Some typos and perhaps improvable lines in the "Inquiry into MOE" book

Since I have read the "Inquiry to the MOE" book carefully , I send some points that seem to me typos or that they could be written better (I have put many questionmarks to my copy of the book in these points)




Possible typos

pg 420
"By following the sociotechnological arrangements, our investigator gradually learns to stop
introducing artificial distinctions between the gradients of materials offered by a slogan, a flowchart, an accounting technique, or a concrete wall [ORG. RES].

Is it [ORG.NET]?


pg 425
"What makes the extraction of this contrast so difficult is that it resonates as much with the beings of metamorphosis [MET.ATT] as with those of reproduction [MET.REP]."

Should the second be [ATT.REP]? By the way is there any significance in the order? (is [ATT.REP] different from [REP.ATT], in the way this terminology was originally conceived?

pg 444

"At the same time, though, she is brought up short by the difficulty of what she claims to be doing: describing acts of calculation so that calculation cannot replace description—which is nothing other than the unfolding of scripts."

It is not clear where this "which" refers to (calculation or description). I have the feeling that there may be some other places too where it was not clear from the syntax where some pronouns refer to

pg 446
"If the distillation of that amalgamation has required so much effort on our part, it is because the
Books of physics, chemistry, or biology are little known by the wider public, and because the Galilean metaphor has worn so thin that we still mistake knowledge for persistence itself [MET.REF]."

Should it be [REP.REF]?


pg 465
"Confusing the discipline of economy with reference makes no more sense than asking
religion to transport you to the realm of remote beings [REL.ORG], or expecting to come to terms with a loss thanks to a legal judgment [MET. DRO]."
I think that it should be [REL.REF] and [MET.LAW]

Points that have caused lots of questionmarks in my first readings (and some still cause me trouble when I reread them out of context)

pg 63

"Conversely, in an exploration of the [pre] type, networks [net] are now only one type of trajectory among others, while the modes have become incompatible, even though their felicity conditions can be compared for each pair, but only from the standpoint of [pre]."

This had caused me initially a lot of trouble. If the same is experienced by others, pehraps it could be written in a clearer way.

pg237

"But if everything is meaningful, if everything makes sense, this does not mean that everything makes signs. What can we say about signs? Let us say that a sign emanates from a mode of existence in due form. Whereas the sense comes ahead of the sign, a long way ahead, since trajectories are consubstantial with all modes, a sign would be a particular mode of meaning or sense that would form a sort of regional semiology and ontology proper to a particular mode."

Here too I have put many questionmarks in my copy of the book

pg 397

"If the plurimodal term essence has any content, it is virtually certain that one of its features depends on the organizing act. It is as though, with organization, we were discovering the beings of framing that only come into view, curiously, if we abandon the idea that above the scripts there exists a frame within which we could place them. To the first paradox—scripts obtain duration through what does not last—we must add a second: it is because the frames come from inside the scripts that they manage to frame them."

Lots of questionmarks once more

pg 435

"These beings that traverse us so tirelessly have to be called valence, energization, investment. Let’s say that value is the always risky lengthening, for quasi subjects, of the number of columns they have to cross, or, for quasi objects, the number of lines. To valorize is to register the appearance of differences, either by interposing a new line—we discover on the occasion of a new “product” that we have become capable of new interests or new passions, new attachments—or by interposing a new column— we discover on the occasion of a new “demand” that other combinations of materials and service can be brought into existence. If there is one thing that cannot be reduced to a transfer of equivalences, it is in fact the irruption of value—a new line, a new column, a new alien, a new alteration— or devalorization, the sudden disappearance of a line or column."

I had difficulty to make sense out of it, in the sense of a pictorial form that accompanies it. 

If I combine the information in the first paragraph I get something like:  

1) for quasi subjects, value is the always risky lengthening, of the number of "demands" (since it seems this is what "columns" correspond to)

2) for quasi objects , value is the always risky lengthening, of the number of "products" (since it seems this is what "lines" correspond to)

It seems to me that it is not written in a clear way or there is some kind of mixing here.