Anti-Oedipus 03
By Felix Guattari 瓜達里
Translated by Springhero 雄伯
Enough of the break between: scene and contemplation.
對於場景跟沉思之間的斷裂，令人不能忍受。
Freud describes the authority ( instance) that observes, measures, criticizes and doubles desire.
佛洛伊德描述權威（遙控地）觀察，衡量，批評，並使欲望加倍
For example, when we are dreaming, there is simultaneously:
—a desire to sleep
—Eros
But it’s the same thing!
例如，當我們做夢時，同時性存在
—睡眠的欲望
—性慾
兩者其實同樣。
Desire for abolition and Eros are two things such that if we describe, distinctly.
—the subject of the statement in a scene,
—and the anti-scene of observation= subject of enunciation,
then it’s a politics of “ either or.” But if we unify, or unite, scenes and anti-scenes, then desire find the assemblage of the enunciation working through the statement.
泯滅的欲望跟性慾是兩碼事，所以我們分別描述
—場景陳述的主體
—觀察的反場景等於表達的主體
因此有「非此則彼」的政治學。但是假如我們統一或聯合場景及反場景，那麼欲望就會發現：表達透過陳述運作時兩者匯集。
There are shows going on in concert halls, in the street! You say something and things change…( Lacan adds—about psychotics—the syphilitic distinction between perceptum and percepiens: psychotics going lost in the enunciation-percepiens = impossible real= unconscious =another wall of China1)
音樂會大廳，在街頭，都在進行表演！你說某事，事情因此改變（關於精神變態狂，拉岡補充說，感覺跟受感覺之間的區隔像梅毒感染，變態狂迷失於表達跟感覺之間，等於是不可能的真實，等於無意識，等於另一座中國長城！）
Another thing: sublimation doesn’t just happen, as if by some miracle, anymore. You have to work at it. You have to doctor it! With Freud, it was like a miracle that drives could change objects. It was sort of the analyst’s voyeuristic passivity. Putting your foot into sublimation. “ Sublimate fast or you’re out of here! Asshole!” There is no perverse humanism. In any case, you’re better off dying, at least that way you have a choice, but until then…
另一件事：好似奇蹟一般，昇華不再自然發生，而是你必須努力以赴。你必須細心照顧！對佛洛伊德而言，欲念若能改變客體，簡直是奇蹟。介入昇華，那是分析師窺視般的被動。「昇華太快，你人就不在這裡！狗屎！」人本主義不允許違背常情。無論如何，你倒不如死算了，至少你還有個選擇，但是未死之前、、、
Orthodox criticisms of therapeutic finalism and the condemnation of adaptation, and suggestion, are rotting. Id, for neutrality.
對於治療的最終意義的傳統批評，對於適應的譴責及建議，逐漸腐蝕中。本我保持中立。
There is an end to schizo-analysis: it’s deterritorialization and the schizodation of desire. All artificial means and suggestions are good for arriving at this, a kick in the ass included!
精神分裂跟精神分析有個目的：將欲望除掉領域，並分裂之。要達到這個目標，一切人為方法及建議均可採用，刺激陽具亦包括在內。
There are not a zillion ways to get there. This is the revolutionary work of subversion: contracting a unit of desiring subversion ( “ gadgetzing” the socius!)
其實不必兆億方法就可以達到。那就是顛覆的革命運作：承包一個欲望顛覆的單位（將同事都機械化！）
Freud’s distinction between sublimation and idealization is still valid. But there is a break. That’s another thing. An “ other” sexuality. It’s more than that.
佛洛伊德對昇華跟理念的區別仍然有效。但是有個缺點。還有另一樣東西。「另外」一種性。不僅如此而已。
There is an artificial reinforcement, the production of sublimation and the destruction of idealization, the superego, etc. What I’m trying to say is something like:
有人為的增強，昇華的產生跟理念的毀滅，超我，等等。我現在所要說的是像：
1. The correlation between Lacan’s conclusion on “ the superego having to be taken as an individual manifestation connected to the social conditions of Oedipalim.”
其一：拉崗的結論的對應關係「超我必須被認為個別的證明，跟伊底普斯的社會狀況相關」。
2. Greimas’ thing on it being impossible for there to be any syncretism in geturl language between the subject of enunciation and the subject of the statement.
其二：葛瑞馬認為，表達的主體跟陳述的主體之間的肢體語言，不可能有任何融合。
It seems to me that both derive from the same system: personalization; but the “ spokesperson”-individual is not the subject of enunciation.
我覺得兩者都來自相同系統：人格化，但是作為個人「發言人」並不是表達的主體。
1. There is no subject of enunciation. There is no subject of the third articulation. Polyvocality economizes on the break function of the subject.
一：沒有表達的主體。沒有第三表達的主體。多音喧嘩精減了主體的斷裂功能。
2. That’s why idealization and the superego come from the intersection between the bi-univocality of the signifier/signified and the polyvocal field of desiring machines.
二：那就是為什麼理念跟超我來自符號具跟符號旨的雙單音的交會，以及欲望機器的多音領域。
3. If instead of an intersection there is a reunion, then you have what I call: the modification of the superego’s reception data.
假如不是交會，而是重新聯合，那麼我所說的超我的感覺資訊就會修正。
It seems that for Greimas, the syncretism that is supposed to regulate it is bullshit. It’s the unit, the anti-production of individuation: “ I mean what I mean.”
就葛瑞馬而言，應該規範表達主體跟陳述主體之間肢體語言的融合似乎是不可能的胡說。只有個別化的反生產單位：「我說的就是我的意思」。
Now the body is the scene.
The other is the same. The individual.
The equal, free and fraternal subject.
現在身體是場景。
他者也是一樣。個人的場景。
平等、自由、博愛的主體。
What Freudism did was divide everything up: where you had the illusion of an individual there are now desiring machines, and then he started over: no people. At lest three.
佛洛伊德所做的就是分裂一切：欲望機器存在於你有個人幻覺的地方。它甚至於跨越過去說，人不存在。其實，至少有三人存在。
Who is talking, who is desiring, ask Lacan. It’s the other.
But the other is a machine, not mommy—daddy!
誰在說話，誰在欲望，拉崗問。還有一位它者。
但是它者是一台機器，不是母親或父親！
The schizo-analytic revolution is about moving beyond the “ splitting” of the ego, beyond Kleinian explosion. We can’t be satisfied with fighting a losing battle anymore, we have to go forward, to the subject of enunciation; we’re not describing replacement scenes, psycho-dramatic scenes, psychoanalytic scenes, but abolishing he subject by constructing collective agents of enunciation.
精神分裂症跟精神分析的革命，要遷移到自我的「分裂」之外，克列尼客體關係的爆炸之外。我們不能老是打敗戰，我們要化守為攻。非但不要接受這種分裂，我們必須前進，到表達的主體。我們不要描述替代場景，心理跟戲劇的場景，精神分析的場景。代替的，我們要建立集體的表達代理人，來廢除主體。
p32—p33
The Anti-Oedipus Papers by Felix Guattari 瓜達里
Translated by Springhero 雄伯
https://springhero.wordpress.com
Springhero's Weblog 
Leave a comment