Archive for June, 2009

雄伯手記980630

June 30, 2009

雄伯手記9806230

 

最近看余德慧教授的「修行療瘉」,發現他將療瘉(healing)跟醫療( medicine) 作區別的解釋,很有見地。醫療是「如何使身體的不適得以改善」,而療瘉則是「如何使人回歸到自然的狀態」。生老病死既然是人的身體在自然界中的常態,修行療癒就是要跟「與本原復合」,說得更白些,就是如何使病人坦然地面對即將來臨的死亡。

 

他引證永嘉大師的(證道歌):

「絕學無為閒道人,不除妄想不除真,無明實性即佛性,幻化空身即佛身」。

 

外加不知是何方高明的注釋:

絕念無學、無為的「閒」處,可以解為西田幾多郎的「場所」,即那「不在的在」的場所,其空間的遊裕之所以為「閒」乃在於它不在現實的擠壓,而是幻遊於外。幻游既妄且真,無須去除,亦不辨無明與佛性。

 

我逐字念過一遍,還是不甚了然,只好上網搜尋到宣化法師在紐約的白話注釋參照一下:

 

「不除妄想不求真」:因為他已經得了道,沒有妄想可除,也沒有真可證。妄化真存,所以不除妄想,並不是說他有妄想而不除去;無真可證,已經證得到極點了,所以不求真。

 

得道高僧的這種境界,實在是高不可攀。依凡夫身的雄伯之見:不除妄想,是因為妄想本是人生的自然狀態。我妄想,故我在,何必除之?不求真,是因為人生本就像是電視上的武俠片、科幻片或愛情片,明知內容情節荒謬不可信,只要過程精采刺激,我們仍然被掐著脖子般看完。何必求真?真要事事求真,很容易患憂鬱症。

 

「無明實性即法性」:以前他和我們一般眾生一樣,也有無明的煩惱,可是現在修得變成佛性,返本還原,反迷歸覺,根本生死的問題斷了,所以無明實性轉成佛性。

 

雄伯曰:「即」原本的意思應該像是數學的等號(=),只是宣化上人注釋時,不僅給添加了「以前」跟「現在」時間上的差距,而且還附帶條件:根本生死的問題斷了。只是如何斷法,並沒有說清楚,是要持法門修行才能斷,還是破除我執自戀,明白人生在世,本來就是無常肉身,看開些,就算是了生死?

 

 

「幻化空身即法身」:以前幻化的,虛幻不實的身體,現在證得法身的理體。

 

雄伯問:不管是虛幻不實的身體,或法身的理體,癌症細胞在侵蝕咬囓時,疼痛的程度會有差別嗎?人臨死還需要扭捏作態擺姿勢嗎?唉!不如來一針止痛劑或嗎啡,來得實惠些!或者氧氣罩拔掉,讓人的身體早點成法身的理體罷!

一狼或多狼 03

June 30, 2009

一狼或多狼 03

 

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guattari

德勒茲及瓜達里:千高台

 

One or Several Wolves

一狼或多狼

 

Let us return to the story of multiplicity, for the creation of this substantive marks a very important moment.

 

讓我們回到多重性的故事,因為這個實實的創造意義非凡。

 

It was created precisely in order to escape the abstract opposition between the multiple and the one, to escape dialectics, to succeed in conceiving the multiple in the pure state, to cease

treating it as a numerical fragment of a lost Unity or Totality or as the organic element of a Unity or Totality yet to come, and instead distinguish between different types of multiplicity.

 

多重性的創造,準確就是要逃避多重與一之間的抽象對立,逃避辯證法,成功地構想多重性處於純淨的狀態,不再將多重性當著是已喪失的一致性或整體性的數字碎片,或當著是未來的一致性或整體性的有機元素。代替的,是要區別不同類型的多重性。

 

Thus we find in the work of the mathematician and physicist Riemann a distinction between discreet multiplicities and continuous multiplicities (the metrical principle of the second

kind of multiplicity resides solely in forces at work within them).

 

因此我們在數學家及物理學家瑞門的作品裡發現,謹慎的多重性跟繼續的多重性有所區別(第二種多重性的韻律原理,主要是在於內部力量的運作)。

 

Then in Meinong and Russell we find a distinction between multiplicities of magnitude or divisibility, which are extensive, and multiplicities of distance, which are closer to the intensive.

 

然後在門諾及羅素的作品裡,我們發現強度,也就是可除盡度的多重性,跟距離的多重性之間有區別。前者是向外延伸,後者向內密集。

 

And in Bergson there is a distinction between numerical or extended multiplicities and qualitative or durational multiplicities.

 

然後在柏克森的作品理,數字或延伸的多重性跟品質或期間的多重性,也有所區別。

 

We are doing approximately the same thing when we distinguish between arborescent multiplicities and rhizomatic multiplicities.

 

我們在區別樹狀系統跟塊莖系統時,所作所為大約相同。

 

Between macro- and micromultiplicities. On the one hand, multiplicities that are extensive, divisible, and molar; unifiable, totalizable, organizable; conscious or preconscious—and on the other hand, libidinal, unconscious, molecular, intensive multiplicities composed of

particles that do not divide without changing in nature, and distances that do not vary without entering another multiplicity and that constantly construct and dismantle themselves in the course of their communications, as they cross over into each other at, beyond, or before a certain threshold.

 

區別宏偉多重性跟顯微多重性。一方面,多重性向外延伸,可減除,可壓碎,可統一,可整體化,可組織化,無論是意識或無意識。在另一方面,生命力,無意識,分子化,向內密集的多重性,組成的分子一但減除,性質會跟著變化,距離一但改變,就會進入另一個多重性。顯微多重性在彼此的溝通過程,不斷地建造跟拆除自己,當它們在某個門檻附近,另一邊,或前面,互相跨越進去。

 

The elements of this second kind of multiplicity are particles; their relations are distances; their movements are Brownian; their quantities are intensities, differences in intensity.

 

第二種多重性的元素是分子,分子之間的關係是距離;分子的動作是布朗定理;質量就是強烈度,強烈度的差異。

 

This only provides the logical foundation. Elias Canetti distinguishes between two types of multiplicity that are sometimes opposed but at other times interpenetrate: mass (“crowd”) multiplicities and pack multiplicities.

 

這只是充當邏輯的基礎。康揑提區別兩種有時相對,有時互相貫穿的多重性:諸眾(群眾)多重,群體多重。

 

Among the characteristics of a mass, in Canetti’s sense, we should note large quantity, divisibility and equality of the members, concentration, sociability of the aggregate as a whole, one-way hierarchy, organization of territoriality or territorialization, and emission of signs.

 

以康捏提的解釋,諸眾的特性是,我們應該注意到數量大小,成員的可減除跟平等,集中,群聚作為整體的交際,單向的階層,領域的組織或轄域化,及符號的發怖

 

Among the characteristics of a pack are small or restricted numbers, dispersion, nondecomposable variable distances, qualitative metamorphoses, inequalities as remainders or crossings, impossibility of a fixed totalization or hierarchization, a Brownian variability in directions, lines of deterritorialization, and projection of particles.5

 

群體的特性是小而有限的數目,擴散,不可瓦解的變化離,質量的蛻變,作為餘數跟跨越,固定整體化或階層化的不可能,方向採布朗原理的變化,解轄域的路線,分子的投射。

 

Doubtless, there is no more equality or any less hierarchy in packs than in masses, but they are of a different kind.

 

無可置疑地,群體的平等跟階層不見得比諸眾增多或減少,但是它們種類不同。

 

The leader of the pack or the band plays move by move, must wager everything every hand, whereas the group or mass leader consolidates or capitalizes on past gains.

 

群體或派系的領導者步步為營,每次出手。孤注一擲,而眾生或諸眾的領導者統籌或押注過去的獲益。

 

The pack, even on its own turf, is constituted by a line of flight or of deterritorialization that is a component part of it, and to which it accredits a high positive value, whereas masses only integrate these lines in order to segment them, obstruct them, ascribe them a negative sign.

 

即使在自己的賽馬場,群體包含有逃離路線或解轄域,那是它組成的部份,它給予高度的重視,而諸眾僅是合併這些路線,以便分割,阻礙,賦予負面符號。

 

Canetti notes that in a pack each member is alone even in the company of others (for example, wolves on the hunt); each takes care of himself at the same time as participating in the band. 

 

康捏提注意到,在群體裡,每個成員是孤獨的,即使有其它同伴(例如,正在獵食中的狼);每隻狼邊參與群體,邊照顧自己。

 

“In the changing constellation of the pack, in its dances and expeditions, he will again and again find himself at its edge. He may be in the center, and then, immediately afterwards, at the edge again; at the edge and then back in the center. When the pack forms a ring around the fire, each man will have neighbors to the right and left, but no one behind him; his back is naked and exposed to the wilderness.”

 

「在群體逐漸轉變的群集,在他們跳舞及遠征,他將會發現自己處於邊緣。他可能在中心,然後一下子,又處在邊緣,在邊緣,然後又回到中心。當群體環繞火堆圍成一圈,每客人左右都有鄰居,但是背後沒有,背後是裸露,暴露予荒野。」

 

We recognize this as the schizo position, being on the periphery, holding on by a hand or a

foot . . .

 

我們認出這一點當著是精神分裂的位置,處在邊緣,僅以手或腳相連。

 

As opposed to the paranoid position of the mass subject, with all the identifications of the individual with the group, the group with the leader, and the leader with the group; be securely embedded in the mass, get close to the center, never be at the edge except in

the line of duty.

 

跟諸眾主體的偏執狂位置相反,群體由於個人完全認同於團體,團體完全認同於領導者,領導者完全認同於團體,安全地鑲嵌於諸眾,靠近中心,除了職責方面,從未處在邊緣。

 

Why assume (as does Konrad Lorenz, for example) that bands and their type of companionship represent a more rudimentary evolutionary state than group societies or societies of conjugality?

 

為什麼要假定(例如羅連茲就這樣假定),群體跟他們的伙伴,比合夥社會或婚姻社會,

代表更基本的革命狀態?

 

Not only do there exist bands of humans, but there are particularly refined examples:

“high-society life” differs from “sociality” in that it is closer to the pack.

 

人類不但有結夥存在,而且還有特別高尚的例子。「高級社交生活」不同於「草莽社會」,因為它更接近群體。

 

Social persons have a certain envious and erroneous image of the high society person because they are ignorant of high-society positions and hierarchies, the relations of force, the very particular ambitions and projects.

 

社交人對於高級社會人,有某種妒忌而錯誤的形象,因為他們不知道高級社會的地位跟階層,力量的關係,特別的企圖心跟計畫。

 

High-society relations are never coextensive with social relations, they do not coincide.

 

高級社會的關係跟社會關係從來不是共同向外延伸;他們並不會偶然會合。

 

Even “mannerisms” (all bands have them) are specific to mcromultiplicities and distinct from social manners or customs.

 

對於宏偉多重性,即使是「禮節」(所有群體都會有)都是條理分明,不同於社交禮貌或風俗。

 

There is no question, however, of establishing a dualist opposition between the two types of multiplicities, molecular machines and molar machines; that would be no better than the dualism between the One and the multiple.

 

可是,在兩種多重性,分子機器,粒子機器之間,不可能建立一個二元對立。那跟大一與多重之間的二元論一樣沒多大用途。

 

There are only multiplicities of multiplicities forming a single assemblage, operating in the same assemblage: packs in masses and masses in packs. Trees have rhizome lines, and the rhizome points of arborescence.

 

只有多重性的多重性組成單一的裝配,以相同的裝配運作:諸眾中的群體跟群體中的諸眾。樹有塊莖線,及樹狀系統的塊莖點。

 

How could mad particles be produced with anything but a gigantic cyclotron?

 

若沒有巨大的粒子迴旋加速器,我們如何能製造瘋狂的分子?

 

How could lines of deterritorialization be assignable outside of circuits of territoriality?

 

在轄域迴路圈外面,解轄域的路線如何能夠被指定?

 

Where else but in wide expanses, and in major upheavals in those expanses, could a tiny rivulet of new intensity suddenly start to flow?

 

除了在廣漠曠野,在那些曠野的重大騷亂外,還有什麼地方,新的強烈生命力的涓涓細流能夠突然開始流動?

 

What do you not have to do in order to produce a new sound?

 

為了產生新的聲音,有什麼你必須做的?

 

Becoming-animal, becoming-molecular, becoming-inhuman, each involves a molar extension, a human hyperconcentration, or prepares the way for them.

 

生成動物,生成分子,生成非人,每一個都牽涉到粒子的延伸,人的高度專注,或為它們預做準備。

 

In Kafka, it is impossible to separate the erection of a great paranoid bureaucratic machine from the installation of little schizo machines of becoming-dog or becoming-beetle.

 

對於卡夫卡,巨大的偏執的官僚機器的巍然存在,跟生成狗或生成甲蟲的微小精神分裂機器的安置,息息相關。

 

In the case of the Wolf-Man, it is impossible to separate the becoming-wolf of his dream from the military and religious organization of his obsessions.

 

對於狼人,他夢中的生成狼,跟軍隊及困擾他的宗教組織,密不可分。

 

A military man does a wolf; a military man does a dog.

 

軍隊人對於狼之所為,跟軍隊人對於狗,沒什麼兩樣。

 

There are not two multiplicities or two machines; one and the same machinic assemblage produces and distributes the whole, in other words, the set of statements corresponding to the

“complex.”

 

並沒有兩種多重性或兩種機器,一種完全相同的裝配,產生及分配整體,換言之,一大套陳述,跟內心「情結」相一致。

 

What does psychoanalysis have to say about all of this? Oedipus, nothing but Oedipus, because it hears nothing and listens to nobody.

 

這種現象,精神分析學有何可說?伊底普斯,只有伊底普斯,因為它啥都沒聽見,也不聽任何人說。

 

It flattens everything, masses and packs, molecular and molar machines, multiplicities of every variety.

 

它打垮一切,諸眾及群體,分子跟粒子的機器,各式各樣的多重性。

 

Take the Wolf-Man’s second dream during his so-called psychotic episode: in the street, a wall with a closed door, to the left an empty dresser; in front of the dresser, the patient, and a big woman with a little scar who seems to want to skirt around the wall; behind the wall, wolves, rushing for the door.

 

以狼人的第二個夢為例,據稱他在街上的精神病發作狀況,一道大門深閉的牆,左邊是空的梳妝台,病人在梳妝台前面,一位高大的女人,有小的巴痕,似乎想要繞過牆壁,狼人在牆壁後面,衝向門。

 

Even Brunswick can’t go wrong: although she recognizes herself in the big woman, she does see that this time the wolves are Bolsheviks, the revolutionary mass that had emptied

the dresser and confiscated the Wolf-Man’s fortune.

 

即使是布魯威克都不會搞錯:雖然她在那高大女人身上看出自己,她確實看到,這一次狼人是布爾希維克,革命的諸眾,他們搜空梳妝台,沒收狼人的財產。

 

The wolves, in a metastable state, have gone over to a large-scale social machine.

 

狼人,處於次穩定的狀態,轉變成為巨大的社會機器。

 

But psychoanalysis has nothing to say about all of these points—except what Freud already said: it all leads back to daddy (what do you know, he was one of the leaders of the liberal party in Russia, but that’s hardly important; all that needs to be said is that the revolution “assuaged the patient’s feelings of guilt”).

 

但是精神分析學對於這幾點無話可說,除了重複佛洛伊所說過的:一切都歸因於老爸(你知道多少,他是蘇俄自由黨的領導人,但這不是重點,必須要說的是,革命「舒緩了病人的罪惡感」)

 

You’d think that the investments and counterinvestments of the libido had nothing to do with mass disturbances, pack movements, collective signs, and particles of desire.

 

你會認為生命力的投注跟反投注,跟諸眾的騷擾,群體的運動,集體的符號,及欲望的分子沒有關係。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

一狼或多狼 02

June 29, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guattari

德勒茲及瓜達里:千高台

 

One or Several Wolves

一狼或多狼 02

 

A multiplicity of pores, or blackheads, of little scars or stitches. Breasts, babies, and rods.

 

毛孔或黑頭的多重性,小疤痕或針痕的多重性。乳房,嬰兒,及棒子。

 

A multiplicity of bees, soccer players, or Tuareg. A multiplicity of wolves or jackals . . .

 

蜜蜂,足球員,或汽車的多重性。狼跟胡狼的多重性。

 

All of these things are irreducible but bring us to a certain status of the formations of the unconscious.

 

所有這些東西都可以化減,但是他們會使我們淪落到某種無意識平台的地位。

 

Let us try to define the factors involved: first, something plays the role of the full body—the body without organs. In the preceding dream it was the desert.

 

且讓我們替相關的因素下個定義:首先,某件東西扮演全身的角色,沒有器官的身體。在上述的夢中,那是沙漠。

 

In the Wolf-Man’s dream it is the denuded tree upon which the wolves are perched. It is also the skin as envelope or ring, and the sock as reversible surface. It can be a house or part of a house, any number of things, anything.

 

在狼人的夢中,狼人棲息在裸露的樹上。皮膚充當覆蓋物或環狀物,襪子充當可倒轉的表面。那可以是房屋或房屋的一部分,任何數量的東西。

 

Whenever someone makes love, really makes love, that person constitutes a body without organs, alone and with the other person or people.

 

每當某人做愛,真正做愛,那個人就組成沒有器官的身體,單獨或跟另外一個人或其他人。

 

 

A body without organs is not an empty body stripped of organs, but a body upon which that which serves as organs (wolves, wolf eyes, wolf jaws?) is distributed according to crowd phenomena, in Brownian motion, in the form of molecular multiplicities.

 

沒有器官的身體並不是剝掉器官的空洞的身體,而是器官(狼,狼眼睛,狼下巴?)停駐其上的身體的散置,是依照群眾現象,依物理布朗動作原理,依照分子多重性的形式。

 

The desert is populous. Thus the body without organs is opposed less to organs as such than to the organization of the organs insofar as it composes an organism.

 

沙漠人口稠密。因此,沒有器官的身體與其說是跟器官相對立,不如說是跟器官的組織相對立,就其組成有機體而言。

 

The body without organs is not a dead body but a living body all the more alive and teeming once it has blown apart the organism and its organization.

 

沒有器官的身體並不是死去的身體,而是活生生的身體,更加活生生及生氣蓬勃,一但它炸開有機體及其組織。

 

Lice hopping on the beach. Skin colonies. The full body without organs is a body populated by multiplicities.

 

蝨子在海灘跳躍。麇集皮膚。整個沒有器官的身體,是被多重性群居的身體。

 

The problem of the unconscious has most certainly nothing to do with generation but rather peopling, population. It is an affair of worldwide population on the full body of the earth, not organic familial generation.

 

無意識的問題跟世代確實無關,而是跟群居,人口。那是在地球作為整個身體,全世界人口的事情,不是有機的家庭的世代的事情。

 

“I love to invent peoples, tribes, racial origins . . . I return from my tribes. As of today, I am the adoptive son of fifteen tribes, no more, no less. And they in turn are my adopted tribes, for I love each of them more than if I had been born into it.” People say, After all, schizophrenics have a mother and a father, don’t they? Sorry, no, none as such.

 

「我喜愛發明民族,部落,種族的起源。我從我的部落回來。如同在今天,我是不多不少十五個部落收養的兒子。部落反過來也成為我收養的部落,因為我愛每個部落,甚過於我出生的部落。」人們說,畢竟,精神分裂症患者有母親及父親,不是嗎?抱歉,不是這麼一回事。

 

They only have a desert with tribes inhabiting it, a full body clinging with multiplicities.

This brings us to the second factor, the nature of these multiplicities and their elements.

 

他們只有一個沙漠,部落居住在那裡,沙漠是緊握住多重性的全身。這使我們想到第二個因素,這些多重性及其因素的特性。

 

One of the essential characteristics of the dream of multiplicity is that each element ceaselessly varies and alters its distance in relation to the others.

 

多重性之夢的基本特性之一是,每個元素不停地變化,改變跟其它元素的相關距離。

 

On the Wolf-Man’s nose, the elements, determined as pores in the skin, little scars in the pores, little ruts in the scar tissue, ceaselessly dance, grow, and diminish.

 

在狼人鼻子上,元素不停地跳舞,成長,及減少,因為他們是由皮膚上的毛孔,毛孔上的小疤痕,小疤痕細胞組織的小凹痕所組成。

 

These variable distances are not extensive quantities divisible by each other; rather, each is indivisible, or “relatively indivisible,” in other words, they are not divisible below or above a certain threshold, they cannot increase or diminish without their elements changing in nature.

 

這些距離參差不齊,並不是互相可除盡的延伸的質量,相反的,每一個都不可除盡,或「相對的不可除盡」,換言之,它們在某個門檻以下或以上,不可除盡。它們若增加或減少,它們的元素性質上會改變。

 

A swarm of bees: here they come as a rumble of soccer players in striped jerseys, or a band of Tuareg.

 

一群蜜蜂:來臨時嗡嗡隆隆,像一群穿著條紋運動服的足球員,或一群汽車。

 

Or: the wolf clan doubles up with a swarm of bees against the gang of Deulhs, under the direction of Mowgli, who runs on the edge (yes, Kipling understood the call of the wolves, their libidinal meaning, better than Freud; and in the Wolf-Man’s case the story about wolves is followed by one about wasps and butterflies, we go from wolves to wasps).

 

或者,狼人能跟一群蜜蜂聯合,在森林小英雄的領導之下,對抗獵人。(沒錯,基普林的叢林小說,比佛洛伊徳更了解狼的呼喚,它們生命力的昂揚。在狼人的病例中,有關狼的故事,後面緊跟隨著黃蜂跟蝴蝶,我們亦可從狼到黃蜂。)

 

What is the significance of these indivisible distances that are ceaselessly transformed, and cannot be divided or transformed without their elements changing in nature each time? Is it not the intensive character of this kind of multiplicity’s elements and the relations between them?

 

這些不可除盡的例子不停地轉變,每次減除或轉變,其元素的性質就改變,其意義是什麼?難道不是在彰顯這種多重性及其間關係具有強烈的特性?

 

Exactly like a speed or a temperature, which is not composed of other speeds and temperatures but rather is enveloped in or envelops others, each of which marks a change in nature.

 

這些例子確實就像速度跟溫度,組成它們的不是其它速度及溫度,而是被其它速度及溫度含蘊,或含蘊它們,彼此性質都在改變。

 

The metrical principle of these multiplicities is not to be found in a homogeneous milieu but resides elsewhere, in forces at work within them, in physical phenomena inhabiting them, precisely in the libido, which constitutes them from within, and in constituting them necessarily divides into distinct qualitative and variable flows.

 

在同質性的環境,我們能找到這些多重性的韻律原理,它們停駐在別處,在內部運作的力量裡,在盤據它們的生理的現象裡,確實就是在生命力裡。生命力從內部組成韻律原理,而在組成過程,必然會減除成為不同品質跟變話的流動。

 

Freud himself recognizes the multiplicity of libidinal “currents” that coexist in the Wolf-Man.

 

佛洛伊德自己就體認到,共存於狼人的生命力「源流」具有多重性。

 

That makes it all the more surprising that he treats the multiplicities of the unconscious

the way he does. For him, there will always be a reduction to the One: the little scars, the little holes, become subdivisions of the great scar or supreme hole named castration; the wolves become substitutes for a single Father who turns up everywhere, or wherever they put him.

 

更令人驚奇的是,佛洛伊德處理無意識的多重性的方式。他認為總是會被「大一統」所減除:小疤痕,小洞隙都是從他名之為閹割的大疤痕或最高洞隙減除而來。狼人成為父親的代替名詞,無論他身處哪裡,父親無所不在。

 

(As Ruth Mack Brunswick says, Let’s go all the way, the wolves are “all the fathers and doctors” in the world; but the Wolf-Man thinks, “You trying to tell me my ass isn’t a wolf?”)

 

(如布魯威克所言,讓我們一直探討下去,狼人就是世界上的「父親跟醫生」,但是狼人認為「你是在說,我其實不是狼?」)

 

What should have been done is the opposite, all of this should be understood in intensity: the Wolf is the pack, in other words, the multiplicity instantaneously apprehended as such insofar as it approaches or moves away from zero, each distance being nondecomposable.

 

本來應該處理的方式恰恰相反,一切應該從生命力的強烈來了解;狼人就是狼群,換言之,多重性接近或脫離零度時,每段距離難分難解時,我們就應該馬上從這個角度來了解。

 

Zero is the body without organs of the Wolf-Man. If the unconscious knows nothing of

negation, it is because there is nothing negative in the unconscious, only indefinite moves toward and away from zero, which does not at all express lack but rather the positivity of the full body as support and prop (“for an afflux is necessary simply to signify the absence of intensity”).

 

零度是狼人的沒有器官的身體。假如無意識對於負面一無所知,那是因為無意識並沒有任何負面,只有無窮盡的動作朝向及脫離零度。這絲毫不表示,一切空無,相反的,這表示以全部的身體作為支持及支撐,是正面的(因為若無源流,生命力的強烈勢必匱缺。)

 

The wolves designate an intensity, a band of intensity, a threshold of intensity on the

Wolf-Man’s body without organs.

 

狼人意味著生命力的強烈,強烈成群,在狼人的沒有器官的身體,是強烈的門檻。

 

A dentist told the Wolf-Man that he “would soon lose all his teeth because of the violence of his bite”—and that his gums were pocked with pustules and little holes.4 Jaw as high intensity,

teeth as low intensity, and pustular gums as approach to zero.

 

一位牙醫告訴狼人,「他不久牙齒將掉盡,因為咬得太猛」,他的牙齦膿泡充斥。下巴的強烈度高,牙齒的強烈度當低,膿泡充斥的牙齦,強烈度接近零。

 

The wolf, as the instantaneous apprehension of a multiplicity in a given region, is not a

representative, a substitute, but an I feel. I feel myself becoming a wolf, one wolf among others, on the edge of the pack.

 

從某個地區的多重性當下來了解,狼並不是代表或代替,而是「我感覺」。我感覺我生成為狼,眾多狼之狼,處在狼群的邊緣。

 

A cry of anguish, the only one Freud hears: Help me not become wolf (or the opposite, Help me not fail in this becoming).

 

痛苦的呼叫,佛洛伊德唯一所聽到的:幫助我不要變成狼(或反過來,幫助我在生成過程,不要失敗)。

 

It is not a question of representation: don’t think for a minute that it has to do with believing oneself a wolf, representing oneself as a wolf.

 

這不是代表的問題;絲毫不要認為,這跟相信自己生成為狼有關,代表自己是一隻狼。

 

The wolf, wolves, are intensities, speeds, temperatures, nondecomposable variable distances. A swarming, a wolfing 

 

狼,狼群都是強烈度,速度,溫度,無法減除盡的變數距離。

 

Who could ever believe that the anal machine bears no relation to the wolf machine, or that the two are only linked by an Oedipal apparatus, by the all-too-human figure of the Father?

 

誰能相信肛門機器跟狼的機器無關,或連接兩者,只是由伊底普斯機器,或過於人性化的父親的角色?

 

For in the end the anus also expresses an intensity, in this case the approach to zero of a distance that cannot be decomposed without its elements changing in nature.

 

因為肛門終究也表達了強烈度,當距離接近於零時,這個距離一瓦解,生命的元素性質也跟著改變。

 

A field of anuses, just like a pack of wolves. Does not the child, on the periphery, hold onto the wolves by his anus?

 

人不過是肛門的場地,就像狼群沒兩樣。小孩子不是用他們的肛門相觸,接近狼群?

 

The jaw descends to the anus. Hold onto those wolves by your jaw and your anus.

 

下巴低觸對方肛門。下巴跟肛門,那些狼群彼此接近。

 

The jaw is not a wolf jaw, it’s not that simple; jaw and wolf form a multiplicity that is transformed into eye and wolf, anus and wolf, as a function of other distances, at other speeds, with other multiplicities, between thresholds.

 

下巴並非狼的下巴,並沒有那麼單純。下巴跟狼組成的多重性,被轉變成眼睛跟狼,肛門跟狼,這是其他距離,其他速度,跟其它多重性,在門檻之間發揮功用。

 

Lines of flight or of deterritorialization, becoming-wolf, becoming-inhuman,

deterritorialized intensities: that is what multiplicity is.

 

逃離路線或解轄域,生成狼,生成非人,被解放轄域的強烈生命力,這些就是多重性。

 

To become wolf or to become hole is to deterritorialize oneself following distinct but entangled lines.

 

生成狼或生成洞,就是遵照清楚而糾纏得逃離路線,解自己的轄域。

 

A hole is no more negative than a wolf. Castration, lack, substitution: a tale told by an overconscious idiot who has no understanding of multiplicities as formations of the unconscious.

 

洞跟狼均非負面。閹割,欠缺,置換,這些都是過度敏感的白癡所說的故事。他們不瞭解多重性是無意識的生力軍。

 

A wolf is a hole, they are both particles of the unconscious, nothing but particles,

productions of particles, particulate paths, as elements of molecular multiplicities.

 

狼人是洞,他們具是無意識的分子,僅僅就是分子,分子的產生,分子化的路線,作為分子多重性的元素。

 

 

It is not even sufficient to say that intense and moving particles pass through holes; a hole is just as much a particle as what passes through it.

 

說強烈及移動的分子通過洞,還是委婉的說法。洞跟通過它的東西,同樣是分子。

 

Physicists say that holes are not the absence of particles but particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Flying anuses, speeding vaginas, there is no castration.

 

物理學家說,洞不是分子的欠缺,而是分子旅行快過光速。肛門飛行,陰道奔馳,哪有時間讓你閹割?

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

雄伯手記980625

June 25, 2009

雄伯手記980625

 

早上起來打開網頁,首先看到的新聞是大陸異議份子劉曉波,被逮捕起訴「鼓動顛覆政府體制」,換言之,是「反革命」的罪名。光看這個罪名就覺得很反諷,現在的共產黨的政府體制,不就是顛覆滿清政府體制及國民黨的「中華民國」政府體制而來?創國先烈可以拋頭顱,灑熱血,搞革命顛覆,現在人家不過是爭取民主自由的理想罷了,就變成「反革命」?唉!既得利益者若是不肯自我反省經濟開放後貧富懸殊的民心的向背,及民主自由不僅是時代潮流,也是知識份子的人生理想及信仰,光想憑藉司法警察,控制媒體,或軍事武力的鎮壓就會有效果,滿清政府的體制迄今將猶存。

 

前幾個星期讀書會討論到哲學家巴地烏Badiou論德勒茲的事件Events,其中有一條定理:The event is always that which has just happened and that which is about to happen, but never that which is happening.(事件總是剛剛發生,即將發生,但從不是正在發生。)

 

A始而不解地問:「為何不是正在發生?」然後恍然大悟地自行回答:「喔!我明白了,事件的元素要有先因後果,而不僅僅是正在發生。猶如俗稱的盧溝橋事變,在德勒茲眼中只是導火線。真正的事件是日本侵華。若先因後果的潛在元素始終存在,總是會有導火線點燃!」

雄伯手記980624

June 24, 2009

雄伯手記980624

 

從網路下載到描述世界末日的電影「先知」。光看片名就可以預感到是科幻虛擬,難於置信,可是,情節的逼真生動像是掐著我脖子般地把它分節看完。我珍貴生命中的兩個多小時的夜晚,就是這樣度過的。或許說,我的大半生其實也就是這樣半信半疑地度過的。

 

意識流突然浮上前幾個星期讀書會,討論到心理學家榮格的「論死後生命」On Life after Death,年輕的E一開始就單刀直入:「老師,你相信你死後有靈魂繼續存在嗎?」

 

一向半信半疑讀書過日子的我,面對這樣人身攻擊般的問題,一時之間,只能閃爍其詞,模稜兩可地回答:「我相信人是應該有靈魂的,但是生時若已經覺得是若存若亡,遑論死後?」

雄伯手記980623

June 23, 2009

雄伯手記980623

 

猶山節考是二十幾年前的日本老片。讀書會中B描述完畫家培根的「主教三聯畫」後,又繼續神采飛揚地述說猶山節考電影裡,滑稽好笑的性愛情節跟對白。我意識流浮現的畫面,卻是老婦人自忖時候已到,吩咐兒子依照傳統,將她背到深山丟棄。沿途中看到的,儘是慘不忍睹的禿鷹及野獸啄食屍骨的場景,老婦人卻泰然自若要兒子繼續前進。兒子驚恐中慌亂捨棄,奔跑下山。

 

「真是個好天氣的日子!」老婦人望著飄落的雪花說。

 

「雪花降落,表示身體凍僵的速度快,可減少死亡過程的痛苦跟恐懼。」在大學兼希臘神話課的A補充地說。

 

上個月親戚F的尊翁過世,我前往弔唁。出來時攙扶著將近九十歲的長輩G同行。他步履緩慢,喃喃自語:「年紀大了,總歸是要走的!」

 

「哪裡!現在人活到一百以上的人多的是!」

 

讀了那麼多閒雜書的我,一時之下,只能免強擠出這麼一句。歸途中,一直在想,面對每個人都終將面臨的死亡,話說得漂亮與否,或索性完全不說,會有什麼差別嗎?

雄伯手記980621

June 22, 2009

雄伯手記980621

 

今天的讀書會是五人,必須挪動桌椅靠併,杯盤也跟著移動。忙亂之間,B突然分不清哪一杯涼水飲料是她先前喝過的。

 

「呀!你今天沒擦口紅!」以機智見長的A馬上神來一筆。

 

B 一時之間沒會意過來,尷尬而讘嚅地解釋:「我原是想讀書會的場合,素顏打扮較好。」然後突然醒悟到,口紅痕跡可用於辨認飲料杯子的跳躍思維式的幽默,臉不自覺地泛紅了一下。

 

今天讀書會選的是哲學家德勒茲的「神秘主義及受虐狂」Mysticism and masochism。這篇記者跟德勒茲對談的英譯,我原先放置在agencement 網頁,準備讓幾位年輕網友共同參與翻譯。

 

   出乎意料,尚未有人參與中譯,就有網友以英文寄來他的感想:A sadist is a person who is being nice to a masochist…strange but true! (虐待狂對於受虐狂很好,奇怪但是事實!)

 

    對於虐待狂跟受虐狂互為表裡的一致性,年輕的E首先表示認同,因為他去年剛讀過一本這樣的小說「女鋼琴師」:從小家教謹嚴的女鋼琴師,以刀片切割皮膚的自虐方式滿足性慾望的壓抑。有一年輕男生被其豔如桃李,冷若冰霜的神采所吸引,發動追求,卻被要求要以受虐方式滿足性交。也就是男生手腳被捆綁凌辱,女鋼琴師則予愛撫口交。男生受辱之後,轉而以暴力相向,取得滿足。於是彼此之間愛恨交加,迷戀跟傷害糾纏不清。

 

    讀到記者問有關受虐狂字詞的起源者Masoch,德勒茲卻大談虐待狂字詞的起源者Sade,以拆解虛假的認同 ( pseudo-identity) ,C忽然以最近所見所聞印證:

  教官半夜起來小解,看見某宿舍房間電燈亮著,前往查看,原來是數位學生正在偷看A片。於是人贓俱獲地移送記過。有同仁緩頰說:「人家都已經忍到深夜才看,你還捉。你自己的青春期是怎麼過的?」

雄伯手記980620

June 22, 2009

雄伯手記980620

 

「導演拍那些場景,像是掐著觀眾的脖子,強迫觀看。」C激動地說著。

 

我本想說「導演掐你脖子,是要你觀看你的生命,而不僅僅是影片場景。」話到嘴邊,卻又抑著。將近四十年為人師長的修養跟制約,養成說話不可唐突的習慣,遑論掐人脖子。

 

颱風天的週日早上,大雨滂沱中,B 開著越野車載我去早餐店參加讀書會。話題轉到大陸導演婁燁的頤和園時,我不自覺地拋出一個問題:「李緹為什麼自殺?」

 

「激情沒了,只好自殺。」

    「激情沒了,就要自殺,那該死要死的人可多了!」

     機敏的A迅速地轉圜,「我回去再看一遍,再跟你討論。」

 

    我觀看頤和園,是從網路分上下集免費下載。上集像是清晰版,除了動作對白,還用片頭字幕及日記剖析,跟你說得條理清楚。下集卻是連畫面都矇朧,李緹在德國遊行之後,站在樓頂邊緣,周偉過去跟其它男生借火抽煙。鴿子驚起振飛,李緹淡漠微笑,仰身躍下。

 

    為什麼?

 

    思索了幾天,終於略有有悟:李緹的愛比余虹的愛更強烈,更艱辛。余虹的愛激情狂熱,大膽任性,卻也很自然合理。李緹的愛卻是必須克服對於自己原有男友若古的良心背叛(周偉是若古的好朋友),也要克服跟自己知己般的暱友余虹道義上的背叛。一般女人在任何一道關卡前,早就謹守分寸,知難而退,李緹卻悍然跨越過去。

 

     這樣激情的愛一但失落,或發現原先崇敬跟愛慕的理想主義者,敵不過現實環境的誘拐而沉淪,除了以身殉情、殉理想,殉內在自我的完美形象外,還能有什麼選擇?回國後的周偉在商業職場,應酬於某董某總之間的交際,即使連繫到舊情綿綿的余虹,尚有何面目跟心情重續舊歡?悵然若失地離開不是順理成章嗎?

 

    「人類死而平等。嚮往光明的人,不畏懼黑暗。」這是導演婁燁在大環境下的文藝腔。我的意識流浮現的卻是三十幾年前,戒嚴時期的台灣,一本政論性雜誌的典型封面:一張簡陋桌上,幾隻螃蟹。題詞是:「冷眼看螃蟹,看你橫行到幾時!」

一狼或多狼 01

June 20, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guatari

 

德勒茲及瓜達里:千高台

 

2. 1914: One or Several Wolves?

1914年2月:一狼或多狼 01

Field of Tracks, or Wolf Line

蹤跡場地或狼蹤

 

That day, the Wolf-Man rose from the couch particularly tired. He knew that Freud had a genius for brushing up against the truth and passing it by, then filling the void with associations. He knew that Freud knew nothing about wolves, or anuses for that matter. The only thing Freud understood was what a dog is, and a dog’s tail. It wasn’t enough. It wouldn’t be enough.

 

那一天,狼人從沙發上站起來,特別疲倦。他知道佛洛伊德擅長於拆解真相,旁敲側擊,然後替空無填上聯想。他知道,佛洛伊德對於狼一無所知,可說是啥都茫然。唯一佛洛伊德知道的是啥是狗,是狗的尾巴。那夠啥用,當然不夠。

 

The Wolf-Man knew that Freud would soon declare him cured, but that it was not at all the case and his treatment would continue for all eternity under Brunswick, Lacan, Leclaire.

 

狼人知道,佛洛伊德不久會宣告他已被治療了,但是事實並非如此。依照部魯維克、拉岡、及雷克列的說法,他的治療將繼續到永遠。

 

Finally, he knew that he was in the process of acquiring a veritable proper name, the Wolf-Man, a name more properly his than his own, since it attained the highest degree of singularity in the instantaneous apprehension of a generic multiplicity: wolves.

 

最後,他知道他正得得一個可證實的專有名詞,狼人。這個名字與其說是屬於他,不如說是適用於他,因為它得到最高層次的獨特性,狼的多重分類的目前理解。

 

He knew that this new and true proper name would be disfigured and misspelled,

retranscribed as a patronymic. Freud, for his part, would go on to write some extraordinary pages.

 

他知道新而真實的專有名詞將會受到扭曲及誤植,重新被書寫為父執之命名。佛洛伊德就自己而言,將繼續寫作一些特別的研究。

 

Entirely practical pages: his article of 1915 on “The Unconscious,” which deals with the difference between neurosis and psychosis.

 

完全是實用的文頁,他在1915的文章,論「無意識」,處理精神官能症跟變態症。

 

Freud says that hysterics or obsessives are people capable of making a global comparison between a sock and a vagina, a scar and castration, etc.

 

佛洛伊德說,歇斯底里症者或妄想症者能夠將襪子跟女陰,疤痕跟閹割等等,作全盤對比的人。

 

Doubtless, it is at one and the same time that they apprehend the object globally and perceive it as lost.

 

無疑的,他們也同時全盤理解客體,並認識到它已經喪失。

 

Yet it would never occur to a neurotic to grasp the skin erotically as a multiplicity of pores, little spots, little scars or black holes, or to grasp the sock erotically as a multiplicity of stitches.

 

可是,精神官能症者卻從未想到要從性慾去理解皮膚,當著是多重毛孔,小斑點,小疤痕,或黑色毛孔,或以性感慾解襪子,當著是多重針線。

 

The psychotic can: “we should expect the multiplicity of these little cavities to prevent him from using them as substitutes for the female genital.”1

 

變態症者則能夠:「我們應該期望這些多重的罅隙,阻止他不要使用它們當著是女性性器官的代用品。」

 

Comparing a sock to a vagina is OK, it’s done all the time, but you’d have to be insane to compare a pure aggregate of stitches to a field of vaginas: that’s what Freud says.

 

將襪子比喻陰戶沒問題,總是有人這樣比,但是將純粹的針線集合比喻陰戶地帶,則必須是瘋狂。佛洛伊德如是說。

 

This represents an important clinical discovery: a whole difference in style between neurosis and psychosis.

 

這代表診所有重要的發現:精神官能症跟變態症風格上完全不同。

 

For example, Salvador Dali, in attempting to reproduce his delusions, may go on at length about THE rhinoceros horn; he has not for all of that left neurotic discourse behind.

 

例如,薩爾瓦多、達利,企圖複製自己的幻覺,可能會詳細地描繪犀牛角;雖然如此,他仍然被認為是精神官能症者。

 

But when he starts comparing goosebumps to a field of tiny rhinoceros horns, we get the feeling that the atmosphere has changed and that we are now in the presence of madness.

 

但是,當他開始將鵝皮比喻為犀牛角地帶時,我們就覺得,氣氛已經改變,我們現在面對的是瘋狂。

 

Is it still a question of a comparison at all? It is, rather, a pure multiplicity that changes elements, or becomes.

 

這依舊還是比喻的問題嗎?相反的,純粹的多重性改變了元素,換言之,生成

 

On the micrological level, the little bumps “become” horns, and the horns, little penises.

 

在細微邏輯,小鵝皮「生成」犀牛角,而犀牛角「生成」陽具。

 

No sooner does Freud discover the greatest art of the unconscious, this art of molecular multiplicities, than we find him tirelessly at work bringing back molar unities, reverting to his familiar themes of the father, the penis, the vagina, Castration with a capital C… (On the verge of discovering a rhizome, Freud always returns to mere roots.)

 

佛洛伊德一發現無意識的偉大藝術,分子多重性的這個藝術,我們就發現他樂此不疲地帶回分子一致性,重新回到他熟悉的主題:父親、陽具、陰戶、閹割、而且特別用閹割英文大寫字首C(佛洛伊德即將發現塊莖,卻總是回到根源。)

 

The reductive procedure of the 1915 article is quite interesting: he says that the comparisons and identifications of the neurotic are guided by representations of things, whereas all the psychotic has left are representations of words (for example, the word “hole”).

 

1915年那篇文章描述化減的程序,頗耐人尋味;他說,精神官能症的比較跟認同,可用事物的符號來引導,而所有的變態症所留下的是字的符號(例如,「洞」這個字)。

 

“What has dictated the substitution is not the resemblance between the things denoted but the sameness of the words used to express them” (p. 201).

 

支配代替的不是所指稱的事物的類同,而是被用來表達他們的字的相同。

 

Thus, when there is no unity in the thing, there is at least unity and identity in the word.

 

因此,雖然事物裡沒有一致性,至少在字裡有一致性跟認同。

 

It will be noted that names are taken in their extensive usage, in other words, function as common nouns ensuring the unification of an aggregate they subsume.

 

我將注意到,名稱是採用廣義用法,換言之,充當普通名詞的功用,保證他們所包含的集合的一致性。

 

The proper name can be nothing more than an extreme case of the common noun, containing its already domesticated multiplicity within itself and linking it to a being or object posited as unique.

 

專有名詞僅僅是普通名詞的極端情形,包含它已經馴化的多重性在裡面,連接到一個被假定為獨特的存在或客體。

 

This jeopardizes, on the side of words and things both, the relation of the proper name as an intensity to the multiplicity it instantaneously apprehends.

 

在文字及事物這一面,這樣會危害倒專有名詞作為它瞬間所理解的多重性的張力的關係。

 

For Freud, when the thing splinters and loses its identity, the word is still there to restore that identity or invent a new one.

 

對於佛洛伊德,當事物破裂,失去它的認同,文字依舊在那裡,可恢復那個認同或發明新的認同。

 

Freud counted on the word to reestablish a unity no longer found in things.

 

佛洛伊德依靠文字,建立一個在事物中已經找不到的一致性。

 

Are we not witnessing the first stirrings of a subsequent adventure, that of the Signifier, the devious despotic agency that substitutes itself for asignifying proper names and replaces multiplicities with the dismal unity of an object declared lost?

 

我們難道不是見證到隨之而來的冒險的興奮,符號具的興奮,偏離的專橫做法代替非符號的專有名詞,並且用被宣稱已經喪失的客體的黯淡的一致性,來代替多重性。

 

We’re not far from wolves. For the Wolf-Man, in his second so-called psychotic episode, kept constant watch over the variations or changing path of the little holes or scars on the skin of his nose.

 

我們跟狼差不多。在他第二次所謂的變態的發作,狼人不斷地觀察到,他鼻子的皮膚上的疤痕的小洞的變化,或不斷地改變路線。

 

During the first episode, which Freud declares neurotic, he recounted a dream he had about six or seven wolves in a tree, and drew five.

 

在第一次的發作,佛洛伊德宣稱是精神官能症。狼人描述他夢見樹上有大約六七隻狼,並且畫出五隻。

 

Who is ignorant of the fact that wolves travel in packs? Only Freud. Every child knows it. Not Freud.

 

狼出沒都是成群結隊,有誰不知道這個事實?只有佛洛伊德不知道。每個小孩都知道,佛洛伊德不知道。

 

With false scruples he asks, “ How are we to explain the fact that there are five, six, or seven wolves in this dream? “

 

佛洛伊德假惺惺地問:我們要如何解釋在這個夢中,狼怎麼有五隻、六隻、或七隻?

 

He has decided that this is neurosis, so he uses the other reductive procedure: free association on the level of the representation of things, rather than verbal subsumption on the level of the representation of words.

 

他已經決定,這是精神官能症。所以他用其他的化減程序:在事物符號的層次上自由聯想,而不是文字的符號層次的文詞包容。

 

The result is the same, since it is always a question of bringing back the unity or identity of the person or allegedly lost object.

 

結果是相同,因為問題總是要帶回這個人,或所指稱的迷失的客體的一致性或認同

 

The wolves will have to be purged of their multiplicity. This operation is accomplished by associating the dream with the tale, “The Wolf and the Seven Kid-Goats” (only six of which get eaten).

 

狼將必須清除他們的多重性。將夢跟故事聯想在一起,就是他們所完全的運作。

 

We witness Freud’s reductive glee; we literally see multiplicity leave the wolves to take the shape of goats that have absolutely nothing to do with the story.

 

我們見證到佛洛伊德化減的歡欣;我們真的看到多重性離開狼,形成絕對跟故事無關的山羊的形狀。

 

Seven wolves that are only kid-goats. Six wolves: the seventh goat (the Wolf-Man himself) is hiding in the clock.

 

七隻狼只是小山羊。六隻狼:第七隻山羊(狼人自己)躲在大鐘裡面。

 

Five wolves: he may have seen his parents make love at five o’clock, and the roman numeral V is associated with the erotic spreading of a woman’s legs.

 

五隻狼:他可能曾看過他的父母在五點鐘做愛,鐘面的羅馬數字五是V狀,跟女人的雙腳性感地攤開聯想在一起。

 

Three wolves: the parents may have made love three times. Two wolves: the first coupling the child may have seen was the two parents more ferarum, or perhaps even two dogs.

 

三隻狼:父母可能曾經做愛三次。兩隻狼:小孩可能曾看過第一次性交是父母的獸交姿勢(從後面),或可能甚至是兩隻狗。

 

One wolf: the wolf is the father, as we all knew from the start. Zero wolves: he lost his tail, he is not just a castrater but also castrated.

 

一隻狼:狼是父親,如同我們從一開始就知道。零隻狼:它失去尾巴,它不僅是閹割別人,而且被人閹割。

 

Who is Freud trying to fool? The wolves never had a chance to get away and save their pack: it was already decided from the very beginning that animals could serve only to represent coitus between parents, or, conversely, be represented by coitus between parents.

 

佛洛伊德想要愚弄誰?狼從未有機會逃離,去拯救狼群。從一開始就已經決定:動物只能充當代表父母之間的性交,或是,相反的,被父母之間的性交所代表。

 

Freud obviously knows nothing about the fascination exerted by wolves and the meaning of their silent call, the call to become-wolf.

 

佛洛伊德顯而易見完全不知道,狼所從事的著迷,以及它們沉默的呼喚,呼喚成為狼。

 

Wolves watch, intently watch, the dreaming child; it is so much more reassuring to tell oneself that the dream produced a reversal and that it is really the child who sees dogs or parents in the act of making love.

 

狼觀察,專注地觀察作夢的小孩;若能告訴自己,夢產生倒轉,是多麼的令人寬慰。真的是小孩看到狗或父母正在做愛。

 

Freud only knows the Oedipalized wolf or dog, the castrated-castrating daddy-wolf, the dog in the kennel, the analyst’s bow-wow.

 

佛洛伊德只知道伊底普斯情結的狼或狗,被閹割及閹割人的父狼,狗舍中的狗,分析師的犬吠聲。

 

Franny is listening to a program on wolves. I say to her, Would you like to be a wolf? She answers haughtily, How stupid, you can’t be one wolf, you’re always eight or nine, six or seven.

 

扶蘭尼正在聽有關狼的節目,我對她說:「你想要成為狼嗎?」她高傲地回答:「大笨蛋!你無法成為狼,你總是八或九,六或七。」

 

Not six or seven wolves all by yourself all at once, but one wolf among others, with five or six others.

 

不是六或七之狼突然單獨在一起,而是一隻狼在其他狼中間,跟其他五、六隻其他的狼。

 

In becoming-wolf, the important thing is the position of the mass, and above all the position of the subject itself in relation to the pack or wolf-multiplicity: how the

subject joins or does not join the pack, how far away it stays, how it does or does not hold to the multiplicity.

 

在成為狼時,重要的事情是團體的位置,尤其是主體本身,相對於狼群或狼的多重性的位置;主體如何加入或不加入狼群,他保持多遠,他如何保持多重性。

 

 

To soften the harshness of her response, Franny recounts a dream: “There is a desert. Again, it wouldn’t make any sense to say that I am in the desert. It’s a panoramic vision of the desert, and it’s not a tragic or uninhabited desert. It’s only a desert because of its ocher

color and its blazing, shadowless sun. There is a teeming crowd in it, a swarm of bees, a rumble of soccer players, or a group of Tuareg. I am on the edge of the crowd, at the periphery; but I belong to it, I am attached to it by one of my extremities, a hand or foot. I know that the periphery is the only place I can be, that I would die if I let myself be drawn into the center of the fray, but just as certainly if I let go of the crowd. This is not an easy position to stay in, it is even very difficult to hold, for these beings are in constant

motion and their movements are unpredictable and follow no rhythm. They swirl, go north, then suddenly east; none of the individuals in the crowd remains in the same place in relation to the others. So I too am in perpetual motion; all this demands a high level of tension, but it gives me a feeling of violent, almost vertiginous, happiness.”

 

為了舒緩她回答時的無禮,扶蘭尼描述一個夢:「有一處沙漠。而且,說我在沙漠裡是沒多大意義。這是沙漠的全景,這並不是悲劇或無人居住的沙漠。這只是沙漠,因為它是黃土色,而且陽光炙熱,沒有陰涼。有一群人,一群蜜蜂,足球球員的喊聲,或許多汽車。我在群眾邊緣,在邊緣,但是我屬於那裡,我的某些突出部份,手或腳,跟他們連接。我知道邊緣是唯一我能夠停駐的地方,假如我讓自己被捲入喧嘩的中央,我將完蛋,或是假如我脫離群眾,我也一定完蛋。停駐邊緣並不是容易的位置。要站穩甚至很困難,因為這些存在物不斷地在移動,他們的動作捉摸不定,沒有一定節奏。他們旋轉,向前,然後突然向東,群眾的個人沒有一位保持在跟別人相對比的相同位置。所以,我也處於不斷的移動,所有這些都要求高度的專注,但是這樣給我猛烈到幾乎是暈眩的快樂之感。」

 

A very good schizo dream. To be fully a part of the crowd and at the same time completely outside it, removed from it: to be on the edge, to take a walk like Virginia Woolf (never again will I say, “I am this, I am that”).2

 

這是典型的精神分裂的夢:完全是群眾的一部份,同時又完全地在群眾之外,遠離群眾。在邊緣,像維吉尼亞、吳爾夫的散步(我永遠不再說:「我是這,我是那」。)

 

Problems of peopling in the unconscious: all that passes through the pores of the schizo, the veins of the drug addict, swarming, teeming, ferment, intensities, races and tribes.

 

在無意識人群的問題:一切都通過精神分裂的毛孔,毒癮者的靜脈,蜂擁,麇集,騷動,緊張,種族及部落。

 

This tale of white skin prickling with bumps and pustules, and of dwarfish black heads emerging from pores grimacing and abominable, needing to be shaved off every morning—is it a tale by Jean Ray, who knew how to bring terror to phenomena of

micromultiplicity? And how about the “Lilliputian hallucinations” on ether?

 

這個故事是:凸塊及膿包刺痛皮膚,從毛孔出現侏儒般的黑頭,猙獰而可怕,每天早晨要刮乾淨。這難道不是禎雷的故事?他知道如何帶來恐怖給微小多重性的現象。格列佛遊記中的「小人國」是如何觀看天空的?

 

One schizo, two schizos, three: “There are babies growing in my every pore”—”With me, it’s not in the pores, it’s in my veins, little iron rods growing in my veins”—”I don’t want them to give me any shots, except with camphorated alcohol. Otherwise breasts grow in my every pore.”

 

一位精神分裂症,兩位精神分裂症,三位:「我的每處毛孔,都有嬰兒成長。」「對我而言,這不是在毛孔,而是在我的靜脈,小鐵棒在我的靜脈裡成長。」「我不想要他們給我打針,除了用跟樟腦混合的酒精。否則乳房會長在我的每一處毛孔。」

 

Freud tried to approach crowd phenomena from the point of view of the unconscious, but he did not see clearly, he did not see that the unconscious itself was fundamentally a crowd. He was myopic and hard of hearing; he mistook crowds for a single person.

 

佛洛伊德設法從無意識的觀點接近群眾現象,但是他並沒有看清楚,他並沒有看到,無意識本身基本上是群眾。他近視眼,而且重聽,他誤將群眾當著是一個人。

 

Schizos, on the other hand, have sharp eyes and ears. They don’t mistake the buzz and shove of the crowd for daddy’s voice. Once Jung had a dream about bones and skulls.

 

在另一方面,精神分裂症眼睛和耳朵都銳利。他們並沒有將嗡嗡聲及群眾的推擠當著是老爸的聲音。

 

A bone or a skull is never alone. Bones are a multiplicity. But Freud wants the dream to signify the death of someone. “Jung was surprised and pointed out that there were several skulls, not just one. Yet Freud still. . .”3

 

骨頭或頭顱從不孤單。骨頭是多重性,但是佛洛伊德要夢象徵某個人的死亡。「榮格「很驚呀地指出,頭顱有好幾個,不是一個。可是,佛洛伊德卻、、、」」

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

雄伯手記980614

June 17, 2009

雄伯手記980614

我高中時就雅好文藝,常在救國團寫作協會每週一次學生園地發表。後來認識學長編輯A,才知道他整理稿件,簡易編輯後,再轉送地方B報副刊編輯。由於並無稿費,稿源極缺,他竟將編輯權轉讓與我。 當時少不更事,卻興致勃勃。接手後以為可以大展宏圖,竟在編後記大敘胸懷,謂將致力於改善當時鉛字排板,錯別字誤植的狀況。不料竟引起報社勃然怒斥:「我們提供報紙空間讓你們發表,又沒收廣告費,你們沒有感激,反而嫌錯別字太多!」

大學畢業後,在地方學校服務,亦偶爾替地方C報的副刊寫寫稿。有一次應邀參加該報社長親自主持的文藝發展座談會,會中出乎意料之外,大部份作者的發言,對於文藝發展方向興趣索然,倒是對於報社發行蒸蒸日上,卻從未給予副刊作者稿費多所吐槽。總編輯眼見社長臉面難下,起而轉圜:「我們當年寫作,只是理想奔騰,從未曾想到錢!」

 最近數週來,在網路上發現幾個絕佳的網站,可以免費下載電影及書藉,於是日以繼夜地沉迷不拔。不是完全沒有想到,會不會有被資本主義教育制約的版權的問題,只是厚顏地自圓其說:我自己在網路上寫作翻譯,也不曾跟人拿過什麼稿費。免費地享受一下別人的慷慨,算是廣義的互惠罷!

其實這樣地思維,就已經是中了資本主義合法版權教育宣傳的毒素。網路是憑藉電腦科技新開發的蠻荒新世界,混沌中水陸雜陳,眾英繽紛,資本主義的商業忙於掠奪有利潤的版圖,無暇顧及邊荒地帶,讓我們尚有粱山泊搖孤舟唱山歌的優遊空間,只是文明越進步,合法性的論述越是操控在商業利潤的權力者手中,真不知道這樣桃花源式的良辰美景,尚能存在多久?

 唉!別杞人憂天了!今朝有酒今朝醉罷!