Deleuze 32

Delezue 32 德勒茲 Treatise on nomadology 論遊牧學

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

The sea as a smooth space is a specific problem of the war machine. As Virilio shows, it is at sea that the problem of the fleet of being is posed, in other words, the task of occupying an open space with a vortical movement that can rise up at any point. In this respect, the recent studies on rhythm, on the origin of that notion, do not seem entirely convincing. For we are told that rhythm has nothing to do with the movement of waves but rather that it designates “ form” in general, and more specifically the form of a “ measured, cadenced” movement. However, rhythm is never the same as measure. And though the atomist Democritus is one of the authors who speak of rhythm in the sense of form, it should be borne in mind that he does so under very precise conditions of fluctuation and that the forms made by atoms are primarily large, non-metric aggregates, smooth spaces such as the air, the sea, or even the earth. There is indeed such a thing as measured, cadenced rhythm, relating to the coursing of a river between its banks or to the form of a striated space; but there is also a rhythm without measure, which relates to the upswell of a flow, in other words, to the manner in which a fluid occupies a smooth space.

 

海洋作為平滑的空間是戰爭機器的明確問題。如比瑞洛所言，存在艦隊的問題出現在海上，隨時都會冒出要以渦旋動作佔據開闊空間的難題。在這方面，最近對於韻律及韻律觀念的起源的研究似乎並不完全令人信服。因為我們被告知，韻律波浪的動作毫無關係。相反的，韻律表明一般的「形式」，更明確地說，表明一種「經過測量、節奏化」動作的形式。可是，韻律跟測量從來不相同。雖然原子論者德模克利圖斯是曾經用形式的意涵提到韻律的作者之一，我們應該記住的是，他確實是在搖擺不定的的情境下才如此提到，原子所形成的形式主要是一大堆非韻律的聚集，平滑的空間，例如空中、海洋、或甚至是陸地。確實是有經過測量，節奏化的韻律這樣的東西，跟堤岸中間的河道及狹形化的空間的形式有關，但是也有一種韻律是無法測量，跟水流的上湧有關，換言之，跟液體佔據平滑空間的方式有關。

 

  This opposition, or rather this tension-limit between the two kinds of science—nomad, war machine science and royal, State science—reappears at different moments, on different levels. The work of Anne Querrien enables us to identify two of these moments; one is the construction of Gothic cathedrals in the twelfth century, the other the construction of bridges in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Gothic architecture is indeed inseparable from a will to build churches longer and taller than the Romanesque churches. Even farther, even higher…But this difference is not simply quantitative; it marks a qualitative change: the static relation, form-matter, tends to fade into the background in favor of a dynamic relation, material-forces. It is the cutting of the stone that turns it into material capable of holding and coordinating forces of thrust, and of constructing ever higher and longer vaults. The vault is no longer a form but the line of continuous variation of the stones. It is as if Gothic conquered a smooth space, while Romanesque remained partially within a striated space ( in which the vault depends on the juxtaposition of parallel pillars). But stone cutting is inseparable from, on the one hand, a plane of projection at ground level, which functions as a plane limit, and, on the other hand, a series of successive approximations ( squaring), or placings-in-variation of voluminous stones. Of course, one appealed to the theorematic science of Euclid in order to find a foundation for the enterprise; mathematical figures and equations were thought to be the intelligible form capable of organizing surfaces and volumes. But according to the legend, Bernard de Clairvaux quickly abandoned the effort as too “ difficult,” appealing to the specificity of an operative, Archimedean geometry, a projective and descriptive geometry defined as a minor science, more a mathegraphy than matheology. His journeyman, the monk-mason Garin de Troyes, speaks of an operative logic of movement enabling the “ initiate” to draw, then hew the volumes “ in penetration in space,” to make it so that “ the cutting line propels the equation” One does not represent, one engenders and traverses. This science is characterized less by the absence of equations than by the very different role they play: instead of being form forms absolutely that organize matter, they are “ generated” as “ forces of thrust” by the material, in a qualitative calculus of optimum. This whole current of Archimedean geometry was taken to its highest expression, but was also brought to a temporary standstill, by the remarkable seventeenth-century mathematician Desargues. Like most of his kind, Desargues wrote little; he nevertheless exerted a great influence through his actions and left outlines, rough drafts, and projects, all centered on problem-events: “ Lamentatiions,” “ draft project for the cutting of stones,” “ draft project for grappling with the events of the encounters of a cone and plane,…Desargues, however, was condemned by the parlement of Paris, opposed by the king’s secretary; his practices of perspective were banned. Royal, or State, science only tolerates and appropriates stone cutting by means of templates ( the opposite of squaring), under conditions that restore the primacy of the fixed model of form, mathematical figures, and measurement. Royal science only tolerates and appropriates perspective if it is static, subjected to a central black hole divesting it of its heuristic and ambulatory capacities. But the adventure, or event, of Desargues is the same one that had already occurred among the Gothic “ journeymen” on a collective level. For not only did the Church, in its imperial form, feel the need to strictly control the movement of this nomad science ( it entrusted the Templars with the responsibility of determining its locations and objects, governing the work sites, and regulating construction), but the secular State, in its royal form, turned against the Templars themselves, banning the guilds for a number of reasons, at least one of which was the prohibition of this operative or minor geometry.

 

這個相對會在不同的時刻，不同的層次，重新出現，或者說這是在兩種科學之間的緊張極限，遊牧是戰爭機器而皇家是國家科學。安、奎陵的作品使我們能夠辨認這兩種動作；一種是十二世紀歌德式大教堂的建築，另一種是十八及十九世紀橋樑的建築。歌德建築物跟想要建造比羅馬時代的教堂更高，維持更久的意念息息相關。它甚至於想要更遠，更高。但是不同不僅是數量方面，它也標名品質的改變：形式跟物質的靜態關係，傾向於淡入背景，以贊同物質跟力量的動態關係。石頭的切割使它成為能夠抵擋及協調的衝撞力的物質，並建造更高，更久遠的拱頂。拱頂不再是一種形式，而是一種石頭綿延變化的線條。好像是歌德式教堂征服了光滑的空間，而羅馬式教堂部份保持在狹長的空間（它的拱頂依靠平行柱子的並列）。但是石頭的切割在一方面地面層的平面投射息息相關，因為它充當一種平面限制。而在另一方面，它又是一系列的連續接近（方陣）或大量石頭的不同擺設。當然，我們可以訴諸於歐幾米德的定理科學來替這種企圖找到理論基礎；數學數字跟平等式被認為是清楚的形式能夠用來組織表面及容積。但是依照傳說，克拉伯很快就放棄這種努力，因為訴諸於可運算的阿基米德幾何學的明確性是太艱辛了。這種投射及描述的幾何學被定義為次要科學，是數形學，而不是數論學。他的技工，僧侶兼水泥匠特洛耶提到一種動作的運算邏輯，使「模型」才能畫得出來，然後再將容積砍成「空間的穿透」來製作模型，這樣「切割的線條推動平等式」。我們並不代表，我們產生並且穿越。這個科學的特性不是平等式的欠缺，而是它們扮演不同的角色：它們決非是組織物質的好形式，相反的，它們被最大量的數值微積分的物質，當著「衝撞力」「產生」。阿基米德幾何學的整個潮流被發揮到淋漓盡致，但是也被十七世紀的傑出的數學家爹沙鼓暫時中止。像其同僚，爹沙鼓著作不多，但是透過他的行動，影響卻很大，並留下一些大綱，粗稿，及設計，都集中於問題的事件：「耶立米哀書」，「石頭切割的草圖設計」，「處理圓錐形及平面形相會事件的草圖設計」。可是爹沙鼓被巴黎的議會判刑，被國王的內臣反對，他的透視圖的做法被禁止。皇家或國王的科學只容許及使用模版方式（方陣的相反）切割石頭，條件是要恢復固定的形式模式的初胚，數學數字及測量。皇家科學只容許及使用透視法，條件是靜態的，中間有個黑洞，剝掉它啟發性的流動能力。但是爹沙鼓這種冒險或事件，跟歌德式教堂的工匠集團層次所發生的是，並沒有什麼兩樣。因為不僅是教堂，在帝王形式下，覺得有必要嚴格控制這種遊牧科學的行動（它委任聖堂騎士負責決定它的位置跟東西，統管它的工作地點，規範建築），而且世俗的國家，以皇家的形式，反對聖堂騎士本身，以許多理由禁止團體集會，至少有一項是禁止這種運作或次要的幾何學。

德勒茲31

Deleuze 31 德勒茲 The Exhausted 精疲力竭者

Translated by Springheor

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Being exhausted is much more than being tired. “ It’s not just tiredness, I’m not just tired, in spite of the climb.” The tired person no longer has any ( subjective ) at his disposal; he therefore cannot realize the slightest ( objective) possibility. But the latter remains, because one can never realize the whole of the possible; in fact, one even creates the possible to the extent that one realizes it. The tired person has merely exhausted the realization, whereas the exhausted person exhausts the whole of the possible The tired person can not longer realize, but the exhausted person can no longer possbilize. “ That the impossible should be asked of me, good, what else could be asked of me.” There is no longer any possible: a relentless Spinozism. Does he exhausted the possible because he is himself exhausted, or is he exhausted because he has exhausted the possible? He exhausts himself in exhausting the possible, and vice-versa. He exhausts that which, in the possible, is not realized. He has done with possible , beyond all tiredness, “ for to end yet again.”

 

精疲力竭不僅僅是疲憊而已。「那不僅是疲憊，僅管攀登，我不僅是疲憊。」疲憊的人不再有任何（主觀的）可能性可使用；他因此無法實地到任何（客觀的）可能性。但是後者保留，因為我們永遠無法實現到全部的可能性；事實上，我們甚至創造可能，到達我們能實現的程度。疲憊者已經耗盡了這個實現，而精疲力竭者耗盡了全部的可能。疲憊者不再能實現，而精疲力竭者不在能可能。「我不再被要求做不可能的事，好吧，除外我還能被要求什麼？」對於一位堅定的史賓諾莎主義者，任何可能都不存在；他因為自己精疲力竭而耗盡可能嗎？或是他耗盡可能而精疲力竭？他耗盡可能而精疲力竭？還是精疲力竭而耗盡可能？他耗盡可能尚未實現的部份。疲憊到極點，他終絕可能，「才能再次結束」。

 

 

德勒茲31

Deleuze31 德勒茲 The Folds of the Soul 靈魂的摺疊

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

We have gone from variable curvature to the origin of curvature ( from the concave side), from variation to point of view, from the fold to envelopment, in a word, from inflection to inclusion. The transition cannot be discerned, somewhat like aright angle that is not measured by a great arc but by a tiny are situation close to the summit: it is at the summit “ that the angle or the inclination of the two lines is found.” We would nonetheless hesitate to say that visibility is located in point of view. We would need a more natural intuition to allow for this passage to the limit. Thus it is a very simple intuition: . Why would something be folded, if it were not to be enveloped, wrapped, or put into something else? It appears that here the envelope acquires its ultimate or perhaps final meaning: it is no longer an envelope of coherence or cohesion, like an egg, in the “ reciprocal envelopment” of organic parts. Nor even a mathematical envelop of adherence or adhesion, where a fold still envelops other folds, as in the enveloping envelope that touches an infinity of curves in an infinity of points. It is an envelope of inherence or unilateral “ inhesion” : inclusion or inherence is the final cause of he fold, such that we move indiscernibly from latter to the former. Between the two, a gap is opened which makes the envelope the reason for the fold: what is folded is the included, the inherent. It can be stated that why is folded is only virtual and currently eists only in a envelope, in something that envelops it.

 

我們已經從變化的彎曲到彎曲的起源（從凹面），從變數到觀點，從摺疊到涵蓋，總之，從曲折到內蘊。轉折點無法被覺察，有點像右角不是被大的弧形，而是被靠近頂端的小弧所測量：兩線的角度或傾斜，在頂端被找到。我們仍然猶豫地說，能見度是位在觀點，我們將需要更自然的直覺來考慮到達極限的過程。因此，這直覺很簡單：為什麼物品會摺疊？若非它無法被涵蓋、包裹、被放進它物品裏？似乎這裏所指的涵蓋得到其親密或甚至是最終的意義：它不再是一貫性或附屬的涵蓋，像蛋，在有機部份的「相互涵概」。甚至也不是黏貼或黏附的數學的涵蓋，摺疊依舊涵蓋其它摺疊，如同碰到無限曲折在無限點的涵蓋的涵蓋。這是天生或單邊「固有」的涵蓋；內含或天生就是摺疊的最終原因，這樣我們不知不覺從後者移動到前者。在這兩個之間，展開一個空隙，使涵蓋成為摺疊的理由。可以這樣敘述：所摺疊的只是虛擬，目前只存在於摺疊，於涵蓋的物品當中。

 

  From now on it is not exactly point of view that includes: or at least, it does so only as an agent, but not of a final cause or a finished act ( entelechia). Inclusion or inherence has a condition of closure or envelopment, which Leibniz puts forward in his famous formula, “ no windows,” and which point of view does not suffice to explain. When inclusion is accomplished, it is done so continuously, or includes the sense of a finished act that is neither the site, the place, nor the point of view, but what remains in point of view, what occupies point of view, and without which point of view would not be. It is necessarily a soul, a subject. A soul always includes what it apprehends from its point of view, in other words, inflection. Infection is an ideal condition or a virtuality that currently exists only in the soul that envelops it. Thus the soul is what has folds and is full of folds.

 

從此開始，包含的不完全是觀點，或至少，它只是充當代理，不是最終原因或完成的行動。內含或天生的狀況是封閉或涵蓋，萊布尼茲在他著名的公式提出，「沒有窗戶」，觀點說無法充份解釋。當內含完成，它不斷完成，或包含一件完成的動作感，既不是地點、地方、也不是觀點，而是觀點的剩餘，觀點的佔據，觀點所不欠缺的東西。這必須要是靈魂，一個主體。靈魂總是包含從他觀點所能理解的，換言之，曲折。曲折是一個理想的狀況或目前只存在函蓋它的靈魂的虛擬。因此，靈魂就是擁有摺疊，而且折充滿摺疊。

 

  Folds are in the soul and authentically exist only in the social. That is already true for “ innate ideas”: they are pure virtualities, pure powers whose act consists in habitus or arrangements ( folds) in the soul, and whose completed act consists of an inner action of the soul ( an internal deployment). But this is no less true for the world: the whole world is only a virtuality that currently exists only in the folds of the soul which convey it, the soul implementing inner pleats through which it endows itself with a representation of the enclosed world. We are moving from inflection to inclusion in a subject, as if from the virtual to the real, inflection defining the fold, but inclusion defining the soul or the subject, that is, what envelops the fold, its final cause and its completed act.

 

摺疊在於靈魂，而且真實地只存在於摺疊。「天生的理念」也已經是如此：他們純粹是虛擬，純粹是力量，其動作在於靈魂的習性或安排（摺疊），其完成的動作在於靈魂的內在行動（內部的部署）。對於世界而言，也是同樣的真實：整個世界只是虛擬，目前只存在於表達它的靈魂的摺疊。靈魂利用內在摺襉，賦予本身封閉世界的符號。我們從曲折到主體的內含，好像從虛擬到真實，曲折定義摺疊，但是內含定義靈魂或主體，換言之，函蓋摺疊，其最終原因及完成的動作。

 

  Whence the distinction of three kinds of points as three kinds of singularities. The physical point is what runs along inflection or is the point of inflection itself; it is neither an atom nor a Cartesian point, but an elastic or plastic point-fold. Thus it is not exact. On the one hand, it is important to note that it devalorizes the exact point while, on the other, it leads the mathematical point to assume a new status that is rigorous without being exact. On one side, the exact point is effectively not a part of extension, but a conventional extremity of the line. On the other side, the mathematical point in turn loses exactitude in order to become a position, a site, a focus, a place, a point of conjunction of vectors of curvature or, in short, point of view. The latter therefore takes on a genetic value: pure extension will be the continuation or diffusion of the point, but according to the relations of distance that define pace ( between two given points) as the “ place of all places.” However, if the mathematical point thus stops being the extremity of the line in order to become the point of focus, it is nonetheless a simple “ modality.” It I in the body, in the thing extended. But in this way, as we have seen, it is only the projection of a third point in the body. That is the metaphysical point, the soul or the subject. It is what occupies the point of view, it is what is projected in point of view. Thus the soul is not in the body in a point, but is itself a higher point and of another nature, which corresponds with the point. The point of inflection, the point of position, and the point of inclusion will thus be distinguished.

 

在此，有三個點表現三種獨特性。生理點沿著曲折運行，是曲折點本身：它既非原子，也非笛卡爾的點，而是具有彈性或伸縮的摺疊點。因此，它並不確實。在一方面，不可忽視的是，它貶抑確實點，而在另外，它引導數學點擔任新的地位，不確實，但有活力。在一方面，確實點有效地不是延伸的部份，而是線的傳統極限。在另一方面，數學點也跟著喪失確實，為了要成為位置、地點、焦點、地方、凹面向量連接點，總之，就是觀點。後者因此具有基因價值：純粹延伸將是點的延伸跟擴散，但是依照距離的關係定義空間（兩個特定點之間），當著是「位置的位置」。可是，假如數學點為了要成為焦點，因此不再是線的極端，它仍然是簡單的「輔助」。它在於身體裡，在延伸的東西裡。以這種方式，如我們所見，它只是身體第三點的投射。這就是數學點，靈魂或主體。這就是佔據觀點，被投射在觀點的東西。因此，靈魂不是在點的身體裡，而是本身就是一個較高點，性質不同，但是跟觀點一致。曲折點，位置點，及內含點因此可以區分。

 

   Everyone knows the name that Leibniz ascribes to the sol or to the subject as a metaphysical point: the monad. He borrows this name from the Neoplatonists who used it to designate a state of One, a unity that envelops a multiplicity, this multiplicity developing the One in the manner of a “ series.” The One specifically has a power of envelopment and development, while the multiple is inseparable from the folds that it makes when it is enveloped, and of unfoldings when it is developed. But its envelopments and developments, its implications and explications, are nonetheless particular movements that must be understood in a universal Unity that “ complicates” them all, and that complicates all the Ones. Giordano Bruno will bring the system of monads to the level of this universal complication: the Soul of the world that complicates everything. Hence Neo-Platonic emanations give way to a large zone of immanence, even if the rights of a transcendent God or an even higher Unity are formally respected.

 

　　每個人都知道萊布尼茲給靈魂或主體取名稱當形上點：單子。他從新柏拉圖主義借用這個名稱。前者用它指明一個個個體的狀態，一個涵蓋多重性的統合，這個多重性以「系列」的方式，發揮這個個體。這個個體明確地具有內含及發展的力量，而多重性跟它內含時所造成的摺疊，及發展時的展開摺疊，不可分離。但是它的內含跟發展，它的暗示跟說明，仍然是特別的行動，必須要以普及的統合來了解，因為它使它們複雜化，把所有的個體都複雜化。布魯諾將單子的系統發揮到普及的複雜性的層次：世界的靈魂使每件事都複雜化。因此，新柏拉圖的光輝被的內在性的一大片地區我取代，即使超驗上帝或甚至更高統合的權利形式上仍受尊重。

 

  Explication-implication-complication from the triad of the fold, following the variations of the relation of the One-Multiple. But if we ask why the name “ monad” has been associated with Leibniz, it is because of the two ways that Leibniz was going to stabilize the concept. One the one hand, the mathematics of inflection allowed him to posit the enveloping series of multiples as a convergent infinite series. One the other hand, the metaphysics of inclusion allowed him to posit enveloping unity as an irreducible individual unity. In effect, as long as series remained finite or undefined, individuals risked being relative, called upon to melt into a universal spirit or a soul of the world that cold complicate all series. But if the world is an infinite series, it then constitutes the logical comprehension of a notion or of a concept that can now only be individual. It is therefore enveloped by an infinity of individuated souls of which each retains it irreducible point of view. It si the accord of singular points of view, or harmony, that will replace universal complication and ward off the dangers of pantheism or immanence: whence Leibniz’s insistence upon denouncing the hypothesis, or rather the hypostasis, of a Universal Spirit that would turn complication into an abstract operation in which individuals would be swallowed up.

 

   說明、暗示、複雜化形成摺疊的三角鼎立，遵照個體跟多重性的關係變數。但是我們若問為什麼「單子」一詞跟萊布尼茲扯上關係，那是因為萊布尼茲用兩種方式穩定這個觀念。在一方面，曲折的數學使他能夠假設多重性的內含系列當著是聚集的無限系列。在另一方面，內蘊的形上學使他能夠假設涵蓋的統合當著是不可化減的個別統合。事實上，只要系列保持有限或不下定義，個體就是有相對化的危險，被要求融入普及的精神或世界的靈魂，把所有系列所複雜化。但是，假如世界是無限的系列，那麼它會組成邏輯地理解一個理念，或只有屬於個體的理念。它因此被無數個體化的靈魂所涵蓋，每個靈魂都保留它無可化減的觀點。獨特觀點的認同或和諧將會代替普及的複雜化，並阻止人人皆神論或內在性的危險。萊布尼茲堅持抨擊這個假設或這個普及精神的立論，因為它會將複雜化轉變成為抽象的運作，個體將被淹沒。

 

   All of this remains obscure.  For if, by pushing to its limit a metaphor sketched by Plotinus, Leibniz makes of the monad a sort of point of view on the city, must we understand that a certain form corresponds to each point of view? For example, a street of one from or another? In conic sections, there is no separate pint of view to which the ellipse woul return, and another for the parabola, and another for the circle. The point of view, the summit of the cone, is the condition under which we apprehend the group of varied forms or the series of curves to the second degree. It does not suffice too state that the point of view apprehends a perspective, a profile that would each time offer the entirety of a city in its own fashion. For it also brings forth the connection of all the related profiles, the series of all curvatures or inflections. What can be apprehended from one point of view is therefore neither a determined street nor a relation that might be determined with other streets, which are constants, but the variety of all possible connections between the course of a given street and that of another. The city seems to be a labyrinth that can be ordered. The world is an infinite eries of curvatures or inflections, and the entire world is enclosed in the soul from one point of view.

 

   這一點始終沒說清楚。因為假如萊布尼茲將普羅提拿斯的描述推到極點，把單子當著是對城市的觀點，我們必須了解某個形式對應於每個觀點嗎？例如，某個形式的街道？在圓錐形部份，並沒有分開的觀點，橢圓可以迴轉，一點是給拋物線，另一點是給圓形。這個觀點，圓錐形的頂端是這個狀況，我們可以理解不同形式的團體或彎曲到第二層次的系列。這尚不足以陳述說，觀點理解到這個輪廓的看法：城市的完整性以自己的方式呈現。因為它也牽涉所有相關的輪廓，凹面或曲折的系列。從一個觀點所能理解的，因此不是一條決定的街道，也不是跟其它固定的街道一起決定的關係，而是在特定的街道跟另一條街道之間各種可能的關聯的多樣性。城市私乎是一座井然有序的迷宮。世界是一個凹面跟曲折的無數系列，整個世界被封閉在從一個觀點的靈魂裡

 

  The world is the infinite curve that touches at an infinity of points an infinity of curves, the curve with a unique variable, the convergent series of all series. But why then is there not a single and universal point of view? Why does Leibniz so strongly deny “ the doctrine of a universal spirit” ? Why are there several points of view and several irreducible souls, an infinity? We can consider the series of the twelve sounds: the series can undergo in turn many variations that are both rhythmic and melodic, but that also follow the contrary, or retrograde, movement. With greater reason an infinite series, even if the variable is unique, cannot be separated from an infinity of variations that make it up: we necessarily take it in accord with all possible orders, and we favor this or that partial sequence at this or that time. That is why only one form—or one street—recovers its rights, but only in respect to the entire series.

 

   世界是無限的彎曲，在無限點，碰觸到無限的彎曲，彎曲有無限的變數，所有系列的聚集系列。但是為什麼沒有一個特別而普及的觀點？為什麼萊布尼茲如此強烈地否認「普及精神的信條」？為什麼有好幾個觀點及好幾個不可化減的靈魂，是無限？我們能夠考慮這十二個聲音的系列：這些系列能夠輪流經歷許多既有韻律又有節奏的變數，但也遵照相反或倒退的動作。因為更大的理由，無限的系列，即使變數是獨特的，也無法跟彌合它的無限的變數分開。我們需要將它跟所有可能的秩序相一致，我們時而贊同這個或那個部份的系列。這就是為什麼只有一個形式或街道恢復它的權利，但是要尊重其他整個系列。

德勒茲30

Deleuze 30 德勒茲 Perception in the Folds 摺疊之感

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

I must have a body, it’s a moral necessity, a “ requirement.” And in the first place, I must have a body because an obscure object lives in me. But, right from this first argument, Leibniz’s originality is tremendous. He is not saying that only the body explains what is obscure in the mind. To the contrary, the mind is obscure, the depths of the mind are dark, and this dark nature is what explains and requires a body. We can call “ primary matter” our passive power or the limitation of our activity: we say that our primary matter requires extension, but also resistance or antitype, and yet an individuated requirement to possess a body that belongs to us. It is because there is an infinity of individual monads that each requires an individuated body, this body resembling the shadow of other monads cast upon it. Nothing obscure lives in us because we have a body, but we must have a body because there is an obscure object in us. In the place of Cartesian physical induction Leibniz substitutes a moral deduction of the body.

 

我必須要有身體，這是道德的需求，是「規定」。首先，我必須要有身體，因為一個不明物體住在我裏面。但是從第一個論點出發，萊布尼茲非常具有創見。他不是說，只有身體才能解釋心靈的不明物體。心靈是不明的，心靈深處是黑暗的，這個黑暗的特性解釋為什麼需要身體。我們稱呼「最初物體」為我們被動的力量或行動的限制；我們說我們物體需要延伸，但是也需要抗拒跟反制，可是又是一個各別的規定要擁有一個屬於我們的身體。這是因為有無數的各別的單子，每一個都要求一個各別的身體，這個單子類同投射在它身上的其它單子的陰影。不是我們有身體，不明物體就消失，而是因為我們內部有不明物體，所以我們需要有身體。萊布尼茲以道德推論身體說，來代替笛卡爾生理的歸納。

 

But this first argument gives way to another, which seems to contradict it, and which is even more original. This time, we must have a body because our mind possesses a favored—clear and distinct—zone of expression. Now it is that clear zone that is the requirement for having a body. Leibniz will go as far as stating that what I express clearly is what “ relates to my body.” And in effect, if the monad Caesar clearly expresses the crossing of the Rubicon, is it not because the river maintains a relation of proximity with his body? The same holds for all other monads whose zone of clear expression coincides with the body’s immediate environment.

 

但是這個論點為另外一個似乎矛盾，甚至更加有創意的論點所代替。這一次，我們需要身體，因為我們的心靈擁有一個清楚明白而且受鍾愛的表達區。這個表達區規定要有身體。萊布尼茲更進一步說，我清楚表達的東西跟「身體有關」。事實上，假如凱撒清楚地表達要越過盧比岡河，難道不是因為河流跟他的身體維持一個靠近的關係？同理，其它單子的清楚的表達區跟身體的鄰近環境會巧合。

 

  There are nonetheless find an inversion of causality—justifiable in certain respects—that must not impede our putting together the real order of deduction: (1) each monad condenses a certain number of unique, incorporeal, ideal events that do not put bodies in play, although they can only be stated in the form, “ Caesar crosses the Rubicon, he is assassinated by Brutus…”; ( 2) these unique events included in the monad as primary predicates constitute its zone of clear expression, or its “ subdivision”; (3) they necessarily relate to a body that belongs to this monad, and are incarnated in bodies that act immediately upon it. In brief, it is because every monad posses a clear zone that it must have a body, this zone constituting a relation with the body, not a given relation, but a genetic relation that engenders its own “ relation.” It is because we have a clear zone that we must have a body charged with traveling through it or exploring it, from birth to death.

 

可是在此，我們發現一個因果律的悖論，在某些方面言之成理，但是切勿妨礙到我們推論秩序的布置。其一，某個單子都聚集某些身體尚為運作的獨特、抽象、理念的事件，雖然要具有形式才能陳述，如「凱撒越過盧比岡河，被布盧塔斯所暗殺」。其二，這些被包含在單子裏的獨特事件，作為最初的描述，組成它清楚的表達區，或它的「次分區」。其三，事件必須跟屬於單子的身體有關。具體表現在立即行為的身體上。總之，因為每個單子擁有一個清楚的表達區，所以必須要有身體。這個表達區組成跟身體的關係，但不是特定的關係，而是產生自己的「關聯性」的基因的關係。因為我們擁有一個清楚的表達區，我們必須要有一個身體負責旅行或探索它，從生到死。

 

  Here we confront two difficulties. Why is the requirement of having a body sometimes based on a principle of passivity, in obscurity and confusion, and at others on our activity, on clarity and distinction? And more particularly, how does the existence of the body derive from the clear and distinct? As Arnauld states, how can what I express clearly and distinctly have anything to do with my body, the sum of whose movements are known only in obscurity?

 

在此我們遭遇到兩個困難。為什麼這個要有身體的規定，原則有時基於被動、不明及混亂，有時又基於主動、清晰及明白？更特別的，身體的存在如何從清楚明白的地區得來？如亞諾所述，我清楚明白表達的東西如何跟我的身體有關？而身體動作的次數又只能在不明地區知曉？

 

  Singularities proper to each monad are extended as far as the singularities of others and in all senses. Every monad thus expresses the entire world, but obscurely and dimply because it is finite and the world is infinite. That is why the lower depths of the monad are so dark. Since it does not exist outside of the monads that convey it, the world is included in each one in the form of perceptions or “ representatives,” present and infinitely minute elements. Still again, since the monad does not exist outside of other monads, these are minute perceptions lacking an object, that is, hallucinatory micro-perceptions. The world exists only in its representatives as long as they are included in each monad. It is a lapping of waves, rumor, a fog, or a mass of dancing particles of dust. It is a state of death or catalepsy, of sleep, drowsiness, or of numbness. It is as if the depths of every monad were made from infinity of tiny folds( inflections) endlessly furling and unfurling in every direction, so that the monad’s spontaneity resembles that of agitated sleepers who twist and turn on their mattresses?

 

每個單子本體的獨特性，從各方面會延伸到其它單子的獨特性。每個單子因此表達整個世界，但是單子有限，而世界無限，表達因而模糊不清。那就是為什麼單子的低層深處是如此黑暗。因為它並沒有存在於表達它的單子之外，世界以感覺或無限微小的元素組成的「符號」的形式，被包含在每個單子裏。再深一層，因為單子並不存在於其它單子之外，這些都是缺乏客體的微小的感覺，換言之，只是幻想的微細感覺。只有符號被包含在每個單子裏，世界才存在於自己的符號裏。這些符號是波浪的重疊、呢喃、迷霧、或一堆灰塵飛揚，是死亡或昏厥、睡眠、昏沉、或麻木的狀態。好像每個單子的深處都是由無窮的小小摺疊（屈折）所組成，朝每個方向摺疊及展開，所以單子的自主性類同心煩意亂的睡眠者的自主性，在睡床上蠕動翻轉。

德勒茲 29

Deleuze 29 德勒茲 Treatise on Nomadology 論遊牧學

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Proposition III: The exteriority of the war machine is also attested to by epistemology, which intimates the existence and perpetuation of “ nomad” or “ minor science.”

 

命題三：戰爭機器的外在性也由認識論證實，認識論使「遊牧」或「少數民族的科學」的存在及永存倍感親切。

 

   There is a kind of science, or treatment of science, that seems very difficult to classify, whose history is even difficult to follow. What we are referring to are not “ technologies” in the usual sense of the term. But neither are they “ sciences” in the royal or legal sense established by history. According to a recent book by Michel Serres, both the atomic physics of Democritus and Lucretius and the geometry of Archimedes are marked by it. The characteristics of this kind of eccentric science would seem to be the following.

 

   有一種科學，或科學的處理，似乎很難分類，其歷史甚至難於追溯。我們所提到的不是通常用詞下的「科技學」。但是他們也不是歷史所證明的正統或合法意義的「科學」。麥可、歇瑞士的最近一本書，標明為德模克利圖斯跟盧克利修的原子物理學及阿基米德的幾何學。這種怪誕科學的特性似乎可列舉如下：

  

   !. First of all, it uses a hydraulic model, rather than a theory of solids treating fluids as a special case; ancient atomism is inseparable from flows, and flux is reality itself, or consistency.

 

   其一：首先，它使用水力模式，而不是處理液體當著特別情況的固體理論；古代的原子論無法跟流體區隔，流體就是真實本身，或常態。

  

   2. The model in question is one of becoming and heterogeneity, a opposed to the stable, the ternal, the identical, the constant. It is a “ paradox” to make becoming itself a model, and no longer a secondary characteristic, a copy; in the Timaeus, Plato raises this possibility, but only in order to exclude it and conjure it away in the name of royal science. By contrast, in atomism, just such a model of heterogeneity, and of passage or becoming in the heterogeneous, furnished by the famed declination of the atom. The clinamen, as the minimum angle, ha meaning only between a straight line and a curve, the curve and its tangent, and constitutes the original curvature of the movement of the atom. The clinamen is the smallest angle by which an atom deviates from a straight path. It is a passage to the limit, an exhaustion, a paradoxical “ exhaustive” model. The same applies to Archimedean geometry, in which the straight line, defined as “ the shortest path between two points,” is just a way of defining the length of a curve in a predifferential calculus.

 

   其二：討論中的模式是生成跟多重，相對於穩定、永久、一致，及常態而言。將生成本身當著一種模式，不再是次要特性，是一種「矛盾」。在提摩士一章，柏拉圖提到這個可能，但只是排除它，以正統之名驅除它。比較起來，在原子論中，這種多重的模式，及多重中的過程及生成，可從著名的原子屈折證實。曲折當著最小的角度，只有在直線跟曲線，曲線跟切線之間，並且組成原子動作的原先彎曲，才具有意義。曲折是最小的角度，原子偏離直線路線。它是極限、窮盡、矛盾的「窮盡」模式的過程。相同原理可應用到阿基米德的幾何學；直線被定義為「兩點之間最短離」，只是以微分前的微積分學定義曲線的長度。

 

  3. One no longer goes from the straight line to its parallels, in lamellar or laminar flow, but from a curvilinear declination to the formation of spirals and vortices on an inclined plane: the greatest slope for the smallest angle. Form turba to turbo: in other words, from bands or packs of atoms to the great vortical organizations. The model is a vortical one; it operates in an open space throughout which things-flow are distributed, rather than plotting out a closed space for linear and solid things. It is the difference between a smooth ( vectorial  , projective, or topological) space and a striated ( metric) space: in the first case “ space is occupied without being counted,” and in the second case “ space is counted in order to be occupied.”

 

  其三：在流線或流線流體，我們不再從直線到對等線，而是從曲線的曲折到傾斜平面的螺旋跟旋渦的形成，最小角度的最大斜坡。從渦漩到渦輪，換言之，從原子群到大的旋轉組織。這個模式是旋轉式的，它運做在開放的空間，物體流動可四處分散，而不是劃定一個封閉的空間給直線及固體的物體。這是平滑空間（向量、投射、或拓樸）跟條紋空間（韻律）的不同。在前者，「空間被據而沒有被計算」，在後者，「空間為了被佔據而計算」。

 

   4. Finally, the model is problemic, rather than theorematic: figures are considered only from the viewpoint of the affections that befall them: sections, ablations, adjunctions, projections. One does not go by specific differences from a genus to its species, or by deduction from a stable essence to the properties deriving from it, but rather from a problem to the accidents that condition and resolve it. This involves all kinds of deformations, transmutations, passages to the limit, operations in which each figure designates an “ event” much more than an essence; te square no longer exists independently of a quadrature, the cube of a cubature, the straight line of a rectification. Whereas the theorem belongs to the rational order, the problem is affective and inseparable from the metamorphoses, generations, and creations within science itself. Despite what Gabriel Marcel may say, the problem is not an “ obstacle” ; it is the surpassing of the obstacle, a pro-jection,  in other words, a war machine. All of this mvement is what royal science is striving to limit when it reduces as much as possible the range of the “ problem-element” and subordinates it to the “ theorem-element.”

 

  其四：最後，此模式問題重重，而無法化約為公理。數目被考慮，只有從降落在上面的情感的觀點；切割、熔損、添加、投射。我們無法根據明確的差異，從種屬到品種，或根據推論，從穩定的本質到從本質得到特性，而是從問題到界定處理的意外。這牽涉到各種的畸形、變形、到達直線過程、以及運作中，每個圖形指明一個「事件」不僅僅有一個本質；四方形不再獨立存在於求面積，求容積的立方體，求長度的直線。雖然公理屬於理性的秩序，問題卻是感情，無法與科學本身的蛻變、延生、與創造分開。儘管蓋伯、馬歇爾的說法，此問題不是「障礙」；它是障礙的超越，一種投射，換言之，一種戰爭機器。所有這種動作是正統科學設法要限制的，當它儘可能減少「問題因素」並將它隸屬於「公理因素」。

 

  This Archimedian science, or this conception of science, is bound up in an eseential way with the war machine: the problemata are the war machine itself and are inseparable from inclined planes, passages to the limit, vortices and projections. It would seem that the war machine is projected into an abstract knowledge formally different form the one that doubles the State apparatus. It would seem that a whole nomad science develops eccentrically, one that is very different from the royal or imperial sciences. Furthermore, this nomad science is continually “ barred,” inhibited, or banned by the demands and conditions of State science. Archimedes, vanquished by the Roman State, becomes a symbol. The fact I that the two kinds of science have different modes of formalization, and State science continually imposes its forms of sovereignty on the inventions of nomad science. State science retains of nomad science only what it can appropriate; it turns the rest into a set of strictly limited formulas without any real scientific status, or else simply represses and bans it. It is as if the “ savants” of nomad science were caught between aa rock and a hard place, between the war machine that nourishes and inspires them and the State that imposes upon them an order of reasons. The figure of the engineer ( in particular the military engineer), with all its ambivalence, is illustrative of this situation. Most significant are perhaps borderline phenomena in which nomad science exerts pressure on State science, and , conversely, State science appropriates and transforms the elements of nomad science. This is true of the art of encampments, “ castrametation,” which has always mobilized projections and inclined planes; the State does not appropriate this dimension of the war machine without submitting it to civil and metric rules that strictly limit, control, localize nomad science, and without keeping it from having repercussions throughout the social field ( in this respect, Vauban is like a repeat ofArchiedes, and suffers an analogous defeat). It is true of descriptive and projective geometry, which royal science would like to turn into a mere practical dependency of analytic, or so-called higher, geometry ( thus the ambiguous situation of Monge and Poncelet as “ savants”). It is also true of differential calculus. For a long time, it has only parascientific status and was labeled a “ Gothic hypothesis” ; royal science only accorded it the value of a convenient convention or a well-founded fiction. The great State mathematicians did their best to improve its status, but precisely on the condition that all the dynamic, nomadic notions—such as becoming, heterogeneity, infinitesimal, passage to the limit, continuous variation—be eliminated and civil, static, and ordinal rules be imposed upon it ( Carnot’s ambiguous position in this respect). Finally, it is true of the hydraulic model, for it is certain that the State itself needs a hydraulic science ( there is no going back on Wittfogel’s theses on the importance of large-scale waterworks for an empire). But it needs it in a very different form, because the State needs to subordinate hydraulic force to conduits, pipes, embankments, which prevent turbulence, which constrain movement to go from one point to another, and space itself to be striated and measured, which makes the fluid depend on the solid, and flows proceed by parallel, laminar layers. The hydraulic model of nomad science and war machine, on the other hand, consists in being distributed by turbulence across a smooth space, in producing a movement that holds space and simulataneously affects all of its points, instead of being held by space in a local movement from one specified point to another.. Democritus, manaechmus, Archimedes, Vauban, Desargues, Bernoulli,Monge, Carnot, Poncelet, Perronet, etc; in each case a monograph would be necessary to take into account that special situation of these savants whom State science used only after restraining or disciplining g them, after repressing their social or political conceptions.

 

   阿基米德的科學，或科學的觀念，基本上是跟戰爭機器密切關聯。問題是戰爭機器本身，以及無法跟傾斜平面、極線過程、旋轉，跟投射分開。似乎戰爭機器被投射到抽象知識上，此知識跟國家機構的繁複知識形式上大不相同。似乎整個遊牧科學都是怪誕地發展，相當不同於正統或帝國的科學。而且，遊牧科學不斷地遭到「打壓」，禁制，或被國家科學的要求跟規定所禁止。阿基米德被羅馬國家所擊敗，成為一種象徵。事實上，這兩種科學有不同的正常化的模式，國家科學不斷地賦加統治的形式於遊牧科學。國家科學只保留＆遊牧科學可以被竄改的部份。其餘的就被轉變成為一套嚴格限制的公式，而沒有任何真正的科學地位，要不然乾脆壓制跟禁止。好像遊牧科學的「學者」被困於岩石跟堅硬地方之間，獲得滋養與啟示的戰爭機器，跟賦予理性秩序的國家機構之間。工程師（特別是軍事工程師）的人物，儘管愛恨交加，最足以舉例說明這個情況。最重要的可能是邊陲現象，遊牧科學從事壓力於國家科學，在另一方面，國家科學竄改及轉變遊牧科學的元素。這對紮營藝術（軍營設置）也是如此，總是動員投射跟傾斜平面：國家竄改戰爭機器的這個向量，必然會將它隸屬於民間及韻律的規則，嚴格限制、控制、及使遊牧科學局部化，阻止它不能在社會領域有所影響（在這方面，伯班重蹈阿基米德的覆轍，遭受類同失敗）。就描述性及投射幾何學也是如此，正統科學想要將它轉變成為解析或所謂高級幾何學的實用附屬部份（因此產生蒙吉跟潘歇列是否是「學者」的曖昧情況）。這就區分的微積分也是如此。長久以來，微積分只有外圍科學的地位，而且被貼標籤為「魅影假設」；正統科學只肯定其充份想像力的方便做法。偉大的國家數學盡全力要改變它的地位，但是明確的條件是，所有動力的遊牧的觀念，諸如生成、多重性、無限大、極限過程、不斷變數等，要被減少，要被增加民間的、靜態的、及順序的規則（卡諾在這方面，立場就很曖昧）。最後，水力學的模式也是如此，因為國家本身確定需要水力學（我們不可能倒退到威佛傑的論文：帝國大規模水力工程的重要性）。但是國家需要水力學的方式不同，因為國家需要將水力學的力量隸屬於導管、水管、築堤，這樣可以阻止騷亂，約束動作從一點到另外一點，約束空間成為狹長而且可以計量，使液體依靠固體，流體遵照平行、流現的層面進行。在另一方面，遊牧科學跟戰爭機器的水力學模式，就在於被越過光滑空間的騷亂所分配，在於產生容納空間的動作，而有同時影響到所有的點，而不是被從某個點到另外一點的局部動作的空間所容納。德模克拉圖士、銘拿其馬士、阿基米德、伯班、德沙谷、波諾力、蒙吉、卡諾、潘歇列等的論文，都需要考慮到這些學者被國家宰制的特別處境，受到限制或訓誡，社會跟政治的觀念受到壓制。

德勒茲28

Deleuze 28 德勒茲 Treatise on Nomadology 論遊牧

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

  But why does this argument fail to convince us entirely? We follow Clastres when he demonstrates that the State is explained neither by a development of productive forces nor by a differentiation of political forces. It is the State, on the contrary, that makes possible the undertaking of large-scale projects, the constitution of surpluses, and the organization of the corresponding public functions. The State is what makes the distinction between governors and governed possible. We do not see how the State can be explained by what it presupposes, even with recourse to dialectics. The State seems to rise up in a single stroke, in an imperial form, and does not depend on progressive factors. Its on-the-spot emergence is like a stroke of genius, the birth of Athena. We also follow Clastres when he shows that the war machine is directed against the State, either against potential States whose formation it wards off in advance, or against actual States, whose destruction it purposes. No doubt the war machine is realized more completely in the “ barbaric” assemblages of nomadic warriors than in the “ savage” assemblages of primitive societies. In any case, it is out of the question that the State could be the result of a war in which the conquerors imposed, by the very fact of their victory, a new law on the vanquished, because the organization of the war machine is directed against the State form, actual or virtual. The State is no better accounted for as a result of war than by a progression of economic or political forces. This is where Clastres locates the beak: between “ primitive” counter-State societies and “ monstrous” State societies whose formation it is no longer possible to pleain. Clastres is fascinated by the problem of “voluntary servitude,” in which most certainly did not come to them as the outcome of an involuntary and unfortunate war? They did, after all, having counter-State mechanisms at their disposal: So how and why the State? Why did the State triumph? The more deeply Clastes delved into the problem, the more he seemed to deprive himself of the means of resolving it. He tended to make primitive societies hypostases, self-sufficient entities ( he insisted heavily on this point). He made their formal exteriority into a real independence. Thus he remained an evolutionist, and posited a state of nature. Only this state of nature was, according to him, a fully social reality instead of a pure concept, and the evolution was a sudden mutation instead of a development. For on the one hand, the State rises up in a single stroke, fully formed; on the other, the counter-State societies use very specific mechanisms to ward it off, to prevent it from arising. We believe that these two propositions are valid but that their interlinkage is flawed. There is an old scenario: “ from clans to empires,” or “ from bands to kingdoms.” But nothing says that this constitutes an evolution, since bands and clans are no less organized than empire-kingdoms. We will never leave the evolution hypothesis behind by creating a break between the two terms, that is, by endowing bands with self-sufficiency and the State with an emergence all the more miraculous and monstrous.

 

那為什麼這個論點不能完全說服我們？ 我們可以理解克拉瑞，當他證明國家既不是用生產力的發展，也不是用政治力量的差異來解釋。相反的，國家使大規模計劃的實行，剩餘價值的形成，及相對應的公共機能成為可能。國家使統治者跟被統治者的區分成為可能。可是，即使用辯證方式，我們還是不明白，國家如何用它預先假設的來解釋。國家似乎一下子突然冒出來，以帝國的形式，而不是依靠逐漸發展的因素。國家當下出現，就像是天才的靈感，雅典娜的誕生。我們也可以理解克拉瑞，當他顯示，戰爭機器反對國家，反對它事先防範的潛在國家的形成，也反對它所要消滅的實質的國家。無疑地，戰爭機器在遊牧戰士的「草莽」組合，比在原始社會的「野性」組合，實現得更為徹底。無論如何，國家不可能是戰爭的結果，征服者憑藉勝利的事實，給被擊敗者賦加新的法律，因為戰爭機器的組織反對國家，無論是實質或虛擬的國家。國家無法用戰爭的結果，或經濟及政治的逐漸發展來解釋。這就是克拉瑞發現缺口的地方：在「原始」的反國家社會跟「怪誕」的國家社會之間，後者的形成不再能夠解釋。克拉瑞著迷於「自願奴役」的問題，按照拉波提的說法：人們為什麼想要或渴望奴役？大部份的奴役難道不是非自願及不幸的戰爭的果？畢竟，人們有反對國家的機制可以使用：那麼國家是如何形成？為何形成？為什麼國家會勝利？克拉瑞越探討這個問題，他就越使自己喪失掉解決問題的方法。他傾向於將原始社會當著假設，當著自給自足的實體（他強烈堅持這一點）。他將原始社會正式的外在性，當著是真實的獨立體。因此，他始終是一位進化論者，假定有自然的國家。依照他的說法，只是這個自然國家是一個充份社會化的實體，而不是一個純粹的概念，進化是一個突然的改變，而不是發展。因為在一方面，國家一下子突然出現，組織完整；在另一方面，反對國家的社會使用明確的機制來防範，阻止國家出現。我們相信這兩個假設可以成立，但是他們的關聯性則有瑕疵。古老的說法是：「從黨派到帝國」或「從盜匪到王國」。但是沒有東西可以說，這就組成進化，因為黨派跟盜匪跟帝國及王國都是組織化。我們不會在這兩個術語之間創造一個缺口，就將進化論置之一旁，換言之，盜匪具有自給自足的特性，而國家的出現更加奇蹟而怪誕。

 

  We are compelled to say that there has always been a State, quite perfect, quite complete. The more discoveries archaeologists make, the more empires they uncover. The hypothesis of the Urstaat seems to be verified: “ The State clearly dates back to the most remote ages of humanity.” It is hard to imagine primitive societies that would not have been in contact with imperial States, at the periphery or in  poorly controlled areas. But of greater importance is the inverse hypothesis: that the State itself has always been in a relation with an outside and is inconceivable independent of that relationship. The law of the State is not the law of All or Nothing ( State societies or counter-State societies) but that of interior and exterior. The State is sovereignty. But sovereignty only reigns over what it is capable of internalizing, of appropriating locally. Not only is there no universal State, but the outside of States cannot be reduced to “ foreign policy,” that is, to a set of relations among States. The outside appears simultaneously in two functions: huge worldwide machines branched out over the entire ecumenon at a given moment. Which enjoy a large measure of autonomy in relation to the States ( for example, commercial organization of the “ multi-national” type or industrial complexes, or even religious formations like Christianity, Islam, certain prophetic or messianic movements, etc.) but also the local mechanisms of bands, margins, minorities, which continue to affirm the rights of segmentary societies in opposition to the organs of State power. The modern world can provide us today with particularly machines, but also aneoprimitivism, a new tribal society as described by Marshall McLuhan. These directions are equally present in all social fields, in all periods. It even happens that they partially merge. For example, a commercial organization is also a band of pillage, or piracy, for part of its course and in many of its activities, or it is in bands that a religious formation begins to operate. What becomes clear is that bands, no less than worldwide organizations, imply a form irreducible to the State and that the form of exteriority necessarily presents itself as a diffuse and polymorphous war machine. It is a nomos very different from the “ law.” The State-form, as a form of interiority, has a tendency to reproduce itself, remaining identical to itself across its variations and easily recognizable within the limits of its poles, always seeking public recognition ( there is no masked States). But the war machine’s form of exteriority is such that it exists only in its own metamorphoses; it exists in an industrial innovation as well aas in a technological invention, in a commercial circuit as well as in religious creation, in all flows and currents that only secondarily allow themselves to be appropriated by the State. It is in terms not of independence, but of coexistence and competition in a perpetual field of interaction, that we must conceive of exteriority and interiority, war machines of metamorphosis and State apparatuses of identity, bands and kingdoms, mega-machines and empires. The same field circumscribes its interiority in States, but describes its exteriority in what escapes States or stands against States.

 

   我們不得不說，自始至今就有國家，非常完善，非常完整。考古學家發現越多，他們挖掘的帝國越多。國家自始存在的假設似乎可證實：「國家的起源可回溯到人類的遠古時期」。我們很難想像原始的社會沒有跟帝國的國家接觸，在周邊或控制鬆散的地區。但是更重要的是相反的假設：國家總是跟外圍有關係，但跟那個關係又匪夷所思地保持獨立。國家的法律並不是一律通行否則行不通的法律（國家社會或反國家社會），而是內部及外部的法律。國家即統治。但是統治只是統治它所能內部化的地區或局部控制的地區。不但沒有普世的國家，而且國家的外圍無法淪為「外交政策」，換言之，無法淪為國家之間的一套關係。外圍同時以兩個方向出現：巨大的全世界的機器在特定時期分佈到世界各地，享有國家之外的相當程度的自主權（例如，跨國公司或工業集團的商業組織，或甚至是宗教的組織，像基督教，回教，某些傳福音或救世論的運動）；除外，黑道，邊緣團體，少數族群的的當地組織，繼續肯定區隔的社會的權利，相對於國家權力的機構之外。現代世界讓我們目前清楚地看到這兩個方向充份發展的形象：全世界的普世機器，及新原始主義，如馬可、盧漢所描述的新部落社會。這些方向在各個不同的時期，同樣存在於所有的社會領域。偶爾甚至還部份合併起來。例如，一個商業組織也是一群掠奪的黑道或海盜，在部份的路線及許多的活動；或在黑道中，有宗教的形成開始運作。清楚顯現的是，這些黑道跟全世界的組織一樣，都暗示形式上化減到國家形態，外在的形式必須呈現自己當著分散而多樣性的戰爭機器。這是一種不同於「法律」的遊牧。國家形態作為外在的形式，傾向於複製自己，保持跟自己一致，僅管有很多變種，而且在自己的極限範圍內，很容易辨認得出來，總是尋求公共的認可（國家沒有偽裝假冒的）。但是戰爭機器的外在性形式是如此顯著，它只存在於自己的蛻變當中。它存在於工業的創新及科技的發明，在商業的流通跟宗教的創造，在各種流動跟趨勢中，只允許自己次要部份讓國家冒用，不是獨立，而是在不斷的互動領域中共存及競爭的說法，我們必須用來構想外在性跟內在性，蛻變的戰爭機器及認同、黑道、王國、多重機器、及帝國的國家機構。相同的領域替國家的內在性劃定界限，但是以國家所不能涵蓋或反對國家的方式，描述它的外在性。

德勒茲27

Deleuze 27 德勒茲 Treatise on Nomadology 論遊牧

Translated Springhero 雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Problem 1: Is there a way of warding off the formation of a State apparatus ( or it equivalents in a group) ?

Proposition II: The exteriority of the war machine is also attested to by ethnology ( a tribute to the memory of Pierre Clastres).

 

問題一：有方法阻擋國家機構（或類同的團體）的形成嗎？

命題二：戰爭機器的外在性也從少數民族學獲得證明（紀念彼爾、克拉瑞）。

 

  Primitive, segmentary societies have often been defined as societies without a State, in other words, societies in which distinct organs of power do not appear. But the conclusion has been that these societies did not reach the degree of economic development, or the level of political differentiation, that would make the formation of the State apparatus both possible and inevitable: the implication is that primitive people “ don’t understand” so complex an apparatus. The prime interest in Pierre Clastre’s theories is that they break with this evolutionist postulate. Not only does he doubt that the State is the product of an ascribable economic development, but he asks if it is not a potential concern of primitive societies to ward off or avert that monster they supposedly do not understand. Warding off the formation of a State apparatus, making such a formation impossible, would be the objective of a certain number of primitive social mechanisms, even if they are not consciously understood as such. To be sure, primitive societies have chiefs. Buy the State is not defined by the existence of chiefs; it is defined by the perpetuation of conservation of organs of power. The concern of the State is to conserve. Special institutions are thus necessary to enable a chief to become a man of State, but diffuse, collective mechanisms are just as necessary to prevent a chief from becoming one. Mechanisms for warding off, preventive mechanisms, are a part of chieftainship and keep an apparatus distinct from the social body from crystallizing. Clastres describes the situation for the chief, who has no instituted weapon other than his prestige, no other means of persuasion, no other rule than his sense of the group’s desires. The chief is more like a leader or astar than a man of power and is always in danger of being disavowed, abandoned by his people. But Clastres goes further, identifying war in primitive societies as the surest mechanism directed against the formation of the State” war maintains the dispersl and sementarity of groups, and the warrior himself is caught in a process of accumulating exploits leading him to solitude and prestigious but powerless death. Clastres can thus invoke natural Law while reversing its principal proposition: just as Hobbes saw clearly that the State was against war, so war is against the State, and makes it impossible. It should not be concluded that war is a state of nature, but rather that it is the mode of a social state that wards off and prevents the State. Primitive war does not produce the State any more than it derives from it. And it is no better explained by exchange than by the State: far from deriving from exchange, even a sanction of its failure, war is what limits exchanges, maintains them in the framework of “ alliances” ; it is what prevents them from becoming a State factor, from fusing groups.

 

原始的四分五裂的社會時常被定義為沒有國家的社會，換言之，在此社會，並沒有出現顯而易見的權力單位。但是結論是，這些社會並沒有達到經濟發展的程度，或政治差異的水準，使國家機構的形成成為可能及必然。這意味著：原始人們「並不了解」國家機構的複雜性。彼爾，克拉瑞理論的引人之處在於捨棄進化論的假設。他不但懷疑國家是可證明的經濟發展的產物，而且他問到：阻擋或避開他們所不了解的國家怪物，是不是原始社會所潛在關心？阻擋一個國家機構的形成，使形成成為不可能，將是某些原始社會機制的目標，即使他們並非有意識地這樣做。不錯，原始社會有首領，但是首領並不是國家的定義。國家的定義就是永久保存權力單位。國家的關心是保存，因此需要特別的機構來使首領成為國家人。但是此機構也同樣需要擴散而集體，避免首領成為一尊。阻擋的機構或防止的機構是首領的部份職責，以維持不同於社會團體的國家機構不要僵化。克拉瑞描述首領的情況，首領除了威望外，別無其它可採用的武器，除了自己對團體目標的責任感外，別無其它說服的工具，也沒有其他的統治。首領更像是一個領隊或明星，而不像掌權力的人，因此總是瀕臨被族民否決及背棄的危險。但是克拉瑞更深一層探討，將原始社會的戰爭辨認為確實的機制，用來反對國家機構的形成。戰爭維持團體的分散跟分裂，戰士本身困於累積戰利品，因此陷於孤立，

死亡時雖負眾望，卻無權力。克拉瑞倒轉國家機構的主要命題時，因而引用自然法則：正如霍布思清楚所見，國家反對戰爭，所以戰爭反對國家，並使國家成為不可能。但也不應該就此結論說，戰爭就是自然的狀態，而是戰爭是社會狀態的模式，阻擋並防止國家。原始戰爭並沒有產生國家，正如國家也不是由原始戰爭延生而來。原始戰爭無法以交易或國家來解釋。戰爭不是因為交易而延生，也不是交易失敗的認可。相反的，戰爭是在限制交易，維持交易在「聯盟」的架構中。它阻止聯盟不要成為國家的因素，不要將各團體融合。

 

  The importance of this thesis is first of all to draw attention to collective mechanisms of inhibition. These mechanisms may be subtle, and function as micromechanisms. This is easily seen in certain band or pack phenomena. For example, in the case of gans of street children in Bogota, Jacques Meunier cites three ways in which the leader is prevented from acquiring stable power: the members of the band meet and undertake their theft activity in common, with collective sharing of the loot, but they disperse to eat or sleep separately; also, and especially, each member of the band is paired off with one, two, or three other member, so if he has a disagreement with the leader, he will not leave alone but will take along his allies, whose combined departure will threaten to break up the entire gang; finally, there is a diffuse age limit, and at about age fifteen a member is inevitably inducedto quit the gang. These mechanisms cannot be understood without renouncing the evolutionist vision that sees bands or packs as a rudimentary, less organized, social form. Even in bands of animals, leadership is a complex mechanism that does not act to promote the strongest but rather inhibits the installation of stable powers, in favor of fabric of immanent relations. One could just as easily compare the form “ high-society life” to the form “ sociability” among the most highly evolved men and women; high-society groups are similar to gangs and operate by the diffusion of prestige rather than by reference to centers of power, as in social groupings ( Proust clearly showed this non-correspondence of high-society values and social values). Eugene Sue, a man of high society and a dandy, whom legitimists reproached for frequenting the Orleans family, used to say: “ I’m not on the side of the family, I side with the pack.” Packs, bands, are groups of the rhizome type, as opposed to the arborescent type that centers around organs of power. That is why bands in general, even those engaged in banditry or high-society life, are metamorphoses of awar machine formally distinct from all State  apparatuses or their equivalents, which are instead what structure centralized societies. We certainly would not say that discipline is what defines a war machine: discipline is the characteristic required of armies after the State has appropriated them. The war machine answers to other rules. We are not saying that they are better, of course, only that they animalte a fundamental indiscipline of the warrior, a questioning of hierarchy, perpetual blackmail by abandonment or betrayal, and a very volatile sense of honor, all of which, once against, impedes the formation of the State.

 

   這個命題的重要性首先是要吸引我們注意到壓抑的集團機制。這些機制可能很微妙，充當微小的機制。這在某些黑道黨派中很容易看得出來。例如，在波卡達的街頭小孩的幫派當中，約克、缪尼就引用三個方式，首領被阻止獲得穩定的權力。幫派的成員會聚一起從事共同的偷竊行動，集體分配掠奪物品，但是分散開來吃或分開睡覺。而且，特別的，每位幫派的成員都是兩人到三四人地成一組，這樣他若跟首領有異議，他不會單獨，而是帶走盟友。他們若連手離去，會威脅到使整個幫派瓦解。最後還有一個擴散的年齡限制，在大約十五歲時，成員無可避免要脫離幫派。這些機制若不放棄進化論的觀點，無法理解，因為進化論認為幫派是初期的組織鬆散的社會形態。即使在動物群聚，領導也是複雜的機制，被運用不是要提高最強者，而是壓抑穩定權力的安制，以贊同內在關係的組織。我們也可能很輕易地比較「高級社會」的形式，跟高度進化的男人與女人的形式。高級社會的團體類同幫派，運作時以威望的擴散，而不是中於權力核心，如同在社會的聚會（普魯斯特很清楚地顯示，他與高級社會的價值跟社會價質格格不入。）尤金、蘇是一位高級社會的人，也是一位花花公子，被正規成員譴責造訪奧爾良家庭，他常常說：「我不是偏向那個家庭，我偏向族群。」族群，幫派都是根莖類的團體，相對於環繞著權力核心的分枝形態。那就是為什麼一般的幫派，即使是從事高級社會黨派的人，都是戰爭機器的蛻變，形態上就跟國家機構或相等的組織不同，後者是中央集權為架構的社會。我們雅不欲說，紀律就是戰爭機器的定義，因為紀律是軍隊所要求的特色，當國家篡奪了軍隊。戰爭機器回應其它規則。當然，我們並不是說，這些規則更好，只是說這些規則激發戰士基本上不按紀律行事，質疑官僚階層，並不斷地以背棄跟叛離作為恫嚇，並發揮譽感。這些會一再地防礙到國家的形成。

德勒茲26 論遊牧

Deleuze26 德勒茲 Treatise on Nomadology 論遊牧

Translated by Springhero

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

From the standpoint of the State, the originality of the man of war, his eccentricity, necessarily appears in a negative form: stupidity, deformity, madness, illegitimacy, usurpation, sin. Dumezil analyzes the three “ sins” of the warrior in the Indo-European tradition: against the king, against the priest, against the laws originating I the State( for example, a sexual transgression that compromises the distribution of men and women, or even a betrayal of the laws of war as instituted by the State). The warrior is in the position of betraying everything, including the function of the military, o of understanding nothing. It happens that historians, both bourgeois and Soviet, will follow \this negative tradition and explain how Genghis Khan understood nothing: he “ didn’t understand” the phenomenon of the city. An easy thing to say. The problem is that the exteriority of the war machine in relation to the State apparatus is everywhere apparent but remains difficult to conceptualize. It is not enough to affirm that the war machine is external to the apparatus. It is necessary to reach the point of conceiving the war machine as itself a pure form of exteriority, whereas the State apparatus constitutes the forms of interiority we habitually take as a model, or according to which we are in the habit of thinking. What complicates everything is that this extrinsic power of the wa machine tends, under certain circumstances, to become confused with one of the two heads of the State apparatus. Sometimes it is confused with the magic violence of the State, at other times with the State’s military institution. For instance, the war machine invents speed and secrecy; but there is all the same a certain speed and a certain secrecy that pertain to the State, relatively, secondarily. So there is great danger of identifying the structural relation between the two poles of political sovereignty, and the dynamic interrelation of these two poles, with the power of war. Dumerzil cites the lineage of the Roman kings: there is a Romulus-Muma relation that recurs throughout a series, with variants and an alternation between these two types of equally legitimate rulers; but there is also a relation with an : evil king,” Tullus Hostilius, Tarquinius Superbus, an upsurge of the warrior as a disquieting and illegitimate character. Shakespeare’s kings could also be invoked; even violence, murders, and perversion do not prevent the State lineage from producing “ good” kings; but a disturbing character like Richard III slips in, announcing from the outset his intention to reinvent a war machine and impose its line ( deformed, treacherous and traitorous, he claims a “ secret close intent” totally different from the conquest of State power, and another—an other—relation with women). In short, whenever the irruption of war power is confused with the line of State domination, everything gets muddled; the war machine can then be understood only through the categories of the negative, since nothing is left that remains outside the State. But returned to its milieu of exteriority, the war machine is seen to be of another species, of another nature, of another origin. One would have to say that it is located between the two heads of the State, between the two articulations, and that it is necessary in order to pass from one to the other. But “ between” the two, in that instant, even ephemeral, if only a flash, it proclaims its own irreducibility. The State has no war machine of its own, it can only appropriate one in the form of a military institution, one that will continually cause it problems. This explains the mistrust States have toward their military institutions, in that the military institution inherits an extrinsic war machine. Karl von Clausewitz has a general sense of this situation when he treats the flow of absolute war as an Idea that States partially appropriate according to their political needs, and in relation to which they are more or less good “ conductors.”

 

從國家的觀點，戰爭人的起源，他的怪僻必然以負面的形式出現：愚蠢，畸形，瘋狂，不合法，篡奪，原罪。杜梅吉分析在印歐傳統裡戰士的三個「原罪」：對抗國王，對抗僧侶，對抗起源於國家的法律（例如，調整男女分配的性的逾越，或甚至是違背國家制定的戰爭法律）。戰士的立場就是違背一切，包括軍事的功用，要不然就全然不了解。很湊巧地，無論是布爾喬亞或蘇維埃的歷史學家，都遵照這個負面的傳統，來解釋成吉思汗什麼都不了解：他「不了解」都市的現象。很容易的說辭。問題是戰爭機器的外在性相對於國家機構處處顯而易見，卻很難概念化。光是肯定戰爭機器外在於國家機構是不夠的。我們還需要構想戰爭機器當著外在性的純粹形式，而國家機構組成我們習慣性視為典範的內在性的形式，或是我們習慣於依照典範來思考。事情變得複雜的原因是，戰爭機器的外在性，在某些環境之下，傾向於會跟國家機構的兩個頭變得混淆。它有時跟國家的魔術暴力混淆，有時跟國家軍事機構混淆。例如，戰爭機器發明速度跟隱密，但是國家機構同樣有某種的速度跟隱密，相對而次要。所以很可能有將政治統治的兩極，及這兩極的互動的關係，認同是戰爭力量的危險。杜梅吉引述羅馬國王的系譜：傳承過程有羅缪拉跟牛麻的關係，在這兩種同樣合法的統治者之間有變數跟輪替，但是也有跟「邪惡國王」，何提黎的關係，此時戰士超巴的出當著是騷亂跟不合法的特性。莎士比亞筆下的國王也被召喚：即使暴力，謀殺，和變態都沒有阻止國王系譜不能產生「好」的國王，但是一位令人困擾的人物，像李察三世突然出現，從一開始就宣佈他的意圖要重新發明戰爭機器，賦予他所宣稱的「秘密意圖」的特質（畸形，謀反，背叛），完全不同於國家力量的征服，以及跟女性的另一種關係。總之，每當戰爭力量的爆發跟國家支配的特質混淆，每件事是都混為一談；戰爭機器只能透過負面的範疇來了解，因為國家之外再無其它事物。但是回到外在性的環境，戰爭機器被視為不同種類，不同性質，不同起源。我們必須要說，它位於國家的兩個頭之間，位於兩種表達之間，需要由此遞延到彼。但是在兩者的「中間」，在那即使是閃爍的瞬間，瞬息萬變，它宣稱它的不可化減。國家沒有自己的戰爭機器；它只能以軍事機構的形式來冒充戰爭機器，結果是糾紛不斷。這說明了為什麼國家對於自己的軍事機構的不信任。克勞維茲對於此種情況有個通識，當他在處理絕對戰爭的流動當著是國家依照政治的需要片面冒用的觀念，比較起來，這些政治需要還算是好的「主導者」。

 

  Trapped between the two poles of political sovereignty, the man of war seems outmoded, condemned, without a future, reduced to his own fury, which he turns against himself. The descendants of Hercules, Achilles, then Ajax, have enough strength left to proclaim their independence from Agamemnon, a man of the old State, the first man of the modern State. And it is Ulysses who inherits Achilles’ arms, only to convert them to other uses, submitting them to the laws of the State—not Ajax, who is condemned by the goddess he defied and against whom he sinned. No one has portrayed the situation of the man of war, at once eccentric and condemned, better than Kleist. In Penthesilea, Achilles is already separated from his power; the war machine has passed over to the Amazons, a Stateless woman-people whose justice, religion, and loves are organized uniquely in a war mode. Descendants of the Scythians, the Amazons spring forth like lightning, “ between” the two States, the Greek and the Trojan. They sweep away everything in their path. Achilles is brought before his double, Penthesilea. And in his ambiguous struggle, Achilles is unable to prevent himself from marrying the war machine, or from loving Penthesilea, and thus from betraying Agamennon and Ulysses at the same time. Nevertheless, he already belongs enough to the Greek State that Penthesilea, for her part, cannot enter the passional relation of war with him without herself betraying the collective law of her people, the law of the pack that prohibits “ choosing” the enemy and entering into one-to-one relationships or binary distinctions.

 

    由於被陷入在政治統治的兩極之間，戰爭人似乎不合時宜，被判有罪，沒有前途，淪為自怨自艾。赫丘洛，阿基力，甚至是亞傑克的後裔，都有足夠力量剩餘下來宣稱他們獨立於古老的國家人阿格曼諾。但是一提到初期的現代國家人尤利西斯，他們就一籌莫展。尤利西斯繼承阿基力的武器，轉變做其他用途，遞交給國家的法律，而不是給亞傑克，因為後者被他所挑釁及冒犯的女神所判罪。描述戰爭人既怪僻又被判罪的情況，沒有人比克雷思更生動。在「女王國」一書中，阿基力已經剝奪他的力量，戰爭機器已經被轉移到亞馬遜，一群不像是國家的女人國，正義，宗教跟愛，都獨特地以戰爭模式組織。作為希西人的後裔，亞馬遜突然像閃電般冒出來，處在兩個國家，希臘跟特洛伊的「中間」。她們橫掃途中的一切。阿基力被帶到他的雙重人潘西女王前。阿基力半推半就地，恭敬不如從命地跟戰爭機器結婚，愛上潘西女王，同時也背叛阿格曼諾及尤利西斯。可是，他本已經屬於希臘國家，潘西女王若要跟他從事激情的戰爭關係，自己勢必背叛自己族民的集體法律，這個族群的法律禁止「選擇」敵人，進入一對一的關係或兩相情願的曖昧。

 

  Throughout his work, Kleist celebrates the war machine, setting it against the State apparatus in a struggle that is lost from the start. Doubtless Arminius heralds Germanic war machine that breaks with the imperial order of alliances and armies and stands forever opposed to the Roman State. But the Prince of Homburg lives only a dream and stands condemned for having reached victory in disobedience of the lawa of the law of the State. AS for Kohlhaas, his war machine can no longer be anything more than banditry. Is it the destiny of the war machine, when the State triumphs, to be caught in this alternative: either to be nothing more than the disciplined, military organ of the State apparatus, or to turn again against itself, to become a double suicide machine for solitary man and solitary woman? Goethe and Hegel, State thinkers both, see Kleist as a monster, and Kleist has lost from the start. Why is it, then, that most uncanny modernity lies with him? And in Kleist the secret is no longer a content held within a form of interiority; rather, it becomes a form, identified with the form of exteriority that is always external to itself. Similarly, feelings become uprooted from the interiority of a “ subject,” to be projected violently outward into a milieu f pure exteriority that lends them an incredible velocity, a catapulting force: love and hate, they are no longer feelings but affects. And these affects are so many instances of the be coming-woman, the becoming-animal of the warrior ( the bear, she-dogs). Affects transpierce the body like arrows, they are weapons of war. The deterritorialization velocity of affect. Even dreams ( Homburg’s, Pentheselea’s) are externalized,, by a system of relays and plu-ins, extrinsic linkages belonging to the war machine. Broken rings. This element of exteriority—which dominates everything, which Kleist invents in literature, which he is the fist to invent—will give time a new rhythm: an endless succession of catatonic episodes or fainting spells, and flashes or rushes. Catatonia is: “ The affect is too strong for me,” and a flash is : “ The power of this affect sweeps me away,”  so that the Self is now nothing more than a character whose actions and emotions are desubjectified, perhaps even to the point of death. Such is Kleist’s personal formula: a succession of flights of madness and catatonic freezes in which no subject tive interiority remains. Ther eis much of the East in Kleist: the Japanese fight, interminably still, who then makes a move too quick to see. The Go player. Many things in modern art come from Kleist. Goethe and Hegel are old men next to Kleist. Could it be that it is at the moment the war machine ceases to exist, conquered by the State, that it displays to the utmost its irreducibility, that it scatters into thinking, loving, dying, or creating machines that have at their disposal vital or revolutionary powers capable of challenging the conquering State? Is the war machine already overtaken, condemned, appropriated as part of the same process whereby it takes on new forms, undergoes a metamorphosis, affirms its irreducibility and exteriority, and deploys that milieu of pure exteriority that the occidental man of the State, or the occidental thinker, continually reduces to something other than itself?

 

在他的作品中，克列思頌揚戰爭機器，在從一開頭就已經是輸的奮鬥中，用來對抗國家機構。無疑的，阿敏尼王預示了日爾曼戰爭機器會跟帝國的結盟及軍隊的秩序斷裂，並且永遠跟羅馬國家相對立。但是孟伯格王子只活在夢幻當中，因為違背國家的法律而獲得勝利，反而被判有罪。至於柯哈思，他的戰爭機器僅僅成為盜匪行為。這是戰爭機器的命運，但是國家勝利，卻陷入進退維谷：要就充當國家機構的紀律嚴明的軍事單位，要不然就自行了斷，成為一個孤獨男人及孤獨女人的雙重的自殺機器。歌德及黑格爾，兩位都是國家思想家，都將克列思當成怪物，克列思從一開頭就輸定了。那為什麼最神秘的現代思想卻在他那裡？那是因為他作品的元素是隱密，速度及激情。就克列思而言，隱密不再是內容被包容在內在性的形式之內；相反的，隱密成為一種形式，認同於總是外在於自己的外在性的形式。同樣的，感情被從「主體」的內在性連根拔起，向外猛烈投射，進入純粹外在性的環境，賦予他們難以相信的速度，一種快速彈射的力量：無論是愛或是恨，他們不再是感情，而是激情。這些激情是許多生成女人，戰士的生成動物（熊，母狗等）的榜樣。激情像箭一般貫穿身體，他們是戰爭的武器。激情具有解除轄域的速度。即使是夢（何伯格的夢，潘西女王的夢）都被傳遞及剪接的制度，這些屬於戰爭機器的外在連線所外在化。斷裂的迴環。這些外在性的元素支配一切，是克列思在文學中所獨創，他是第一位創造。這些元素讓時間產生一種新的韻律感：永無止境的精神分裂的軼事或令人暈眩的時刻，靈光一閃或熱血澎湃。精神分裂是：「激情旺盛，無法自制」，靈光一閃是：「激情的力量將我淹沒」。所以，自我現在僅僅是一個行動跟感情都被除掉主觀化的人物，甚至於死而無憾。克列思的個人公式是：不斷地逃避到瘋狂及精神分裂的凍僵狀態，不再有主觀的內在性存在。克列思的作品有許多東方的特質：日本的武士，凝神貫注，然後迅雷不及掩耳地行動。圍棋棋手。現在很多東西都來自克列思。跟他相比起來，歌德跟黑格爾算是老人了。這是可能的嗎？就在這個刻，戰爭機器不再存在，因為已經被國家征服？戰爭機器已經被展示到不可化減的程度，分散成為思想，愛情，死亡，或創造擁有重大或革命性的力量的機器，能夠挑戰征服它的國家？戰爭機器已經被接管，被判有罪，被冒充當著相同過程的一部份，這樣它呈現新的形式，經歷蛻變，肯定它的不可化減性及外在性，部署純粹外在性的環境，如同西方的國家人或西方的思想家都曾設法這樣化減？

德勒茲 25 論遊牧

Deleuze 25  德勒茲 Treatise on Nomadology 論遊牧

Translated By Springhero

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

Axiom 1: The war machine is exterior to the State apparatus.

Proposition 1: This exteriority is first attested to in mythology , epic, drama, and games.

箴言一：戰爭機器外在於國家機構

命題一：這個外在性首先在神話、史詩、戲劇、及遊戲中獲得證明。

 

Georges Dumezil, in his definitive analyses of Indo-European mythology, has shown that political sovereignty, or domination, has two heads: the magician-king and the jurist-priest. Rex and flamen, raj and Brahman, Romulus and Numa, Varuna and Mitra, the despot and the legislator, the binder and the organizer. Undoubtedly, these two poles stand in opposition term by term, as the obscure and the clear, the violent and the calm, the quick and the weighty, the fearsome and the regulated, the “ bond” and the “ pact,” etc. But their opposition is only relative; they function as a pair, in alternation, as though they expressed a division of the One or constituted in themselves a sovereign unity. “ At once antithetical and complementary, necessary to one another and consequently without hostility, lacking a mythology of conflict: a specification on any one level automatically calls forth a homologous specification on another. The two together exhaust the field of the function. “ They are the principal elements of a State apparatus that proceeds by a One-Two, distributes binary distinctions, and forms a milieu of interiority. It is a double articulation that makes the State apparatus into a stratusm.

 

喬治、鄧梅吉在他紮實地分析印歐神話時，顯示政治統治或支配有兩個頭：魔術師兼國王，及法官兼僧侶。雷克思王及祭司，領主及波羅門僧侶、古羅馬開國君羅缪拉及祭司牛麻，凡盧那神及糜拉神，暴君及立法者，管束者及組織者。無疑地，這兩極並肩對立，既模糊又清楚，既暴力又平和，既迅速又笨重，既可怕又有節制，既約束又結盟等等。但是他們的對立只是相對的。他們的功用二者合一，交互使用，好像他們表達一種一分裂為二，或本身組成一個統治的一致性。「既對立又互補，彼此需要，結果化解敵意，缺乏衝突的神話。在某個層次的細節自動在另一個層次召喚同質性的細節。兩者並存，將功用發揮得淋漓盡致。」他們是國家機構的主要元素，以二者合一的方式，分別管轄，形成內部的環境。這種雙重表現使國家機構形成階層重重。

 

   It will be noted that war is not contained within this apparatus. Either the State has at its disposal a violence that is not channeled through war. Either it uses police officers and jailers in place of warriors, has no arms and no need of them, operates by immediate, magical capture, “ seizes” and “ bind,” preventing all combat—or, the State acquires an army, but in a way that presupposes a juridical integration of war and the organization of a military function. As for the war machines in itself, it seems to be irreducible to the State apparatus, to be outside its sovereignty and prior to its law: it comes from elsewhere. Indra, the warrior gold, is in opposition to Varuna, no less than to Mitra. He can no more be reduced to one or the other than he can constitute a third of thir kind. Rather, he is like a pure and immeasurable multiplicity, the pack, an irruption of the ephemeral and the power of metamorphosis. He unties the bond just as he betrays the pact. He brings a furor to bear against soverienty, a celerity against gravity, secrecy against the public, a power against sovereignty, a machine against the apparatus. He bears witness to another kind of justice, one of incomprehensible cruelty at times, but at others of unequaled pity as well ( because unties bonds…) He bears witness, above all, to other relations with women, with animals, because he sees all things in relations of becoming, rather than implementing binary distributions between “ states” : a veritable becoming-animal o the warrior, a becoming-woman, which lies outside dualities of terms as well as correspondences between relations. In every respect, the war machine is of another species, another nature, another origin than the State apparatus.

 

我們將注意到，在這個機構裡，戰爭是不存在的。國家不必透過戰爭就擁有暴力可以使用，要不然它就使用警察跟獄吏來代替戰士。所以它沒有武器，沒有需要武器。它只要運用立即而神奇的捉拿、「逮捕」、「管束」，就可以阻止所有的戰鬥。要不然國家擁有軍隊，但是又先假定將戰爭合併到司法裡，一種軍事功用的組織。至於戰爭機器的本身，它似乎無法被化減到國家機構，似乎外在於統治區之外，並先於法律而來自其它地方。因得拉，這個戰神，不僅跟凡盧那神，也跟靡拉神對立。他無法被化減到任何一黨，正如他也無法組成第三黨。代替的，他像一個純粹而無法測量的多重性，成群，瞬間及蛻變力量的衝擊。他解開管束，正如他背叛盟約。他對統治區帶來喧鬧對抗，突然背離引力，抗拒公眾化的隱密，一種對抗統治的力量，一種對抗機構的機器。他見證到另一種正義，有時是一種難解的殘酷，但有時又是無與倫比的悲憫（因為他解開管束。）特別是，他見證到跟女人，跟動物的其它關係，因為他以生成的關係來看待萬物，而不是操弄「兩極」之間的分別管轄。他是一種戰士的生成動物，一種生成女人，位於術語的雙重性及關係之間的一致性之外。在各方面，戰爭機器跟國家機構種類不同，性質不同，起源不同。

 

    Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the State apparatus in the context of the theory of games. Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of the game pieces, the relations between the pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement endowed with a relative power, and these relative powers combines in a subject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game’s form of interiority. Go pieces, in contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function: “ It” makes a move. “ It” could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant. Go pieces are elements of a non-subjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. Thus the relations are very different in the two cases. Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary’s pieces; their functioning is structural. On the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellation, according to which it fulfills functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot ( or can do so diachronically only). Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalized, regulated, coded war, with a front, a rear, battles. But what is proper to Go is war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retreat, without battles even: pure strategy, whereas chess is a semiology. Finally, the space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging a closed space for oneself, thus of going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space, of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point; the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, without departure or arrival. The “ smooth” space of Go, as against the “ striated” space of chess. The nomos of Go against the State of chess, nomos against polis. The difference is that chess codes and decodes space, whereas Go proceeds altogether differently, territorializing or deterrritorializing it ( makethe outside a territory in space; consolidate that territory by the construction of a second, adjacent territory;. Deterritoriatlize the enemy by shattering his territory from within; deterritorialize oneself by renouncing, by going elsewhere…) Another justice, another movement, another space-time.

 

   且讓我舉個有限例子，從遊戲理論的內涵，比較戰爭機器跟國家機構。讓我們看一下象棋跟圍棋，從遊戲棋子的觀點，看棋子之間的關係及相關的空間。象棋是國家及法庭的棋戲，中國的皇帝在玩。象棋子鐫有符碼。他們有內在特性及本質屬性，界定他們的動作，情況，及衝突。他們有特質，車就是車，卒就是卒，仕就是仕。每一個就像是稟賦有相對力量的陳述的主體，這些力量組合在一個表達的主體，換言之，下棋者或遊戲的內部形式。比較起來，圍棋是個小丸子，圓石子，簡單的數學單位，只有一個匿名的，集體的，第三人稱的功用。「它」做一個動作。「它」可以是男人，女人，虱子，大象。圍棋是非主觀化的機器裝配的元素，沒有內在屬性，只有情境的屬性。因此在這兩個情況，關係是不同的。在他們內在的環境裡，象棋子彼此之間以及跟對方棋子，擁有兩個一致性的關係。他們的功用是結構性。在另一方面，圍棋只有外在性的環境，跟星羅棋盤只有外在的關係。依照這個關係，它發揮插入或情境的功用，例如邊界，包圍，消滅。獨立地，一個跳棋子能夠同時地毀滅整個星羅棋局。可是圍棋子不能夠（或者只有逐步地才有可能）。象棋的確是場戰爭，但是一場體制化，規劃好的符碼戰爭，有先鋒，後衛的戰爭。但是圍棋的本體是沒有戰鬥線的戰爭，既沒有衝突，也沒有撤退，甚至沒有戰鬥，純粹是策略，而象棋則是一種符號學。最後一點，空間也完全不一樣。象棋是一種如何自己安排封閉空間的問題，因此要從一點走到另一點，用最小量的棋子，吃掉最大量的棋子。而跳圍則是在開放的空間佈局，佔有空間，維持隨時可跳躍的可能性，動作不是從一點到另一點，而是沒有目標或目的地，沒有離開或抵達地繼續下去。相對於象棋的「羅列」空間，圍棋的空間是「平順」的。相對於象棋的國家形態，圍棋是遊牧的，遊牧相對於城邦。不同的是，象棋替空間添加符碼及解碼，而圍棋不同地全然前進，轄佔領域及解轄領域（使外在成為空間的領域。以建構次級的鄰近領域，鞏固該領域，以從內部粉碎敵人的領域，而解轄其領域。以放棄而解轄自己的領域，另外開闢領域）另外一個正義，另外一個動作，另外一個時空。

 

    “ They come like fate, without reason, consideration, or pretext…” “ In some way that is incomprehensible they have pushed right into the capital. At any rate, here they are. It seems that every morning there are more of them.” Luc de Heusch  analyzes a Bantu myth that leads us to the same schema: Nkongolo, an indigenous emperor and administrator of public works, a man of the public and a man of the polive, gives his half-sisters to the hunter Mbidi, who assists him and then leaves. Mbidi’s son a man of secrecy, joins up with his father, only to return fromm the outside with that inconceivable thing, an army. He kills Nkongolo and proceeds to build a new State. “ Between” the magical-despotic State and the juridical State containing a military institution, we see the flash of the war machine, arriving from without

 

   「他們前來，像命運，沒有道理，考慮或藉口。」「以無法理解的方式，他們直接逼近首都。無論如何，他們就在那裡。似乎每天早上，越來越多。」何希分析一則班徒的神話，讓我們得到相同的模式：岡哥洛是一位土皇帝，也是公權力的執行者。他將同父異母的姐妹送給獵人比帝，因為他幫忙他們後離去。比帝的兒子，一位神秘人物，跟他父親會合，卻從外面帶回來一樣不可思議的東西：軍隊。他殺死岡哥洛，繼續建造一個新的國家。在魔術師兼暴君的國家跟司法的國家「中間」，存在著一個軍事機構，我們看到戰爭機器的閃爍，從外而來。

雄伯手記980318

雄伯手記980318

 

原先規劃五十天的紐西蘭腳踏車行，濃縮為十五天狼狽歸來，說來是蠻丟人現眼的。不過，我自始至終的動機本來就不是要完成什麼壯舉，來炫耀於親朋好友的。體力不足，跟不上六人行預定行程的團隊，我踽踽獨行仍然自信有能耐在紐西蘭存活五十天。問題的徵結仍然在我為什麼而去？我踽踽獨行究竟在追尋些什麼？逃避些什麼？這才是我的致命傷。

 

踽踽獨行，首先讓我醒悟的是自己人生的處境。我帶紐幣四千五的現鈔，外加兩張信用卡，要維持兩個月的用度應該沒問題。問題是我的紐西蘭簽證只有兩個月，簽證期滿後我只有乖乖離境，別無選擇。也就是說，紐西蘭的腳踏車行，無論無何壯舉，我\勢必歸來。也就是說，不管我在紐西蘭玩得如何爽，我人生的問題仍然必須要回到台灣來面對。

 

我要面對的是我人生究竟出了怎樣的問題？我活到六十六歲了，領有足夠優惠的退休金可以頤養天年，我還有什麼不滿足的？我還想要追尋些什麼？

 

說來好笑，一些小的生理細節的不祥徵兆就這樣的改變了我的騎行意志。行前途中，掉落雨衣、安全帽、車燈等，這些都可以用金錢買回。在 Rakaia 掉落眼鏡，就讓我頗為懊惱。到了Kaipol 看到一家眼鏡行optician ，光是度數檢查就要59元，鏡片安裝想來不會太便宜，還要我等兩三天。再加幾天來沒有沖牙機沖牙，牙齦隱隱作痛 。本來就不是什麼雄心壯志，一看到火車出乎意外地停到我剛騎到的荒郊野外，我脆弱的意志就振振有詞地把它當著是要我安全歸來的天意。

 

回來也不是什麼羞恥。這幾天讀讀書，上上網，上點家教，日子也過得蠻充實的。了解自己能力的限度，安於自己的守拙，寧靜度完有限的餘生，人生應盡終須盡，夫復何求？