當時簡單地以為也是裏海黨中世紀愚民教育犧牲品，後來偶然發現其中不無頌習舔普擁黨反台挺槍粉川挑撕裂煽仇恨的八項全能人士 :-)
另外如果川同學對小馬同學密件難舍難棄，可能也有不忘初心的緣故吧 :-)
周六開心
PS. 說到偶然，傳人兄曾說起偶然看見“綜述”同學。前幾天我也偶然看見了，也還是不忘初心 :-) 。隨手抽取了幾段“綜述”（中文）；英文出自原創（這次是 "A Story of Rats", J. Biles, Performance Research, 19:1 (2014), 111-125）：
巴塔耶在他的《太陽肛門》（The Solar Anus）中說：“作為術語的係詞（copula），比起作為身體的性交（copulation），有著相似的刺激性。當我驚呼 —— 我就是太陽，一種全然的勃起便產生了，因為係動詞 “是” —— 就是情欲狂亂的載體。”
So writes Bataille in 'The solar anus'. He immediately adds: 'But the copula of terms is no less irritating than the copulation of bodies. And when I scream I AM THE SUN an integral erection results, because the verb to be is the vehicle of amorous frenzy' (1985a: 5).
... 就如說：“我是 —— 太陽”（I AM THE SUN），是屈從於太陽，也是它的感染，一種太陽能量的蔓延。是接收太陽禮物的過度，巴塔耶將這種禮物等同與奢華，浪擲，多餘的能量 —— 和瘋狂。
... to say that I AM THE SUN is to succumb to sun-sickness, an infection, a solar contagion. It is to receive the excessive gift of the sun, a gift Bataille will equate with exuberance, surplus energy – and madness.
一種瘋狂就如文森特·梵高（Van Gogh），他與太陽保持在一種“憤怒的對立”關係。
A madness such as infected Vincent Van Gogh, in the 'overwhelming relations he maintained with the sun' (Bataille 1985a: 62).
梵高的自殘，啃咬耳朵。就像太陽神（The Solar Gods）撕出它自己的器官，梵高屈從於陽光的瘋狂體驗，“扔出自己，或自己的東西。” —— 也就是說，去落魄我自己，
... Van Gogh's self-mutilation, the excising of the ear. Like the solar gods who tear out their own organs, Van Gogh and those who likewise succumb to the madness of the sun experience 'the necessity of throwing oneself or something of oneself out of oneself' – that is, to abject oneself (67).
很顯然，是一種顛覆的力量附著在落魄 —— 一種類似於要脫離神聖的力量。在巴塔耶，落魄即是一種悲慘狀態，也是一種可能性（社會，政治，心理，和審美）的破裂。這是落魄的雙重性。
it is clear that a subversive force is attached to abjection – a force akin to that of the left sacred. Thus a doubling of abjection in Bataille: both a miserable state and a possibility for (social, political, psychological, aesthetic) rupture. The duplicity of abjection.
落魄的牙齒：從來沒有權力意誌。它隻是一種從低賤（一種穴居）到低賤（破裂）的力量。就像是酒神（Dionysus）落在了一個齧齒動物。 落魄的力量是一種“低賤”主權的標誌；與低賤主權對陣的是那種超越的，權威的“高貴”主權。這是一隻大鼠在對陣雄鷹。是左手的神聖在對付右手的神聖。就如巴塔耶在主權概念的設想，它不是力量的掌握，發揮，或強加，而是作為它的無用和浪費 —— 它的落魄 —— 它在逃逸一個由權力在斷言和維持的係統。
The teeth of (Bataille's) abjection: never a will to power. A force from below (a rupture) and to the below (a burrowing). Chthonic: Dionysus in rodent form. The sparagmos reconfigured as a puncturing, a crushing. The 'force' of abjection as a mark of 'low' sovereignty; low sovereignty v. the 'high' sovereignty of power, of transcendence, of authority (see 'sovereignty', below). The mole v. the eagle. The left sacred v. the right sacred. Sovereignty conceived, in Bataille, neither as mastery and the exertion/imposition of power, but as that which in its uselessness and waste – its abjection – escapes the systems upon which power is predicated and maintained.
低賤 —— 更確切地說，落魄的過程 —— 是創建了一種主體性；“為了成為一個我”（in order to be an I），我必須被清除，驅逐，擊退，浪費，和拋棄。“我在攆我自己，我嘔吐我自己，我可憐我自己”，“為了成就一個完全的自我，我們必須擺脫我們自己。”
According to Kristeva's theorization, the abject – more precisely, the process or operation of abjection – founds subjectivity; it is that which must be excised, expelled, repulsed, wasted, thrown away ‘in order to be an I’ (Foster 2001: 153). 'I expel myself, I spit myself out, I abject myself', she writes (Kristeva 1982: 3). One must get rid of oneself in order to be a self at all.
“ ......（然而，把清除擺在首位的我是什麽？）”
'... (but what is this primordial I that expels in the first place?)' (Foster 2001: 153).
它難道不就是在括號裏的問號，一種悖謬的概念？悖謬（Preposterous）來自於拉丁語“可笑”（praeposterus），它的意思是“荒謬，違背，顛倒，變態，與秩序相悖”，而從這個詞匯的字麵上看，則是“前台 —— 幕後”，“前置 —— 後綴”）。
Does not this parenthetical question reveal abjection as a preposterous concept? (Preposterous: from Latin praeposterus, 'absurd, contrary to nature, inverted, perverted, in reverse order'. Literally, 'before-behind', pre- and post-.)
巴塔耶的術語“落魄”，因此擁有了雙重的含義。一方麵，可以稱之為 —— “奴性”的落魄：“富人消費了窮人的失去，並為他們創造了一個落魄的環境，它導致了奴役”。 這種奴役創建並維護了社會的製度。與此相對，巴塔耶稱之為 —— 異質性的落魄：不純的反抗，危險的力量，被壓迫概念的返回：而其中，階級鬥爭 ...... 成為社會支付的最隆重形式，當它再一次的被工人撿起，發展在一種規模，它會威脅到主人的生存。”
In Bataille's lexicon, 'abjection' has a double meaning. There is, on the one hand, what we might call 'servile' and regulatory abjection: 'The rich man consumes the poor man's losses, creating for him a category of degradation and abjection that leads to slavery' (Bataille 1985a: 125). This subjugation founds and maintains the social system. To this Bataille opposes what might be called heterological abjection: the revolt of the impure, the dangerous forces of pollution, the return of the oppressed: 'Class struggle ... becomes the grandest form of social expenditure when it is taken up again and developed, this time on the part of the workers, and on such a scale that it threatens the very existence of the masters' (126).
... ...
:-))
