The Anti-Oedipus Papers 02

Anti-Oedipus 02

By Felix Guaattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

 

Of the Third Articulation第三個表達

 

Desiring connection works from term to term, and “ forget” each as it goes ( Qury describes a conversation that he had with a young schizo, to whom he asked: “ Who are your friends here at Laborde?” The schizo gave him two names. Qury thought about it for a minute, and realized that those were the names of the two people sitting in the waiting room.)

欲望連結從一個術語到另一個術語,邊前進邊「忘記」(魁銳描述他跟一位精神分裂症患者的談話。他問說:「在拉伯帖這裡,誰是你的朋友?」精神分裂症患者給他兩個名字。魁銳想了一下,才體會到那兩個人都正坐在候診室。)

 

   Anti-productive conjunction bi-univocalizes connections. So we have the signifier and the signified, connective chains tacked onto one another ( differentiating role of the phallus and the subject).

    反生產的聯合把連結的單一性商雙邊化。所以我們有符號具跟符號旨,連結鎖鍊互相掛勾(陽具跟主體的不同角色)。

    The third disjunctive articulation is the reverse of conjunction, a return to desiring “ grounds” No subject of the statement, but collective agents of enunciation ( the re-territorialization of artifice). Metacommunication, enunciation. Disjunction, the union of the union and the intersection.

    第三個分裂的表達是聯合的相反,就是回到欲望的場地。這個場地沒有陳述的主體,而是集體發表的代理(詭計的重新劃入領土)。超級溝通,表達。分裂是聯合跟橫斷的聯合。

 

    Lacan wrote that “ any enunciation of authority ( on the A, site of the signifier) has no other guarantee than its enunciation”. He added that there is no “ metalanguage that can be spoken, no Other of the Other,” no guarantee of the law, etc. And he falls right back onto the “ Father-law” thing, all the more solid as it is dead, or impotent!

    拉岡寫說「任何權威的表達(在符號具的甲地點),除了表達之外,沒有其它保證。」他補充說,「沒有超級語言被說,沒有其他它者」,沒有法律的保證,等等。然後他又依靠「父權法律」,更加堅固,因為這個法律已經僵死,或已經無能為力。

   It seems to me that this whole thing is a bit off in that it is always subjacent to a conception of enunciation such that only an individual subject can be the subject of an enunciation. Benveniste wrote that “ The individual act of appropriating language introduces the one who is speaking into his speech.” “ What strikes me is that they don’t seem to understand that speech ( parole) is only apparently an individual act of appropriating language ( langue). What is spoken by a friend, a militant or a father or son, sets up the illusion of individual appropriation.

   我覺得整件事有點詭異,因為它總是隸屬於表達的觀念,而只有個別的主體才會是表達的主體。邊文尼寫說:「從使用語言的個別行為,可以知道誰正在說他的話語」。我的印象是他們似乎不瞭解,話語很明顯是使用語言的個別行為。朋友,好戰份子,或父親,或兒子,他們所說的話建立了個別使用的幻覺。

 

   But actually it’s the result of suggestion. Someone is inhabited by someone else’s speech. Others talk and gesticulate in our place when we think we’re talking on our own account—free, equal and fraternal. We “ learn” to be individuals. Always the personalist illusion!

    但是實際上,它是建議的結果。其他某個人的話語駐紮在某個人身上。當我們以為是自己侃侃而談自由,平等,博愛,其實是別人在說話,藉著我們在表達。

我們「學習」當個人,總是懷著個人的幻覺。

    Actually, there are unproductive structural collective agents of enunciation. The question of schizo-analysis is to introduce these agents into the production process, and to pull them out of anti-production.   實際上,總是有非生產的表達的集體代理。精神分裂症分析的問題是介紹這些代理到生產的過程,然後使他們擺脫反生產。 

    That’s how the impossible real, meta-language, science, speak, the requirements of body and person are surpassed ( symptoms will be assuaged).

     就是這種方式,不可能的真實,超級語言,科學,話語,身體跟個人的要求被超越(病徵被緩和)。

 

    “ Since there is a spokesperson, then may that spokesperson be as deterritorialized as possible!” This is our battle cry.

     「既然有代言人,但願那位代言人儘可能不分畛域!」這是我們的戰鬥口號。

    Or as the great philosopher Paco Rabane says, “ …merchants do anything to have money, they are automatically after the desire for women and not before it. Before desire are only household appliances.”

     或如同偉大哲學家巴克、拉邊尼所說:「商人盡力要擁有金錢,他們自動跟在追求女人的慾望之後,而不是在慾望之前。慾望之前,只是一些家庭用具。」

 

    Revolution, like analysis, tends to produce artificial pre-personal agents of enunciation ( = units of desiring subversion=basic therapeutic communities). It is the construction of the unconscious as artificial real and not the contemplation of the impossible real ( = capitalist masochistic perversion = guilt-based civilization).

   革命,像精神分析一樣,傾向於產生表達的個人之前的代理人(等於是欲望顛覆的單位,也等於基本的治療社區)。革命是無意識的建造當著人為的真理,而不是不可能真理的沉思(等於資本主義受虐狂的變態,也等於建立在罪惡之上的文明)。

 

p30—p31

The Anti-Oedipus Papers by Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

https://springhero.wordpress.com

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

   

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: