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。

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: