德勒茲22

Deleaze 21 德勒茲：千高台

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Of the Refrain

論疊句

 

A child in the dark, gripped with fear, comforts himself by singing under his breath. He walks and halts to his song. Lost, he takes shelter, or orients himself with his little song as best he can. The song is like a rough sketch of a calming and stabilizing, calm and stable, center in the heart of chaos. Perhaps the child skips as he sings, hastens or slows his pace. But the song itself is already a skip: it jumps from chaos to the beginnings of order in chaos and is in danger of breaking apart at any moment. There is always sonority in Ariadne’s thread. Or the song of Orpheus.

 

一個小孩在黑暗中，恐懼交加，小聲地哼唱。他配著曲調邊走邊停。迷路了，找個躲避地方，盡可能再用曲調找到定位。這曲調就像是一張粗略的構圖，在渾沌的核心有著令人寧靜和穩定的中央。可能這個小孩邊唱邊跳，加快或緩慢步伐。但是曲調本身已經是一種跳躍：它從渾沌跳躍倒秩序的開端，有隨時崩塌的危險。阿瑞尼攜帶線索進入迷宮時的曲調是嘹喨的。奧非斯進入冥域時也是一樣。

 

Now we are at home. But home does not preexist: it was necessary to draw a circle around that uncertain and fragile center, to organize a limited space. Many, very diverse, components have a part in this, landmarks and marks of all kinds. This was already true of the previous case. But now the components are used for organizing a space, not for the momentary determination of a center. The forces of chaos are kept outside as much as possible, and the interior space protects the germinal forces of a task to fulfill or a deed to do. This involves an activity of selection, elimination and extraction, in order to prevent the interior forces of the earth from being submerged, to enable them to resist, or even to take something from chaos across the filter or sieve of the space that has been drawn.

 

現在我們在家。但是家並沒有預先存在。繞著不穩定而脆弱的中央，有需要畫一道圓圈，組織一個有限的空間。參與的有各種多樣的成分，路標及各種標誌。就剛才的例子而言總也是真實的。但是現在成分被用來組織空間，而不是作為中央的暫時決定點。混沌的力量盡可能維持在外面，內部的空間保護初始的力量，可以執行工作或從事某種行為。這牽涉到選擇、減少及抽離的行動，為了阻止地球的內部力量不要被淹沒，為了使它們能抗拒，甚至從渾沌中越過劃定的空間的過濾及篩選，得到某件東西。

 

Sonorous or vocal components are very important: a wall of sound, or at least a wall with some sonic bricks in it. A child hums to summon the strength for the schoolwork she has to hand in. A housewife sings to herself, or listens to the radio, as she marshals the anti-chaos forces of her work. Radios and television sets are like sound walls around every household and mark territories ( the neighbor complains when it gets too loud). For sublime deeds like the foundation of a city or the fabrication of a golem, one draws a circle, or better yet walks in a circle as in children’s dance, combining rhythmic vowels and consonants that correspond to the interior forces of creation as to the differentiated parts of an organism. A mistake in speed, rhythm, or harmony would be catastrophic because it would bring back the forces of chaos, destroying both creator and creation.

 

嘹喨或聲音的成分是非常重要的：一道聲音的牆壁，或至少一道有隔音磚的牆在裡面。小孩哼唱來招換力量做她必須繳交的作業。家庭主婦獨自哼唱，或聽收音機，當她統整從事工作的反渾沌力量。收音機跟電視就像是環繞每個家庭的隔音牆，畫出疆域（太大聲時，鄰居會抱怨。）對於一些崇高的行為，如為城市奠基，塑造有生命的泥人，我們會劃出圓圈，更好的是走入圓圈，如同在小孩的舞蹈中，連結節奏的母音及子音，對應創造的內在力量，關於有機體的不同成分。速度、韻律及和諧方面的錯誤將會是災難，因為它將會混沌的力量，毀滅創造者及創造物。

 

Finally, one opens the circle a crack, opens it all the way, lets someone in, calls someone, or else goes out oneself, launches forth. One opens the circle not on the side where the old forces of chaos press against it but in another region, one created by the circle itself. As though the circle tended another region, one created by the circle itself. As though the circle tended on its own to open onto a future, as a function of the working forces it shelters. This time, it is in order to join with the forces of the future, cosmic forces. One launches forth, hazards an improvisation.
But to improvise is to join with the World, or meld with it. One ventures from home on the thread of a tune. A long sonorous, gestural, motor lines that mark the customary path of a child and graft themselves onto  or begin to bud “ line of drift” with different loops, knots, speeds, movements, gestures and sonorities.

 

最後，我們替圓圈打開一個罅隙，一路打開，讓某件東些進來，招喚某人，要不然自己出去，向前邁進。我們打開圓圈，不是在古老的混沌力量壓擠的這一邊，而是在另一個領域，由圓圈本身所創造的領域。好似這個圓圈本身傾向於開放向未來，作為它所捍衛的工作力量的功用。這一次為了要跟未來的力量，宇宙的力量聯合。我們向前邁進，邊前進邊編曲調。但是編曲調就是已經跟世界連接，禍跟它焊接。我們依據曲調的線索，冒險離家。沿著歌聲，手勢的動力線，標明小孩的習慣路線，銜接上去，或者跟不同的圈套、環節、速度、動作、動作、手勢及歌聲，產生「漂浮線」。

 

There are not three successive movements in an evolution. They are three aspects of a single thing, the Refrain. They are found in tales ( both horror stories and fairy tales), and in lieder as well. The refrain has all three aspects, it makes them simultaneous or mixes them; sometimes, sometimes, sometimes. Sometimes chaos is an immense black hole in which one endeavors to fix a fragile point as a center. Sometimes one organizes around that point a calm and stable “ pace” ( rather than a form): the black hole has become a home. Sometimes one grafts onto that pace a breakaway from the black hole. Paul Klee presented these three aspects, and their interlinkage, in a most profound way. He calls the black hole a “ gray point” for pictorial reasons. The gray point starts out as non-localizable, non-dimensional chaos, the force of chaos, a tangled bundle of aberrant lines. Then the point “ jumps over itself: and radiates a dimensional space with horizontal layers, vertical cross sections, unwritten customary lines, a whole terrestrial interior force ( this force also appears, at a more relaxed pace, in the atmosphere and in water). The gray point ( black hole) has thus jumped from one state to another, and no longer represents chaos but the abode or home. Finally, the point launches out of itself, compelled by wandering centrifugal forces that fan out to the sphere of the cosmos: one “ tries convulsively to fly from the earth, but at the following level one actually rises above it…powered by centrifugal forces that triumph over gravity.”

 

在進化過程並沒有三個連續動作。它們是單一東西，疊句的三方面。在故事中（恐怖小說及童話故事）都可找得到。在德國抒情歌曲中也有。疊句有這三方面，它有時使他們同時發生或有時混合。有時渾沌是一個巨大黑洞，我們企圖固定一個脆弱點當著中央。有時我們環繞那一點組織一個寧靜而穩定的「歩調」（而不是形式）：黑洞已經成為家。有時我們銜接那個歩調，來脫離黑洞。保羅、克寧以最深刻的方式，呈現這三方面及它們的互相連接。他有三個生動的理由，稱呼黑洞為「灰色點」。這灰色點開始是無法找出位置，沒有向量的渾沌，渾沌的力量是一團脫離常軌的糾纏線。然後這一點「跳躍過本身」，煥發出一個具有水平向量層，垂直交會區隔的空間，未名的習慣線，整個地球的內部力量（這個力量也以更輕鬆的步調出現在大氣及水中）。灰色點（黑洞）因此從一個狀態跳躍到另一個狀態，不再代表渾沌，而是代表家的住所。最後，這一點被跟宇宙球相扇的離心力所驅使，從本身發射出來。我們「驟發地設法飛離地球，但是在最後層次，被設法克服地心引力的離心力所驅使，我們實際上提升於地球之上。」

 

 

Zizek 01

Organ without bodies by Zizek 紀傑克：沒有身體的器官

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Science: cognitivism with Freud

科學：佛洛伊德的認知論

 

“ Autopoiesis”

自體更生

 

The central problem of Deleuze, that of the emergence of the New, is deeply Kantian-Hegelian. It is related to the question “ How is a free act possible within the causal network of material interdependences?”, because something really New can emerge only if the determinative power of the linear causal chain is not complete. Here is Mario Bunge’s concise critical formulation of a “ world running on a strictly causal pattern.::

 

德勒茲的中心問題，新生物的出現，根本上是康德跟黑格爾的問題。它跟下面的問題有關：「在物質互相依存的因果網絡裏，自由行動是可能的嗎？」因為只有當直線的因果鎖鏈的決定力量不完整，某件真正新的東西才可能出現。底下是一段馬瑞、班齊簡明地評述「根據嚴格因果模式運轉的世界」：

 

    If the joint action of several causes is always an external juxtaposition, a superposition, and in no case a synthesis having traits of its own, and if the hypothetical patients on which the causal agents act are passive things incapable of spontaneity or self-activity—incapable, in short, of adding something of their own to the causal bond—then it follows that, in a sense, effects preexist in their causes. According to this extreme but consistent doctrine on the nature of causation, only old things come out of change; processes can give rise to objects new in number or new in some quantitative aspects, not however new in kind, or, again, no new qualities can emerge.

   

    假如好幾個原因的共同行動總是外在的並列和排列，一個綜合不可能有自己的特色。假設有個病人的病因是無法自發或自動的被動，總之無法自己增加因果的連繫，那麼我們可以推論，在某個意義而言，結果事先存在於原因當中。依照這個因果律的極端的一貫原理，陽光底下無新事，過程產生的東西只有數目及數量上的新，而不是種類上的新。也就是沒有新的特質出現。

 

 

This bring us to Deleuze’s fundamental paradox: the implication of his absolute immanentism, of his rejection of any transcendence, is precisely that an effect can transcend its cause, or—another aspect of the same problematic—that relations are external to the objects that relate to each other ( recall Deleuze’s reading of Hitchcock!). This externality of relations is grounded in the fact, in a set of elements, the number of subsets we can form is larger than the number of the elements themselves. And the most succinct definition of the excessive element, the “ dark precursor,” is precisely that of a pseudo element that, within the multitude of elements, holds the place of relations: Say, according to Fredric Jameson’s reading of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff is not one among the novel’s characters but a kind of zero-element, a purely structural function of the “ vanishing mediator,” a mechanism for mediating the two series, that of the old organic-patriarchal social relations and that of the modern capitalist relations, a point of passage between the two:

 

這使我們回到德勒茲的基本的矛盾：絕對的內在性的意涵，對於超驗的拒絕，確實說，就是結果能夠超越原因，或者換句話說，關係是外在於彼此的關係之外（回想一下德勒茲對於希區考克的賞析！）關係的外在化的根源是，在一組元素裏，我們所能組成的次組的數目會大於元素本身的數目。過度元素最簡明的定義是「黑暗前鋒」，準確地說就是一個假的元素，在一大群元素中佔有關係的地位。依照班傑明對「咆哮山莊」的閱讀，赫斯克力夫不是小說中主角，而是一種零元素，純粹是作為「消失的仲介」的結構的功用，仲介兩組系列的機械，一組是有機體的父權社會關係，另一組是現代資本主義的關係，兩組之間過程的一點。

 

 

  Heathcliff can no longer be considered the hero or the protagonist in any sense of the word. He is rather, from the very beginning, …something like a mediator or a catalyst, designed to restore the fortunes and to rejuvenate the anemic temperament of the two families.

 

  赫斯克力夫不再被認為是英雄或任何意義的主角。相反的，從一開始他就是仲介或觸媒，被設計來恢復財富，使兩個家庭貧血的性情重燃生命。

 

The Deleuzian excess of relations is thus the space of freedom as that of reflexive relations, of relating to relations—the excess over the linear network of causal relations, the way the subject relates to its conditions and causes ( assuming or rejecting them). Already in Kant I am determined by causes, but I retroactively determine which causes will determine me. In short, does not Deleuze implicitly rely here on what is usually referred to as the Kantian “ incorporation thesis”? We subjects are passively affected by pathological objects and motivations: but, in a reflexive way, we ourselves have the minimal power to accept ( or to reject) being affected in this way. Or, to risk a Deleuze-Hegelian formulation, the subject is a fold of reflexivity by means of which I retroactively determine the causes allowed to determine me, or, at least, the mode of this linear determination, “ Freedom” is thus inherently retroactive. At its mot elementary, it is not simply a free act that, out of nowhere, starts a new causal link, but rather a retroactive act of endorsing which link/sequence of necessities will determine me. Here, one should add a Helgelian twist to Spinoza: freedom is not simply “ recognized/known necessity” but recognized/ assumed necessity, the necessity constituted/ actualized through this recognition. This excess of the effect over its causes thus also means that the effect is retroactively the cause of its cause—this temporal loop is the minimal structure of life ( on this point, see the work of Francisco Varela). Recall as well Borges’s precise formation of the relationship between Kafka and the multitude of his precursors, from old Chinese authors to Robert Browning:

 

德樂茲對於關係的過度因此是自由的空間，作為反射關係及彼此相關的空間。這個過度超過因果關係的直線網絡，主體跟其條件及原因（接受或拒絕）相關的方式。康德曾說過，我被原因決定，但是我反射過來亦可決定要哪個原因決定我。或者讓我們冒險引用德勒茲及黑格爾的說明，主體是反射性的摺疊，憑藉此摺疊，我決定反射過來決定用來結定我的原因，或至少決定直線決定的模式。「自由」因此本質上就是反射過來。追根究底，那不僅是一個自由的行動，無中生有出來，開始一個新的因果鎖鏈，而是一個反射行動，認可哪一組必需的鎖鏈及系列來決定我。在此，我們還可以增加黑格爾對於史賓諾莎的改正說法：自由不僅僅是「被認知及已知的需要」，而是被認知及被假定的需要，這個需要藉由被認知而組成實現。這個結果的過度勝過原因因此也意味著，結果反射過來說是原因的原因。這個時間的圈套是生命最小結構（有關這一點，參閱法蘭西思、梵瑞拉的作品）。也回想一下柏吉思準確地說明卡夫卡跟眾多前驅者關係，從古代中國作者到羅伯、布朗林：

 

  Kafka’s idiosyncrasy; in greater or lesser degree, is present in each of these writings, but if Kafka had not written we would not perceive it; that is to say, it would not exist…Each writer creates his precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future.

 

  卡夫卡的怪誕或多或少都存在於這些作品裏，但是假如卡夫卡不曾寫，我們也不會保存，換句話說，它將不會存在。每個作家都創造自己的前驅者。他的作品修改過去的觀念，如同它會修改將來。

 

 

The properly dialectical solution of the dilemma of “ Is it really there, in the source, or did we only read it into the source?” is thus that it is there, but we can only perceive and state this retroactively, from today’s perspective, and this retroactive causality, exerted by the effect itself upon its causes, is the minimal sine qua non of freedom. Is it not that, without this freedom, the effects would, in a way, not only preexist in their causes but also directly preexist their causes? That is to say, without the excess/gap between cause and effect, the effect would preexist its cause in the sense that it would already be given in advance of its cause, regulating the deployment of the causal link as its hidden telos—teleology is the truth of linear mechanical causality ( as Hegel put it). Going even a step further, one should paradoxically claim that this assertion of the excess of the effect over its cause, of the possibility of freedom is the fundamental assertion of Deleuze’s materialism. That is to say, the point is not jut that there is an immaterial excess over the material reality of multiple bodies but that this excess is immanent to the level of the bodies themselves. If we subtract this immaterial excess, we do not get “ pure reductionist materialism” but instead get a covert idealism. No wonder that Descartes, the first to formulate the tenets of modern scientific materialism, was also the first to formulate the basic modern idealist principle of subjectivity: “ There is a fully constituted material reality of bodies and nothing else” is effectively an idealist position.

 

「它真的在來源之處？還是我們閱讀它使成為來源？」這個兩難要用適當的辯證法解決因此是：它是在來源之處，但是我們只能從今天的觀點反射過來覺察及描述。而這個反射過來的因果律，由結果推斷原因，是自由的最小必要條件。難道不是因為假如沒有這個自由，結果不但會事先存在於原因那裏，而且會直接存在於原因那裏。那就是說，因果之間，假如沒有過度及差距，結果將存在於原因那裡，從某個意義來說，早先於原因存在，規範因果關係運作的隱藏目的。如黑格爾所說，目的論是直線機械因果律的真理。再往前推論，我們應該矛盾地宣稱：結果的過度勝過原因使自由的可能，是德勒茲唯物論的基本主張。換言之，重點不僅是，非物質的過度勝過多重身體的物質的現實，而是這個過度身體本身的內在性。假如我扣除掉這個非物質的過度，我們並不會得到「純粹化簡主義的唯物論」，而是一個隱藏的唯心論。難怪笛卡爾是第一位詮釋現代科學唯物論的原理，也是第一位詮釋現代唯心論的主觀基本原理。「身體有充份的組成物質現實」，這句話其實是唯心論的立場。

雄伯手記971124b

雄伯手記971124b

 

杯：我生命的意義是什麼？望能解惑。

師：何不先問你生命的本質是什麼？

杯：我是玻璃杯，易碎。不像塑膠杯，我不耐摔。

師：這是你們的差別相。你們的共相是什麼？

杯：我們的共相是中空，能盛水。

師：盛水後呢？

杯：就滿了。

師：滿了，還叫是杯子嗎？

杯：叫不叫杯子是約定成俗的問題。滿了，必須倒掉，中空，才能再盛水。

師：也就是你生命的本質是中空，盛水是你的功能。

杯：就現實的社會而言是如此。

師：若是你被丟棄在深山呢？

杯：那我就完蛋了。

師：你只是失去現實社會的功能，生命還在，本質也還在呀！

杯：只是離開現實社會後，我不知道該怎麼過活？

師：何不去試試看？

杯：試了怕不能回頭。你自己試過沒有？

師：試了我還在這裡？

 

 

 

雄伯手記971123b

雄伯手記971123b

 

你自己的一生要怎樣過活，其實沒有幾個人真正在乎。反過來說，真正有人在乎了反而成為一種壓力。至於是否有人真正愛你，那又是另外一囘事，你無法也沒有權利去試探別人。你所能做的就是你一生的表現是值得人家愛，再不濟，至少要活得值得自己愛。要不然，乾脆不要活了。

 

到書店看到一本龍應台寫的「目送」，描寫她自己跟父親及兒子感情互動的心路歷程。文筆真好，心裡妒嫉地想，這輩子比文學才華是永遠不如人家了，至少餘生要比她過得更真實些才好，這至少應該設法去做到罷！

雄伯手記971114b

雄伯手記971114b

3600元的消費卷註定不會產生預期的經濟蓬勃的效果是可以斷言的。道理

很簡單：杯水車薪。八百多億元就個人財產而言是很大的數目，對於整個國家或全體國民的總額而言，是微不足道。經濟不景氣若是大環境的影響，例如美國的經濟衰退勢必影響到台灣的出口總值，這時大家只有苦撐待變，而不是譁眾取寵地多印鈔票，導致通貨膨漲後，又跌回谷底，美其名叫消費卷。

騎腳踏車在大街小巷逛，發現房屋要出售的紅紙條越來越多。這樣的不景氣豈是區區3600的消費卷所能振興得起來的？當政者不敢跟民眾面對現實，只好用債留子孫灑錢的方式掩飾一時。當然政府要灑錢，老百性沒有拒絕的道理：不要白不要，有總比沒有好，不無小補嘛！只是通貨膨脹跟經濟蕭條兩相交逼，薪水階級的穩定的恆產貶值了，商人的興盛的生意也沒了。該是海峽對岸統一的好時機罷？

雄伯手記971113b

雄伯手記971113b

 

我有位高中同學T，台大經濟系畢業，長得秀氣英挺。感情上卻因為追求一位同校外文系的學妹不遂，自尊心大受損傷，賭氣重新再回母校插班外文系讀了三年，表示外文系有什麼了不起，他要讀也不會輸人家。儘管如此，畢業後到美國讀書，他仍然回到經濟系。

 

我依舊記得他臨行前對我所說的抱負：經濟學家的理論的創新，可以影響一個國家，甚至整個世界的改革。比起外文系的人才充其量只當個語言文字的學究，志向可宏大得多了。我跟他有那麼一陣彼此惺惺相惜，雖然道不同，還是為他的遠大理想動容。

 

事隔三十幾年，彼此並無音訊。但每當在國際或國內經濟不景氣的時刻，我看到那些肉食者鄙所規劃出的點子時，我就想起他臨行對我所說的話。特別是降低遺產稅及發消費卷的做法引起我相當的困惑。王永慶剛過世，傳播媒體競相報導有兩千多億的遺產捐贈公益基金會，卻對基金會的運作及繳納多少遺產稅等關鍵議題語焉不詳。消費卷的按人頭發放固然皆大歡喜，短期內也可能刺激市場買氣。但這畢竟是債留子孫，飲鴆止渴的短線操作，長期的經濟發展不可能因此而復甦的。道理顯而易見，若此方法有效，何不索性多發一點？多發十倍如何？試想想看，等到有朝一日國庫也跟著被掏空，萬一再有天災或急難，請誰來救？

 

 

雄伯手記971112b

雄伯手記971112b

 

原先是在網路上訂閱the New York Times，卻誤按到International Living。幾乎每幾天就主動給我e-mail一篇信件、文章、或現場的證詞，其中遣詞用字及修飾說服都是上乘。我忍不住觀看了幾篇，很想把它們改編成英作文的範本，但終於還是捨棄，因為那畢竟就是推銷海外地區房地產及投資致富的廣告。

 

在電視上也常看到一位我以前頗為心儀的作家，在替某些商品做代言。畫面動作及言詞仍然不脫其樸實誠懇得感人的風格，但是我警覺地提醒自己：那畢竟就是個廣告。

 

在一些公共場所或自己家門窗上，也常看到收到商品及宗教團體的免費贈送的文宣廣告。會不會怦然心動其實還是自己的素養問題。如果自己內心的貪嗔癡及恐懼迷惑的習性不改，這些廣告及文宣自然會有有機可乘及見縫插針的可能。

 

除了潛心讀書及研究之外，觀察及反省是智慧成長不可或缺的修練。我如此地自勉。

雄伯手記971111b

雄伯手記971111b

 

舊俄小說家杜斯妥也夫斯基在「卡拉馬助夫兄弟們」，對於當時傳統的宗教信仰的解體有句憂心忡忡的名言：「假如上帝不存在，則一切可為。」 換言之，在倫理道德及良心以信仰上帝作為依據的社會，信仰一但瓦解，善惡的分際便會流入各自表述，也就是混亂的時代的開始。

 

後現代哲學家吉傑克Zizek 倒轉這句名言為「假如上帝存在，則一切可為。」指基本教義派的激進份子，以信仰為名，奮不顧身地替天行道，或替自己弱勢的族群爭取生存的尊嚴跟權利，悍然不顧法律與世俗道德的規範，而被稱為「恐怖份子」terrorists。

 

現代的民主社會的酷吏，挾司法正義之名，行一己譁眾取寵之實。其行徑與恐怖份子的悍然不顧，只是五十步笑百步而已。

雄伯手記971110b

雄伯手記971109b

 

參加B的餐宴，酒酣耳熱之際聽到F對於某事的心底告白，相當迴異於我以前從其他訊息資源所聽到的說法。這使我想到西方哲學家布希亞Baudrillard所說的「波灣戰爭不曾發生」。事實的真相理應只有一個，但是對於真相的解釋說法可能有種種不同的版本。波灣戰爭的發生過程只存在於西方媒體的報導當中，實際所發生的事實可能恰恰相反。就像是「南京大屠殺」在我們的歷史的印象中是多少人頭落地的血淋淋的事實，但在日本的歷史的教科書中，頂多只有「進出中國」幾個字，好似是我們當時為了鼓舞同仇敵愾的士氣所製造的誇張文宣。

 

阿扁雙手銬著進大牢的畫面令人震撼。我雖然對於他後來的政治表現甚有惡感，但對於檢察官的舉措也大不以為然。王子犯法固然與民同罪，但是對於具有政治指標意義的人物的處理，如此的自以為正義凜然的濫權，而忽略了台灣族群對於領袖人物象徵民族自尊心的集體潛意識，及漠視法律對於卸任總統的禮遇。結果非但不能顯現司法正義的效果，反而導致對於司法人員是否充當政治打手鷹犬的質疑。自以為是而自行執法 taking the law in your own hand，本是草莽時代正義各自表述的行徑，檢察官卻作了最不良的示範。自以為是理性正義的執行者，卻是導致台灣進入道德正義成為無政府主義的始作俑者。老子道德經上說：「善復為妖」，心態偏執的酷吏乃正義之妖孽乎？

 

 

雄伯手記971109b

雄伯手記971109b

 

你曾經觀察過情人語言跟政治語言有什麼不同嗎？前者不僅會去體會對方字面語言的內涵外延，還會想像肢體語言的象徵意義，後者則各說各話，邏輯上能勉強自圓其說，即可振振有詞。當一對夫妻從情人語言的細膩，發展到政治語言的粗暴，那表示距離分道揚鑣的日子不遠了。