parasite” vanuit de drievoudige Franse betekenis. Het kan een biologisch organisme zijn dat binnendringt en van een ander leeft; een klaploper of praatjesmaker die zijn of haar welkom overschrijdt; en – in de informatietheorie – een ruisonderbreking, een bijgeluid. In biologische, sociale en communicatieve termen is de parasiet volgens S. een “excitateur thermique” (opwekker van warmte; p . 279; NL-vertaling Boom). De onderbreking veroorzaakt koorts, ontstekingen en systeemverhitting. Dat is niet per definitie slecht. In tegendeel, zonder parasitaire prikkeling zou alles stilvallen, ook de communicatie.
Er is bij S. een soort structuralisme te ontdekken, maar met als belangrijk verschil t.o.v. een klassiek-linguïstisch structuralisme een doorgaande instabiele ternair (parasitaire) structuur in plaats van een stabiele dichotome structuur.
S. schrijft bewust tussen de wetenschappelijke en filosofische tradities door. Zijn taal is associatief en meanderend, zijn betoog springt van fabels van Fontaine naar mythen en OT/NT-bijbelverhalen, maar evengoed lezen we over logica, evolutietheorie, jokers en het leven van Socrates. S.’ werkwijze werpt hierdoor een nieuw licht op de structuur van deze (soms zeer bekende) verhalen – en hij behandelt ze inderdaad als narratieven door zich primair te concentreren op de relaties van personages. Het levert verrassende inzichten op.
Echter, wie een hekel heeft aan S.’ dwalende denken of wetenschapsdisciplines graag gescheiden ziet, zal moeite hebben met dit boek. S. lijkt opzettelijk niet-lineaire bewegingen te maken, waarbij hij steeds opnieuw rond verschillende problemen cirkelt, maar dan weer met net wat andere, meestal literaire, voorbeelden. Zo zijn er zeventien teksten van La Fontaine, twee van Rousseau, een passage uit de Odyssee, en de geschiedenissen van Jozef en Tamar en de apostelen.
Het boek is interessant voor iedereen die, oneerbiedig gesproken, leeft van ‘praatjes’. Predikanten, journalisten, managers. S.’ parasitaire denken reikt je een bril aan om daarmee je eigen doen en laten (kritisch) te bekijken. Hoe parasitair leef ik? En werk ik als een gezonde of ongezonde excitateur thermique? Hoe is de balans tussen geven en nemen in het relationele netwerk waarin ik een plek inneem?
Serres werkt met het begrip “parasite” vanuit de drievoudige Franse betekenis. Het kan een biologisch organisme zijn dat binnendringt en van een ander leeft; een klaploper of praatjesmaker die zijn of haar welkom overschrijdt; en – in de informatietheorie – een ruisonderbreking, een bijgeluid. In biologische, sociale en communicatieve termen is de parasiet volgens S. een “excitateur thermique” (opwekker van warmte; p . 279; NL-vertaling Boom). De onderbreking veroorzaakt koorts, ontstekingen en systeemverhitting. Dat is niet per definitie slecht. In tegendeel, zonder parasitaire prikkeling zou alles stilvallen, ook de communicatie.
Er is bij S. een soort structuralisme te ontdekken, maar met als belangrijk verschil t.o.v. een klassiek-linguïstisch structuralisme een doorgaande instabiele ternair (parasitaire) structuur in plaats van een stabiele dichotome structuur.
S. schrijft bewust tussen de wetenschappelijke en filosofische tradities door. Zijn taal is associatief en meanderend, zijn betoog springt van fabels van Fontaine naar mythen en OT/NT-bijbelverhalen, maar evengoed lezen we over logica, evolutietheorie, jokers en het leven van Socrates. S.’ werkwijze werpt hierdoor een nieuw licht op de structuur van deze (soms zeer bekende) verhalen – en hij behandelt ze inderdaad als narratieven door zich primair te concentreren op de relaties van personages. Het levert verrassende inzichten op.
Echter, wie een hekel heeft aan S.’ dwalende denken of wetenschapsdisciplines graag gescheiden ziet, zal moeite hebben met dit boek. S. lijkt opzettelijk niet-lineaire bewegingen te maken, waarbij hij steeds opnieuw rond verschillende problemen cirkelt, maar dan weer met net wat andere, meestal literaire, voorbeelden. Zo zijn er zeventien teksten van La Fontaine, twee van Rousseau, een passage uit de Odyssee, en de geschiedenissen van Jozef en Tamar en de apostelen.
Het boek is interessant voor iedereen die, oneerbiedig gesproken, leeft van ‘praatjes’. Predikanten, journalisten, managers. S.’ parasitaire denken reikt je een bril aan om daarmee je eigen doen en laten (kritisch) te bekijken. Hoe parasitair leef ik? En werk ik als een gezonde of ongezonde excitateur thermique? Hoe is de balans tussen geven en nemen in het relationele netwerk waarin ik een plek inneem?
July 23, 2021
This is a book that really cements my belief that "reading the source" is a mistaken starting point for understanding a work. It's not evident what Michel Serres is doing in The Parasite without already having a prior understanding of its thesis or Serres body of work. Thankfully, Cary Wolfe's introduction goes a long way in this regard.
By focusing on the object of the parasite/noise Serres is able to move in ingenious and bewildering ways between fields such as religion, economics, physics, ecology, and of course philosophy. The parasite is the excluded third, the one which "excites" or "bifurcates" the relation; it both establishes the one-way relation and manipulates it. It reigns by this organization of relations, by forming a beneficial milieu, by staying hidden at the bottom of the well into which water flows - a flow itself marked by a chain of parasites. Through the scalpel. philosophy, or the plow humans attempts to expel the parasite; the plow purify the earth of noise and life, it demarcates an area as a clean slate. Descartes, unable to handle the noise of mice, burns down his own house to better find its foundation. By separating the cattle from the wolves through the pen we keeps out the noise of animals, but in so doing we're already playing a parasite. We manipulate the relation, we drink the milk and wear the wool, we form a noise inhospitable to other wildlife. We've spit the salad and they retreat in disgust.
And the text reads a bit like this, quickly shifting between this topic and the next, which is why I can't call it any sort of systematic analysis. A project I believe Serres doesn't find desirable in the first place. The Parasite has convinced me that there's a lot to use in Serres, but how to use it - without any system to fall back on and properly evaluate, is less clear. I'll have to look into how others have used him first before i dive into Hermes or Birth of Physics.
By focusing on the object of the parasite/noise Serres is able to move in ingenious and bewildering ways between fields such as religion, economics, physics, ecology, and of course philosophy. The parasite is the excluded third, the one which "excites" or "bifurcates" the relation; it both establishes the one-way relation and manipulates it. It reigns by this organization of relations, by forming a beneficial milieu, by staying hidden at the bottom of the well into which water flows - a flow itself marked by a chain of parasites. Through the scalpel. philosophy, or the plow humans attempts to expel the parasite; the plow purify the earth of noise and life, it demarcates an area as a clean slate. Descartes, unable to handle the noise of mice, burns down his own house to better find its foundation. By separating the cattle from the wolves through the pen we keeps out the noise of animals, but in so doing we're already playing a parasite. We manipulate the relation, we drink the milk and wear the wool, we form a noise inhospitable to other wildlife. We've spit the salad and they retreat in disgust.
And the text reads a bit like this, quickly shifting between this topic and the next, which is why I can't call it any sort of systematic analysis. A project I believe Serres doesn't find desirable in the first place. The Parasite has convinced me that there's a lot to use in Serres, but how to use it - without any system to fall back on and properly evaluate, is less clear. I'll have to look into how others have used him first before i dive into Hermes or Birth of Physics.
October 18, 2022
This is the book that kicked off posthumanities, the series edited by Cary Wolfe who also provides a useful introduction here as well. Parasite deconstructs not only philosophy but more importantly the organizing principles so long accepted as underpinning western thought whether it be enlightenment or Marxism.
Serres expands the paradigm of the parasite living off the fat of the host to analyze the way noise plays a part as a parasite and how the notion of which party in any given situation is the parasite gets determined. This relationship isn’t seen as dangerous or evil or debilitating but as fundamental.
To the benefit of this perspective for posthumanities, Serres refuses to center his thinking as limited to that of humans or to even suggest that human thinking is anything but a small part of what is necessary to make sense of the world.
Parasite reads easily with great use of images and literature and vividly presented ideas. However, that doesn’t mean that Parasite is easy to comprehend. I found it often a word shower that flowed over me enjoyable but which if quizzed on, I wouldn’t be able to cogently demonstrate any real comprehension. The task he sets for himself and presents to the reader is no less than what Cary Wolfe offers to sum up his introduction;
‘…Serres is not content to say that we must rethink certain notions, redefine certain concepts, he doesn’t say it, doesn’t argue for it, he just does it and in so doing, he sets out new coordinates for the praxis of thinking.’
Serres expands the paradigm of the parasite living off the fat of the host to analyze the way noise plays a part as a parasite and how the notion of which party in any given situation is the parasite gets determined. This relationship isn’t seen as dangerous or evil or debilitating but as fundamental.
To the benefit of this perspective for posthumanities, Serres refuses to center his thinking as limited to that of humans or to even suggest that human thinking is anything but a small part of what is necessary to make sense of the world.
Parasite reads easily with great use of images and literature and vividly presented ideas. However, that doesn’t mean that Parasite is easy to comprehend. I found it often a word shower that flowed over me enjoyable but which if quizzed on, I wouldn’t be able to cogently demonstrate any real comprehension. The task he sets for himself and presents to the reader is no less than what Cary Wolfe offers to sum up his introduction;
‘…Serres is not content to say that we must rethink certain notions, redefine certain concepts, he doesn’t say it, doesn’t argue for it, he just does it and in so doing, he sets out new coordinates for the praxis of thinking.’
March 29, 2024
Bij sommige stukken was ik wat de weg kwijt en dacht ik drie sterren ( voor deze lezer ) , bij andere stukken kon ik de schrijver beter volgen en vond ik het vijf sterren ,
Het boek deed me wat nadenken over cultureel parasitisme, en/of persoonlijk parasitisme , hoeveel geeft/krijgt men , hoeveel kan men geven/krijgen , waar ligt de lijn van de te ,
…misschien soms een gebrek van besef, of gewoonte , … een ander waarde besef , afval en van energie ontzogen door de ene , energiegevend voor de ander , evenwicht zoekende , symbiose,
Het boek deed me wat nadenken over cultureel parasitisme, en/of persoonlijk parasitisme , hoeveel geeft/krijgt men , hoeveel kan men geven/krijgen , waar ligt de lijn van de te ,
…misschien soms een gebrek van besef, of gewoonte , … een ander waarde besef , afval en van energie ontzogen door de ene , energiegevend voor de ander , evenwicht zoekende , symbiose,
November 4, 2024
The first half of this book is a parasite in the mind of the reader. Most would set it down and not finish. Then gradually your attention shifts and it actually begins to make more sense. The second half is some of the greatest writing in philosophy. If Serres is not your cult leader skip to the back since it’s worth it.
July 16, 2018
Trop cryptique
September 4, 2020
"It works because it doesn't work."
May 27, 2021
My understanding of host and parasite is forever changed, and as a result, so is my understanding of social interactions. Also the idea of quasi-objects and quasi-subjects is WILD.
July 6, 2024
Very relevant for communication and noise theory :)
October 25, 2024
Grandpa, tell us a story.
(the story)
Well, that's horrible, isn't it?
But this is precisely the point.
(the story)
Well, that's horrible, isn't it?
But this is precisely the point.
March 25, 2025
Argument is good but i do not have the brain power right now to decipher the language
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews