锦灰堆

打翻字纸篓

7.27 edit:

第 282 页居然有插画,根据图片,以下理解应该差不多是对的,除了最后还有一层—— full body without organs,在资本之后。配图见页面底部。


看了一下,一个比较重要的信息在 Anti-Oedipus 101-102 页:“欲望生产是社会生产的极限,在资本主义形态下它总是受阻:无器官身体躺在解域化的社会体边缘,沙漠堵在城市门口。”这个隐喻似乎表明,无器官身体的确包含着社会体(毕竟社会生产是欲望生产的一个特定形式),而且,社会体是一种比较“肥沃”和有组织、有秩序的无器官身体。所谓“无器官身体是社会体解域的残余”,指的是社会体沙漠化。

结合前面说的,

... desiring-production is first and foremost social in nature, and tends to free itself only at the end: which is to say that Homo historia comes first. (33)

欲望生产首先表现为社会生产,我觉得这可以举原始社会为例,原始人生活在自己的部落、周边环境、太阳月亮星星、常见的动植物之间,活动的范围并不很大,但他们在这个小世界里有自己确定无疑的位置和关系网。而这时候,比如说,殖民者坐船来到岛上,一下子把他们介绍并分散到资本的广大世界中(解域),一切都变成了和钱之间的关系,欲望生产的形式也完全变了(如白鲸记里出门打工的野蛮人)。所以最广泛的欲望生产是社会生产的终极形式,最后一个社会体是一个无器官身体(资本)。我的想法差不多就这样。

image.png

#版聊

分卷缩写如下:

CG — 盖尔芒特家那边;TR — 重现的时光;AD — 女逃亡者;JF — 在少女们身旁;CS — 在斯万家那边

和之前一样,粗体和斜体是重点和高能部分,【 】里是自己的批注,( ) 标注中译本页数。写笔记过程中批注和个人理解的区别不是很明晰,所以括号外个人想法的含量也很高,请注意辨别。

阅读更多

之前没有把 real/actual 和情状的表达联系起来,受到这篇回复的启发,这几天补充阅读了一些资料,对这几个概念的关系有了些新的发现。

阅读更多

受首页友邻启发,我也准备通过做读书笔记的方法强迫自己读完整本书,并整理分享出来。手头正在读的是德勒兹的《普鲁斯特与符号》,这是一本 1964 年出版的小册子。一直以来,我都是零散地读到其片段,最近感觉有必要从头读一遍。

因原文就十分精辟,且有些晦涩难懂之处我进行了冗长的阐释,这篇笔记极长,几乎是原文的浓缩摘抄,篇幅浓缩比可能达到了 1 : 6 左右。

这本书大量引用了《追忆似水年华》,所以涉及到的版本比较复杂,作为参考的有 Athlone Press 2000 英译版、PUF 2006 法语版,中文引自上海译文姜宇辉译本,文中引用的《追忆》原文则参考中译本引用的译林出版社 2001 年李恒基、徐继曾等译本,分卷缩写如下:

CG — 盖尔芒特家那边;TR — 重现的时光。

粗体和斜体是重点和高能部分,【 】里是自己的批注,( ) 标注页数,本来 / 前为英译本,后为中译本。后来发现这本书的中英译本页码高度一致,就不做区分了。

阅读更多

When I was learning to write in my teens, it seemed to me that paper was a prison. Four walls, right? And the ideas were constantly trying to escape. What is a parenthesis but an idea trying to escape? What is a footnote but an idea that tried — that jumped off the cliff? Because paper enforces single sequence — and there’s no room for digression — it imposes a particular kind of order in the very nature of the structure.

— Ted Nelson, demonstration of Xanadu Space

“纸张围堵,括号是试图逃逸的想法,脚注是被迫跳崖的想法。”🤣🤣🤣

在 Deleuze & Guattari 的写作,尤其是《千高原》中,最明显的结构是一个往复三元组:to-fro-forth,oui-non-si,root-radicle-rhizome,结域-解域-再结域,纵轴-横轴-对角线,……不过以上这些例子的图案都不同。如“结域-解域-再结域”的 Z 字形,重点在再结域时引入的那点差异。对角线则涉及到维度问题 (dimension of curve)。root-radicle-rhizome 是过渡,统一→切碎的统一→碎,或者说 n-1 的关系:

Subtract the unique from the multiplicity to be constituted; write at n – 1 dimensions.

n-1 理解起来很简单,字面意思无非是指把 n 里面的 unity 给拿掉。更进一步,用数学语言来说,这样实际上有 n-1 degrees of freedom because the last element is always uniquely determined by the others. 参见下面这个问题对矩阵自由度的解释:

linear algebra – Degrees of freedom for a matrix – Mathematics Stack Exchange

记得还有个关于短篇小说的三元组,但忘记了具体,等看到再说吧。

Thought is structured neural activity.

Language is inextricable from thought and experience.

阅读更多

1

These encounters with imitative repetition can therefore include a “hesitation,” an “internal opposition,” a decision point to adopt or reject the fashion.

潮流把人卷进去,而非一个主体做了“发起和继续传递潮流”的决定。但在经过节点时,流会减速,这个减速区就是 Tarde 所定义的主体性(不是主体)。

阅读更多

The discourse of struggle is not opposed to the unconscious, it’s opposed to the secret. This seems a let down, but what if the secret were worth much more? A whole series of equivocations concerning what is “hidden,” “repressed,” “unspoken,” enables a cheap “psychoanalysis” of what should be the object of political struggle. The secret is perhaps more difficult to bring to light than the unconscious. The two themes which only yesterday we came across once again, that “writing is the repressed” and that “writing is by rights subversive,” in my opinion betray several operations which must be severely criticized.

揭示秘密比说出无意识更困难?

Perhaps it has to do with investments, as much economic as unconscious: there exist investments of desire which explain that one can if necessary desire not against one’s interest, since interest always follows and appears wherever desire places it, but desire in a way that is deeper and more diffuse than one’s interest.

常见批判,对于马克思,人们提到「不仅有利益」……但更进一步,利益是跟着欲望走的。利益总是出现在欲望所指定的位置。所以只有欲望投资。了解这一点,我们就知道精神分析等对欲望的描述何以太简陋,因为它是针对现存利益种类而生的,缺乏前瞻性,本身就是为了固化。

By engaging in this struggle which is their own (they are perfectly familiar with its targets, and they themselves determine the methods), these people enter the revolutionary process – as allies of the proletariat, of course, since power is exercised in the way that maintains capitalist exploitation. These people truly serve the cause of the proletariat revolution by fighting precisely at that point where they suffer oppression.

#foucault #deleuze

Praxis is a network of relays from one theoretical point to another, and theory relays one praxis to another. A theory cannot be developed without encountering a wall, and a praxis is needed to break through. Take yourself, for example, you begin by theoretically analyzing a milieu of imprisonment like the psychiatric asylum of nineteenth-century capitalist society. Then you discover how necessary it is precisely for those who are imprisoned to speak on their own behalf, for them to become a relay (or perhaps you were already a relay for them), but these people are prisoners, they’re in prison. This was the logic behind your creating the GIP (Group for Information on Prisons): to promote the conditions in which the prisoners themselves could speak. It would be totally misguided to say, as the Maoist seemed to be saying, that you were making a move toward praxis by applying your theories. In your case we find neither an application, nor a reform program, nor an investigation in the traditional sense. It is something else entirely: a system of relays in an assemblage, in a multiplicity of bits and pieces both theoretical and practical. For us, the intellectual and theorist have ceased to be a subject, a consciousness, that represents or is representative. And those involved in political struggle have ceased to be represented, whether by a party or a union that would in turn claim for itself the right to be their conscience. Who speaks and who acts? It’s always a multiplicity, even in the person that speaks or acts. We are all groupuscles. There is no more representation. There is only action, the action of theory, the action of praxis, in the relations of relays and networks.

德勒兹关于配置的解释:理论在自我发展的过程中要求引入实践来排除障碍,完成下一个环节,而非理论独居于外「指导」实践并以一种辩证的关系相互促成什么的;比如福柯经过理论研究发现了囚犯为自己发言的重要性,于是需要一种给他们铺设说话渠道的实践,为此建立了监狱信息小组 GIP。这就在配置中形成了一套接力的系统,理论和实践作为零部件在一个多元体内互相接驳,而不是意为身主。知识分子不是一个群体的代表或「意识」,而是和斗争中的人们接通成一体的多元体中的神经元(可以这么说吗?)甚至这多元体中的个体也都是多元体。没有代表,只有行动,理论和实践皆是行动,编成了一张接力之网

福柯接着补充道:

So it is that theory does not express, translate, or apply a praxis; it is a praxis – but local and regional, as you say: non-totalizing. A struggle against power, a struggle to bring power to light and open it up wherever it is most invisible and insidious. Not a struggle for some ”insight” or ”realization” (for a long time now consciousness as knowledge has been acquired by the masses, and consciousness as subjectivity has been taken, occupied by the bourgeoisie) – but a struggle to undermine and take power side by side with those who are fighting, and not off to the side trying to enlighten them. A ”theory” is the regional system of this struggle.

理论本就是一种实践,不是吗?局部的实践;反对权力、把权力从阴影里拉出来并展开其隐蔽之处的实践;不是那种为了发现真理或启示的实践。现在是要和人们肩并肩斗争,而不是跳出三界外试图「启蒙」他们。

As soon as a theory takes hold at this or that point, it runs up against the impossibility of having the least practical consequence without there being an explosion, at some distant point if necessary. That’s why the idea of reform is so stupid and hypocritical.

第一句有点难解,可以粗略阐释为:理论天生与权力相反,它从不「总体化」(统战?),所以一旦某种理论开始占统治地位,它就无法引发一场开启实践行为的爆炸。因此「改革」的想法伪善愚蠢,永不可能根据某种理论而「改良」。改良之时,便是理论被权力网络攫获而僵死之日。

#foucault #deleuze