Enactivism

"Systems that continually create themselves are referred to in Enactivism asautopoetic. The components of autopoetic systems "must be dynamically related in a network of ongoing interactions" (Maturana & Varela, 1992, pp. 43-44). That is, the components interact in ways which are continually changing, but which at the same time allow for the continuation of interactions so that the system continues to exist. In addition, the interactions of the components of an autopoetic system are responsible for the production of the components themselves. In summary, an autopoetic system is an emergent phenomenon arising from the interaction of components which, by way of these interactions, give rise to new interactions and new components, while preserving the system's autopoetic character."

David Reid
http://www.acadiau.ca/~dreid/enactivism/index.html

These "components of an autopoetic system" that are responsible for their own production sound a lot like the "abstract machines" of Deleuze and Guattari.

Btw, Varela (see above) was a Buddhist apprentice of Chogyam Trungpa, go figure.

Since we construct "reality" through this "enactivism", the Surrealist mode of production attempts to tamper with the "compents of [the] autopoetic system" in order to create *new* or *experimental* "realities" (or meta-contexts) synthetically, meta-contexts which may not have been possible by simply "roll[ing] back and forth in the same old ruts," as Lao Tze suggested when he said "Do not innovate."

Another way to understand Lao Tze when he said "Do not Innovate / Roll back and forth in the same ruts" is to take the understanding that all enactivism, or enacting of "reality" (environment we are faced with) is equally an act of enacting or creating.

This goes back to what I was trying to say here.