道德地質學 02

道德地質學 02 雄伯譯

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Gattarie
德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

3. 10,000 B. C: The Geology of Morals
第三章：紀元前一萬年的道德地質學

(Who Does the Earth Think It Is?)
（地球認為自己是誰？）

Every stratum is a judgment of God; not only do plants and animals, orchids and wasps, sing or express themselves, but so do rocks and even rivers, every stratified thing on earth. The first articulation concerns content, the second expression.

每個階層都是上帝的判決，不僅是植物跟動物，蘭花跟黃蜂，連岩石跟河流，地球上的每一階層化的東西，都在歌唱或表達自己。第一種表達關係到內涵，第二種表達關係到表白。

The distinction between the two articulations is not between forms and substances but between content and expression, expression having just as much substance as content and content just as much form as expression.

兩種表達之間的區別不是在形式跟物質之間，而是在內涵與表白之間。表白有同樣多的物質當內涵，正如內涵有同樣多的形式當表白。

The double articulation sometimes coincides with the molecular and the molar, and sometimes not; this is because content and expression are sometimes divided along those lines and sometimes along different lines.

雙重表達有時跟分子與粒子巧合，有時沒有。這是因為內涵與表白有時順其途徑分開，有時沿著不同途徑分開。

There is never correspondence or conformity between content and expression, only isomorphism with reciprocal presupposition.

內涵與表白之間沒有一製或一貫，只有互相各自假設的異種同型。

The distinction between content and expression is always real, in various ways, but it cannot be said that the terms preexist their double articulation.

從各種方式看，內涵與表白之間的區別總是真實，但是我們不能因此就說，這些術語存在先於雙重表達。

It is the double articulation that distributes them according to the line it draws in each stratum; it is what constitutes their real distinction.

雙重表達分配這些術語，依照在每個階層中各自界限，這才是構成他們真正不同的地方。

(On the other hand, there is no real distinction between form and substance, only a mental or modal distinction: since substances are nothing other than formed matters, formless substances are inconceivable, although it is possible in certain instances to conceive of substanceless forms.)

（在另一方面，形式與物質之間沒有真正的區別，只有精神或情態的區別，因為物質道道地地就是成形的物料，沒有形式的物料是不可思議的，雖然在某些情況，可以構想一些沒有物質的形式。）

Even though there is a real distinction between them, content and expression are relative terms (“first” and “second” articulation should also be understood in an entirely relative fashion).

即使內涵與表白之間真有區別，他們也只是相對的名詞（「第一種」及「第二種」表達也只能以完全相對的方式瞭解。）

Even though it is capable of invariance, expression is just as much a variable as content.

即使表白能夠變化，它跟內涵一樣是個變數。

Content and expression are two variables of a function of stratification.

內涵跟表白是階層化功用的兩個變數。

They not only vary from one stratum to another, but intermingle, and within the same
stratum multiply and divide ad infinitum.

他們不但從一階層到另一階層會變化，而且混雜時，在同一階層內，會無窮盡地加倍跟減除。

Since every articulation is double, there is not an articulation of content and an articulation of expression—the articulation of content is double in its own right and constitutes a relative expression within content; the articulation of expression
is also double and constitutes a relative content within expression.

既然每個表達都是雙重，就沒有單純的內涵及表白的表達。內涵的本身是雙重的，組成內涵之內的相對表白，表白的表達也是雙重，組成表白之內的相對內涵。

For this reason, there exist intermediate states between content and expression,
expression and content: the levels, equilibriums, and exchanges through which a stratified system passes.

因為這個理由，內涵跟表白，表白跟內涵之間，存在中間的狀態：一個階層經過層次、平衡、跟交換。

In short, we find forms and substances of content that play the role of expression in relation to other forms and substances, and conversely for expression.

總之，我們找到內涵的形式跟物質，然後扮演相對於其他形式跟物質的表白的角色。在另一方面，我們也找到表白的形式跟物質，然後同樣地扮演。

These new distinctions do not, therefore, coincide with the distinction between forms and substances within each articulation; instead, they show that each articulation is
already, or still, double.

因此，這些區別並沒有相對應於每個表達之內的形式跟物質之間的區別。代替的，他們顯示出，每個表達，已經或衣舊是雙重的。

This can be seen on the organic stratum: proteins of content have two forms, one of which (the infolded fiber) plays the role of functional expression in relation to the other.

從有機體的階層，可看出這一點：內涵的蛋白質有兩個形式，每一個內摺纖維都扮演相對於另一個內摺纖維的功用表達的角色。

The same goes for the nucleic acids of expression: double articulations cause certain formal and substantial elements to play the role of content in relation to others; not
only does the half of the chain that is reproduced become a content, but the
reconstituted chain itself becomes a content in relation to the “messenger.”

表達的核酸也是同樣的道理：雙重表達引起某些形式跟物質的元素，扮演相對於其它元素的內涵的角色。被複製的鎖鏈的另一半形成內涵，但是重新被建造的鎖鍊本身，形成相對於「使者」的內涵。

There are double pincers everywhere on a stratum; everywhere and in all directions there are double binds and lobsters, a multiplicity of double articulations affecting both expression and content.

階層的每個地方都有雙重鰲鉗；每個地方，每個方向，都有雙重約束及龍蝦，雙重表達的多重性，影響到表達跟內涵。

Through all of this, Hjelmslev’s warning should not be forgotten: “The terms expression plane and content plane . . . are chosen in conformity with established notions and are quite arbitrary.

透過這些，希姆列夫的警告應該被銘記在心：「術語表達的平面跟內涵平面的選擇跟已建立的觀念一致，而且是強制的一致。」

Their functional definition provides no justification for calling one, and not the other, of these entities expression, or one, and not the other, content.

他們的功用的定義並沒有理由召喚這些實體之一的表達，或另一實體的內涵。

They are defined only by their mutual solidarity, and neither of them can be identified otherwise.

他們只是根據互相的團結下定義，沒有一個能根據其它方式下定義。

They are defined only oppositively and relatively, as mutually opposed functives of one and the same function.”6

他們只是相反及相對地下定義，某一個相同的功用互相相對的功用。

We must combine all the resources of real distinction, reciprocal presupposition, and general relativism.

我們必須聯合真正區別、互相假定及一般相對論的所有資源。

The question we must ask is what on a given stratum varies and what does not.

我們必須問的問題是：在某個階層，何者會變化？何者不變化？

What accounts for the unity and diversity of a stratum? Matter, the pure matter of the plane of consistency (or inconsistency) lies outside the strata.

何者可以解釋階層的一致及多樣性？物料，一致（或不一致）平面的純粹物料，存在於階層之外。

The molecular materials borrowed from the substrata may be the same throughout a stratum, but that does not mean that the molecules will be the same.

從次階層借用過來的分子物料，在階層各處可能相同，但這並不意味著，分子將會相同。

The substantial elements may be the same throughout the stratum without the substances being the same.

物質的元素在階層各處可能相同，而物質並不相同。

The formal relations or bonds may be the same without the forms being the same.

形式關係或契合可能相同，但形式並不相同。

In biochemistry, there is a unity of composition of the organic stratum defined at the level of materials and energy, substantial elements or radicals, bonds and reactions.

在生物化學，有有機階層組合的一致性，根據物料及能源、物質元素或根素、契合及反應等層次下定義。

But there is a variety of different molecules, substances, and forms. Should we not sing the praise of Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire?

但是分子、物質跟形式有許多種。我們難道不應該像聖希拉爾般讚不絕口嗎？

For in the nineteenth century he developed a grandiose conception of stratification.

因為在十九世紀，他對階層化提出恢宏的構想。

He said that matter, considered from the standpoint of its greatest divisibility, consists in particles of decreasing size, flows or elastic fluids that “deploy themselves” by radiating through space.

他說，從最大可除盡的觀點看，物料在於逐漸變小的粒子，在於流動或彈性液體，他們透過空間散發，自行展開。

Combustion is the process of this escape or infinite division on the plane of consistency.

燃燒就是這個在一致性平面上的逃避或無限除盡的過程。

Electrification is the opposite process, constitutive of strata; it is the process whereby similar particles group together to form atoms and molecules, similar molecules to
form bigger molecules, and the biggest molecules to form molar aggregates:
“the attraction of like by like,” as in a double pincer or double articulation.

來電就是相反的過程，階層的組成；憑藉這個過程，相同粒子聚集形成原子及分子，相同分子聚集形成更大分子，最大分子聚集形成壓制聚合體：「同性相吸」，如同在雙重鰲鉗或雙重表達。

Thus there is no vital matter specific to the organic stratum, matter is the same on all the strata.

因此有機階層並沒有明確的生命力物料；物料在各個階層上是相同的。

But the organic stratum does have a specific unity of composition, a single abstract Animal, a single machine embedded in the stratum, and presents everywhere the same molecular materials, the same elements or anatomical components of organs, the same formal connections.

但是有基階層確實有明確的組合一致性，一個單一的抽象動物，一台鑲嵌於階層的機器，到處呈現相同的分子物料，器官的相同元素或解剖成份，相同的形式連接。

Organic forms are nevertheless different from one another, as are organs, compound substances, and molecules.

可是，有機的形式互相不同，如同器官、組合物質、及分子互相不同。

It is of little or no importance that Geoffroy chose anatomical elements as the substantial units rather than protein and nucleic acid radicals.

聖希拉爾選擇解剖元素，而不是蛋白質及核酸根素當著物質單位，這並非是重點。

At any rate, he already invoked a whole interplay of molecules.

無論如何，他已經召喚分子的整個運作。

The important thing is the principle of the simultaneous unity and variety of the stratum: isomorphism of forms but no correspondence; identity of elements or components but no identity of compound substances.

重要的是同時性一致及階層多樣的原理；形式的同型性但是沒有對應、元素的認同，或是有成份，但是組成的物質並不認同。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

道德地質學 01

道德地質學 01 雄伯譯

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Gattarie
德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

3. 10,000 B. C: The Geology of Morals
第三章：紀元前一萬年的道德地質學

(Who Does the Earth Think It Is?)
（地球認為自己是誰？）

Double Articulation 雙重表達

The same Professor Challenger who made the Earth scream with his pain machine, as described by Arthur Conan Doyle, gave a lecture after mixing several textbooks on geology and biology in a fashion befitting his simian disposition.

偵探小說作者柯南、道爾曾描述過一位張廉吉教授，用一台他的拷問機器，逼使地球尖叫。這位教授以其特有的人猿性情的方式，綜貫好幾本地質學及生物學的教科書，發表演講。

He explained that the Earth—the Deterritorialized, the Glacial, the giant Molecule—is a body without organs.

他解釋說：解除轄域，冰河期，及大分子的地球，是沒有器官的身體。

This body without organs is permeated by unformed, unstable matters, by flows in all directions, by free intensities or nomadic singularities, by mad or transitory particles.

這個沒有器官的身體瀰漫著沒有形式的不穩定物質，朝四面八方流動，激情任意不定，分子狂飃倏忽，有著逐水草而居的遊牧特質。

That, however, was not the question at hand. For there simultaneously occurs upon the earth a very important, inevitable phenomenon that is beneficial in many respects and unfortunate in many others: stratification.

可是，這個並不是我們目前要討論的問題。因為在這個地球上同時發生一件重大的無可避免的現象，許多方面是有利益的，可是不幸的，在其它方面，形成階層。

Strata are Layers, Belts. They consist of giving form to matters, of imprisoning intensities or locking singularities into systems of resonance and redundancy, of producing upon the body of the earth molecules large and small and organizing them into molar aggregates.

階層就是層層纏繞。階層組成是因為物質擁有形式，激情被囚禁，或獨特性被封鎖成為拾人牙慧，在地球上產生的大大小小的分子，並且組織成為分子聚落。

Strata are acts of capture, they are like “black holes” or occlusions striving to seize whatever comes within their reach.

階層是捉取的行動。像是「黑洞」或吸納器，設法攫取任何進入他們範圍的東西。

They operate by coding and territorialization upon the earth; they proceed simultaneously by code and by territoriality.

他們的運作方式是將地球符碼化及轄域化；同時又符碼再符碼，轄域再轄域，層層繼續下去。

The strata are judgments of God; stratification in general is the entire system of the judgment of God (but the earth, or the body without organs, constantly eludes that judgment, flees and becomes destratified, decoded, deterritorialized).

階層就是上帝的判決，整體階層就是上帝判決的整個系統（可是，地球或沒有器官的身體，卻又不斷地逃避那個判決，逃離而成為解除階層，解除符碼，解除轄域）。

Challenger quoted a sentence he said he came across in a geology textbook. He said we needed to learn it by heart because we would only be in a position to understand it later on: “A surface of stratification is a more compact plane of consistency lying between two layers.”

張廉吉教授引述一句他在地質學教科書偶然看到的句子。他說我們需要先記背來，日後自然就會了解：「階層的表面是兩個層面之間，一個更加緊密的光滑層面。」

The layers are the strata. They come at least in pairs, one serving as substratum for the other. The surface of stratification is a machinic assemblage distinct from the strata.

這些層面就是階層。他們至少都是成雙成對，互為對方的次階層。階層的表面是機械般的裝配，不同於階層。

The assemblage is between two layers, between two strata; on one side it faces the strata (in this direction, the assemblage is an inter stratum), but the other side faces something else, the body without organs or plane of consistency (here, it is a metastratum). In effect, the body without organs is itself the plane of consistency, which becomes compact or thickens at the level of the strata.

裝配處於兩個層面之間，兩個階層之間，一邊面向著階層（朝這個方向，裝配是內階層），但是另一邊面向別的東西，沒有器官的身體或光滑的平面（在此，裝配是虛擬階層）。事實上，沒有器官的身體本身就是光滑的平面，在階層的層面上變得更加緊密或濃密。

God is a Lobster, or a double pincer, a double bind. Not only do strata come at least in pairs, but in a different way each stratum is double (it itself has several layers). Each stratum exhibits phenomena constitutive of double articulation. Articulate twice, B-A, BA.

上帝是大龍蝦，有一對鰲鉗或一對夾鉗。階層不但成雙成對，而且每個階層都是雙層，儘管方式各異（它本身就有好幾道層面）。每個階層都展示雙重表達所組成的現象，例如是非、善惡等二元對立。

This is not at all to say that the strata speak or are language based. Double articulation is so extremely variable that we cannot begin with a general model, only a relatively simple case.

這並不是說，階層會言說，或是以語言為基礎。雙重表達變數很多，我們無法一開頭就豎立一般模式，那是較簡單的說法。

The first articulation chooses or deducts, from unstable particleflows, metastable molecular or quasi-molecular units (substances) upon which it imposes a statistical order of connections and successions (forms).

第一層表達是減除或扣除，從不穩定的分子流動，虛穩定或假分子的單位，因為這些單位有著統計的連接及連續形式的秩序。

The second articulation establishes functional, compact, stable structures (forms), and constructs the molar compounds in which these structures are simultaneously actualized (substances).

第二層表達建立功用性的緊密的穩定結構形式，然後建立分子組合，讓這些結構同時可以實現物質。

In a geological stratum, for example, the first articulation is the process of “sedimentation,” which deposits units of cyclic sediment according to a statistical order: flysch, with its succession of sandstone and schist.

例如，在地質的階層，第一層表達是「渣滓」的過程，依照統計的秩序，沉澱循環渣滓的單位：積層岩有沙岩跟片岩的疊積。

The second articulation is the “folding” that sets up a stable functional structure and effects the passage from sediment to sedimentary rock.

第二層表達是「折疊」，建立起穩定的功用性結構，然後形成從渣滓到渣滓岩的通路。

It is clear that the distinction between the two articulations is not between substances and forms. Substances are nothing other than formed matters. Forms imply a code, modes of coding and decoding.

顯然，雙重表達之間的區別不是在於物質及形式。物質僅僅就是組成的物料。形式意味著符碼，符碼化及解除符碼的模式。

Substances as formed matters refer to territorialities and degrees of territorialization and deterritorialization. But each articulation has a code and a territorially;
therefore each possesses both form and substance.

物質作為組成的物料，涉及到轄域，轄域的程度，及解除轄域。但是每個表達都有符碼跟轄域，因此各擁有形式跟物質。

For now, all we can say is that each articulation has a corresponding type of segmentarity or multiplicity: one type is supple, more molecular, and merely ordered; the other is more rigid, molar, and organized.

至於現在，我們所能說的是，每個表達都有相對應的渣滓或多重性：一種是鬆散的分子秩序，另一種則是嚴密的分子組織。

Although the first articulation is not lacking in systematic interactions, it is in the second articulation in particular that phenomena constituting an overcoding are produced, phenomena of centering, unification, totalization, integration, hierarchization, and finalization.

雖然系統的互動並不缺乏第一種表達，但是產生形成過度符碼的現象，產生中央集權、大一統、一體化、合併、階層化、及最後上面裁決等現象，特別是發生在第二種表達。

Both articulations establish binary relations between their respective segments. But between the segments of one articulation and the segments of the other there are biunivocal relationships obeying far more complex laws.

兩種表達都建立各自的渣滓之間的二元關係。但是在一種表達的渣滓跟另一種表達的渣滓之間，有著雙重的單一關係，遵照更加複雜的法則。

The word “structure” may be used to designate the sum of these relations and relationships, but it is an illusion to believe that structure is the earth’s last word.

「結構」此字可以用來指明這些二元關係及雙重單一關係的數目，但是若以為用結構就可以將地球定調，那可是妄想。

Moreover, it cannot be taken for granted that the distinction between the two articulations is always that of the molecular and the molar.

而且，我們不能理所當然地認為，兩種表達之間的區別總是分子跟粒子之間的區別。

He skipped over the immense diversity of the energetic, physicochemical, and geological strata. He went straight to the organic strata, or the existence of a great organic stratification.

能源階層，物理跟化學階層，及地質階層廣裘多樣，我們暫時避而不論，直接到達有機體階層，或有機體階層的存有地帶。

The problem of the organism—how to “make” the body an organism—is once again a problem of articulation, of the articulatory relation.

有機體的問題，也就是如何使身體成為有機體，在此再一次成為是表達的問題，表達的關係的問題。

The Dogons, well known to the professor, formulate the problem as follows: an organism befalls the body of the smith, by virtue of a machine or machinic assemblage that stratifies it.

張廉吉教授耳熟能詳的道元禪宗描述這個問題如下：有機體落在鐵匠的身體，憑藉機器或機械的裝配，使它形成階層。

“The shock of the hammer and the anvil broke his arms and legs at the elbows and knees, which until that moment he had not possessed. In this way, he received the articulations specific to the new human form that was to spread across the earth, a form dedicated to work…. His arm became folded with a view to work.”

「鐵鎚及鐵鉆的猛擊，使他的手臂跟腳在手肘及膝蓋處斷裂，雖然在那個時刻之前，他並未擁有手肘及膝蓋。以這種方式，他接收到新的人類形體特有的表達，他新的人類形體將遍佈地球，是個致力於工作的形體。為了工作，他的手臂變得可以彎伸。」

It is obviously only a manner of speaking to limit the articulatory relation to the bones. The entire organism must be considered in relation to a double articulation, and on different levels.

將表達的關係限制於骨頭，顯然只是言說的方式之一。整個有機體必須被認為是在不同層次上，跟雙重表達的關係。

First, on the level of morphogenesis: on the one hand, realities of the molecular type with aleatory relations are caught up in crowd phenomena or statistical aggregates determining an order (the protein fiber and its sequence or segmentarity); on the other hand, these aggregates themselves are taken up into stable structures that “elect” stereoscopic compounds, form organs, functions, and regulations, organize molar mechanisms, and even distribute centers capable of overflying crowds, overseeing mechanisms, utilizing and repairing tools, “overcoding” the aggregate (the folding
back on itself of the fiber to form a compact structure; a second kind of segmentarity). Sedimentation and folding, fiber and infolding.

首先，在器官形態發生的層次：在一方面，分子類型偶然關係的現實，受困於決定秩序的群體現象或統計聚落（蛋白質纖維及其基因系列或沉澱）；在另一方面，這些聚落本身也凝聚成為穩定的結構，結構則精選立體的組合，形成器官、功用跟規則，組織分子機構，甚至分派各處中心，能夠超越群眾，監督機構，使用及修復工具，並使聚落「過度符碼化」（纖維本身可以折疊，形成緊密的結構，第二種沉澱）。沉澱及折疊，纖維及再折疊。

On a different level, the cellular chemistry presiding over the constitution of proteins also operates by double articulation.

在不同層次上，管轄蛋白質成份的細胞化學，也以雙重表達運作。

This double articulation is internal to the molecular, it is the articulation between small and large molecules, a segmentarity by successive modifications and polymerization.

雙重表達是分子的內部，是大小分子之間的表達，是連續修改及聚合的沉澱。

“First, the elements taken from the medium are combined through a series of transformations.. . .All this activity involves hundreds of chemical reactions.

首先，從媒介中得來的元素，透過一系列的轉換組合起來。所有這個活動牽涉到數百個化學反應。

But ultimately, it produces a limited number of small compounds, a few dozen at most. In the second stage of cellular chemistry, the small molecules are assembled to produce larger ones.

但是最後，它產生少數的小組合，充其量是幾什個。在細胞化學的第二階段，小分子被吸收來產生更大的分子。

It is the polymerization of units linked end-to-end that forms the characteristic chains of macromolecules.

這些單位的首尾聚合，形成大分子的特有連鎖。

. .. The two stages of cellular chemistry, therefore, differ in their function, products and nature.

因此，細胞化學的兩個階段，在他們的功用，產品及特性方面，都大不相同。

The first carves out chemical motifs; the second assembles them. The first forms compounds that exist only temporarily, for they are intermediaries on the path of biosynthesis; the second constructs stable products.

第一階段刻劃出化學主題，第二階段裝配他們。第一階段形成暫時存在的組合，因為他們在生物合成的過程是中介，第二階段才建造穩定的產品。

The first operates by a series of different reactions; the second by repeating the same reaction.”4

第一階段以一系列的不同反應運作，第二階段則以重複相同反應運作。

There is, moreover, a third level, upon which cellular chemistry itself depends.

而且，還有第三階段，那是細胞化學所依賴的。

It is the genetic code, which is in turn inseparable from a double segmentarity or a double articulation, this time between two types of independent molecules: the sequence of protein units and the sequence of nucleic units, with binary relations between units of the same type and biunivocal relationships between units of different types.

基因符碼跟雙重沉澱或雙重表達互不可分，這一次是在兩種獨立的分子之間：蛋白質單位的系列，跟核子單位的系列，在相同種類得單位，有雙邊的關係，在不同種類的單位之間，有兩個單邊關係。

Thus there are always two articulations, two segmentarities, two kinds of multiplicity, each of which brings into play both forms and substances.

因此，總是有兩種表達，兩種沉澱，兩種多重性，每一種都運作到形式跟物質。

But the distribution of these two articulations is not constant, even within the same stratum.

但是這兩種表達的分配並不是固定的，即使是在相同的階層範圍。

The audience rather sulkily denounced the numerous misunderstandings,
misinterpretations, and even misappropriations in the professor’s presentation, despite the authorities he had appealed to, calling them his “friends.”

張廉吉教授演講時，聽眾相當慍怒地抨擊無數的誤解，誤導，甚至誤用，儘管他訴諸權威人士，跟他們平起平坐。

Even the Dogons . . . And things would presently get worse.

即使是跟道元禪宗。看來情況會更加惡化。

The professor cynically congratulated himself on taking his pleasure from behind, but the offspring always turned out to be runts and wens, bits and pieces, if not stupid vulgarizations.

教授自我解嘲地慶幸自己有後起之秀，但後續者卻總證明是並非棟樑之材，即使不是委瑣鄙陋，也是不堪造就。

Besides, the professor was not a geologist or a biologist, he was not even a linguist, ethnologist, or psychoanalyst; what his specialty had been was long since forgotten.

除外，教授並非是地質學家或生物學家，甚至也不是語言學家，民族學者，或精神分析師；他的專業是什麼早已經為人遺忘。

In fact, Professor Challenger was double, articulated twice, and that did not make things any easier, people never knew which of him was present.

事實上，張廉吉教授是雙重身份，表達兩次。可是這樣說未必使事情更加明白，因為人們不知道，他表現的是哪一種身份。

He (?) claimed to have invented a discipline he referred to by various names: rhizomatics, stratoanalysis, schizoanalysis, nomadology, micropolitics, pragmatics, the science of multiplicities.

他（哪個他？）宣稱他曾經用不同名稱，提倡他所提到的學問：塊莖、階層分析，精神分裂分析、遊牧學、微小政治學、實用論、多重化學。

Yet no one clearly understood what the goals, method, or principles of this discipline were.

可是，沒有人清楚地瞭解這門學問的目標、方法、或原理是什麼。

Young Professor Alasca, Challenger’s pet student, tried hypocritically to defend him by explaining that on a given stratum the passage from one articulation to the other was easily verified because it was always accompanied by a loss of water, in
genetics as in geology, and even in linguistics, where the importance of the
“lost saliva” phenomenon is measured.

年輕的阿拉斯卡教授是張廉吉教授的得意門生，曾經假惺惺地替他辯護說，在某個階層，從一個表達到另一個表達的過程很容易被驗證，因為那總是伴隨著水份的損失。在基因學、地質學，甚至語言學，「唾液減損」現象的重要性，是可以測量出來。

Challenger took offense, preferring to cite his friend, as he called him, the Danish Spinozist geologist, Hjelmslev, that dark prince descended from Hamlet who also made language his concern, precisely in order to analyze its “stratification.”

張廉吉教授甚感不以為然，他寧可引述他的朋友，專擅史賓諾莎哲學的丹麥地質學家，希姆列夫：黑暗王子的先行者是莎士比亞名劇中的主人翁哈姆雷特，因為他對於語言耿耿於懷，主要是為了要分析語言的「階層」。

Hjelmslev was able to weave a net out of the notions of matter, content and
expression, form and substance.

希姆列夫能夠將物料、內涵及表達、形式及物質等觀念，編織成一家之言的網絡。

These were the strata, said Hjelmslev. Now this net had the advantage of breaking with the form-content duality, since there was a form of content no less than a form of expression.

「階層無所不在。」希姆列夫說。目前，這個網絡的優點是可以中斷形式跟內涵的雙重性，因為內涵有形式，正如表達有形式。

Hjelmslev’s enemies saw this merely as a way of rebaptizing the discredited notions of the signified and signifier, but something quite different was actually going on.

希姆列夫的反對者則將此僅僅視為是，符號旨跟符號具的過時觀念，重新包裝命名，但是實際上，我們發現裡面另有新義卓見存焉。

Despite what Hjelmslev himself may have said, the net is not linguistic in scope or origin (the same must be said of double articulation: if language has a specificity of its own, as it most certainly does, that specificity consists neither in double articulation nor in Hjelmslev’s net, which are general characteristics of strata).

儘管希姆列夫自己曾經說過，這個網絡的範圍或起源並非是語言學（此說可應用到雙重表達：即使語言有自己的特性，它確實是有，但是那個獨特性，既不在於雙重表達，也不在於希姆列夫的網絡，後者是階層的一般特性。）

He used the term matter for the plane of consistency or Body without Organs, in other words, the unformed, unorganized, nonstratified, or destratified body and all its flows: subatomic and submolecular particles, pure intensities, prevital and prephysical free singularities.

他使用物料這個術語來描述光滑的平面或沒有器官的身體，換言之，沒有形式，，沒有組織，沒有階層，或除掉階層的身體，及所有流動的次原子，次分子的粒子，純粹的張力，尚未有生命力及形式的自由的特性。

He used the term content for formed matters, which would now have to be considered
from two points of view: substance, insofar as these matters are “chosen,” and form, insofar as they are chosen in a certain order (substance and form of content).

他使用內涵這個術語來描述有形體的物料，因為有兩個觀點非考慮到物料不可：物質會牽涉到所「選擇」的這些物料，形式會牽涉到在某個秩序的選擇（物質與內涵的形式）。

He used the term expression for functional structures, which would also have to be considered from two points of view: the organization of their own specific form, and substances insofar as they form compounds (form and content of expression).

他使用表達這個術語來描述功用的結構，因為有兩個觀點非得考量結構不可：他們自己明確形式的組織，以及形成組合牽涉到的物質（形式跟表達的內涵）。

A stratum always has a dimension of the expressible or of expression serving as the basis for a relative invariance; for example, nucleic sequences are inseparable from a relatively invariant expression by means of which they determine the compounds, organs, and functions of the organism.

階層總是有可表達或表達充當相對變數的向量。例如，核子系列跟相對變數的表達密不可分，因為憑藉後者，核子系列才能決定組合、器官、及有機體的功用。

To express is always to sing the glory of God.

表達總是讚揚上帝的榮耀。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

一狼或多狼04

一狼或多狼 04

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guattari

德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

One or Several Wolves

一狼或多狼

Thus it does not suffice to attribute molar multiplicities and mass machines to the preconscious, reserving another kind of machine or multiplicity for the unconscious.

因此，將粒子的多重性及諸眾機器歸咎於前意識，保留另一種機器或多重性給無意識，

是難於自圓其說。

For it is the assemblage of both of these that is the province of the unconscious, the way in which the former condition the latter, and the latter prepare the way for the former, or elude them or return to them: the libido suffuses everything.

因為這兩種裝配都在無意識的領域，前者制約後者，後者替前者做預備，或是逃避他們或回到他們：生命力充溢一切。

Keep everything in sight at the same time—that a social machine or an organized mass has a molecular unconscious that marks not only its tendency to decompose but also the current components of its very operation and organization; that any individual caught up in a mass has his/her own pack unconscious, which does not necessarily resemble the packs of the mass to which that individual belongs; that an individual or mass will live out in its unconscious the

masses and packs of another mass or another individual.

讓真相同時大白：其一，社會機器或有組織的諸眾有一個分子的無意識，不但標示它要瓦解的傾向，而且標示每個運作及組織的目前成份。其二，陷身於諸眾的任何個人，有他或她自己的群體無意識，未必跟諸眾的群體無意識相同，儘管個人是群體的一員。其三，個人或諸眾以自己的無意識，將會實現另一諸眾或另一個人的群體無意識。

What does it mean to love somebody? It is always to seize that person in a mass, extract

him or her from a group, however small, in which he or she participates, whether it be through the family only or through something else; then to find that person’s own packs, the multiplicities he or she encloses within himself or herself which may be of an entirely different nature.

愛上某個人是什麼意思？那就是在諸眾中攫住那個人，將他或她從群體中抽離出來，不管他或她歸屬的團體是多麼小，是否經由家庭或經由其它地方，然後找到那個人自己的群體，他或她包含在自己內部的多重性，這個多重性可能性質大不相同。

To join them to mine, to make them penetrate mine, and for me to penetrate the other person’s. Heavenly nuptials, multiplicities of multiplicities.

將他或她的多重性加入我的多重性，貫穿我的多重性，也讓我的多重性貫穿另一個人的多重性。多重性中的多重性，婚姻美滿像天堂。

Every love is an exercise in depersonalization on a body without organs yet to be formed, and it is at the highest point of this depersonalization that someone can be named, receives his or her family name or first name, acquires the most intense discernibility in the instantaneous apprehension of the multiplicities belonging to him or her, and to which he or she belongs.

每個愛情都是除掉個人化的運動，一個沒有器官的身體於焉形成。在除掉個人化的最高點，某個人被改姓都可以，改姓對方的姓，彼此你儂我儂，愛得難解難分時，馬上理解到屬於他或她，及他或她所歸屬的多重性

A pack of freckles on a face, a pack of boys speaking through the voice of a woman, a clutch of girls in Charlus’s voice, a horde of wolves in somebody’s throat, a multiplicity of anuses in the anus, mouth, or eye one is intent upon. We each go through so many bodies in each other.

幾許雀斑在臉上，一群男生講話娘娘腔，幾位女生幕後配音。某人是一群狼的喉舌。我們全神貫注他的肛門，嘴巴及眼睛，以為肛門的多重性在那裡。我們每個人都經歷過彼此的許多沒有器官的身體。

Albertine is slowly extracted from a group of girls with its own number, organization, code,

and hierarchy; and not only is this group or restricted mass suffused by an unconscious, but Albertine has her own multiplicities that the narrator, once he has isolated her, discovers on her body and in her lies—until the end of their love returns her to the indiscernible.

從一群有其號碼、組織、規矩及階層的少女中，慢慢選拔出艾波町。這團體或有限人數的諸眾不但無意識瀰漫，而且艾波町也有她自己的多重性。選拔者一但認為她與眾不同，就會在她身體及她的謊言，發現這個無意識及多重性，直到他們的激情消失，她又回到默默無聞。

Above all, it should not be thought that it suffices to distinguish the masses and exterior groups someone belongs to or participates in from the internal aggregates that person envelops in himself or herself.

尤其是，不要以為諸眾及某人所歸屬或參與的外在的團體，跟那個人在他或她自己內部所包含的內在群聚，有所區別，就能自圓其說。

The distinction to be made is not at all between exterior and interior, which are always relative, changing, and reversible, but between different types of multiplicities that coexist, interpenetrate, and change places— machines, cogs, motors, and elements that are set in motion at a given moment, forming an assemblage productive of statements: “I love you” (or

whatever).

這個區別根本不是在於外在或內在之間，因為那總是相對，改變，及可倒轉，而是在不同種類的多重性之間，在這裡，多重性共同存在，互相貫穿，改變位置，當機器，齒輪，馬達，及機件，在某個時刻會發動起來，組成裝配，產生陳述：「我愛你」（或類似的話）。

For Kafka, Felice is inseparable from a certain social machine, and, as a representative of the firm that manufactures them, from parlograph machines; how could she not belong to that organization in the eyes of Kafka, a man fascinated by commerce and bureaucracy?

對卡夫卡而言，費利思跟某個社交機器不可分開，也跟錄音機器不可分開，因為她是製造那些機器的公司的代言人。卡夫卡對商業跟官僚深惡痛絕，在其眼中，費利思怎麼可能不被那種組織所隸屬呢？

But at the same time, Felice’s teeth, her big carnivorous teeth, send her racing down other lines, into the molecular multiplicities of a becoming-dog, a becoming-jackal . ..

但是同時，費利思的牙齒，她的肉食牙齒，使她奔馳到其它行業，進入生成狗，生成豺狼的分子的多重性。

Felice is inseparable from the sign of the modern social machines belonging to her, from those belonging to Kafka (not the same ones), and from the particles, the little molecular machines, the whole strange becoming or journey Kafka will make and have her make

through his perverse writing apparatus.

費利思跟歸屬她的現代社交機器的符號不可分開，跟歸屬於卡夫卡的那些社交機器（性質不同）也不可分開，跟粒子，小分子機器，整個奇異的生成及旅行不可分開，因為卡夫卡由於自己怪僻的寫作機器，將會從事，也要她從事這整個奇異的生成及旅行。

There are no individual statements, only statement-producing machinic assemblages.

沒有個人的陳述，只有產生陳述的機器的裝配。

We say that the assemblage is fundamentally libidinal and unconscious. It is the unconscious in person.

我們說裝配基本上是生命力及無意識。裝配是個人的無意識。

For the moment, we will note that assemblages have elements (or multiplicities) of several kinds: human, social, and technical machines, organized molar machines; molecular

machines with their particles of becoming-inhuman; Oedipal apparatuses (yes, of course there are Oedipal statements, many of them); and counter-Oedipal apparatuses, variable in aspect and functioning.

目前，我們將會注意到，裝配有好幾種的元素（或多重性）：人類、社會、及技術性的機器，有組織的粒子機器，有生成非人類粒子的分子機器；伊底普斯的機器（是的，當然是有伊底普斯的陳述，多得很），還有反伊底普斯的機器，型式及功用種類繁多。

We will go into it later. We can no longer even speak of distinct machines, only of types of interpenetrating multiplicities that at any given moment form a single machinic assemblage, the faceless figure of the libido.

我們以後再深入探討。我們甚至不再談到與眾不同的機器，我們只談到互相貫穿多重性的那幾種，在某個時刻，它們組成單一的機器裝配，生命力的無名角色。

Each of us is caught up in an assemblage of this kind, and we reproduce its statements

when we think we are speaking in our own name; or rather we speak in our own name when we produce its statement.

我們每個人都陷入這種的裝配，當我們以為是以自己之名說話時，我們是在複製它的陳述，要不然就是，當我們複製它的陳述時，我們以為是以自己之名在說話。

And what bizarre statements they are; truly, the talk of lunatics.

這些陳述是多麼的古怪！沒錯，跟瘋子的談話一般。

We mentioned Kafka, but we could just as well have said the Wolf-Man: a religious-military machine that Freud attributes to obsessional neurosis; an anal pack machine, an anal becoming- wolf or -wasp or -butterfly machine, which Freud attributes to the hysteric character; an Oedipal apparatus, which Freud considers the sole motor, the immobile motor that must be found everywhere; and a counter- Oedipal apparatus—incest with the sister, schizo-incest, or love with “people of inferior station”; and anality, homosexuality?—all that Freud sees only as Oedipal substitutes, regressions, and derivatives.

我們提到卡夫卡，但是我們本來大可提到狼人；一台宗教跟軍事的機器，佛洛伊德將它歸因於偏執的精神官能症，一台肛門的群體機器，一台肛門的生成狼、生成黃蜂、或生成蝴蝶的機器。佛洛伊德認為唯一的馬達，靜止不動的馬達，一定到處可找到，一台反伊底普斯的機器；跟妹妹亂倫，精神分裂的亂倫，或跟「降低身份」談戀愛，還有肛交，同性戀？所有這些，佛洛伊德都僅僅看著是伊底普斯的代替，倒退，及衍生。

In truth, Freud sees nothing and understands nothing. He has no idea what a libidinal

assemblage is, with all the machineries it brings into play, all the multiple loves.

事實上，佛洛伊德什麼都沒看到，什麼也不懂。他不知道生命力的裝配是什麼，儘管生命力運作所有的機器，所有多重的愛。

Of course, there are Oedipal statements. For example, Kafka’s story, “Jackals and Arabs,” is easy to read in that way: you can always do it, you can’t lose, it works every time, even if you understand nothing.

當然有伊底普斯的陳述：例如，卡夫卡的故事「胡狼及阿拉伯人」，用那種方式閱讀就很容易理解。你可以總是用那一套，不會有差錯，它每次都行得通，即使你什麼都不了解。

The Arabs are clearly associated with the father and the jackals with the mother; between the two, there is a whole story of castration represented by the rusty scissors.

阿拉伯人很明顯跟父親聯想在一起，胡狼則跟母親。其間，總是會有生銹的剪刀代表閹割的整個故事。

But it so happens that the Arabs are an extensive, armed, organized mass stretching across the entire desert; and the jackals are an intense pack forever launching into the desert following lines of flight or deterritorialization (“they are madmen, veritable madmen”); between the

two, at the edge, the Man of the North, the jackal-man.

但是，阿拉伯人是向外擴展，有武裝，有組織的諸眾，延伸過整個沙漠，而胡狼是激情的群體，永遠遵照逃離線或解轄域線，進入沙漠（他們是瘋子，道地的瘋子）；在兩者之間，在邊緣，北邊的人，胡狼人。

And aren’t those big scissors the Arab sign that guides or releases jackal-particles, both to accelerate their mad race by detaching them from the mass and to bring them back to the mass, to tame them and whip them, to bring them around?

那些大剪刀不就是阿拉伯人引導或釋放胡狼的符號？一方面要以將他們跟諸眾隔離，來加速他們瘋狂的競賽，另一方面，又要將他們帶回諸眾，馴服他們，鞭打他們，使他們改邪歸正。

Dead camel: Oedipal food apparatus. Counter-Oedipal carrion apparatus: kill animals to eat, or eat to clean up carrion.

死去的駱駝：伊底普斯的食物機器，反伊底普斯的腐肉機器，為了吃而殺動物，或為了清理腐肉而去吃。

The jackals formulate the problem well: it is not that of castration but of “cleanliness” (propret’e, also “ownness”), the test of desert-desire.

胡狼可將這個問題表達得很清楚：這不是閹割，而是「清理」（原意是「擁有」）的問題，也就是沙漠跟欲望的考驗。

Which will prevail, mass territoriality or pack deterritorialization?

哪一個會戰勝？諸眾領域，還是群體解轄域？

The libido suffuses the entire desert, the body without organs on which the drama is played out.

生命力瀰漫整個沙漠，沒有器官的身體，在那裡演出人生百態。

There are no individual statements, there never are. Every statement is the product of a machinic assemblage, in other words, of collective agents of enunciation (take “collective agents” to mean not peoples or societies but multiplicities).

沒有個人的陳述，從來沒有。每個陳述都是機器裝配的產品，換言之，是表達的集體代理的產品（「集體代理」不是指人或社會，而是指多重性）。

The proper name (nom propre) does not designate an individual: it is on the contrary when the individual opens up to the multiplicities pervading him or her, at the outcome of the most severe operation of depersonalization, that he or she acquires his or her true proper name.

專有名詞並不是指定個人。相反的，當個人由於解消個人化，酣暢淋漓的結果，開展瀰漫自身的多重性，他或她就得到他或她自己真實的專有名詞。

The proper name is the instantaneous apprehension of a multiplicity.

專有名詞就是對於多重性的當下體悟。

The proper name is the subject of a pure infinitive comprehended as such in a field of intensity.

在激情領域，專有名詞被理解充當是純粹不定詞的主詞。

What Proust said about the first name: when I said Gilberte’s name, I had the impression that I was holding her entire body naked in my mouth.

普洛斯特如此說情侶的名子：當我說出「吉爾伯特」時，我的印象是，我好像將她整個身體赤裸地放在我的嘴唇裡。

The Wolf-Man, a true proper name, an intimate first name linked to the becomings, infinitives, and intensities of a multiplied and depersonalized individual.

狼人是道地的專有名詞，大家耳熟能詳的名子，跟生成，不定詞，及多重性及消除個人化的激情，密切相關。

What does psychoanalysis know about multiplication?

精神分析學對於多重性知道多少？

The desert hour when the dromedary becomes a thousand dromedaries snickering in the sky.

沙漠時刻！單峰駱駝變成一千隻單峰駱駝，在天空竊笑。

The evening hour when a thousand holes appear on the surface of the earth. Castration!

夜晚時刻！地球表面出現一千個的洞。閹割！

Castration! cries the psychoanalytic scarecrow, who never saw more than a hole, a father or a

dog where wolves are, a domesticated individual where there are wild multiplicities.

閹割！精神分析的稻草人驚叫起來，因為他平常看的洞只有一個，父親或狗的洞，在那裡狼是被人豢養的個人，在那裡多重性尚未開發。

We are not just criticizing psychoanalysis for having selected Oedipal statements exclusively.

我們不是因為精神分析學專門搞伊底普斯的陳述，才去批評它。

For such statements are to a certain extent part of a machinic assemblage, for which they could serve as correctional indexes, as in a calculation of errors.

因為這樣的陳述某個程度也是機器裝配的一部份，它們還能夠充當矯正的指引，如同在錯誤的演算時。

We are criticizing psychoanalysis for having used Oedipal enunciation to make patients believe they would produce individual, personal statements, and would finally speak in their own name.

我們批評精神分析學，是因為它使用伊底普斯的表達，使病人相信，他們將會產生個人的自我的陳述，最後還會以他們自己之名說出。

The trap was set from the start: never will the Wolf-Man speak.

從一開頭就機關重重；狼人將永遠開不了口。

Talk as he might about wolves, howl as he might like a wolf, Freud does not even listen; he glances at his dog and answers, “It’s daddy.”

佛洛伊德雖然會談到狼，雖然他也學狼嚎叫，可是他甚至連聽都不聽；他瞧一下他的狗，就回答說：「那是老爸」。

For as long as that lasts, Freud calls it neurosis; when it cracks, it’s psychosis.

在那樣的期間，佛洛伊德統稱它為精神官能症。但後來事實發現，那是變態狂。

The Wolf-Man will receive the psychoanalytic medal of honor for services rendered to the

cause, and even disabled veterans’ benefits.

狼人將會接受精神分析學的榮譽獎章，因為他替各種病因提供服務，甚至殘障退伍軍人都因此病因而獲益。

He could have spoken in his own name only if the machinic assemblage that was producing particular statements in him had been brought to light.

他本來還能夠以自己之名說話，假如產生有關他的特別陳述的機器的裝配，公開於世的話。

But there is no question of that in psychoanalysis: at the very moment the subject is persuaded that he or she will be uttering the most individual of statements, he or she is deprived of all basis for enunciation.

但在精神分析學，這是不可能的：因為就在主體被說服，他或她將會表達即使是最私密的陳述時，他或她就已經被剝奪所有表達的基礎。

Silence people, prevent them from speaking, and above all, when they do speak, pretend they haven’t said a thing: the famous psychoanalytic neutrality.

精神分析師是守密的人，阻止他們不能說。最重要的是，當他們一但說了，還要假裝他們什麼都沒說：精神分析師必須保持中立，這是眾所周知。

The Wolf-Man keeps howling: Six wolves! Seven wolves! Freud says, How’s that? Goats, you say? How interesting. Take away the goats and all you have left is a wolf, so it’s your father

狼人繼續嚎叫： 六隻狼！ 七隻狼！佛洛伊德說，那又怎樣？山羊，你說呢？多麼有趣的事！假如你將山羊都帶走，你所剩餘的就是一隻狼，那就是你父親。

. . . That is why the Wolf-Man feels so fatigued: he’s left lying there with all his wolves in his throat, all those little holes on his nose, and all those libidinal values on his body without organs.

那就是為什麼狼人覺得如此疲乏；他被擺置在那裡，所有有關狼的陳述，鯁在喉嚨，所有的小洞在他的鼻子上，所有的那些生命力的價值，在他沒有器官的身體上。

The war will come, the wolves will become Bolsheviks, and the Wolf-Man will remain suffocated by all he had to say.

戰爭將會到來，狼將成為布爾希維克共產份子，而狼人，雖然有千言萬語，將始終克制。

All we will be told is that he became well behaved, polite, and resigned again, “honest and scrupulous.”

我們所能獲知的是，狼人將會恢復循規蹈矩，有禮貌，很溫順，「誠實而謹慎」。

In short, cured. He gets back by pointing out that psychoanalysis lacks a truly zoological vision: “Nothing can be more valuable for a young person than the love of nature and a comprehension of the natural sciences, in particular zoology.”

總之，狼人將會療癒。但也不諱言指出，精神分析學缺乏道地動物園的景象：「年輕人愛好大自然，理解自然科學，特別是動物園學，是應該值得重視的。」

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

一狼或多狼 03

一狼或多狼 03

 

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guattari

德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

 

One or Several Wolves

一狼或多狼

 

Let us return to the story of multiplicity, for the creation of this substantive marks a very important moment.

 

讓我們回到多重性的故事，因為這個實實的創造意義非凡。

 

It was created precisely in order to escape the abstract opposition between the multiple and the one, to escape dialectics, to succeed in conceiving the multiple in the pure state, to cease

treating it as a numerical fragment of a lost Unity or Totality or as the organic element of a Unity or Totality yet to come, and instead distinguish between different types of multiplicity.

 

多重性的創造，準確就是要逃避多重與一之間的抽象對立，逃避辯證法，成功地構想多重性處於純淨的狀態，不再將多重性當著是已喪失的一致性或整體性的數字碎片，或當著是未來的一致性或整體性的有機元素。代替的，是要區別不同類型的多重性。

 

Thus we find in the work of the mathematician and physicist Riemann a distinction between discreet multiplicities and continuous multiplicities (the metrical principle of the second

kind of multiplicity resides solely in forces at work within them).

 

因此我們在數學家及物理學家瑞門的作品裡發現，謹慎的多重性跟繼續的多重性有所區別（第二種多重性的韻律原理，主要是在於內部力量的運作）。

 

Then in Meinong and Russell we find a distinction between multiplicities of magnitude or divisibility, which are extensive, and multiplicities of distance, which are closer to the intensive.

 

然後在門諾及羅素的作品裡，我們發現強度，也就是可除盡度的多重性，跟距離的多重性之間有區別。前者是向外延伸，後者向內密集。

 

And in Bergson there is a distinction between numerical or extended multiplicities and qualitative or durational multiplicities.

 

然後在柏克森的作品理，數字或延伸的多重性跟品質或期間的多重性，也有所區別。

 

We are doing approximately the same thing when we distinguish between arborescent multiplicities and rhizomatic multiplicities.

 

我們在區別樹狀系統跟塊莖系統時，所作所為大約相同。

 

Between macro- and micromultiplicities. On the one hand, multiplicities that are extensive, divisible, and molar; unifiable, totalizable, organizable; conscious or preconscious—and on the other hand, libidinal, unconscious, molecular, intensive multiplicities composed of

particles that do not divide without changing in nature, and distances that do not vary without entering another multiplicity and that constantly construct and dismantle themselves in the course of their communications, as they cross over into each other at, beyond, or before a certain threshold.

 

區別宏偉多重性跟顯微多重性。一方面，多重性向外延伸，可減除，可壓碎，可統一，可整體化，可組織化，無論是意識或無意識。在另一方面，生命力，無意識，分子化，向內密集的多重性，組成的分子一但減除，性質會跟著變化，距離一但改變，就會進入另一個多重性。顯微多重性在彼此的溝通過程，不斷地建造跟拆除自己，當它們在某個門檻附近，另一邊，或前面，互相跨越進去。

 

The elements of this second kind of multiplicity are particles; their relations are distances; their movements are Brownian; their quantities are intensities, differences in intensity.

 

第二種多重性的元素是分子，分子之間的關係是距離；分子的動作是布朗定理；質量就是強烈度，強烈度的差異。

 

This only provides the logical foundation. Elias Canetti distinguishes between two types of multiplicity that are sometimes opposed but at other times interpenetrate: mass (“crowd”) multiplicities and pack multiplicities.

 

這只是充當邏輯的基礎。康揑提區別兩種有時相對，有時互相貫穿的多重性：諸眾（群眾）多重，群體多重。

 

Among the characteristics of a mass, in Canetti’s sense, we should note large quantity, divisibility and equality of the members, concentration, sociability of the aggregate as a whole, one-way hierarchy, organization of territoriality or territorialization, and emission of signs.

 

以康捏提的解釋，諸眾的特性是，我們應該注意到數量大小，成員的可減除跟平等，集中，群聚作為整體的交際，單向的階層，領域的組織或轄域化，及符號的發怖

 

Among the characteristics of a pack are small or restricted numbers, dispersion, nondecomposable variable distances, qualitative metamorphoses, inequalities as remainders or crossings, impossibility of a fixed totalization or hierarchization, a Brownian variability in directions, lines of deterritorialization, and projection of particles.5

 

群體的特性是小而有限的數目，擴散，不可瓦解的變化離，質量的蛻變，作為餘數跟跨越，固定整體化或階層化的不可能，方向採布朗原理的變化，解轄域的路線，分子的投射。

 

Doubtless, there is no more equality or any less hierarchy in packs than in masses, but they are of a different kind.

 

無可置疑地，群體的平等跟階層不見得比諸眾增多或減少，但是它們種類不同。

 

The leader of the pack or the band plays move by move, must wager everything every hand, whereas the group or mass leader consolidates or capitalizes on past gains.

 

群體或派系的領導者步步為營，每次出手。孤注一擲，而眾生或諸眾的領導者統籌或押注過去的獲益。

 

The pack, even on its own turf, is constituted by a line of flight or of deterritorialization that is a component part of it, and to which it accredits a high positive value, whereas masses only integrate these lines in order to segment them, obstruct them, ascribe them a negative sign.

 

即使在自己的賽馬場，群體包含有逃離路線或解轄域，那是它組成的部份，它給予高度的重視，而諸眾僅是合併這些路線，以便分割，阻礙，賦予負面符號。

 

Canetti notes that in a pack each member is alone even in the company of others (for example, wolves on the hunt); each takes care of himself at the same time as participating in the band. 

 

康捏提注意到，在群體裡，每個成員是孤獨的，即使有其它同伴（例如，正在獵食中的狼）；每隻狼邊參與群體，邊照顧自己。

 

“In the changing constellation of the pack, in its dances and expeditions, he will again and again find himself at its edge. He may be in the center, and then, immediately afterwards, at the edge again; at the edge and then back in the center. When the pack forms a ring around the fire, each man will have neighbors to the right and left, but no one behind him; his back is naked and exposed to the wilderness.”

 

「在群體逐漸轉變的群集，在他們跳舞及遠征，他將會發現自己處於邊緣。他可能在中心，然後一下子，又處在邊緣，在邊緣，然後又回到中心。當群體環繞火堆圍成一圈，每客人左右都有鄰居，但是背後沒有，背後是裸露，暴露予荒野。」

 

We recognize this as the schizo position, being on the periphery, holding on by a hand or a

foot . . .

 

我們認出這一點當著是精神分裂的位置，處在邊緣，僅以手或腳相連。

 

As opposed to the paranoid position of the mass subject, with all the identifications of the individual with the group, the group with the leader, and the leader with the group; be securely embedded in the mass, get close to the center, never be at the edge except in

the line of duty.

 

跟諸眾主體的偏執狂位置相反，群體由於個人完全認同於團體，團體完全認同於領導者，領導者完全認同於團體，安全地鑲嵌於諸眾，靠近中心，除了職責方面，從未處在邊緣。

 

Why assume (as does Konrad Lorenz, for example) that bands and their type of companionship represent a more rudimentary evolutionary state than group societies or societies of conjugality?

 

為什麼要假定（例如羅連茲就這樣假定），群體跟他們的伙伴，比合夥社會或婚姻社會，

代表更基本的革命狀態？

 

Not only do there exist bands of humans, but there are particularly refined examples:

“high-society life” differs from “sociality” in that it is closer to the pack.

 

人類不但有結夥存在，而且還有特別高尚的例子。「高級社交生活」不同於「草莽社會」，因為它更接近群體。

 

Social persons have a certain envious and erroneous image of the high society person because they are ignorant of high-society positions and hierarchies, the relations of force, the very particular ambitions and projects.

 

社交人對於高級社會人，有某種妒忌而錯誤的形象，因為他們不知道高級社會的地位跟階層，力量的關係，特別的企圖心跟計畫。

 

High-society relations are never coextensive with social relations, they do not coincide.

 

高級社會的關係跟社會關係從來不是共同向外延伸；他們並不會偶然會合。

 

Even “mannerisms” (all bands have them) are specific to mcromultiplicities and distinct from social manners or customs.

 

對於宏偉多重性，即使是「禮節」（所有群體都會有）都是條理分明，不同於社交禮貌或風俗。

 

There is no question, however, of establishing a dualist opposition between the two types of multiplicities, molecular machines and molar machines; that would be no better than the dualism between the One and the multiple.

 

可是，在兩種多重性，分子機器，粒子機器之間，不可能建立一個二元對立。那跟大一與多重之間的二元論一樣沒多大用途。

 

There are only multiplicities of multiplicities forming a single assemblage, operating in the same assemblage: packs in masses and masses in packs. Trees have rhizome lines, and the rhizome points of arborescence.

 

只有多重性的多重性組成單一的裝配，以相同的裝配運作：諸眾中的群體跟群體中的諸眾。樹有塊莖線，及樹狀系統的塊莖點。

 

How could mad particles be produced with anything but a gigantic cyclotron?

 

若沒有巨大的粒子迴旋加速器，我們如何能製造瘋狂的分子？

 

How could lines of deterritorialization be assignable outside of circuits of territoriality?

 

在轄域迴路圈外面，解轄域的路線如何能夠被指定？

 

Where else but in wide expanses, and in major upheavals in those expanses, could a tiny rivulet of new intensity suddenly start to flow?

 

除了在廣漠曠野，在那些曠野的重大騷亂外，還有什麼地方，新的強烈生命力的涓涓細流能夠突然開始流動？

 

What do you not have to do in order to produce a new sound?

 

為了產生新的聲音，有什麼你必須做的？

 

Becoming-animal, becoming-molecular, becoming-inhuman, each involves a molar extension, a human hyperconcentration, or prepares the way for them.

 

生成動物，生成分子，生成非人，每一個都牽涉到粒子的延伸，人的高度專注，或為它們預做準備。

 

In Kafka, it is impossible to separate the erection of a great paranoid bureaucratic machine from the installation of little schizo machines of becoming-dog or becoming-beetle.

 

對於卡夫卡，巨大的偏執的官僚機器的巍然存在，跟生成狗或生成甲蟲的微小精神分裂機器的安置，息息相關。

 

In the case of the Wolf-Man, it is impossible to separate the becoming-wolf of his dream from the military and religious organization of his obsessions.

 

對於狼人，他夢中的生成狼，跟軍隊及困擾他的宗教組織，密不可分。

 

A military man does a wolf; a military man does a dog.

 

軍隊人對於狼之所為，跟軍隊人對於狗，沒什麼兩樣。

 

There are not two multiplicities or two machines; one and the same machinic assemblage produces and distributes the whole, in other words, the set of statements corresponding to the

“complex.”

 

並沒有兩種多重性或兩種機器，一種完全相同的裝配，產生及分配整體，換言之，一大套陳述，跟內心「情結」相一致。

 

What does psychoanalysis have to say about all of this? Oedipus, nothing but Oedipus, because it hears nothing and listens to nobody.

 

這種現象，精神分析學有何可說？伊底普斯，只有伊底普斯，因為它啥都沒聽見，也不聽任何人說。

 

It flattens everything, masses and packs, molecular and molar machines, multiplicities of every variety.

 

它打垮一切，諸眾及群體，分子跟粒子的機器，各式各樣的多重性。

 

Take the Wolf-Man’s second dream during his so-called psychotic episode: in the street, a wall with a closed door, to the left an empty dresser; in front of the dresser, the patient, and a big woman with a little scar who seems to want to skirt around the wall; behind the wall, wolves, rushing for the door.

 

以狼人的第二個夢為例，據稱他在街上的精神病發作狀況，一道大門深閉的牆，左邊是空的梳妝台，病人在梳妝台前面，一位高大的女人，有小的巴痕，似乎想要繞過牆壁，狼人在牆壁後面，衝向門。

 

Even Brunswick can’t go wrong: although she recognizes herself in the big woman, she does see that this time the wolves are Bolsheviks, the revolutionary mass that had emptied

the dresser and confiscated the Wolf-Man’s fortune.

 

即使是布魯威克都不會搞錯：雖然她在那高大女人身上看出自己，她確實看到，這一次狼人是布爾希維克，革命的諸眾，他們搜空梳妝台，沒收狼人的財產。

 

The wolves, in a metastable state, have gone over to a large-scale social machine.

 

狼人，處於次穩定的狀態，轉變成為巨大的社會機器。

 

But psychoanalysis has nothing to say about all of these points—except what Freud already said: it all leads back to daddy (what do you know, he was one of the leaders of the liberal party in Russia, but that’s hardly important; all that needs to be said is that the revolution “assuaged the patient’s feelings of guilt”).

 

但是精神分析學對於這幾點無話可說，除了重複佛洛伊所說過的：一切都歸因於老爸（你知道多少，他是蘇俄自由黨的領導人，但這不是重點，必須要說的是，革命「舒緩了病人的罪惡感」）

 

You’d think that the investments and counterinvestments of the libido had nothing to do with mass disturbances, pack movements, collective signs, and particles of desire.

 

你會認為生命力的投注跟反投注，跟諸眾的騷擾，群體的運動，集體的符號，及欲望的分子沒有關係。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

一狼或多狼 02

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guattari

德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

 

One or Several Wolves

一狼或多狼 02

 

A multiplicity of pores, or blackheads, of little scars or stitches. Breasts, babies, and rods.

 

毛孔或黑頭的多重性，小疤痕或針痕的多重性。乳房，嬰兒，及棒子。

 

A multiplicity of bees, soccer players, or Tuareg. A multiplicity of wolves or jackals . . .

 

蜜蜂，足球員，或汽車的多重性。狼跟胡狼的多重性。

 

All of these things are irreducible but bring us to a certain status of the formations of the unconscious.

 

所有這些東西都可以化減，但是他們會使我們淪落到某種無意識平台的地位。

 

Let us try to define the factors involved: first, something plays the role of the full body—the body without organs. In the preceding dream it was the desert.

 

且讓我們替相關的因素下個定義：首先，某件東西扮演全身的角色，沒有器官的身體。在上述的夢中，那是沙漠。

 

In the Wolf-Man’s dream it is the denuded tree upon which the wolves are perched. It is also the skin as envelope or ring, and the sock as reversible surface. It can be a house or part of a house, any number of things, anything.

 

在狼人的夢中，狼人棲息在裸露的樹上。皮膚充當覆蓋物或環狀物，襪子充當可倒轉的表面。那可以是房屋或房屋的一部分，任何數量的東西。

 

Whenever someone makes love, really makes love, that person constitutes a body without organs, alone and with the other person or people.

 

每當某人做愛，真正做愛，那個人就組成沒有器官的身體，單獨或跟另外一個人或其他人。

 

 

A body without organs is not an empty body stripped of organs, but a body upon which that which serves as organs (wolves, wolf eyes, wolf jaws?) is distributed according to crowd phenomena, in Brownian motion, in the form of molecular multiplicities.

 

沒有器官的身體並不是剝掉器官的空洞的身體，而是器官（狼，狼眼睛，狼下巴？）停駐其上的身體的散置，是依照群眾現象，依物理布朗動作原理，依照分子多重性的形式。

 

The desert is populous. Thus the body without organs is opposed less to organs as such than to the organization of the organs insofar as it composes an organism.

 

沙漠人口稠密。因此，沒有器官的身體與其說是跟器官相對立，不如說是跟器官的組織相對立，就其組成有機體而言。

 

The body without organs is not a dead body but a living body all the more alive and teeming once it has blown apart the organism and its organization.

 

沒有器官的身體並不是死去的身體，而是活生生的身體，更加活生生及生氣蓬勃，一但它炸開有機體及其組織。

 

Lice hopping on the beach. Skin colonies. The full body without organs is a body populated by multiplicities.

 

蝨子在海灘跳躍。麇集皮膚。整個沒有器官的身體，是被多重性群居的身體。

 

The problem of the unconscious has most certainly nothing to do with generation but rather peopling, population. It is an affair of worldwide population on the full body of the earth, not organic familial generation.

 

無意識的問題跟世代確實無關，而是跟群居，人口。那是在地球作為整個身體，全世界人口的事情，不是有機的家庭的世代的事情。

 

“I love to invent peoples, tribes, racial origins . . . I return from my tribes. As of today, I am the adoptive son of fifteen tribes, no more, no less. And they in turn are my adopted tribes, for I love each of them more than if I had been born into it.” People say, After all, schizophrenics have a mother and a father, don’t they? Sorry, no, none as such.

 

「我喜愛發明民族，部落，種族的起源。我從我的部落回來。如同在今天，我是不多不少十五個部落收養的兒子。部落反過來也成為我收養的部落，因為我愛每個部落，甚過於我出生的部落。」人們說，畢竟，精神分裂症患者有母親及父親，不是嗎？抱歉，不是這麼一回事。

 

They only have a desert with tribes inhabiting it, a full body clinging with multiplicities.

This brings us to the second factor, the nature of these multiplicities and their elements.

 

他們只有一個沙漠，部落居住在那裡，沙漠是緊握住多重性的全身。這使我們想到第二個因素，這些多重性及其因素的特性。

 

One of the essential characteristics of the dream of multiplicity is that each element ceaselessly varies and alters its distance in relation to the others.

 

多重性之夢的基本特性之一是，每個元素不停地變化，改變跟其它元素的相關距離。

 

On the Wolf-Man’s nose, the elements, determined as pores in the skin, little scars in the pores, little ruts in the scar tissue, ceaselessly dance, grow, and diminish.

 

在狼人鼻子上，元素不停地跳舞，成長，及減少，因為他們是由皮膚上的毛孔，毛孔上的小疤痕，小疤痕細胞組織的小凹痕所組成。

 

These variable distances are not extensive quantities divisible by each other; rather, each is indivisible, or “relatively indivisible,” in other words, they are not divisible below or above a certain threshold, they cannot increase or diminish without their elements changing in nature.

 

這些距離參差不齊，並不是互相可除盡的延伸的質量，相反的，每一個都不可除盡，或「相對的不可除盡」，換言之，它們在某個門檻以下或以上，不可除盡。它們若增加或減少，它們的元素性質上會改變。

 

A swarm of bees: here they come as a rumble of soccer players in striped jerseys, or a band of Tuareg.

 

一群蜜蜂：來臨時嗡嗡隆隆，像一群穿著條紋運動服的足球員，或一群汽車。

 

Or: the wolf clan doubles up with a swarm of bees against the gang of Deulhs, under the direction of Mowgli, who runs on the edge (yes, Kipling understood the call of the wolves, their libidinal meaning, better than Freud; and in the Wolf-Man’s case the story about wolves is followed by one about wasps and butterflies, we go from wolves to wasps).

 

或者，狼人能跟一群蜜蜂聯合，在森林小英雄的領導之下，對抗獵人。（沒錯，基普林的叢林小說，比佛洛伊徳更了解狼的呼喚，它們生命力的昂揚。在狼人的病例中，有關狼的故事，後面緊跟隨著黃蜂跟蝴蝶，我們亦可從狼到黃蜂。）

 

What is the significance of these indivisible distances that are ceaselessly transformed, and cannot be divided or transformed without their elements changing in nature each time? Is it not the intensive character of this kind of multiplicity’s elements and the relations between them?

 

這些不可除盡的例子不停地轉變，每次減除或轉變，其元素的性質就改變，其意義是什麼？難道不是在彰顯這種多重性及其間關係具有強烈的特性？

 

Exactly like a speed or a temperature, which is not composed of other speeds and temperatures but rather is enveloped in or envelops others, each of which marks a change in nature.

 

這些例子確實就像速度跟溫度，組成它們的不是其它速度及溫度，而是被其它速度及溫度含蘊，或含蘊它們，彼此性質都在改變。

 

The metrical principle of these multiplicities is not to be found in a homogeneous milieu but resides elsewhere, in forces at work within them, in physical phenomena inhabiting them, precisely in the libido, which constitutes them from within, and in constituting them necessarily divides into distinct qualitative and variable flows.

 

在同質性的環境，我們能找到這些多重性的韻律原理，它們停駐在別處，在內部運作的力量裡，在盤據它們的生理的現象裡，確實就是在生命力裡。生命力從內部組成韻律原理，而在組成過程，必然會減除成為不同品質跟變話的流動。

 

Freud himself recognizes the multiplicity of libidinal “currents” that coexist in the Wolf-Man.

 

佛洛伊德自己就體認到，共存於狼人的生命力「源流」具有多重性。

 

That makes it all the more surprising that he treats the multiplicities of the unconscious

the way he does. For him, there will always be a reduction to the One: the little scars, the little holes, become subdivisions of the great scar or supreme hole named castration; the wolves become substitutes for a single Father who turns up everywhere, or wherever they put him.

 

更令人驚奇的是，佛洛伊德處理無意識的多重性的方式。他認為總是會被「大一統」所減除：小疤痕，小洞隙都是從他名之為閹割的大疤痕或最高洞隙減除而來。狼人成為父親的代替名詞，無論他身處哪裡，父親無所不在。

 

(As Ruth Mack Brunswick says, Let’s go all the way, the wolves are “all the fathers and doctors” in the world; but the Wolf-Man thinks, “You trying to tell me my ass isn’t a wolf?”)

 

（如布魯威克所言，讓我們一直探討下去，狼人就是世界上的「父親跟醫生」，但是狼人認為「你是在說，我其實不是狼？」）

 

What should have been done is the opposite, all of this should be understood in intensity: the Wolf is the pack, in other words, the multiplicity instantaneously apprehended as such insofar as it approaches or moves away from zero, each distance being nondecomposable.

 

本來應該處理的方式恰恰相反，一切應該從生命力的強烈來了解；狼人就是狼群，換言之，多重性接近或脫離零度時，每段距離難分難解時，我們就應該馬上從這個角度來了解。

 

Zero is the body without organs of the Wolf-Man. If the unconscious knows nothing of

negation, it is because there is nothing negative in the unconscious, only indefinite moves toward and away from zero, which does not at all express lack but rather the positivity of the full body as support and prop (“for an afflux is necessary simply to signify the absence of intensity”).

 

零度是狼人的沒有器官的身體。假如無意識對於負面一無所知，那是因為無意識並沒有任何負面，只有無窮盡的動作朝向及脫離零度。這絲毫不表示，一切空無，相反的，這表示以全部的身體作為支持及支撐，是正面的（因為若無源流，生命力的強烈勢必匱缺。）

 

The wolves designate an intensity, a band of intensity, a threshold of intensity on the

Wolf-Man’s body without organs.

 

狼人意味著生命力的強烈，強烈成群，在狼人的沒有器官的身體，是強烈的門檻。

 

A dentist told the Wolf-Man that he “would soon lose all his teeth because of the violence of his bite”—and that his gums were pocked with pustules and little holes.4 Jaw as high intensity,

teeth as low intensity, and pustular gums as approach to zero.

 

一位牙醫告訴狼人，「他不久牙齒將掉盡，因為咬得太猛」，他的牙齦膿泡充斥。下巴的強烈度高，牙齒的強烈度當低，膿泡充斥的牙齦，強烈度接近零。

 

The wolf, as the instantaneous apprehension of a multiplicity in a given region, is not a

representative, a substitute, but an I feel. I feel myself becoming a wolf, one wolf among others, on the edge of the pack.

 

從某個地區的多重性當下來了解，狼並不是代表或代替，而是「我感覺」。我感覺我生成為狼，眾多狼之狼，處在狼群的邊緣。

 

A cry of anguish, the only one Freud hears: Help me not become wolf (or the opposite, Help me not fail in this becoming).

 

痛苦的呼叫，佛洛伊德唯一所聽到的：幫助我不要變成狼（或反過來，幫助我在生成過程，不要失敗）。

 

It is not a question of representation: don’t think for a minute that it has to do with believing oneself a wolf, representing oneself as a wolf.

 

這不是代表的問題；絲毫不要認為，這跟相信自己生成為狼有關，代表自己是一隻狼。

 

The wolf, wolves, are intensities, speeds, temperatures, nondecomposable variable distances. A swarming, a wolfing 

 

狼，狼群都是強烈度，速度，溫度，無法減除盡的變數距離。

 

Who could ever believe that the anal machine bears no relation to the wolf machine, or that the two are only linked by an Oedipal apparatus, by the all-too-human figure of the Father?

 

誰能相信肛門機器跟狼的機器無關，或連接兩者，只是由伊底普斯機器，或過於人性化的父親的角色？

 

For in the end the anus also expresses an intensity, in this case the approach to zero of a distance that cannot be decomposed without its elements changing in nature.

 

因為肛門終究也表達了強烈度，當距離接近於零時，這個距離一瓦解，生命的元素性質也跟著改變。

 

A field of anuses, just like a pack of wolves. Does not the child, on the periphery, hold onto the wolves by his anus?

 

人不過是肛門的場地，就像狼群沒兩樣。小孩子不是用他們的肛門相觸，接近狼群？

 

The jaw descends to the anus. Hold onto those wolves by your jaw and your anus.

 

下巴低觸對方肛門。下巴跟肛門，那些狼群彼此接近。

 

The jaw is not a wolf jaw, it’s not that simple; jaw and wolf form a multiplicity that is transformed into eye and wolf, anus and wolf, as a function of other distances, at other speeds, with other multiplicities, between thresholds.

 

下巴並非狼的下巴，並沒有那麼單純。下巴跟狼組成的多重性，被轉變成眼睛跟狼，肛門跟狼，這是其他距離，其他速度，跟其它多重性，在門檻之間發揮功用。

 

Lines of flight or of deterritorialization, becoming-wolf, becoming-inhuman,

deterritorialized intensities: that is what multiplicity is.

 

逃離路線或解轄域，生成狼，生成非人，被解放轄域的強烈生命力，這些就是多重性。

 

To become wolf or to become hole is to deterritorialize oneself following distinct but entangled lines.

 

生成狼或生成洞，就是遵照清楚而糾纏得逃離路線，解自己的轄域。

 

A hole is no more negative than a wolf. Castration, lack, substitution: a tale told by an overconscious idiot who has no understanding of multiplicities as formations of the unconscious.

 

洞跟狼均非負面。閹割，欠缺，置換，這些都是過度敏感的白癡所說的故事。他們不瞭解多重性是無意識的生力軍。

 

A wolf is a hole, they are both particles of the unconscious, nothing but particles,

productions of particles, particulate paths, as elements of molecular multiplicities.

 

狼人是洞，他們具是無意識的分子，僅僅就是分子，分子的產生，分子化的路線，作為分子多重性的元素。

 

 

It is not even sufficient to say that intense and moving particles pass through holes; a hole is just as much a particle as what passes through it.

 

說強烈及移動的分子通過洞，還是委婉的說法。洞跟通過它的東西，同樣是分子。

 

Physicists say that holes are not the absence of particles but particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Flying anuses, speeding vaginas, there is no castration.

 

物理學家說，洞不是分子的欠缺，而是分子旅行快過光速。肛門飛行，陰道奔馳，哪有時間讓你閹割？

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

一狼或多狼 01

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guatari

 

德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

 

2. 1914: One or Several Wolves?

1914年2月：一狼或多狼 01

Field of Tracks, or Wolf Line

蹤跡場地或狼蹤

 

That day, the Wolf-Man rose from the couch particularly tired. He knew that Freud had a genius for brushing up against the truth and passing it by, then filling the void with associations. He knew that Freud knew nothing about wolves, or anuses for that matter. The only thing Freud understood was what a dog is, and a dog’s tail. It wasn’t enough. It wouldn’t be enough.

 

那一天，狼人從沙發上站起來，特別疲倦。他知道佛洛伊德擅長於拆解真相，旁敲側擊，然後替空無填上聯想。他知道，佛洛伊德對於狼一無所知，可說是啥都茫然。唯一佛洛伊德知道的是啥是狗，是狗的尾巴。那夠啥用，當然不夠。

 

The Wolf-Man knew that Freud would soon declare him cured, but that it was not at all the case and his treatment would continue for all eternity under Brunswick, Lacan, Leclaire.

 

狼人知道，佛洛伊德不久會宣告他已被治療了，但是事實並非如此。依照部魯維克、拉岡、及雷克列的說法，他的治療將繼續到永遠。

 

Finally, he knew that he was in the process of acquiring a veritable proper name, the Wolf-Man, a name more properly his than his own, since it attained the highest degree of singularity in the instantaneous apprehension of a generic multiplicity: wolves.

 

最後，他知道他正得得一個可證實的專有名詞，狼人。這個名字與其說是屬於他，不如說是適用於他，因為它得到最高層次的獨特性，狼的多重分類的目前理解。

 

He knew that this new and true proper name would be disfigured and misspelled,

retranscribed as a patronymic. Freud, for his part, would go on to write some extraordinary pages.

 

他知道新而真實的專有名詞將會受到扭曲及誤植，重新被書寫為父執之命名。佛洛伊德就自己而言，將繼續寫作一些特別的研究。

 

Entirely practical pages: his article of 1915 on “The Unconscious,” which deals with the difference between neurosis and psychosis.

 

完全是實用的文頁，他在1915的文章，論「無意識」，處理精神官能症跟變態症。

 

Freud says that hysterics or obsessives are people capable of making a global comparison between a sock and a vagina, a scar and castration, etc.

 

佛洛伊德說，歇斯底里症者或妄想症者能夠將襪子跟女陰，疤痕跟閹割等等，作全盤對比的人。

 

Doubtless, it is at one and the same time that they apprehend the object globally and perceive it as lost.

 

無疑的，他們也同時全盤理解客體，並認識到它已經喪失。

 

Yet it would never occur to a neurotic to grasp the skin erotically as a multiplicity of pores, little spots, little scars or black holes, or to grasp the sock erotically as a multiplicity of stitches.

 

可是，精神官能症者卻從未想到要從性慾去理解皮膚，當著是多重毛孔，小斑點，小疤痕，或黑色毛孔，或以性感慾解襪子，當著是多重針線。

 

The psychotic can: “we should expect the multiplicity of these little cavities to prevent him from using them as substitutes for the female genital.”1

 

變態症者則能夠：「我們應該期望這些多重的罅隙，阻止他不要使用它們當著是女性性器官的代用品。」

 

Comparing a sock to a vagina is OK, it’s done all the time, but you’d have to be insane to compare a pure aggregate of stitches to a field of vaginas: that’s what Freud says.

 

將襪子比喻陰戶沒問題，總是有人這樣比，但是將純粹的針線集合比喻陰戶地帶，則必須是瘋狂。佛洛伊德如是說。

 

This represents an important clinical discovery: a whole difference in style between neurosis and psychosis.

 

這代表診所有重要的發現：精神官能症跟變態症風格上完全不同。

 

For example, Salvador Dali, in attempting to reproduce his delusions, may go on at length about THE rhinoceros horn; he has not for all of that left neurotic discourse behind.

 

例如，薩爾瓦多、達利，企圖複製自己的幻覺，可能會詳細地描繪犀牛角；雖然如此，他仍然被認為是精神官能症者。

 

But when he starts comparing goosebumps to a field of tiny rhinoceros horns, we get the feeling that the atmosphere has changed and that we are now in the presence of madness.

 

但是，當他開始將鵝皮比喻為犀牛角地帶時，我們就覺得，氣氛已經改變，我們現在面對的是瘋狂。

 

Is it still a question of a comparison at all? It is, rather, a pure multiplicity that changes elements, or becomes.

 

這依舊還是比喻的問題嗎？相反的，純粹的多重性改變了元素，換言之，生成。

 

On the micrological level, the little bumps “become” horns, and the horns, little penises.

 

在細微邏輯，小鵝皮「生成」犀牛角，而犀牛角「生成」陽具。

 

No sooner does Freud discover the greatest art of the unconscious, this art of molecular multiplicities, than we find him tirelessly at work bringing back molar unities, reverting to his familiar themes of the father, the penis, the vagina, Castration with a capital C… (On the verge of discovering a rhizome, Freud always returns to mere roots.)

 

佛洛伊德一發現無意識的偉大藝術，分子多重性的這個藝術，我們就發現他樂此不疲地帶回分子一致性，重新回到他熟悉的主題：父親、陽具、陰戶、閹割、而且特別用閹割英文大寫字首C（佛洛伊德即將發現塊莖，卻總是回到根源。）

 

The reductive procedure of the 1915 article is quite interesting: he says that the comparisons and identifications of the neurotic are guided by representations of things, whereas all the psychotic has left are representations of words (for example, the word “hole”).

 

1915年那篇文章描述化減的程序，頗耐人尋味；他說，精神官能症的比較跟認同，可用事物的符號來引導，而所有的變態症所留下的是字的符號（例如，「洞」這個字）。

 

“What has dictated the substitution is not the resemblance between the things denoted but the sameness of the words used to express them” (p. 201).

 

支配代替的不是所指稱的事物的類同，而是被用來表達他們的字的相同。

 

Thus, when there is no unity in the thing, there is at least unity and identity in the word.

 

因此，雖然事物裡沒有一致性，至少在字裡有一致性跟認同。

 

It will be noted that names are taken in their extensive usage, in other words, function as common nouns ensuring the unification of an aggregate they subsume.

 

我將注意到，名稱是採用廣義用法，換言之，充當普通名詞的功用，保證他們所包含的集合的一致性。

 

The proper name can be nothing more than an extreme case of the common noun, containing its already domesticated multiplicity within itself and linking it to a being or object posited as unique.

 

專有名詞僅僅是普通名詞的極端情形，包含它已經馴化的多重性在裡面，連接到一個被假定為獨特的存在或客體。

 

This jeopardizes, on the side of words and things both, the relation of the proper name as an intensity to the multiplicity it instantaneously apprehends.

 

在文字及事物這一面，這樣會危害倒專有名詞作為它瞬間所理解的多重性的張力的關係。

 

For Freud, when the thing splinters and loses its identity, the word is still there to restore that identity or invent a new one.

 

對於佛洛伊德，當事物破裂，失去它的認同，文字依舊在那裡，可恢復那個認同或發明新的認同。

 

Freud counted on the word to reestablish a unity no longer found in things.

 

佛洛伊德依靠文字，建立一個在事物中已經找不到的一致性。

 

Are we not witnessing the first stirrings of a subsequent adventure, that of the Signifier, the devious despotic agency that substitutes itself for asignifying proper names and replaces multiplicities with the dismal unity of an object declared lost?

 

我們難道不是見證到隨之而來的冒險的興奮，符號具的興奮，偏離的專橫做法代替非符號的專有名詞，並且用被宣稱已經喪失的客體的黯淡的一致性，來代替多重性。

 

We’re not far from wolves. For the Wolf-Man, in his second so-called psychotic episode, kept constant watch over the variations or changing path of the little holes or scars on the skin of his nose.

 

我們跟狼差不多。在他第二次所謂的變態的發作，狼人不斷地觀察到，他鼻子的皮膚上的疤痕的小洞的變化，或不斷地改變路線。

 

During the first episode, which Freud declares neurotic, he recounted a dream he had about six or seven wolves in a tree, and drew five.

 

在第一次的發作，佛洛伊德宣稱是精神官能症。狼人描述他夢見樹上有大約六七隻狼，並且畫出五隻。

 

Who is ignorant of the fact that wolves travel in packs? Only Freud. Every child knows it. Not Freud.

 

狼出沒都是成群結隊，有誰不知道這個事實？只有佛洛伊德不知道。每個小孩都知道，佛洛伊德不知道。

 

With false scruples he asks, “ How are we to explain the fact that there are five, six, or seven wolves in this dream? “

 

佛洛伊德假惺惺地問：我們要如何解釋在這個夢中，狼怎麼有五隻、六隻、或七隻？

 

He has decided that this is neurosis, so he uses the other reductive procedure: free association on the level of the representation of things, rather than verbal subsumption on the level of the representation of words.

 

他已經決定，這是精神官能症。所以他用其他的化減程序：在事物符號的層次上自由聯想，而不是文字的符號層次的文詞包容。

 

The result is the same, since it is always a question of bringing back the unity or identity of the person or allegedly lost object.

 

結果是相同，因為問題總是要帶回這個人，或所指稱的迷失的客體的一致性或認同

 

The wolves will have to be purged of their multiplicity. This operation is accomplished by associating the dream with the tale, “The Wolf and the Seven Kid-Goats” (only six of which get eaten).

 

狼將必須清除他們的多重性。將夢跟故事聯想在一起，就是他們所完全的運作。

 

We witness Freud’s reductive glee; we literally see multiplicity leave the wolves to take the shape of goats that have absolutely nothing to do with the story.

 

我們見證到佛洛伊德化減的歡欣；我們真的看到多重性離開狼，形成絕對跟故事無關的山羊的形狀。

 

Seven wolves that are only kid-goats. Six wolves: the seventh goat (the Wolf-Man himself) is hiding in the clock.

 

七隻狼只是小山羊。六隻狼：第七隻山羊（狼人自己）躲在大鐘裡面。

 

Five wolves: he may have seen his parents make love at five o’clock, and the roman numeral V is associated with the erotic spreading of a woman’s legs.

 

五隻狼：他可能曾看過他的父母在五點鐘做愛，鐘面的羅馬數字五是V狀，跟女人的雙腳性感地攤開聯想在一起。

 

Three wolves: the parents may have made love three times. Two wolves: the first coupling the child may have seen was the two parents more ferarum, or perhaps even two dogs.

 

三隻狼：父母可能曾經做愛三次。兩隻狼：小孩可能曾看過第一次性交是父母的獸交姿勢（從後面），或可能甚至是兩隻狗。

 

One wolf: the wolf is the father, as we all knew from the start. Zero wolves: he lost his tail, he is not just a castrater but also castrated.

 

一隻狼：狼是父親，如同我們從一開始就知道。零隻狼：它失去尾巴，它不僅是閹割別人，而且被人閹割。

 

Who is Freud trying to fool? The wolves never had a chance to get away and save their pack: it was already decided from the very beginning that animals could serve only to represent coitus between parents, or, conversely, be represented by coitus between parents.

 

佛洛伊德想要愚弄誰？狼從未有機會逃離，去拯救狼群。從一開始就已經決定：動物只能充當代表父母之間的性交，或是，相反的，被父母之間的性交所代表。

 

Freud obviously knows nothing about the fascination exerted by wolves and the meaning of their silent call, the call to become-wolf.

 

佛洛伊德顯而易見完全不知道，狼所從事的著迷，以及它們沉默的呼喚，呼喚成為狼。

 

Wolves watch, intently watch, the dreaming child; it is so much more reassuring to tell oneself that the dream produced a reversal and that it is really the child who sees dogs or parents in the act of making love.

 

狼觀察，專注地觀察作夢的小孩；若能告訴自己，夢產生倒轉，是多麼的令人寬慰。真的是小孩看到狗或父母正在做愛。

 

Freud only knows the Oedipalized wolf or dog, the castrated-castrating daddy-wolf, the dog in the kennel, the analyst’s bow-wow.

 

佛洛伊德只知道伊底普斯情結的狼或狗，被閹割及閹割人的父狼，狗舍中的狗，分析師的犬吠聲。

 

Franny is listening to a program on wolves. I say to her, Would you like to be a wolf? She answers haughtily, How stupid, you can’t be one wolf, you’re always eight or nine, six or seven.

 

扶蘭尼正在聽有關狼的節目，我對她說：「你想要成為狼嗎？」她高傲地回答：「大笨蛋！你無法成為狼，你總是八或九，六或七。」

 

Not six or seven wolves all by yourself all at once, but one wolf among others, with five or six others.

 

不是六或七之狼突然單獨在一起，而是一隻狼在其他狼中間，跟其他五、六隻其他的狼。

 

In becoming-wolf, the important thing is the position of the mass, and above all the position of the subject itself in relation to the pack or wolf-multiplicity: how the

subject joins or does not join the pack, how far away it stays, how it does or does not hold to the multiplicity.

 

在成為狼時，重要的事情是團體的位置，尤其是主體本身，相對於狼群或狼的多重性的位置；主體如何加入或不加入狼群，他保持多遠，他如何保持多重性。

 

 

To soften the harshness of her response, Franny recounts a dream: “There is a desert. Again, it wouldn’t make any sense to say that I am in the desert. It’s a panoramic vision of the desert, and it’s not a tragic or uninhabited desert. It’s only a desert because of its ocher

color and its blazing, shadowless sun. There is a teeming crowd in it, a swarm of bees, a rumble of soccer players, or a group of Tuareg. I am on the edge of the crowd, at the periphery; but I belong to it, I am attached to it by one of my extremities, a hand or foot. I know that the periphery is the only place I can be, that I would die if I let myself be drawn into the center of the fray, but just as certainly if I let go of the crowd. This is not an easy position to stay in, it is even very difficult to hold, for these beings are in constant

motion and their movements are unpredictable and follow no rhythm. They swirl, go north, then suddenly east; none of the individuals in the crowd remains in the same place in relation to the others. So I too am in perpetual motion; all this demands a high level of tension, but it gives me a feeling of violent, almost vertiginous, happiness.”

 

為了舒緩她回答時的無禮，扶蘭尼描述一個夢：「有一處沙漠。而且，說我在沙漠裡是沒多大意義。這是沙漠的全景，這並不是悲劇或無人居住的沙漠。這只是沙漠，因為它是黃土色，而且陽光炙熱，沒有陰涼。有一群人，一群蜜蜂，足球球員的喊聲，或許多汽車。我在群眾邊緣，在邊緣，但是我屬於那裡，我的某些突出部份，手或腳，跟他們連接。我知道邊緣是唯一我能夠停駐的地方，假如我讓自己被捲入喧嘩的中央，我將完蛋，或是假如我脫離群眾，我也一定完蛋。停駐邊緣並不是容易的位置。要站穩甚至很困難，因為這些存在物不斷地在移動，他們的動作捉摸不定，沒有一定節奏。他們旋轉，向前，然後突然向東，群眾的個人沒有一位保持在跟別人相對比的相同位置。所以，我也處於不斷的移動，所有這些都要求高度的專注，但是這樣給我猛烈到幾乎是暈眩的快樂之感。」

 

A very good schizo dream. To be fully a part of the crowd and at the same time completely outside it, removed from it: to be on the edge, to take a walk like Virginia Woolf (never again will I say, “I am this, I am that”).2

 

這是典型的精神分裂的夢：完全是群眾的一部份，同時又完全地在群眾之外，遠離群眾。在邊緣，像維吉尼亞、吳爾夫的散步（我永遠不再說：「我是這，我是那」。）

 

Problems of peopling in the unconscious: all that passes through the pores of the schizo, the veins of the drug addict, swarming, teeming, ferment, intensities, races and tribes.

 

在無意識人群的問題：一切都通過精神分裂的毛孔，毒癮者的靜脈，蜂擁，麇集，騷動，緊張，種族及部落。

 

This tale of white skin prickling with bumps and pustules, and of dwarfish black heads emerging from pores grimacing and abominable, needing to be shaved off every morning—is it a tale by Jean Ray, who knew how to bring terror to phenomena of

micromultiplicity? And how about the “Lilliputian hallucinations” on ether?

 

這個故事是：凸塊及膿包刺痛皮膚，從毛孔出現侏儒般的黑頭，猙獰而可怕，每天早晨要刮乾淨。這難道不是禎雷的故事？他知道如何帶來恐怖給微小多重性的現象。格列佛遊記中的「小人國」是如何觀看天空的？

 

One schizo, two schizos, three: “There are babies growing in my every pore”—”With me, it’s not in the pores, it’s in my veins, little iron rods growing in my veins”—”I don’t want them to give me any shots, except with camphorated alcohol. Otherwise breasts grow in my every pore.”

 

一位精神分裂症，兩位精神分裂症，三位：「我的每處毛孔，都有嬰兒成長。」「對我而言，這不是在毛孔，而是在我的靜脈，小鐵棒在我的靜脈裡成長。」「我不想要他們給我打針，除了用跟樟腦混合的酒精。否則乳房會長在我的每一處毛孔。」

 

Freud tried to approach crowd phenomena from the point of view of the unconscious, but he did not see clearly, he did not see that the unconscious itself was fundamentally a crowd. He was myopic and hard of hearing; he mistook crowds for a single person.

 

佛洛伊德設法從無意識的觀點接近群眾現象，但是他並沒有看清楚，他並沒有看到，無意識本身基本上是群眾。他近視眼，而且重聽，他誤將群眾當著是一個人。

 

Schizos, on the other hand, have sharp eyes and ears. They don’t mistake the buzz and shove of the crowd for daddy’s voice. Once Jung had a dream about bones and skulls.

 

在另一方面，精神分裂症眼睛和耳朵都銳利。他們並沒有將嗡嗡聲及群眾的推擠當著是老爸的聲音。

 

A bone or a skull is never alone. Bones are a multiplicity. But Freud wants the dream to signify the death of someone. “Jung was surprised and pointed out that there were several skulls, not just one. Yet Freud still. . .”3

 

骨頭或頭顱從不孤單。骨頭是多重性，但是佛洛伊德要夢象徵某個人的死亡。「榮格「很驚呀地指出，頭顱有好幾個，不是一個。可是，佛洛伊德卻、、、」」

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 11

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guatari

德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

Introduction: Zhizome 導論：塊莖思維 11

A plateau is always in the middle, not at the beginning or the end. A rhizome is made of plateaus. Gregory Bateson uses the word “plateau” to designate something very special: a continuous, self-vibrating region of intensities whose development avoids any orientation toward a culmination point or external end.

高台總是在中間，不是在開始或結束。塊莖由高台組成。格瑞哥、巴特孫使用「高台」指明某建特別的東西：一個連續，自我振動的張力地區，其發展避免朝向高潮或外在的目的。

Bateson cites Balinese culture as an example: mother-child sexual games, and even quarrels among men, undergo this bizarre intensive stabilization. “Some sort of continuing plateau of intensity is substituted for [sexual] climax,” war, or a culmination point.

巴特孫引述巴尼斯的文化當例子：母親與小孩的性遊戲，甚至男人之間的爭鬥，都經歷這種古怪的張力穩定。「有些張力的連續高台，被用來代替（性）高潮、戰爭、或高潮點。」

It is a regrettable characteristic of the Western mind to relate expressions and actions to exterior or transcendent ends, instead of evaluating them on a plane of consistency on the basis of their intrinsic value.

西方心靈令人遺憾的特性是，將表達及行動連接到外在的或超驗的目的，而不是在一貫的平面，根據它們內在的價質評估他們。

For example, a book composed of chapters has culmination and termination points.

例如，一本由章節組成的書，有高潮及終結點。

What takes place in a book composed instead of plateaus that communicate with one another across microfissures, as in a brain?

相反的，若是由高台組成的書，彼此之間跨越微小罅隙來溝通，會是如何狀況？

We call a “plateau” any multiplicity connected to other multiplicities by superficial underground stems in such a way as to form or extend a rhizome.

我們稱呼「高台」為連接到其它多重性的多重性，靠著表面的地下幹莖，形成或衍生塊莖。

We are writing this book as a rhizome. It is composed of plateaus. We have given it a circular form, but only for laughs.

我們寫作這本書當著塊莖。它由無數高台組成。我們賦予它一個迴旋的形態，但只是博君一笑。

Each morning we would wake up, and each of us would ask himself what plateau he was going to tackle, writing five lines here, ten there.

 每天早上我們醒來，各自問道，他想克服哪個高台，這裡寫個五行，那裡寫個十行。

We had hallucinatory experiences, we watched lines leave one plateau and proceed to another like columns of tiny ants.

我們曾經有幻覺的經驗，我們在字裡行間，離開一個高台，繼續前進另一個高台，密密麻麻，像螞蟻窩。

We made circles of convergence. Each plateau can be read starting anywhere and can be related to any other plateau.

我們形成匯聚圈。每個高台能夠從任何點被閱讀，從任何點跟其它高台相連。

 To attain the multiple, one must have a method that effectively constructs it; no typographical cleverness, no lexical agility, no blending or creation of words, no syntactical boldness, can substitute for it.

為了到達多重性，我們必須要有效率地建造它的方法；這些方法可不是編排靈活，遣詞機敏，鑄造新義，或語不驚人死不休，就可以代替的。

In fact, these are more often than not merely mimetic procedures used to disseminate or disperse a unity that is retained in a different dimension for an image-book.

事實上，往往只有模擬的程序，被用來拆解或擴散一致性。這種一致性在不同向度的意象的書是司空見慣的。

Technonarcissism. Typographical, lexical, or syntactic creations are necessary only when they no longer belong to the form of expression of a hidden unity, becoming themselves dimensions of the multiplicity under consideration; we only know of rare successes in this.

科技迷戀：編排、辭彙、或語法的鑄造，是有需要，但只有當它們不再屬於隱藏一致性的表達形式， 本身成為我們所討論的多重性的向度時。我們知道這一點成就，只是偶爾曇花一現。

We ourselves were unable to do it. We just used words that in turn function for us as plateaus.

我們自己是力有不貸。我們只是權且借助文字的功用替我們充當高台。

RHIZOMATICS =SCHIZOANALYSIS = STRATOANALYSIS = PRAGMATICS = MICROPOLITics.

塊莖學、等同精神分裂學、等同階層分析學、等同語用學、等同微小政治學。

These words are concepts, but concepts are lines, which is to say, number systems attached to a particular dimension of the multiplicities (strata, molecular chains, lines of flight or rupture, circles of convergence, etc.).

這些文字都是概念，但是概念形之於字裡行間，換言之，數字系統連接於多重性的特別的向度（階層、分子鎖鏈、逃離或斷裂路線，匯聚圈，等等）。

Nowhere do we claim for our concepts the title of a science.

我絲毫不敢妄稱我們的概念具有科學的名銜。

 We are no more familiar with scientificity than we are with ideology; all we know are assemblages.

我們對於科學化及意識形態並不熟悉。我們所知道的只是裝配。

And the only assemblages are machinic assemblages of desire and collective assemblages of enunciation.

唯一的裝配就是對於欲望的機械式裝配，及對於表達的集體裝配。

No signifiance, no subjectification: writing to the nth power (all individuated enunciation remains trapped within the dominant significations, all signifying desire is associated with dominated subjects).

沒有意義化，沒有主體化：寫作到無限次方（所有個別化表達始終困陷於支配性的意義，所有符號化的欲望，都跟受支配的主體息息相關）。

An assemblage, in its multiplicity, necessarily acts on semiotic flows, material flows, and social flows simultaneously (independently of any recapitulation that may be made of it in a scientific or theoretical corpus).

以其多重性，裝配是必須的行動，在語意，物質，及社會的同時流動中（獨立於科學或理論文本常見的任何要點重現）。

There is no longer a tripartite division between a field of reality (the world) and a field of representation (the book) and a field of subjectivity (the author).

在真實領域（世界），符號領域（書），及主體化領域（作者）之間，不再有三足鼑立的區分。

 Rather, an assemblage establishes connections between certain multiplicities drawn from each of these orders, so that a book has no sequel nor the world as its object nor one or several authors as its subject.

相反的，裝配組成從這些秩序得來的某些多重性之間的連接，所以此書沒有續篇，也沒有世界充當它的客體，也沒有一兩位作者充當它的主體。

 In short, we think that one cannot write sufficiently in the name of an outside. The outside has no image, no signification, no subjectivity.

總之，我們認為以外在性為名，我們無論如何寫，也無法盡意。外在性沒有意象，沒有符號，沒有主體性。

The book as assemblage with the outside, against the book as image of the world. A rhizomebook, not a dichotomous, pivotal, or fascicular book.

本書作為外在性的裝配，對比於世界意象的書。本書是塊莖之書，不是二分法、樞軸的，或叢生的書。

Never send down roots, or plant them, however difficult it may be to avoid reverting to the old procedures.

要避免回歸舊有的秩序，無論是多麼困難，但是不要伸下根或種植它們。

“Those things which occur to me, occur to me not from the root up but rather only from somewhere about their middle. Let someone then attempt to seize them, let someone attempt to seize a blade of grass and hold fast to it when it begins to grow only from the middle.

” 那些發生到我身上的事情，不是從根上來，而僅是從中間某處上來，發生到我身上。那麼，讓某人企圖捉著它們，讓某人拿起一支草，緊緊握住，當它開始從中間滋長。

Why is this so difficult? The question is directly one of perceptual semiotics. It’s not easy to see things in the middle, rather than looking down on them from above or up at them from below, or from left to right or right to left: try it, you’ll see that everything changes.

為什麼這是如此困難？這問題直接說，是感官的問題。要從中間看事情，而不從上朝下，或從下朝上，或從左朝右，或從右朝左，並不容易。不妨嘗試一下，你就會看出，一切都會改變。

 It’s not easy to see the grass in things and in words (similarly, Nietzsche said that an aphorism had to be “ruminated”; never is a plateau separable from the cows that populate it, which are also the clouds in the sky).

要在事物及文字當中，看出草，並不容易。（同樣的，尼采說過，短句警語必須要被「反芻」；一座高台永遠無法跟居住其上母牛分開，這些母牛也是天空的雲。）

 History is always written from the sedentary point of view and in the name of a unitary State apparatus, at least a possible one, even when the topic is nomads.

歷史寫作，總是從定棲的觀點，及以統一的國家機器或可能的國家為名，即使題目是遊牧。

What is lacking is a Nomadology, the opposite of a history. There are rare successes in this also, for example, on the subject of the Children’s Crusades: Marcel Schwob’s book multiplies narratives like so many plateaus with variable numbers of dimensions.

所喪失是遊牧學，歷史的相反。對於這一點，成功的例子鳳毛麟角，例如，討論兒童十字軍東征的主題：馬賽、希瓦的書，描述千變萬化，像許多座高台，出奇入化。

 Then there is Andrzejewski’s book, Lesportes du paradis (The gates of paradise), composed of a single uninterrupted sentence; a flow of children; a flow of walking with pauses, straggling, and forward rushes; the semiotic flow of the confessions of all the children who go up to the old monk at the head of the procession to make their declarations; a flow of desire and sexuality, each child having left out of love and more or less directly led by the dark posthumous pederastic desire of the count of Vendôme; all this with circles of convergence.

 還有安傑思基的書「天堂之門」。寫作時句子一氣呵成，童心瀰漫，走走停停，時而偏離，時而急速前行，所有小孩前往隊伍前頭的老僧侶面前，陳述或告解，妙語如珠。裡面有欲望跟性的流動，所有小孩出發的動機出於愛情，多少曾直接受到邊度梅伯爵同性戀慾望的啟發，儘管他已經過世。所有這些形成匯聚圈。

What is important is not whether the flows are “One or multiple”–we’re past that point: there is a collective assemblage of enunciation, a machinic assemblage of desire, one inside the other and both plugged into an immense outside that is a multiplicity in any case.

重要的不是流動是否「一或多重」，我們已經跨越這一點。表達有集體的裝配，慾望的機械的裝配，彼此互有，兩者銜接倒巨大的外在性，那就是多重性。

A more recent example is Armand Farrachi’s book on the Fourth Crusade, La dislocation, in which the sentences space themselves out and disperse, or else jostle together and coexist, and in which the letters, the typography begin to dance as the crusade grows more delirious.

最近的例子是阿曼、法拉其的論第四次十字軍東征的書「大崩解」，句子間隔很寬，而且分散，要不然就是擠成一團，共同存在。隨著十字軍東征更加狂熱，字母及編排也跟著龍飛鳳舞起來。

 These are models of nomadic and rhizomatic writing. Writing weds a war machine and lines of flight, abandoning the strata, segmentarities, sedentarity, the State apparatus.

這些都是遊牧及塊莖的寫作模式。寫作跟戰爭機器及逃離路線相結合，放棄階層，隔間、定棲，國家機器。

But why is a model still necessary?

但是為什麼需要這樣的模式呢？

Aren’t these books still “images” of the Crusades? Don’t they still retain a unity, in Schwob’s case a pivotal unity, in Farrachi’s an aborted unity, and in the most beautiful example, Les portes du paradis, the unity of the funereal count?

 這些書難道不還是十字軍東征的「意象」？他們難道沒有保留一致性？希瓦的書仍然有樞軸的一致性，法拉基的書一致性雖墮尚存，最為生花妙筆的，「異端的天堂」難道不是一致性地描述伯爵的喪禮？

Is there a need for a more profound nomadism than that of the Crusades, a nomadism of true nomads, or of those who no longer even move or imitate anything?

還有需要尋求比十字軍東征更加深刻的遊牧嗎？他們不就是道道地地的遊牧民族的遊牧？何需再跟別人東施效顰？

The nomadism of those who only assemble (agencent). How can the book find an adequate outside with which to assemble in heterogeneity, rather than a world to reproduce?

他們就是那些只是裝配的人的遊牧。這本書是如何找到充足的外在性，讓它們在異質性中裝配，而不是在一個世界中複製？

The cultural book is necessarily a tracing: already a tracing of itself, a tracing of the previous book by the same author, a tracing of other books however different they may be, an endless tracing of established concepts and words, a tracing of the world present, past, and future.

文化的書必須是蹤跡，本身已經是蹤跡，相同作者的先前的書的蹤跡，其它的書的蹤跡，儘管它們並不相同，已經建立的觀念及文字的蹤跡，目前、過去及未來的世界的蹤跡。

 Even the anticultural book may still be burdened by too heavy a cultural load: but it will use it actively, for forgetting instead of remembering, for underdevelopment instead of progress toward development, in nomadism rather than sedentarity, to make a map instead of a tracing.

即使反文化的書仍然會有文化殘存影響的負擔，但是會活用它，用以遺忘，而非記憶，用以解除發展，而非朝發展前進，用在遊牧，而非定棲，為了製作地圖，而非蹤跡。

RHIZOMATICS = POP ANALYSIS, even if the people have other things to do besides read it, even if the blocks of academic culture or pseudoscientificity in it are still too painful or ponderous.

塊莖學等同流行文化分析，即使人們除了閱讀之外，尚有其它事情可做，即使學術文化或假科學研究的阻礙還是困難重重，令人難受。

 For science would go completely mad if left to its own devices. Look at mathematics: it’s not a science, it’s a monster slang, it’s nomadic.

科學假如聽任自行其是，將會走火入魔。看一看數學；那已經不是科學，而是妖魔的咒語，那是遊牧。

Even in the realm of theory, especially in the realm of theory, any precarious and pragmatic framework is better than tracing concepts, with their breaks and progress changing nothing. Imperceptible rupture, not signifying break.

即使在理論的領域，特別是在理論的領域，任何不完整及系統的架構，都比蹤跡的觀念好，因為它們的中斷及進展不會改變任何事情。我指的是沒有感覺到的斷裂，而非符號化的中斷。

The nomads invented a war machine in opposition to the State apparatus. History has never comprehended nomadism, the book has never comprehended the outside.

遊牧發明戰爭機器，對抗國家機器。歷史從沒有理解過遊牧主義。書從沒有理解過外在性。

The State as the model for the book and for thought has a long history: logos, the philosopher-king, the transcendence of the Idea, the interiority of the concept, the republic of minds, the court of reason, the functionaries of thought, man as legislator and subject.

國家作為書及思想的模式，由來已久。理性，哲學家皇帝，理念的超驗，觀念的內在性，心靈的共和國，理智的法庭，思想的官吏，人作為立法者及臣民。

 The State’s pretension to be a world order, and to root man. The war machine’s relation to an outside is not another “model”; it is an assemblage that makes thought itself nomadic, and the book a working part in every mobile machine, a stem for a rhizome (Kleist and Kafka against Goethe).

國家假冒是世界的秩序，把人鏟除。戰爭機器跟外在性的關係，並不是另外一個模式，它是使思想本身成為遊牧的裝配，本書是行動機器可運作的一部份，是塊莖的幹莖（克列思特及卡夫卡對抗歌德）。

Write to the nth power, the n – 1 power, write with slogans: Make rhizomes, not roots, never plant! Don’t sow, grow offshoots!

寫作到無限次方，無限減一的次方，用口號寫作：製造塊莖，而不是根。永遠不要種植！不要播種！要橫生滋長！

 Don’t be one or multiple, be multiplicities! Run lines, never plot a point! Speed turns the point into a line!

不要一或多重！要多重性！跑出路線！永遠不要只耕耘一點！速戰速決將點轉變成路線！

Be quick, even when standing still! Line of chance, line of hips, line of flight. Don’t bring out the General in you! Don’t have just ideas, just have an idea (Godard).

動作要快，即使是立正！即使是機會線，喝采線，逃離線。不要替自己內心弄出個將軍來！如電影導演高達所言，觀念不需要義正詞嚴，只要有觀念。

Have short-term ideas. Make maps, not photos or drawings. Be the Pink Panther and your loves will be like the wasp and the orchid, the cat and the baboon. As they say about old man river:

觀念要短期。製作地圖，而非照片或繪畫。你若是粉紅豹，你的愛情自會如黃蜂跟蘭花，猫跟狒狒。如傳說中的老人河：

 He don’t plant ‘tatos.

 Don’t plant cotton

Them that plants them is soon forgotten

But old man river he just keeps rollin’ along

不種植馬鈴薯

不種植棉花

種植它們的人不久被遺忘

但是老人河千古長流

A rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things, interbeing, intermezzo. The tree is filiation, but the rhizome is alliance, uniquely alliance. The tree imposes the verb “to be” but the fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction, “and … and … and…”

塊莖沒有開始或結束、它總是在中間，在事物中間，存在中間，在高低音中間。樹是父子系譜，但是塊莖是結盟，獨特的結盟。樹給的是動詞「存在」，但是塊莖的質料是連接詞「以及、以及、以及、、、」

This conjunction carries enough force to shake and uproot the verb “to be.”

連接詞有足夠力量撼動動詞「存在」，並將它連根拔起。

Where are you going? Where are you coming from? What are you heading for? These are totally useless questions. Making a clean slate, starting or beginning again from ground zero, seeking a beginning or a foundation–all imply a false conception of voyage and movement (a conception that is methodical, pedagogical, initiatory, symbolic … ).

你要去哪兒？你從何處來？你在追求什麼？ 這些都無用的問題。找一塊乾淨的石板，從零出發或再開始，尋找一個開始或基礎，這些都暗示著一個虛假的航海及行動觀念（這個觀念是方法、是教學、是啟蒙、是象徵、、、）

But Kleist, Lenz, and Büchner have another way of traveling and moving: proceeding from the middle, through the middle, coming and going rather than starting and finishing.

但是克列斯特，藍茲，布紐爾，還有另外一種旅行跟移動的方法：從中間開始，經由中間，來跟去，而非出發跟結束。

American literature, and already English literature, manifest this rhizomatic direction to an even greater extent; they know how to move between things, establish a logic of the AND, overthrow ontology, do away with foundations, nullify endings and beginnings.

美國文學，及已經是英文的文學，證明這個塊莖的方向，朝向更高的層次。他們知道如何在事物之間移動，建立這個「以及」的邏輯，推翻本體論，廢除基礎，將結束跟開始作廢。

They know how to practice pragmatics. The middle is by no means an average; on the contrary, it is where things pick up speed.

他們知道如何實踐實用主義。中間絲毫不是平均數，相反的，它是事物加速度的地方。

Between things does not designate a localizable relation going from one thing to the other and back again, but a perpendicular direction, a transversal movement that sweeps one and the other away, a stream without beginning or end that undermines its banks and picks up speed in the middle.

事物「中間」並不是指明，從某一件事物到另一事物的一個位置的關係，而是一個垂直的方向，一個橫越的行動，橫掃這個以及那個的行動，一條沒有開始或結束的溪流，逐漸損毀自己的堤岸，然後在中間加速度。

雄伯譯

32hsiung@phome.com.tw

塊莖思維 10

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Gattari

德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

 

Introduction: Zhizome

導論：塊莖思維10

 

At the same time, we are on the wrong track with all these geographical distributions. An impasse.

 

同時，我們因為所有這些地理上的分配，處於錯誤的路徑。一個僵局。

 

So much the better. If it is a question of showing that rhizomes also have their own, even more rigid, despotism and hierarchy, then fine and good: for there is no dualism, no ontological dualism between here and there, no axiological dualism between good and bad, no blend or American synthesis.

 

這樣更好。假如問題顯現出，塊莖也有自己的，甚至是更加嚴格的專制跟階層，那麼沒什麼不好：因為沒有二元論，在此地與彼地之間，沒有本體的二元論，沒有善與惡之間沒有價值的二元論，沒有混合或美國式的綜合。

 

There are knots of arborescence in rhizomes, and rhizomatic offshoots in roots. Moreover, there are despotic formations of immanence and channelization specific to rhizomes, just as there are anarchic deformations in the transcendent system of trees, aerial roots, and subterranean stems.

 

塊莖有樹狀的結，而根有塊莖的衍生。而且，有塊莖特有的專制的內在性隊形及水道化，正如樹、空中之根，及地下莖幹的超驗系統，有無政府般的解散隊形。

 

The important point is that the root-tree and canal-rhizome are not two opposed models: the first operates as a transcendent model and tracing, even if it engenders its own escapes; the second operates as an immanent process that overturns the model and outlines a map, even if it constitutes its own hierarchies, even if it gives rise to a despotic channel.

 

重要的是，根及樹與水道塊莖並不是相對的模式：前者運作當著超驗模式及蹤跡，即使它產生自己的逃避，後者運作當著一個內在性的過程，推翻模式並畫出地圖輪廓，即使它組成自己的階層，即使它產生一個專制的水道。

 

It is not a question of this or that place on earth, or of a given moment in history, still less of this or that category of thought. It is a question of a model that is perpetually in construction or collapsing, and of a process that is perpetually prolonging itself, breaking off and starting

up again. No, this is not a new or different dualism.

 

這個問題不是地球上的此地或彼地，歷史上的某個時刻，更不是思想的這個或那個範疇。這個問題是，模式永遠在建造及崩塌，過程永遠在延長自己，中斷，然後又再開始。不，這並非是一個新或不同的二元論。

 

The problem of writing: in order to designate something exactly, anexact expressions are utterly unavoidable.

 

這是寫作的問題：為了要明確地指明某件東西，確實的表達是完全無可避免的。

 

Not at all because it is a necessary step, or because one can only advance by approximations: anexactitude is in no way an approximation; on the contrary, it is the exact passage of that which is under way.

 

這倒不是必須的步驟，或是因為我們只能憑藉靠近，才能前進。確實根本與靠近無關，相反的，它是進行中的事物的確實過程。

 

We invoke one dualism only in order to challenge another. We employ a dualism of models only in order to arrive at a process that challenges all models.

 

我們召喚一個二元論，只是為了挑戰另一個二元論。我們運用一個模式的二元論，只是為了到達挑戰一切模式的過程。

 

Each time, mental correctives are necessary to undo the dualisms we had no wish to construct but through which we pass.

 

每一次，精神上的改正是必須的，為了要拆解我們並不希望建造，但又通過的二元論。

 

Arrive at the magic formula we all seek-PLURALISM = MONISM-via all the dualisms that are the enemy, an entirely necessary enemy, the furniture we are forever rearranging.

 

得到這個我們都盼望以求的神奇的公式：透過所有敵對的二元論，一個完全需要的敵對，我們永遠重新佈置的傢俱，多元論等於一元論。

 

 

Let us summarize the principal characteristics of a rhizome: unlike trees or their roots, the rhizome connects any point to any other point, and its traits are not necessarily linked to traits of the same nature; it brings into play very different regimes of signs, and even nonsign states.

 

讓我們替塊莖的主要特性做個總結：不像樹或根，塊莖連接任何點到任何點，它的特性未必連接到相同性質的特性；它扮演不同的符號統治，甚至是非符號的國家。

 

The rhizome is reducible neither to the One nor the multiple. It is not the One that becomes Two or even directly three, four, five, etc.

 

塊莖既無法化減到大一統，也無法化減到多重性。它不是可分裂為二，或甚至三、四、五等等的大一統。

 

It is not a multiple derived from the One, or to which One is added (n + 1). It is composed not of units but of dimensions, or rather directions in motion. It has neither beginning nor end, but always a middle (milieu) from which it grows and which it overspills.

 

它不是從大一統得來，或大一統無限增加的的多重性、它的組成不是單位，而是向量，或是動作的方向。它既沒有開始，也沒有結束，而總是是中間的（環境），它從那裡成長，並流溢出去。

 

It constitutes linear multiplicities with n dimensions having neither subject nor object, which can be laid out on a plane of consistency, and from which the One is always subtracted (n - 1).

 

它組成直線的多重性，既沒有主體也沒有客體的無限的向量，能夠被安置在一貫性的平面，從那裡大一統總是一再被扣除（無限減一）。

 

When a multiplicity of this kind changes dimension, it necessarily changes in nature as well, undergoes a metamorphosis.

 

當這種多重性改變向量，它的性質也必須改變，經歷蛻變。

 

Unlike a structure, which is defined by a set of points and positions, with binary relations between the points and bi-univocal relationships between the positions, the rhizome is made only of lines: lines of segmentarity and stratification as its dimensions, and the line of flight or deterritorialization as the maximum dimension after which the multiplicity undergoes metamorphosis, changes in nature.

 

不像由一組點及位置所定位的結構，這個結構在點與點之間的二元關係，位置之間有兩個單一組成的關係。塊莖只是路線組成：分割及階層的路線當著它的向量，逃離路線解轄域當著最大向量，多重性跟在後面，經歷蛻變，性質上改變。

 

These lines, or lineaments, should not be confused with lineages of the arborescent type, which are merely localizable linkages between points and positions.

 

這些路線或輪廓，不應該跟樹狀類型的系譜混淆，後者僅僅是點與位置之間的地區性的系譜。

 

Unlike the tree, the rhizome is not the object of reproduction: neither external reproduction as image-tree nor internal reproduction as tree-structure.

 

跟樹不一樣，塊莖並不是繁殖的客體，既不是作為意象之樹的外在的繁殖，也不是作為樹的結構的內在繁殖。

 

The rhizome is an antigenealogy. It is a short-term memory, or antimemory. The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots.

 

塊莖是反系譜學的。它是短期記憶，或反記憶。塊莖的運作是變化、擴張、征服、捕捉、衍生。

 

Unlike the graphic arts, drawing, or photography, unlike tracings, the rhizome pertains to a map that must be produced, constructed, a map that is always detachable, connectable, reversible, modifiable, and has multiple entryways and exits and its own lines of flight.

 

不像圖表藝術，繪圖，或攝影，不像蹤跡，塊莖適合於必須被製作、建造的地圖。這個地圖總是能夠拆卸，連接，倒轉，修正，有多重的入口跟出口，以及自己的逃離路線。

 

It is tracings that must be put on the map, not the opposite. In contrast to centered (even

polycentric) systems with hierarchical modes of communication and preestablished paths, the rhizome is an acentered, nonhierarchical, nonsignifying system without a General and without an organizing memory or central automaton, defined solely by a circulation of states.

 

蹤跡，而不是相反，必須被放置在地圖上。對比於擁有溝通的階層模式及預先建立的管道的中央（甚至是多重中央）的系統，塊莖是非中央的，非階層的，非符號的系統，沒有將軍，沒有組織化的記憶或中央自動機械，只是由狀態的流通來定位。

 

 

What is at question in the rhizome is a relation to sexuality–but also to the animal, the vegetal, the world, politics, the book, things natural and artificial–that is totally different from the arborescent relation: all manner of “becomings.”

 

塊莖受到質疑的地方，不但是跟性的關係，而且跟動物，植物，世界，政治，書籍，自然及人為的事物的關係。那完全不同於樹狀關係：各種的「生成」的方式。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 09

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Gattari

德勒茲及瓜達里：千高台

 

An Introduction : Zhizome

導論：塊莖思維 09

 

To these centered systems, the authors contrast acentered systems, finite networks of automata in which communication runs from any neighbor to any other, the stems or channels do not preexist, and all individuals are interchangeable, defined only by their state at a given moment–such that the local operations are coordinated and the final, global result

synchronized without a central agency.

 

對於這些中央系統，作者對比許多非中央系統，機械的有限的網絡，讓資訊從任何鄰居流通到任何其他鄰居，樹幹或管道並沒有預先存在，所有的個人都可以互相交換，界定差異的，只是某個特並時刻，他們的狀態。所以地區性的運作是座標，最後的全球性的結果，沒有中央機構，也可以同時發生。

 

Transduction of intensive states replaces topology, and “the graph regulating the circulation of information is in a way the opposite of the hierarchical graph….There is no reason for the graph to be a tree” (we have been calling this kind of graph a map).

 

密集狀態的換能代替了地形學，「規範資訊流通的圖表，在某方面，是階層圖表的相反。但這個圖表並沒有一定是樹狀的理由」（我們一直稱呼這種圖表叫地圖）。

 

The problem of the war machine, or the firing squad: is a general necessary for n

individuals to manage to fire in unison?

 

戰爭機器或是行刑隊的問題：讓無數的個人一致地開火，有需要到一位將軍嗎？

 

The solution without a General is to be found in an acentered multiplicity possessing a finite number of states with signals to indicate corresponding speeds, from a war rhizome or guerrilla logic point of view, without any tracing, without any copying of a central order.

 

沒有一位將軍，解決的方法能夠在非中央的多重性被找到，因為這多重性擁有一些數目的狀態，發出訊號指示著一致性的速度，從戰爭塊莖，或游擊隊的邏輯，沒有蹤跡，沒有任何中央秩序的抄襲。

 

The authors even demonstrate that this kind of machinic multiplicity, assemblage, or society rejects any centralizing or unifying automaton as an “asocial intrusion.”

 

作者甚至證明，這種機器的多重性，裝配，或社會，拒絕任何中央或一致性的機械化，當一個「反社會的侵犯」。

 

Under these conditions, n is in fact always n – 1. Rosenstiehl and Petitot emphasize that the opposition, centered-acentered, is valid less as a designation for things than as a mode of calculation applied to things.

 

在這些條件下，無限次方總是無限次方減一。羅先提跟培提托強調，中央與非中央的對立，作為事物的指稱，比起應用到事物上的計算模式，較難於成立。

 

Trees may correspond to the rhizome, or they may burgeon into a rhizome. It is true that the same thing is generally susceptible to both modes of calculation or both types of regulation, but not without undergoing a change in state.

 

樹可能跟塊莖一致，或者它們可能萌芽成為塊莖。雖然相同的事物一般來說，容易受到計算模式及規範型式的傷害，但是狀態還是會經歷一些改變。

 

Take psychoanalysis as an example again: it subjects the unconscious to arborescent structures, hierarchical graphs, recapitulatory memories, central organs, the phallus, the phallus-tree-not only in its theory but also in its practice of calculation and treatment.

 

再一次以精神分析學為例。它將無意識隸屬於樹狀結構，階層圖表，再現記憶，中央器官，陽具，陽具及樹，不但在理論上，而且在計算及治療的實行上。

 

Psychoanalysis cannot change its method in this regard: it bases its own dictatorial power upon a dictatorial conception of the unconscious.

 

在這一方面，精神分析不能改變它的方法：它將自己的命令力量，建立在無意識的命令的概念上。

 

Psychoanalysis’s margin of maneuverability is therefore very limited. In both psychoanalysis and its object, there is always a general, always a leader (General Freud).

 

精神分析學的機動性的邊緣因此是相當受到限制。在精神分析學及其對象，總是有一位將軍，總是有一位領導者（佛洛伊德將軍）。

 

Schizoanalysis, on the other hand, treats the unconscious as an acentered system, in other words, as a machinic network of finite automata (a rhizome), and thus arrives at an entirely different state of the unconscious.

 

在另一方面，精神分裂分析學對待無意識，當著是一個非中央的系統，換言之，當著一個有限機械化的機器的網絡（一座塊莖），然後到達一個無意識完全不同的狀態。

 

These same remarks apply to linguistics; Rosenstiehl and Petitot are right to bring up the

possibility of an “acentered organization of a society of words.” For both statements and desires, the issue is never to reduce the unconscious or to interpret it or to make it signify according to a tree model.

 

這些相同的談話可應用到語言學。羅先提跟培提托提出「文字的社會有非中央組織的可能性」，是有道理的。因為對於陳述跟慾望，問題不是要減少無意識，或詮釋它，或使它依照樹狀模式來表明。

 

The issue is to produce the unconscious, and with it new statements, different desires: the rhizome is precisely this production of the unconscious.

 

問題是要產生無意識，然後用它來產生新的陳述，不同的慾望：塊莖準確就是無意識的產生。

 

It is odd how the tree has dominated Western reality and all of Western thought, from botany to biology and anatomy, but also gnosiology, theology, ontology, all of philosophy …: the root foundation, Grund, racine, fondement.

 

很奇怪，樹曾經支配西方的現實界及所有西方的思想，不但從植物學到生物學及解剖學，而且靈魂學、神學、本體論、及所有的哲學，根基基礎學、如毛髮、根，肛門。

 

The West has a special relation to the forest, and deforestation; the fields carved from the

forest are populated with seed plants produced by cultivation based on species lineages of the arborescent type; animal raising, carried out on fallow fields, selects lineages forming an entire animal arborescence.

 

西方國家跟森林有一個特別的關係，砍伐森林，從森林清理出來的田野，種植根據樹狀型態的品種系譜，而培育的一些種子植物；豢養家畜，在休耕的田地豢養，選擇一些優良品種，形成整個動物的樹狀結構。

 

 

The East presents a different figure: a relation to the steppe and the garden (or in some cases, the desert and the oasis),, rather than forest and field; cultivation of tubers by fragmentation of

the individual; a casting aside or bracketing of animal raising, which is confined to closed spaces or pushed out onto the steppes of the nomads.

 

東方國家表現不同的面貌：跟大草原及花園有特別關係（或者，在某些情形，跟沙漠及綠洲），而不是跟森林及田野。個人零星的培育根管植物，拋棄豢養動物的欄柵， 動物若不是被限制在封閉空間，就是被放逐到遊牧的大草原。

 

The West: agriculture based on a chosen lineage containing a large number of variable individuals.

 

西方國家的農業建立在選擇性的品種上，雖然這些品種包括許多不同的次品種。

 

The East: horticulture based on a small number of individuals derived from a wide range of “clones.” Does not the East, Oceania in particular, offer something like a rhizomatic model opposed in every respect to the Western model of the tree?

 

而東方國家的園藝業，則建立在從廣泛「基因」演變而來的少數的個別品種。東方國家，特別是海洋國家，難道不是提供某些每一方面都跟西方國家樹狀模式相反的，像是塊莖模式的東西？

 

André Haudricourt even sees this as the basis for the opposition between the moralities or philosophies of transcendence dear to the West and the immanent ones of the East: the God who sows and reaps, as opposed to the God who replants and unearths (replanting of offshoots versus sowing of seeds).16

 

安德列、何瑞科甚至把這一點，當著是西方國家所喜愛的道德論跟超驗哲學，與東方國家的內在論相對比的基礎；也就是播種收穫的上帝，跟反復重植與挖掘的上帝相對比（分枝的再重植對比於種子的播種）。

 

Transcendence: a specifically European disease. Neither is music the same, the music of the earth is different, as is sexuality: seed plants, even those with two sexes in the same plant, subjugate sexuality to the reproductive model; the rhizome, on the other hand, is a liberation

of sexuality not only from reproduction but also from genitality.

 

超驗：一種明確是歐洲的疾病。音樂也不相同，大地的音樂不同，如同性的音樂也不同。種子植物，即使相同植物擁有兩性的那些植物，都將性屈服於繁殖；另一方面，塊莖是一種性的解放，不但從繁殖解放，而且從生殖器解放。

 

Here in the West, the tree has implanted itself in our bodies, rigidifying and stratifying even the sexes. We have lost the rhizome, or the grass. Henry Miller: “China is the weed in the human cabbage patch. … The weed is the Nemesis of human endeavor… Of all the imaginary existences we attribute to plant, beast and star the weed leads the most satisfactory life of all. True, the weed produces no lilies, no battleships, no Sermons on the Mount… Eventually the weed gets the upper hand. Eventually things fall back into a state of China.  

 

在西方國家，樹已經根深柢固於我們的身體，甚至將性都嚴格規定跟區分。我們已經失去塊莖，或草。亨利、米勒說過：「在人類的甘藍菜園，中國像是野草。野草是人類惡行的反撲。我們給予植物、動物及星座，各種想像的存在特性，野草則是其中最令人滿意的存在特性。的確，野草沒有產生百合花，沒有產生主力艦，沒有產生耶穌的山上寶訓。最終，野草將會佔優勢。最後，一切都將會倒退到中國的狀態。」

 

This condition is usually referred to by historians as the Dark Age. Grass is the only way out…. The weed exists only to fill the waste spaces left by cultivated areas. It grows between, among other things.

 

這個狀況一般被歷史學家稱為黑暗時代。草是唯一的找出路的方法。野草存在只是為了填補耕種地區所剩餘的廢棄空間。野草滋長於其他東西的罅隙之間。

 

The lily is beautiful, the cabbage is provender, the poppy is maddening-but the weed is rank growth … : it points a moral.”

 

百合花是美麗的，甘藍菜是食物，罌粟是令人激奮，但是野草則是等級成長：它寓意良深。

 

Which China is Miller talking about? The old China, the new, an imaginary one, or yet

another located on a shifting map?

 

哪一種中國是米勒所談論的？古老的中國，新興的想像中的中國，還是另外一種尚位於

浮動地圖的中國？

 

America is a special case. Of course it is not immune from domination by trees or the search for roots.

 

美國是一個特別案例。當然，它無法免疫於樹狀的支配或根的尋求？

 

This is evident even in the literature, in the quest for a national identity and even for a European ancestry or genealogy (Kerouac going off in search of his ancestors).

 

這在文學，在追求國家認同，甚至在歐洲祖先或系譜的追尋，甚至更為明顯（作家凱洛亞克前去歐洲尋求祖先）。

 

Nevertheless, everything important that has happened or is happening takes the route of the American rhizome: the beatniks, the underground, bands and gangs, successive lateral offshoots in immediate connection with an outside. American books are different from European books, even when the American sets off in pursuit of trees.

 

可是，所曾經發生或正在發生的重要的事情，都採取美國塊莖的路線：披頭四，地下吟唱詩人，樂團跟黑道，跟外界密切相連的連續的側生的支脈。美國的書不同於歐洲的書，即使美國人出發去追尋樹。

 

The conception of the book is different. Leaves of Grass. And directions in America are different: the search for arborescence and the return to the Old World occur in the East. But there is the rhizomatic West, with its Indians without ancestry, its ever-receding limit, its shifting and displaced frontiers.

 

書的觀念大不相同。如美國詩人惠特曼的草葉集。美國的方向也大不相同：對於樹狀思維的追尋跟回歸舊世界，發生在東方國家。但是西方國家也有塊莖思維，如印度沒有祖先，一直往後追溯，邊境一再改變跟代替。

 

There is a whole American “map” in the West, where even the trees form rhizomes. America

reversed the directions: it put its Orient in the West, as if it were precisely in America that the earth came full circle; its West is the edge of the East. (India is not the intermediary between the Occident and the Orient, as Haudricourt believed: America is the pivot point and mechanism of reversal.)

 

在西方國家，也有完整的美國「地圖」，可讓樹狀形成塊莖。美國則倒轉方向：它將東方國家擺置於西方國家，好像就是在美國，地球整整繞了一整圈，它的西方就在東方的邊緣（印度並沒有立即位於西方跟東方之間，如何瑞科所相信的。美國是樞軸點，及倒轉的機械）。

 

The American singer Patti Smith sings the bible of the American dentist: Don’t go for the root, follow the canal …

 

美國歌手派帝、史密思歌唱美國牙醫的聖經：不要尋找根，而要順著管道。

 

Are there not also two kinds of bureaucracy, or even three (or still more)? Western bureaucracy: its agrarian, cadastral origins; roots and fields; trees and their role as frontiers; the great census of William the Conqueror; feudalism; the policies of the kings of France; making property the basis of the State; negotiating land through warfare, litigation, and marriages.’

 

難道不是也有兩種官僚，或甚至三種（或甚至更多）？西方的官僚：它的農業的地籍的淵源，根跟田野，樹根及其作為邊境的角色，威廉大帝的人口普查，專制封建，法國國王的政策，將財產視為國家的基礎，經由戰爭、訴訟、及婚姻結盟來協商領土。

 

The kings of France chose the lily because it is a plant with deep roots that clings to slopes. Is bureaucracy the same in the Orient?

 

法國國王選擇百合花，因為它是帶有緊連斜坡的深根的植物。官僚在東方國家，難道不是同樣情形？

 

Of course it is all too easy to depict an Orient of rhizomes and immanence; yet it is true that in the Orient the State does not act following a schema of arborescence corresponding to preestablished, arborified, and rooted classes; its bureaucracy is one of channels, for example, the much-discussed case of hydraulic power with “weak property,” in which the State engenders channeled and channelizing classes (cf. the aspects of Wittfogel’s work that have not been refuted).

 

當然，這樣描述具有塊莖跟內在性的東方國家未免太過輕率，但是在東方，國家的發展，確實不是遵照樹狀基模，或遵循預先建立的樹狀及根的階層。它的官僚是水道式，例如，曾被熱烈討論的具有「弱特性」的水力，國家產生水道及水道式的階層（請參閱尚未有人反駁的威佛傑的論著）。

 

The despot acts as a river, not as a fountainhead, which is still a point, a tree-point or root; he flows with the current rather than sitting under a tree; Buddha’s tree itself becomes a rhizome; Mao’s river and Louis’s tree. Has not America acted as an intermediary here as well?

 

專制君主充當河流，不是源頭，那依舊是個點，樹點或根，他順著流水而流，而不是坐在樹下。佛陀的樹本身成為塊莖。毛澤東是河流式，法國路易十六則是樹狀式。美國難道不是充當介於中間？

 

For it proceeds both by internal exterminations and liquidations (not only the Indians but also the farmers, etc.), and by successive waves of immigration from the outside.

 

因為它靠著內部的消滅跟殺害，維持政權（不但消滅印地安人，而且農夫等等），也憑藉不斷地從外面引進的移民的浪潮。

 

The flow of capital produces an immense channel, a quantification of power with immediate “quanta,” where each person profits from the passage of the money flow in his or her own way (hence the reality-myth of the poor man who strikes it rich and then falls into poverty again): in America everything comes together, tree and channel, root and rhizome.

 

資本的流動產生巨大的水道，具有立即「量子」的權力的數量化，在此每個人都以自己的方式，從金錢的流動過程中得到利益（因此是貧窮人的現實及神話，可一夜暴富，然後又破產）；在美國，一切都並肩而來，樹跟水道，根跟塊莖。

 

There is no universal capitalism, there is no capitalism in itself-, capitalism is at the crossroads of all kinds of formations, it is neocapitalism by nature. It invents its eastern face and western face, and reshapes them both-all for the worst.

 

沒有普及性的資本主義，沒有資本主義的本身，資本主義處於各種隊伍的十字路口，它在性質上是新資本主義。它發明它東方國家的面目及西方國家的面目，然後再重新塑造兩種面目，只是每況愈下。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 08

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze

德勒茲：千高台

 

An Introduction: Zhizome

導論：塊莖思維 08

 

Look at what happened to Little Hans already, an example of child psychoanalysis at its purest: they kept on BREAKING HIS RHIZOME and BLOTCHING HIS MAP, setting it straight for him, blocking his every way out, until he began to desire his own shame

and guilt, until they had rooted shame and guilt in him, PHOBIA (they barred him from the rhizome of the building, then from the rhizome of the street, they rooted him in his parents’ bed, they radicled him to his own body, they fixated him on Professor Freud).

 

瞧一下小漢斯的個案，最單純的兒童精神分析的例子：他們一直突破他的塊莖，並弄污他的地圖，直接修改，阻止他的每個出口，直到他開始欲望自己的羞恥及罪惡感，直到他們將羞恥及罪惡感在他身上根深蒂固，害怕（他們禁止他進入建築物的塊莖，然後街上的塊莖，他們將他定位於父母的床上，他們將他的病因根源於他自己的身體，他們根據佛洛伊德教授的理論改正他。）

 

Freud explicitly takes Little Hans’s cartography into account, but always and only in order to project it back onto the family photo.

 

佛洛伊德明確地考慮到小漢斯的地圖製作，但是目的總是僅僅是為了將地圖製作投射回家庭的照片。

 

And look what Melanie Klein did to Little Richard’s geopolitical maps: she developed photos from them, made tracings of them.

 

但是瞧一下客體關係理論的梅蘭尼、克列恩替小漢斯的地質政治的地圖做了些什麼：她從那裡發展出照片，將他們當成蹤跡。

 

Strike the pose or follow the axis, genetic stage or structural destiny-one way or the other, your rhizome will be broken.

 

打擊姿態或遵照樞軸，基因的階段，或結構的命運，以某種的方式，你的塊莖就打破。

 

You will be allowed to live and speak, but only after every outlet has been obstructed. Once a rhizome has been obstructed, arborified, it’s all over, no desire stirs; for it is always by rhizome that desire moves and produces.

 

你將會被允許活下去及說話，條件是每個出口被堵住。一但塊莖被堵住或形成樹狀，它就完蛋了，沒有慾望激動得起來，因為總是要有塊莖，慾望才能移動根生產。

 

Whenever desire climbs a tree, internal repercussions trip it up and it falls to its death; the rhizome, on the other hand, acts on desire by external, productive outgrowths.

 

每當慾望爬上樹，內在的反彈會使它絆倒，摔下死掉；可是，在另一方面，慾望在塊莖上的動作，則是向外滋長及生產。

 

That is why it is so important to try the other, reverse but nonsymmetrical, operation. Plug the tracings back into the map, connect the roots or trees back up with a rhizome.

 

這就是為什麼嘗試一下另外一種倒轉，但是非均稱的運作，是很重要的。將蹤跡置放回地圖，以塊莖將根莖或樹連接回去。

 

In the case of Little Hans, studying the unconscious would be to show how he tries to build a rhizome, with the family house but also with the line of flight of the building, the street, etc.; how these lines are blocked, how the child is made to take root in the family, be photographed under the father, be traced onto the mother’s bed; then how Professor Freud’s intervention assures a power takeover by the signifier, a subjectification of affects; how the only escape route left to the child is a becoming-animal perceived as shameful and guilty (the becoming-horse of Little Hans, a truly political option).

 

以小漢斯的案例，研究無意識將會顯示，他如何以家庭的房屋，也以建築物、街道等的逃離離路線，建造塊莖，這些路線如何被堵住，小孩如何被迫在家庭生根，如何在父親的關照下被拍照，被追蹤到母親的床上，然後佛洛伊德教授如何介入，保證符號具的權力接管，情意的主體化，僅剩餘的一條逃避路線，就是被認為是令人羞恥及罪惡桿的生成動物（小漢斯的生成馬，真正是政治性的選擇）。

 

But these impasses must always be resituated on the map, thereby opening them up to possible lines of flight.

 

但是這些僵局必須總是重新在地圖上找到位置，然後開放他們給可能的逃離路線。

 

The same applies to the group map: show at what point in the rhizome there form phenomena of massification, bureaucracy, leadership, fascization, etc., which lines nevertheless survive, if only underground, continuing to make rhizome in the shadows.

 

團體的地圖也是適用同樣道理：找出在塊莖的哪一點，組成斷層塊、官僚、領導、法西斯等等的現象，可是又有哪些路線可以存活，即使僅僅存活於地下，繼續在陰影地方形成塊莖。

 

Deligny’s method: map the gestures and movements of an autistic child, combine several maps for the same child, for several different children.

 

鐵黎尼的方法：畫出自閉症兒童的姿態跟動作，將相同兒童，或好幾個不同的兒童的好幾張地圖，結合在一起，

 

If it is true that it is of the essence of the map or rhizome to have multiple entryways, then it is plausible that one could even enter them through tracings or the root tree, assuming the necessary precautions are taken (once again, one must avoid any Manichaean dualism).

 

假如地圖或塊莖的本質的確有多重入口，那麼我們就順理成章，可能經由蹤跡或根樹進入他們，假如我們採取必須要的警戒，步步為營（再一次，我們必須避免任何摩尼教的二元論）。

 

For example, one will often be forced to take dead ends, to work with signifying powers and subjective affections, to find a foothold in formations that are Oedipalor paranoid or even worse, rigidified territorialities that open the way for other transformational operations.

 

例如，我們時常被迫絕處逢生，運作符號力量及主觀情意，找出隊伍的基礎點，不論這隊伍是伊底普斯的偏執狂，或更糟糕的，是已經被其他轉變的運作侵入的盤據的轄域。

 

It is even possible for psychoanalysis to serve as a foothold, in spite of itself. In other cases, on the contrary, one will bolster oneself directly on a line of flight enabling one to blow apart

strata, cut roots, and make new connections.

 

精神分析學即使本身是治療學，甚至也可能充當基礎點。相反的，在其他個案，我們將會直接以逃離路線，支撐自己，使我們能夠爆破階層、切割根莖、然後重新連接。

 

Thus, there are very diverse map-tracing, rhizomeroot assemblages, with variable coefficients of deterritorialization. There exist tree or root structures in rhizomes; conversely, a tree branch or root division may begin to burgeon into a rhizome.

 

因此，有多樣性的地圖蹤跡，塊莖裝配，有解轄域的變化的協同係數。有樹或根的結構存在於塊莖；在另一方面，樹枝或根的分歧可能開始萌芽成為塊莖。

 

The coordinates are determined not by theoretical analyses implying universals but by a pragmatics composing multiplicities or aggregates of intensities.

 

座標的決定，不是由意味著普及性的理論的分析，而是由組成多重性或張力匯聚的實用。

 

A new rhizome may form in the heart of a tree, the hollow of a root, the crook of a branch. Or else it is a microscopic element of the root-tree, a radicle, that gets rhizome production going.

 

新的塊莖可能在樹的中心、根的中空處、樹枝的彎曲處形成。或者，根樹的微小元素，幼根，也可使塊莖的生產進行。

 

Accounting and bureaucracy proceed by tracings: they can begin to burgeon nonetheless, throwing out rhizome stems, as in a Kafka novel.

 

會計及官僚繼續以蹤跡進行：可是，他們能夠開始萌芽，拋掉塊莖幹柄，如卡夫卡的小說。

 

An intensive trait starts working for itself, a hallucinatory perception, synesthesia, perverse mutation, or play of images shakes loose, challenging the hegemony of the signifier.

 

一個密集的特徵開始自己運作，一個幻想的感覺，語法的脫序，變態的轉換，或意象的玩弄，都掙脫鬆綁，挑戰符號具的霸權。

 

In the case of the child, gestural, mimetic, ludic, and other semiotic systems regain their freedom and extricate themselves from the “tracing,” that is, from the dominant competence of the teacher’s language–a microscopic event upsets the local balance of power.

 

在兒童的案例，姿態、模擬、玩笑，及其他語言的系統，重獲他們的自由，從蹤跡中掙脫，換言之，從教師的語言凌駕能力中掙脫，微小事件擾亂了權力的地區性平衡。

 

Similarly, generative trees constructed according to Chomsky’s syntagmatic model can open up in all directions, and in turn form a rhizome.

 

同樣地，衍生的樹狀結構是依照莊士基的語法模式所建造，能朝各個方向展開，輪流組成塊莖。

 

 

To be rhizomorphous is to produce stems and filaments that seem to be roots, or better yet connect with them by penetrating the trunk, but put them to strange new uses. We’re tired of

trees. We should stop believing in trees, roots, and radicles.

 

成為塊莖，就是產生似乎像是根的幹莖及線莖，或是更好的是以貫穿樹幹與他們連接，然後將他們做奇怪的新的用途。我們厭倦於樹狀結構。我們應該停止相信樹、根、及幼根。

 

They’ve made us suffer too much. All of arborescent culture is founded on them, from biology to linguistics.

 

他們使我們太過痛苦。所有的樹狀文化以他們為基礎，從生物學到語言學。

 

Nothing is beautiful or loving or political aside from underground stems and aerial roots, adventitious growths and rhizomes.

 

沒有一樣東西能比地下幹莖，空中之根，滋生成長及塊莖，更加美麗、可愛、及政治。

 

Amsterdam, a city entirely without roots, a rhizome-city with its stem-canals, where utility connects with the greatest folly in relation to a commercial war machine.

 

阿姆斯特丹，一座完全沒有根的城市，一座運河幹莖般四通八達的塊莖城市，在此實用性連接到商業的戰爭機器，似乎荒謬無比。

 

Thought is not arborescent, and the brain is not a rooted or ramified matter. What are wrongly called “dendrites” do not assure the connection of neurons in a continuous fabric.

 

思想不是樹狀結構，腦並不是根莖或分枝的物質。一般錯誤地稱為「樹狀突」，並沒有保證中子星羅棋布地連接。

 

The discontinuity between cells, the role of the axons, the functioning of the synapses,

the existence of synaptic microfissures, the leap each message makes across these fissures, make the brain a multiplicity immersed in its plane of consistency or neuroglia, a whole uncertain, probabilistic system (“the uncertain nervous system”).

 

細胞之間的不連續，軸索的角色，突觸的功用，突觸微裂隙的存在，每個訊息越過這些列隙的跳躍，都使腦成為轉注於一貫或神經膠質的平面的多重性，成為一個不穩定的問題重重的系統（「不穩定的神經系統」）。

 

Many people have a tree growing in their heads, but the brain itself is much more a grass than

a tree. “The axon and the dendrite twist around each other like bindweed around brambles, with synapses at each of the thorns.”

 

許多人的腦袋就像是樹長在那裡，但是腦本身更像草，而不是像樹。軸索及樹狀突互相糾纏，每一根荊棘都有突觸。

 

The same goes for memory. Neurologists and psychophysiologists distinguish between long-term memory and short-term memory (on the order of a minute).

 

相同道理適用於記憶力。神經學專家及心理生理學專家區別長期記憶跟短期記憶（依照停留分鐘的秩序）。

 

The difference between them is not simply quantitative: short-term memory is of the rhizome or diagram type, and long-term memory is arborescent and centralized (imprint,

engram, tracing, or photograph).

 

他們之間的差別不僅僅是數量：短期記憶屬於塊莖或曲線類型，而長期記憶屬無樹狀結構及中央（銘記、印象、蹤跡、或照片）。

 

Short-term memory is in no way subject to a law of contiguity or immediacy to its object; it can act at a distance, come or return a long time after, but always under conditions of discontinuity, rupture, and multiplicity.

 

短期記憶根本不屬於客體的鄰近或立即法則；它能遠距離行動，長時間後還可來回，但總是在中斷、斷裂、及多重性的狀況下。

 

Furthermore, the difference between the two kinds of memory is not that of two temporal modes of apprehending the same thing; they do not grasp the same thing, memory, or idea.

 

而且，兩種記憶力的不同，並不是理解事物的兩個時間模式的不同；他們所理解的不是相同的事物、記憶、或觀念。

 

The splendor of the short-term Idea: one writes using short-term memory, and thus short-term ideas, even if one reads or rereads using long-term memory of long-term concepts.

 

短期記憶的輝煌：我們寫作是用短期記憶，因此用到短期記憶的觀念，即使我們閱讀或重新閱讀，用的還是短期觀念的長期記憶。

 

Short-term memory includes forgetting as a process; it merges not with the instant but instead with the nervous, temporal, and collective rhizome.

 

短期記憶包含遺忘當著一種過程，它不是跟瞬間，相反的，是跟神經、時間、及集體塊莖融合。

 

Long-term memory (family, race, society, or civilization) traces and translates, but what it translates continues to act in it, from a distance, off beat, in an “untimely” way, not instantaneously.

 

長期記憶（家庭、種族、社會、或文明）追蹤及翻譯，但是它所翻譯的內容繼續在裡面行動，從遠處，不合節拍，不合時宜，不是當下。

 

The tree and root inspire a sad image of thought that is forever imitating the multiple on the basis of a centered or segmented higher unity.

 

樹與根啟發一個令人悲傷的思想意象，此意象永遠在模仿多重性，基礎是中央或分隔的更高的一致性。

 

If we consider the set, branches-roots, the trunk plays the role of opposed segment for one of the subsets running from bottom to top: this kind of segment is a “link dipole,” in contrast to the “unit dipoles” formed by spokes radiating from a single center.

 

假如我們考慮到集合，樹枝及根，樹幹就替從底端到頂端的次集合，扮演相對的分隔的角色；這種分隔是一種「雙極連接」，對比於由單一中央發射出來的輪軸所形成的「單極連接」。

 

Even if the links themselves proliferate, as in the radicle system, one can never get beyond the One-Two, and fake multiplicities. Regenerations, reproductions, returns, hydras, and medusas do not get us any further.

 

即使是連接本身也在繁殖，如同在幼根系統，我們永遠無法超越一與二，及虛假的多重性。革新、再生、復原、九頭蛇砍不死、三頭女妖，試不到幾次就破功。

 

Arborescent systems are hierarchical systems with centers of signifiance and subjectification, central automata like organized memories.

 

樹狀系統是階層系統，有意義及主體化的中央，中央的自動化機械，就像是組織好的記憶力。

 

In the corresponding models, an element only receives information from a higher unit, and only receives a subjective affection along preestablished paths.

 

以相一致的模式，一個元素只從更高的單位收到資訊，而且只沿著預先建立好的路線，收到一個主觀化的情意

 

This is evident in current problems in information science and computer science, which

still cling to the oldest modes of thought in that they grant all power to a memory or central organ.

 

這在資訊科學及電腦科學目前所遭遇的問題上，甚為明顯，它們依舊堅持古老的思維模式，因為它們將所有的力量都賦予一個記憶體或中心器官。

 

Pierre Rosenstiehl and Jean Petitot, in a fine article denouncing “the imagery of command trees” (centered systems or hierarchical structures), note that “accepting the primacy of hierarchical structures amounts to giving arborescent structures privileged status…. The arborescent form admits of topological explanation…. In a hierarchical system, an individual has only one active neighbor, his or her hierarchical superior….The channels of transmission are preestablished: the arborescent system preexists the individual, who is integrated into it at an allotted place” (signifiance and subjectification).

 

比爾、羅先提及珍、培提扥在一篇文章中，抨擊「樹狀命令的意象」（中央或階層結構），他們注意到「接收階層結構的最初級，相當於是給予樹狀結構的特權地位。樹狀形式容許地形學的解釋。在階層系統裡，個人只有一個活躍的鄰居，就是他或她的階層上級。轉移的頻道是預先建立；樹狀系統早先存在於個人，個人按照被指定的位置被合併」（意義跟主體化）

 

The authors point out that even when one thinks one has reached a multiplicity, it may be a false one-of what we call the radicle type–because its ostensibly nonhierarchical presentation or statement in fact only admits of a totally hierarchical solution.

 

作者指出，即使當我們在思想時，我們已經到達一個多重性；這個多重性可能是一個我們所謂的幼根型的虛假的多重性，因為它虛有其表的非階層表現或陳述，事實上，只容許整體的階層解決。

 

An example is the famous friendship theorem: “If any two given individuals in a society have precisely one mutual friend, then there exists an individual who is the friend of all the others.” (Rosenstiehl and Petitot ask who that mutual friend is.

 

「著名友誼公理」就是一個例子。「假如在一個社會的兩個人，很清楚的有一位共同的朋友，那麼就存在著一個人是所有其他人的朋友。」【羅先提和培提托】

 

Who is “the universal friend in this society of couples: the master, the confessor, the doctor? These ideas are curiously far removed from the initial axioms.” Who is this friend of humankind?

 

誰是「伴侶社會的共同朋友：主人、聽人告解的神父、還是醫生？」這些觀念令人好奇地卻是跟最初的公理風馬牛不相及：「誰是人類的這位朋友？」

 

Is it the philosopher as he appears in classical thought, even if he is an aborted unity that makes itself felt only through its absence or subjectivity, saying all the while, I know nothing, I am nothing?)

 

是那位出現在古典思想裡的哲學家蘇格拉底嗎？即使他只是憑藉佯裝貶抑自己的見解及主觀性，來使道理讓人感覺出萊，他總是說「我一無所知，我算老幾」。

 

Thus the authors speak of dictatorship theorems. Such is indeed the principle of roots-trees, or their outcome: the radicle solution, the structure of Power.

 

因此作者提到獨裁公理：根與樹的原理，或它們的結果，的確也是如此：基根的解決方式，也就是權力的結構。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw