Archive for the ‘Felix Guattari’ Category

The Anti-Oedipus Papers 07

December 6, 2007

Anti-Oedipus Papers 07

By Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

 

Interlude on the “ pentagram”

論「完美」的插曲

 

   The devil and the signifier.

   Faust catches the devil who did not notice the sign’s “ threshold effect” –the pentagram—by the door. Really the sign was wide open, even a little bit off; it opened onto a signifying chain; a game of opening and closing a space: a light shaft in a narrow cell:

   魔鬼與符號具。

   浮士德捉住魔鬼,魔鬼卻沒有注意到符號在完美門邊的「門檻效應」。符號的確是開放的,甚至有點開得太大。它展開進入符號化鎖鏈,開放跟封閉一個空間的遊戲,狹窄囚房的一道光束。

 

   “…it is badly placed; the angle turned towards the door and, as you can see, even a bit open…”

   “ …from the outside the thing looked completely different and now he devil could not escape.”

   Why? Because of the “ law of signifying chains.”

   It’s a law among devils and ghosts that they have to leave from whence they came. The first act is free; you are enslaved to the second.”

   它的位置擺得不好,角度轉向門,如你所見,甚至開得太大。

   從外面看,事情截然不同。現在魔鬼可逃不掉。」

    為什麼?因為「符號鎖鏈法則」

    這是魔鬼跟鬼魂的法則,他們必須從來的地方離開。第一個行動來是自由的,但是第二個行動去可受到限制。」

 

   So the rule in Hell is double articulation, bi-univocal correspondence, linearity.

   所以地獄法則是雙重表達,雙重單音的溝通,直線式的。

 

Rats, at the devil’s call, gnaw at the sign and open up the possibility of a “ new alliance” with the devil. That idiot Faust only dreamt of the heights: “…What rises up above the things of the earth.”  He wanted to translate the New Testament into German and make the beginning not be the verb but, effect of translatability inherent in the subjectification of speech to writing.

 「鼠人」應魔鬼的呼喚,咬囓符號並展開跟魔鬼「新結盟」的可能性。那白癡般的浮士德卻光夢想著飄然高昇:「提昇到大地萬物之上。」他要將新約翻譯成德文,讓開始不是動詞,而是本質可翻譯的效果,言談隸屬於寫作。

 

“…spirit,

Strength,

Action…”

The devil or God.

Good or evil.

I belong to this force that always yearns for evil and always does good.”

  精神,

力量,

行動,,」

惡魔或上帝。

善或惡。

我屬於這個力量,總是渴望邪惡,又總是渴望行善。」

 

It’s still the idea of sin and destruction as “ displaced represented.” The devil has no name ( “ the request seems to be quite frivolous…” and no shape. A fragment of pure metaphysical “ expanse” like Descartes’ fragment of life ( isn’t it the clever genie who “ slaves” reality?” The closed, five-term sign opens up as a triad into the sign of the cross. The pentagrammatic sign as the infinitive of perfection—of the finite jouissance range.

依舊是原罪跟毀滅的觀念當著「被誤置的代表」。惡魔沒有名字(這個要求似乎相當任意,,)而且沒有形狀。惡魔是純粹形上學「曠野」的碎片,如同笛卡爾的生命碎片(能拯救實在界的難道不是聰慧精靈?)封閉的五個條款符號,展開成為三位一體的十字架符號。完美境界符號作為完美的無限,相對於歡喜的有限。

 

The sign of the cross is the infinite of deterritorialization and of the anti-production work of “ series,” bi-univocal correspondences, double articulations, and the difference between taking pleasure and the rest ( the devil of the double, the narcissistic machine, the mirror…) It’s the dissociated body, against a backdrop of decoded flow, that leads to divided-undivided bodies against a backdrop of territorialized bodies without organs.

十字架的符號廢除領土和「系列」反生產運作的無限,雙重單音,雙重表達,歡樂跟其餘的差別(雙重的惡魔,自戀的機器,鏡子,等等)。這是瓦解的身體,背景是解碼的流動,並且導致既分又合的身體,背景是沒有器官的領土化的身體。

 

I am telling you the humble truth. If man, this small world of madness, normally considers himself to form a whole, I am a piece of the piece that came before Everything, a piece of obscurity that gave birth to light, proud light, that claims for itself its mother Night’s ancient blood and space she occupied; which does not suit it, as in spite of its efforts it breaks on bodily surfaces that interrupt it; it emerges from matter, streams down it and colors it, but one body alone interrupts its stride. So I hope that it will not last long, or it will be annihilate by bodies themselves ( cries, howling—noise and the dog’s fury, before speech. Redundancy, repetition and paradigmatic machinations…for some other time). The dog is captured, the diabolical cry is an effect of an objective movement: it traces a spiral course, it “ seems to pull magic laces up to our feet, as if to tie us up.”

我告訴你這個謙遜的真理。假如人,這個瘋狂的小世界,正常認為自己組成一個整體,我是那萬有之前的碎片之一,卑微的一片產生了光,驕傲的光,替自己宣稱母親是夜晚的古代的血,及她所佔有的空間。但是光並不適合於這個空間,儘管它的努力突破阻擋它的身體表面。光從物質出現,流過物質,使物資多采多姿,但是僅是一個身體就阻擋它的前進。所以我希望光不會持久,或光會為身體的本身毀滅。」(哭泣,哀號,噪音跟狗的狂吠,在演講之前。冗贅,重復,翻來覆去的策劃,過了一段時間)。狗被捉住,著魔般的哭泣是客觀動作的效應,它追蹤盤旋的過程,它「似乎將魔法的鏈條直套到我們腳上,好似要將我們全身綁住。」

 

Actually, it’s the “ demoniacal” caught in a trap.

It’s “ learning” ( Meister’s “ Learning Years”), technique, artifice, that call the tune.

Wagner: This is a crazy species of water spaniel. You stop, it waits for you; you talk to it, it throws itself at your neck; you lose something, it brings it back to you, and jumps in the water if you drop your cane in it.

Faust: You’re right, I detect no trace of spirit, every is training.

實際上,這個被困在陷阱的「惡魔」。

它的基調是「學習」技巧和魔法(惡魔的學習年)。

   華格納:這是一種天才瘋狗。你停止,它等你;你跟它說話,它撲上你的脖子,你掉了東西,它幫你撿回,假如你丟根甘蔗到水裡,它就跳進去。

浮士德:你說得沒錯,我覺察不出有靈魂的痕跡,一切都是訓練而來。」

 

Nice job!

    The water spaniel that sort of orbited around him, during his stroll with a certain Wagner, narrowed its field and got caught in the trap of interiority ( like Descartes closed up in his stove-heated room).

做得漂亮!

    浮士德跟華格納散步時,這隻天才瘋狗在他四周繞來繞去,縮小它的活動領域,被困在內部的陷阱裏(像笛卡爾自囚於火爐溫暖的房間)。

 

    With no more multiple coordinates, caught in a narrow referential, the water spaniel develops a monstrous “ paradigmatic perversion” : it becomes “ as big as hippopotamus,” an “ elephant…transformed into “ either” and gives birth to…Mephisto, then begets a flow of rodents, as support for the pact ( new alliance) with this ridiculous devil. Mephisto has as his mission to “ establish the void,” but he is always butting up against the requirements of flow. If not rat flow, then fresh, new blood…” it will make you totally crazy.:” it’s the “ crazy devil” that haunts capitalistic flow!

     陷於狹窄的符號範圍,不再有多重協調,這隻天才瘋狗發展出一種怪物般的「典範偏執」。它變成「河馬般巨大」「大象」轉變成「精靈」並且生出梅菲斯特魔鬼,再生下無數咬囓動物,當著是支持跟可笑的惡魔新的結盟。梅菲斯特魔鬼以「建立空無」為使命,但是它總是遭遇到流動的要求。即使不是老鼠成群流動,就是新鮮的血液流動「它簡直要逼你發瘋」。縈繞著資本主義的流動,就是這個「瘋狂的惡魔」!

 

   Everything is ready for decoding, and for absolute detrritorialization and the production of the “ remainders” out of mutilated, gaping signs regenerated ad infinitum in signifying chains: “ The semantic or phonic difference that is repeated in a series.”

    每一樣東西都準備解碼,完全解除領土限制,然後用被切除的分裂的符號的「剩餘」創作,在符號化的鎖鏈永無止盡地產生。

 

   The devil’s territoriality is actually a diabolical loss of territoriality, Goethe’s “ demonical.”

   “ Before,” spirits had their own space.

   Now, it’s all or nothing.

   惡魔的領土實際上是領土可怕的損失,歌德的「惡魔」。

   「以前」靈魂有它自己的空間。

    現在,靈魂是全有或全無。

 

P40—p42

The Anti-Oedipus Papers 反伊底普斯文稿

By Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

https://springhero.wordpress.com

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

       

The Anti-Oedipus Papers 06

December 5, 2007

Ant-Oedipus 05

By Felix Guantarri 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

 

Of the Sign, with an Interlude on Faust

符號,浮士德的插曲

 

“ For any sign to have a linguistic existence, it must be an element in a series; it is not defined as such by this property, but by the semantic or phonic difference repeated in its series.”

要讓符號有語言的存在,系列必須要有一個元素;符號不是由這個屬性本身所定義,而是由語意或語音的差異在系列中重復。

 

   In my mind, the work of constituting a series proceeds from the “ syntagmatico-paradigmatic” perversion ( neurosis-perversion) that makes the sign function like a signifier.

   我認為組成一系列的運作展開,是從「語段到詞形變化」的變態(有如神經病變態),使符號充當符號具行使功能。

 

   I think it’s with Hjelmslev, maybe Peirce—but where is his writing! —on the one hand, and on the other with the founders of axiomatic theory, that we can find the key to “ clearing” out…structuralism.

   我想一方面是奇姆列夫或皮爾斯如此說,另一方面在公理理論的創建者那裡,我們亦可找到解決的關鍵:結構主義。

 

   If I’m not mistaken, Hjemslev considers the chain effect, linearity, discursivity, to be secondary. For him, a unit is phonematic as much as it is semantic and beyond.

   假如我說得沒錯,奇姆列夫認為鎖鏈效應,直線性,擴散性,都是次要的。他認為,一個單位是語音,同樣也是語意及超越。

 

   What matter is the axiomatics of a language. One axiom more or less and everything changes. So, no primacy of one order over another one, one series over another, no Saussurian or Martinetian dualism…( We have provisionally to verify all this!)

   重要是語言的公理。多或少一個公理,情況就改變。所以,沒有一個順序優先於另一個順序,或一個系列優先於另一個系列,沒有索緒爾或馬提內辛的雙重性(我們暫時先這樣證明)。

 

  

   What is the work of the constitution of these series? Isn’t it at the basis of the work of anti-production?

   是什麼在運作這些系列的組成?它難道不是處於反生產運作基礎?

 

   The displaced represented ( in the operation of the representation of alliances and the repression of the representative of machinic filiation); the displaced represented, in its displacement, creates a serialization effect.

    被替代的表徵(聯盟表徵的運作,跟機械化的聯盟中,表徵的運作),被替代的表徵,在替代時,創造一系列效應。

  

    Whereas before, in a system without writing, the urstaat was offscreen, and the sign polyvocal, playing synchronically on all connective registers at once, now there is bivocality.

    雖然以前,在沒有寫作的系統裡,真實是隱而不見,符號是多重聲音,同時而瞬間地從事各種連結,現在則是雙重聲音。

 

   What is expressed (“ displaced,” transferred ) depends on its exclusive relation to the machine: repressive-representation, repressed-representative ( speech’s “ meaning effects” depend on the signification brickwork of language. The semantic field is “ contextualized” through its subjectification to the “ diacriticism” of the semiological plane).

   所被表達的(被替代的轉移)依靠它跟機器的專斷關係:壓制的表徵,被壓制的表徵(言談的「意義效應」依靠語言的符號結構。語意的領域「共同本文化」經由語言水平「跨越批評」的主觀化。)

 

   “ You will have it go through my grid.” “ You will have it go through my Oedipus, my Capital, my State…” Double articulation is correlative to the establishment of the Urstaat inasmuch as this “ class despotism device” imposes, via suppression:

    「你將經歷我的格式」「你將經歷我的伊底普斯,我的首都,我的國度,等等。」雙重表達跟真實的建立是相互關係,因為「階級暴政」是透過壓制建立。

 

   1. bivocality,

   2. seriality, linearity,

   3. the “ hollowing out” of the sign’s territoriality.”

   一:雙重單音

   二:系列,直線

   三:符號領土的空洞化

 

    Territoriality is now the hollow of the articularatory break ( we have to consider “ philosophies of the void” in relation to all this as perverse attempts to “ catch up with the process” : “ since there is a hollow, I will empty myself of all representation”” Zen & co…As if the desert weren’t already enough for paranoiacs: you also have to empty yourself of all representation).

    領土現在是表達斷裂的空洞化(我們必須考慮到「空無的哲學」,跟所有這些的關係,當著偏執的企圖要「迎頭趕上過程」:「既然是空無,那我就掏空一切符號」如禪宗的做法」。好像對於偏執狂,沙漠化還不夠,你還要空洞掉你所有的符號。)

 

    So there are at least three types of paranoiacs:

    —the paranoid classifier ( against a forested backdrop)

    __the pure desert hermit ( the city)

    —Hegel and Lacan’s Alcestis or the “ good soul’s internal desert, against a backdrop of decoded flow.

    所以至少有三種偏執狂:

    分類偏執狂(背景是森林)

    純粹沙漠隱士(大隱隱於市)

    黑格爾跟拉崗的阿西提思公主,或善良靈魂的內在沙漠,背景是符碼解譯的流動。

 

    The sign doesn’t couple at leisure in polyvocality anymore. Its space is connected . The sign’s sexuality, the sign as sexuality , as a pure process of code surplus value, is repressed ( all this to make you happy! Or I hope so).

    符號不再以多重聲音隨意加倍。它的空間是連結的。符號的性,符號作為性,作為符碼的剩餘價值,是被壓制(一切都是為了使你快樂,或我希望如此)。

 

    You have to put some of it through the repressive alliance of representation that, as you say, is extensive in that it displaces something, it produces a serial effect and opens a narrow field of contextual “ meaning effect.” Filiation is internalized, its territoriality melts away—and you have a passage to the void.

     你必須透過表徵的壓制聯盟來實行。如你所說,壓制無所不在,它替代了一些東西,它產生系列效應,並展開了共同文本的「意義效應」的狹窄領域。關係被內化,它的領土瓦解,你通往空無。

 

P40—41

Anti-Oedipus by Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

https://springhero.wordpress.com

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

  

  

     

The Anti-Oedipus Papers 05

December 3, 2007

Anti-Oedipus 05

By Felix Guanttari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

 

Notes from 11/23/1970

   I’m trying to read The Archeology of Knowledge by Faoucault; but it’s so hard for me to get through this kind of thing. It seems to me that your friend is getting lost in linguistics and other structures.

   我正在設法閱讀傅柯的「知識考古學」,但是我無法看完這種東西。我覺得你的朋友迷失在語言學跟其他結構當中。

 

Distinguish between:

區別兩者: 

  the subject of the linguistic statement produced by representation—we can call it the subject of repetition ( cf. Lacan: the signifier represents a subject for another signifier…; but we’re dealing with a signifier linguisticized by Oedipus, the name of the father, etc.)

  由符號所產生的語言陳述的主體我們能稱之為重複的主體(參考拉崗說法:符號具代表另一個符號具的主體,但是我們正在處理被伊底普斯語言化的符號具,以父之名,等等)。

 

   the subject of a signifying enunciation, a transduction of the third articulation: either an anti-production of the double articulation—an anti-subject –; or a collective agent of enunciation, an agent of difference.

   符號化表達的主體,第三表達的置換:雙重表達的反生產,一個反主體,要不然就是表達的集體代理,差異的代理。

 

    Actually, if there is any syncretism between the subject of the linguistic statement and the subject of enunciation, it’s that the subject of enunciation has been pulled down over the statement.

    實際上,假如語言陳述的主體跟表達的主體之間有任何融合,那是表達的主體已經被陳述所感動。

    This pulling down is the operation of the : “ so therefore” … “ and so what you’re articulating with your feet, your ass and the rest is…therefore you, who is doing that, against…your father, because of…your mother…”

     這個感動是因果關係的運作「你用你的腳,你的老二,及其他東西所表達的,因此就是你不畏父親,而為母親所正在做的。」

 

    The statement is coherent because of the structuralism of language, the law, legal relations of parentage, capitalist production relations, etc. ( Imperialism of the statement, the formation of sovereignty –the double-articulation machine.) The statement is the law. It produces an abstract subject that masters situations, alienates desiring machines and projects imaginary, molar subjects of enunciation through them.

   這個陳述是一貫,因為語言的結構,法律,父母的關係,資本主義生產關係,等等。(陳述的帝國主義,統治的形成,雙重表達的機器。)這個陳述是法律。它產生一個抽象的主體,疏離欲望的機器,並且透過他們,投射出一個非真實的受扭曲的表達主體。

 

   So we get the famous syncretism between two subjects or the famous splitting of the ego, the Sarrian pairs ( reflected-reflecting), etc. The oedipal-narcissistic machine is set up to absorb everything that tries to surpass bi-univoclity; either on the side of deathly narcissistic unary abolition; or on the side of social-quaternity.

   因此我們得到兩個主體這個著名的融合以及自我著名的分裂,如沙特的成對(被反映與反映)。伊底普斯自戀的機器被建立,為了吸引一切設法要超越兩個單音的東西。一個單音在自戀單方面的毀滅,要不然就在社會這邊。

 

    Without the oedipal triangle, everything slips up and fucks off into connectivity and desiring filiation. The oedipal alliance is capitalism’s molar unit. It’s how a schized individual is promoted proportionately to production: nothing extra juts out—there is just enough polyvocality to ensure reproduction: minimum sperm flow, just at the right time, and nothing more…

   假如沒有伊底普斯三角關係,每樣東西都溜滑消散成連結及欲望的關係。伊底普斯的三角結盟是資本主義的分散單位。這樣精神分裂的個人才能成比率地提昇到生產:沒有額外的東西突出來,僅僅有足夠多重聲音確定可以生產:最小量的精子在恰好時機流出,僅此而已。

 

   The schizo is the proletarian of transduction. He works in the third articulation.

   精神分裂症是輔導的普羅化。他用第三表達運作。

 

   This intolerable third articulation that , again, is not third but beyond the second, it is the 2+nth articulation. Its transcursivity can be suppressed only…

   —oedipally in neurosis,

   —psychiatically in psychosis,

   —by the police in the case of perversion.

   這個讓人無法忍受的第三表達,其實不是第三,而是第二之上,它是第二加一次的表達。它的跨越擴散會被下面三個狀況壓制:

神經質的伊底普斯

變態狂的精神分析

變態案例中的警察

 

The subject of a transcursive enunciation is the damned double of the subject of the law. It is its doublet. It exists in counter dependency to the law. It’s the cops-and-robbers pair, the patient-psychiatrist pair, etc. A two-person pervert ( “ the copper”).

跨越擴散表達的主體是法律主體的雙重人,像是連體嬰。它存在於對於法律相對依靠。就像是警察跟強盜,病人與分析師,互為一對。兩人合為一體般的偏執而為。

 

The third articulation cannot be on the order of individual subjectivity but social enunciation. The individual is an intolerable excrescence that has to be pulled down over the schize of ( dualistic) subject. It’s something “ extra,” something that doesn’t work, in capitalism, except if it’s castrated. Then, with individuals, the “ remainder,” an institutional order can be deployed. The institutional order of capitalism is deduced from Oedipus.

第三個表達不會是在個人主觀性的層次,而是在社會表達。個人是令人無法容忍的贅瘤,因為(雙重)主體的精神分裂而必須被袪除。個人像是額外之物,在資本主義裏無法運作,除非被去勢。因此,就個人這個多餘物而言,必須要有機構的層次被運用。資本主義的機構層次是由伊底普斯演繹而來。

 

On the other hand, the artificial, revolutionary emergence of a collective agent of enunciation can end in the subversion of the capitalist order and promote a third, institutional, articulation as the surface of desire of transcursivity.

在另一方面,表達的集團代理以人為的革命方式出現,會以顛覆資本主義的秩序終結,並提昇以機構方式當第三個表達,跨越擴散的欲望的外表。

 

p36—p37

The Anti-Oedipus Papers by Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

https://springhero.wordpress.com

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

   

The Anti-Oedipus Papers 04

December 3, 2007

Anti-Oedipus 04

By Felix Guanttari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

I would like to repeat one thing: it’s that originally in “ From One Sign to the Other” I was criticizing Lacan: I believe that the single trait was not appropriate for a general semiology, but that the sign-point should be.

  我想要重申一件事:原先在「符號的遞變」,我批判拉崗。我認為單一特徵對於一般符號學是不適當,但是符號點應該是適當。

  But the single trait is the differentiating phallus that founds the notion of identity in the mirror—hollow identity , identity of lack, etc.

   但是單一特徵是拉崗以區分的陽具建立鏡中影象認同的觀念。那其實是空洞的認同,欠缺的認同,等等。

  Whereas the sign-point is the cancerous contamination for set theory.

  而符號點是集合理論的癌症般的污染。

  The subject is not a signifying operator; nor even a signifying operator! It’s nothing. It’s anti-productive syncretistic abbreviation. Like Oedipus, it works against desiring production.

  主體不是符號化的運作者,連符號化的運作者都不是。主體是空無。主體是反生產的融合縮寫。像伊底普斯,主體從事反對生產欲望。

  The Freudian unconscious has no subject. Returning to Freud requires not putting any in there, at whatever cost!

  佛洛伊德的無意識沒有主體。回到佛洛伊德要求不放置任何東西在那裡,不管是什麼代價。

  The craziest machines, Freud’s machines—neurobiological whatever they were—were already kind of like that.

   最瘋狂的機械,佛洛伊德的機械,相當像是生物神經系統,或類似的名稱。

  You work in unconsciousness like you work in electronics or metallurgy. You have to establish production units.

   你的無意識運作,就像是電子學或冶金術。你必須建立生產單位。

  It’s not about impotence, but the revolutionary composition of production vectors. A strategy of enunciation that replicates production and institution, etc., discourse.

  這不是關於無能,而是生產向量的革命組合。一個表達的策略,複製生產跟機構等等學科

  In Lacan, there are some ambivalent statements like: “ The bipolarity that Moral Law adopts is simply the re-splitting of the subject using every intervention on the part of the signifier: specifically, the subject of enunciation or the subject of the statement” “ or the fact that the statement of authority “ has no other guarantee than its very enunciation”), and total conformism to institutions.

  拉崗有些模稜兩可的陳述:「道德法則所採用的兩極,就是主體使用符號具的不斷介入重新分裂:明確地說,表達的主體或陳述的主體。」(或是權威的陳述,除了自己的表達,沒有其他保證),以及全部跟體制一致。

P34—p35

The Anti-Oedipus Papers by Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

https://springhero.wordpress.com

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

  

 

The Anti-Oedipus Papers 03

December 3, 2007

Anti-Oedipus 03

By Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

Enough of the break between: scene and contemplation.

對於場景跟沉思之間的斷裂,令人不能忍受。

   Freud describes the authority ( instance) that observes, measures, criticizes and doubles desire.

   佛洛伊德描述權威(遙控地)觀察,衡量,批評,並使欲望加倍

   For example, when we are dreaming, there is simultaneously:

   —a desire to sleep

   —Eros

   But it’s the same thing!

   例如,當我們做夢時,同時性存在

   睡眠的欲望

   性慾

   兩者其實同樣。

   Desire for abolition and Eros are two things such that if we describe, distinctly.

   —the subject of the statement in a scene,

   —and the anti-scene of observation= subject of enunciation,

   then it’s a politics of “ either or.” But if we unify, or unite, scenes and anti-scenes, then desire find the assemblage of the enunciation working through the statement.

   泯滅的欲望跟性慾是兩碼事,所以我們分別描述

   場景陳述的主體

   觀察的反場景等於表達的主體

   因此有「非此則彼」的政治學。但是假如我們統一或聯合場景及反場景,那麼欲望就會發現:表達透過陳述運作時兩者匯集。

   There are shows going on in concert halls, in the street! You say something and things change…( Lacan adds—about psychotics—the syphilitic distinction between perceptum and percepiens: psychotics going lost in the enunciation-percepiens = impossible real= unconscious =another wall of China1)

   音樂會大廳,在街頭,都在進行表演!你說某事,事情因此改變(關於精神變態狂,拉岡補充說,感覺跟受感覺之間的區隔像梅毒感染,變態狂迷失於表達跟感覺之間,等於是不可能的真實,等於無意識,等於另一座中國長城!)

   Another thing: sublimation doesn’t just happen, as if by some miracle, anymore. You have to work at it. You have to doctor it! With Freud, it was like a miracle that drives could change objects. It was sort of the analyst’s voyeuristic passivity. Putting your foot into sublimation. “ Sublimate fast or you’re out of here! Asshole!” There is no perverse humanism. In any case, you’re better off dying, at least that way you have a choice, but until then…

   另一件事:好似奇蹟一般,昇華不再自然發生,而是你必須努力以赴。你必須細心照顧!對佛洛伊德而言,欲念若能改變客體,簡直是奇蹟。介入昇華,那是分析師窺視般的被動。「昇華太快,你人就不在這裡!狗屎!」人本主義不允許違背常情。無論如何,你倒不如死算了,至少你還有個選擇,但是未死之前、、、

   Orthodox criticisms of therapeutic finalism and the condemnation of adaptation, and suggestion, are rotting. Id, for neutrality.

   對於治療的最終意義的傳統批評,對於適應的譴責及建議,逐漸腐蝕中。本我保持中立。

  

   There is an end to schizo-analysis: it’s deterritorialization and the schizodation of desire. All artificial means and suggestions are good for arriving at this, a kick in the ass included!

   精神分裂跟精神分析有個目的:將欲望除掉領域,並分裂之。要達到這個目標,一切人為方法及建議均可採用,刺激陽具亦包括在內。

  There are not a zillion ways to get there. This is the revolutionary work of subversion: contracting a unit of desiring subversion ( “ gadgetzing” the socius!)

   其實不必兆億方法就可以達到。那就是顛覆的革命運作:承包一個欲望顛覆的單位(將同事都機械化!)

  Freud’s distinction between sublimation and idealization is still valid. But there is a break. That’s another thing. An “ other” sexuality. It’s more than that.

  佛洛伊德對昇華跟理念的區別仍然有效。但是有個缺點。還有另一樣東西。「另外」一種性。不僅如此而已。

  There is an artificial reinforcement, the production of sublimation and the destruction of idealization, the superego, etc. What I’m trying to say is something like:

  有人為的增強,昇華的產生跟理念的毀滅,超我,等等。我現在所要說的是像:

  1. The correlation between Lacan’s conclusion on “ the superego having to be taken as an individual manifestation connected to the social conditions of Oedipalim.”

   其一:拉崗的結論的對應關係「超我必須被認為個別的證明,跟伊底普斯的社會狀況相關」。

  2. Greimas’ thing on it being impossible for there to be any syncretism in geturl language between the subject of enunciation and the subject of the statement.

   其二:葛瑞馬認為,表達的主體跟陳述的主體之間的肢體語言,不可能有任何融合。

   It seems to me that both derive from the same system: personalization; but the “ spokesperson”-individual is not the subject of enunciation.

   我覺得兩者都來自相同系統:人格化,但是作為個人「發言人」並不是表達的主體。

   1. There is no subject of enunciation. There is no subject of the third articulation. Polyvocality economizes on the break function of the subject.

    一:沒有表達的主體。沒有第三表達的主體。多音喧嘩精減了主體的斷裂功能。

   2. That’s why idealization and the superego come from the intersection between the bi-univocality of the signifier/signified and the polyvocal field of desiring machines.

    二:那就是為什麼理念跟超我來自符號具跟符號旨的雙單音的交會,以及欲望機器的多音領域。

   3. If instead of an intersection there is a reunion, then you have what I call: the modification of the superego’s reception data.

   假如不是交會,而是重新聯合,那麼我所說的超我的感覺資訊就會修正。

   It seems that for Greimas, the syncretism that is supposed to regulate it is bullshit. It’s the unit, the anti-production of individuation: “ I mean what I mean.”

    就葛瑞馬而言,應該規範表達主體跟陳述主體之間肢體語言的融合似乎是不可能的胡說。只有個別化的反生產單位:「我說的就是我的意思」。

    Now the body is the scene.

    The other is the same. The individual.

    The equal, free and fraternal subject.

    現在身體是場景。

    他者也是一樣。個人的場景。

    平等、自由、博愛的主體。

   What Freudism did was divide everything up: where you had the illusion of an individual there are now desiring machines, and then he started over: no people. At lest three.

    佛洛伊德所做的就是分裂一切:欲望機器存在於你有個人幻覺的地方。它甚至於跨越過去說,人不存在。其實,至少有三人存在。

   Who is talking, who is desiring, ask Lacan. It’s the other.

   But the other is a machine, not mommy—daddy!

   誰在說話,誰在欲望,拉崗問。還有一位它者。

但是它者是一台機器,不是母親或父親!

   The schizo-analytic revolution is about moving beyond the “ splitting” of the ego, beyond Kleinian explosion. We can’t be satisfied with fighting a losing battle anymore, we have to go forward, to the subject of enunciation; we’re not describing replacement scenes, psycho-dramatic scenes, psychoanalytic scenes, but abolishing he subject by constructing collective agents of enunciation.

 精神分裂症跟精神分析的革命,要遷移到自我的「分裂」之外,克列尼客體關係的爆炸之外。我們不能老是打敗戰,我們要化守為攻。非但不要接受這種分裂,我們必須前進,到表達的主體。我們不要描述替代場景,心理跟戲劇的場景,精神分析的場景。代替的,我們要建立集體的表達代理人,來廢除主體。

p32—p33

The Anti-Oedipus Papers by Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

https://springhero.wordpress.com

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

      

   

The Anti-Oedipus Papers 02

December 2, 2007

Anti-Oedipus 02

By Felix Guaattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

 

Of the Third Articulation第三個表達

 

Desiring connection works from term to term, and “ forget” each as it goes ( Qury describes a conversation that he had with a young schizo, to whom he asked: “ Who are your friends here at Laborde?” The schizo gave him two names. Qury thought about it for a minute, and realized that those were the names of the two people sitting in the waiting room.)

欲望連結從一個術語到另一個術語,邊前進邊「忘記」(魁銳描述他跟一位精神分裂症患者的談話。他問說:「在拉伯帖這裡,誰是你的朋友?」精神分裂症患者給他兩個名字。魁銳想了一下,才體會到那兩個人都正坐在候診室。)

 

   Anti-productive conjunction bi-univocalizes connections. So we have the signifier and the signified, connective chains tacked onto one another ( differentiating role of the phallus and the subject).

    反生產的聯合把連結的單一性商雙邊化。所以我們有符號具跟符號旨,連結鎖鍊互相掛勾(陽具跟主體的不同角色)。

    The third disjunctive articulation is the reverse of conjunction, a return to desiring “ grounds” No subject of the statement, but collective agents of enunciation ( the re-territorialization of artifice). Metacommunication, enunciation. Disjunction, the union of the union and the intersection.

    第三個分裂的表達是聯合的相反,就是回到欲望的場地。這個場地沒有陳述的主體,而是集體發表的代理(詭計的重新劃入領土)。超級溝通,表達。分裂是聯合跟橫斷的聯合。

 

    Lacan wrote that “ any enunciation of authority ( on the A, site of the signifier) has no other guarantee than its enunciation”. He added that there is no “ metalanguage that can be spoken, no Other of the Other,” no guarantee of the law, etc. And he falls right back onto the “ Father-law” thing, all the more solid as it is dead, or impotent!

    拉岡寫說「任何權威的表達(在符號具的甲地點),除了表達之外,沒有其它保證。」他補充說,「沒有超級語言被說,沒有其他它者」,沒有法律的保證,等等。然後他又依靠「父權法律」,更加堅固,因為這個法律已經僵死,或已經無能為力。

   It seems to me that this whole thing is a bit off in that it is always subjacent to a conception of enunciation such that only an individual subject can be the subject of an enunciation. Benveniste wrote that “ The individual act of appropriating language introduces the one who is speaking into his speech.” “ What strikes me is that they don’t seem to understand that speech ( parole) is only apparently an individual act of appropriating language ( langue). What is spoken by a friend, a militant or a father or son, sets up the illusion of individual appropriation.

   我覺得整件事有點詭異,因為它總是隸屬於表達的觀念,而只有個別的主體才會是表達的主體。邊文尼寫說:「從使用語言的個別行為,可以知道誰正在說他的話語」。我的印象是他們似乎不瞭解,話語很明顯是使用語言的個別行為。朋友,好戰份子,或父親,或兒子,他們所說的話建立了個別使用的幻覺。

 

   But actually it’s the result of suggestion. Someone is inhabited by someone else’s speech. Others talk and gesticulate in our place when we think we’re talking on our own account—free, equal and fraternal. We “ learn” to be individuals. Always the personalist illusion!

    但是實際上,它是建議的結果。其他某個人的話語駐紮在某個人身上。當我們以為是自己侃侃而談自由,平等,博愛,其實是別人在說話,藉著我們在表達。

我們「學習」當個人,總是懷著個人的幻覺。

    Actually, there are unproductive structural collective agents of enunciation. The question of schizo-analysis is to introduce these agents into the production process, and to pull them out of anti-production.   實際上,總是有非生產的表達的集體代理。精神分裂症分析的問題是介紹這些代理到生產的過程,然後使他們擺脫反生產。 

    That’s how the impossible real, meta-language, science, speak, the requirements of body and person are surpassed ( symptoms will be assuaged).

     就是這種方式,不可能的真實,超級語言,科學,話語,身體跟個人的要求被超越(病徵被緩和)。

 

    “ Since there is a spokesperson, then may that spokesperson be as deterritorialized as possible!” This is our battle cry.

     「既然有代言人,但願那位代言人儘可能不分畛域!」這是我們的戰鬥口號。

    Or as the great philosopher Paco Rabane says, “ …merchants do anything to have money, they are automatically after the desire for women and not before it. Before desire are only household appliances.”

     或如同偉大哲學家巴克、拉邊尼所說:「商人盡力要擁有金錢,他們自動跟在追求女人的慾望之後,而不是在慾望之前。慾望之前,只是一些家庭用具。」

 

    Revolution, like analysis, tends to produce artificial pre-personal agents of enunciation ( = units of desiring subversion=basic therapeutic communities). It is the construction of the unconscious as artificial real and not the contemplation of the impossible real ( = capitalist masochistic perversion = guilt-based civilization).

   革命,像精神分析一樣,傾向於產生表達的個人之前的代理人(等於是欲望顛覆的單位,也等於基本的治療社區)。革命是無意識的建造當著人為的真理,而不是不可能真理的沉思(等於資本主義受虐狂的變態,也等於建立在罪惡之上的文明)。

 

p30—p31

The Anti-Oedipus Papers by Felix Guattari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

https://springhero.wordpress.com

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

   

The Anti-Oedipus Papers

December 1, 2007

Anti-Oedipus 01

By Felix Guanttari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

All Objects Should Be Set in Relation to One of Three Referentials

所有客體應該安置跟三個指標之一有關

1. Connectivity value 連結價值

  Desiring machine “ work,” perception, consumption, the pure time of primary exercise. In socially determined conditions, this is work time actually paid at the market rate for work. So many consumption sigh flows to maintain rate for work. So many consumption sign flows to maintain connective functions, the worker and his family’s “ jouissance capital.” How much of this kind of human livestock has to be sustained—with this or that special ingredient ( e.g.: the right to go see a movie on Saturday)—for this or that production to be made possible, and to sustain this or that work flow in the system.

  欲望機器「工作」,感覺,消費,最初運動的純淨時間。在社會決定的環境,工作時間實際上由市場要求工作的速率而定。這麼多的消費符號流動為了維持連結的功用,工人跟他的家庭的「歡喜資本」。有多少這樣的人類家畜必須被維持,外加這個或那個飼料(例如,周六去看電影的權利)。因為這個或那個產生才有可能及為了維持這個或那個工作在制度中流動。

2. Disjunction value 分裂價值

  The organization of castes and artificially coded differentiation.

  Alliance with family, State, production ( production relation), the machine as a structure, actual machines, serial machines.

  The organization of the artificiality of exchange, i.e. flow =flow surplus value.

  Codes on the side of structure, machines falling under thei jurisdiction, cut off from their own tendential flows, subjected to economic flow ( markets, etc.) : disjunction or alliance values organizing social life, anti-production, and keeping the absolute filiation of desiring and technical machines from being realized.

  社會階級及人為符碼區分的組織。

  結盟於家庭,國家,生產(生產關係),機器作為,實際的機器,連續的機器。

  人為操控的交換的組織,例如,流動等於流動的剩餘價值。

  結構這邊的符碼,掉落在自己的司法之下,跟自己偏向流動隔離,隸屬於經濟的流動(市場等等)。斷裂或結盟價值組織我們的社會生活,反生產,及維持欲望的及技術機器的絕對關係不要被實現。

3. Conjunction value 聯合價值

  The infinitivatiion ideal: work and sign territorialities gnaw away at each other…Planes merge; the sign is worth the thing. Hitler’s paranoia corresponds to the “ needs of the day.”

  無限化的理想:工作跟符號領域互相咬囓。水平合併,符號值得事物。希特勒符合「當代需求」。

  Producing morality, family, science or goods is all the same.

  ( Lutheran twist: God isn’t interested in anti-productive goods. Return to a “ New Alliance”= filiation without God’s mediation—Kierkeguard.)

   生產道德,家庭,科學,或貨物道理都一樣。

  (路德教派的教義):上帝對於反生產貨物沒有興趣,如哲學家齊克果說:回到一個「新結盟」,等於沒有上帝仲裁的關係。

  It’s as if the revelation of a new perversion, a perversion of the pure jouissance of signifying difference were the necessary condition for the “ spirit of capitalism” to emerge ( in reformed, Anglican, etc., countries, cf. Weber)”

  好像是新的偏執的啟示,符碼化差異的純淨歡喜的偏執是必要條件,為了讓「資本主義的精神」出現(以改良過的英國國教或社會學家韋伯所說的國家。)

   Note that if writing and cities did not completely disappear in the height of late medieval segmentarity, it’s only because ecclesiastical structures sustained them ( cf, the cities, residues of the Roman empire, where only civil servants and priests remained).

   注意:假如寫作跟城市在中世紀晚期分裂的高峰,並沒有完全消失,那是因為教會的結構維持他們(比較起來,城市是羅馬帝國的剩餘物,只有官員公僕及僧侶留在那裡)。

  

   Pure code value represents the fact that structures are decoded in relation to one another. Flows translate this decoding.

    純粹的符碼價值代表這個事實:結構在相互關係中被解碼。流動翻譯這個解碼。

    Conjunctivity and disjunctivity values are declined in relation to each other.   聯合跟分裂價值在相互關係中被婉拒。    Disjunctivity “ egoizes,” archaizes, overcodes, where conjunctivity infinitivizes.

( Symmetry and suture of the Infinitive and anti-production.) As to the pure value of connectivity, it recedes always further away in its search for a jouissance surface, it shrinks away to nothing. ( Sade is looking for the potential territoriality of jouissance, at the very dawn of capitalism, with the spirit of the Enlightenment.)

分裂自我化,思古化,過度符碼化,而聯合卻無限化。(無限與反生產的均稱與縫合)。至於連接的純粹價值,它在追求歡喜表面時,總是越退縮越遠,它退縮到空無。(沙德尋找歡喜的潛在領域,是資本主義的先鋒,帶有啟蒙主義的精神。)

What articulates these three orders? A politics of flow. Sperber’s distinction between code and network might be useful here.

這三個秩序用什麼來表達?流動的政治學。史波伯的區別符碼跟網絡在這裡可能很有用。

 “ There are systems that, like politics, relate conditions of exchange directly to the nature of exchanged messages. When they are dealing with politics, the Structuralists unfortunately see only an exchange system in this, or a sign system.”   有些系統,譬如政治,將交換的條件跟被交換的訊息直接掛勾。當結構主義在處理政治時,他們不幸地在此只看到被交換的系統,也就是符號系統。 

   Here, the network is: code stocking, and flow: the signifying chain which, from material flows, “ translates” code surplus values between systems ( establishing signifying “ translatability” = full body of signification=non sense.)

   在此,網絡貯存符碼,而流動是:符號化的鎖鍊從物質的流動,「翻譯」系統之間的剩餘價值(建立符號的「可翻譯」,等於符號化的整個體系,也等於意義變無)。

   With machinic filiation, ( sign, energy, etc.) flows decode the systems, they are made up of “ decodification” ( decomposition) elements. With anti-productive alliances, there is an artificial recoding of systems, a residuality; flows are adajacent to the systems, and delimited by them.

   用機械的關係(符號,精力等等)流動解碼系統。流動由「解碼」或解構的元素所組成。對於反生產的聯盟而言,系統會人為的再符碼化,而有殘餘。流動與系統相鄰接,因而被系統除掉限制。

   With flow: you get…

   —a conjunctive use of flow: the use of anti-production for infinitive production;

   —a disjunctive use: the use of productive for anti-productivity, consumption.

   用流動的方式,你得到

一:流動的聯合用途:反生對於無限生產的用途。

二:分裂用途:生產對於反生產消費的用途。

   But desiring connection flows are made to be essential useless. In other words: it is the same connective flows ( material connectivity: hyle) that have adisjunctive and a conjunctive face. E.G.: they are made of perceptive or muscular connections, hormonal flow, etc.

    但是欲望連結流動基本上是註定無用的。換言之,相同的連結流動(物質連結:物料)會有分裂跟聯合的表面。例如,他們是由感覺或肌肉的連結,荷爾蒙流動所組成,等等。

   They diverge ( difflue) in:

   —machinic production

   —family, consumption, etc., anti-production.

   欲望連結流動分歧(或分散)在

   一:機械的生產

   二:家庭,消費等等,反生產

   But, as Marx has shown, if we dig deep enough we always find work behind goods and all kinds of surplus value.

    但是,如馬克思所言,假如你挖掘足夠深,你總是會發現到貨物背後的工作及各種剩餘價值。

   The problem with Marx is that he kept to a zone outside connectivity: use value, natural value.

    馬克思的問題是,他固守在連結外面的地區:使用價值,自然的價值。

   But yet we produce the sun with our eyes, the air with our lungs, etc. We produce the cops and priests’ etc., military idiocies with our own. A fantasist like Cotta integrates consumption, flow, knowledge, code stock ( stpcl de cpde), but he does so optimistically, as if the infinitivation process were not correlative to archaization, fascization, etc.

   但是我們用眼睛生產太陽,用肺生產空氣,等等。我們也生產警察和牧師等等,用我們的白癡行為生產軍隊的白癡行為。像柯達這樣的幻想家,將消費,流動,知識,符碼的貯存都合併起來,但是他做得太樂觀,好像無限化的過程跟思古幽情,著迷不是息息相關,等等。

P27—p29

The Anti-Oedipus Papers By Felix Guanttari 瓜達里

Translated by Springhero 雄伯

https://springhero.wordpress.com

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw