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。

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: