iii.

Guattari, defined

Guattari appears to be an enthusiast for biological metaphors when describing his theoretical frameworks. The most significant extractions I found from the chapter Machinic Heterogenesis, especially in relation to the serial, are the concepts of heterogenesis, ontogenetics, phylogenetics and autopoiesis. Drawing on several references including Guattari himself, here are some definitions to set up a foundation for analysis:

In the definition offered by wordnet, heterogenesis is defined as “the alternation of two or more different forms in the life cycle of a plant or animal”.

Ontogenetics, according to Wikipedia at this point in time, describes "the origin and the development of an organism from the fertilized egg to its mature form".

Phylogenetics, on the contrary, is the "study of evolutionary relatedness among various groups of organisms (e.g., species, populations)... [and] treats each species as a group of lineage-connected individuals".

Hammer example:

“…the most humble instruments, utensils and tools which don’t escape this phylogenesis. One could, for example, dedicate an exhibition to the evolution of the hammer since the Iron Age and conjecture about what it will become in the context of new materials and technologies. The hammer that one buys today at the supermarket is, in a way, “drawn out” on a phylogenetic line of infinite, virtual extension.” (Guattari, 1995:40)

Basing it on the example present by Guattari, here is an example of these biological metaphors applied to a certain 'proto-machine', the hammer.

The present form of a hammer, such as the one above, could just be one of the many alternating forms in which the hammer exists through its lifetime (heterogenesis). The actual "life" of the hammer can be seen from an ontogenetic or phylogenetic perspective, whether it be its ontogenetic existence from the formation and discovery of its raw materials (wood and metal) to its ultimate wear and corrosion from use and time, or whether it be the actual phylogenetic existence of its technology; the notion or idea of the function of a hammer, spanning across variety of 'types' in an evolutionary, generational process.

Autopoiesis is another slightly different but vastly significant and relevant analogical term in the world of serial.

(auto=self, poiesis=creation)

It basically describes the ability to create and produce and re-generate and engender itself and its components. As Francisco Varela puts it, in contrast to the opposite allopoiesis, “allopoietic machines produce something other than themselves, (an example from Wikipedia that of an assembly line, where the final product, such as a car, is distinct from the machines doing the producing) while autopoietic machines engender and specify their own organisation and limits” (Varela quoted in Guattari, 1995:39).

Extracted from the current page on Wikipedia:

Autopoiesis literally means "auto (self)-creation" (from the Greek: auto - αυτό for self- and poiesis - ποίησις for creation or production), and expresses a fundamental dialectic between structure and function. The term was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in 1973:

"An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network."
(Maturana, Varela, 1980, p. 78)

I will present in later analysis how this highlighted portion is the most fundamental notion in regards to the function of serial, particularly the 'formula-ridden' soap opera.