一狼或多狼 03

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

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: