Archive for August, 2008

Deleuze 005 德勒茲

August 27, 2008

Deleuze005 德勒茲

Love Is For Other People 愛是為了別人

By James Brusseau

Translated by Springhero 雄伯


    Two times and two women. One past time from depth’s world fills with a physical person, her love and the scar she caused. One Deleuze’s side and Eberhardt’s side, the present, surface time fills with the scar and a woman the scar causes, a woman cast back through time and encased in the illusion of precedence. If, by chance, the woman Eberhardt envisions resembles the actual physical woman of years past, then the similarity is a freak accident and only a counterfeit. The two women have entirely different origins, they function according to wholly different rules: the woman from the past is born from flesh and blood parents, the woman of the scar is born from tarnished skin. The woman of the past gained definition by conjuring infatuation from two men, by setting them against each other, by winding their desire around her and throwing them together in violence. The grandiose woman of the scar gained definition by possessing a wound, by flashing it at compatriots, by brandishing it before rivals, and always by parlaying it into exuberant pride. Critically, these two women, the woman of the past and the woman of the scar, delineate irreconcilable times. One runs forward as physical causation. The other cuts apart into the reverse narratives of swarthy romance Eberhardt instills in the simple, coarse men of Arabia. Alienated temporalities.




   And there is another alienation at this scene: the Arab conscript from himself. Scars that produce their own time and their own women finish by producing their own men. Eberhard’s hero can be understood to have lived a conventional life, each day piling up on the one preceding. But when he proudly unbuttons his shirt to reveal a band of repaired skin, and when the skin produces its own time and a woman, where does this man stand with respect to the other who actually fought and lost? Nowhere.



Deleuze 04 德勒茲

August 25, 2008

Deleuze04 德勒茲

Love Is For Other People 愛是為了別人

By James Brusseau

Translated by Springhero 雄伯


    How does the forgetting Eberhardt invokes succeed? Or, to pose the same question indirectly and within the confines of her short story, there is still a woman with each scar, who is she? A biographer would answer by examining the soldier’s bodily marks and tracing them to specific past conflicts and their causes. As Eberhardt writes it, however, each scar, when it slides from underneath a sleeve or flashes in the mirror, invokes a current self-glorification disjoined from the biographer’s subject.




 A new female occupies each of the scars, one composed of pride, not flesh, one discovered by an emotion, not an historian. Because the displacement and the soldier’s rough vanity require an unblemished forgetting, another production at first unrealated to the physical woman must stir up and remake the soldier’s past in accord with its omnipotent whim. The forgetting then sweeps over the scene as that production’s after-effect. The locus of Eberhardt’s churning production: the scar. The  medium: time.




In Eberhardt’s time, wounds work forward instead of referring backward, they project themselves as soldier’s medals of bravado and female admirers. More than that, they become the bravado and the lovers. Each scar locates its own origin and cause by insisting it be understood as a badge worthy of pride and as memory worthy of sentiment. Each scar exclaims a meaning for now and only then for the past. The scar didn’t happen in the past, the scar made the past. It made the past in accord with its own story and without reference to the actual, physical women who so completely controlled the protagonist years ago.





Deleuze003 德勒茲

August 25, 2008

Deleuze003b 德勒茲

Love Is For Other People 愛是為了別人

By James Brusseau

Translated by Springhero 雄伯


    …and, for that part which remains rebellious, to repress it as deeply as possible, to shut it up in a cavern at the bottom of the ocean—such is the aim of Platonism in its will to bring about the triumph of icons over simulacra

                                    —Gilles Deleuze, Logic of Sense





      Isabelle Eberhardt: born, Geneva, 1877, died twenty-seven years later, Algeria. She filled the years between with a wretched existence of malnutrition and aimless desert, Arabic culture. Through it all, she wrote. Her notes, journals, newspaper and magazine articles, short stories, and unfinished novels provide historians with elaborate accounts of North Africa during French colonialism. They also exemplify existence on Deleuze’s surface. Her life slips into the transience of insubstantial being. Her temporality denies continuity. The localities she establishes diverge in bursts. Alienation invests her relations to others and herself. This chapter documents those alienations, alienations that exist solely in Deleuze’s world, alienations that put the lie to Socrates.




                   Women of the Scar 疤痕的女人


   At the age of twenty-three Eberhardt wrote this imperative into her journal: “ Lead two lives, one that…belongs to the desert, and one, calm and restful, devoted to thought and far from all that might interfere with it.” This resonates with her kind of time. Moments divorce each other. One minute no longer needs to stick with the previous. Her short story Blue Jacket carries the same temporal structure. The protagonist, a young Arab conscript guarded with pride the scars across his powerful chest and biceps—scars made by knives and stones, and even by firearms—the result of women he no longer remembered.




   The conscript cannot remember. But if time runs straight through in the mode of depth—as a chain of resembling moments—then the scars never escape their physical origin. This kind of time disallows the conscript’s forgetting, or allows it in only a limited sense because forgetting cannot mean cutting an episode clean away; pervasive resemblance cannot be interrupted. This forgetting operates only imperfectly by erecting a mental boundary to enclose the section marked for oblivion. The boundary remains as its own scar of the deletion: you may not remember , but you vaguely remember something you are not remembering. Reading the way Eberhardt demands, however, for her own life and her own writings—reading on the surface and through a time absolved of continuity from one moment to the next—these scars cease all memorial functioning. The past is no longer covered over, it is sliced away. Forgetting succeeds. It succeeds absolutely, just as it did for Rousseau’s savage erasing every past night so completely that he sold his bed every morning. The story Blue Jacket requires this wild forgetting, one incompatible with resembling moments. Consequently, Socrates cannot fully appreciate Eberhardt’s story. But Deleuze can.







August 25, 2008

Deleuze002 德勒茲

See With My Own Eyes: Limitation 親眼看:限制

Translated by Springhero 雄伯


             Limitation 限制

   Foucault begins climbing into his kind of limitation with a vocabulary shift; he exchanges limitation as a negative quality in the sense of opposition, for limitation in the sense of a sovereign production. Limitation is a distinction generated by decree within the singular element. Foucault understands that “…the death of God leads to an experience…which is interior and sovereign.” The interior’s qualification as sovereign stands crucially important because it allows Foucault to separate his notion of the “ interior” from its use within idealistic systems like Descartes’s




   Descartes’s interiority constructs a bridge from self to a logical position ( I think, I am) and then to a presumably Christian divine. Thus, Descartes’s interiority stretches out to a removed God who in turn presses His Limiting powers onto Descartes’s consciousness as that first realization. Think of Descartes sitting alone in his comfortable chair. He wrote his first irrefutable statement—I think, I am—and immediately turned his consciousness upward. But that gesture to the imposing exterior was unnecessary. Foucault would have him stop and unpack his first claim. ‘ I am’ holds two immediate implication. First, a limited being “I.” Second, the affirmation of that “ I” as existing.




    Now, what exactly that “I” is, where exactly its particular limits fall, what other thoughts it holds, what it means, all these are good questions. They may lead to a Christian God, they may lead somewhere else. But no matter what, they come after the first claim. So, before Descartes turns the power of limitation over to God, he briefly holds it in himself. Solitary, in his isolated cabin, he decrees his own existence. For that moment, limitation functions on the interior, as sovereign, and in the affirmative.




    Next, Foucault tentatively suggests a simile for his limitation. “ Perhaps it is like a flash of lightning in the night…” Lightning gives the dark a character and presence, not only at its flash, but thereafter and then long after the bright streak withdraws. As a limit, the lightening does not surround the night like a metaphysical fence, nor does it surmount the night like a triumphant master, it delineates the night by charging through the black middle. The lightning becomes an interior limit the darkness quickly transgresses and thus uses to manifest itself. Lightning defines night. Lightning comes from nowhere but within the night it is the dark’s own accomplishment. The lightning is the inside limit the dark shoots out in order to recognized itself.




    Going further, Foucault introduces a metaphor. Here, he writes transgression’s limit “ …takes the form of a spiral.” Like the swirl of water twisting down your tub’s drain, the spiraling point leaves its own limit in its wake. The swirl is not so much the force of oppositional conflict but the produced limit following after a downward movement. Mark the diving tip of the swirl as simultaneously a produced, downward drive and the subsequent limit’s edge; the curling water above is the limit’s extension. Rather than coming from the outside as an oppositional force, the edges and limitation of the swirl are produced by the motion itself. The swirling cone demands no contrasting limitation beside the self-generated lines it manifests on the way down. The diving spiral makes its own circling ridges as the water drains away.




    Foucault;s third attempt to enter a mentality of transgression centers on sexuality. Foucault writes that transgression’s sexuality ‘…marks the limit within us and designates us as limit.” “ So, Foucault knows a sexuality limited by nothing beyond itself. What does it look like? And how does it differ from sexuality pointing to some thing, and some limit beyond itself? To answer, open Georges’s Story of the Eye.




August 24, 2008

Deleaze001 德勒茲

See With My Own Eyes: Limitation 親眼看:限制

Translated by Springhero 雄伯


   Deleuze does not grant limitation the same vociferous endorsement and rabid attention he lavishes upon production. In Bergsonism, Deleuze sets production at center stage as the movement from virtual to actual. In Nietzsche and Philosophy, production manifests itself boldly in two affirmations. In the work on Spinoza, production energizes power and expression. But limitation, however production determines and defines itself, remains ephemeral and understated. Doubtless. This is part of a writing strategy grasping for adequacy to its own content; Deleuze’s infatuation with writing the positive aspects of difference mirrors the power arrangement within it where definition always follows generation like Tamora comes after Titus. Nonetheless, delimitation remains vital to Deleuze’s idea of difference. Required: a limitation owning itself completely to a generative aspect. Experience must be determined and defined by the same motion that brings the raw force and material of life into being.




     Michel Foucault’s essay A Preface to Transgression elaborates transgression as an operation remindful of Deleuze’s difference, but with the accent on the false negative, on the limiting aspects of untainted production. Like Deleuze, Foucault renders Socrates and Hegel obsolete by envisioning generation on a localized and entirely positive field. Foucault stipulates more forcefully than Deleuze, however, that limits are projected, not imposed.





August 21, 2008








    重看由美國作家「傑克、倫敦」的經典小說「白牙」White Fangs所改編的電影「雪地黃金犬」,深深被人犬之間尚存在「心有靈犀一點通」的可能性所感動。反過來想,亦深深感喟人與人之間,因為成長與生存的背景經驗,使得感情與信任的喪失導致男女情愛的不可能及生命意義的蕩然,徒乎奈何。








August 11, 2008







   Anita King 雖說是到飛機上才認識,年齡略有差距,但同是來自香港,人不親地親,彼此間的互信跟親暱,從一路上使用廣東話的交談中,無形中就劃出畛域出來。剩下來自寧夏銀川的Scarlet跟來自台灣的我,有意無意之間就越靠越攏。


   先是在海螺溝的觀賞千年冰川,Sam去年已經來過,托詞頭暈跟師傅留在旅館,AnitaKing要搭乘140元的索道從高空遊覽雪山,Scarlet 則藉口健行爬山方式較能親炙千年冰川的臨場感,我當天其實略有感冒發燒,卻還是逞強選擇與Scarlet 同行。走到半路終告不支,只好花140元,讓兩位穿綠色軍服的轎夫用竿轎將我抬上抬下。


   第二天到跑馬場觀賞景色,索道或健行爬山的分組無形中成為慣例。這一天我感冒已痊癒,不僅腳力較壯健,話鋒也較為逸興遄飛。這時我才覺察到,香港由於是使用廣東話教學,SamAnita的普通話(國語)說得有點抝口,King 由於在內地受教育後再去香港,情況較好。我與Scarlet則較能使用普通話暢談文學、民主自由、與人生觀。










    第二天抵達麗江, Scarlet去買到大理的車票,我則按原來打算前去訂購機票。不料到了民航局才發現晚班飛機到昆明是十一點,要在昆明過一夜後始能在第二天轉機到廈門。心想,何不直接在麗江過夜,第二天再搭乘長途客運到大理或昆明?於是回到客運站附近尋找旅館,正在議價間,忽然聽見背後一聲親切的呼喚「陳老師」。原來是Scarlet!真是有緣!


    於是同進晚餐後,一同搭公交車回到麗江古鎮瀏覽夜景。雖然不復有前兩日火把節的擁擠人潮跟跳舞歌唱表演的狂飆,但是依舊不失其古色古香的韻味。Scarlet 對於古鎮的歷史背景及文物行前已作過功課,此時臨場更是沉迷陶醉,要我購買她明天十點半的車票,她要在麗江再多逗留一天,白天更仔細地瀏覽觀賞。我原先是計劃搭乘八點多的早班車離開,若有佳人同行,延些時刻無妨,但純是充當替人處理車票的工具,心中亦覺黯然。




August 6, 2008









在松贊寺景點碰到一位來自美國的老外,寒暄Where do you come from後,他闢頭就問What do you think of unifying Taiwan and China?原則上我是贊同合則兩益的人,但亦不希望因此給人無條件投降的誤解。I do not rule out the possibility of unifying, but it takes time, patience, and understanding to negotiate.然後反問他的看法,他卻聳肩爽然一笑,:That is your own business and has nothing to do with us.





   我不方便直接評論內地的政治氣候,只好掉書袋般談論英國工業革命後中產階級的興起,貴族地主的沒落,產生政治權力的質變量變,而形成上下議院的民主沿革的歷史必然性。Scarlet 聽得似懂非懂,茫然地回說:「只怕我等不到那一天的來臨!」




August 4, 2008





最初遇見從香港偕同而來的AnitaKing,看他們交談的親暱互信程度,本以為是一對大學情侶,為配合男女分開的分擔房費,King 才與我同房。細問之下才知是我自己老眼昏花。Anita是容貌保養得宜的五十幾歲的退休人員,King是二十一歲的高中畢業生,正等待大學的錄取通知。而且,他們是在前來大陸的飛機上才認識!




來自寧夏銀川的Scarlet 由於預算較為緊湊,對於包車費及食宿始終保持精省的原則。敏捷聰慧的口才,獨負家計的生活的歷練,再加上對於內地人風土民情的熟稔,使她在殺價協商方面的表現達到爐火純青的程度。經年跑川藏雲南線的越野車師傅,除了包車費的收入,本來還有許多食宿地點的規矩外快的空間,被壓縮到近乎沒有。




在稻城五天一個段落後,King私下對我轉達石師傅的建議:「從亞丁有條直通西藏的路,四五天即可到達。石師傅願意給我們依舊每天200元的優惠包車。」我翻查地圖,發現若要到西藏其實只有回理塘或轉德欽。何況,Scarlet並沒有去西藏的意願,該如何處理?回座車內,只有石師傅、Sam、及我在座。Sam 又重提此建議,我則冷靜回答:「在道義上,不能半途拋棄人!」Sam 歇斯底里地驚叫:「你看!台灣人!」


到達麗江是十天第二個段落,Scarlet 本來要自行脫隊,我則勸告一同前往瀘沽湖,因為參加散客的零碎費用總加起來,比包車便宜不了多少。不料晚餐時,Sam 代理師傅提出西藏行的規劃:Scarlet 退出後,包車費則調高為每天1200元,每人平均300元,外加師傅的食宿、門票等費用分擔,因為過去十天來,她一人蓋括承受,「再也受不了!」


King還想將分擔車費由300元殺價為280元,一路上沒意見、無所謂、都可以的我終於發出聲音:「雙方的期望若差異過大,勉強湊合,在途中,彼此的肢體語言會顯現出來,常會弄得不歡而散。Sam, you are blinded by love!」晚間就寢前,King對我說明他們構想的第二個方案:瀘沽湖兩日遊,由於Scarlet參加,平均每人依舊200元,後面三天一路回成都,順便遊覽眉山大佛,平均每人250元。


第二天出發後石師傅的真正意圖開始顯現出來:為趕回成都的行程,瀘沽湖只停留一夜,Scarlet則將被棄留於西昌。問題是西昌距離昆明或大理均是兩天以上的行程,對於Scarlet 是最不利的棄留點,我亦開始忿忿不平起來:「預收人家兩天的車費400元,豈可任意丟棄!我決定跟Scarlet 回麗江,轉搭飛機回廈門!」




August 4, 2008