 
字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2023/07/15 06:19:49瀏覽52｜回應0｜推薦7 | |
Excerpt：《片段集：讓‧鮑德里亞與弗朗索瓦‧利沃奈對話錄》 我只援引我欣賞的人的話，因為他們比我更善於表達我曾經想說的話。或者更善於表達我能夠寫的東西。這就如同你可以通過另一個人而讓思想產生變格一樣，他為你重新組織思想，好像你已經把思想給了他。人們能夠在你之前想到這點，比你想得更好，這是一種分享的符號，預先命定的符號，如同一個自行奉獻給鏡頭的物體。因此引證的這種快樂是極其罕見的，而且應該繼續保持。 ——讓‧波德里亞 (Jean Baudrilltard)，《冷記憶1995-2000》 Jean Baudrillard的《冷記憶》(Cool Memories)系列曾經讓自己反覆閱讀。 從這本《片段集》Jean Baudrillard與Francois LYvonnet的對話之中，是否可以再找出fragments更多及更深的意義呢。 https://www.books.com.tw/products/CN11844687 片段集：讓‧鮑德里亞與弗朗索瓦‧利沃奈對話錄 作者：讓‧鮑德里亞 譯者：田爭爭 出版社：南京大學出版社 出版日期：2023/01/01 內容簡介 對話是哲學家思想的助產術。尼采、巴塔耶、列斐伏爾、加塔利、馬克思、蘭波——鮑德里亞正是在與好友利沃奈的對話中，才將自己思想的譜系從格言與片段中解剖出來，坦白他在不同時期與荒誕玄學、情境主義國際等思想流派之間從相吸到相斥、從戰友到對手的轉變。 在重巒疊嶂的學術話語之外，我們將看到鮑德里亞選擇用平實、素樸的話語談論自己的哲學概念（惡與不幸、命運、完美罪行），也能看到他提及自己較少為人所關注的作為攝影愛好者的一面，談論圖像和藝術之間的關係——只有片段才能承載如此龐大又散漫的思想母體，因為正如鮑德里亞所言：“人們談論自己的時候永遠不會說出全部的真相，而是將它作為秘密保存起來，只以片段的方式傳遞出去。” 作者介紹 讓‧鮑德里亞（Jean Baudrillard，1929-2007） 法國著名後現代思想家、哲學家和社會學家。先後任教於巴黎十大和巴黎九大，撰寫了一系列分析當代社會文化現象、批判當代資本主義的著作，在世界範圍內具有重大影響。除了《冷記憶》系列，主要代表作還有《物體系》《消費社會》《生產之鏡》《象徵交換與死亡》《論誘惑》《美國》《符號政治經濟學批判》及《完美的罪行》等。 【Excerpt】 〈不合時宜的片段〉(Untimely fragments) LYvonnet 如尼采所建議的，我們可以用錘子敲打概念，使其不斷迴響，以便通過耳朵來評判它們——這也是一種適合我們進行訪談的方式——也正是像尼采這樣閃耀著光芒的人陪伴您度過了青少年時代…… Following Nietzsches advice, we might sound out concepts with a hammer. This might perhaps be a good way of conducting our interviews. Nietzsche, whose searing words accompanied you through adolescence. Baudrillard 這是一段時明時暗（à éclipses）的關係，我不知是否可以這樣說，這關係處在長久的遮蔽（immense éclipse）中……我曾經對尼采非常狂熱，也很早就讀了他的作品。上了哲學課後，我甚至有幸在德語教師資格會考的筆試和口試中考到有關他的題目－—然而我考試落榜了，評委完全不認可我的解讀。這是尼采的報復，除非他阻礙我通過會考可以在日後被看作為了助我一臂之力……之後，我徹底停止閱讀他的著作，我把他埋藏在一種近乎無意識的記憶中（mémoire quasi viscérale），而僅僅保留了我最想保留的那一部分。我時不時地想起他思想的這一方面或那一方面；有時他的思想以一種近似格言的記憶在我腦海中湧現。這種遮蔽持續了很久，但無論如何我已經身處和尼采的關聯之中了（sur l’écliptique）。總而言之，尼采之於我——在嚴格的意義上說——從來不是一個參考的物件，而只是一段難以抹消的記憶。 It was a relationship that went in fits and starts, so to speak, and there was even an enormous period of eclipse in it. I was a great devotee of Nietzsche. I read him very early, in the sixth form. I was even lucky enough to have him in both the written and oral German agrégation exams, though that was my undoing, as the examiners didnt agree at all with my reading; Nietzsche took his revenge there, unless we take the view that he did me a favour by preventing me from passing the exam. After that, I stopped reading him entirely. I held him in a kind of quasi- visceral memory, but Id only retained what I wanted to. I would remember particular aspects of his thought, or find aspects of it emerging in a more or less aphoristic memory. There was a long eclipse, but I was already on the ecliptic. All in all, Nietzsche was never, strictly speaking, a reference for me, but an ingrained memory. LYvonnet 然而曾經有一段時間，尼采是一個必需的參考：從蜜雪兒‧福柯到吉爾‧德勒茲（Gilles Deleuze），當然還有讓-弗朗索瓦‧利奧塔（Jean-Francois Lyotard）和菲力浦‧索萊爾（Philippe Sollers）及其同僚——他們每個人都有自己“隨身攜帶”（portatif）的尼采，在這幾十年爭先恐後地討論著他的思想！ Yet there was a time when he was a required reference, from Michel Foucault to Gilles Deleuze, not to mention Jean-François Lyotard, Philippe Sollers and company. Everyone had his own little portabled Nietzsche, vying in debate about him at the fasbionable conferences! …… 〈片段與分形〉(Fragments and fractals) LYvonnet 我們之所以能如此輕易地接受真實及其自明性，僅僅是因為我們預感到真實並不存在。 We accept the real and its self-evidence so easily only because we sense that reality does not exist. ——豪爾赫‧路易士‧博爾赫斯 (Jorge Luis Borges) 我們時代的一個特點是，它沒有直面惡（le mal）的能力。您曾說：“我們不再懂得如何談論惡。” A feature of our age is its inability to confront evil directly. You say, ‘We do not know how to speak evil any more. Baudrillard 人們總是將惡與不幸（malheur）相混淆！將惡還原為不幸的做法與人們將善（le bien）還原為幸福（bonheur）的做法如出一轍。關於幸福的意識形態本身恰恰是最令人不幸的東西！ The great confusion is between le mal and le malheur, between evil and misfortune! The reduction of evil to misfortune, and good to happiness. The ideology of happiness is, in itself, an entirely unhappy thing! …… LYvonnet 一種非本體論的激進！惡是否只是善的缺乏（privation du bien, «Privatio boni»）？惡是否是極端或者純粹的？惡是否時而自在（en soi）時而自為（poursoi），時而關於道德時而關於形而上學——種種在哲學和理論上長久以來的爭論並非您真正的興趣所在。您關心的是如何構想一種惡的片段式的激進（radicalité fragmentaire du mal）。 A non-ontological radicalism! To know whether evil is privation of good (privatio boni), whether it can be radical or absolute, whether it is some- times in-itself or for-itself, moral or metaphysical, etc. - all these debates which will occupy philosophy and theology for a long while yet are not really your concern. The point is, rather, to conceive a kind of fragmentary radicalism of evil. Baudrillard 的確。說到底，惡並不能與善相對，因為二者之間是不對稱的（asymétriques）。在某種意義上，相對於作為善的整體而言，片段就是惡。這就關涉到著名的“惡的透明性”（transparence），或者更確切地說，“惡的透露”（transparition）。在我們所有關於善和幸福的技術背後，其動因都是惡！所以到最後，我們的策略實際上都是關於惡來自惡，即對惡的補完，或者可以說是順勢療法（homéopathique）。 Yes, you might say that, since it could be said in the end that evil isnt the opposite of good, because the two are asymmetric. In a sense the fragment is evil in relation to the whole, which is good. This brings us to the famous transparence or, more accurately, ‘transparition (showing-through) of evil. Behind all our technologies of the good and of happiness, the driving force is evil! So, in the end, our whole strategy is one of treating evil with evil. It is the accomplishment of evil, in its homeopathic form, so to speak. LYvonnet 那麼格言或者片段就是一種“批判”的形式，但這個批判是在希波克拉底的意義上，正是“危機”（crise）使我們得以做出診斷。它是片段中某種斷裂的“複製品” （réplique），反之亦然。 The aphorism or the fragment could be said to be a ‘critical form in the Hippocratic sense of the term, the `crisis being what enables you to make a diagnosis. A kind of ‘replica of the fracture in the fragment, and vice versa. Baudrillard 片段和斷裂之間確實有著密不可分的關係。某些事情恰恰發生在事物的缺口和裂縫中，也就是事物的顯現（apparition）中…… The fragment is indeed closely related to the fracture. Something happens in the crack in things, in the breach, and hence in their appearance. LYvonnet 現象（phénomène）本意是φαcνόμεvoν（來自phainestai，意為“去顯現”，其詞源是 Фóωs，即“光”），也就是說，一種顯現…… A phenomenon in the strict sense, ‘phainomenon (from ‘φαίνεσθαι’, which derives from the Greek word ‘Фóωs, light), an ‘appearance. Baudrillard 正是如此。就是在某個事物顯現（se fait jour）的時候你才能真正有一個關於它的現象。 Exactly. Its in the moment when something is emerging that you really have a phenomenon before you. LYvonnet 人們只能接受現象或者記錄下現象，於是就有了格言。 One can then only welcome it, and perhaps record it. Hence the aphorism. Baudrillard 直面這樣顯現，我們不再能拉開一段供我們下判斷的距離。因為這樣的顯現在我看來，就是一種生成和變形（métamorphose）。在很短的一段時間裡，你生成那個東西、那個對象或者那個時刻；隨後，存在的維度再次嵌入（reinstalle）其中——或我們可以稱之為連續性的維度——非連續（discontinuité）和變形正是發生在這短暫的期間。我們應該參照這樣的形式構想一種遊戲規則，它使遊戲真正地成為可能，使事物生成——生成與改變（changement）不同，它伴隨著自我身份的喪失。 In the face of something emerging in this way, you can no longer stand back to judge; it is, I believe, of the order of becoming and metamorphosis. For a very brief period of time, you become that thing, that object or that moment, and then afterwards the dimension of being sets in again, so to speak, or at any rate the dimension of continuity. During this short time, theres discontinuity and metamorphosis. We have to conceive a set of rules which matches up to that, which makes the game effectively possible, which enables something to become ± becoming being something different from change, and something thats accompanied by a loss of identity. LYvonnet 這同樣也是起源的喪失…… Which is also a loss of the origin . . . Baudrillard 喪失的不僅是起源，同時也是終結（fin）……直到我們無法稱之為整體的那個時刻到來，因為它保持了片段的形式。 Of the origin and also of the end. Until that moment comes which we cannot describe as total, since it remains fragmentary. LYvonnet 這和尼采的“永恆回歸”（éternel retour）似乎有些類似…… Were not far from the Nietzschean idea of the eternal return. …… (Translated by Chris Turner) |
|
| ( 知識學習｜隨堂筆記 ) |
