Archive for October, 2008

雄伯手記971015b

October 16, 2008

雄伯手記971015b

 

乍聽J詭異的傳聞,心頭泛過一陣「此情成待可追憶,只是當時已惘然」的惆悵。再想想李安導演的「色戒」Lust Caution。原先做為工具理性的性愛最後竟然顛覆了純真主體忠誠的認同,導致自己跟同志走上被槍斃的命運。刑場的最後一幕,回應愛恨交加眼神的為什麼,她坦然地說:「你本來有機會的,那一年。」

 

再想到最近閱讀哲學家德勒茲Deleuze的「千高台」A Thousand Plateaus:我寧可當流浪在邊緣之外的精神分裂症患者,也不要當躺在心理分析師躺椅上等待治療的病患。似乎資本主義架構下的偽善社會,作為具有昂揚生命力的主體,就像小說家勞倫斯D.H.Lawrence筆下的「查泰來夫人」Lady Chatterley,主體所能選擇的就是自己坦然就好的自力救濟。是耶?非耶?何容有他人置喙的空間!

 

No one has schizophrenia, like having a cold. The patient has not “ got” schizophrenia. He is schizophrenic.

 

人之成為精神分裂症患者,不是像傳染上感冒。病患並非「傳染上」精神分裂症。他本身就是精神分裂症。

                     –R. D. Laing, The Divided Self

Deleuze 17 德勒茲

October 15, 2008

Deleuze 17 德勒茲:千高台

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Memories of a Theologian

神學家的回憶

 

Theology is very strict on the following point: There were no werewolves, humans cannot become animal That is because there is no transformation of essential forms; they are inalienable and only entertain relations of analogy. The Devil and the witch, and the pact between them, are no less real for that, for there is in reality a local movement that is properly diabolical. Theology distinguishes two cases, based on models during the Inquisition: that of Ulysses’ companions, and that of Diomedes’s companions, the imaginary vision and the spell.

 

神學在以下幾點非常嚴格:沒有荒野之狼,人不能成為動物。那是因為沒有基本形式的轉變,人是不可異化的,只能具有類同關係。惡魔跟女巫,他們之間的盟約同樣都是真實的,因為實際上只有局部的動作夠得上是惡性重大。神學根據宗教異端審判,區別兩個案例:尤力西斯的夥伴跟戴奧米底斯的夥伴,非真實的幻見跟魔力。

 

In the first, the subject believes him—or herself to be transformed into an animal, pig, fox, or wolf, and the observers believe it too; but this is an internal local movement bringing sensible images back to the imagination and bouncing them off external meanings. In the second, the Devil” assumes” real animal bodies, even transporting the accidents and affects befalling them to other bodies ( Other example, a cat or wolf that has been taken over by the Devil can receive wounds that are relayed to an exactly corresponding part of a human body).

 

在第一案例,主體相信他或她自己被轉變成ㄧ隻動物,豬、狐狸或狼。旁觀者也相信是。但這是內部的局部動作,帶給想像可以理解的形象,然後再反彈出外部的意義。在第二個案例,惡魔「具有」真實的動物身體,甚至轉變降臨在他們身上的意外或情意到其他身體(例如,被惡魔接管的貓或狼會接受傷痕,轉移到人類身體確實相對應的部位)。

 

 This is a way of sying that the human being does not become animal in reality, but that there is nevertheless a demonic reality of the becoming-animal of the human being. Therefore it is certain that the demon performs local transports of all kinds. The Devil is a transporter; he transports human, affects, or even bodies ( the Inquisition brooks no compromises on this power of the Devil: he witch’s broom, or the “ the Devil take you”). But these transports cross neither the barrier of essential forms nor that of substances or subjects.

 

換言之,人類實際上並沒有變成動物,但是有一個人類的生成動物的惡魔的事實。因此,惡魔確實執行局部的各種運轉。惡魔是ㄧ位運轉者,它運轉性情、情意、甚至身體(宗教審判法庭對於惡魔的力量並沒有妥協之處:女巫的掃帚,要不然就是惡魔附身。)但是這種運轉並沒有跨越過基本形式的障礙,或物質及主體的障礙。

 

There is another, altogether different, problem concerning the laws of nature that has to do not with demonology but with alchemy, and above all physics. It is the problem of accidential forms, distinct from both essential forms and determined subjects. For accidental forms are susceptible to more and less: more or less charitable, but also mre or less white, more less warm. A degree of heat is a perfectly individuated warmth distinct from the substance or the subject that receives it. A degree of heat can enter into composition with a degree of whiteness, or with another degree of heat, to form a third unique individuality distinct from that of the subject. What is the individuality of a day, a season, an event?

 

關於自然法則還有一個完全不同的問題,不是跟惡魔學,而是跟鍊金術,尤其是跟物理學有關。這就是意外的形式,不同於基本的形式及命定的形式。因為意外的形式容易有或多或少,或多或少的慈善,或多或少的白,或多或少的溫暖。熱的程度是相當個體化的溫暖,接受熱的物質及主體各有不同。熱的程度可以跟白的程度或熱的其他程度進行組合,以便形成第三個獨特的個別性,不同於原有的主體的個別性。什麼是一天、一個季節、一個事件的個別性?

 

A shorter day and a longer day are not, strictly speaking, extensions but degrees proper to extension, just as there are degrees proper to heat, color, etc. An accidental form therefore has a “ latitude” constituted by a certain number of composable individualtions. A degree, an intensity, is an individual, a Haecceity that enters into composition with other degrees, other intensities, to form another individual. Can latitude be explained by the fact that the subject participates more or less in the accidental form? But do these degrees of participation not imply a flutter, a vibration in the form itself that is not reducible to th properties of a subject? Moreover, if intensities of heat are not composed by addition, it is because one must add their respective subjects; it is the subjects that prevent th heat of the whole from increasing. All the more reason to effect distributions of intensity, to establish latitues that are “ deformedly deformed,” speeds, slownesses, and degrees of all kinds corresponding to a body or set of bodies taken as longitude: a cartography. In short, between substantial forms and determined subjects, between the two, there is not only a whole operation of demonic local transports but a natural play of haecceities, degrees, intensities, events, and accidents that compose individuations totally different from those of the well-formed subjects that receive them.

 

嚴格來說,一天有長有短並不是延伸出去,而是延伸本體的程度,如同熱、顏色等等的本體有不同程度。意外的形式因此有一個「緯度」,由某些數量的可組合的個別性組成。某種程度,某種強度都是一個個別性,跟其他程度,其他強度進行組合成另外一個個別性。緯度能夠由這個事實來解釋嗎?主體或多或少都會參與這個意外的形式。但是這個參與的程度難道不是意味著,形式本身無法化減到一個主體的屬性,而產生的一個擺動,一個振動?而且,假如熱的強度並不是由增加所組成,那是因為所要增加的是個別的主體,而主體阻止整體的熱量無法增加。更有理由造成一種地圖學:強度的分配,緯度的建立,而形成「畸形百怪」的快速,緩慢,及各種程度,來對應於從經度接收而來的身體。總之,在實質的形式與命定的主體之間,在兩者之間,不但有一整個惡魔局部運轉的運做,而且有熱度、程度、強度、事件、意外的自然運作,組成的個別性,完全不同於接收它們的形式完整的主體的個別性。

雄伯手記971015b

October 14, 2008

雄伯手記971015b

 

在大陸自助旅行時,偶爾在新浪及雅虎的網路搜索引擎上健入Springhero 或雄伯,就可發現自己的網頁,而且還全部被轉譯成簡體字版。雲南之旅回來後,偶爾在手記中抒寫了一篇在大陸自助旅遊時所見所聞的有關海峽兩岸關係的感想。原以為不過是知識份子立場的良心及持平之論,不料這幾天重新上新浪及雅虎搜尋,卻發現自己的網頁的簡體字版及有關資料完全消失。大陸對於網路管制之嚴密及能耐,真是令人歎為觀止!

 

沒什麼懊惱,因為原先寫作時,就沒有預期到會有大陸的讀者會讀到我的手記,也不曾因為必須考慮思想或文字遭受審查的可能性,而影響到我想要寫作的東西。倒是引發我沉思的一個問題是:我必需要刻意隱藏我的性格、思想或心靈的主體性,以求被世俗的群眾或親友接納嗎?或者,我可以維護我自己性格,思想及心靈的尊嚴,而不在乎世俗的褒貶或接納,甚至導致自己的人際關係越走越窄嗎?

 

然則,儘管我們自己不願意承認,人本質上畢竟是虛榮心很強的動物,換言之,別人的讚賞及臧否還是相當程度會影響到我們行為的表現。我在中橫,南迴或蘇花公路騎腳踏車時,常遇到陌生遊客對我喊「加油」,稱讚「厲害」,甚至行舉手禮致敬。這時騎行的力量常會汩汩而來,壓制原想停下來休息的念頭。我在wordpress的手記網頁,原先只是隨興寫寫,有一天突然發現點閱人數的統計表直線上升,寫作的勤奮度不知不覺也跟著增加起來。誰說我們真能完全不在乎別人的觀感?

 

問題就在這裡,最後我們會是因為虛榮心而創造了新的自我?還是會因為虛榮心而喪失了原有的自我?

Deleuze 16 德勒茲

October 14, 2008

Deleuze 16 德勒茲:千高台

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Memories of a Sorcerer III

招魂師的回憶 (3)

 

Exclusive importance should not be attached to becomings-animal. Rather, they are segments occupying a median region. On the near side, we encounter becomings-woman, becoming-child ( becoming-woman, more than any other becoming, possesses a special introductory power; it is not so much that women are witches, but that sorcerery proceeds by way of this becoming-woman). On the far side, we find becomings-elementary, -cellular, -molecular, and even becoming-imperceptible.

 

我們不應該專門只注重生成動物。相反的,他們是佔據中間地帶的部分。在附近這一邊,我們遭遇到生成女人,生成小孩(生成女人,遠超過其他生成,擁有一個特別的介紹力量。不是因為女人女巫,而是巫術是憑藉這個生成女人發展。)在較遠的那邊,我們發現生成元素,生成細胞,生成分子,甚至生成感官。

 

Toward what void does the witch’s broom lead? And where is Moby-Dick leading Ahab so silently? Lovecraft’s hero encounters strange animals, but he finally reaches the ultimate regions of a continuum inhabited by unnameable waves and unfindable

particles. Science fiction has gone through a whole evolution taking it from animal, vegetable, and mineral becomings to becomings of bacteria, viruses, molecules, and things imperceptible. The properly musical content of music is led by becomings-woman, becomings-child, becomings-animal; however,  it tends, under all sorts of influences, having to do also with the instruments, to become progressively more molecular in a kind of cosmic mapping through which the inaudible makes itself heard and the imperceptible appears as such: no longer the songbird, but the sound molecule.

 

女巫的掃把將通往怎樣的空無?莫比敵沉默地引導亞伯通往哪裡?愛巧的主人翁遭遇到奇怪的動物,但是他最後到達最後的廣裘地區,駐住著無名的波浪及無法尋覓的分子。科幻小說曾經歷一套完整的進化,從動物,植物及礦物的生成,到細菌,病毒,分子及不可感覺的東西。音樂的適當音樂內涵是由生成女人,生成小孩,生成動物所引導,可是,在各種影響之下,它也傾向於必須跟樂器有關,假如它要繼續成為更多分子,在某種宇宙的構圖中。穿過這個構圖,聽不見的聲音會讓人聽見,無法感覺的也是似乎是這樣。我們聽見的不是歌唱的鳥,而是歌唱分子。

 

If the experimentation with drugs has left its mark on everyone, even nonusers, it is because it changed the perceptive coordinates of space-time and introduced us to a universe of microperceptions in which becomings-molecular take over where becomings-animal leave off. Carlos Castaneda’s books clearly illustrate this evolution, or rather this involution, in which the affects of a becoming-dog, for example, are succeeded by those of a becoming-molecular, microperceptions of water, air, etc. A man totters from one door to the next and disappears into thin air: “ All I can tell you is that we are fluid, luminous beings made of fibers.” All so-called initiatory journeys include these thresholds and doors where becoming itself becomes, and where one changes becoming depending on the “ hour” of the world, the circles of hell, or the states of a journey that sets scales, forms, and cries in variation. Fom the howling of animals to the wailing of elements and particles.

 

假如嗑藥曾在每個人身上留下痕跡,甚至非使用者,那是因為它改變了空間跟時間的感官係數,介紹我們進入伊個微小感官的宇宙,在那裡生成動物停頓,生成分子接管。卡洛、卡坦尼達的書清楚地說明這種進化,或這種內在進化。例如,生成狗的情意,後面跟隨著生成分子的情意,水及空氣的微感覺,等等。一個人踉蹌從一道門走到一道門,然後消失於微薄的空氣中。「我所能告訴你的,我們是液體,流質組成的發光物體。」所有所謂的先導之旅,包括這些門檻跟門,生成本身生成的地方,我們依照世界時光生成的地方,地獄的迴圈,建立階梯,形式及各種吶喊的旅行的舞台。從動物的嚎叫到元素跟分子的哀鳴。

 

Thus packs, or multiplicities, continually transform themselves into each other, cross over into each other. Werewolves become vampires when they die. This is not surprising, since becoming and multiplicity are the same thing. A multiplicity is defined not by its elements, nor by a center of unification or comprehension. It is defined by the number of dimensions it has; it is not divisible, it cannot lose or gain dimension without changing its nature. Since its variations and dimensions are immanent to it, it amounts to the same thing to say that each multiplicity is already composed of heterogeneous terms in symbiosis, and that a multiplicity is continually transforming itself into a string of othr multiplicities, according to its thresholds and doors.

 

因此,群體或多重化,繼續互相轉換,彼此橫越過對方。荒野之狼死時成為吸血鬼。這並不令人驚訝,因為生成跟多重性本是相同的事情。多重性不是由它的元素來下定義,而是由統一或理解的中央。它由它所擁有的向量的數目來下定義,它是不可分的,它無法失去或得到一個向量,而不改變它的屬性。既然它的變數跟向量是內在於它,這等於是說,每個多重性已經是由共生的多樣指稱所組成。一個多重性繼續轉變自己成為一連串其他多重性,依照它的門檻跟門。

 

For example, the Wolf-Man’s pack of wolves also becomes a swarm of bees, and a field of anuses, and a collection of small holes and tiny ulcerations ( the theme of contagion: all these heterogeneous elements compose “ the” multiplicity of symbiosis and becoming. If we imagined the position of a fascinated Self, it was because the multiplicity toward which it learns, stretching to the breaking point, is the continuation of another multiplicity that works it and strains it from the inside. In fact, the self is only a threshold, a door, a becoming between two multiplicities.

 

例如,狼人的狼群也變成ㄧ群蜜蜂,一些肛門的領域,一群小小的洞跟小小的潰瘍(傳染的主題):所有這些多樣性的元素組成共生跟生成的的多重性。假如我們想像一個著迷自我的位置,那是因為它所依靠延伸到突破點的多重性,是另外一個從內部運作過來的多重性的延續體。事實上,自我只是一個門檻,一道門,一個兩個多重性之間的生成。

 

Each multiplicity is defined by a borderline functioning as Anomalous, but there is a string of borderlines, a continuous line of borderlines ( fiber) following which the multiplicity changes. And at each threshold or door, a new pact? A fiber stretches from a human to an animal, from a human or an animal to molecules, from molecules to particles, and so on the imperceptible. Every fiber is a Universe fiber. A fiber strung across borderlines constitutes a line of  flight or deterritorialization. It is evident that the Anomalous, the Outsider, has several functions: not only does it border each multiplicity, of which it determines the temporary or local stability ( with the highest number of dimensions possible under the circumstances), not only is it the precondition for the alliance necessary to becoming, but it also carries the transformations of becoming or crossings of multiplicities always farther down the line of flight. Moby-Dick is the White Wall bordering the pack; he is also the demonic Term of the Alliance; finally, he is the terrible Fishing Line with nothing on the other end, the line that crosses the wall and drags the captin…where? Into the void…

 

每個多重性由充當異常的邊緣線所定義,但是有一連串的邊緣線,一條連續的邊緣線(纖維線),多重性跟隨它在改變。在每個門檻及門那裡,就有一個新的盟約?一條纖維線從人類延伸到動物,從人類或動物延伸到分子,從分子延伸到質子,然後到無法感覺的部分。每條纖維線都是宇宙的纖維線。每一條繫於邊緣線之間的纖維線,組成一個逃離或解轄域線。很明顯的,這個異常者,局外者,有好幾個功用:它不但是每個多重性的邊緣線,決定暫時的或局部的穩定(在此情況下,擁有最高數目的向量),不但是生成所需的結盟的先決條件,而且它攜帶生成的轉變及多重性的越過,遠至逃離線。莫比敵不但是群體邊緣的白牆,而且是惡魔的結盟條款。最後,它是可怕的釣魚線,末端空無ㄧ物,越過牆,牽引船長的線,牽引到哪裡?進入空無嗎?

 

The error we must guard against is to believe that there is a kind of logical order to this string, these crossings or transformations. It is already going too far to postulate an order descending from the animal to the vegetable, then to molecules. Each multiplicity is symbiotic; its becoming ties together animals, plants, microorganisms, mad particles, a whole galaxy. Nor is there a preformed logical order to these heterogeneities, the Wolf-Man’’s wolves, bees, anuses, little scars.

 

我們必須提防的錯誤是相信有某種邏輯的秩序在這一連串,這些越過或轉變裏。去假設有一種秩序傳遞下來,從動物到植物,然後到分子,這已經太超過了。每個多重性都是共生的,它的生成跟動物,植物,微生物,瘋狂的質子,一整個銀河系連接在一起。在這些多重性,狼人的狼,蜜蜂,肛門,小疤痕裏,也沒有預鑄的邏輯秩序。

 

Of course, sorcery always codifies certain transformations of becomings. Take a novel steeped in the traditions of sorcery, Alexander Dumas Meneur de loups; in a first pact, the man of the fringes gets the Devil to agree to make his wishes come true, with the stipulation that a lock of his hair turn red each time he gets a wish. We are in the hair-multiplicity, hair is the borderline. The man himself takes a position on the wolves’ borderline  , as leader of the pack. Then when he no longer has a single human hair left, a second pact makes him become-wolf himself; it is an endless becoming since he is only vulnerable one day in the year. We are aware that between the hai-multiplicity and the wolf-multiplicity it is always possible to induce an order of resemblance ( red like the fur of a wolf);but the resemblance remains quite secondary ( the wolf of the transformation is black, with one white hair).

 

當然,招魂術總是將某些生成的轉變製成符碼。拿專注於招魂術的傳統的小說為例,大仲馬的「狼人」在第一次的盟約中,這位邊緣人要求惡魔使它的願望實現,條件是每次他實現一個願望,他的一根頭髮就變紅色。我們處於頭髮的多重性;頭髮是邊緣線。這個人自己站在狼群的邊緣線,充當狼群的領袖。等到他連ㄧ根人類的頭髮都沒有剩下時,第二次盟約使他自己變成狼。因為他在一年只有一天才易受傷害,這種生成就不斷地繼續下去。我們知道,在頭髮的多重性跟郎的多重性之間,總是有可能引導出ㄧ種類似的秩序(像狼皮毛的紅色),但是這種類似只是次要(轉變的狼是黑色,頭髮才是白色。)

 

In fact, there is a first multiplicity, of hair, taken up in a becoming-red fur, and a second multiplicity, of wolves, which in turn takes up the becoming-animal of the man. Between the two, thee is threshold and fiber, symbiosis of or passage between heterogeneities. That is how we sorcerers operate. Not following a logical order, but following alogical consistencies or compatibilities. The reason is simple. It is because no one, not even God, can say in advance whether two borderlines will string together or form a fiber, whether a given multiplicity will or will not cross over into another given multiplicity, or even if given heterogeneous elements will enter symbiosis, will form a consistent, or cofunctioning, multiplicity susceptible to transformation. No one can say where the line of flight will pass: Will it let itself get bogged down and fall back to the-Oedipal family animal, a mere poodle: Or will it succumb to another danger, for example, turning into a line of abolition, annihilation, self-destruction , Ahab, Ahab…?

 

事實上,第一個的多重性,就是頭髮介入生成紅色的皮毛。第二個是狼的多重性介入人的生成動物。兩者之間,有個門檻跟纖維線,多樣性之間的共生跟過程。這就看我們招魂師如何運作。不是遵照邏輯的秩序,而是遵照非邏輯的一慣性跟和諧性。理由很簡單。沒有人,即使是上帝,能事先預測是否兩條邊緣線會連串在一起,還是組成纖維線,是否某一個多重性會不會越過進入另外一個多重性,或是否某些多樣性的元素將會進入共生,將會組成一個容易轉變的一貫而共同運作的多重性。沒有人能說逃離線將會通過哪裡。它會讓自己被套著,重回伊底普斯的家庭動物,僅是一隻小狗嗎?或者,它將屈服於另外一個危險,例如,轉變成為一條廢除,消滅,自我毀滅線嗎?亞伯!亞伯!

 

We are all too familiar with the dangers of the line of flight, and with its ambiguities. The risks are ever-present, but is always possible to have the good fortune of avoiding them. Case by case, we can tell whether the line is consistent, in other words, whether the heterogeneities effectively function in a multiplicity of symbiosis, whether the multiplicities are effectively transformed through the becomings of passage. Let us take an example as simple as: x starts practicing piano again. Is it an Oedipal return to childhood? Is it a way of dying, in a kind of sonorous abolition? Is it a new borderline, an active line that will bring order becomings entirely different from becoming or rebecoming a pianist, that will induce a transformation of all of the preceding assemblages to which x was prisoner? Is it a way out? It it a pact with the Devil? Schizoanalysis, or pragmatics, has no other meaning: Make a rhizome. But you don’t know what you can make a rhizome with, you don’t know which subterranean stem is effectively going to make a rhizome, or enter a becoming, people your desert. So experiment.

 

我們對於逃離線的危險及其曖昧性,太過熟悉了。危險是永久存在的,但是我們總是有可能有好運氣來逃避危險。在許多案例中,我們能夠預測是否逃離線是一貫的,換言之,是否多樣性有效地運作在共生的多重性中,是否多重性透過過程的生成,有效地被轉變。讓我們舉一個簡單的例子:某甲又開始練習鋼琴。這是伊底普斯又回到童年嗎?或這是一種慷慨殉難的死亡的方式?或這是一種新的邊緣線,一種活動線,將可以帶來跟原先的生成迴然不同的生成,重新再成為鋼琴師,可以把原先某甲是奴隸的裝配,轉變過來?這是一種解脫之道嗎?這是一種跟惡魔的盟約嗎?精神分裂分析或實用主義沒有別的意義:就是要製成根莖。但是你不知道要用什麼來製造根莖,你不知道哪一根地下的莖將會有效地製成根莖,進入你所拋棄的人們的生成。所以,不妨試驗一下。

 

That’s easy to say? Although there is no preformed logical order to becomings and multiplicities, there are criteria, and the important thing is that they not be used after the fact, that they be applied in the course of events, that they be sufficient to guide us through the dangers. If multiplicities are defined and transformed by the borderline that determines in each instance their number of dimensions, we can conceive of the possibility of laying them out on a plane, the borderlines succeeding one another, forming a broken line. It is only in appearance that a plane of this kind “ reduces” the number of dimensions; for it gathers in all the dimensions to the extent that flat multiplicities—which nonetheless have an increasing or decreasing number of dimensions—are inscribed upon it.

 

用說的比較容易?雖然生成跟多重性沒有預鋳的邏輯秩序,還是有「標準」。重要的是,不應該先有事實才來談標準,標準應該被應用在事件過程中,標準應該足夠來引導我們度過危險。假如多重性是根據邊緣線來定義跟轉變,在每個案例中決定向量的數目,我們能夠構想將它們排列成ㄧ個平面圖,邊緣線互相一條街接著一條,形成ㄧ條中斷線。只有在外表上,這樣的平面圖會「減少」向量的數目,但事實上它聚集所有的向量,到或多或少的平面多重性被鐫刻在上面的程度。

 

It is in grandiose and simplified terms that Lovecraft attempted to pronounce sorcery’s final word: “ Then the waves increased in strength and sought to improve his understanding, reconciling him to the multiform entity of which his present fragment was an infinitesimal part. They told him that every figure of space is but the result of the intersection by a plane of some corresponding figure of one more dimension—as a dimensions, are thus cut from corresponding forms of four dimensions, which men know only through guesses and dreams; and these in turn are cut from forms of five dimensions, and so on up to the dizzy and reachless heights of archetypal infinity.”

 

作家愛巧使用華麗而又簡化的指稱,企圖表達招魂師的最後話語:「然後波浪增加強度,設法改善他的了解,使他安於多重的實體,因為他目前的碎片就是這個實體微小的部分。他被告訴說,每個空間的圖形僅僅是一個以上向量ㄧ致性圖形交會的結果。如同四方形是立方形切割而來,圓形是是球形切割而來。立方形跟球形屬於三個向量,從四個向量的一致形式切割而來,而第四向量只有透過猜測跟夢人們才知道。四個向量又是從五個向量的形式切割而來等等,ㄧ直到達原型永恆的不可觸及的暈眩高度,」

 

Far from reducing the multiplicities number of dimensions to two, the plane of consistency cut across them all, intersects them in order to bring into coexistence any number of multiplicities, with any number of dimensions. The plane of consistency is the intersection of all concrete forms. Therefore all becomings are written like sorcerers’ drawings on this plane of consistency, which is the ultimate Door providing a way out for them. This is the only critierion to prevent them from bogging down, or veering into the void.

 

絲毫沒有將向量的多重性減少成為兩個向量,一致的平面圖切割全部,使之交會,為了使多重性的任何數目可以跟任何向量的數目共同存在。一致性的向量是所有具體形式的交會。因此,所有生成都像招魂師在ㄧ致性平面的圖表,最後一道門供應出口。這是唯一的標準阻止他們不要僵化,或轉向空無。

 

The only question is: Does a given becoming reach that point? Can a given multiplicity flatten and conserve all its dimensions in this way, like a  pressed flower that remains just as alive dry? Lawrence, in his becoming-tortoise, moves from the most obstinate animal dynamism to the abstract, pure geometry of scales and “ cleavages of division,” without, however, losing any of the dynamism: he pushes becoming-tortoise all the way to the plane of consistency. Everything becomes imperceptible, everything is becoming-imperceptible on the plane of consistency, which is nonetheless precisely where the imperceptible is seen and heard. It is the Phenomenon, or the Rhizosphere, the Criterium  ( and still other names, as the

number of dimensions increases).. At n dimensions, it is called the Hypersphere, the Mechanosphere. It is the abstract Figure, or rather, since it has no form itself, the abstract Machine of which each concrete assemblage is a multiplicity, a becoming, a segment, a vibration. And the abstract machine is the intersection of them all.

 

唯一的問題是,一個特定的生成會到達那一點嗎?一個特定的多重性會以像壓扁的花在乾燥中依舊保持鮮豔這種方式,平夷及保存所有它的向量嗎?勞倫斯在他的生成烏龜中,從最頑固的動物動力轉移到抽象,等級及「區分割裂」的幾何學,可是卻沒有喪失任何的動力:他推著生成烏龜一路到達一致的平面。每一樣東西都變得不可知覺。每一樣東西在一致的平面上都是生成不可知覺,可是又是在不可知覺讓人看見跟聽見的地方。這就是平面規,根莖,標準(隨著向量數目增加,還有其他名稱。)在無限向量那裡,被稱為超級球,機械球。那是抽象圖形,而且因為沒有形狀,它是抽象機器,每個具體的裝配都是多樣性,生成,碎片,振動。抽象的機器就是所有這些的交會。

 

Waves are vibrations, shifting borderlines inscribed on the plane of consistency as so many abstractions. The abstract machine of the waves. In The Waves, Virginia Woolf—who made all of her life and work a passage, a becoming, all kinds of becomings between ages, sexes, elements, and kingdoms—intermingles seven characters, Bernard, Neville, Louis, Jinny, Rhoda, Suzanne, and Percival. But each of these characters, with his or her name, its individuality, designates a multiplicity ( for example, Bernard and the school of fish). Each is simultaneously in this multiplicity and at its edge, and crosses over into the others. Percival is like the ultimate multiplicity enveloping the greatest number of dimensions. But he is not yet the plane of consistency. Although Rhoda thinks she sees him raising out of the sea, no, it is not he. “ When the white arm rests upon the knee it is a triangle; now it upright—a column; now a fountain…Behind it roars the sea. It is beyond our reach.” Each advances like a wave, but on the plane of consistency they are a single abstract Wave whose vibration propagates following a line of flight or deterritorialization traversing the entire plane ( each chapter of Woolf’s novel is preceded by a meditation on an aspect of the waves, on one of their hours, on one of their becomings.)

 

波濤是振動,轉移鐫刻在一致圖形的邊緣線,當著許多抽象。波浪的抽象機器。維吉尼亞、吳爾芙在「波濤」一書中,將她一生及其作品當著是一個過程,一種生成,各種年齡、性別、元素及王國之間的生成,交織在七個人物:伯吶、尼比、路易士、珍妮、盧達、蘇珊及培西伯。但是這些人物有其自己的名字及個別性,指明一個多重性,(例如,伯納及其魚群。)每一個都同時在這個多重性跟邊緣,越過到其他。培西伯就像是最後的多重性,涵蓋最多數量的向量。但是他還不是最後的一致性的平面。雖然盧達看到他從海中升起,但不是他。「當白色的手臂靠在膝蓋上,那是三角形,時而手臂伸直,那是根柱子,時而是噴泉,海洋咆嘯在背後。我們無法觸及。」每一個都像波濤前進,但是在一致性的平面上,他們是單一的抽象波濤,振動傳播跟隨一個逃離線,或解轄域線,越過整個波濤的平面(吳爾芙小說的每個章節,前頭都有段沉思在某個時刻,每個生成的波濤)。

雄伯手記971014b

October 14, 2008

雄伯手記97104b

 

真是時不我與,才半年間,體力衰退得好快,踩了一整天才從花蓮到達洛韶。還好慈惠堂堂主待我親切,不僅挑樓下清靜房間給我,晚餐、早餐準備得豐盛,臨行時,還特意送我一包大飯團跟兩顆水梨,全部才收600元。

 

朝慈恩上坡前進時,發現體力並未像以往一樣睡一個好眠就會恢復,上坡騎行頗為吃力,左腳跟也隱隱作痛。也懊悔自己過分老實,竟沒有跟好心堂主要求裝備飲水,一路口乾。再顧慮到原來救國團服務站的住宿都已裁撤,天黑以前到達關原的可能性甚小。決定還是不要逞強,先轉進回來。

 

其實真正放不下的還是自己的心情。晚上家教學生周日要考全民英檢複試,答應跟他加強,下星期又有單車遠遊之約。當初會有選擇單車當旅遊交通工具的構想,主要還是經濟因素。一但沒有家教的額外收入,我勢必學習年輕人的背包克難,才有辦法做長期的漫遊。但矛盾的是,有了家教額外收入,我反而處處牽掛。

 

 

 

雄伯手記971012b

October 12, 2008

雄伯手記971012b

 

別人常在我們最需要他們的時刻辜負我們,同樣的,我們自己也常在別人最需要我們的時刻辜負別人。這個需要未必是現實生活,交際應酬的需要,有時是內心生命力覺醒時吶喊的需要。

 

問題是在物慾跟理性化的世界裡,我們沒有一人是真正的自由人,別人偶爾自由時,我們並不自由。我們偶爾自由時,別人並不自由。你不自由時,渴望對方能理性理解,同樣地,對方不自由時,也渴望你理性理解。大家都理性,到最後,我們縱使能理解彼此的不自由,卻不能理解為什麼我們自己內心充滿了覺醒的吶喊,卻無人理解。

 

我們都渴望愛,問題是不自由的人如何能愛?我們不僅是失去了別人的愛,也失去了對自己的愛。我們剩下的只是渴望愛的眼神。

 

 

雄伯手記971011b

October 11, 2008

雄伯手記971011b

 

「阿甘正傳」Forrest Gump 開頭第一段,時常縈迴我心頭:

 

 Let Me Say This: BEIN A IDIOT IS NO BOX OF CHOCOLATES. People laugh, lose patience, treat you shabby. Now they says folks sposed to be kind to the afflicted, but let me tell you—it ain’t always that way. Even so, I got no complaints, cause I reckon I done live a pretty interesting life, so to speak.

 

這實在是錯別字連篇,文法謬誤一大堆的英文。作者Winston Groom 特意模擬白癡語氣的阿甘,敘述他離奇而坎坷的一生。當了三十幾年英文教師的我,閱讀時還是忍不住將它還原成正規的英文。

 

 Let me say this: Being an idiot is no box of chocolates. People laugh, lose patience, treat you shabby. Now they say folks are supposed to be kind to the afflicted, but let me tell you—it isn’t always that way. Even so, I got no complaints, because I reckon I have lived a pretty interesting life, so to speak.

 

讓我這樣說吧:當白癡可不是像盒巧克力。人們嘲笑,對你不耐煩,態度隨便。僅管現在有人說,對不幸的人要仁慈一點,但讓我告訴你,情形未必是如此。即使是這樣,我也沒什麼怨言,因為我認為,我過的這一生還蠻有趣的,可以這樣說。

 

電影拍得更生動。這位忠厚老實的阿甘,從小兒麻痺的殘障,奮鬥成為賽跑健將。從軍營到越戰,從代表美國到北京參賽的乒乓球手,到將退伍金投資不看好的捕蝦船反而發大財,奇蹟般的一生,讓人欣慰即使當白癡,傻人有傻福,其實也不是那麼悲慘的命運。

 

最近讀以撒、辛格Isaac Singer的「傻子金寶」Gimpel the Fool,卻不禁掩卷沉思良久。忠厚老實的金寶孜孜不倦為維持家業而努力工作,卻發現自己付出的愛心跟熱情,不僅在鄰居親友,連妻子子女眼中,他都被當著不懂人際之間利害算計的白痴般看待。最後金寶終於厭煩透了,索性將所有財產分贈子女,自己拎個簡單行囊到處流浪去也。

 

最後一段的英文還是讓我給翻譯一下:

 

No doubt the world is entirely an imaginary world, but it is only once removed from the true world. At the door of the hovel where I lie, there stands the plank on which the dead are taken away. The gravedigger Jew Has his spade ready. The grave waits and the worms are hungry; the shrouds are prepared—I carry them in my beggar’s sack. Another shnorrer is waiting to inherit my bed of straw. When the time comes I will go joyfully. Whatever may be there, it will be real, without complication, without ridicule, without deception. God be praised: there even Gimpel cannot be deceived.

 

無疑的,這世界完全是個不真實的世界,但只是一度脫離真實的世界。在我躺臥的茅屋門前,有一條長板是用來抬走死去的人。挖掘墳墓工人鏟子已經準備好。墳墓在等待,蛆蟲已餓得不耐,屍布已備好,我置放在我乞丐的背包裏。另一位流浪漢等著接收我的草席。時間到時,我會欣然前往。不管那是什麼地方,那是真實的,沒有奸詐,沒有嘲諷,沒有欺騙。感謝上帝:在那裡連傻子金寶都不會被欺騙。

 

大學時讀蘇俄作家杜思陀也夫斯基的「白癡」The Idiot,一直不能了解一位像耶穌般對人世充滿愛心跟悲憫的純真的理想主義者,竟落得像白癡般瘋狂以終。後來看了日本導演黑澤明改編的片名還是叫「白癡」的影片,再想想英名一世的黑澤明的最後自戕,才有點豁然開朗:堅持純真生命真理的理想主義者,在充滿現實算計的世界裏,跟白癡其實是相當臭味相投的。

 

Deleuze 15 德勒茲

October 11, 2008

Deleuze 16 德勒茲:千高台

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Memories of a Sorcerer (2) continued

招魂師的回憶 2)續前

 

If the anomalous is neither an individual nor a species, then what is it? It is a phenomenon, but a phenomenon of bordering. This is our hypothesis: a multiplicity is defined not by the elements that compose it in extension, not by the characteristics  that compose it in comprehension, but by the lines and dimensions it encompasses in ; intension: If you change dimensions, if you ad or subtract one, you change multiplicity. Thus there is a borderline for each multiplicity; it is in no way a center but rather the enveloping line or farthest dimension, as a function of which it is possible to count the others, all those lines or dimensions constitute the pack at a given moment ( beyond the borderline, the multiplicity changes nature).

 

假如異常既不是個人又不是品種,那它是什麼?它是一種現象,是一種邊緣的現象。這就是我們的假設:多重性被下定義,不是由延伸中組成的元素,也不是由在理解中組成的特色,而是由它在延伸時涵蓋的線條跟向量。假如你改變向量,假如你增加或減少一個向量,你就改變了多重性。因此,每個多重性都有一個邊緣線,它根本不是中心,而是涵蓋線,或最遠線,依照它的功用,計算其他線才成為可能。所有這些線或向量組成群體在特定的時刻(超越這邊緣線,多重性就改變性質)。

 

That is what Captain Aha says to his first mate: I have no personal history with Moby-Dick, no revenge to take, any more than I have a myth to play out; but I do have a becoming! Moby-Dick is neither an individual or a genus; he is the borderline, and I have to strike him to get at the pack as a whole, to reach the pack as a whole and pass beyond it. The elements of the pack are only imaginary : dummies,” the characteristics of the pack are only symbolic entities; all that counts is the borderline—the anomalous. “ To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me.: The white wall, “ Sometimes I think there naught beyond. But ‘tis enough.”

 

這就是亞伯船長對他的大副所說的:「我跟莫比敵沒有個人的夙怨,沒有仇恨要報,正如同我沒有神話要演出,但是我有一個生成轉變。莫比敵既不是個人也不是品種,它是個邊緣線。我必須攻擊它,才能接近完整的群體,才能到達完整的群體,並且超越群體。群體的元素僅僅是非真實的「傀儡」,群體的特性只是象徵符號的實體。重要的邊緣線,是異常。「對我而言,那白鯨就是那道牆,被推向我。」白色的牆。「有時我認為超越之外是空無,但也足夠了。」

 

That the anomalous is the borderline makes it easier for us to understand the various positions it occupies in relation to the pack or the multiplicity it borders, and the various positions occupied by a fascinated Self. It is now even possible to establish a classification system for packs while avoiding the pitfalls of an evolutionism that sees them only as an inferior collective  stage ( instead of taking into consideration the particular assemblages they bring into play). In any event, the pack has a borderline, and an anomalous position, whenever in a given space an animal is on the line or in the act of drawing the line in relation to which all the other members of the pack will fall into one of two halves., left or right: a peripheral position, such that it is impossible to tell if the anomalous is still in the band, already outside the b and, or at he shifting boundary of the band. Sometimes each and every animal reaches this line or occupies this dynamic position, as in a swarm of mosquitoes, where “ each individual moves randomly unless it sees the rest of the ( the swarm) in the same half-pace; then it hurries to re-enter the group. Thus stability is assured in catastrophe by a barrier.”

 

異常是邊緣線,使我們可能了解它所佔據各種位置,相對於它所邊緣的群體跟多重性,以及一個著迷自我所佔據的多重位置。現在甚至可能替群體建立一個分類系統,又能避免陷入進化論僅僅將它們看著是較劣等的集體舞台的陷阱(而不去考慮到它們所運作的特殊裝配)。無論如何,群體有個邊緣線,一個異常的位置,每當在某個特定的空間,一隻動物站在邊線或正在畫出邊線,相對於其他群體的成員會被劃入兩半的一邊,左或右:這是個週邊的位置,所以很不可能說,異常依舊是在群體裏,還是已經在群體之外,或是在群體的轉換邊界。有時,每一隻動物到達這個邊緣線,或佔據這個動力的位置,如同在一群蚊子裏,每個個體隨便亂動,除非它看到其餘的蚊群都在相同的半邊,那麼它就會急忙加入這個團體。因此由於障礙,穩定性在災難中被保證。

 

Sometimes it is a specific animal that draws and occupies the borderline, as leader of the pack. Sometimes the borderline is defined or doubled by a being of another nature that no longer belongs to the pack, or never belonged to it, and that represents a power of another order, potentially acting as a threat as well as a trainer, outsider, et. In any case, no band is without this phenomenon of bordering, or the anomalous. It is true that bands are also undermined by extremely varied forces that establish in them interior centers of the conjugal, familial, or State type, and that make them pass into an entirely different form of sociability, replacing pack affects with family feelings or State intelligibilities. The center, or internal black holes, assumes the principal role. This is what evolutionism sees as progress, this adventure also befalls bands of humans when they reconstitute group familialism, or even authoritarianism or pack fascism.

 

有時,是一隻特定的動物劃定並佔據這個邊緣線,作為群體的領導者。有時邊緣線由不再屬於群體,或從未屬於群體的不同特性的動物所定義或重覆。那是代表另外一種秩序的力量,有潛力充當一種威脅以及是一種訓練者,局外者等等。無論如何,沒有群體沒有邊緣或異常的現象。確實的,群體也會受到逐漸損壞,由於這些極端變化的力量在裡面建立婚姻、家庭、或國家類型的內部中心,使它們成為完全不同的社會形式,用家庭感情或國家意識取代了群體感情。這中心,或內部的黑洞,扮演起主要的角色。這就是進化論所看到的進步,這種進步發生在人類的群體之上時,他們會重新組成團體的家族,或甚至是權威主義,或群體法西斯。

 

Sorcerers have always held the anomalous position, at the edge of the fields or woods. They haunt the fringes. They are at the borderline of the village, or between villages. The important thing is their affinity with alliance, with the pact, which gives them a status opposed to that of filiation. The relation with the anomalous is one of alliance. The sorcerer has a relation of alliance with the demon as the power of the anomalous. The old-time theologians drew a clear distinction between two kinds of curses against sexuality. The first concerns sexuality as a process of filiation transmitting the original sin. But the second concerns it as a power of alliance inspiring illicit unions or abominable loves. This differs significantly from the first in that it tends to prevent procreation; since the demon does not himself have the ability to procreate, he must adopt indirect means ( for example, being the female succubus of a man and then becoming the male incubus of a woman, to whom he transmits the man’s semen.)

 

招魂師總是擁有那個異常的位置,在田野或樹林的邊緣。它們縈繞在邊緣。他們在村莊的邊緣,或是在村莊與村莊之間。重要的是,他們跟結盟的密切關係給他們一種地位,相對於父子傳承的地位。這種跟異常的關係式結盟的關係。招魂者跟惡魔作為異常的力量有一種結盟的關係。古代的神學家清楚地區別兩種反對性愛的詛咒。第一種是關心到性愛當著父子傳承的過程,傳遞原罪。第二種則是關心到性愛當著結盟的力量,啟發不合法的結合或令人厭惡的愛情。這個大大同於第一種,因為它傾向於阻止繁殖。既然惡魔本身並沒有繁殖的能力,他必須採用間街接的方法(例如,成為男人的女娼妓,然後再成為女人的男娼妓,惡魔將男人的精子傳遞給她。)

 

 

It is true that the relations between alliance and filiation come to be regulated by laws of marriage, but even then alliance retains a dangerous and contagious power. Leach was able to demonstrate that despite all the exceptins that seemingly disprove the rule, the sorcerer belongs first of all to a group united to the group over which he or she exercises influence only by alliance: thus in a matrilineal group we look to the father’s side for the sorcerer or witch. And there is an entire evolution of sorcery depending on whether the relation of alliance acquires permanence or assumes political weight. In order to produce werewolves in your own family if is not enough to resemble a wolf, or to live like a wolf: the pact with the Devil must be coupled with an alliance with another family, and it is the return of this alliance to the first family, that produces werewolves by feedback effect. A fine tale by Erckmann and Chatrian, Hugues-le-loup, assembles the traditions concerning this complex situation.

 

雖然結盟跟父子傳承的關係被婚姻的法律所規範,但是這種結盟包含一種危險及傳染的力量。李奇能夠證明,儘管有許多看起來跟通則相反的例外,作家絕大多數屬於第一種團體,結盟的對象是自己對他們具有影響力的團體。因此,在母系的團體裏,我們期望父親這一邊來當招魂師或巫師。整個招魂業的進化是依靠結盟的關係是否永久或具有政治的份量。要在自己家中表現像一隻荒野之狼,光是外表像一隻狼或生活像一隻狼還不夠,跟惡魔的盟約必須再加上跟另一個家族的結盟。這種結盟回歸到第一個家庭,也就是這個結盟對第一個家庭的反動,才會具有反饋情意地產生荒野之狼。歐克曼跟蔡瑞恩的一篇很好的小說,就組合了這種複雜情況的傳統。

 

The contradiction between the two themes, “ contagion through the animal as pack,” and “ pact with the anomalous as exceptional being,” is progressively fading. It is with good reason that Leach links the two concepts of alliance and contagion, pact and epidemic. Analzing Kachin sorcery, he writes :” With influence ws thought to be transmitted in the food that the women prepared…Kachin witchcraft is contagious rather than heredictary…it is associated with affinity, not filiation.”

 

「透過動物作為群體的傳染」與「與異常盟約作為例外的存在」,這兩個主題間的矛盾逐漸消退當中。李奇將結盟與傳染,盟約與流行疫病兩個觀念連接在一起,是有其道理的。當他分析凱秦的招魂術時,他寫到:「巫術影響被認為透過女人所準備的食物傳遞,凱秦的巫術是傳染,而非遺傳而來,它跟類同關係,而非父子關係有關。」

 

Alliance or the pact is the form of expression for an infection or epidemic constituting the form of content. In sorcery, blood is of the order of contagion and alliance. It can be said that becoming-animal is an affair of sorcery because (1) it implies an initial relation of alliance with a demon; (2) the demon functions as the borderline of an animal pack, into which the human being passes or in which his or her becoming takes place, by contagion; ( 3) this becoming itself implies a second alliance, with another human group; (4 ) this new borderline between the two groups guides the contagion of animal and human being within the pack.

結盟或盟約是傳染或流行疫病的表達形式,形成內容的形式。在招魂中,血是屬於傳染跟結盟的秩序。可以說,生成動物是招魂的外遇,其一,它暗示跟惡魔打交道的首次關係,其二,惡魔充當動物群體的邊緣線,人類要通過這道邊緣線,傳染的生成才會發生。其三,生成本身暗示跟另外一個人類團體第二次結盟。其四,這兩個團體的新邊緣線引導動物跟人類在群體中的傳染。

 

There is an entire politics of becomings-animal, as well as a politics of sorcery, which is elaborated in assemblages that are neither those of the family nor of religion nor of the State. Instead, they express minoritarian groups, or groups that are oppressed, prohibited, in revolt, or always on the fringe of recognized institutions, groups all the more secret for being extrinsic, in other words, anomic. If becoming-animal takes the form of a Temptation, and of monsters aroused in the imagination by the demon, it is because it is accompanied, at its origin as in its understanding, by a rupture with the central institutions that have established themselves or seek to become established.

 

有ㄧ整套生成動物的政治學及招魂術政治學,在裝配中被建構,而且並非是家庭,也非宗教或國家的政治學。代替的,它們的發聲是替少數受壓迫,受禁制及反叛中,或處於合法機構邊緣的團體,尤其是替處於外圍的秘密團體,換言之,異常團體。即使生成動物採取誘拐方式,或在想像中被惡魔喚起怪物,那是因為在起源及從事的階段,跟已經建立或設法建立的中央機構斷裂時所跟隨而來。

 

Let us cite pell-mell, not as mixes to be made, but as different cases to be studied: becomings-animal in the war machine, wildmen of all kinds ( the war machine indeed comes from without, it is extrinsic to the State, which treats the warrior as an anomalous power); becomings-animal in crime societies, leopard-men in riot groups ( when the State prohibits tribal and local wars); becomings-animal in riot groups ( when the Church and the state are faced with peasant movements containing a sorcery component, which they repress by setting up a whole trial and legal system designed to exposed pacts with the Devil) ; becomings-animal in asceticism groups, the grazing anchorite or wild-beast anchorite ( the asceticism machine is in an anomalous position, on a line of flight, off to the side of the Church, and disputes the Church’s pretention to set itself up as imperial institution); becomings-animal in societies practicing sexual initiation of the “ sacred deflowerer” type, wolf-men, goat-men, etc. ( who claim an Alliance superior and exterior to the order of families; families have to win from them the right to regulate their own alliances, to determine them according to relations of complementary lines of descent, and to domesticate this unbridled power of alliance).

 

且讓我們趕快引述,不是要混淆,而是當著有待研究的不同個案:在戰爭機器中的生成動物,各種的野人(戰爭機器確實是從外面而來,並非國家本質,因為國家把戰士當著異常力量。)在犯罪中的生成動物,豹人,鱷魚人(國家禁止部落與當地械鬥);在暴亂中的生成動物(教堂跟國家面臨帶有招魂成份的農民起義時,他們的鎮壓是建立一整套審判及司法系統,被設計來揭發農民跟惡魔的結盟。)在禁欲團體的生成動物,耕讀的隱士,或野食的隱士(禁欲學派的機器是

處於異常的地位置,遁逃的線道,逃離教堂的邊線,辯駁教堂企圖建立自己成為帝國機構的虛偽。)在色情(採陰補陽)式的生成動物,狼人,山羊人等等。(他們宣稱他們的結盟,優於或外在於家庭的秩序,家庭必須打敗他們,才能贏得權利規範自己結盟,根據子孫傳承在否定他們,馴服這些脫韁的結盟力量。)

 

The politics of becoming-animal remains, of course, extremely ambiguous. For societies, even primitive societies, have always appropriated these becomings in order to break them, reduce them to relations of totemic or symbolic correspondence. States have always appropriated the war machine in the form of national armies that strictly limit the becomings of the warrior. The Church has always burned sorcerers, or reintegrated anchorites into the toned-down image of a series of saints whose only remaining relation to animals is strangely familiar, domestic. Families have always warded off the demonic Alliance gnawing at them, in order to regulate alliances among themselves as they see fit. We have seen sorcerers serve as leaders, rally to the cause of despotism, create the countersorcerery of exorcism, pass over to the side of the family and descent. But this spells the death of the sorcerer, and also the death of becoming. We have seen becoming spawn nothing more than a big domestic dog, as in Henry Miller’s damnation ( “ it would be better to feign, to pretend to be an animal, a dog for example, and catch he bone thrown tome from time to time”) or Fitzgeald’s ( “ I will try to be a correct animal though, and if you throw a bone with enough meat on it I may even lick your hand”). Invert Faust’s formula: So that is what it was, the form of the traveling scholar? A mere poodle?

 

當然,生成動物的政治學是極端曖昧的。因為社會,甚至是原始的社會,總是篡奪這些生成,以便瓦解他,及將他們淪為圖騰或象徵符號的對應關係。國家總是以國家的軍隊嚴厲限制戰士的生成,來竄奪戰爭機器。教堂總是將招魂師焚燒,或將隱士歸類於一系列隱士的淡化形象,他們跟動物的關係僅是馴服而耳熟的。家庭總是抵擋咬囓他們的惡魔結盟,以便規範結盟成為他們認為合適的方式。我們曾精見過招魂師充當領導者,集結成為暴政,創造驅魔的反招魂術,傳到家庭跟後代子孫那邊。但這等於宣告招魂師的死亡及生成的死亡。我們曾經見過生成產生一種馴養的家犬,如同在亨利、米勒的詛咒(你不如去偽裝成動物,狗也好,搖尾乞求偶爾拋給骨頭。)或是費茲哲羅的詛咒(我將設法成為品行良好的動物,你賜給我的骨頭肉夠多,我還可舔你的手。)浮士德的公式倒轉過來:那就是他的位置,流浪的學者?哈巴狗一條。

雄伯手記971010b

October 10, 2008

雄伯手記971010b

 

國慶日連續三天假期,風和日麗的好日子,我卻絲毫沒有想要出遊的念頭。ㄧ方面是車票、機票、或旅館在這種旺季日子鐵定是一票及ㄧ床難求,要不然就是乘機漲價。事先若沒有規劃好,肯定是窒礙難行。

 

另ㄧ方面是我閱讀哲學家德勒茲的千高台,迷糊了一段日子,最近開始有點豁然開朗,翻譯也逐漸進入順暢的階段。有時翻譯到將近十二點,還有點欲罷不能,心裏想,我ㄧ定要按照從小被培養的生活慣例,停下來先吃午餐嗎?

 

德勒茲哲學給我的啟示正是這個:隨性之所致,不要因為曾經對人或對自己承諾,而勉強去做自己所已經不想做的事情。這跟現實社會要守信用,才會受人尊敬的教導剛好相反。我現在面臨的選擇是:要成為ㄧ個社會人?還是一個獨立特行的自由人?或是還在中間搖擺選擇妥協點?

 

今天的妥協點是午餐還是照生活習慣先吃了,單車長途遊卻自己找個理由暫緩了。至於明天會怎樣?Tomorrow is another day. 好像「亂世佳人」Gone is the Wind 裏的郝思嘉曾經也這樣說過。

 

 

Deleuze 15a 德勒茲

October 10, 2008

Deuze 15 德勒茲:千高台

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Memories of a Sorcerer II

招魂師的回憶 (2)

 

Our first principle was: pack and contagion, the contagion of the pack, such is the path becoming-animal takes. But a second principle seemed to tell us the opposite: wherever there is multiplicity, you will also find an exceptional individual, and it is with that individual that an alliance must be made in order to become-animal. There may be no such thing as a lone wolf, but there is a leader of the pack, a master of the pack, or else the old deposed head of the pack now living alone, there is the Loner, and there is the Demon. Willard has his favorite, the rte Ben, and only becomes-rat through his relation with him, in a kind of alliance of love, then of hate.

 

我們的第一原理是群體跟傳染,群體的傳染就是生成動物的所採取之道。但是第二個原理似乎恰恰相反:每當有多重性存在,你也會發現例外的個人,而生成動物就是要與這樣的個人結盟。孤獨之狼這樣的動物可能沒有,但是確實有群體的領導者,群體的主子,要不然就是群體被罷黜的首領孤獨過活,有獨行者,有惡魔。鼠人威勒就是他的最愛。生成動物就透過跟他的關係,產生愛的結盟,然後是恨的結盟。

 

Moby-Dick in its entirety is one of the greatest masterpieces of becoming; Captain Ahab has an irresistible becoming-whale, but one that bypasses the pack or the school, operating directly through a monstrous alliance with Unique, the Leviathan, Moby-Dick. There is always a pact with a demon; the demon sometimes appears as the head of the band, sometimes as the Loner on the sidelines of the pack, and sometimes as the higher Power pf the band. The exceptional individual has many possible positions.

 

白鯨莫比迪道道地地就是生成動物的偉大傑作之一。亞伯船長有隻無可抗拒的生成白鯨,但是他繞過群體或成群,直接跟獨一無二的惡魔莫比迪,怪誕地結盟。跟惡魔總是有盟約,惡魔似乎總是當群體的首領,有時在邊緣當獨行俠,有時充當群體的最高力量。這個例外的個人有許多可能的位置。

 

Kafka, another great author of real becomings-animals, sings of mouse society; but Josephine, the mouse singer, sometimes holds a privileged position in the pack, sometimes, a position outside the pack, and sometimes slips into and is lost in the anonymity of the collective statements of the pack. In short, every Animal has its Anomalous. Let us clarify that; every animal swept up in its pack or multiplicity has its anomalous. It has been noted that the origin of the word anomal ( “ anomalous”) , and adjective that has fallen into disuse in French, is very different from that of anormal ( “ abnormal”): a-normal, a Latin adjective lacking a noun in French, refers to that which is outside rules or goes against the rules, whereas  an-omalie, a Greek noun that has lost its adjective, designates the unequal, the coarse, the rough, the cutting edge of deterrriorialization. The abnormal can be defined only in terms of characteristics, specific or generic; but the anomalous is a position or set of positions in relation to a multiplicity. Sorcerers therefore use the old adjective “ anomalous” to situate the positions of the exceptional individual in the pack. It is always with the Anomalous, Moby-Dick or Josephine, that one enters into alliance to become-animal.

 

卡夫卡是另外一位生成動物的偉大作者,歌誦老鼠的社會,但是周瑟分這位老鼠的歌誦者,在群體中有時擁有特權的位置,有時是在群體之外,有時偷溜進去,迷失於匿名的群體的集體論述之中。總之,每個動物有其「異常性」。讓我再說清楚一點,每個被捲入群體或多重性的動物都會有其「異常性」。有人注意到,已經廢棄不用的法文形容詞「異常」這個字的字源,不同於「不正常」這個字的字源:「不正常」是拉丁字的形容詞,在法文裏沒有它的名詞,提到一些外在規則或違背這些規則,而「異常」是一個希臘字的名詞,已經失去了形容詞,是指解構轄域的那種無與倫比、粗糙、崎嶇、尖銳的邊緣。「不正常」只能以明確或基因的特性來下定義,而「異常」是相對於多重性的一位位置或一組位置,招魂者因此使用這個老舊的形容詞「異常」來找出例外的個人在群體中的位置。總是跟「異常性」莫比迪或周瑟分,我們才能結盟為生成動物。

 

  It does seem as though there is a contradiction: between the pack and the loner; between mass contagion and preferential alliance; between pure multiplicity and the exceptional individual; between the aleatory aggregate and a predestined choice. And the contradiction is real: Ahab chooses Moby-Dick, in a choosing that exceeds hm and comes from elsewhere, and in so doing breaks with the law of the whalers according to which one should first pursue the pack. Penthesilea shatters the law of the pack, the pack of women, the pack of she-dogs, by choosing Achilles as her favorite enemy. Yet it is by means of this anomalous choice that each enters into his or her becoming-animal, the becoming-dog of Penthesilea, the becoming-whale of Captain Ahab.

似乎在群體跟孤獨者之間,在集體傳染與偏愛的結盟之間,在純粹的多重性與例外的個人之間,在偶然的聚會跟事先註定的選擇之間,總是有種矛盾。這種矛盾是真實的:亞伯選擇莫比迪,在作此選擇時,他身不由己地為外力掌控,違背了捕鯨業以群體為重的法則。扁西黎選擇以阿基力為她最喜愛的敵人,也粉碎了群體的法則,女人的群體,母狗的群體。可是,憑藉這種異常的選擇,每個人進入他或她的生成動物,扁西黎的生成母狗,亞伯的生成鯨。

 

We sorcerers know quite well that the contradictions are real but that real contradictions are not just for laughs. For the whole question is this: What exactly is the nature of the anomalous? What function does it have in relation to the band, to the pack? It is clear that the anomalous is not simply an exceptional individual; that would be to equate it with the family animal or pet, the Oedipalized animal as psychoanalysis sees it, as the image of the father, etc.. Aha’s Moby-Dick is not like the little cat or dog owned by an elderly woman who honors and cherishes it.

Lawrence’s becoming-tortoise has nothing to do with a sentimental or domestic relation. Lawrence is another of the writers who leave us troubled and filled with admiration because they were able to tie their writing to real and unheard-of becomings. But the objection is raised against Lawrence: “ Your tortoises aren’t real!” And he answers : Possibly, but my becoming is, my becoming is real, even and especially if you have no way of judging it, because you’re just little house dogs…

 

我們招魂者知之甚稔,這種矛盾是真實的,但是這種真實的矛盾不能僅僅作為笑談。因為整個問題的癥結是:這個異常的確實特性是什麼?它跟群體,跟成群有何關聯的功用?很顯然的,這個異常不僅僅是一個例外的個人。那將是把它相等於家庭的動物或寵物。依照精神分析的觀點,那就是伊底普斯的動物,作為戀母殺父的形象。亞伯的莫比敵不像老婦人擁有的小貓小狗,受到愛惜和尊崇。勞倫斯的生成烏龜也跟濫情的家庭關係無涉。勞倫斯是另外一位讓我們深感困擾而又讓人尊崇的作家之一,因為他們能夠將寫作跟史無前例的生成密切相連。但是也有人對勞倫斯持反對立場:「你的烏龜並非真實!」他的回應是:「我的烏龜可能並非真實,但是我的生成卻是,我的生成卻是真實,特別是你無法判斷它,因為你自己充其量是些家犬。」

 

The anomalous, the preferential element in the pack, has nothing to do with the preferred, domestic, and psychoanalytic individual. Nor is the anomalous the bearer of a species presenting specific or generic characteristics in their purest state; nor is it a model or unique specimen; nor is it the perfection of a type incarnate; nor is it the eminent term of a series; nor is it the basis of an absolutely harmonious correspondence. The anomalous is neither an individual or a species; it has only affects, it has neither familiar or subjectified feelings, nor specific or significant characteristics.

Human tenderness is as foreign to it as human classifications. Lovecraft applies the term “ Outsider” to this thing or entity, the Thing, which arrives and passes at the edge, which is linear yet multiple, “ teeming, seething, swelling, foaming, spreading like an infectious disease, this nameless horror.

 

這種在群體中異常,偏愛的元素,跟偏愛式,家庭式及精神分析學式的個人無關。異常不是代表明確或基因的品種在純淨狀態下的攜帶者,也不是模式或獨特的樣本,更不是某種類型的完美化身,說不上是某ㄧ系列的優秀指稱,尤其不是絕對和諧對應的基礎。異常既不是個人,也不是品種。它只有情意,但既不是家庭式或主觀式的感覺,也不是某個特定或重要的特性。它不識人性的溫柔,正如不能被人性分類。作家愛巧將「局外人」這個指稱運用到這個物體或實體上,形容它到達及通過邊緣,留連卻又多重化,滋生、翻滾、膨脹、冒泡、擴充,像傳染疾病,這個無名的恐懼。