Plastir Number 41


Julie MORISSON is professor of letters, attached to Forell laboratory of the University of Poitiers and to the Aragon team of Item-CNRS, directed by Luc Vigier. She conducts research in literature and poetry, including the notion of transgenericity and recently defended a thesis on the novel of the art in Aragon, showing how the test brushes in her fiction and follows a genuine poetics of plasticity. She shows us here Aragon as innovative in literature that early perceived the impact of the plasticity of the language and writings in terms of dynamics and morphogenesis. Moreover, the author describes how acutely disciplinary hybridization led the poet and writer to integrate dynamic plastic in its products, whether the characters of the novel, painting or the ‘writing. The three series of Aragon approaches where plasticity prevails: « The complexity, multiplicity of meanings, perspectives and forms » that can add semiotics and iconic. Each time, Julie Morrison says his thinking: the plastic is taken in the graphic sense and language of the novel operates in the transverse field of orality and freedom of speech arrogating to words – unlike writing – the ability to spread or to blend. Similarly, it takes concrete examples from the latest novels of Aragon where the metamorphic power of the character (Fougère in Killing) echoes the « malleability » of the text, understood here as an instrument of deconstruction and recomposition during the diegesis and not false or friend during passive plasticity. This attitude validates its approach to us because it is not to violate the epistemic concept of plasticity, but to specify the limits and contours in literary work at work, as had previously shown Astrid Guillaume about the transgenericity sign, cited by the author. But back in the substrate, the meaning of the practice of the visual arts in Aragon, especially at the crossroads between writing and painting. For him, the author tells us in substance: « Plastic is synonymous with » shaping of matter. « The text is considered as a malleable substance that can be under the influence of another form; the concept includes that of « connections networks » and to suggest the concept of transdisciplinarity. Plastic finally returns to the material itself, the object-book. The text appears in a morphological perspective, as an organic body and able to change. This plasticity of the book is expressed metaphorically throughout the last aragonian period through a constantly split character. » That sums up the interest that must be brought to this analysis which is expressed both in dramaturgy of the character where the narrator disappears, reverses or changes shape Oulipian sense of the word, as in the plot gesture and disfigurement at work in the novel Matisse (paintings, rendered dreamlike painting) where the incursion of writing in painting Aragon specifically likens to ‘sign’ distinguished both linguists and art critics. Interesting approach to making large part ideography and the Aragon said himself, shouted at by the author: « Writing and painting in ancient Egypt, it was enough of a word to say » who unseal both the plastic potential of the mixed picture in word, but also « the power to write, describe and dis-write the painting. » Truly iconoplastic potential described by the use of italics in Aragon about color at work in Matisse or Chagall or in the plastic image of the walls of Aragon ultimate mutation of writing to painting described in the last chapter of the test. Aragon plays on the entire spectrum of the arts (theater, film, wallpaper, direction, performance, pictorial writing..) giving us to see, if not living, his poetic plasticity.


Abdelkader BACHTA is professor of philosophy at the University of Tunis. He is a part from regular authors of PLASTIR (N° 27, 29, 32, 38, 40) where he publishes studies on epistemological theoretical contributions of the mathematician René Thom. This work in particular results in the publication of two recent books: « René Thom and scientific modeling » (L’Harmattan, 2013), « The scientific modeling and its foundations » (MtL Publishing, 2015). In this edition, the author puts for the first time face to face Thom model and Comte’s positivism, posing immediately their common associative attitude regarding the link between thought and experience, but distinguishing the contribution Thomist in that it « reverses the law of three states for from Aristotle » and « gives the concept of Comte’s subjective synthesis an Aristotelian sense. » Examining in turn that « reason and reality » means in the Comtean context and its various influences (Kant, Bacon, Descartes and especially D’Alembert), compared to the Thomian concept being in the line of Aristotle and Turing as regards the morphogenesis, it comes to mean their methodological and philosophical differences. In fact, whether the reason – mathematical -, experience and object of study, these differences clearly express the Kantian duality between the phenomenon and the thing in itself. However, differences of approach of our two scholars expressed primarily about the epistemological nature of these elements: quantitative or qualitative mathematics, experience or experimentation object as a thing in itself or phenomenon. Abdelkader Bachta concluded that if the author of disasters appears to be positivist in the sense that it combines the manner Comtian mathematical reason to experience, it clearly separates the three statements respectively registers (topologist approach up quantitative refusal of the experimental method and phenomenisation of nature).


Henri ATLAN is a biologist doctor, philosopher and writer. Member of the National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) until 2000, he is professor emeritus of biophysics and director of the Human Biology Research Center of the Hadassah University Hospital (Jerusalem) and director of studies at the EHESS in Paris. Among his topics of study include self-organization of life and the theory of information or complexity. Among its many highly include books: « Between the crystal and smoke, Seuil, Paris, 1979; « Rightly and reason Intercritical of science and myth, Seuil, Paris, 1986 (Price Psyche 1987), » « Organic Organization and Information Theory, Hermann, Paris, 1972 (reprinted 1992), « The sparks of chance, Volume I: Knowledge spermatic, Seuil, Paris, 1999; Volume 2: Atheism writing, Seuil, Paris, 2003; « AU, the artificial womb, Seuil, Paris, 2005, » « The Living Postgenomics or what self-organization, Odile Jacob, 2011; « Beliefs, how to explain the world?, Otherwise, 2014. In this regard, our readers will no doubt have recognized the subtitle of the first version of the now classic essay by Henri Atlan entitled Is science inhuman?, himself from a text Spinoza challenging the Kantian paradigm of the subject and the notion of free will as we know it. This article is a reproduction of the preface that the author has written recently (2014) for the reissue of the book originally appeared in 2002. Necessary development for which shocked affirming the necessity stop lying to ourselves by saying we totally free to our choices. But Atlan, led Spinoza, reaffirms here it about: to exit the illusion of free will in the world completely determined in which we live. This is not to say that freedom does not exist per se, but to show its limits in a biological system or biologizing partly genetically determined and highly subject to its environment. Henri Atlan takes and builds on recent advances in medicine and biology, including epigenetics, to say that our freedom is in some way related to what we are and what we represent. Moral or rather deterministic ethics in this very specific meaning embarrassing ethics which cuts us from our human prerogative, which we believe so, but that is not the author mere vanity or divine assimilation, at least not humble. Do say yes to all-genetic and encourage some anti-humanism? Some may think so, but it would reduce the thought of Atlan which advocates a freedom based on the knowledge of our determinism, i.e. a degree of complexity in the decision making scale rather than illusory ability of free choice of our actions. And the author, with numerous examples, gives his views on legal responsibility of procreation (MAP) or gap between scientific progress (expansion of techno) and humanistic culture. How to reconcile this deterministic radicalism – I can be free to choose my actions, we are fully determined, the living world is worth only by its complexity, life is never more than an experience – and vision an inhuman world (although the author reminds us that only man conceives and mania), post human or transhuman? Henri Atlan gives us in this article some answers to these questions in terms of the new responsibility of the legal and policy or the constitution of the subject by stating that « infinite knowledge of determinism is not opposed to the freedom as horizon, but to the bases.  » These positions, which some describe as scientists – we think particularly to the exchange between Bertrand and Henri Atlan in Vergely « Are we free? « Recently published by Salvator (2012) raise questions, but cannot reduce it though. While critics see it as a mystery and a stifling of opposition to the dualistic nature of a man both free and determined, we think about ourselves, if the absolute determinism admits reasoning virtues within the meaning of Spinoza term, the fact remains questionable on one point: the essential irrationality or pure illogical that may (or should) exercise the creative brain facing a desperate situation or extreme urgency, unconditional love, unity contradictory in ternearity or adherence to a higher condition (art, poetry, sacred, even a singular state of consciousness). Radicalism adopted by Henri Atlan, however, the merit of the question in terms of body-mind entity indivisible and plasticity of the knowing subject (as we develop in other areas in the epistemological concept of plasticity). Anyway, we see that this debate brings back under the seal of modernity Cartesian notions as substance, thought and extension or other on the intelligibility of nature. Philosophical reflection on free will or « free necessity » is so far from exhausted!


Claude BERNIOLLES is a poet, philosopher and writer. After writing several articles on Wittgenstein PLASTIR (N° 20, 23, 25, 39). he celebrated with us the centenary of the birth of Barthes in an original essay highlighting the commemoration and offering an analysis of Barthes mirror Gide. In fact, if the press never tires of celebrating Barthes thinker, she does not forget the model and its biographemes Gide, Sartre or Sollers. But it is mainly its relations with the language and the « gidism » showing that « Barthes and model have the same affinities to literature. » Thus is explained the author of his choice, compared to Sartre’s influence far known of Barthes. For him indeed « Gide was the primitive germ of thought profuse, contradictory, profound, sometimes provocative Barthes … » which gives him the opportunity to observe in the mirror both « extra literary appearance, human posture, his life plan « and the other » copy of the work « and Claude Berniolles to conduct the quasi-psychoanalytic investigation of their family ties, their respective habitus and privacy, among others, in particular through RB / RB… before we get to the narration, the writings of each and intertextuality where entangle many implicit or explicit references to Gide in the work of Barthes. Finally, we have a description of the yesterday and today’s Barthes (with accents of Sollers according to the author) that through the figures or fragments broke into our living rooms and questioned us as to reverse the imaginary, language and modernity.

Les commentaires sont clos.


    Give your input !