Lecture 02 (1/3)

French Transcript

.cls-1{fill:#d82e0f;} dl_fr Lecture in French (PDF)

这一讲在 WebDeleuze 上的版本是片段性的，它依据译者丹尼尔·史密斯在工作时所能使用的、更无缺漏的原始转录稿进行了修订与扩充。它涉及对一与多、欲望—快乐—享悦三元组（参照罗兰·巴特）以及繁复体等概念的反思。

Cette séance, fragmentaire dans la version qui se trouve à WebDeleuze, a été revue et développée à partir de la transcription originale plus sans lacunes disponible au traducteur Daniel Smith au moment de son travail. Il s’agit d’une réflexion sur les concepts de l’un et du multiple, du triade désir-plaisir-jouissance (avec référence à Roland Barthes), et des multiplicités.

Given the date attributed to this session by WebDeleuze, over a month separates it from the previous session. Commencing with a reference to Foucault regarding the emergence of statements over several domains at once, Deleuze seeks a different explanation for this emergence beyond those given by structuralists and Marxists, and he reviews in some detail various problems with a dualistic perspective, identifying psychoanalysis as the final inheritor of Cartesianism, thereby denying thought as a process which, for him, is fundamentally multiple. Deleuze emphasizes the importance of suppressing the one-multiple opposition, substituting the substantive “multiplicities” for the One, and he considers how the history of desire has been ruined in this regard by viewing desire as lack, the first malediction of desire, the second and third being desire as satisfied by pleasure or related to jouissance. Deleuze considers how this corrupt perspective emerges in Freud and also where Reich goes wrong, with whom he contrasts Barthes's perspectives in The Pleasure of the Text 's distinction of texts of pleasure and texts of jouissance. He argues that a perspective of process, through which desire emerges out of its own immanence and productivity, stands in sharp contrast with the Freudian and Lacanian view of lack-pleasure-jouissance, posing the dualism between subject of enunciation and the subject of the statement. To a student's comment that his distinctions are similar to previous dualisms (e.g. the mass versus the pack), Deleuze insists that he reintroduces no dualisms here and argues that there is no reality to thought except in the monism of the process and in the multiplicities that populate the field of immanence. After a session break, Deleuze returns to the Western view of desire as a sign of lack (the first malediction), the second being recourse to an illusion of pleasur

e, the third being the impossible jouissance-death relationship. In contrast to this, Deleuze posits the production of statements through collective agents of enunciation (and not individuals), i.e. multiplicities of varied nature, and such statements are desires, accompanied by the illusion of the split subject being engendered. Deleuze imagines a graph with two columns: the first is “the bad column” of the false conception of desire, whereas in the other column is the anti-Oedipal apparatus which he outlines. At what machinic point, Deleuze asks, is the maximum of deterritorialization on the body without organs reached? He leaves this project in suspense, but suggests that for the next session, Carlos Castaneda's books ( The Teachings of Don Juan and A Separate Reality are the likely sources) provide a view of experimentation in search of a body without organs within a machinic assemblage with a certain distribution of intensities.

.cls-1{fill:#d82e0f;} dl_fr Lecture in French (PDF)

English Translation

论《反俄狄浦斯 II》（L'Anti-Œdipe II），1972—1973

Sur L’ Anti-Œdipe II, 1972-1973

There's a book from which one can learn many things, titled Sexual Life in Ancient China [by Robert H. van Gulik (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961)]. This book shows clearly that manuals of love and manuals of military strategy are indiscernible, and that new strategic and military statements are produced at the same time as new amorous statements. That’s curious. I ask myself: OK, how can we extract ourselves, at the same time, from a structuralist vision that seeks correspondences, analogies, and homologies, and from a Marxist vision that seeks determinants. I indeed see one possible hypothesis, but it’s so confused . . . It’s perfect. It would consist in saying: at a given moment, for reasons that, of course, must still be determined, it is as if a social space were covered by what we would have to call an abstract machine. We would have to give a name to this non-qualified abstract machine, a name that would mark its absence of qualification, so that everything will be clear. We could call it — at the same time, this abstract machine, at a given moment, will break with the abstract machine of the preceding epochs — in other words, it will always be at the cutting edge [à la pointe], thus it would receive the name machinic point [pointe machinique]. It would be the machinic point of a group or a given collectivity; it would indicate, within a group and at a given moment, the maximum of deterritorialization as well as, and at the same time, its power of innovation. This is somewhat abstract at the moment, it’s like algebra. It’s this abstract machine which, in conditions that will have to be determined, it’s this machinic point of deterritorialization that is reterritorialized in this or that machine, or in this or that military machine, amorous machine, productive of new statements. This is a possible hypothesis.

第二讲，1973年3月26日

2ème séance, 26 mars 1973

Dualism, Monism and Multiplicities; Desire-Pleasure-Jouissance

二元论、一元论、繁复体——欲望—快乐—享悦

Dualisme, Monisme, Multiplicités – Désir-plaisir-jouissance

In the Archaeology of Knowledge , Foucault said some profound things about statements [ énoncés ] that concern several domains at once, even if not at the same time. I take two very vague examples. There is a moment in the Greek City when statements of a new type emerge, and these statements of a new type emerge within assignable temporal arrangements, in several domains. They can be statements concerning love, concerning marriage, concerning war, yet we feel that there is a kind of kinship or community among these statements. We have seen certain thinkers try to give explanations of how statements emerge in diverse domains that have this kind of kinship. In Greece, for example, during the “hoplite” reform, new types of statements concerning war and strategy emerge, but also new statements concerning marriage and politics. All this, it has been said, cannot be unrelated.

[以下转录与 WebDeleuze 上（我们此前在此复制的）那份充满大量缺漏的转录并不完全一致。此份见于 Le-Terrier.net 网站，是丹尼尔·W·史密斯在制作译文时所使用的、更为完整的文本。]