Archive for November, 2008

雄伯手記971108b

November 8, 2008

雄伯手記971108b

 

早晨將醒未醒時刻,夢境最為詭譎離奇。夢境內容是我對惡勢力的橫行霸道直言嗆聲,反而遭受更不可思議的迫害凌辱。無意識在恐懼忿怒中清醒過來,餘悸猶存,卻也覺得匪夷所思。是我這兩天觀看陳雲林來台,民進黨示威抗議警民暴力衝突的電視景象影響所致?還是我自身的經驗中曾有過直言賈禍的被迫害的潛意識?

 

自我解夢,一直不能釋懷的一個命題是:惡勢力的無所不在,竟然是跟理性的權威並存。這使得冤屈的的宣洩及申訴處處遭受更強大的無理的迫害,而附身於血肉之驅的正直靈魂只能有像屈原般含冤以終的結局。

 

 

雄伯手記971106b

November 6, 2008

雄伯手記971106b

 

   不到半年之內,我到大陸自助旅行四次。我對大陸還頗有好感的,我也希望大陸跟台灣有更密切的來往,但是我仍然認為陳雲林這次來台的做法,是欠缺考慮了些。

 

   四項空海運或食品檢驗等四項協議本身是進步的表現,但是問題是大陸並沒有僅僅當著經濟議題的務實做法來處理。陳雲林會長的來台,本身就是政治主權的宣示,這一點不言而喻,也剛好成為奄奄一息的民進黨有了發動群眾抗拒的藉口。

 

   馬英九夾在中間,狼狽尷尬的程度可以想見。這正是他必須要仔細反省的地方。跟大陸和解的政策本身沒有錯誤,問題是操之過急。海峽兩岸都急著把它當政績,問題是彼此都在欠缺互信的情況下,要捨異求同已經是萬難,更何況還有在野黨隨時要給你扣上「台奸」的帽子。

 

   我也希望海峽兩岸早一點和解,問題是不能一廂情願。

Deleuze 19 德勒茲

November 3, 2008

 

 

Deleuze 19 德勒茲:千高台

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Memories of a Spinozist, II.

史賓諾莎的回憶 2

 

There is another aspect to Spinoza. To every relation of movement and rest, speed and slowness grouping together an infinity of parts, there corresponds a degree of power. To the relations composing, decomposing, or modifying an individual there correspond intensities that affects it, augmenting or diminishing its power to act; these intensities come from external parts or from the individual’ s own parts. Affects are becomings. Spinoza asks: What can a body do? We call the latitude of a body the affects of which it is capable at a given degree of power, or rather within  the limits of that degree. Latitude is made of intensive parts falling under a capacity and longitude of extensive parts falling under a relation.

 

史賓諾莎還有另ㄧ面。對於每個動作跟休息,無數零件聚集的速度跟緩慢的關係,都會有某個程度的權力對應。對於組成、瓦解、或修正一位個人,都會有影響到他,增強或減弱他行動力量的強度對應。這些強度來自外在零件,或來自個人自己的零件。情意就是生成。史賓諾莎問:身體能做些什麼?我們稱身體的緯度,為它在某個程度的權力下或在那個程度的限制下,所能做到得情意。緯度是由某個能力之下密集的零件所組成,經度則是某個關係之下的廣泛的零件所組成。

 

In the same way that we avoided defining a body by its organs and functions, we will avoid defining it by Species or Genus characteristics; instead we will seek to coun its affects. This kind of study is called ethology, and this is the sense in which Spinoza wrote a true Ethics. A race-horse is more different from a workhorse than a workhorse is from an ox. Von Uexkull, in defining animal worlds, looks for the active and passive affects of which the animal is capable in the individuated assemblage of which it is a part. For example, the Tick, attracted by the light, hoists itself up to the tip of a branch; it is sensitive to the smell of mammals, and lets itself fall when one passes beneath the branch; it digs into its skin, at the least hairy place it can find.

 

如同我們避免以器官跟功用來定義身體,我們也避免以品種或種屬的特性來定義它。代替的,我們設法依靠身體的情意。這種研究被稱為動物行為學。史賓諾莎就是用這種意義來寫一部真正的倫理學。一匹賽馬不同於一匹從事勞務的馬,遠勝過從事勞務的馬跟牛的差別。范攸苦在替動物的世界下定義時,尋求動物在

自己也是個別零件的裝配中,所能夠的主動及被動的情意。例如,璧蝨被光所吸引,會豎立於樹枝的尖端。它對於哺乳動物的味道很敏感,若有哺乳動物在樹枝下經過,它會自動掉下,找到最少毛髮的地方,鑽入皮膚之內。

 

Just three affects: the rest of the time the tick sleeps, sometimes for years on end, indifferent to all that goes on in the optimal limit of the feast after which it dies, and the pessimal limit of the fast as it waits. It will be said that the tick’s three affects assume generic and specific characteristies, organs and functions, legs and snout. This is true from the standpoint of physiology, but not from the standpoint of Ethics. Quite the contrary, in Enthics the organic characteristics derive from longitude and its relations, from latitude and its degrees. We know nothing about a body until we know what it can do, in other words, what its affects are, how they can or cannot enter into composition with other affects are, how they can or cannot enter into composition with other affects, with the affects of another body, either to destroy that body or to be destroyed by it, either to exchange actions and passions with it or to join with it in composing a more powerful body..

 

就三個情意:璧蝨睡眠時間的休息,有時連續好幾年,對於廣大森林所發生的事情渾然不覺。他力量的程度的確受到兩特個限制:飽食之後死亡的樂觀限制,及禁食以終的悲觀限制。據說璧蝨的三個情意具有種屬及明確的特性,器官跟功用,腳跟鼻。這是真實的,從生理學的觀點,但不是從倫理學的觀點。相反的,在倫理學,器官的特性來自經度跟它的關係,來自緯度跟它的程度。我們對於身體一無所知,直到我們知道它能做些什麼,換言之,它的情意是什麼,這些情意如何跟其它情意組合,跟其它身體的情意組合,要就毀滅對方身體,要不然就被對方的身體毀滅,要就跟對方身體交換動作跟激情,要不然就加入對方身體,組成更強壯的身體。

 

Once again, we turn to children. Note how they talk about animals, and are moved by them. They make a list of affects. Little Hands’s horse is not representative but affective. It is not a member of a species but an element or individual in a machinic assemblage: draft horse-omnibus-street. It is defined by a list of active and passive affects in the context of the individuated assemblage it is part of: having eyes blocked by blinders, having a bit and a bridle, being proud, having a big peepee-maker, pulling heavy loads, being whipped, falling, making a din with its legs, biting, etc.

 

再一次,我們轉向小孩。你要注意到小孩如何談到動物,如何被動物感動。他們將情意列出一個名單。小漢斯的馬不是一個代表,而是一個情意。它不是品種的一個成員,而是機械化裝配的一個元素或個體:徵集馬、公車、街道。馬的定義是一組主動跟被動情意在個體化裝配的內容裡,它自己也是其中一部份。眼睛被眼罩蒙住,有馬勒及韁繩,昂首闊步,尿尿製造器很大,拖拉重量負擔,被鞭打,摔倒用腳發出鏗鏘聲,會咬等等。

 

These affects circulate and are transformed within the assemblage: what a horse “ can do.” They indeed have an optimal limit at the summit of horse-power, but also a pessimal threshold: a horse falls down in the street! It can’t get back on its feet with that heavy load on its back, and the excessive whipping; a horse is going to die! –this was an ordinary sight in those days ( Nietzsche, Dpostoyevsky, Nijinsky lamented it). So just what is the becoming-horse of Little Hands? Hands is also taken up in an assemblage: his mother’s bed, the paternal element, the house, the café across the street, the nearby warehouse, the street, the right to go out onto the street, the winning of this right, the pride of winning it, but also the dangers of winning it, the fall, shame…These are not phantasies or subjective reveries: it is not a question of imitating a horse, “ playing” horse, identifying with one, or even experiencing feelings of pity or sympathy. Neither does it have to do with an objective analogy between assemblages.

 

這些情意在裝配中流通轉換:這就是馬所能做的。馬的力量顛峰確實有樂觀的限制,而且有悲觀的門檻:馬會在街上摔倒。馬背上重擔時無法站立回轉,以及在過度的鞭打之下,馬會死掉!這是這些日子我們常看到的景象。(尼采,杜斯陀也夫斯基,尼琴斯凱等作家都甚為哀悼。)那小漢斯的生成馬究竟是什麼?漢斯也從事一組裝配:他母親的床,父親的元素,房屋,街道對面的咖啡店,附近的倉庫,街道,到街上玩的權利,權利的贏得,贏得時的驕傲,贏得時的危險,跌倒,羞愧等等。這些不是幻影或主觀的幻想:這個問題不是,它模仿馬,玩馬,認同馬,或經驗到同情及可憐。它跟裝配之間的客觀類比也沒有什麼關係。

 

The question is whether Little Hands can endow his own elements with the relations of movement and rest, the affects, that would make it become horse, forms and subjects aside. Is there an as yet unknown assemblage that would be neither Hands’ nor the horse’s, but that of the becoming-horse of Hands? An assemblage, for example, in which the horse would bare its teeth and Hands might show something else, his feet, his legs, his peepee-maker, whatever? And in what way would that ameliorate Hans’s problem, to what extent would it open a way out that had been previously blocked? When Hofmannsthal contemplates the death throes of a rat, it is in him that the animal “ bares his teeth at monstrous fate.”

 

 

這個問題是小漢斯是否能夠在自己的元素上,賦予動作跟休息的關係,這些情意會使它成為馬,除了形式及主體之外。有沒有一種既不是漢斯,也不是馬,而是漢斯的生成馬的裝配的可能?例如,有一種裝配,馬會呲牙裂嘴,漢斯可能會表現出別的東西,他的腳,他的製尿器等等。要以何種方式改善漢斯的問題呢?要到怎樣的程度才能打開以前被阻礙的出口呢?當霍夫曼沉思一隻老鼠的死亡的陣痛,他感受到,一隻動物對於可怕命運張牙裂嘴。

 

This is not a feeling of pity, as he makes clear; still less an identification. It is a composition of speeds and affects in involving entirely different individuals, a symbiosis; it makes the rat become a thought, a feverish thought in the man, at the same time as the man becomes a rat gnashing its teeth in its death throes. That rat and the man are in no way the same thing, but Being expresses them both in a single meaning in a language that is no longer that of words, in a matter that is no longer of that of forms, in an affectability that is no longer that of subjects. Unnatural participation. But the plane of composition, the plane of Nature, is precisely for participations of this kind, and continually makes and unmakes their assemblages, employing every artifice.

 

這不是同情的感覺,他表達得清楚,也不是一種認同感。這是一種速度跟情意的組合牽涉到完全不同的個體,一種共生。它使老鼠成為一種狂熱的思想,一種人體之內的思想,同時也是人成為ㄧ隻對於死亡的陣痛呲牙姴嘴的老鼠。老鼠跟人一點兒也不相同,但是存在卻以一種不再是文字的語言,替他們兩者表達單一的意義。這不再是形式上的事情,這種情意也不再是主體的情意。彼此的參與很不自然。但是組合的層次,自然的層次,卻準確地適合這種參與,不斷地形成裝配跟拆解,巧妙用盡。

 

This is not an analogy, or a product of the imagination, but a composition of speeds and affects on the plane of consistency: a plane , a program, or rather a diagram, a problem, a question-machine. Vladimir Slepian formulates the “ problem” in a thoroughly curious text: I’m hungry, always hungry, a man should not be hungry, so I’ll have to become a dog—but how? This will not involve imitating a dog, nor an analogy of relations. I must succeed in endowing the parts of my body with relations of speed and slowness that will make it become dog, in an original assemblage proceeding neither by resemblance nor by analogy. For I cannot become dog without the dog itself becoming something else. Slepian gets the idea of using shoes to solve this problem, the artifice of the shoes. If I wear shoes on my hands, then their elements will enter into a new relation, resulting in the affect or becoming I seek. But how will I be able to tie the shoe on my second hand, once the first is already occupied? With my mouth, which in turn receives an investment in the assemblage, becoming a dog muzzle, insofar as a dog muzzle is now used to tie shoes.

 

這不是一個類比,或想像的產物,而是速度跟情意在一致性的平面的組合,一個平面,一個程式,或一個構圖,一個問題,一個問題機器。史力平以一種非常奇特的文本說明這個問題:我飢餓,總是飢餓。一個人不應該飢餓,所以我必須變成狗。但是如何變?牽涉到的不是模仿狗,也不是類比狗。我必須替我身體的零件賦予速度跟緩慢的關係,才能使它變成狗,以一個既不是類似也不是類比的原創性的裝配程序。因為我若變成狗,狗的本身又會變成別的東西。史力平\想到一個點子,解決這個問題,鞋子的巧妙。假如我將鞋子穿在手上,那麼,他們的元素就會進入一個新的關係,造成情意或我所尋求的生成。但是一但我第一隻手已經套上,我要怎樣用第二隻手綁鞋帶呢?用我的嘴巴,於是我的嘴巴在裝配中得到關注,變成狗的嘴套,因為狗的嘴套現在被用來綁鞋子。

 

At each stage of the problem, what needs to be done is not to compare two organs but to place elements or materials in a relation that uproots the organ from its specificity, making it become “ with” the other organ. But this becoming, which has already taken in feet, hands, and mouth, will nevertheless fail. It founders on the tail. The tail would have had to been invested, forced to exhibit elements common to the sexual organ and the caudal appendage, so that the former would be taken up in the becoming-dog, in another becoming that would also be part of the assemblage. The plane fails, Slepian falters on this point. The tail remains an organ of the man on the one hand and an appendage of the dog on the other; their relations do not enter into composition in the new assemblage. This where psychoanalytic drift sets in, bringing back all the clichés about the tail, the mother, the childhood memory of the mother threading needles, all those concrete figures and symbolic analogies.

 

在問題的每個階段,所需要做的不是比較兩個器官,而是將元素或材料處於一種關係,將器官從它的明確性連根拔起,使它「跟」其他器官產生關係。但是,這種已經採用腳,手和嘴巴的生成卻失敗。它失敗於尾巴部份。尾巴本來應該先給予投注,強迫展示性器官及尾部附屬器官共同的元素,這樣前者才能從事人變成生成狗的事務,當後者從事於狗的生成,以另外一種也是裝配一部分的生成。這個平面失敗,史力平在這一點踉蹌起來。尾巴在一方面始終是人的器官,在另外是狗的附屬器官。這就是精神分析學浮動的開始,有關尾巴的陳腔濫調都冒出來,母親,童年時期母親穿針的回億,所有那些具體的數字和象徵的類比。

 

But this is the way Slepian wants it in this fine text. For there is a way in which the failure of the plane is part of the plane itself; The plane is infinite, you can start it in a thousand different ways; you will always find something that comes too late or too early, forcing you to recompose all of your relations of speed and slowness, all of your affects, and to rearrange the overall assemblage. An infinite undertaking. But there is another way  in which the plane fails; this time, it is because another plane returns full force, breaking the becoming-animal, folding the animal back onto the animal and the person onto the person, recognizing only resemblances, between elements and analogies between relations. Slepian confronts both dangers.

 

但這是史力平在這篇精緻的文本所要的方式:因為平面的失敗本身是計畫的一部分:平面是無限的,你能夠以一千多種方式開始。你將總是找到某來得太早或來得太遲的東西,強迫你重新組合你所有的速度跟緩慢的關係,你所有的情意,重新安排全面性的裝配。這是無窮盡的從事。但是還有一個方式使這個平面失敗。這一次是因為另外一個平面全力反撲,破垮這個生成動物,將動物摺疊回動物,人摺疊回成人,只承認關係之間元素跟類比的相似。史力平面臨兩個危險。

 

We wish to make a simple point about psychoanalysis: from the beginning, it has often encountered the question of the becomings-animal of the human being: in children, who continually undergo becomings of this kind; in fetishism and in particular masochism, which continually confront this problem. The least that can be said is that the psychoanalysts, even Jung, did not understand, or did not want to , understand. They killed becoming-animal, in the adult as in the child. They saw nothing. They see the animal as a representative of drives, or a representation of the parents. They do not see the reality of a becoming-animal, that is affect in itself, the drive in person, and represents nothing.

 

對於精神分析學我們希望簡單說:從一開始,它就時常遭遇到人類的生成動物的問題。小孩不斷地經歷到這種生成,物神崇拜及特別的虐待狂,也不斷地面對這個問題。說句不客氣,即使是榮格都不了解,也不想要了解精神分析學。他們殺死成人及小孩身上的生成動物。他們視若無睹。他們將動物看著是衝創力的代表,或是父母的代表。他們沒有看到生成動物的真相是情意的本身,人身上的衝創力並不代表什麼。

 

There exists no other drives than the assemblages themselves. There are two classic texts in which Freud sees nothing but the father in the becoming-horse of Hands, and Ferenczi sees the same in the becoming-cock of Arpad. The horse’s blinders are the father’s eyeglasses, the black around its mouth is his mustache, its kicks are the parents’ “ love-making.” Not one word about Hans’s relation to the street, on how the street was forbidden to him, on what it is for a child to see the spectacle “ a horse is proud, a blinded horse pulls, a horse falls, a horse is whipped…”

 

除了裝配本身外,還存在其他兩種衝創力。這裡有兩種古典的文本:佛洛伊德在漢斯的生成馬,只看到父親;菲南吉在阿貝德的生成雞也看到相同的父親。馬的眼罩是父親的眼鏡,嘴巴周圍的黑圈是他的鬍鬚,馬的踢步是父母在作愛。沒有一個字提到漢斯在街上,以及不准到街上的關係,也沒提到小孩看到馬昂首闊步,眼罩拿掉,馬摔倒,馬被鞭打的景象。

 

Psychoanalysis has no feeling for unnatural participations, nor for the assemblages a child can mount in order to solve a problem from which all exits are barred him; a plane, not a phantasy. Similarly, fewer stupidities would be uttered on the topic of pain, humiliation, and anxiety in masochism if it were understood that it is the becomings-animal that lead the masochism, not the other way around. There are always apparatuses, tools, engines involved, there are always artifices and constraints used in taking Nature to the fullest. That is because it is necessary to annul the organs, to shut them away so that their liberated elements can enter into the new relations from which the becoming-animal, and the circulation of affects within the machinic assemblage, will result. As we have seen elsewhere, this was the case for the mask, the bridle, the bit, and the penis sheath in Equus eroticus: paradoxically in the becoming-horse assemblage the man subdues his own “ instinctive” forces while the animal transmits to him its “ acquired” forces.

 

精神分析學漠然無感於非自然的參與,及小孩能夠從事裝配,以解決出口全被禁制的難題:這是個平面,而非幻影。同樣地,假如我們能了解到是生成動物導致虐待狂,而非虐待狂導致生成動物,我們就會少說一些有關痛苦、羞辱及虐待狂時的焦慮等胡說八道。人在充份使用大自然時,總是有一些儀器,工具,引擎牽涉到,總是有巧妙及秘訣被使用。那是因為需要使器官無效,關閉器官,這樣被解放的元素才能形成新的關係,生成動物及在機械化的裝備中,情意的流通才能形成。如同我們在別處所看到的,面具、馬韁、馬勒,及「性愛耶傀斯」的陽具鞘,都是這種情形。矛盾的是,在生成馬的裝配中,人壓制自己本能的力量,而動物傳遞給他「所習得」的力量。

 

Reversal, unnatural participation. And the boots of the woman-master function to annul the leg as a human organ, to make the elements of the leg enter a relation suited to the overall assemblage: “ In this way, it will no longer be women’s legs that have an effect on me..” But to break the becoming-animal all that is needed is to extract a segment from it, to abstract one of its moments, to fail to take into account its internal speeds and slownesses, to arrest the circulation of affects. Then nothing remains but imaginary resemblances between terms, or symbolic analogies between relations.

 

倒錯是非自然的參與。女主人的長筒鞋功用是使腳作為人的器官無效,使腳的元素進入適合於全面性裝配的關係:「以這種方式,女人的腳對我不再有影響。」但是為了突破這種生成動物,我們所需要的從裡面抽取一部份,抽取其中一個時刻,不要去考慮到內部的速度跟緩慢,去阻擋情意的流通。這樣,除了條款之間非真實的相似,或關係之間的象徵類似外,其它空無一物。

 

This segment refers to the father, that relation of movement and rest refers to the primal scene, etc. It must be recognized that psychoanalysis alone is not enough to bring about this breakage. It only brings out a danger inherent in becoming. There is always the danger of finding yourself “ playing” the animal, the domestic Oedipal animal. Miller going bowwow and taking a bone, Fitzgerald licking your hand, Slepian returning to his mother, or he old man playing horse or dog on an erotic postcard from 1900 ( and “ playing” at being a wild animal would be no better.) Becomings-animal continually run these dangers.

 

這個部份提到父親,動作與休息的關係提到主要的場景等等。我們必需要體認到,光是精神分析學是不足以導致這種突破。它只是顯露出生成本質上的危險。當你發現你在玩扮動物,家庭的伊底浦斯動物,米勒的學狗叫檢骨頭,費茲哲羅的舔你的手,史力平的回歸母親,九十年代,老人用色情樸克牌的玩扮馬或狗(玩扮野生動物也好不到哪裡)。生成動物繼續面臨這些危險。

 

 

雄伯手記971102b

November 1, 2008

雄伯手記971102b

 

我是土生土長的台灣人,但是我從小學中學到大學所受的教育卻是道道地地的中國式的教育。我對中國領土的認知是秋海棠,我對外省籍或中國人並不排斥,因為我小學、中學、大學老師,同學,就業後的同事,交往的朋友,及家庭因為事業關係所認的乾姐夫,不乏大陸來台的人。我自認對於省籍是沒有偏見的人。對於台灣與大陸的統一,我也認為是時間遲早的事。

 

然而,幾次大陸自助旅行下來,我的體驗是:海峽西岸固然經濟發展氣勢如虹,但是台灣的「收回」、「回歸」、或「統一」,卻是一個不可操之過急的議題。台灣的些微經濟成就,固然不可夜郎自大,但是台灣的民主及自由的制度,比之於大陸的極權控制,仍然是遙遙領先。從報章、媒體、及網路的控制,即可看出端倪。

 

陳雲林的來台訪問,我認為時機並未成熟。徒然留給反對黨抗議、遊行、示威的藉口。大陸若真的有誠意以和平方式處理海峽兩岸問題,理應在兩岸直航的議題上更加務實,而非把它當著籌碼,換取政治語言的一時之快。「吃緊弄破碗」,不知習慣於大國強勢語言的海峽西岸能虛心反省否?