塊莖思維 11

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Guatari

德勒茲及瓜達里:千高台

Introduction: Zhizome 導論:塊莖思維 11

A plateau is always in the middle, not at the beginning or the end. A rhizome is made of plateaus. Gregory Bateson uses the word “plateau” to designate something very special: a continuous, self-vibrating region of intensities whose development avoids any orientation toward a culmination point or external end.

高台總是在中間,不是在開始或結束。塊莖由高台組成。格瑞哥、巴特孫使用「高台」指明某建特別的東西:一個連續,自我振動的張力地區,其發展避免朝向高潮或外在的目的。

Bateson cites Balinese culture as an example: mother-child sexual games, and even quarrels among men, undergo this bizarre intensive stabilization. “Some sort of continuing plateau of intensity is substituted for [sexual] climax,” war, or a culmination point.

巴特孫引述巴尼斯的文化當例子:母親與小孩的性遊戲,甚至男人之間的爭鬥,都經歷這種古怪的張力穩定。「有些張力的連續高台,被用來代替(性)高潮、戰爭、或高潮點。」

It is a regrettable characteristic of the Western mind to relate expressions and actions to exterior or transcendent ends, instead of evaluating them on a plane of consistency on the basis of their intrinsic value.

西方心靈令人遺憾的特性是,將表達及行動連接到外在的或超驗的目的,而不是在一貫的平面,根據它們內在的價質評估他們。

For example, a book composed of chapters has culmination and termination points.

例如,一本由章節組成的書,有高潮及終結點。

What takes place in a book composed instead of plateaus that communicate with one another across microfissures, as in a brain?

相反的,若是由高台組成的書,彼此之間跨越微小罅隙來溝通,會是如何狀況?

We call a “plateau” any multiplicity connected to other multiplicities by superficial underground stems in such a way as to form or extend a rhizome.

我們稱呼「高台」為連接到其它多重性的多重性,靠著表面的地下幹莖,形成或衍生塊莖。

We are writing this book as a rhizome. It is composed of plateaus. We have given it a circular form, but only for laughs.

我們寫作這本書當著塊莖。它由無數高台組成。我們賦予它一個迴旋的形態,但只是博君一笑。

Each morning we would wake up, and each of us would ask himself what plateau he was going to tackle, writing five lines here, ten there.

 每天早上我們醒來,各自問道,他想克服哪個高台,這裡寫個五行,那裡寫個十行。

We had hallucinatory experiences, we watched lines leave one plateau and proceed to another like columns of tiny ants.

我們曾經有幻覺的經驗,我們在字裡行間,離開一個高台,繼續前進另一個高台,密密麻麻,像螞蟻窩。

We made circles of convergence. Each plateau can be read starting anywhere and can be related to any other plateau.

我們形成匯聚圈。每個高台能夠從任何點被閱讀,從任何點跟其它高台相連。

 To attain the multiple, one must have a method that effectively constructs it; no typographical cleverness, no lexical agility, no blending or creation of words, no syntactical boldness, can substitute for it.

為了到達多重性,我們必須要有效率地建造它的方法;這些方法可不是編排靈活,遣詞機敏,鑄造新義,或語不驚人死不休,就可以代替的。

In fact, these are more often than not merely mimetic procedures used to disseminate or disperse a unity that is retained in a different dimension for an image-book.

事實上,往往只有模擬的程序,被用來拆解或擴散一致性。這種一致性在不同向度的意象的書是司空見慣的。

Technonarcissism. Typographical, lexical, or syntactic creations are necessary only when they no longer belong to the form of expression of a hidden unity, becoming themselves dimensions of the multiplicity under consideration; we only know of rare successes in this.

科技迷戀:編排、辭彙、或語法的鑄造,是有需要,但只有當它們不再屬於隱藏一致性的表達形式, 本身成為我們所討論的多重性的向度時。我們知道這一點成就,只是偶爾曇花一現。

We ourselves were unable to do it. We just used words that in turn function for us as plateaus.

我們自己是力有不貸。我們只是權且借助文字的功用替我們充當高台。

RHIZOMATICS =SCHIZOANALYSIS = STRATOANALYSIS = PRAGMATICS = MICROPOLITics.

塊莖學、等同精神分裂學、等同階層分析學、等同語用學、等同微小政治學。

These words are concepts, but concepts are lines, which is to say, number systems attached to a particular dimension of the multiplicities (strata, molecular chains, lines of flight or rupture, circles of convergence, etc.).

這些文字都是概念,但是概念形之於字裡行間,換言之,數字系統連接於多重性的特別的向度(階層、分子鎖鏈、逃離或斷裂路線,匯聚圈,等等)。

Nowhere do we claim for our concepts the title of a science.

我絲毫不敢妄稱我們的概念具有科學的名銜。

 We are no more familiar with scientificity than we are with ideology; all we know are assemblages.

我們對於科學化及意識形態並不熟悉。我們所知道的只是裝配。

And the only assemblages are machinic assemblages of desire and collective assemblages of enunciation.

唯一的裝配就是對於欲望的機械式裝配,及對於表達的集體裝配。

No signifiance, no subjectification: writing to the nth power (all individuated enunciation remains trapped within the dominant significations, all signifying desire is associated with dominated subjects).

沒有意義化,沒有主體化:寫作到無限次方(所有個別化表達始終困陷於支配性的意義,所有符號化的欲望,都跟受支配的主體息息相關)。

An assemblage, in its multiplicity, necessarily acts on semiotic flows, material flows, and social flows simultaneously (independently of any recapitulation that may be made of it in a scientific or theoretical corpus).

以其多重性,裝配是必須的行動,在語意,物質,及社會的同時流動中(獨立於科學或理論文本常見的任何要點重現)。

There is no longer a tripartite division between a field of reality (the world) and a field of representation (the book) and a field of subjectivity (the author).

在真實領域(世界),符號領域(書),及主體化領域(作者)之間,不再有三足鼑立的區分。

 Rather, an assemblage establishes connections between certain multiplicities drawn from each of these orders, so that a book has no sequel nor the world as its object nor one or several authors as its subject.

相反的,裝配組成從這些秩序得來的某些多重性之間的連接,所以此書沒有續篇,也沒有世界充當它的客體,也沒有一兩位作者充當它的主體。

 In short, we think that one cannot write sufficiently in the name of an outside. The outside has no image, no signification, no subjectivity.

總之,我們認為以外在性為名,我們無論如何寫,也無法盡意。外在性沒有意象,沒有符號,沒有主體性。

The book as assemblage with the outside, against the book as image of the world. A rhizomebook, not a dichotomous, pivotal, or fascicular book.

本書作為外在性的裝配,對比於世界意象的書。本書是塊莖之書,不是二分法、樞軸的,或叢生的書。

Never send down roots, or plant them, however difficult it may be to avoid reverting to the old procedures.

要避免回歸舊有的秩序,無論是多麼困難,但是不要伸下根或種植它們。

“Those things which occur to me, occur to me not from the root up but rather only from somewhere about their middle. Let someone then attempt to seize them, let someone attempt to seize a blade of grass and hold fast to it when it begins to grow only from the middle.

” 那些發生到我身上的事情,不是從根上來,而僅是從中間某處上來,發生到我身上。那麼,讓某人企圖捉著它們,讓某人拿起一支草,緊緊握住,當它開始從中間滋長。

Why is this so difficult? The question is directly one of perceptual semiotics. It’s not easy to see things in the middle, rather than looking down on them from above or up at them from below, or from left to right or right to left: try it, you’ll see that everything changes.

為什麼這是如此困難?這問題直接說,是感官的問題。要從中間看事情,而不從上朝下,或從下朝上,或從左朝右,或從右朝左,並不容易。不妨嘗試一下,你就會看出,一切都會改變。

 It’s not easy to see the grass in things and in words (similarly, Nietzsche said that an aphorism had to be “ruminated”; never is a plateau separable from the cows that populate it, which are also the clouds in the sky).

要在事物及文字當中,看出草,並不容易。(同樣的,尼采說過,短句警語必須要被「反芻」;一座高台永遠無法跟居住其上母牛分開,這些母牛也是天空的雲。)

 History is always written from the sedentary point of view and in the name of a unitary State apparatus, at least a possible one, even when the topic is nomads.

歷史寫作,總是從定棲的觀點,及以統一的國家機器或可能的國家為名,即使題目是遊牧。

What is lacking is a Nomadology, the opposite of a history. There are rare successes in this also, for example, on the subject of the Children’s Crusades: Marcel Schwob’s book multiplies narratives like so many plateaus with variable numbers of dimensions.

所喪失是遊牧學,歷史的相反。對於這一點,成功的例子鳳毛麟角,例如,討論兒童十字軍東征的主題:馬賽、希瓦的書,描述千變萬化,像許多座高台,出奇入化。

 Then there is Andrzejewski’s book, Lesportes du paradis (The gates of paradise), composed of a single uninterrupted sentence; a flow of children; a flow of walking with pauses, straggling, and forward rushes; the semiotic flow of the confessions of all the children who go up to the old monk at the head of the procession to make their declarations; a flow of desire and sexuality, each child having left out of love and more or less directly led by the dark posthumous pederastic desire of the count of Vendôme; all this with circles of convergence.

 還有安傑思基的書「天堂之門」。寫作時句子一氣呵成,童心瀰漫,走走停停,時而偏離,時而急速前行,所有小孩前往隊伍前頭的老僧侶面前,陳述或告解,妙語如珠。裡面有欲望跟性的流動,所有小孩出發的動機出於愛情,多少曾直接受到邊度梅伯爵同性戀慾望的啟發,儘管他已經過世。所有這些形成匯聚圈。

What is important is not whether the flows are “One or multiple”–we’re past that point: there is a collective assemblage of enunciation, a machinic assemblage of desire, one inside the other and both plugged into an immense outside that is a multiplicity in any case.

重要的不是流動是否「一或多重」,我們已經跨越這一點。表達有集體的裝配,慾望的機械的裝配,彼此互有,兩者銜接倒巨大的外在性,那就是多重性。

A more recent example is Armand Farrachi’s book on the Fourth Crusade, La dislocation, in which the sentences space themselves out and disperse, or else jostle together and coexist, and in which the letters, the typography begin to dance as the crusade grows more delirious.

最近的例子是阿曼、法拉其的論第四次十字軍東征的書「大崩解」,句子間隔很寬,而且分散,要不然就是擠成一團,共同存在。隨著十字軍東征更加狂熱,字母及編排也跟著龍飛鳳舞起來。

 These are models of nomadic and rhizomatic writing. Writing weds a war machine and lines of flight, abandoning the strata, segmentarities, sedentarity, the State apparatus.

這些都是遊牧及塊莖的寫作模式。寫作跟戰爭機器及逃離路線相結合,放棄階層,隔間、定棲,國家機器。

But why is a model still necessary?

但是為什麼需要這樣的模式呢?

Aren’t these books still “images” of the Crusades? Don’t they still retain a unity, in Schwob’s case a pivotal unity, in Farrachi’s an aborted unity, and in the most beautiful example, Les portes du paradis, the unity of the funereal count?

 這些書難道不還是十字軍東征的「意象」?他們難道沒有保留一致性?希瓦的書仍然有樞軸的一致性,法拉基的書一致性雖墮尚存,最為生花妙筆的,「異端的天堂」難道不是一致性地描述伯爵的喪禮?

Is there a need for a more profound nomadism than that of the Crusades, a nomadism of true nomads, or of those who no longer even move or imitate anything?

還有需要尋求比十字軍東征更加深刻的遊牧嗎?他們不就是道道地地的遊牧民族的遊牧?何需再跟別人東施效顰?

The nomadism of those who only assemble (agencent). How can the book find an adequate outside with which to assemble in heterogeneity, rather than a world to reproduce?

他們就是那些只是裝配的人的遊牧。這本書是如何找到充足的外在性,讓它們在異質性中裝配,而不是在一個世界中複製?

The cultural book is necessarily a tracing: already a tracing of itself, a tracing of the previous book by the same author, a tracing of other books however different they may be, an endless tracing of established concepts and words, a tracing of the world present, past, and future.

文化的書必須是蹤跡,本身已經是蹤跡,相同作者的先前的書的蹤跡,其它的書的蹤跡,儘管它們並不相同,已經建立的觀念及文字的蹤跡,目前、過去及未來的世界的蹤跡。

 Even the anticultural book may still be burdened by too heavy a cultural load: but it will use it actively, for forgetting instead of remembering, for underdevelopment instead of progress toward development, in nomadism rather than sedentarity, to make a map instead of a tracing.

即使反文化的書仍然會有文化殘存影響的負擔,但是會活用它,用以遺忘,而非記憶,用以解除發展,而非朝發展前進,用在遊牧,而非定棲,為了製作地圖,而非蹤跡。

RHIZOMATICS = POP ANALYSIS, even if the people have other things to do besides read it, even if the blocks of academic culture or pseudoscientificity in it are still too painful or ponderous.

塊莖學等同流行文化分析,即使人們除了閱讀之外,尚有其它事情可做,即使學術文化或假科學研究的阻礙還是困難重重,令人難受。

 For science would go completely mad if left to its own devices. Look at mathematics: it’s not a science, it’s a monster slang, it’s nomadic.

科學假如聽任自行其是,將會走火入魔。看一看數學;那已經不是科學,而是妖魔的咒語,那是遊牧。

Even in the realm of theory, especially in the realm of theory, any precarious and pragmatic framework is better than tracing concepts, with their breaks and progress changing nothing. Imperceptible rupture, not signifying break.

即使在理論的領域,特別是在理論的領域,任何不完整及系統的架構,都比蹤跡的觀念好,因為它們的中斷及進展不會改變任何事情。我指的是沒有感覺到的斷裂,而非符號化的中斷。

The nomads invented a war machine in opposition to the State apparatus. History has never comprehended nomadism, the book has never comprehended the outside.

遊牧發明戰爭機器,對抗國家機器。歷史從沒有理解過遊牧主義。書從沒有理解過外在性。

The State as the model for the book and for thought has a long history: logos, the philosopher-king, the transcendence of the Idea, the interiority of the concept, the republic of minds, the court of reason, the functionaries of thought, man as legislator and subject.

國家作為書及思想的模式,由來已久。理性,哲學家皇帝,理念的超驗,觀念的內在性,心靈的共和國,理智的法庭,思想的官吏,人作為立法者及臣民。

 The State’s pretension to be a world order, and to root man. The war machine’s relation to an outside is not another “model”; it is an assemblage that makes thought itself nomadic, and the book a working part in every mobile machine, a stem for a rhizome (Kleist and Kafka against Goethe).

國家假冒是世界的秩序,把人鏟除。戰爭機器跟外在性的關係,並不是另外一個模式,它是使思想本身成為遊牧的裝配,本書是行動機器可運作的一部份,是塊莖的幹莖(克列思特及卡夫卡對抗歌德)。

Write to the nth power, the n – 1 power, write with slogans: Make rhizomes, not roots, never plant! Don’t sow, grow offshoots!

寫作到無限次方,無限減一的次方,用口號寫作:製造塊莖,而不是根。永遠不要種植!不要播種!要橫生滋長!

 Don’t be one or multiple, be multiplicities! Run lines, never plot a point! Speed turns the point into a line!

不要一或多重!要多重性!跑出路線!永遠不要只耕耘一點!速戰速決將點轉變成路線!

Be quick, even when standing still! Line of chance, line of hips, line of flight. Don’t bring out the General in you! Don’t have just ideas, just have an idea (Godard).

動作要快,即使是立正!即使是機會線,喝采線,逃離線。不要替自己內心弄出個將軍來!如電影導演高達所言,觀念不需要義正詞嚴,只要有觀念。

Have short-term ideas. Make maps, not photos or drawings. Be the Pink Panther and your loves will be like the wasp and the orchid, the cat and the baboon. As they say about old man river:

觀念要短期。製作地圖,而非照片或繪畫。你若是粉紅豹,你的愛情自會如黃蜂跟蘭花,猫跟狒狒。如傳說中的老人河:

 He don’t plant ‘tatos.

 Don’t plant cotton

Them that plants them is soon forgotten

But old man river he just keeps rollin’ along

不種植馬鈴薯

不種植棉花

種植它們的人不久被遺忘

但是老人河千古長流

A rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things, interbeing, intermezzo. The tree is filiation, but the rhizome is alliance, uniquely alliance. The tree imposes the verb “to be” but the fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction, “and … and … and…”

塊莖沒有開始或結束、它總是在中間,在事物中間,存在中間,在高低音中間。樹是父子系譜,但是塊莖是結盟,獨特的結盟。樹給的是動詞「存在」,但是塊莖的質料是連接詞「以及、以及、以及、、、」

This conjunction carries enough force to shake and uproot the verb “to be.”

連接詞有足夠力量撼動動詞「存在」,並將它連根拔起。

Where are you going? Where are you coming from? What are you heading for? These are totally useless questions. Making a clean slate, starting or beginning again from ground zero, seeking a beginning or a foundation–all imply a false conception of voyage and movement (a conception that is methodical, pedagogical, initiatory, symbolic … ).

你要去哪兒?你從何處來?你在追求什麼? 這些都無用的問題。找一塊乾淨的石板,從零出發或再開始,尋找一個開始或基礎,這些都暗示著一個虛假的航海及行動觀念(這個觀念是方法、是教學、是啟蒙、是象徵、、、)

But Kleist, Lenz, and Büchner have another way of traveling and moving: proceeding from the middle, through the middle, coming and going rather than starting and finishing.

但是克列斯特,藍茲,布紐爾,還有另外一種旅行跟移動的方法:從中間開始,經由中間,來跟去,而非出發跟結束。

American literature, and already English literature, manifest this rhizomatic direction to an even greater extent; they know how to move between things, establish a logic of the AND, overthrow ontology, do away with foundations, nullify endings and beginnings.

美國文學,及已經是英文的文學,證明這個塊莖的方向,朝向更高的層次。他們知道如何在事物之間移動,建立這個「以及」的邏輯,推翻本體論,廢除基礎,將結束跟開始作廢。

They know how to practice pragmatics. The middle is by no means an average; on the contrary, it is where things pick up speed.

他們知道如何實踐實用主義。中間絲毫不是平均數,相反的,它是事物加速度的地方。

Between things does not designate a localizable relation going from one thing to the other and back again, but a perpendicular direction, a transversal movement that sweeps one and the other away, a stream without beginning or end that undermines its banks and picks up speed in the middle.

事物「中間」並不是指明,從某一件事物到另一事物的一個位置的關係,而是一個垂直的方向,一個橫越的行動,橫掃這個以及那個的行動,一條沒有開始或結束的溪流,逐漸損毀自己的堤岸,然後在中間加速度。

雄伯譯

32hsiung@phome.com.tw

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: