一狼或多狼 01

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

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: