The Anti-Oedipus Papers 05

Anti-Oedipus 05

By Felix Guanttari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

 

Notes from 11/23/1970

   I’m trying to read The Archeology of Knowledge by Faoucault; but it’s so hard for me to get through this kind of thing. It seems to me that your friend is getting lost in linguistics and other structures.

   我正在設法閱讀傅柯的「知識考古學」,但是我無法看完這種東西。我覺得你的朋友迷失在語言學跟其他結構當中。

 

Distinguish between:

區別兩者: 

  the subject of the linguistic statement produced by representation—we can call it the subject of repetition ( cf. Lacan: the signifier represents a subject for another signifier…; but we’re dealing with a signifier linguisticized by Oedipus, the name of the father, etc.)

  由符號所產生的語言陳述的主體我們能稱之為重複的主體(參考拉崗說法:符號具代表另一個符號具的主體,但是我們正在處理被伊底普斯語言化的符號具,以父之名,等等)。

 

   the subject of a signifying enunciation, a transduction of the third articulation: either an anti-production of the double articulation—an anti-subject –; or a collective agent of enunciation, an agent of difference.

   符號化表達的主體,第三表達的置換:雙重表達的反生產,一個反主體,要不然就是表達的集體代理,差異的代理。

 

    Actually, if there is any syncretism between the subject of the linguistic statement and the subject of enunciation, it’s that the subject of enunciation has been pulled down over the statement.

    實際上,假如語言陳述的主體跟表達的主體之間有任何融合,那是表達的主體已經被陳述所感動。

    This pulling down is the operation of the : “ so therefore” … “ and so what you’re articulating with your feet, your ass and the rest is…therefore you, who is doing that, against…your father, because of…your mother…”

     這個感動是因果關係的運作「你用你的腳,你的老二,及其他東西所表達的,因此就是你不畏父親,而為母親所正在做的。」

 

    The statement is coherent because of the structuralism of language, the law, legal relations of parentage, capitalist production relations, etc. ( Imperialism of the statement, the formation of sovereignty –the double-articulation machine.) The statement is the law. It produces an abstract subject that masters situations, alienates desiring machines and projects imaginary, molar subjects of enunciation through them.

   這個陳述是一貫,因為語言的結構,法律,父母的關係,資本主義生產關係,等等。(陳述的帝國主義,統治的形成,雙重表達的機器。)這個陳述是法律。它產生一個抽象的主體,疏離欲望的機器,並且透過他們,投射出一個非真實的受扭曲的表達主體。

 

   So we get the famous syncretism between two subjects or the famous splitting of the ego, the Sarrian pairs ( reflected-reflecting), etc. The oedipal-narcissistic machine is set up to absorb everything that tries to surpass bi-univoclity; either on the side of deathly narcissistic unary abolition; or on the side of social-quaternity.

   因此我們得到兩個主體這個著名的融合以及自我著名的分裂,如沙特的成對(被反映與反映)。伊底普斯自戀的機器被建立,為了吸引一切設法要超越兩個單音的東西。一個單音在自戀單方面的毀滅,要不然就在社會這邊。

 

    Without the oedipal triangle, everything slips up and fucks off into connectivity and desiring filiation. The oedipal alliance is capitalism’s molar unit. It’s how a schized individual is promoted proportionately to production: nothing extra juts out—there is just enough polyvocality to ensure reproduction: minimum sperm flow, just at the right time, and nothing more…

   假如沒有伊底普斯三角關係,每樣東西都溜滑消散成連結及欲望的關係。伊底普斯的三角結盟是資本主義的分散單位。這樣精神分裂的個人才能成比率地提昇到生產:沒有額外的東西突出來,僅僅有足夠多重聲音確定可以生產:最小量的精子在恰好時機流出,僅此而已。

 

   The schizo is the proletarian of transduction. He works in the third articulation.

   精神分裂症是輔導的普羅化。他用第三表達運作。

 

   This intolerable third articulation that , again, is not third but beyond the second, it is the 2+nth articulation. Its transcursivity can be suppressed only…

   —oedipally in neurosis,

   —psychiatically in psychosis,

   —by the police in the case of perversion.

   這個讓人無法忍受的第三表達,其實不是第三,而是第二之上,它是第二加一次的表達。它的跨越擴散會被下面三個狀況壓制:

神經質的伊底普斯

變態狂的精神分析

變態案例中的警察

 

The subject of a transcursive enunciation is the damned double of the subject of the law. It is its doublet. It exists in counter dependency to the law. It’s the cops-and-robbers pair, the patient-psychiatrist pair, etc. A two-person pervert ( “ the copper”).

跨越擴散表達的主體是法律主體的雙重人,像是連體嬰。它存在於對於法律相對依靠。就像是警察跟強盜,病人與分析師,互為一對。兩人合為一體般的偏執而為。

 

The third articulation cannot be on the order of individual subjectivity but social enunciation. The individual is an intolerable excrescence that has to be pulled down over the schize of ( dualistic) subject. It’s something “ extra,” something that doesn’t work, in capitalism, except if it’s castrated. Then, with individuals, the “ remainder,” an institutional order can be deployed. The institutional order of capitalism is deduced from Oedipus.

第三個表達不會是在個人主觀性的層次,而是在社會表達。個人是令人無法容忍的贅瘤,因為(雙重)主體的精神分裂而必須被袪除。個人像是額外之物,在資本主義裏無法運作,除非被去勢。因此,就個人這個多餘物而言,必須要有機構的層次被運用。資本主義的機構層次是由伊底普斯演繹而來。

 

On the other hand, the artificial, revolutionary emergence of a collective agent of enunciation can end in the subversion of the capitalist order and promote a third, institutional, articulation as the surface of desire of transcursivity.

在另一方面,表達的集團代理以人為的革命方式出現,會以顛覆資本主義的秩序終結,並提昇以機構方式當第三個表達,跨越擴散的欲望的外表。

 

p36—p37

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: