Archive for the ‘Deleuze德勒茲’ Category

塊莖思維 09

June 11, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze and Gattari

德勒茲及瓜達里:千高台

 

An Introduction : Zhizome

導論:塊莖思維 09

 

To these centered systems, the authors contrast acentered systems, finite networks of automata in which communication runs from any neighbor to any other, the stems or channels do not preexist, and all individuals are interchangeable, defined only by their state at a given moment–such that the local operations are coordinated and the final, global result

synchronized without a central agency.

 

對於這些中央系統,作者對比許多非中央系統,機械的有限的網絡,讓資訊從任何鄰居流通到任何其他鄰居,樹幹或管道並沒有預先存在,所有的個人都可以互相交換,界定差異的,只是某個特並時刻,他們的狀態。所以地區性的運作是座標,最後的全球性的結果,沒有中央機構,也可以同時發生。

 

Transduction of intensive states replaces topology, and “the graph regulating the circulation of information is in a way the opposite of the hierarchical graph….There is no reason for the graph to be a tree” (we have been calling this kind of graph a map).

 

密集狀態的換能代替了地形學,「規範資訊流通的圖表,在某方面,是階層圖表的相反。但這個圖表並沒有一定是樹狀的理由」(我們一直稱呼這種圖表叫地圖)。

 

The problem of the war machine, or the firing squad: is a general necessary for n

individuals to manage to fire in unison?

 

戰爭機器或是行刑隊的問題:讓無數的個人一致地開火,有需要到一位將軍嗎?

 

The solution without a General is to be found in an acentered multiplicity possessing a finite number of states with signals to indicate corresponding speeds, from a war rhizome or guerrilla logic point of view, without any tracing, without any copying of a central order.

 

沒有一位將軍,解決的方法能夠在非中央的多重性被找到,因為這多重性擁有一些數目的狀態,發出訊號指示著一致性的速度,從戰爭塊莖,或游擊隊的邏輯,沒有蹤跡,沒有任何中央秩序的抄襲。

 

The authors even demonstrate that this kind of machinic multiplicity, assemblage, or society rejects any centralizing or unifying automaton as an “asocial intrusion.”

 

作者甚至證明,這種機器的多重性,裝配,或社會,拒絕任何中央或一致性的機械化,當一個「反社會的侵犯」。

 

Under these conditions, n is in fact always n – 1. Rosenstiehl and Petitot emphasize that the opposition, centered-acentered, is valid less as a designation for things than as a mode of calculation applied to things.

 

在這些條件下,無限次方總是無限次方減一。羅先提跟培提托強調,中央與非中央的對立,作為事物的指稱,比起應用到事物上的計算模式,較難於成立。

 

Trees may correspond to the rhizome, or they may burgeon into a rhizome. It is true that the same thing is generally susceptible to both modes of calculation or both types of regulation, but not without undergoing a change in state.

 

樹可能跟塊莖一致,或者它們可能萌芽成為塊莖。雖然相同的事物一般來說,容易受到計算模式及規範型式的傷害,但是狀態還是會經歷一些改變。

 

Take psychoanalysis as an example again: it subjects the unconscious to arborescent structures, hierarchical graphs, recapitulatory memories, central organs, the phallus, the phallus-tree-not only in its theory but also in its practice of calculation and treatment.

 

再一次以精神分析學為例。它將無意識隸屬於樹狀結構,階層圖表,再現記憶,中央器官,陽具,陽具及樹,不但在理論上,而且在計算及治療的實行上。

 

Psychoanalysis cannot change its method in this regard: it bases its own dictatorial power upon a dictatorial conception of the unconscious.

 

在這一方面,精神分析不能改變它的方法:它將自己的命令力量,建立在無意識的命令的概念上。

 

Psychoanalysis’s margin of maneuverability is therefore very limited. In both psychoanalysis and its object, there is always a general, always a leader (General Freud).

 

精神分析學的機動性的邊緣因此是相當受到限制。在精神分析學及其對象,總是有一位將軍,總是有一位領導者(佛洛伊德將軍)。

 

Schizoanalysis, on the other hand, treats the unconscious as an acentered system, in other words, as a machinic network of finite automata (a rhizome), and thus arrives at an entirely different state of the unconscious.

 

在另一方面,精神分裂分析學對待無意識,當著是一個非中央的系統,換言之,當著一個有限機械化的機器的網絡(一座塊莖),然後到達一個無意識完全不同的狀態。

 

These same remarks apply to linguistics; Rosenstiehl and Petitot are right to bring up the

possibility of an “acentered organization of a society of words.” For both statements and desires, the issue is never to reduce the unconscious or to interpret it or to make it signify according to a tree model.

 

這些相同的談話可應用到語言學。羅先提跟培提托提出「文字的社會有非中央組織的可能性」,是有道理的。因為對於陳述跟慾望,問題不是要減少無意識,或詮釋它,或使它依照樹狀模式來表明。

 

The issue is to produce the unconscious, and with it new statements, different desires: the rhizome is precisely this production of the unconscious.

 

問題是要產生無意識,然後用它來產生新的陳述,不同的慾望:塊莖準確就是無意識的產生。

 

It is odd how the tree has dominated Western reality and all of Western thought, from botany to biology and anatomy, but also gnosiology, theology, ontology, all of philosophy …: the root foundation, Grund, racine, fondement.

 

很奇怪,樹曾經支配西方的現實界及所有西方的思想,不但從植物學到生物學及解剖學,而且靈魂學、神學、本體論、及所有的哲學,根基基礎學、如毛髮、根,肛門

 

The West has a special relation to the forest, and deforestation; the fields carved from the

forest are populated with seed plants produced by cultivation based on species lineages of the arborescent type; animal raising, carried out on fallow fields, selects lineages forming an entire animal arborescence.

 

西方國家跟森林有一個特別的關係,砍伐森林,從森林清理出來的田野,種植根據樹狀型態的品種系譜,而培育的一些種子植物;豢養家畜,在休耕的田地豢養,選擇一些優良品種,形成整個動物的樹狀結構。

 

 

The East presents a different figure: a relation to the steppe and the garden (or in some cases, the desert and the oasis),, rather than forest and field; cultivation of tubers by fragmentation of

the individual; a casting aside or bracketing of animal raising, which is confined to closed spaces or pushed out onto the steppes of the nomads.

 

東方國家表現不同的面貌:跟大草原及花園有特別關係(或者,在某些情形,跟沙漠及綠洲),而不是跟森林及田野。個人零星的培育根管植物,拋棄豢養動物的欄柵, 動物若不是被限制在封閉空間,就是被放逐到遊牧的大草原。

 

The West: agriculture based on a chosen lineage containing a large number of variable individuals.

 

西方國家的農業建立在選擇性的品種上,雖然這些品種包括許多不同的次品種。

 

The East: horticulture based on a small number of individuals derived from a wide range of “clones.” Does not the East, Oceania in particular, offer something like a rhizomatic model opposed in every respect to the Western model of the tree?

 

而東方國家的園藝業,則建立在從廣泛「基因」演變而來的少數的個別品種。東方國家,特別是海洋國家,難道不是提供某些每一方面都跟西方國家樹狀模式相反的,像是塊莖模式的東西?

 

André Haudricourt even sees this as the basis for the opposition between the moralities or philosophies of transcendence dear to the West and the immanent ones of the East: the God who sows and reaps, as opposed to the God who replants and unearths (replanting of offshoots versus sowing of seeds).16

 

安德列、何瑞科甚至把這一點,當著是西方國家所喜愛的道德論跟超驗哲學,與東方國家的內在論相對比的基礎;也就是播種收穫的上帝,跟反復重植與挖掘的上帝相對比(分枝的再重植對比於種子的播種)。

 

Transcendence: a specifically European disease. Neither is music the same, the music of the earth is different, as is sexuality: seed plants, even those with two sexes in the same plant, subjugate sexuality to the reproductive model; the rhizome, on the other hand, is a liberation

of sexuality not only from reproduction but also from genitality.

 

超驗:一種明確是歐洲的疾病。音樂也不相同,大地的音樂不同,如同性的音樂也不同。種子植物,即使相同植物擁有兩性的那些植物,都將性屈服於繁殖;另一方面,塊莖是一種性的解放,不但從繁殖解放,而且從生殖器解放。

 

Here in the West, the tree has implanted itself in our bodies, rigidifying and stratifying even the sexes. We have lost the rhizome, or the grass. Henry Miller: “China is the weed in the human cabbage patch. The weed is the Nemesis of human endeavor… Of all the imaginary existences we attribute to plant, beast and star the weed leads the most satisfactory life of all. True, the weed produces no lilies, no battleships, no Sermons on the Mount… Eventually the weed gets the upper hand. Eventually things fall back into a state of China.  

 

在西方國家,樹已經根深柢固於我們的身體,甚至將性都嚴格規定跟區分。我們已經失去塊莖,或草。亨利、米勒說過:「在人類的甘藍菜園,中國像是野草。野草是人類惡行的反撲。我們給予植物、動物及星座,各種想像的存在特性,野草則是其中最令人滿意的存在特性。的確,野草沒有產生百合花,沒有產生主力艦,沒有產生耶穌的山上寶訓。最終,野草將會佔優勢。最後,一切都將會倒退到中國的狀態。」

 

This condition is usually referred to by historians as the Dark Age. Grass is the only way out…. The weed exists only to fill the waste spaces left by cultivated areas. It grows between, among other things.

 

這個狀況一般被歷史學家稱為黑暗時代。草是唯一的找出路的方法。野草存在只是為了填補耕種地區所剩餘的廢棄空間。野草滋長於其他東西的罅隙之間。

 

The lily is beautiful, the cabbage is provender, the poppy is maddening-but the weed is rank growth … : it points a moral.”

 

百合花是美麗的,甘藍菜是食物,罌粟是令人激奮,但是野草則是等級成長:它寓意良深。

 

Which China is Miller talking about? The old China, the new, an imaginary one, or yet

another located on a shifting map?

 

哪一種中國是米勒所談論的?古老的中國,新興的想像中的中國,還是另外一種尚位於

浮動地圖的中國?

 

America is a special case. Of course it is not immune from domination by trees or the search for roots.

 

美國是一個特別案例。當然,它無法免疫於樹狀的支配或根的尋求?

 

This is evident even in the literature, in the quest for a national identity and even for a European ancestry or genealogy (Kerouac going off in search of his ancestors).

 

這在文學,在追求國家認同,甚至在歐洲祖先或系譜的追尋,甚至更為明顯(作家凱洛亞克前去歐洲尋求祖先)。

 

Nevertheless, everything important that has happened or is happening takes the route of the American rhizome: the beatniks, the underground, bands and gangs, successive lateral offshoots in immediate connection with an outside. American books are different from European books, even when the American sets off in pursuit of trees.

 

可是,所曾經發生或正在發生的重要的事情,都採取美國塊莖的路線:披頭四,地下吟唱詩人,樂團跟黑道,跟外界密切相連的連續的側生的支脈。美國的書不同於歐洲的書,即使美國人出發去追尋樹。

 

The conception of the book is different. Leaves of Grass. And directions in America are different: the search for arborescence and the return to the Old World occur in the East. But there is the rhizomatic West, with its Indians without ancestry, its ever-receding limit, its shifting and displaced frontiers.

 

書的觀念大不相同。如美國詩人惠特曼的草葉集。美國的方向也大不相同:對於樹狀思維的追尋跟回歸舊世界,發生在東方國家。但是西方國家也有塊莖思維,如印度沒有祖先,一直往後追溯,邊境一再改變跟代替。

 

There is a whole American “map” in the West, where even the trees form rhizomes. America

reversed the directions: it put its Orient in the West, as if it were precisely in America that the earth came full circle; its West is the edge of the East. (India is not the intermediary between the Occident and the Orient, as Haudricourt believed: America is the pivot point and mechanism of reversal.)

 

在西方國家,也有完整的美國「地圖」,可讓樹狀形成塊莖。美國則倒轉方向:它將東方國家擺置於西方國家,好像就是在美國,地球整整繞了一整圈,它的西方就在東方的邊緣(印度並沒有立即位於西方跟東方之間,如何瑞科所相信的。美國是樞軸點,及倒轉的機械)。

 

The American singer Patti Smith sings the bible of the American dentist: Don’t go for the root, follow the canal

 

美國歌手派帝、史密思歌唱美國牙醫的聖經:不要尋找根,而要順著管道。

 

Are there not also two kinds of bureaucracy, or even three (or still more)? Western bureaucracy: its agrarian, cadastral origins; roots and fields; trees and their role as frontiers; the great census of William the Conqueror; feudalism; the policies of the kings of France; making property the basis of the State; negotiating land through warfare, litigation, and marriages.’

 

難道不是也有兩種官僚,或甚至三種(或甚至更多)?西方的官僚:它的農業的地籍的淵源,根跟田野,樹根及其作為邊境的角色,威廉大帝的人口普查,專制封建,法國國王的政策,將財產視為國家的基礎,經由戰爭、訴訟、及婚姻結盟來協商領土。

 

The kings of France chose the lily because it is a plant with deep roots that clings to slopes. Is bureaucracy the same in the Orient?

 

法國國王選擇百合花,因為它是帶有緊連斜坡的深根的植物。官僚在東方國家,難道不是同樣情形?

 

Of course it is all too easy to depict an Orient of rhizomes and immanence; yet it is true that in the Orient the State does not act following a schema of arborescence corresponding to preestablished, arborified, and rooted classes; its bureaucracy is one of channels, for example, the much-discussed case of hydraulic power with “weak property,” in which the State engenders channeled and channelizing classes (cf. the aspects of Wittfogel’s work that have not been refuted).

 

當然,這樣描述具有塊莖跟內在性的東方國家未免太過輕率,但是在東方,國家的發展,確實不是遵照樹狀基模,或遵循預先建立的樹狀及根的階層。它的官僚是水道式,例如,曾被熱烈討論的具有「弱特性」的水力,國家產生水道及水道式的階層(請參閱尚未有人反駁的威佛傑的論著)。

 

The despot acts as a river, not as a fountainhead, which is still a point, a tree-point or root; he flows with the current rather than sitting under a tree; Buddha’s tree itself becomes a rhizome; Mao’s river and Louis’s tree. Has not America acted as an intermediary here as well?

 

專制君主充當河流,不是源頭,那依舊是個點,樹點或根,他順著流水而流,而不是坐在樹下。佛陀的樹本身成為塊莖。毛澤東是河流式,法國路易十六則是樹狀式。美國難道不是充當介於中間?

 

For it proceeds both by internal exterminations and liquidations (not only the Indians but also the farmers, etc.), and by successive waves of immigration from the outside.

 

因為它靠著內部的消滅跟殺害,維持政權(不但消滅印地安人,而且農夫等等),也憑藉不斷地從外面引進的移民的浪潮。

 

The flow of capital produces an immense channel, a quantification of power with immediate “quanta,” where each person profits from the passage of the money flow in his or her own way (hence the reality-myth of the poor man who strikes it rich and then falls into poverty again): in America everything comes together, tree and channel, root and rhizome.

 

資本的流動產生巨大的水道,具有立即「量子」的權力的數量化,在此每個人都以自己的方式,從金錢的流動過程中得到利益(因此是貧窮人的現實及神話,可一夜暴富,然後又破產);在美國,一切都並肩而來,樹跟水道,根跟塊莖。

 

There is no universal capitalism, there is no capitalism in itself-, capitalism is at the crossroads of all kinds of formations, it is neocapitalism by nature. It invents its eastern face and western face, and reshapes them both-all for the worst.

 

沒有普及性的資本主義,沒有資本主義的本身,資本主義處於各種隊伍的十字路口,它在性質上是新資本主義。它發明它東方國家的面目及西方國家的面目,然後再重新塑造兩種面目,只是每況愈下。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 08

June 10, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze

德勒茲:千高台

 

An Introduction: Zhizome

導論:塊莖思維 08

 

Look at what happened to Little Hans already, an example of child psychoanalysis at its purest: they kept on BREAKING HIS RHIZOME and BLOTCHING HIS MAP, setting it straight for him, blocking his every way out, until he began to desire his own shame

and guilt, until they had rooted shame and guilt in him, PHOBIA (they barred him from the rhizome of the building, then from the rhizome of the street, they rooted him in his parents’ bed, they radicled him to his own body, they fixated him on Professor Freud).

 

瞧一下小漢斯的個案,最單純的兒童精神分析的例子:他們一直突破他的塊莖,並弄污他的地圖,直接修改,阻止他的每個出口,直到他開始欲望自己的羞恥及罪惡感,直到他們將羞恥及罪惡感在他身上根深蒂固,害怕(他們禁止他進入建築物的塊莖,然後街上的塊莖,他們將他定位於父母的床上,他們將他的病因根源於他自己的身體,他們根據佛洛伊德教授的理論改正他。)

 

Freud explicitly takes Little Hans’s cartography into account, but always and only in order to project it back onto the family photo.

 

佛洛伊德明確地考慮到小漢斯的地圖製作,但是目的總是僅僅是為了將地圖製作投射回家庭的照片。

 

And look what Melanie Klein did to Little Richard’s geopolitical maps: she developed photos from them, made tracings of them.

 

但是瞧一下客體關係理論的梅蘭尼、克列恩替小漢斯的地質政治的地圖做了些什麼:她從那裡發展出照片,將他們當成蹤跡。

 

Strike the pose or follow the axis, genetic stage or structural destiny-one way or the other, your rhizome will be broken.

 

打擊姿態或遵照樞軸,基因的階段,或結構的命運,以某種的方式,你的塊莖就打破。

 

You will be allowed to live and speak, but only after every outlet has been obstructed. Once a rhizome has been obstructed, arborified, it’s all over, no desire stirs; for it is always by rhizome that desire moves and produces.

 

你將會被允許活下去及說話,條件是每個出口被堵住。一但塊莖被堵住或形成樹狀,它就完蛋了,沒有慾望激動得起來,因為總是要有塊莖,慾望才能移動根生產。

 

Whenever desire climbs a tree, internal repercussions trip it up and it falls to its death; the rhizome, on the other hand, acts on desire by external, productive outgrowths.

 

每當慾望爬上樹,內在的反彈會使它絆倒,摔下死掉;可是,在另一方面,慾望在塊莖上的動作,則是向外滋長及生產。

 

That is why it is so important to try the other, reverse but nonsymmetrical, operation. Plug the tracings back into the map, connect the roots or trees back up with a rhizome.

 

這就是為什麼嘗試一下另外一種倒轉,但是非均稱的運作,是很重要的。將蹤跡置放回地圖,以塊莖將根莖或樹連接回去。

 

In the case of Little Hans, studying the unconscious would be to show how he tries to build a rhizome, with the family house but also with the line of flight of the building, the street, etc.; how these lines are blocked, how the child is made to take root in the family, be photographed under the father, be traced onto the mother’s bed; then how Professor Freud’s intervention assures a power takeover by the signifier, a subjectification of affects; how the only escape route left to the child is a becoming-animal perceived as shameful and guilty (the becoming-horse of Little Hans, a truly political option).

 

以小漢斯的案例,研究無意識將會顯示,他如何以家庭的房屋,也以建築物、街道等的逃離離路線,建造塊莖,這些路線如何被堵住,小孩如何被迫在家庭生根,如何在父親的關照下被拍照,被追蹤到母親的床上,然後佛洛伊德教授如何介入,保證符號具的權力接管,情意的主體化,僅剩餘的一條逃避路線,就是被認為是令人羞恥及罪惡桿的生成動物(小漢斯的生成馬,真正是政治性的選擇)。

 

But these impasses must always be resituated on the map, thereby opening them up to possible lines of flight.

 

但是這些僵局必須總是重新在地圖上找到位置,然後開放他們給可能的逃離路線。

 

The same applies to the group map: show at what point in the rhizome there form phenomena of massification, bureaucracy, leadership, fascization, etc., which lines nevertheless survive, if only underground, continuing to make rhizome in the shadows.

 

團體的地圖也是適用同樣道理:找出在塊莖的哪一點,組成斷層塊、官僚、領導、法西斯等等的現象,可是又有哪些路線可以存活,即使僅僅存活於地下,繼續在陰影地方形成塊莖。

 

Deligny’s method: map the gestures and movements of an autistic child, combine several maps for the same child, for several different children.

 

鐵黎尼的方法:畫出自閉症兒童的姿態跟動作,將相同兒童,或好幾個不同的兒童的好幾張地圖,結合在一起,

 

If it is true that it is of the essence of the map or rhizome to have multiple entryways, then it is plausible that one could even enter them through tracings or the root tree, assuming the necessary precautions are taken (once again, one must avoid any Manichaean dualism).

 

假如地圖或塊莖的本質的確有多重入口,那麼我們就順理成章,可能經由蹤跡或根樹進入他們,假如我們採取必須要的警戒,步步為營(再一次,我們必須避免任何摩尼教的二元論)。

 

For example, one will often be forced to take dead ends, to work with signifying powers and subjective affections, to find a foothold in formations that are Oedipalor paranoid or even worse, rigidified territorialities that open the way for other transformational operations.

 

例如,我們時常被迫絕處逢生,運作符號力量及主觀情意,找出隊伍的基礎點,不論這隊伍是伊底普斯的偏執狂,或更糟糕的,是已經被其他轉變的運作侵入的盤據的轄域。

 

It is even possible for psychoanalysis to serve as a foothold, in spite of itself. In other cases, on the contrary, one will bolster oneself directly on a line of flight enabling one to blow apart

strata, cut roots, and make new connections.

 

精神分析學即使本身是治療學,甚至也可能充當基礎點。相反的,在其他個案,我們將會直接以逃離路線,支撐自己,使我們能夠爆破階層、切割根莖、然後重新連接。

 

Thus, there are very diverse map-tracing, rhizomeroot assemblages, with variable coefficients of deterritorialization. There exist tree or root structures in rhizomes; conversely, a tree branch or root division may begin to burgeon into a rhizome.

 

因此,有多樣性的地圖蹤跡,塊莖裝配,有解轄域的變化的協同係數。有樹或根的結構存在於塊莖;在另一方面,樹枝或根的分歧可能開始萌芽成為塊莖。

 

The coordinates are determined not by theoretical analyses implying universals but by a pragmatics composing multiplicities or aggregates of intensities.

 

座標的決定,不是由意味著普及性的理論的分析,而是由組成多重性或張力匯聚的實用。

 

A new rhizome may form in the heart of a tree, the hollow of a root, the crook of a branch. Or else it is a microscopic element of the root-tree, a radicle, that gets rhizome production going.

 

新的塊莖可能在樹的中心、根的中空處、樹枝的彎曲處形成。或者,根樹的微小元素,幼根,也可使塊莖的生產進行。

 

Accounting and bureaucracy proceed by tracings: they can begin to burgeon nonetheless, throwing out rhizome stems, as in a Kafka novel.

 

會計及官僚繼續以蹤跡進行:可是,他們能夠開始萌芽,拋掉塊莖幹柄,如卡夫卡的小說。

 

An intensive trait starts working for itself, a hallucinatory perception, synesthesia, perverse mutation, or play of images shakes loose, challenging the hegemony of the signifier.

 

一個密集的特徵開始自己運作,一個幻想的感覺,語法的脫序,變態的轉換,或意象的玩弄,都掙脫鬆綁,挑戰符號具的霸權。

 

In the case of the child, gestural, mimetic, ludic, and other semiotic systems regain their freedom and extricate themselves from the “tracing,” that is, from the dominant competence of the teacher’s language–a microscopic event upsets the local balance of power.

 

在兒童的案例,姿態、模擬、玩笑,及其他語言的系統,重獲他們的自由,從蹤跡中掙脫,換言之,從教師的語言凌駕能力中掙脫,微小事件擾亂了權力的地區性平衡。

 

Similarly, generative trees constructed according to Chomsky’s syntagmatic model can open up in all directions, and in turn form a rhizome.

 

同樣地,衍生的樹狀結構是依照莊士基的語法模式所建造,能朝各個方向展開,輪流組成塊莖。

 

 

To be rhizomorphous is to produce stems and filaments that seem to be roots, or better yet connect with them by penetrating the trunk, but put them to strange new uses. We’re tired of

trees. We should stop believing in trees, roots, and radicles.

 

成為塊莖,就是產生似乎像是根的幹莖及線莖,或是更好的是以貫穿樹幹與他們連接,然後將他們做奇怪的新的用途。我們厭倦於樹狀結構。我們應該停止相信樹、根、及幼根。

 

They’ve made us suffer too much. All of arborescent culture is founded on them, from biology to linguistics.

 

他們使我們太過痛苦。所有的樹狀文化以他們為基礎,從生物學到語言學。

 

Nothing is beautiful or loving or political aside from underground stems and aerial roots, adventitious growths and rhizomes.

 

沒有一樣東西能比地下幹莖,空中之根,滋生成長及塊莖,更加美麗、可愛、及政治。

 

Amsterdam, a city entirely without roots, a rhizome-city with its stem-canals, where utility connects with the greatest folly in relation to a commercial war machine.

 

阿姆斯特丹,一座完全沒有根的城市,一座運河幹莖般四通八達的塊莖城市,在此實用性連接到商業的戰爭機器,似乎荒謬無比。

 

Thought is not arborescent, and the brain is not a rooted or ramified matter. What are wrongly called “dendrites” do not assure the connection of neurons in a continuous fabric.

 

思想不是樹狀結構,腦並不是根莖或分枝的物質。一般錯誤地稱為「樹狀突」,並沒有保證中子星羅棋布地連接。

 

The discontinuity between cells, the role of the axons, the functioning of the synapses,

the existence of synaptic microfissures, the leap each message makes across these fissures, make the brain a multiplicity immersed in its plane of consistency or neuroglia, a whole uncertain, probabilistic system (“the uncertain nervous system”).

 

細胞之間的不連續,軸索的角色,突觸的功用,突觸微裂隙的存在,每個訊息越過這些列隙的跳躍,都使腦成為轉注於一貫或神經膠質的平面的多重性,成為一個不穩定的問題重重的系統(「不穩定的神經系統」)。

 

Many people have a tree growing in their heads, but the brain itself is much more a grass than

a tree. “The axon and the dendrite twist around each other like bindweed around brambles, with synapses at each of the thorns.”

 

許多人的腦袋就像是樹長在那裡,但是腦本身更像草,而不是像樹。軸索及樹狀突互相糾纏,每一根荊棘都有突觸。

 

The same goes for memory. Neurologists and psychophysiologists distinguish between long-term memory and short-term memory (on the order of a minute).

 

相同道理適用於記憶力。神經學專家及心理生理學專家區別長期記憶跟短期記憶(依照停留分鐘的秩序)。

 

The difference between them is not simply quantitative: short-term memory is of the rhizome or diagram type, and long-term memory is arborescent and centralized (imprint,

engram, tracing, or photograph).

 

他們之間的差別不僅僅是數量:短期記憶屬於塊莖或曲線類型,而長期記憶屬無樹狀結構及中央(銘記、印象、蹤跡、或照片)。

 

Short-term memory is in no way subject to a law of contiguity or immediacy to its object; it can act at a distance, come or return a long time after, but always under conditions of discontinuity, rupture, and multiplicity.

 

短期記憶根本不屬於客體的鄰近或立即法則;它能遠距離行動,長時間後還可來回,但總是在中斷、斷裂、及多重性的狀況下。

 

Furthermore, the difference between the two kinds of memory is not that of two temporal modes of apprehending the same thing; they do not grasp the same thing, memory, or idea.

 

而且,兩種記憶力的不同,並不是理解事物的兩個時間模式的不同;他們所理解的不是相同的事物、記憶、或觀念。

 

The splendor of the short-term Idea: one writes using short-term memory, and thus short-term ideas, even if one reads or rereads using long-term memory of long-term concepts.

 

短期記憶的輝煌:我們寫作是用短期記憶,因此用到短期記憶的觀念,即使我們閱讀或重新閱讀,用的還是短期觀念的長期記憶。

 

Short-term memory includes forgetting as a process; it merges not with the instant but instead with the nervous, temporal, and collective rhizome.

 

短期記憶包含遺忘當著一種過程,它不是跟瞬間,相反的,是跟神經、時間、及集體塊莖融合。

 

Long-term memory (family, race, society, or civilization) traces and translates, but what it translates continues to act in it, from a distance, off beat, in an “untimely” way, not instantaneously.

 

長期記憶(家庭、種族、社會、或文明)追蹤及翻譯,但是它所翻譯的內容繼續在裡面行動,從遠處,不合節拍,不合時宜,不是當下。

 

The tree and root inspire a sad image of thought that is forever imitating the multiple on the basis of a centered or segmented higher unity.

 

樹與根啟發一個令人悲傷的思想意象,此意象永遠在模仿多重性,基礎是中央或分隔的更高的一致性。

 

If we consider the set, branches-roots, the trunk plays the role of opposed segment for one of the subsets running from bottom to top: this kind of segment is a “link dipole,” in contrast to the “unit dipoles” formed by spokes radiating from a single center.

 

假如我們考慮到集合,樹枝及根,樹幹就替從底端到頂端的次集合,扮演相對的分隔的角色;這種分隔是一種「雙極連接」,對比於由單一中央發射出來的輪軸所形成的「單極連接」。

 

Even if the links themselves proliferate, as in the radicle system, one can never get beyond the One-Two, and fake multiplicities. Regenerations, reproductions, returns, hydras, and medusas do not get us any further.

 

即使是連接本身也在繁殖,如同在幼根系統,我們永遠無法超越一與二,及虛假的多重性。革新、再生、復原、九頭蛇砍不死、三頭女妖,試不到幾次就破功。

 

Arborescent systems are hierarchical systems with centers of signifiance and subjectification, central automata like organized memories.

 

樹狀系統是階層系統,有意義及主體化的中央,中央的自動化機械,就像是組織好的記憶力。

 

In the corresponding models, an element only receives information from a higher unit, and only receives a subjective affection along preestablished paths.

 

以相一致的模式,一個元素只從更高的單位收到資訊,而且只沿著預先建立好的路線,收到一個主觀化的情意

 

This is evident in current problems in information science and computer science, which

still cling to the oldest modes of thought in that they grant all power to a memory or central organ.

 

這在資訊科學及電腦科學目前所遭遇的問題上,甚為明顯,它們依舊堅持古老的思維模式,因為它們將所有的力量都賦予一個記憶體或中心器官。

 

Pierre Rosenstiehl and Jean Petitot, in a fine article denouncing “the imagery of command trees” (centered systems or hierarchical structures), note that “accepting the primacy of hierarchical structures amounts to giving arborescent structures privileged status…. The arborescent form admits of topological explanation…. In a hierarchical system, an individual has only one active neighbor, his or her hierarchical superior….The channels of transmission are preestablished: the arborescent system preexists the individual, who is integrated into it at an allotted place” (signifiance and subjectification).

 

比爾、羅先提及珍、培提扥在一篇文章中,抨擊「樹狀命令的意象」(中央或階層結構),他們注意到「接收階層結構的最初級,相當於是給予樹狀結構的特權地位。樹狀形式容許地形學的解釋。在階層系統裡,個人只有一個活躍的鄰居,就是他或她的階層上級。轉移的頻道是預先建立;樹狀系統早先存在於個人,個人按照被指定的位置被合併」(意義跟主體化)

 

The authors point out that even when one thinks one has reached a multiplicity, it may be a false one-of what we call the radicle type–because its ostensibly nonhierarchical presentation or statement in fact only admits of a totally hierarchical solution.

 

作者指出,即使當我們在思想時,我們已經到達一個多重性;這個多重性可能是一個我們所謂的幼根型的虛假的多重性,因為它虛有其表的非階層表現或陳述,事實上,只容許整體的階層解決。

 

An example is the famous friendship theorem: “If any two given individuals in a society have precisely one mutual friend, then there exists an individual who is the friend of all the others.” (Rosenstiehl and Petitot ask who that mutual friend is.

 

「著名友誼公理」就是一個例子。「假如在一個社會的兩個人,很清楚的有一位共同的朋友,那麼就存在著一個人是所有其他人的朋友。」【羅先提和培提托】

 

Who is “the universal friend in this society of couples: the master, the confessor, the doctor? These ideas are curiously far removed from the initial axioms.” Who is this friend of humankind?

 

誰是「伴侶社會的共同朋友:主人、聽人告解的神父、還是醫生?」這些觀念令人好奇地卻是跟最初的公理風馬牛不相及:「誰是人類的這位朋友?」

 

Is it the philosopher as he appears in classical thought, even if he is an aborted unity that makes itself felt only through its absence or subjectivity, saying all the while, I know nothing, I am nothing?)

 

是那位出現在古典思想裡的哲學家蘇格拉底嗎?即使他只是憑藉佯裝貶抑自己的見解及主觀性,來使道理讓人感覺出萊,他總是說「我一無所知,我算老幾」。

 

Thus the authors speak of dictatorship theorems. Such is indeed the principle of roots-trees, or their outcome: the radicle solution, the structure of Power.

 

因此作者提到獨裁公理:根與樹的原理,或它們的結果,的確也是如此:基根的解決方式,也就是權力的結構。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 07

June 9, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Delezue

德勒茲:千高台

 

An Introduction: Zhizome

導論:塊莖思維 07

 

5 and 6.

 

第五及第六章

 

Principle of cartography and decalcomania: a rhizome is not amenable to any structural or generative model.

 

地圖製作及印花釉法的原理:塊莖無法修改成任何結構式或生產式的模式。

 

It is a stranger to any idea of genetic axis or deep structure.

 

它不被基因軸線或深度結構的觀念所認識。

 

A genetic axis is like an objective pivotal unity upon which successive stages are organized; a deep structure is more like a base sequence that can be broken down into immediate constituents, while the unity of the product passes into another, transformational and subjective, dimension.

 

基因軸線就像是客體的樞軸的一致性,連續的階段組織在上面。深度結構更像基礎系列,可以分解成立即的成份,而產品的一致性進入另一個轉移及主體的向度。

 

This does not constitute a departure from the representative model of the tree, or root-pivotal taproot or fascicles (for example, Chomsky’s “tree” is associated with a base sequence and represents the process of its own generation in terms of binary logic). A variation on the oldest form of thought.

 

這樣並沒有跟樹狀結構,或作為根軸的主根,或叢團的代表模式分道揚鑣(例如,莊士基的「樹狀句法分析」是跟基礎系列有關連,並代表自己衍生的過程,從二元邏輯的術語而言)那是舊式思維的一種新的變種。

 

It is our view that genetic axis and profound structure are above all infinitely reproducible principles of tracing. All of tree logic is a logic of tracing and reproduction.

 

我們的觀點是:基因軸線跟深度結構尤其是蹤跡的完全不可複製的原理。所有樹的邏輯都是蹤跡及複製的邏輯。

 

In linguistics as in psychoanalysis, its object is an unconscious that is itself representative, crystallized into codified complexes, laid out along a genetic axis and distributed within a syntagmatic structure.

 

在語言學,如同在精神分析學,其客體是本身具有代表性的無意識,具體化成為符碼化的綜合體,沿著基因軸線布置,在語段結構中分佈。

 

Its goal is to describe a de facto state, to maintain balance in intersubjective relations, or to explore an unconscious that is already there from the start, lurking in the dark recesses of memory and language.

 

其目標是要描述事實的狀態,維持平衡於互為主體的關係,或探索從一開始就在那裡,潛藏記憶及語言的黑暗角落的無意識。

 

It consists of tracing, on the basis of an overcoding structure or supporting axis, something that comes ready-made. The tree articulates and hierarchizes tracings; tracings are like the leaves of a tree.

 

它由蹤跡組成,根據過度符碼化結構或支撐軸線的基礎,那些都是現成的東西。這種樹狀結構表達蹤跡,並使之階層化;蹤跡就像是樹的葉子。

 

The rhizome is altogether different, a map and not a tracing. Make a map, not a tracing. The orchid does not reproduce the tracing of the wasp; it forms a map with the wasp, in a rhizome.

 

塊莖完全不同,是地圖,而非蹤跡。製造一個地圖,而非蹤跡。蘭花並不複製黃蜂的蹤跡,它跟黃蜂在塊莖中,形成地圖。

 

What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented toward an experimentation in contact with the real.

 

地圖跟蹤跡的區別是,它完全定向於跟真實接觸的試驗。

 

The map does not reproduce an unconscious closed in upon itself; it constructs the

unconscious.

 

地圖並不複製封閉於自身的無意識,它建造無意識。

 

It fosters connections between fields, the removal of blockages on bodies without organs, the maximum opening of bodies without organs onto a plane of consistency. It is itself a part of the rhizome.

 

它培養田野之間的連接,無器官身體的障礙的拆除,無器官身體最大量的開放於一貫的平面上。它本身是塊莖的部份。

 

The map is open and connectable in all of its dimensions; it is detachable, reversible, susceptible to constant modification.

 

地圖是開放,而且各個方向均可連接;它可以銜接,可以倒轉,可以輕易地不斷修改。

 

It can be torn, reversed, adapted to any kind of mounting, reworked by an individual, group, or social formation. It can be drawn on a wall, conceived of as a work of art, constructed as a political action or as a meditation.

 

他能夠被撕裂,被倒轉,被改編成為任何種類的基礎,被任何個人,團體,或社會組織重新改造。它能夠被繪製於牆上,被構想當著藝術作品,建造成政治活動或當著沉思。

 

Perhaps one of the most important characteristics of the rhizome is that it always has multiple entryways; in this sense, the burrow is an animal rhizome, and sometimes maintains a clear

distinction between the line of flight as passageway and storage or living strata (cf. the muskrat).

 

也許,塊莖最重要的特性之一是,它總是有多重入口。以此意義,地洞是動物的塊莖,有時在逃離線作為通道,與作為儲藏室及生活階層之間(如麝鼠),維持明顯的區別。

 

A map has multiple entryways, as opposed to the tracing, which always comes back “to the same.”

 

地圖有多重入口,這跟蹤跡相反,後者總是回到原點。

 

The map has to do with performance, whereas the tracing always involves an alleged “competence.”

 

地圖必須跟表現有關,而蹤跡總是牽涉到所謂的「勝任」。

 

Unlike psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic competence (which confines every desire and statement to a genetic axis or overcoding structure, and makes infinite, monotonous tracings of the stages on that axis or the constituents of that structure), schizoanalysis rejects any idea of pretraced destiny, whatever name is given to it–divine, anagogic, historical, economic, structural, hereditary, or syntagmatic.

 

不像精神分析學,或精神分析能力(限制每個慾望及陳述於基因的樞軸或過度符碼的結構,並對此樞軸或結構的形成,分成無數的單調的階段蹤跡),精神分裂分析拒絕任何預設蹤跡的觀念,無論給予的名稱是什麼,無論是神意、無意識、歷史、經濟、結構、遺傳、或語設之名。

 

(It is obvious that Melanie Klein has no understanding of the cartography of one of her child patients, Little Richard, and is content to make ready-made tracings-Oedipus, the good daddy and the bad daddy, the bad mommy and the good mommy-while the child makes a desperate attempt to carry out a performance that the psychoanalyst totally misconstrues.)

 

很明顯的,梅蘭妮、克列恩並不了解她的兒童病人小李查的地圖製作,就滿足於將他歸屬於現成的伊底普斯情結的蹤跡,好爸爸及壞爸爸,壞媽媽及好媽媽。但是兒童的絕望地企圖表現,卻是精神分析學完全錯誤詮釋。

 

Drives and part-objects are neither stages on a genetic axis nor positions in a deep structure; they are political options for problems, they are entryways and exits, impasses the child lives out politically, in other words, with all the force of his or her desire.

 

欲念及部分客體既不是基因樞軸的階段,也不是深度結構的位置。他們是對於難題的政治性選擇,他們是入口跟出口,兒童用政治方式,換言之,用他或她的慾望的力量,闖過這些難題隘口而存活。

 

Have we not, however, reverted to a simple dualism by contrasting maps to tracings, as good and bad sides? Is it not of the essence of the map to be traceable?

 

可是,當我們以地圖跟蹤跡對比,評估其優缺點,我們難道不也退回二元論?這難道不是說,地圖的本質,是一種蹤跡?

 

Is it not of the essence of the rhizome to intersect roots and sometimes merge with them?

這難道不是塊莖攔截根莖,有時甚至與之融合的本質?

Does not a map contain phenomena of redundancy that are already like tracings of its own?

 

地圖難道不是包含多餘的現象?此現象難道不已經是自己的蹤跡?

 

Does not a multiplicity have strata upon which unifications and totalizations, massifications, mimetic mechanisms, signifying power takeovers, and subjective attributions take root?

 

多重性難道沒有階層,讓統一、整體、斷層塊、模擬機械、符號化權力接管、主體化屬性等,可以賴於生根?

 

Do not even lines of flight, due to their eventual divergence, reproduce the very formations their function it was to dismantle or outflank?

 

即使是逃離路線,由於其最後的分歧,其功用所拆解或側翼包圍的隊形,難道不是自己所複製的?

 

But the opposite is also true. It is a question of method: the tracing should always be put back on the map.

 

但是反之亦是,這是方法的問題:縱跡應該總是放回地圖上。

 

This operation and the previous one are not at all symmetrical. For it is inaccurate to say that a tracing reproduces the map.

 

運作及先前的運作根本不均稱,因為說縱跡複製地圖是不正確的。

 

It is instead like a photograph or X ray that begins by selecting or isolating, by artificial means such as colorations or other restrictive procedures, what it intends to reproduce.

 

代替的,這像是照片或X光線,開始時,先選擇跟孤立它所打算要複製的部分,先用人為的方法,諸如染色或其他限制性的程序,

 

The imitator always creates the model, and attracts it. The tracing has already translated the map into an image; it has already transformed the rhizome into roots and radicles. It has organized, stabilized, and neutralized the multiplicities according to the axes of significance and subjectification belonging to it. It has generated, structuralized the rhizome, and when it thinks it is reproducing something else it is in fact only reproducing itself.

 

模擬者總是創造模式及吸引它。蹤跡已經翻譯地圖成為意象,總是轉換塊莖成為根莖及基根。它已經組織,穩定,及中立多重性,依照意義的樞軸及屬於自己的主體化。它已經生產,及將塊莖結構化,當它以為是在複製其它東西時,其實它只是在複製自己。

 

That is why the tracing is so dangerous. It injects redundancies and propagates them. What the tracing reproduces of the map or rhizome are only the impasses, blockages, incipient taproots, or points of structuration.

 

那就是為什麼蹤跡是如此危險。它注射多餘並繁殖它們。蹤跡從地圖或塊莖所複製的只是僵局、阻塞、初期的主根,或結構點。

 

Take a look at psychoanalysis and linguistics: all the former has ever made are tracings or photos of the unconscious, and the latter of language, with all the betrayals that implies (it’s not surprising that psychoanalysis tied its fate to that of linguistics).

 

瞧一下精神分析學及語言學:前者所做的就是無意識的蹤跡或照片,後者則是語言的蹤跡或照片,外加暗示的各種洩漏(難怪精神分析學將其命運跟語言學的命運結合在一起)。

 

雄伯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 06

June 8, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze

德勒茲:千高台

 

Introduction : Zhizome

導論:塊莖思維 06

 

4.

Principle of asignifying rupture: against the oversignifying breaks separating structures or cutting across a single structure.

 

非符號化斷裂原理:反對過分符號化的斷裂,分開結構或橫切單一結構。

 

A rhizome may be broken, shattered at a given spot, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines. You can never get rid of ants because they form an animal rhizome that can rebound time and again after most of it has been destroyed.

 

塊莖可能會在某一點被突破粉碎,但是它將在其舊的線路上重新再起。你永遠無法消除螞蟻,因為它們總是形成動物塊莖。即使大部分都遭受毀滅,它們還是會一再地反撲回來。

 

Every rhizome contains lines of segmentarity according to which it is stratified, territorialized, organized, signified, attributed, etc., as well as lines of deterritorialization down which it constantly flees.

 

每個塊莖都包含零碎的路線,依照此路線,塊莖被分成階層、轄域、組織、符號化、給予屬性等等,以及解除轄域的路線,可以任其不斷逃離。

 

There is a rupture in the rhizome whenever segmentary lines explode into a line of flight, but the line of flight is part of the rhizome.

 

每當零碎路線爆發成逃離路線,塊莖就會斷裂,但是逃離路線是塊莖的部份。

 

These lines always tie back to one another. That is why one can never posit a dualism or

a dichotomy, even in the rudimentary form of the good and the bad.

 

這些路線互相連繫。那就是為什麼我們永遠無法提出一個雙重性或二分法,即使善與惡的基本形式。

 

You may make a rupture, draw a line of flight, yet there is still a danger that you will reencounter organizations that restratify everything, formations that restore power to a signifier, attributions that reconstitute a subject—anything you like, from Oedipal

resurgences to fascist concretions.

 

你可能斷裂,畫出逃離路線,可是依舊有危險,因為你將一再遭遇重新階層化一切的組織,恢復權力給符號的隊伍,重新建造主體的屬性,任何你喜歡的東西,從伊底普斯的再現,到法西斯的具體化。

 

Groups and individuals contain microfascisms just waiting to crystallize. Yes,

couchgrass is also a rhizome.

 

團體跟個人都包含等待具體化的微小法西斯。是的,茅草也是塊莖。

 

Good and bad are only the products of an active and temporary selection, which must be renewed.

 

善與惡只是主動跟暫時選擇的產品,必須一再更新。

 

How could movements of deterritorialization and processes of reterritalization not be relative, always connected, caught up in one another?

 

解轄域的運動及重新轄域的過程,如何才能不相對化,總是互相連繫,掛鉤呢?

 

The orchid deterritorializes by forming an image, a tracing of a wasp; but the wasp reterritorializes on that image. The wasp is nevertheless derritorialized, becoming a piece in the orchid’s reproductive apparatus.

 

蘭花由於被黃蜂追求,組成意象而解轄域,但是黃蜂在那個意象上重新轄域。黃蜂仍然要解轄域,成為蘭花繁殖器官的一份子。

 

But it reterritorializes the orchid by transporting its pollen. Wasp and orchid, as heterogeneous elements, form a rhizome.

 

但是它以運輸花粉,重新轄域蘭花。黃蜂與蘭花,作為異質性元素,組成塊莖。

 

It could be said that the orchid imitates the wasp, reproducing its image in a signifying fashion (mimesis, mimicry, lure, etc.).

 

可以這樣說,蘭花模擬黃蜂,以符號化方式,複製其意象(模仿、擬態、引誘等等。)

 

But this is true only on the level of the strata-a parallelism between two strata such that a plant organization on one imitates an animal organization on the other.

 

但是只有兩個階層之間的階層成對比層次時,才是這樣,因為某個層次的植物的組織,模擬另一層次的動物的組織

 

At the same time, something else entirely is going on: not imitation at all but a capture of code, surplus value of code, an increase in valence, a veritable becoming, a becoming-wasp of the orchid and a becoming-orchid of the wasp.

 

同時,其它的事情完整地進行:絲毫不是模擬,而是捕捉密碼,符碼的多餘價值,原子價的增加,道地的生成,蘭花生成的黃蜂,黃蜂生成的蘭花。

 

Each of these becomings brings about the deterritorialization of one term and the reterritorialization of the other; the two becomings interlink and form relays in a circulation of intensities pushing the deterritorialization ever further.

 

這些生成導致某個術語的解轄域,以及另一個術語的重新轄域,兩個生成互相連接,在張力的流通過程形成接力,將解轄域更加推進。

 

There is neither imitation nor resemblance, only an exploding of two heterogeneous series on the line of flight composed by a common rhizome that can no longer be attributed to or subjugated by anything signifying.

 

沒有模擬,也沒有類同,只是一個共同塊莖組成的兩個異質的系列,在逃離路線上的爆炸,因為它們不再被歸屬於或隸屬於任何其他符號化的東西。

 

Rémy Chauvin expresses it well: “the aparallel evolution of two beings that have

absolutely nothing to do with each other.”4 More generally, evolutionary schemas may be forced to abandon the old model of the tree and descent.

 

雷密、周明說得最清楚:「這是彼此毫無關係的兩個存在的生命,非對比的進化。」更泛泛地說,近化的基型可能被強迫放棄樹狀及衍生的舊的模式。

 

 

Under certain conditions, a virus can connect to germ cells and transmit itself as the cellular gene of a complex species; moreover, it can take flight, move into the cells of an entirely different species, but not without bringing with it “genetic information” from the first host (for example, Benveniste and Todaro’s current research on a type C virus, with its double connection to baboon DNA and the DNA of certain kinds of domestic cats).

 

在某些狀況下,病毒能夠連接到細菌細胞,然後轉移自己當著某一個複雜品種的細胞的基因;而且,它能夠逃離,遷移到一個完全不同的品種的細胞裡面,但是不是沒有帶著原有寄生品種的「基因資訊」(例如,邊民尼思及涂達羅目前對於某種病毒的研究,發現狒狒的基因碼跟某種家畜的猫的基因碼,有雙重關聯)。

 

 

Evolutionary schemas would no longer follow models of arborescent descent going from the least to the most differentiated, but instead a rhizome operating immediately in the heterogeneous and jumping from one already differentiated line to another.

 

進化的基型不再遵照樹狀結構的衍生模式:從微小差異到顯著差異。相反的,而是一種塊莖立即運作於異質性,並從某一已經有差異的路線,跳躍到另一已經有差異的路線。

 

Once again, there is aparallel evolution, of the baboon and the cat; it is obvious that they are not models or copies of each other (a becoming-baboon in the cat does not mean that the cat “plays” baboon).

 

狒狒跟猫之間,再一次有非對比的進化;他們顯然不是互相模仿或抄襲(在猫身上的生成狒狒,並不意謂著,猫「扮演」狒狒。)

 

We form a rhizome with our viruses, or rather our viruses cause us to form a rhizome with other animals.

 

我們用我們的病毒形成塊莖,或者反過來說,我們的病毒引起我們跟其它動物,組成塊莖。

 

As Francois Jacob says, transfers of genetic material by viruses or through other procedures, fusions of cells originating in different species, have results analogous to those of “the abominable couplings dear to antiquity and the Middle Ages.”

 

如法蘭可思、約克說,基因物資經由病毒或憑藉其他程序的轉移,來自不同品種的細胞的融合,會產生一些結果,類同於古代及中世紀最喜歡說的「不是冤家不聚頭」的結果。

 

 Transversal communications between different lines scramble the genealogical trees. Always look for the molecular, or even submolecular, particle with which we are allied. We evolve and die more from our polymorphous and rhizomatic flus than from hereditary diseases, or diseases that have their own line of descent. The rhizome is an anti-genealogy.

 

不同路線之間的橫向溝通,攀爬系譜的樹狀結構。總是尋找分子,甚至是次分子,以及我們結盟的分子。我們是因為多態性及塊莖性的流行疫病進化而死,而非是因為遺傳的疾病,或因為自己衍生的疾病。塊莖是反系譜衍生。

 

The same applies to the book and the world: contrary to a deeply rooted belief, the book is not an image of the world. It forms a rhizome with the world, there is an aparallel evolution of the book and the world; the book assures the deterritorialization of the world, but the world effects a reterritorialization of the book, which in turn deterritorializes itself in the world (if it is capable, if it can).

 

相同道理可適用於書及世界:跟根深柢固的俗見恰恰相反,書並非是世界的意象。書跟世界形成塊莖;書跟世界之間有著非對比的進化,書保證世界的解轄域,但是世界又造成書的重新轄域,然後又輪到書在世界中替自己解轄域(儘其可能,儘其能力)。

 

Mimicry is a very bad concept, since it relies on binary logic to describe phenomena of an entirely different nature.

 

模擬是很不好的觀念,因為它依靠雙向邏輯來描述一個完全不同性質的現象。

 

The crocodile does not reproduce a tree trunk, any more than the chameleon reproduces the colors of its surroundings.

 

鱷魚並沒有複製束幹,正如變色龍並沒有複製周遭環境的顏色。

 

The Pink Panther imitates nothing, it reproduces nothing, it paints the world its color, pink on pink; this is its becoming-world, carried out in such a way that it becomes imperceptible itself, asignifying, makes its rupture, its own line of flight, follows its “aparallel evolution” through to the end.

 

粉紅豹什麼都不模仿,它什麼都不複製,它將世界描繪成它自己的顏色,粉紅描繪粉紅,這就是它的生成世界,唯妙唯肖,自己都渾然不覺,非符號化,斷裂,自己的逃離路線,將「非對比的進化」貫徹始終。

 

 

The wisdom of the plants: even when they have roots, there is always an outside where they form a rhizome with something else-with the wind, an animal, human beings (and there is also an aspect under which animals themselves form rhizomes, as do people, etc.).

 

植物的智慧:雖然它們有根,總是還有外在領域,它們能夠跟某件其它的東西、跟風、跟動物、跟人、組成塊莖(也有某些方面,動物本身組成塊莖,如同人本身也可組成等等。)

 

“Drunkenness as a triumphant irruption of the plant in us.” Always follow the rhizome by rupture; lengthen, prolong, and relay the line of flight; make it vary, until you have produced the most abstract and tortuous of lines of n dimensions and broken directions. Conjugate

deterritorialized flows.

 

「醉酒是我們身上植物勝利的斷裂。」總是以斷裂、延續、延長、及接力逃離路線,變化之,直到你已經產生最抽象,最迂迴的無限向度及中斷方向。結合的解轄域流動著。

 

Follow the plants: you start by delimiting a first line consisting of circles of convergence around successive singularities; then you see whether Inside that line new circles of convergence establish themselves, with new points located outside the limits and in other directions.

 

跟植物學習:你開始先從環繞連續的獨特性,解除組成匯聚圈的第一道線,然後你看到環繞新的匯聚圈的內部,是否能建立自己,有新的點安置在限制的外面及其它方向。

 

Write, form a rhizome, increase your territory by deterritorialization, extend the line of flight to the point where it becomes an abstract machine covering the entire plane of consistency.

 

寫作,組成塊莖,以解除轄域來增加你的轄域,延長逃離路線,到達它成為一台抽象機器,涵蓋整個一貫性平面。

 

“Go first to your old plant and watch carefully the watercourse made by the rain. By now the rain must have carried the seeds far away. Watch the crevices made by the runoff, and from them determine the direction of the flow. Then find the plant that is growing at the farthest point from your plant. All the devil’s weed plants that are growing in between are yours. Later you can extend the size of your territory by following the watercourse from each point along the way.”7

 

「先到你的舊植物,仔細觀察下雨所造成的水流路線。目前,雨水一定已經將種子帶得遠遠的。觀察溢流所造成的裂隙,然後從那裡決定水流的方向。然後找到距離你的植物最遙遠處,正在成長的植物。後來,你就能從沿途中的每一點,跟隨水的路線,延伸你轄域的面積。

 

Music has always sent out lines of flight, like so many “transformational multiplicities,” even overturning the very codes that structure or arborify it; that is why musical form, right down to its ruptures and proliferations, is comparable to a weed, a rhizome.

 

音樂總已經送出逃離路線,猶如眾多的「轉變的多重性」,即使推翻架構它或形成它的符碼。那就是為什麼音樂的形式,一直到它的斷裂及擴散,都可比擬著野草,塊莖。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 05

June 7, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze

德勒茲:千高台

 

Rhizome

塊莖思維 05

 

3.

Principle of multiplicity: it is only when the multiple is effectively treated as a substantive, “multiplicity,” that it ceases to have any relation to the One as subject or object, natural or spiritual reality, image and world.

 

第三點

多重性原理:只有當多重化有效地被當著實質的「多重性」對待,它才擺脫跟大一統作為主體或客體,自然或精神的實體,意象跟世界的關係

 

Multiplicities are rhizomatic, and expose arborescent pseudomultiplicities for what they are.

 

多重性是塊莖,揭露樹狀結構的假多重性的本質。

 

There is no unity to serve as a pivot in the object, or to divide in the subject. There is not even the unity to abort in the object or “return” in the subject.

 

沒有一致性充當客體的樞軸,或充當主體的區分。甚至也沒有一致性充當客體的罷黜,或主體的「回歸」。

 

A multiplicity has neither subject nor object, on1y determinations, magnitudes, and dimensions that cannot increase in number without the multiplicity changing in nature (the laws of combination therefore increase in number as the multiplicity grows).

 

多重性既沒有主體,也沒有客體,只有決心,強度,及若無多重性改變性質,數目就無法增加的向度(組合的法則因此隨著多重性增加,數目跟著增加)。

 

Puppet strings, as a rhizome or multiplicity, are tied not to the supposed will of an artist or puppeteer but to a multiplicity of nerve fibers, which form another puppet in other dimensions connected to the first: “Call the strings or rods that move the puppet the weave. It might be objected that its multiplicity resides in the person of the actor, who projects it into the text. Granted; but the actor’s nerve fibers in turn form a weave. And they fall through the gray matter, the grid, into the undifferentiated….The interplay approximates the pure activity of weavers attributed in myth to the Fates or Norns.”3

 

作為塊莖或多重性,牽引木偶的繩子不是附繫於藝術家的假定意志,或木偶戲的演員,而是附繫於腦細胞纖維的多重性。這些纖維在其它連繫到第一個木偶的向度,組成另一個木偶:「這些移動木偶的繩棍,可稱之為編織。或有人反對說:其多重性是駐住於演員的人投射到文本上。誠然如此,但是輪流組成編織的是演員的神經纖維。它們掉落灰色物質、框架、進入模糊的一片。這種互相運作跡近於編織匠的單純行為,在神話中,則被歸屬於命運或宿命。」

 

 

 

 

 

 

An assemblage is precisely this increase in the dimensions of a multiplicity that necessarily changes in nature as it expands its connections.

 

裝配準確地說是多重性向度的增加,多重性會隨著關係的擴大,性質必然會改變。

 

There are no points or positions in a rhizome, such as those found in a structure, tree, or root. There are only lines.

 

塊莖中沒有例如在結構、樹狀或根狀中會找到的點或位置。只有線條。

 

When Glenn Gould speeds up the performance of a piece, he is not just displaying virtuosity, he is transforming the musical points into lines, he is making the whole piece proliferate.

 

當葛雷恩加速一首曲子的表演,他不僅僅是展現精湛才藝,他是將音樂的點轉移成線條,他是將整首曲子繁殖。

 

The number is no longer a universal concept measuring elements according to their emplacement in a given dimension, but has itself become a multiplicity that varies according to the dimensions considered (the primacy of the domain over a complex of numbers attached to that domain).

 

數目不再是依照元素在某個向量中的位置,測量它的普遍性的觀念,而是本身就變成多重性,依照所考慮的向量而變化(一大堆數目的最初的領域,連接到那個領域)。

 

 

We do not have units (unités) of measure, only multiplicities or varieties of measurement.

 

我們並沒有測量的單位,只有多重性或各種測量。

 

The notion of unity (unités) appears only when there is a power takeover in the multiplicity by the signifier or a correponding subjectification proceeding:

 

只有當多重性的權力被符號具,或相對應的主體化程序所接管,一致性的觀念才會出現。

 

This is the case for a pivot-unity forming the basis for a set of biunivocal relationships between objective elements or points, or for the One that divides following the law of a binary logic of differentiation in the subject.

 

樞軸的一致性就是如此,因為它組成在客體元素或點之間,一套雙單音的關係的基礎,或是在主體那裡,遵照區分的雙向邏輯的法則而區分的大一統的基礎。

 

Unity always operates in an empty dimension supplementary to that of the system considered (overcoding).

 

一致性總是以一個空洞的向度運作,彌補所考慮的系統的向度(因為過度符碼化)。

 

The point is that a rhizome or multiplicity never allows itself to be overcoded, never has available a supplementary dimension over and above its number of lines, that is, over and above the multiplicity of numbers attached to those lines.

 

重點是,塊莖思維或多重性從來不讓自己過度符碼化,從來不讓可使用的彌補的向度,超過或越過它脈落的數目,換言之,超過或越過跟脈落連接的數目的多重性。

 

 

All multiplicities are flat, in the sense that they fill or occupy all of their dimensions: we will therefore speak of a plane of consistency of multiplicities, even though the dimensions of this “plane” increase with the number of connections that are made on it.

 

所有的多重性是平坦的,因為它們填上或佔據所有的向度:我們因此提到多重性的一貫的平面,即使這個「平面」的向度隨著所形成的連接的數目而增加。

 

Multiplicities are defined by the outside: by the abstract line, the line of flight or deterritorialization according to which they change in nature and connect with other multiplicities. The plane of consistency (grid) is the outside of all multiplicities.

 

多重性由外在來下定義,也就是抽象路線、逃離或解轄域路線下定義,依照這些路線,它們在自然中改變或跟其他多重性連接。一貫性的平面「框格」是所有重性的外在。

 

The line of flight marks: the reality of a finite number of dimensions that the multiplicity effectively fills; the impossibility of a supplementary dimension, unless the multiplicity is transformed by the line of flight; the possibility and necessity of flattening all of the multiplicities on a single plane of consistency or exteriority, regardless of their number of dimensions.

逃離路線標明:多重性有效地填上有限數目的向度的實體;彌補的向度是不可能,除非多重性被逃離的路線所轉變;在一貫性及外在性的單一平面,多重性可能,也需要夷平,無論它們的向度是多少。

 

The ideal for a book would be to lay everything out on a plane of exteriority of this kind, on a

single page, the same sheet: lived events, historical determinations, concepts, individuals, groups, social formations.

 

一本書的理想是,在一頁或同樣的一張紙,將一切攤開在這種外在性的平面:生活過的事件、歷史的決心、觀念、個人、團體、及社會的組成。

 

Kleist invented a writing of this type, a broken chain of affects and variable speeds, with accelerations and transformations, always in a relation with the outside. Open rings.

 

克列斯特發明這種寫作,一種破碎的情意鏈跟各種速度,加速度跟轉變,總是跟外在發生關係。環節展開。

 

His texts, therefore, are opposed in every way to the classical or romantic book constituted by the interiority of a substance or subject.

 

他的本文因此道道地地跟古典的或浪漫的書相反,後兩者的書由物質或主體的內在性組成。

 

The war machine-book against the State apparatus-book. Flat multiplicities of n dimensions are asignifying and asubjective.

 

戰爭機器的書對抗國家機器的書。無限向度的平坦多重性,是非符號化和非主體化。

 

They are designated by indefinite articles, or rather by partitives (some couchgrass, some of a rhizome ).

 

他們被不定冠詞,或被分詞標明(有些是茅草,有些是塊莖。)

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 04

June 5, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze

德勒茲:千高台

 

Rhizome

塊莖思維 04

 

1 and 2.

Principles of connection and heterogeneity: any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be. This is very different from the tree or root, which plots a point, fixes an order.

 

第一點及第二點。

連接跟異質性原理:塊莖的任何一點能夠連接到任何其他一點,而且是必須連接。這跟樹及根的集中一點,固定一個秩序,大不相同。

 

The linguistic tree on the Chomsky model still begins at a point S and proceeds by dichotomy.

 

莊士基模式的語言學樹狀結構依舊開始於主詞,然後一分為二,繼續下去。

 

On the contrary, not every trait in a rhizome is necessarily linked to a linguistic feature: semiotic chains of every nature are connected to very diverse modes of coding (biological, political, economic, etc.) that bring into play not only different regimes of signs but also states of things of differing status.

 

相反的,塊莖並非每一特色都跟語言學特色有所連接:每個自然的語意鎖鏈,連接到多樣式的符碼模式(生物的、政治的、以及經濟的等等),不但運作不同的符號政權,而且運作不同狀態的事物的狀態。

 

Collective assemblages of enunciation function directly within machinic assemblages; it is not impossible to make a radical break between regimes of signs and their objects.

 

表達的集體裝配直接在機械的裝配內部運作;要在符號及其客體之間,激進地突破,並非不可能。

 

Even when linguistics claims to confine itself to what is explicit and to make no presuppositions about language, it is still in the sphere of a discourse implying particular modes of assemblage and types of social power.

 

即使語言學宣稱限制自己於明確的東西,對語言不預設假定,可是它依舊是在學科的範圍內,指示裝配的特別模式及社會權力的類型。

 

Chomsky’s grammaticality, the categorical S symbol that dominates every sentence, is more fundamentally a marker of power than a syntactic marker: you will construct grammatically correct sentences, you will divide each statement into a noun phrase and a verb phrase

(first dichotomy ).

 

莊士基的文法學,分類的主詞符號,支配每個句子,基本上是權力的標誌,而不是語法的標誌:你將建造文法正確的句子;你將每句陳述區分為名詞片語及動詞片語(第一層二分法)。

 

Our criticism of these linguistic models is not that they are too abstract but, on the contrary, that they are not abstract enough, that they do not reach the abstract machine that connects a language to the semantic and pragmatic contents of statements, to collective assemblages of enunciation, to a whole micropolitics of the social field.

 

我們對於這些語言學模式的批評,不是因為它們太過抽象,而是相反的,是因為它們不夠抽象,是因為它們沒有到達連接語言跟陳述的語意及實用內涵的抽象的機器,這抽象的機器連接表達的集體的裝配,及整個社會領域的微小政治學。

 

A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences, and social struggles.

 

塊莖不斷地建立語意鎖鏈、權力組織、及相對於藝術、科學及社會爭鬥的環境之間的連接。

 

A semiotic chain is like a tuber agglomerating very diverse acts, not only linguistic, but also perceptive, mimetic, gestural, and cognitive: there is no language in itself, nor are there any linguistic universals, only a throng of dialects, patois, slangs, and specialized languages.

 

語意的鎖鏈就像是管莖,凝聚多樣的行動,不但是語言,而且是感覺、摹擬、形態及認知的行動:語意的鎖鏈本身沒有語言,也沒有任何語言的普遍性,只是一堆土話、方言、俚語、及專業的語言。

 

There is no ideal speaker-listener, any more than there is a homogeneous linguistic community.

 

沒有理想的說話者兼聽話者,正如沒有同質性的語言社會。

 

Language is, in Weinreich’s words, “an essentially heterogeneous reality.”

 

用威瑞奇的話來說,語言「基本上是異質性的實體」。

 

There is no mother tongue, only a power takeover by a dominant language within a political multiplicity.

 

沒有母語,只有統治的語言在政治的多重性中,接管權力

 

Language stabilizes around a parish, a bishopric, a capital. It forms a bulb. It evolves by subterranean stems and flows, along river valleys or train tracks; it spreads like a patch of oil.

 

語言在教區、主教區、及首都的周圍才能穩定。它形成球莖。它靠著地下的根莖演化,沿著河床及火車軌道流動,它像一塊油漬擴散。

 

It is always possible to break a language down into internal structural elements, an undertaking not fundamentally different from a search for roots.

 

語言總是可以被分解成為內部的結構因素,這種做法基本上跟尋求根源沒有差別。

 

There is always something genealogical about a tree. It is not a method for the people.

 

樹狀結構總是有系譜。此方法不適合於人。

 

A method of the rhizome type, on the contrary, can analyze language only by decentering it onto other dimensions and other registers. A language is never closed upon itself, except as a function of impotence.

 

相反的,塊莖類型的方法能分析語言,它替語言解除中心,使成為向度跟其它符碼。語言永遠不會被封閉在自己之內,除了充當無能為力的功用。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 03

June 5, 2009

塊莖思維 03

 

The radicle-system, or fascicular root, is the second figure of the book, to which our modernity pays willing allegiance.

 

幼根系統,或叢根,是這本書的第二章,我們的現代願意效忠的對象。

 

This time, the principal root has aborted, or its tip has been destroyed; an immediate, indefinite multiplicity of secondary roots grafts onto it and undergoes a flourishing development.

 

這一次,原則的根被罷黜,也就是說,它的尖端已經被毀滅。次級的根展現不明確的多重性,立即銜接,欣欣向榮起來。

 

This time, natural reality is what aborts the principal root, but the root’s unity subsists, as past or yet to come, as possible.

 

這一次,自然的實體罷黜原則的根,但是根的一致性,以過去或未來的面貌,儘可能存活下來。

 

We must ask if reflexive, spiritual reality does not compensate for this state of things by demanding an even more comprehensive secret unity, or a more extensive totality.

 

我們必須問,反省的精神實體是否要求更宏觀的隱藏實體,或更廣泛的整體,來彌補這種事情的狀態。

 

Take William Burroughs’s cut-up method: the folding of one text onto another, which constitutes multiple and even adventitious roots (like a cutting), implies a supplementary dimension to that of the texts under consideration.

 

以威廉、布駱思的切細法為例:一個本文被摺疊成另一個本文,而組成多重性,甚至是外加的根(猶如切細)。這暗示著一個彌補的向度,增添到原有考慮的本文的向度。

 

In this supplementary dimension of folding, unity continues its spiritual labor.

 

在這個摺疊的彌補的向度裡,一致性繼續其精神的努力。

 

That is why the most resolutely fragmented work can also be presented as the Total Work or Magnum Opus.

 

這就是為什麼,作品即使是被悍然弄得支離破碎,還是能夠呈現當著是整體的作品,或曠世鉅作。

 

Most modern methods for making series proliferate or a multiplicity grow are perfectly valid in one direction, for example, a linear direction, whereas a unity of totalization asserts itself even more firmly in another, circular or cyclic, dimension.

 

現代用來增殖系列或增長多重性的方法,在某個方向,例如,直線方向,大部分都非常有效。整體的一致性則是在另一個循環或圓形的向度,彰顯得更為堅定。

 

Whenever a multiplicity is taken up in a structure, its growth is offset by a reduction in its laws of combination.

 

每當某個結構從事多重性,它的成長就是受到抵制,因為組合法則被減少。

 

The abortionists of unity are indeed angel makers, doctores angelici, because they affirm a properly angelic and superior unity.

 

一致性的罷黜者確實是天使的創造者,因為他們肯定了一種天使般恰如其分及不凡的一致性。

 

Joyce’s words, accurately described as having “multiple roots,” shatter the linear unity of the word, even of language, only to posit a cyclic unity of the sentence, text, or knowledge.

 

喬伊士的文字,可以準確地描述為擁有「多重的根」,粉碎了文字,甚至是語言的直線一致性,結果顯現出一種句子、本文、或知識的循環的一致性。

 

Nietzsche’s aphorisms shatter the linear unity of knowledge, only to invoke the cyclic unity of the eternal return, present as the nonknown in thought.

 

尼采的簡短沉思錄粉碎知識的直線一致性,結果召換出永恆回歸的循環一致性,呈現思想的石破天驚。

 

This is as much as to say that the fascicular system does not really break with dualism, with the complementarity between a subject and an object, a natural reality and a spiritual reality: unity is consistently thwarted and obstructed in the object, while a new type of unity triumphs in the subject.

 

這彷彿是說,叢生的系統並沒有真正跟雙重性、主體與客體的互補決裂,自然的實體跟精神的實體不斷地在客體方面受到阻礙及障礙,而新的一致性在主體方面卻得意洋洋。

 

The world has lost its pivot; the subject can no longer even dichotomize, but accedes to a higher unity, of ambivalence or overdetermination, in an always supplementary dimension to that of its object.

 

這世界失去了樞軸,主體不再是二分法,而是認同於更高的一致性,認同於於曖昧性跟過度命定論,採用總是跟客體向度彌補的向度。

 

The world has become chaos, but the book remains the image of the world: radicle-chaosmos rather than root-cosmos. A strange mystification: a book all the more total for being fragmented.

 

這世界已經變得混亂,但是這本書始終是世界的意象,激進的混沌宇宙,而不是根的宇宙。奇異的神秘,一本書正因為其碎片而更加成為整體。

 

At any rate, what a vapid idea, the book as the image of the world. In truth, it is not enough to say, “Long live the multiple,” difficult as is to raise that cry. No typographical, lexical, or even syntactical cleverness is enough to make it heard.

 

如論如何,這本書作為世界的意象,是多麼的索然無味的點子!事實上,光是說「多重性萬歲!」是不夠的,儘管要召喚這樣的呼喚還真不容易。

 

The multiple must be made, not by always adding a higher dimension, but rather in the simplest of ways, by dint of sobriety, with the number of dimensions one already has available—always n-1 (the only way the one belongs to the multiple: always subtracted).

 

多重性必須形成,未必總是要增加更高的向度,而是以最簡單的方式,憑藉著清醒,以我們所能運用的向度的數目,我執的無限擴大(我們歸屬於多重性的唯一方法:損之又損)。

 

Subtract the unique from the multiplicity to be constituted; write at n – I dimensions. A system of this kind could be called a rhizome. A rhizome as subterranean stem is absolutely different from roots and radicles. Bulbs and tubers are rhizomes. Plants with roots or radicles may be rhizomorphic in other respects altogether: the question is whether plant life in its specificity is not entirely rhizomatic.

 

從必須組成的多重性,減損獨特性,以我執的無限向度寫作。這種系統可謂之為塊莖。塊莖作為地下的根莖絕對不同於根莖跟幼根。球莖及管莖都是塊莖。有根及幼根的植物在其它方面總加起來,可能都是塊莖。問題是,明確的植物生涯是否完全是塊莖。

 

Even some animals are, in their pack form. Rats are rhizomes. Burrows are too, in all of their functions of shelter, supply, movement, evasion, and breakout. The rhizome itself assumes very diverse forms, from ramified surface extension in all directions to concretion into bulbs and tubers.

 

即使有些動物,在群體的形式上,是塊莖。老鼠是塊莖。地鼠也算是,因為它們具有庇護、供應、移動、逃避、及爆發的功用。塊莖本身具有多樣性的形式,從朝各方面方向的分歧表面延伸,到具體化成為球莖跟管莖。

 

When rats swarm over each other. The rhizome includes the best and the worst: potato and couchgrass, or the weed. Animal and plant, couchgrass is crabgrass. We get the distinct feeling that we will convince no one unless we enumerate certain approximate characteristics of the rhizome.

 

雖然老鼠互相推擠,塊莖包含最好及最壞的馬玲薯及茅草,換言之是野草。不管是動物

跟植物,茅草就是螃蟹草。我們有著很清楚的感覺:除非我們列舉出某些塊莖的類似特性,我們無法說服任何人。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 02

June 5, 2009

A Thousand Plateau by Deleuze

德勒茲:千高台

 

塊莖思維 02

 

All we talk about are multiplicities, lines, strata and segmentarities, lines of flight and intensities, machinic assemblages and their various types, bodies without organs and their construction and selection, the plane of consistency, and in each case the units of measure.

 

我們所談論的是多重性,脈落,階層及片段,逃避路線及張力,機械裝配,及各種類型,沒有器官的身體,及它們的建造和選擇,一致的平面,以及各個案例的測量單位。

 

Stratometers, teleometers, BwO units of density, BwO units of convergence: Not only do these constitute a quantification of writing, but they define writing as always the measure of something else.

 

階層表,膨漲計,張力的沒有器官的身體的單位,匯聚的沒有器官的身體的單位。這些不但組成寫作的量化,而且總是將寫作定義為其它事物的衡量。

 

Writing has nothing to do with signifying. It has to do with surveying, mapping, even realms that are yet to come.

 

寫作跟符號化無關,而是跟測量,繪圖,甚至尚未發現的領域有關。

 

A first type of book is the root-book. The tree is already the image of the world, or the root the image of the world-tree. This is the classical book, as noble, signifying, and subjective organic interiority (the strata of the book).

 

書的第一類型入門根基書。樹已經是世界的意象,根基就是世界之樹的意象。這是古典的書,高貴,符號化,甚至是主觀的有機內部(書的階層)。

 

The book imitates the world, as art imitates nature: by procedures specific to it that accomplish what nature cannot or can no longer do.

 

書模擬世界,如同藝術模擬自然:以其特有的程序完成自然所無法或不再從事的行為。

 

The law of the book is the law of reflection, the One that becomes two. How could the law of the book reside in nature, when it is what presides over the very division between world and book, nature and art?

 

書的法則是沉思的法則,將一分析為二。假如世界跟書之間,自然跟藝術之間,有所區分,書的法則又駐留其間,那它又將如何駐留於自然?

 

One becomes two: whenever we encounter this formula, even stated strategically by Mao

or understood in the most “dialectical” way possible, what we have before us is the most classical and well reflected, oldest, and weariest kind of thought.

 

一分析為二:每當我們遇到這個公式,無論是毛澤東的分化策略,或是用正反合的「辯證法」來理解,我們面前所展現的思想模式是古已有之,耳熟能詳地深思熟慮。

 

Nature doesn’t work that way: in nature, roots are taproots with a more multiple, lateral, and circular system of ramification, rather than a dichotomous one.

 

自然並不如此運作:在自然界,根基是先有主根,再加分歧的多重,橫向,圓環的系統,而不是二分法。

 

Thought lags behind nature. Even the book as a natural reality is a taproot, with its pivotal

spine and surrounding leaves. But the book as a spiritual reality, the Tree or Root as an image, endlessly develops the law of the One that becomes two, then of the two that become four

 

思想落後於自然。即使這本書作為自然的實體是主根,有其樞軸的脊髓骨幹及周邊樹葉。但是這本書作為精神的實體,樹或根都是意象,不斷地展現可分析為二的一的法則,然後二再分析為四的法則。

 

Binary logic is the spiritual reality of the root-tree. Even a discipline as “advanced” as

linguistics retains the root-tree as its fundamental image, and thus remains wedded to classical reflection (for example, Chomsky and his grammatical trees, which begin at a point S and proceed by dichotomy).

 

二分法的邏輯是根和樹的精神實體。即使是最先進的學科,像語言學,仍然保留根和樹作為基本意象,因此始終是跟古典的思想密集結合(例如,莊士基及其文法學的樹狀結構,先從主詞S點開始,再繼續一分為二下去)。

 

This is as much as to say that this system of thought has never reached an understanding of multiplicity: in order to arrive at two following a spiritual method it must assume a strong principal unity.

 

這彷彿是說,思想體系從來沒有達成對於多重性的了解:為了遵循思維方法,而採用二分法,思想體系必須要先有強列的原則一致性。

 

On the side of the object, it is no doubt possible, following the natural method, to go directly from One to three, four, or five, but only if there is a strong principal unity available, that of the pivotal taproot supporting the secondary roots. That doesn’t get us very far.

 

在客體的這一面,這當然是可能,遵循自然的方法,直接從一到三、到四、或五,但是條件是要先有強烈的原則一致性可利用,作為樞軸的主根,才能支撐次級的分歧根。問題我們不能屢試不爽。

 

The binary logic of dichotomy has simply been replaced by biunivocal relationships between successive circles. The pivotal taproot provides no better understanding of multiplicity than the dichotomous root. One operates in the object, the other in the subject.

 

二分法的雙重邏輯,後來就已經被連續循環之間的雙重單一關係所取代。作為樞軸的主根,跟二分法的根一樣,都無法提供我們了解多重性。前者適用於客體,而後者適用於主體。

 

Binary logic and biunivocal relationships still dominate psychoanalysis (the tree of delusion in the Freudian interpretation of Schreber’s case), linguistics, structuralism, and even information science.

 

雙重邏輯及雙重單一關係,依舊盛行於精神分析學(佛洛伊德解析蘇瑞伯的案例時,運用的就是幻覺的樹狀結構)、語言學、結構主義、甚至是資訊科學。

 

雄伯譯

32hsiugn@pchome.com.tw

塊莖思維 01

June 4, 2009

A Thousand Plateaus 千高台

By Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari 德勒茲及瓜達里

1. Introduction: Rhizome 塊莖思維

The two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together. Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd.

我們兩個人一起寫反伊底普斯。因為我們每人都是精神分裂的主體,所以已經算是好幾人的群眾了。

 Here we have made use of everything that came within range, what was closest as well as farthest away.

在此我們善用我們所能獲得的資源,無論遠近。

 We assigned clever pseudonyms to prevent recognition. Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit.

我們曾變換諸般筆名,以免被認出。但是為何我們還是保留原有姓名?由於習慣,純然由於習慣。

To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel, and think.

為了使我們自己不相繼被認出。為了不讓人覺察到那是我們的行為、感覺跟思想,因為那並非就是我們自己。

Also because it’s nice to talk like everybody else, to say the sun rises, when everybody knows it’s only a manner of speaking.

也因為人云亦云,閒話天氣家常,是大家公認是人際往來的談話方式,我們這樣只是隨俗。

 To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I.

 我們不是為了要到達不再有我執的境界,而是要到達是否我執不我執都無所謂的境界。

 We are no longer ourselves. Each will know his own. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied.

我們不再是我們自己。我們各自心裡有數。我們曾受人幫助、啟迪、增強,才有我們今日之我。

A book has neither object nor subject; it is made of variously formed matters, and very different dates and speeds.

一本書既沒有客體,也無主體。它由諸般形式的東西組成,日期和寫作速度都不同。

To attribute the book to a subject is to overlook this working of matters, and the exteriority of their relations. It is to fabricate a beneficent God to explain geological movements.

 將此書歸屬於某一主體作者,那是忽略了內容的形成,及其關係的外在性。猶如為了解釋地質板塊的移動,而牽扯上帝仁澤萬物來附會。

In a book, as in all things, there are lines of articulation segmentarity, strata and territories; but also lines of flight, movement deterritorialization and destratification.

一本書,正如萬物,不但有其表達的片段、階層及領域的脈落,而且有逃離、解除轄域及解除階層的脈落。

Comparative rates of flow on these lines produce phenomena of relative slowness and viscosity, or, on the contrary, of acceleration and rupture.

 在這些脈落中,流動的相對速率產生了相對緩慢及黏質的現象,或相反的,產生加速度及斷裂的現象。

 All this, lines and measurable speeds, constitutes an assemblage. A book is an assemblage of this kind, and as such is unattributable.

所有這些脈落及可測量的速度,組成這樣一種裝配。一本書就是這種裝配,如此這般,所以難於歸屬。

It is a multiplicity-but we don’t know yet at what the multiple entails when it is no longer attributed, that is, after it has been elevated to the status of a substantive.

 這本書是多重性,但是我們仍然不知道此多重性包含那些,因為它不再是被固定歸屬,換言之,這本書被提升到超然的境界。

 One side of a machinic assemblage faces the strata, which doubtless make it a kind of organism, or signing totality, or determination attributable to a subject; it also has a side facing a body without organs, which is continually dismantling the organism, causing asignifying particles or pure intensities to pass or circulate, and attributing to itself subjects that it leaves with nothing more than a name as the trace of an intensity.

機械裝配的一面要面對階層,這無疑的,會使它成為一種有機體,或一個符號化的整體,或歸屬於某一主體作者的決心。它也有要面對沒有器官的身體的另一面,要不斷地拆解有機體,引起非符號的分子或純粹張力通過或流通,並歸屬給自己一些主體作者,只是這些主體作者僅留一個名子,充當張力表現的痕跡。

What is the body without organs of a book? There are several, depending on the nature of the lines considered, their particular grade or density, and the possibility of their converging on “plane of consistency” assuring their selection.

一本書為何被稱為沒有器官的身體?原因很多,端賴所考慮到脈落的特性,它們特別的層次或強度,以及匯聚在「一致性層面」,才得以被選用的可能。

 Here, as elsewhere, the units of measure are what is essential: quantify writing. There is no difference between what a book talks about and how it is made. Therefore a book has no object.

在此,如同在別處,測量的單位是基本的:量化寫作。這本書談些什麼及如何寫作其實沒有不同。 因此,這本書沒有客體。

As an assemblage, a book has only itself, in connection with other assemblages and in relation to other bodies without organs.

作為一種裝配,一本書只有自己,及跟其他裝配,其他沒有器官的身體的關係。

We will never ask what a book means, as signified or signifier; we will not look for anything to understand in it. We will ask what it functions with, in connection with what other things it does or does not transmit intensities, in which other multiplicities its own are inserted and metamorphosed, and with what bodies without organs it makes its own converge.

我們永遠不會問,這本書作為符號旨或符號具,是什麼意義,我們將不會在那裡尋找任何可以了解意義的東西。我們將不會問這本書,跟它所傳遞或沒有傳遞張力的其他東西如何行使功用,因為其他自個兒的多重性是插入而且變形,我們也不會問這本書,是跟哪些沒有器官的身體,匯聚在一起。

A book exists only through the outside and on the outside. A book itself is a little machine; what is the relation (also measurable) of this literary machine to a war machine, love machine, revolutionary machine, etc.-and an abstract machine that sweeps them along?

 一本書只憑藉外在及在表面上存在。一本書是一台小小的機器,這台文學機器,跟戰爭機器,愛情機器,革命機器等等,以及涵蓋它們的抽象機器,有何可測量的關係?

We have been criticized for overquoting literary authors. But when one writes, the only question is which other machine the literary machine can be plugged into, must be plugged into in order to work.

我們曾遭受批評,因為過度引述文學作者。但是當一個人寫作,唯一的問題是,文學機器能夠跟哪些其他機器銜接,畢竟必須銜接,才能運作。

Kleist and a mad war machine, Kafka and a most extraordinary bureaucratic machine … (What if one became animal or plant through literature, which certainly does not mean literarily? Is it not first through the voice that one becomes animal?)

克列斯托跟瘋狂的戰爭機器銜接,卡夫卡跟一台最特別的官僚機器銜接。(假如在文學中,人變成並非確有其事的動物或植物,,那又該如何呢?難道不是透過說話的聲音,人才能變成動物?)

Literature is an assemblage. It has nothing to do with ideology. There is no ideology and never has been.

文學是一種裝配。它跟意識形態無關。沒有意識形態,從來就沒有。

 塊莖思維001 雄伯譯

 32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

荒漠之島

May 29, 2009

荒漠之島 01

Desert Islands by Deleuze 德勒茲

Geographers say there are two kinds of islands. This is valuable information for the imagination because it confirms 肯定what the imagination already knew.

 

地理學家說島嶼有兩種。這對想像是很有價值,因為它肯定了想像所已經知道的東西。

 

Nor is it the only case where science makes mythology more concrete 具體的, and mythology makes science more vivid 生動. Continental islands are accidental, derived得來的 islands.

 

科學使神話更加具體,神話使科學更加生動,這並非孤例。大陸的島嶼是偶然從島嶼演變而來。

 

They are separated from a continent, born of disarticulation 分離 , erosion 腐蝕, fracture 斷裂; they survive the absorption 吸收of what once contained 包容 them.

 

島嶼跟大陸分開,因分離、腐蝕、斷裂而誕生。他們經歷曾經被包容他們的大陸所吸收,卻依舊存活。

 

Oceanic islands are originary 原創, essential islands. Some are formed from coral reefs 珊瑚礁and display a genuine 真正的 organism 有機體

.

海洋的島嶼則是原創性,基本的島嶼。有些是從珊瑚礁演化而來,展現出是一種有機體。

 

Others emerge from underwater eruptions 爆發, bringing to the light of day a movement from the lowest depths. Some rise slowly; some disappear and then return, leaving us no time to annex 合併 them.

 

還有些島嶼是從海底的爆發,使深海底的動作重見天日。有些緩慢上升,有些消失後又回來,讓我們沒有時間合併他們。

 

These two kinds of islands, continental 大陸and originary, reveal a profound opposition 相對between ocean and land.

 

這兩種島嶼,大陸及原創性的島嶼,顯示海洋跟陸地之間深刻的對立。

 

Continental islands serve as a reminder 提醒 that the sea is on top of the earth, taking advantage of the slightest sagging 下垂 in the highest structures; oceanic islands, that the earth is still there, under the sea, gathering its strength to punch 敲擊 through to the surface.

 

大陸的島嶼提醒我們,海洋是在陸地的頂端,在最高結構裡,佔有些微下垂的優勢。而海洋的島嶼則提醒我們,陸地依舊在那裡,在海底,聚集力量要撞擊到表面。

 

We can assume that these elements are in constant strife 衝突, displaying a repulsion 嫌惡 for one another. In this we find nothing to reassure 使安心 us.

 

我們可以假定,這兩個因素是處於不斷衝突,展現互相的嫌惡。這一點我們找不到東西可以使我們安心。

 

Also, that an island is deserted must appear philosophically normal to us. Humans cannot live, nor live in security 安全, unless they assume that the active struggle between earth and water is over, or at least contained 包容

 

而且,島嶼是荒漠,對我們而言在哲學上似乎很正常。人類無法生活於安逸之中,除非他們假定,陸路跟水的積極爭鬥已經結束,或至少被包容。

 

People like to call these two elements mother and father, assigning them gender 性別 roles according to the whim 幻想 of their fancy.

 

人們喜歡稱呼這兩種因素為母親與父親,指定性別的角色,依照人類自己的胡思亂想。

 

They must somehow persuade themselves that a struggle of this kind does not exist, or that it has somehow ended.

 

人類必須設法說服自己,這種的爭鬥並不存在,或者以某種方法已經結束

 

In one way or another, the very existence of islands is the negation of this point of view, of this effort, this conviction.

 

以某種方式,島嶼的存在就是這種觀點、努力跟這種信仰的否定,

 

That England is populated will always come as a surprise; humans can live on an island only by forgetting what an island represents. Islands are either from before or for after humankind.

 

英倫島國人口稠密,總是令人驚奇。人類只有遺忘島嶼的象徵,才能夠居住島上。島嶼不是先於人類,就是後於人類。

 

But everything that geography has told us about the two kinds of islands, the imagination knew already on its own and in another way.

 

地理所告訴我們有關這兩種島嶼,想像已經憑藉自己或某種方式知道。

 

The elan that draws humans toward islands extends the double movement that produces islands in themselves.

 

吸引人類朝向島嶼的躍進,延伸這雙重動作,產生了島嶼本身。

 

Dreaming of islands—whether with joy or in fear, it doesn’t matter—is dreaming of pulling away, of being already separate, far from any continent, of being lost and alone—or it is dreaming of starting from scratch, recreating, beginning anew. Some islands drifted 漂浮 away from the continent, but the island is also that toward which one drifts; other islands originated 起源於in the ocean, but the island is also the origin, radical 激進  and absolute 絕對.

 

夢想島嶼,不論是歡樂或恐懼,都無所謂,其實就是夢想脫離,夢想已經分離,遠離大陸,夢想迷失跟孤單。或總是夢想從頭開始,重新創造,重新開始。有些島嶼漂浮離開大陸,但是島嶼也是自己漂浮所向的地方。其他島嶼起源於海洋,但是島嶼也是起源海洋,激進而絕對。

 

Certainly, separating and creating are not mutually 互相 exclusive 排除: one has to hold one’s own when one is separated, and had better be separate to create anew; nevertheless, one of the two tendencies 傾向 always predominates 佔優勢. In this way, the movement of the imagination of islands takes up the movement of their production, but they don’t have the same objective 目標.

 

的確,分離跟創造並不互相排斥;分離時,人必須掌握自己,而重新創造,人最好分離。可是,兩種傾向,總有一個佔優勢。以這種方式,島嶼的想像動作從事他們的創造動作,但是彼此的目標並不相同。

 

It is the same movement, but a different goal. It is no longer the island that is separated from the continent, it is humans who find themselves separated from the world when on an island.

 

動作相同,但是目標不同。不再是島嶼跟大陸分開,而是人發現自己在島上時,跟世界分開。

 

 It is no longer the island that is created from the bowels of the earth through the liquid depths, it is humans who create the world anew from the island and on the waters. Humans thus take up for themselves both movements of the island and are able to do so on an island that, precisely, lacks one kind of movement: humans can drift toward an island that is nonetheless originary, and they can create on an island that has merely drifted away.

 

不再是島嶼經由海洋深處,從陸地內部被創造,而是人從島上及水面上,重新創造世界。人因此為自己從事島嶼的動作,在缺乏動作的島上,人始能如此行為:人能漂浮朝向具有原創性的島,人在僅僅是漂浮離開的島上能夠創造。

 

On closer inspection, we find here a new reason for every island to be and remain in theory deserted.

 

仔細審查時,我們再此找到一個新的理由,讓每個島成為,也始終保持在理論上是荒漠。

 

An island doesn’t stop being deserted simply because it is inhabited. While it is true that the movement of humans toward and on the island takes up the movement of the island prior to humankind, some people can occupy the island—it is still deserted, all the more so, provided they are sufficiently, that is, absolutely separate, and provided they are sufficient, absolute creators.

 

 一個島並不因為有人居住就不再是荒漠。雖然人朝向島及在島上從事早先於人類的島的動作,也有些人能佔據島,但是島依舊是荒漠,而且更加是如此,假如他們充分分離,換言之,絕對分離,假如他們是充分的絕對的創造者。

 

Certainly, this is never the case in fact, though people who are shipwrecked approach such a condition. But for this to be the case, we need only extrapolate 推論 in imagination the movement they bring with them to the island.

 

的確,情形從來不是這樣,儘管遭遇船難的人會遇到這樣一種狀況。但是為了讓此事發生,

我們只要在想像中推論他們帶給島嶼的動作。

 

Only in appearance does such a movement put an end to the island’s desertedness; in reality, it takes up and prolongs the elan that produced the island as deserted. Far from compromising it, humans bring the desertedness to its perfection and highest point.

 

這樣一個動作只有在表象中結束島的荒漠;在真實中,這樣的動作從事並延長使島嶼之所以成為荒漠的那種激情。絲毫不妥協,人使荒漠表現得淋漓盡致。

 

In certain conditions which attach them to the very movement of things, humans do not put an end to desertedness, they make it sacred.

 

在某些使人跟事物的動作相連繫的狀況,人並沒有結束荒漠,而是人使之成為荒漠。

 

Those people who come to the island indeed occupy and populate it; but in reality, were they sufficiently separate, sufficiently creative, they would give the island only a dynamic image of itself, a consciousness of the movement which produced the island, such that through them the island would in the end become conscious of itself as deserted and unpeopled.

 

那些來到島上的人的確佔據並居住在島上,但事實上,假如他們充分分離,充分創造,他們會使島成為本身的活力形象,一種產生島的動作的意識:經由人,島最後意識到自己是荒漠,而且無人居住。

 

The island would be only the dream of humans, and humans, the pure consciousness of the island. For this to be the case, there is again but one condition: humans would have to reduce themselves to the movement that brings them to the island, the movement which prolongs and takes up the elan that produced the island. Then geography and the imagination would be one.

 

島將只是人類的夢想,而人類只是島的純粹意識。為了讓此事成為真實,只有一個條件:人必須將自己化減為成導致自己成為島的動作,這個動作延長並從事產生島的激情。然後地理跟想像將會合而為一。

 

To that question so dear to the old explorers—”which creatures live on deserted islands?”—one could only answer: human beings live there already, but uncommon humans, they are absolutely separate, absolute creators, in short, an Idea of humanity, a prototype, a man who would almost be a god, a woman who would be a goddess, a great Amnesiac, a pure Artist, a consciousness of Earth and Ocean, an enormous hurricane, a beautiful witch, a statue from the Easter Islands.

 

以前的探險家最為珍惜的一個問題:「何種動物居住在荒漠之島?」我們只有一個答案:人類本已經居住在那裡,但是不尋常的人,他們是絕對的分離,絕對的創造者,總之,是人性的理念,一種原型,一種近乎神的人物,一位將會成為女神的女人,一位遺世獨立的人物,一位純粹的藝術家,一種陸地跟海洋的意識,一陣強烈的颶風,一位美麗的女巫,一座復活島的雕像。

 

There you have a human being who precedes itself. Such a creature on a deserted island would be the deserted island itself, insofar as it imagines and reflects itself in its first movement.

 

在此你遇到一個早先於自己的人。這樣一種在荒漠島上的人,本身就是荒漠之島,因為此島第一個動作就是想像及沉思自己。

 

A consciousness of the earth and ocean, such is the deserted island, ready to begin the world anew. But since human beings, even voluntarily, are not identical to the movement that puts them on the island, they are unable to join with the elan that produces the island; they always encounter it from the outside, and their presence in fact spoils its desertedness.

 

荒漠之島就是大地及海洋的意識,準備重新開始這個世界。但是因為人類儘管是自願,還是無法跟使他們置身於島上的動作相一致,他們不能夠融入產生這個島的激情;他們總是從外在遭遇激情,而他們的存在事實上破壞了激情的荒漠。

 

The unity of the deserted island and its inhabitant is thus not actual, only imaginary, like the idea of looking behind the curtain when one is not behind it. More importantly, it is doubtful whether the individual imagination, unaided, could raise itself up to such an admirable identity; it would require the collective imagination, what is most profound in it, i.e. rites and mythology.

 

荒漠之島跟其居民的合一因此不是真實,而是想像,就像是人實際上不在簾幕後面,卻以為是透過簾幕觀物。更重要的是,個人的想像力若無外力援助,是否提升到如此令人崇敬的島與人合一,是值得懷疑的。因為那需要集體的想像力,其中最為深奧的,例如就是儀式跟神話。

 

In the facts themselves we find at least a negative confirmation of all this, if we consider what a deserted island is in reality, that is, geographically. The island, and all the more so the deserted island, is an extremely poor or weak notion from the point of view of geography.

 

在這事實的本身,我們至少發現一個對此持負面的肯定,假如我們認為一個荒漠之島在現實中,換言之,在地理上,是個什麼樣子。從地理的觀點而言,島嶼是一個極端貧瘠或虛弱的觀念,,尤其是荒漠之島更是如此。

 

This is to its credit. The range of islands has no objective unity, and deserted islands have even less. The deserted island may indeed have extremely poor soil. Deserted, the island may be a desert, but not necessarily.

 

這對島而言倒是慶幸。島嶼的範圍並沒有客觀的一致性,荒漠之島甚至更少。慌漠之島可能確實有極端貧瘠的土地。由無人居住,此島可能是荒漠,但未必盡然。

 

The real desert is uninhabited only insofar as it presents no conditions that by rights would make life possible, whether vegetable, animal, or human. On the contrary, the lack of inhabitants on the deserted island is a pure fact due to circumstance, in other words, the island’s surroundings.

 

真正的荒漠是無人居住,因為它並沒有呈現在道理上使生命跡象成為可能的狀況,無論是植物,動物,或人類。相反的,在荒漠之島的居民的缺乏,是現實狀況下,換言之,島的環境,是純粹的事實。

 

The island is what the sea surrounds and what we travel around. It is like an egg. An egg of the sea, it is round. It is as though the island had pushed its desert outside. What is deserted is the ocean around it. It is by virtue of circumstance, for other reasons than the principle on which the island depends, that ships pass in the distance and never come ashore.

 

這個島為海洋所包圍,也是我們旅行之地。它就像顆蛋。作為海上之蛋,它是圓的。宛如島已

經將它的荒漠推到外面。荒漠的是圍繞它的海洋。由於這樣的環境,船隻從遠處經過,從不上岸,理由百百種,都跟島所依靠的原則無關。

 

The island is deserted more than it is a desert. So much so, that in itself the island may contain the liveliest of rivers, the most agile fauna, the brightest flora, the most amazing nourishment, the hardiest of savages, and the castaway as its most precious fruit, it may even contain, however momentarily, the ship that comes to take him away. For all that, it is not any less a deserted island.

 

與其說島是無人跡,不如說是荒漠。如此的荒漠,以致於島的本身可能包含奔騰的河流,最生猛的動物,最鮮豔的植物,最令人驚奇的滋養,最強壯的土著,棄留地上的最珍貴的水果。它也可能包含前來載走他的船隻,雖然那是可遇不可求。儘管如此,那仍然是一個荒漠之島。

 

To change this situation, we would have to overhaul the general distribution of the continents, the state of the seas, and the lines of navigation.

 

為了改變這個情況,我們將全面調整大陸的一般分佈,海洋的狀態,及航海的路線。

 

This is to state once again that the essence of the deserted island is imaginary and not actual, mythological and not geographical. At the same time, its destiny is subject to those human conditions that make mythology possible.

 

容我再次聲明,荒漠之島的本質是想像,而非真實,是神話而非地理。同時,島的命運隸屬於那些使神話成為可能的人類的狀況。

 

Mythology is not simply willed into existence, and the peoples of the earth quickly ensured they would no longer understand their own myths. It is at this very moment literature begins.

 

神話不僅僅是因人類一廂情願而存在,陸地上的人很快的保證,他們不再了解自己的神話。文學就是從這個時刻開始。

 

Literature is the attempt to interpret, in an ingenious way, the myths we no longer understand, at the moment we no longer understand them, since we no longer know how to dream them or reproduce them.

 

文學企圖以巧妙的方式,詮釋我們不再相信的神話,在我們不再瞭解他們的時刻,因為我們不再知道如何去夢想神話或複製神話。

 

Literature is the competition of misinterpretations that consciousness naturally and necessarily produces on themes of the unconscious, and like every competition it has its prizes. One would have to show exactly how in this sense mythology fails and dies in two classic novels of the deserted island, Robinson and Suzanne.

 

根據無意識的主題,意識當然也必須產生各種錯誤的詮釋,這種錯誤的競賽就是文學。就像各種競賽一樣,文學有其獎品。我們將必須確實地顯示出來,荒漠之島的兩部經典小說,魯賓遜跟蘇珊娜,以這種意義,神話功敗垂成。

 

Suzanne and the Pacific emphasizes the separated aspect of islands, the separation of the young woman who finds herself there;1 Robinson Crusoe, the creative aspect, the beginning anew.

 

「蘇珊娜及太平洋」強調島的分離的一面,當一位年輕女人發現自己在那裡的與人分離。「魯賓遜漂流記」則是強調創造的,重新開始的一面。

 

It is true that the way mythology fails is different in each case. In the case of Giraudoux’s Suzanne, mythology dies the prettiest, most graceful death. In Robinson’s case, its death is heavy indeed.

 

的確,神話失敗的方式兩個情形不一樣。對於吉羅德的蘇珊娜,神話垂亡得優美而高雅。在魯賓遜的情形,死亡確實是沉重。

 

One can hardly imagine a more boring novel, and it is sad to see children still reading it today. Robinson’s vision of the world resides exclusively in property; never have we seen an owner more ready to preach.

 

我們很想像還有比這些更無聊的小說。可是,令人感傷的是看到今天的小孩依舊在閱讀他們。

魯賓遜的世界觀完全停留在私有財產制度上,一位財產主人的津津樂道,真是前所未有。

 

The mythical recreation of the world from the deserted island gives way to the reconstitution of everyday bourgeois life from a reserve of capital. Everything is taken from the ship. Nothing is invented.

 

取代從荒漠之島神秘地重新創造的是日常的中產階級的生活,從資本的貯存中重新建構。每一樣東西都從船上取得,不用發明任何東西。

 

It is all painstakingly applied on the island. Time is nothing but the time necessary for capital to produce a benefit as the outcome of work. And the providential function of God is to guarantee a return.

 

取代的中產階級生活煞費苦心地被運用在島上。時間僅僅是資本運用結果,產生利潤所需的時間。上帝作為天佑的功用,則是保證回歸中產階級的生活。

 

God knows his people, the hardworking honest type, by their beautiful properties, and the evil doers, by their poorly maintained, shabby property. Robinson’s companion is not Eve, but Friday, docile towards work, happy to be a slave, and too easily disgusted by cannibalism.

 

上帝知道他的子民分兩種,一是勤奮而誠實的那一種,有著豐厚的財產,另一種是作姦犯科者,房產破落,維修不佳。魯賓遜的伙伴不是夏娃,而是星期五,溫順工作,樂於當奴隸,很容易為食人族所厭惡。

 

Any healthy reader would dream of seeing him eat Robinson. Robinson Crusoe represents the best illustration of that thesis which affirms the close ties between capitalism and Protestantism. The novel develops the failure and the death of mythology in Puritanism.

 

任何健全的讀者都會夢見到食人族正在吃魯賓遜。「魯賓遜漂浮記」代表那個命題最好的範例,那就是肯定資本主義跟基督教之間密切關係。小說發展神話在清教徒的失敗跟死亡。

 

Things are quite different with Suzanne. In her case, the deserted island is a depository of ready-made, luxurious objects. The island bears immediately what it has taken civilization centuries to produce, perfect, and ripen. But mythology still dies, though in Suzanne’s case it dies in a particularly Parisian way.

 

蘇珊娜的情形完全相反。在她的情形,荒漠之島是現成的奢侈物品的保管所。島嶼立即負載著文明幾世紀來所生產,改進,及成熟的的東西。但是神話依舊死亡,雖然在蘇珊娜的情形,神話以特別的巴黎人的方式而死。

 

Suzanne has nothing to create anew. The deserted island provides her with the double of every object from the city, in the windows of the shops; it is a double without consistency, separated from the real, since it does not receive the solidity that objects ordinarily take on in human relations, amidst buying and selling, exchanges and presents. She is an insipid young woman. Her companions are not Adam, but young cadavers, and when she reenters the world of living men, she will love them in a uniform way, like a priest, as though love were the minimum threshold of her perception.

 

蘇珊娜沒有創造新的東西。荒漠之島供應給她都市物品的仿冒品,展示於商店櫥窗。這個仿冒品跟真實物品隔開,並不相符,因為它並沒有具有一般物品在人的關係上具有的堅實性,在買與賣,交換與禮物上。

 

What must be recovered is the mythological life of the deserted island. However, in its very failure, Robinson gives us some indication 指示: he first needed a reserve 儲存 of capital 資本.

 

所需要恢復的是荒漠之島的神話生活。可是,由於神話的失敗,魯賓遜給我們一些指示:他首先需要累積資本。

 

In Suzanne’s case, she was first and foremost separate. And neither the one nor the other could be part of a couple.

 

在蘇珊娜的情形,她首要條件是分離。無論是此方或彼方,都不能夠是夫妻對方的所屬。

 

These three indications must be restored to their mythological purity 純淨 We have to get back to the movement of the imagination that makes the deserted island a model, a prototype 原型 of the collective soul.

 

神話要純淨,這三個指示必須恢復。我們必須回到使荒漠之島成為集體靈魂的典範,原型的

想像力的動作

 

First, it is true that from the deserted island it is not creation but re-creation, not the beginning but a re-beginning that takes place. The deserted island is the origin, but a second origin.

 

首先,從荒漠之島,所發生的事的確不是創造,而是重新創造,不是開始,而是重新開始。荒漠之島不是起源,而是二次起源。

 

From it everything begins anew. The island is the necessary minimum 最小量 for this re-beginning, the material that survives the first origin, the radiating 燦爛的seed 種子 or egg that must be sufficient 足夠 to re-produce everything.

 

從荒漠之島,一切重新開始。島是這個重新開始所需要的最小量,歷經第一次起源的物質,向外散發的種子或卵子,必須要足夠繁殖一切。

 

Clearly, this presupposes 預先假設 that the formation of the world happens in two stages, in two periods of time, birth and re-birth, and that the second is just as necessary and essential as the first, and thus the first is necessarily compromised 妥協, born for renewal 重生and already renounced 抨擊 in a catastrophe 災難.

 

顯然,這預先假定,世界的組成發生在兩個舞台,兩個時間的時期,出生跟重生。第二次重生跟第一次出生同要的需要跟重要。因此第一次出生是必須的妥協,為了重生而出生,在災難中飽受抨擊。

 

It is not that there is a second birth because there has been a catastrophe, but the reverse 相反, there is a catastrophe after the origin because there must be, from the beginning, a second birth.

 

這倒不是因為曾經有災難,所以才有第二次出生。相反的,是因為從一開始,就必須要有第二次重生,所以起源之後,災難發生。

 

Within ourselves we can locate the source of such a theme: it is not the production of life that we look for when we judge it to be life, but its reproduction. The animal whose mode of reproduction remains unknown to us has not yet taken its place among living beings.

 

我們能夠在我們自己身上找到這一個主題的來源。當我們認定這是生命時,我們所尋找的不是生命的產生,而是生命的繁殖。人為動物,卻尚未在生物當中有所替代物,因為其繁殖模式我們始終不得而知。

 

It is not enough that everything begins, everything must begin again once the cycle of possible combinations has come to completion. The second moment does not succeed the first: it is the reappearance of the first when the cycle of the other moments has been completed.

 

光是一切開始,一切都必須開始,仍然是不足夠的,一但可能的組合完成之後。第二次開始的時刻並沒有接續第一個開始,而是第一次開始的重現,當其他時刻的循環結束之時。

 

The second origin is thus more essential than the first, since it gives us the law of repetition, the law of the series, whose first origin gave us only moments. But this theme, even more than in our fantasies, finds expression in every mythology.

 

第二次起源因此比第一次更加重要,因為它給我們重複的法則,系列的法則,而第一次起源只給我們時刻。但是這個主題在每個神話中,比在我們的幻想中,表現得更為生動。

 

 It is well known as the myth of the flood. The ark sets down on the one place on earth that remains uncovered by water, a circular and sacred place, from which the world begins anew.

 

洪水的神話,眾所皆知。方舟置放在陸地的一個地方,始終未被洪水發現。那是一個巡迴而神聖的地方,世界從那裡重新開始。

 

It is an island or a mountain, or both at once: the island is a mountain under water, and the mountain, an island that is still dry. Here we see original creation caught in a re-creation, which is concentrated in a holy land in the middle of the ocean.

 

那是個島或是山,或同時皆是:島是在水底下的山,而山是尚未為水包圍的島。在此,我們看到原創性的創造陷於重新創造之網,專注於海洋中間的神聖土地。

 

This second origin of the world is more important than the first: it is a sacred island. Many myths recount that what we find there is an egg, a cosmic 宇宙的egg. Since the island is a second origin, it is entrusted 信托給 to man and not to the gods. It is separate, separated by the massive expanse 一大片 of the flood.

 

世界的第二次起源比第一次更加重要。那是一個神聖之島。許多神話描述,我們在那裡找到的是一粒卵子,宇宙的卵子。因為這個島是第二次的起源,它被信託給人,而不是給眾神。這個起源分離,被一大片的洪水所分離。

 

Ocean and water embody a principle of segregation such that, on sacred islands, exclusively female communities can come to be, such as the island of Circe or Calypso.

 

海洋跟水具體表現分離的原則,所以在神聖之島上,社會只能成為清一色是女性,就像是塞斯或凱利普索的女人島。

 

After all, the beginning started from God and from a couple, but not the new beginning, the beginning again, which starts from an egg: mythological maternity 母親 is often a parthenogenesis 單性生殖.

 

畢竟,開始起源於上帝,起源於夫妻,但是新的開始可不是,重新開始起源於卵子:神話的母親往往是單性生殖。

 

The idea of a second origin gives the deserted island its whole meaning, the survival of a sacred 神聖的place in a world that is slow to re-begin. In the ideal of beginning anew there is something that precedes the beginning itself, that takes it up to deepen it and delay it in the passage of time. The desert island is the material of this something immemorial 遠古的, this something most profound 深刻..

 

第二次起源的觀念賦予荒漠之島它全部的意義,在一個緩慢重新開始的世界,有一處神聖的地方保存下來。在重新開始的理想裡,有某件東西早先於開始的本身,在時間的流程中,深化及拖延開始。荒漠之島就是這個遠古的物質,這個深奧的某件東西。

 

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

雄伯