傅柯性史04

傅柯性史04
The History of Sexuality by Foucault
Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

It will be said that if many people today affirm this repression, the reason is that it is historically evident. And if they speak of it so abundantly, as they have for such a long time now, this is because repression is so firmly anchored, having solid roots and reasons, and weighs so heavily on sex that more than one denunciation will be required in order to free ourselves from it; the job will be a long one.

有人將會說，今天假如有許多人肯定性壓抑是存在，理由是從歷史來看是太明顯。但是假如他們如此不厭其煩惱提到性，如同長久以來所為，那是因為壓抑是如此的根深柢固，對性的壓力是如此重大，以致他們需要不只一次的抗拒，才能替自己解脫壓抑。這工程將是漫長。

All the longer, no doubt, as it is in the nature of power—to be repressive, and to be especially careful in repressing useless energies, the intensity of pleasures, and irregular modes of behavior. We must not be surprised, then, if the effects of liberation vis-à-vis this repressive power are so slow to manifest themselves; the effort to speak freely about sex and accept it in its reality is so alien to a historical sequence that has gone unbroken for a thousand years now, and so inimical to the intrinsic mechanisms of power, that it is bound to make little headway for a long time before succeeding in its mission.

壓抑的時間將會更漫長，就權力的本質而言是無庸置疑，因為要壓抑無用的精力，強烈的歡樂，及踰矩的行為，需要格外的謹慎。假如跟這種壓抑的力量當面相碰，解放的效果要很慢才能顯現，也就不足為奇。企圖對性肆無忌憚談論，並在現實中坦然接受，從千年來一成不變的歷史內涵來看，是甚為罕見的，而且跟權力的結構本質格格不入。所以一定是費了很長時間無多大進展之後，任務才可能成功。

One can raise three serious doubts concerning what I shall term the “ respressive hypothesis.” First doubt: Is sexual repression truly an established historical fact? Is what first comes into view—and consequently permits one to advance an initial hypothesis—really the accentuation or even the establishment of a regime of sexual repression beginning in the seventeenth century? This is a properly historical question.

對於我所提出「壓抑的假設」這個命題，我們可提出三個疑問：第一個疑問：性壓抑真的是經過證實的歷史事實嗎？我們首先看到的，結果使我們能夠提出最初的假設，真的就是開始於十七世紀性壓抑體制所強化，甚至是所建立嗎？這是歷史是否符合的問題。

Second doubt: do the workings of power, and in particular those mechanisms that are brought into play in societies such as ours, really belong primarily to the category of repression? Are prohibition, censorship, and denial truly the forms through which power is exercised in a general way, if not in every society, most certainly in our own? This is a historico-theoretical question.

第二個疑問：權力的結構，特別是像我們這樣的社會所運作的機制，真的就是主要屬於壓抑的種類？禁制、審查、及拒絕，真的就是在我們自己的社會，即使不是每個社會，權力通常賴以運作的方式嗎？這是歷史跟理論是否搭配的問題。

A third and final doubt: Did the critical discourse that addresses itself to repression come to act as a roadblock to a power mechanism that had operated unchallenged up that point, or is it not in fact part of the same historical network as the thing it denounces ( and doubtless misrepresents) by calling it “ repression”? Was these really a historical rupture between the age of repression and the critical analysis of repression? This is a historical-political question.

最後第三個疑問：權力機制勢不可遏地運作到今，處理壓抑的批判論述能充當阻擋它的路障嗎？批判論述本身，儘管稱乎它所抨擊的事物為「壓抑」（毫無疑問是認錯對象），其實不就是跟它一樣，都是相同的歷史網絡的一部份？這些真的是壓抑的時代跟對壓抑批判分析的時代之間的歷史的斷裂？這是歷史跟政治是否對應的問題。

My purpose in introducing these three doubts is not merely to construct counterarguments that are symmetrical and contrary to those outlined above; it is not a matter of saying that sexuality, far form being repressed in capitalists and bourgeois societies, has on the contrary benefited from a regime of unchanging liberty; nor is a matter of saying that power in societies such as ours is more tolerant than repressive, and that the critique of repression, while it may give itself airs of a rupture with the past, actually forms part of a much older process and, depending on how one chooses to understand this process, will appear either as a new episode in the lessening of prohibitions, or as a more devious and discreet form of power.

我介紹這三個疑問，目的不僅僅是要建構反駁論點，針對前面所述的各項論點逐一反駁。我並非是要說，性在資本主義及布爾喬亞的社會絲毫沒有受到壓抑，反而是因為這樣的體制的自由競爭而獲得利益。我也不是要說，像我們這樣的社會對性是包容，而不是壓抑。對於性壓抑的批判，我們雖然擺出跟以前決裂的姿態，實際上是先前的過程的餘緒。端賴你選擇如何來理解這個過程，我們的批判似乎只是減少性的禁制的一個新的插曲，或僅是在權力運作模式較為委婉跟謹慎。

The doubts I would like to oppose to the repressive hypothesis are aimed less at showing it to be mistaken than at putting it back within a general economy of discourses on sex in modern societies since the seventeenth century. Why has sexuality been so widely discussed, and what has been said about it? What were the effects of power generated by what was said? What are the links between these discourses, these effects of power, and the pleasures that were invested by them? What knowledge was formed as a result of this linkage?

我對壓抑的假設提出這些疑問，目的不是要先顯示它是錯誤的，而是要將它放置回到自十七世紀以來現代社會對於性的論述的一般運作。為什麼性如此廣泛受到討論，以及對於性大家都在討論些什麼？大家所討論的會產生怎樣的權力影響？這些論述，權力的影響，以及這些論述所投注期望的歡樂，他們之間的關聯是什麼？這些關聯結果形成怎樣的知識？

The object, in short, is to define the regime of power-knowledge-pleasure that sustains the discourse on human sexuality in our part of the world. The central issue, then ( at least in the first instance), is not to determine whether one says yes or no to sex, whether one formulates prohibitions or permissions, whether one asserts its importance or denies its effects, or whether one refines the words one uses to designate it; but to account for the fact that it is spoken about, to discover who does the speaking, the positions and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speak about it and which store and distribute the things that are said.

簡而言之，我的目的是要替權力、知識、及歡樂的體制下個定義，因為他們維持我們對於人類的性的論述，使我們得以參與這個世界。主要的議題（至少在第一個例子）因此不是要決定我們對於性是接受或拒絕，我們規劃的是禁制或容許，我們是重視或漠視性的影響，或是我們談論性時，措詞是否要委婉，而是要說明性被談論這個事實，要找出是誰在做論述，他們論述時立場跟觀點是什麼，以及是什麼機構在激勵人們談論性，然後記錄並散播所論述的內容。

What is at issue, briefly, is the over-all “ discursive fact,” the way in which sex is “ put into discourse.” Hence, too, my main concern will be to locate the forms of power, the channels it takes, and the discourses it permeates in order to reach the most tenuous and individual modes of behavior, the paths that give it access to the rare or scarcely perceivable forms of desire, how it penetrates and controls everyday pleasure—all this entailing effects that may be those of refusal, blockage, and invalidation, but also incitement and intensification: in short, the “ polymorphous techniques of power.”

簡而言之，爭議所在是這個全面性的「論述的事實」，也就是，性是如何被擺置於論述之中。因此，我的主要關心將是要找出權力的形式，權力運作的管道，權力滲透的論述，這樣我們才有辦法抵達最脆弱而個人化的行為模式，以及權力是透過怎樣的途徑，才得以滲透到罕見而難於覺察的慾望的形式，跟權力是如何貫穿並控制我們日常的歡樂。所有這些接續而來的影響，可能都是拒絕、阻擋、及徒勞無功，但也可能是激勵跟強化。總而言之，就是「權力的技巧的多重形態」。

And finally, the essential aim will not be to determine whether these discursive productions and these effects of power lead one to formulate the truth about sex, or on the contrary falsehoods designed to conceal that truth, but rather to bring out the “ will to knowledge” that serves as both their support and their instrument.

最後，最主要的目的，不是要決定這些論述的產生跟權力的影響，會導致我們構想有關性的真相，或相反的，構想被設計來隱藏真相的假相，而是要顯示「追求知識的意志」，來充當論述產生的支持跟工具。

Let there be no misunderstanding: I do not claim that sex has not been prohibited or barred or masked or misapprehended since the classical age: nor do I even assert that it has suffered these things any less from that period on than before. I do not maintain that the prohibition of sex is a ruse; but it is a ruse to make prohibition into the basic and constitutive element from which one would be able to write the history of what has been said concerning sex starting from the modern epoch.

請大家不要誤解：我並沒有宣稱，自十七世紀以來，性就沒有受到禁制、禁止、掩蓋或誤解。我甚至也沒有主張，從十七世紀開始，性比前受到較少的禁制、禁止、掩蓋或誤解。我沒有斷言，對於性的禁制是一種策略，我是說，策略所在是將性的禁制變成基本而組成的因素，根據這個因素，我們才能夠寫作從現代開始的有關性的討論的歷史。

All these negative elements—defenses, censorships, denials—which the repressive hypothesis groups together in one great central mechanism destined to say no, are doubtless only component parts that have a local and tactical role to play in a transformation into discourse, a technology of power, and a will to knowledge that are far from being reducible to the former.

性受到壓抑的假設將這些負面的因素，諸如防衛、審查、及拒絕等，全部聚集在一個註定要否定性存在的中央的機制裡。可是，這些負面因素，無疑的，僅是扮演局部及策略的角色所組成的部份。論述的轉移，權力的技巧，跟追求知識的意志相比，後者完全無法被化簡進入前者。

In short, I would like to disengage my analysis from the privileges generally accorded the economy of scarcity and the principles of rarefaction, to search instead for instances of discursive production ( which also administer silences, to be sure), of the production of power ( which sometimes have the function of prohibiting), of the propagation of knowledge ( which often cause mistaken beliefs or systematic misconceptions to circulate); I would like to write the history of these instances and their transformations.

總而言之，我想要將我的分析，跟一般性以稀為貴及多就不稀罕所給予的特權劃清界線，這樣我才能相反地尋找到論述產生的例子（當然，也有壓抑及沉默），權力產生的例子（有時有禁制的功用），以及知識的傳播的例子（時常引起錯誤的信仰或制度的誤解流傳）。我想要寫作有關這些例子跟他們轉變的歷史。

A first survey made from this viewpoint seems to indicate that since the end of the sixteenth century, the “ putting into discourse of sex,” far from undergoing a process of restriction, on the contrary has been subjected to a mechanism of increasing incitement; that the techniques of power exercised over sex have not obeyed a principle of rigorous selection, but rather one of dissemination and implantation of polymorphous sexualities; and that the will to knowledge has not come to a halt in the face of a taboo that must not be lifted, but has persisted in constituting—despite many mistakes, of course-a science of sexuality.

這些觀點乍看起來，似乎指示著，自從十七世紀末以來，「性成為論述」絲毫沒有經歷受到限制的過程，相反的，還屈從於越來越受到獎勵的機制；對於性所運用的權力的技巧，並沒有遵循嚴格選擇的法則，而是將多重形態的性予以擴散跟安置；追求知識的意志面臨不可碰觸的禁忌時，並沒有因而怯步，反而持續建構
一套性的科學，雖然難免錯誤重重。

It is these movements that I will now attempt to bring into focus in a schematic way, bypassing as it were the repressive hypothesis and the facts of interdiction or exclusion it invokes, and starting from certain historical facts that serve as guidelines for research.

我現在企圖將這些運動的過程，以基型模式，會聚處理。我繞過性壓抑的假設的理論，及其所訴諸於的性被禁制及排除的事實，而從某些歷史的事實開始，並以這些事實充當研究的指標。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

傅柯性史03

傅柯性史03
The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault 傅柯：性史
Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

Chapter 1: We, Other Victorians
第一章：維多利亞時期另類人

But it appears to me that the essential thing is not this economic factor, but rather the existence in our era of a discourse in which, sex, the revelation of truth, the overturning of global laws, the proclamation of a new day to come, and the promise of a certain felicity are linked together.

我覺得最重要的不是這個經濟的因素，而是我們的時代存在著一個論述：性，跟真理的啟發，全球律法的推翻，新日子來臨的宣告，及某種幸福的許諾，被關聯在一起。

Today it is sex that serves as a support for the ancient form—so familiar and important in the West—of preaching A great sexual sermon—which has had its subtle theologians and its popular voices—has swept through our societies over the last decades; it has chastised the old order, denounced hypocrisy, and praised the rights of the immediate and the real: it has made people dream of a New City. The Franciscans are called to mind. And we might wonder how it is possible that the lyricism and religiosity that long accompanied the revolutionary project have, in Western industrial societies, been largely carried over to sex.

宣揚福音，在以前的西方世界，是耳熟能詳的重大事情，今天則是由性來充當理論基礎。過去幾十年來，我們的社會瀰漫一個偉大的性解放的福音，大家對性的鼓吹趨之若鶩，宛如性的微妙成了神學家口中的福音。這個福音抨擊舊有的社會秩序，揭發假道學，讚賞當下的時刻及真實的事物。它使人們渴望「新天堂」，跟聖法蘭西斯的聖靈自然的福音有幾分神似。我們可能會大為驚奇：抒情跟宗教，長久以來都是革命大業的夥伴，在今天西方的工業社會，已經被轉移到性。

The notion of repressed sex is not, therefore, only a theoretical matter. The affirmation of a sexuality that has never been more rigorously subjugated than during the age of they hypocritical, bustling, and responsible bourgeoisie is coupled with the grandiloquence of a discourse purporting to reveal the truth about sex, modify its economy within reality, subvert the law that governs it, and change its future.

因此，性受到壓抑的觀念不僅僅是理論上的事情。在假道學，忙碌，及盡責任的布爾喬亞的時代，飽受嚴格管制的性，現在受到肯定，因為它伴隨著新論述的大力鼓吹及顯示有關性的真理，修正性在現實社會的經濟活動，顛覆管制性的法律，並且改變性在未來的地位。

The statement of oppression and the form of the sermon refer back to one another; they are mutually reinforcing. To say that sex is not repressed, or rather that the relationship between sex and power is not characterized by repression, is to risk falling into a sterile paradox. It not only runs counter to a well-accepted argument, it goes against the whole economy and all the discursive “ interests” that underlie this argument.

壓迫的陳述跟宣揚福音的模式互相牽連，他們互相奧援。說性沒有受到壓抑，或是說性跟權力之間的關係不是由壓抑表現特色，那等於是甘冒兩邊落空的詭論。它不但跟眾所接受的論點相對立，而且違背作為論點基礎的整個經濟跟所有的論述的「利益」。

This is the point at which I would like to situate the series of historical analyses that will follow, the present volume being at the same time an introduction and a first attempt at an overview: it surveys a few historically significant points and outlines certain theoretical problems.

就是在這個觀點上，我想要用來定位我後來的一系列的有關性的歷史分析。目前這一冊既是導論，也是首次企圖做個概要：它調查一些性歷史的重要時期，並略述某些理論上的問題。

Briefly, my aim is to examine the case of a society which has been loudly castigating itself for its hypocrisy for more than a century, which speaks verbosely of its own silence, take great points to relate in detail the things it does not say, denounces the powers it exercises, and promises to liberate itself from the very laws that have made it function.

簡言之，我的目的是要審察，社會是怎樣因為自己的假道學公開申斥自己達百年之久，又不厭其煩地述說自己的壓抑沉默，殫精竭力去詳述它自己的禁忌不語，抨擊自己運作的權力，承諾要從社會運轉的法律規範下解放自己。

I would like to explore not only these discourses but also the will that sustains them and the strategic intention that supports them. The question I would like to pose is not, “ Why are we repressed? “ but rather, Why do we say, with so much passion and so much resentment against our most recent past, against our present, and against ourselves, that we are repressed? By what spiral did we come to affirm that sex is negated? What led us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it is something we silence?

我想要探討的不僅是這些論述，而且是怎樣的意志維持他們，以及什麼策略的意圖支持他們。我想要提出的問題不是「為什麼我們被壓抑？」而是「為什麼我們說我們受到壓抑時，我們對於我們的最近，我們的現在，以及我們自己的不認同，是如此激烈，又如此怨恨？以怎樣的迴旋思考，我們幡然肯定說：性是被否決。什麼事情迫使我們誇張地顯示：性是我們隱藏的東西，坦承性是我們壓抑沉默的東西？」

And we do all this by formulating the matter in the most explicit terms, by trying to reveal it in its most naked reality, by affirming it in the positivity of its power and its effects. It is certainly legitimate to ask why sex was associated with sin for such a long time—although it would remain to be discovered how this association was formed, and one would have to be careful not to state in a summary and hasty fashion that sex was “ condemned”—but we must also ask why we burden ourselves today with so much guilt for having once made sex a sin.

我們肯定、顯示及坦承，都是斬釘截鐵地闡述，設法掀開裏子呈現，在權力及其影響的積極運作中，肯定性受到壓抑。我們確實有足夠理由問：為什麼如此久的時間性跟原罪聯想在一起？另外一個有待發現的問題是：這種聯想是如何形成？我們必須謹慎，不要總而言之地匆促下結論：性是「天譴」。但是我們也要問：性被認為是原罪是以前所為，為什麼我們今天要讓自己負擔如此的罪惡感？

What paths have brought us to the point where we are “ at fault” with respect to our own sex? And how have we come to be a civilization so peculiar as to tell itself that, through an abuse of power which has not ended, it has long “ sinned” against sex? How does one account for the displacement which, while claiming to free us from the sinful nature of sex, taxes us with a great historical wrong which consists precisely in imaging that nature to be blameworthy and in drawing disastrous consequences from that belief?

是什麼途徑引導我們相信：關於我們自己的性，我們是「該受遣責」？我們是如何成為如此特別的文明，告訴自己說：經由迄今尚未停止的權力濫用，這個文明對於性長久以來都是「有原罪」？我們既然宣稱要解放自己免於性的原罪性質，而冤屈就是在於想像性的原罪性質是應該受到譴責的，然後從那個信仰導致災難般的結果，那我們要如何來說明使我們負擔性的歷史冤屈的錯誤位置？

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

傅柯性史02

傅柯性史02

But have we not liberated ourselves from those two long centuries in which the history of sexuality must be seen first of all as the chronicle of an increasing repression? Only to a slight extent, we are told.

但是我們不是已經從那漫長的兩世紀解放出來？我們難道還要首先以壓抑逐漸增加的編年表來看待性的歷史？有人說，五十步笑百步而已。

Perhaps some progress was made by Freud; but with such circumspection, such medical prudence, a scientific guarantee of innocuousness, and so many precautions in order to contain everything, with no fear of “ overflow,” in that safest and most discreet of spaces, between the couch and discourse: yet another round of whispering on a bed.

也許佛洛伊德開拓了某些進展，但是過於小心翼翼，過於醫療的慎重，要擔保性的科學研究無關風化，無傷大雅，無「氾濫成災」之虞，在那個安全而謹慎的研究空間，在沙發躺椅跟精神分析師的治療，不會牽涉到床褥之間的纏綿呢喃。

And could things have been otherwise? We are informed that if repression has indeed been the fundamental link between power, knowledge, and sexuality, since the classical age, it stands to reason that we will not be able to free ourselves from it except at a considerable cost; nothing less than a transgression of laws, a lifting of prohibitions, an irruption of speech, a reinstating of pleasure within reality, and a whole new economy in the mechanisms of power will be required.

但是兩者怎麼可能風馬年不相及？我們被告知，若是自古以來，壓抑確實曾經是權力、知識、性之間的基本關聯，那麼顯而易見的，我們將無法解放自己免於壓抑，除非我們犧牲重大代價。那道道地地就是法律的逾越，禁令的撤銷，讓人談性無所忌諱，將歡愛重新放置回現實之中，這將需要現有的權力結構的整個重新調整。

For the least glimmer of truth is conditioned by politics. Hence, one cannot hope to obtain the desired results simply from a medical practice, nor from a theoretical discourse, however rigorously pursued. Thus, one denounces Freud’s conformism, the normalizing functions of psychoanalysis, the obvious timidity underlying Reich’s vehemence, and all the effects of integration ensured by the “ science ‘ of sex and the barely equivocal practices of sexology.
真理即使散發出些微光芒都會被政治權力宰割。因此，僅僅從醫學的治療，或從理論的論述，無論你多麼孜孜不倦從事，都不可能希望獲得你所預期的效果。所以，有人抨擊佛洛伊德的過於妥協權力結構，將精神分析學的功用體制化，是屈服於德帝國威權下的明顯怯懦，性的「科學研究」保證在的體制的影響之內，性學的做法模稜兩可。

The discourse on modern sexual repression holds up well, owing no doubt to how easy it is to uphold. A solemn historical and political guarantee protects it. By placing the advent of the age of repression in the seventeenth century, after hundreds of years of open spaces and free expression, one adjusts it to coincide with the development of capitalism: it becomes an integral part of the bourgeois order. The minor chronicle of sex and its trials is transposed into the ceremonious history of the modes of production; its trifling aspect fades from view.

對於現代性壓抑的論述表達得振振有詞，毫無疑問的，原因是要做這樣的論述實在輕而易舉。性在歷史跟政治方面受到嚴肅地擔保，使壓抑的論述言之成理。經過數百年的開放空間跟自由表達之後，我們將壓抑時代的來臨擺置在十九世紀，這樣我們可以將它調整跟資本主義的發展巧合。性的壓抑成為布爾喬亞社會秩序整體的一部份。性的次要編年記載跟性的審判，被調換成為生產模式隆重正式的歷史；性的瑣碎的層面隱而不見。

A principle of explanation emerges after the fact: if sex is so rigorously repressed, this is because it is incompatible with a general and intensive work imperative. At a time when labor capacity was being systematically exploited, how could this capacity be allowed to dissipate itself in pleasurable pursuits, except in those—reduced to a minimum—that enabled it to reproduce itself?

從這個事實背後出現一個解釋的原則：假如性是如此嚴格被壓抑，那是因為性跟普遍而強烈的工作倫理格格不入。在勞工的能力正在系統化地被剝削的時代，這個勞動力量如何能被允許消耗本身在歡樂的追逐上，除了被化約到最小數量？那就是使勞動力繁殖更多的勞動力！

Sex and its effects are perhaps not so easily deciphered; on the other hand, their repression, thus reconstructed, is easily analyzed. And the sexual cause—the demand fro sexual freedom, but also for the knowledge to be gained from sex and the right to speak about it—becomes legitimately associated with the honor of a political cause: sex too is placed on the agenda for the future. A suspicious mind might wonder if taking so many precaution in order to give the history of sex such an impressive filiation does not bear traces of the same old prudishness: as if those valorizing correlations were necessary before such a discourse could be formulated or accepted.

性跟性的影響可能無法如此簡單地來解釋。在另一方面，對於因此而被重新建構的性的壓抑，則是很容易分析。性的追求目標不但是要求性的自由，而且要從性那裡獲得知識，以及要有公開談論性的權利。這個目標在法律層面跟政治追求免於恐懼的目標不謀而合。

But there may be another reason that makes it so gratifying for us to define the relationship between sex and power in terms of repression: something that one might call the speaker’s benefit.

但是我們很滿意於用壓抑理論來定義性跟權力之間的關係，可能還有另一個理由：我們稱之為「說者為王」的利益。

If sex is repressed, that is, condemned to prohibition, nonexistence, and silence, then the mere fact that one is speaking about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression. A person who holds forth in such language places himself to a certain extent outside the reach of power; he upsets established law; he somehow anticipates the coming freedom.

假如性被壓抑，換言之，性被判決為被禁止、不存在、及不可說，那麼一個人正在談論性的這個事實本身，就已經有了蓄意逾越的跡象。對於性話題侃侃而談的人，某個程度上，就已經將自己擺置於權力的掌控之外；他顛覆了現有的法律，他用某種方法，預先得到即將來臨的自由。

This explains the solemnity with which one speaks of sex nowadays. When they had to allude to it, the first demographers and psychiatrists of the nineteenth century thought it advisable to excuse themselves for asking their readers to dwell on matters so trivial and base.

這說明為什麼今天談論性話題是一件嚴肅的事情。十九世紀的人口統計學家跟精神分析師必須提到性時，最好先說句恕他們不好意思，要求對方去述說如此不堪而下流的事情。

But for decades now, we have found it difficult to speak on the subject without striking a different pose: we are conscious of defying established power, our tone of voice shows that we know we are being subversive, and we ardently conjure away the present and appeal to the future, whose day will be hastened by the contribution we believe we are making.

但是幾百年來，我們發現到，談論性必須要採取截然不同的姿態：我們心知肚明我們是公然挑釁既有的權力結構。我們說話的語調顯示，我們知道我們正在顛覆體制。我們熱烈地驅除現況，訴諸未來，因為我們相信，我們目前所做的貢獻，就是要使未來理想的加快實現。

Something that smacks of revolt, of promised freedom, of the coming age of a different law, slips easily into this discourse on sexual oppression. Some of the ancient functions of prophecy are reactivated therein.

在這個對於性壓迫的論述中，聽起來有點像是革命，自由的許諾，及新世界秩序的理想，輕易地就展現出來。在此，重新啟動的有點像是古代預言大同世界來臨的功能。

Tomorrow sex will be good again. Because this repression is affirmed, one can discreetly bring into coexistence concepts which the fear of ridicule or the bitterness of history prevents most of us from putting side by side: revolution and happiness; or revolution; or revolution and a different body, one that is newer and more beautiful; or indeed, revolution and pleasure.

明天性將會再恢復美好。因為性被壓抑已經被確認，我們能夠謹慎地讓革命跟幸福的理念共存。以前因為恐懼性受到嘲笑及性歷史的痛苦，我們不能夠坦蕩地讓革命跟幸福並列，或是革命跟嶄新身體並列，使我們的身體更新，更美麗，或讓革命跟歡樂並列。

What sustains our eagerness to speak of sex in terms of repression is doubtless this opportunity to speak out against the powers that be, to utter truths and promise bliss, to link together enlightenment, liberation, and manifold pleasures; to pronounce a discourse that combines the fervor of knowledge, the determination to change the laws, and the longing for the garden of earthly delights.

我們所以那麼熱切談論到性受到壓抑，毫無疑問，是因為我們要得到公開宣稱反抗既有權力結構的機會，表達真相，許諾幸福，將覺醒、解放及多重歡樂凝聚在一起，宣佈一個新的論述，可以將知識的狂熱，改變世界的決心，及對於塵世樂園的渴望，團結在一起。

This is perhaps what also explains the market value attributed not only to what is said about sexual repression, but also to the mere fact of lending an ear to those who would eliminate the effects of repression.

可能這就是為什麼廣受歡迎的市場價值，不但被歸功於有關性受到壓抑的論述，而且被歸功於大眾願意於傾聽那些設法要減少性受到壓抑的影響的人。

Ours is, after all, the only civilization in which officials are paid to listen to all and sundry impart the secrets of their sex: as if the urge to talk about it, and the interest one hopes to arouse by doing so, have far surpassed the possibilities of being heard, so that some individuals have even offered their ears for hire.

畢竟，我們的時代是唯一的文明社會，由官方付錢聘諮商師來傾聽各式各樣的人傾吐他們性的秘密。好似談論性的渴望，以及希望藉由談論性來引起人們對於性的興趣，價值就已經遠遠超過被傾聽的可能性，有些人甚至於以洗耳恭聽他人談論性的秘密當著職業。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

傅柯性史 01

Foucault 01
The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault 傅柯：性史
Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯

Part One : We “ Other Victorians”
第一章：維多利亞時代另類人

For a long time, the story goes, we supported a Victorian regime, and we continue to be dominated by it even today. Thus the image of the imperial prude is emblazoned on our restrained, mute, and hypocritical sexuality.

有一種說法，常久以來，我們都信奉英國維多利亞時代的體制，甚至迄今，我們仍然繼續受到這個體制的支配。因此，當時大英帝國時代對於性的假道學所表現的拘謹、避而不談、及假惺惺的形象，依舊被我們津津樂道。

At the beginning of the seventeenth century a certain frankness was till common, it would seem. Sexual practices had little need of secrecy; words were said without undue reticence, and things were done without too much concealment; one had a tolerant familiarity with the illicit.

在十七世紀初，人們對於性似乎都普遍地坦蕩蕩。跟性有關的各種做法幾乎沒有什麼忌諱，談論到性，不必過份的閃爍其詞，從事性行為，也沒有什麼必要太多的躲躲藏藏。婚外性行為，人們司空見慣，見怪不怪。

Codes regulating the coarse, the obscene, and the indecent were quite lax compared to those of the nineteen century. It was a time of direct gestures, shameless discourse, and open transgressions, when anatomies were shown and intermingled at will, and knowing children hung about amid the laughter of adults: it was a period when bodies “ made a display of themselves.

跟十九世紀比較起來，當時對於公開性行為的踰越、淫穢放蕩及傷害風化，規範的法律是相當鬆弛的。那個時代，人們對於性行為直接坦然，大大方方論述，招搖踰越，身體解剖圖公開展示，隨意地夾雜性行為的暗示，大人放肆淫笑，也不避諱小孩在旁。那個時代，身體「展露自己，以為炫耀」。

But twilight soon fell upon this bright day, followed by the monotonous nights of the Victorian bourgeoisie. Sexuality was carefully confined; it moved into the home. The conjugal family took custody of it and absorbed it into the serious function. On the subject of sex, silence became the rule.

但是不久，黃昏就降臨到燦爛白天，跟隨而來的是，維多利亞時代布爾喬亞小資產階級沉悶的夜晚。性行為謹慎地被限制，並且被搬遷到家屋之內。結婚的家庭才能堂而皇之從事性行為，而且還被牽扯到生兒育女的嚴肅功用。至於性的話題，人們通常心照不宣。

The couple imposed itself as model, enforced the norm, safeguarded the truth, and reserved the right to speak while retaining the principle of secrecy. A single locus of sexuality was acknowledged in social space as well as at the heart of every household, but it was a utilitarian and fertile one: the parents’ bedroom.

父母要做表率，性行為要有夫妻的名份，敦倫的真相則諱莫如深，縱使保有談論的權利，也得遵照不可外揚的原則。在社會空間及每個家庭的核心，性行為唯一被認可的空間，是從功用及繁殖後代來考量的空間：父母的臥房。

The rest had only to remain vague; proper demeanor avoided contact with other bodies, and verbal decency sanitized one’ speech. And sterile behavior carried the taint of abnormality; if it insisted on making itself too visible, it would be designated accordingly and would have to pay the penalty.

其餘的事情則隱秘不清，端正的行為要避免外遇跟劈腿，合宜的言詞要謹慎自己的話語。行房而不能生育會被懷疑夫妻哪一方生理有毛病。假如不能生育被公開周知，被會認為不能傳宗接代，而必須付出懲罰的代價。

Nothing that was not ordered in terms of generation or transfigured by it could expect sanction or protection. Nor did it merit a hearing. It would be driven out, denied, and reduced to silence. Not only did it not exist, it had no right to exist and would be made to disappear upon its least manifestation—whether in acts or in words.

跟傳宗接代無關，或沒有藉此而顯得光明堂皇的性論述，不可能得到認可或保護。也無法得到公開的聽聞。這種性的論述將會被驅除，否認，並被迫不可發表。它不僅不存在，而且連存在的權利都沒有。只要稍露跡象，不論是行為或言詞，都會被迫消聲匿跡。

Everyone knew, for example, that children had no sex, which was why they were forbidden to talk about it, why one closed one’s eyes and stopped one’s ears whenever they came to show evidence to the contrary, and why a general and studied silence was imposed.

例如，大家都知道，小孩沒有性能力，這就是為什麼他們被禁止談論性，也是為什麼當小孩逐漸顯示有性的能力時，大家都裝聾作啞，視而不見。更是為什麼大家一方面視若無睹，又暗中觀察。

These are the characteristic features attributed to repression, which serve to distinguish it from the prohibitions maintained by penal law: repression operated as a sentence to disappear, but also as an injunction to silence, an affirmation of nonexistence, and, by implication, an admission that there was nothing to say about such things, nothing to see, and nothing to know.

有些明顯的特徵，歸屬給壓抑，可以用來區別它跟刑法所維持的禁止有何不同。壓抑不但是充當一種要性匿跡不見的宣示，而且命令性要消除聲音，等於是肯定性的不存在，可是，又暗示地承認，關於性這碼事，沒有可以稱道，沒有什麼看頭，也沒有什麼好去知曉。

Such was the hypocrisy of our bourgeois societies with its halting logic. It was forced to make a few concessions, however. If it was truly necessary to make room for illegitimate sexualities, it was reasoned, let them take their infernal mischief elsewhere: to a place where they could be reintegrated, if not in the circuits of production, at least in those of profit.

我們布爾喬亞小資產階級邏輯矛盾的假道學，就是這副德性。可是，它也不得不做些讓步。它的推理是，既然不合法的性慾望實在有必要讓它們有個宣洩之所，就眼不見為淨地讓它們到其它地方去翻雲覆雨。既然跟生育子女的繁殖無關的性蠢蠢欲動，那就跟它們跟生財交易的繁榮合併去幹。

The brothel and the mental hospital would be those places of tolerance: the prostitute, the client, and the pimp, together with the psychiatrist and his hysteric—those “ other Victorians,’ as Steven Marcus would say—seem to have surreptitiously transferred the pleasures that are unspoken into the order of things that are counted.

妓院跟醫院就是這種社會可以包容性論述的地方：妓女、嫖客、老鴇，外加精神科醫生跟患性歇斯底里症的病人，就是哲學家馬庫色筆下所謂的「維多利亞時代另類人」。他們似乎偷偷地將可做不可說的性歡樂，挪移到被官方認可的社會秩序上。

Words and gestures, quietly authorized, could be exchanged there at the going rate. Only in those places would untrammeled sex have a right to ( safgely insularized ) forms of reality, and only to clandestine, circumscribed, and coded types of discourse. Everywhere else, modern Puritanism imposed its triple edict of taboo, nonexistence, and silence.

有關性的論述跟行為，悄悄地被默許，現在能夠依照實際進行的情況去從事。只有在那些場所，坦蕩自在的性，才擁有權利存在於安全隔離的現實環境中，才擁有權利去做某個限度，而且不公開的記錄方式的論述。在其它場所，現代的清教徒就給性貫徹禁忌、不存在、及不可說等三道敕令。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

雄伯手記981021

雄伯手記981020

組裝的電腦又被病毒入侵，explorer及word接續失陷，心想與其設法修復，不如系統再重灌。起初一切順暢，直到發現掃瞄器的程式一直安裝不上，開頭以為是軟體的關係，幾經折騰，才猛然醒悟到是掃瞄器的原有usb接頭出了狀況。

從匪夷所思的夢境中醒來，體悟到自己生命最深層的內在性，已經被理性語言的病毒侵入。修復或是重灌，覺醒後的理性語言本身茫然無助。真理或許如哲學家龐蒂所言：預設正義，但未必預設自然解決的方法。

W自台北回來，興高采烈地說：「新遠東開幕了，我們要去逛逛！」我無可奈何地回答：「請便！只是我現在已決定要深居簡出，過簡樸的生活。十幾年的老爺車已經停擺，就讓它報廢！我不想將僅剩的退休歲月，再消耗在去賺購買新車的錢！」

人生有很多的倫理責任要去承擔，但首要條件是自己要過得下去。若自身難保，就什麼都不要去想！

雄伯手記981015

雄伯手記981015

「各位，我最近有個心境的轉換，想要跟大家分享。」

緊跟著Lin的導讀之後，白髮皚皚的L，突然站起來，滿臉喜悅地說：「剛才讀到有位電視製作人在禪七時所說，那種人與人之間的美好互動，是很動人的畫面，這是在他自己的職場裡，是不可能遇到的。我也曾經有過這樣的體驗。我從小成長，歷經艱辛的環境，由於自己個性的倔強，我在中學、大學、甚至是職場，對於曾經羞辱詆毀過我的人，常會充滿憎恨之心。直到退休以後，讀讀書，聽聽佛理，我競爭處世的姿態，才學習變得柔軟。有一天，我靜坐沉思，突然豁然開悟起來。別人羞辱我，詆毀我，是他們自己的心裡有病嘛！我為什麼要跟他們去計較呢？現在我雖然還沒有能夠熱烈地擁抱他們，但至少我能以原諒喜悅的眼光去看待他們！」

剛講完坐下，還沒來得及換一口氣來，L 又興奮地站起來補充說：有一次在某個社交場合，有人對我說：「雖然你頭髮全白，但是你臉上煥發的神采卻很年輕和純真。」我回答他說：「That is right. 我一向是很純真的。我頭上的白髮，是同事及職場帶給我的。我的內心始終是年輕。I am always young in my heart！」

興奮地坐下，然後又立即地站起來：「我們這個讀書會，讓我像是回娘家一般地自由自在，沒有競爭的傾軋，我這一番心聲才說得出來！」

雄伯手記981015

雄伯手記981011

「我每天上班八小時，時間就已經賣給別人。回到家裡，我不想再把時間耗在別人身上。」旅居美國二十幾年，回來探親的Lo 幽怨地說：「可是跟人相處總免不了要有互相遷讓的時候。」

「工作跟同居夥伴，必要時你願意捨棄哪一個？」我試探地問。

「假如沒有工作，我的餘生的經濟勢必完全仰賴他。可是一方面他已經退休，收入沒有以前多。另一方面，我們倆的相處名份並不很固定，隨時會因為意見不合而分手。那我日後的生活要怎麼過？」

「換句話說，你連選擇的自由都沒有！」

她茫然地看著我，不知是否是要爭辯，她事實上已經做了環境及理性所允許的最佳選擇，或是不理解我所謂的選擇的自由，真正的意涵是什麼。

早上因沉溺於匪夷所思的夢境而晏起，下樓時首先進入我眼簾的是放置在電腦桌上的「塞尚的疑惑」，那是數週前讀書會閱讀龐蒂的材料。

Psychoanalysis does not make freedom impossible; it teaches us to think of this freedom concretely, as a creative revival of ourselves, always, in retrospect, faithful to ourselves.

（精神分析並沒有使自由成為不可能，它教導我們要具體地看待這個自由，當著是我們自我的創造性復活，追憶中總是忠實於我們自我的自由。）

Yet it was in the world that he had to realize his freedom, with colors upon a canvas. It was from the approval of others that he had to await the proof of his worth. That is why he questioned the picture emerging beneath his hand, why he hung on the glances other people directed toward his canvas. That is why he never finished working. We never get away from our life. We never see ideas or freedom face to face.

（可是就在這個世界中，他必須實現他的自由，將顏色塗抹在畫布上。別人同意，他必須等待他價質的證明。那就是為什麼他質疑出現在他筆下的畫面，為什麼他留駐別人凝視他畫布的眼光。那就是為什麼他從來沒有完成工作。我們從來沒有逃離我們的生活。我們從來沒有面對面地看待意念或自由。）

再聯想到上星期翻譯龐蒂「感覺現象學」的「論自由」，一直迷惑的句子: Unless there are cycles of behavior, open situations requiring a certain completion and capable of constituting a background to either a confirmatory or transformatory decision, we never experience freedom.（除非有反復出現的行為，及開放的情境要求某種的完成，並且能夠形為可以驗證或轉移的背景，我們永遠不會經驗到自由。）

茫然間我若有所悟：我們一輩子生活在社會環境替我們制約的「語言的囚房」，何嘗有過選擇的自由？「煩惱即菩提」說起來容易，在實際的生活，光是意識的糾纏跟折磨，就夠你失眠輾轉好幾夜。能否面對面看待自由，需要何去何從的行為來替自己做驗證。

雄伯手記981008

雄伯手記981003

人生有許多對人的承諾未能履行的遺憾。回想起來，卻也是充滿了無可奈何。有時是自己正心有旁鶩，手忙腳亂，自顧不暇。有時自己正彌漫疏離低潮的情緒，生命力微弱。

交際應酬要維持語言始終不出狀況，還真不容易。結果是年紀越大，越是顯得謹慎，深沉而寡言，這使得人際的溝通場面越顯得尷尬。

去國四十幾年首次歸來探望諸同學的Y，理應是宴席主客，卻是語言甚少，大家都是在事業上有過成就的人，卻是除了幾句客套話，沒什麼心聲或情意可說。

免費下載希區考克的「迷魂記」Virtigo 。除了原有的懸疑氣氛外，對於導演若隱若現的臨終心境，我若有所悟：有懼高症的警探，為了探明他受託跟縱對象離奇的墜樓身亡的真相，最後終於克服對於高度令他暈眩的恐懼。推而廣之，人對死亡後的幽冥世界的恐懼，能夠被求真理實相的熱切渴望所克服嗎？

龐蒂論自由 02

龐蒂論自由 02

We often see the weakness of the will brought forward as an argument against freedom. And indeed, although I can will myself to adopt a course of conduct and act the part of a warrior or a seducer, it is not within my power to be a warrior or a seducer with ease and in a way that ‘comes naturally’; really to be one, that is.

我們時常看到，意志的軟弱被提出來，作為反駁自由的論點。的確，雖然我有意願要從事某種行為，扮演鬥士或誘拐者的角色，我不見得就有那個能力輕而易舉成為鬥士或誘拐者，那樣天然渾成，換言之，我不是天生的鬥士或誘拐者。

But neither should we seek freedom in the act of will, which is, in its very meaning, something short of an act. We have recourse to an act of will only in order to go against our true decision, and, as it were, for the purpose of proving our powerlessness.

但是我們也不應該在意志的行動中尋找自由，因為意志的行動，就其意義而言，意志先行，行動未必履行。我們訴諸於意志的行動，只是要違背我們自己的真實決定，也就是所謂，為了證明自己的無可奈何。

If we had really and truly made the conduct of the warrior or the seducer our own, then we should be one or the other. Even what are called obstacles to freedom are in reality deployed by it.

假如我們真實道地將鬥士或誘拐者的行為，表現為我們自己的行為，那麼我們應該就是鬥士或是誘拐者。即使所謂的阻礙實際上已被清除。

An unclimbable rock face, a large or small, vertical or slanting rock, are things which have no meaning for anyone who is not intending to surmount them, for a subject whose projects do not carve out such determinate forms from the uniform mass of the in itself and cause an orientated world to arise—a significance in things.

一座高不可攀的岩層，無論大小，垂直或傾斜，對於無意去征服他們的人，不具有意義，因為他們並沒有計劃要從大自然的質樸表面從事決心的舉動，產生意義，展現有向度的世界。

There is, then, ultimately nothing that can set limits to freedom, except those limits that freedom itself has set in the form of its various initiatives, so that the subject has simply the external world that he gives himself.

因此，追根究底，自由沒有任何限制，除了自由本身因為具有各種創意而豎立的那些限制，所以主體只擁有他自己所給予的外在世界。

Since it is the latter who, on coming into being, brings to light significance and value in things, and since no thing can impinge upon it except through acquiring, thanks to it, significance and value, there is no action of things on the subject, but merely a signification ( in the active sense), a centrifugal Sinngebung.

既然是具有創意的人出現時，才會使事物的意義跟價值出現，既然自由不會受到任何侵犯，除非你因為自由的創意而獲得意義跟價值，主體本身並沒有事物的行動，僅僅是一種意義（主動的意義），一種離心的意義。

The choice would seem to lie between scientism’s conception of causality, which is incompatible with the consciousness which we have of ourselves, and the assertion of an absolute freedom divorced from the outside. It is impossible to decide beyond which point things cease to be εψμων. Either they all lie within our power, or none does.

有兩種選擇，一種是科學家的因果觀念，跟我們對於自己所擁有的意識不相和諧。另一種是絕對自由的主張，跟外在世界脫離。我們無法決定，超越哪一點事物就蕩然無存。事物要就是在我們的掌控力量之內，要不就全都無法操控。

The result, however, of this first reflection on freedom would appear to be to rule it out altogether. If indeed it is the case that our freedom is the same in all our actions, and even in our passions, if it is not to be measured in terms of our conduct, and if the slave displays freedom as much by living in fear as by breaking this chains, then it cannot be held that there is such a thing as free action, freedom being anterior to all actions.

可是，對於自由最初反省的結果常是將自由完全地排除掉。的確，假如我們的自由都一樣，不論在我們所有的行動，或在我們的激情，假如我們的自由不是以我們的行為的表現來衡量，假如奴隸生活於恐懼中的自由，跟打破鎖鏈的自由沒什麼兩樣，那麼我們很難相信有自由行動這樣的東西，早先於行動的自由。

In any case it will not be possible to declare: “ Here freedom makes its appearance”, since free action, in order to be discernible, has to stand out against a background of life from which it is entirely, or almost entirely, absent. We may say in this case that it is everywhere, but equally nowhere. In the name of freedom we reject the idea of acquisition, since freedom has become a primordial acquisition and, as it were, our state of nature.

無論如何，我們不可能宣稱：「自由出現在此」，因為自由行動要能被覺察出來，必先要有一個生活的背景作為對抗，而在那裡，自由完全，或近乎完全不存在。在此情形，我們可以說，人無處不自由，但同樣的也無處自由。以自由之名，我們排除獲得的觀念，因為自由已經變成原初的獲得，也就是我們的自然狀態。

Since we do not have to provide it, it is the gift granted to us of having no gift, it is the nature of consciousness which consists in having no nature, and in no case can it find external expression or a place in our life. The idea of action, therefore, disappears: nothing can pass from us to the world, since we are nothing that can be specified, and since the non-being which constitutes us could not possibly find its way into the world’s plenum.

既然自由不是我們必須提供，而是一種上天賦予我們的不是天賦的天賦，是一種不需要有任何特性的意識的特性，它無法在我們的生活中找到外在的表達或位置。行動的觀念因此消失，因為沒有一樣東西能從我們身上傳遞到世界，因為我們不是任何所被指定的東西，因為組成我們的空性，不可能在世界的空間找到一個安身立命之處。

There are merely intentions immediately followed by their effects, and we are very near to the Kantian idea of an intention which is tantamount to the act, which Scheler countered with the argument that the cripple who would like to be able to save a drowning man and the good swimmer who actually saves him do not have the same experience of autonomy.

緊跟隨他們的情意而來的僅僅是意向性。在此，我們跟康德的意向就是行動的觀念頗為接近。希勒曾經反駁說：想要拯救溺水的殘障者跟實際上救起他的游泳高手，他們的自主的經驗並不相同。

The very idea of choice vanishes, for to choose is to choose something in which freedom sees, at least for a moment, a symbol of itself. There is free choice only if freedom comes into play in its decision, and posits the situation chosen as a situation of freedom.

選擇的觀念消失不見，因為選擇是要選擇某件自由看得到本身的符號，至少有那麼一個時刻。只有自由在做決定時運作，並假設有一個情況，可以選擇來當自由的情況，這樣才有自由的選擇。

A freedom which has no need to be exercised because it is already acquired could not commit itself in this way: it knows that the following instant will find it, come way may, just as free and just as indeterminate. The very notion of freedom demands that our decision should plunge into the future, that something should have been done by it, that the subsequent instant should benefit from its predecessor and, though not necessitated, should be at least required by it.

一個已經擁有的自由，就不需要去運用，無法以這個方式呈現：它無時無刻不自由，無論發生何事，同樣自由，同樣任性。自由的觀念要求，我們的決定應該投入未來，自由本來應該有所作為，隨後的瞬間應該從前頭的瞬間得到益處，至少應該受到它所要求，雖然未必有此需要。

If freedom is doing, it is necessary that what it does should not be immediately undone by a new freedom.

假如自由正在運用，它所運用的不應該立刻被新的自由所破壞。

Each instant, therefore, must not be a closed world; one instant must be able to commit its successors and, a decision once taken and action once begun, I must have something acquired at my disposal, I must benefit from my impetus, I must be inclined to carry on, and there must be a bent or propensity of the mind.

因此，每個瞬間切不可是一個封閉的世界，一個瞬間必須能夠銜接前一個瞬間。一但下定決心，一但採取行動，我必須要有某件聽由我支配的東西，我必須要從我的動機得到益處。我必須要有執行的意向，我的心必須意志堅決。

It was Descartes who held that conservation demands a power as great as does creation; a view which implies a realistic notion of the instant. It is true that the instant is not a philosopher’s fiction. It is the point at which one project is brought to fruition and another begun—the point at which my gaze is transferred from one end to another, it is the Augen-Blick.

笛卡爾認為，保存所需要的力量跟創造一樣強烈。這個觀點暗示著瞬間有著實際的觀念。的確，瞬間並非是哲學家的幻想。它是一個計劃圓滿達成，另一個計劃開始的時刻。此時，我的眼光從一端轉移到另一端，這被稱為「創造瞬間」。

But this break in time cannot occur unless each of the two spans is of a piece. Consciousness, it is said, though not atomized into instants, at least haunted by the specter of the instant which it is obliged continually to exorcise by a free act.

但是這個時間的中斷不會發生，除非兩段時間有一段尾隨在後。據說，意識雖然不會分裂成為瞬間，至少會被瞬間所縈迴，因此它不得不用自由的行動，將瞬間驅除。

We shall soon see that we have indeed always the power to interrupt, but it implies in any case a power to begin, for there would be no severance unless freedom had taken up its abode somewhere and were preparing to move it.

我們不久將看到，我們總是有中斷的力量，但它意味著隨時都有開始的力量。因為除非自由曾經停駐，並且正準備離開，否則不會有分劣

Unless there are cycles of behavior , open situations requiring a certain completion and capable of constituting a background to either a confirmatory or transformatory decision, we never experience freedom.

除非有行為的循環及開放的情境，要求某種的完成，並且能夠形成可以驗證或轉移的決定的背景，我們永遠不會經驗到自由。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw