感知配享與生命政治：1911-1929以杜亞泉及《東方雜誌》的論述為例

Abstract

這本論文不但是對台灣當前的危機進行診斷並尋找出路的一次「重探」(re-treat)，也是將思想及論述給徹底「電影化」的一次嘗試。它旨在應用論述分析法，透過法國思想家洪錫燁的「感知配享」及傅柯「生命政治」的理論觀照，對台灣目前的狀況進行診斷；並以1911到1929年杜亞泉及《東方雜誌》的論述為例，替台灣目前的這種「想像秩序」及「象徵秩序」雙重匱乏的窘境尋找出路或救贖的曙光。首先，在本論文的第一章中，透過陳傳興教授對台灣當前危機的診斷、疾呼和陳光興教授對「去帝國」主體性的努力，我們基本上所發現的乃是一種作為「哲學」及「民主」根源，即「本真性」的「關注自我」。且透過這種對自我的本真性關注，筆者基本上是發現了某種重新介入台灣目前狀況及二十世紀初中國那紛紛擾擾局勢的新可能；且透過這樣的一種介入及詮釋的新可能，作為某種「感知配享」政體的本論文也就此誕生了。 而在第二章，筆者主要將對杜亞泉的生平經歷、論述與「知覺政治」的系譜作一扣連與介紹。回顧杜亞泉的一生，我們主要可以發現的乃是某種「意見」(doxa)與「知識」(episteme)的古老斷裂；且也正是杜亞泉的這種對「知識的渴求」或「知識的意志」所呈現出的某種「看的方式」，帶領了我們進入打從康德到洪錫燁所不斷扣問的呈現為某種先存的場域與感知、反思及言說主體之間的那藕斷絲連關係的「知覺政治」的系譜學。 到了第三章，我們基本上是看到的乃是一種在杜亞泉的〈《亞泉雜誌》序〉、〈《工藝雜誌》序〉、〈無極太極論〉、〈《下等植物分類學》序言〉及〈物質進化論〉背後所隱隱浮現地某種將藝術或技術給賦予崇高的「政治使命」或將「政治」視為一種對「理想」的「清楚發現」及實現的「藝術政治化」或「政治藝術化」的根本企圖，以及希冀藉由這樣的一種「政治藝術化」的根本企圖，以自然事物「可見性」、「技術性」或「可被操作性」為判準，所操作的「階序分類學體系」。尤其，在「翻譯主體技術」及「擬科學論述」的雙重催化下，我們不但可以看到某種「反思主體」及同質化的「生產共同體」的成形運動，也可發現某種針對往後所企圖引進的知識體系所進行的準備工作。總而言之，這是一種以「知識」及其「技術」為主導的「警察秩序」。 而在本論文的第四章，我們可以發現的是在杜亞泉上任《東方雜誌》主編後對《東方雜誌》所進行的「大改良」、安插以補氣補血為終極「真實」要務的廣告、對康德哲學的「感性化誤譯」及其對歐陸的「(心的)進化論」、實驗心理學、生理學、生機論、(Maine de Biron及Henri Bergson…等人的)「心物一元論」、「攝影術」及「必死性」之間的關連、病理學及「偏差」或「錯誤」概念…等彼此相互扣連的知識體系的引介所模塑出的「興味政體」和「教養社會」的理想及某種傅柯所考察的與進化論意識形態和國家種族主義合為一體、使作為「總體的人」的「國民」「生」或與「國家」「共生」的「生命政治」。尤其，在以發揚國家主義及軍國主義的「生產共同體」為引介基調及參照點的情況下，我們可以清楚地發現的乃是某種以亞里斯多德的「存在巨鍊」的「階序體系」為代表的「藝術再現政體」對「正常」與「不正常」、「生產」與「不生產 /遊手好閒」和「致病」與「健康」進行嚴格劃分的「警察排除邏輯」，以及以此「生產共同體」或「生命共同體」的鞏固為最高指導原則所製造出的某種反思—但在這個中國內戰方興未艾且外部的混亂及紛紛擾擾和內部的感知不分的時期是更加「欲求不滿」且(在柏格森的意義上是)「自由」的—主體性。 到了本論文的第五章， 我們基本上是可以從杜亞泉及《東方雜誌》記者平佚及錢智修於歐戰時期所發表的〈戰爭與文學〉、〈戰後東西文明之調和〉、〈靜的文明與動的文明〉、〈迷亂之現代人心〉…等一系列和東西文明有關的文章及其當時和《新青年》雜誌主編陳獨秀和北大校長蔣夢麟所激烈進行的「東西文化論戰」中發現某種杜亞泉當時所希冀創發的某種和「戰爭」拉開距離、將自己擺置在一個超然中立的「生物學家」的觀察位置(因此，在這種對「生物性」及「動物性」互相鬥爭廝殺的玩味中，所謂的真正的「人性」也就蕩然無存或者說與「動物性」產生了某種「怖異」的重疊了)，因而感覺「暢爽」，感覺有股衝力想要「排泄」，進而獻身給某種「文學共同體」，進行某種文學「生產」的企圖的。換言之，我們從《東方雜誌》於歐戰時期的許許多多的文章背後所共同發現的乃是某種以各自的「倫常」(?thos)為判準，針對「東方」及「西方」所進行的某種同質、人造、虛構、意志、終極、(排除掉「西方」於歐戰時所流露出的弊病的)排除、學理、邏輯甚或是知識的「定型化」、「理念化」或「影像化」的某種「影像倫理政體」。尤其，在這樣的一種仍是隸屬於「警察排除邏輯」的「影像倫理政體」中，我們不但見不到某種「獨一性」(singularity)的「湧現」(ph?sis)或哲學「驚奇」(thaumazein)的乍現或「事件」，且能夠見到的也只是某種作為「極權主義」(totalitarianism)根柢及「意識形態」前導的某種形上學「世界觀」(Weltanschuung)及「邏輯性」(logicality; logos)或就是「(蒙太奇)影像」的暴力。 而在第六章，也是本論文的結語中，面對著杜亞泉當時希望透過《東方雜誌》所建構及現今台灣所面臨的「警察秩序」，我們其實是可以透過黑爾德對赫拉克利特的那句「習性就是人的守護神」的箴言及對人是「能夠」持續不斷地替自己的生活及「習性」(?thos)負責、進行「說理」(l?gon did?nai)或對用辯解的方式進行承擔的那「同一個世界」的重新發現、勒維那斯經由對他者負責、對他人的倫理行動所開出的「互為主體空間」、「主體的主體性」及舒國治對那個「看武俠」的「閒散共通體」及我們每天走路、睡覺…等的日常性活動的重新賦權及所鋪陳出的「身體政略」瞥見那麼點與國族和「警察秩序」的排除性大論述相抗衡的救贖的曙光及可能的。尤其，任何一種概念、影像、感知配享甚或是「習性」都是兩面刃：是的，感知配享也許可能成為一種具有排除性的「警察秩序」，習性也許也可能是「怖異」的開口，但舒國治對那些在史基浦機場及鄉鎮市公所裡「看武俠的」、那些在樹下泡茶、乘涼、玩牌、看漫畫且毫無遠大志向及報負可言的那麼多數不清的「美好舊時光」、那麼多數不清的「散慢的佳美年代」、那麼多數不清的「理想的下午」、那麼多數不清的「漫遊者」、那麼多數不清的「旅行者」及同樣那麼多數不清的可愛、閒散且毫「無所謂目的的同胞」的懷念及熱愛，對我們日常的「軀體」感知或「習性」的重新賦權或拾回，不也正是一種其實(身處在這塊島上的)我們長久以來都熟悉的很，彼此之間在某種程度上能劃開「通道」、打開彼此之間既能保留獨立性又能互相溝通分享的「空間」，能夠「既是單數又是複數」或「既同又異」的「閒散共通體」的「政略」想像及與國族的「警察秩序共同體」對峙的某種「政域」嗎？「意見」(doxa)與「知識」(episteme)、「意識」與「無意識」、「有聲」與「無聲」在這裡達成了某種意外且令人驚喜的會合，於是乎，某種真正的「民主」且使「原先沒有部份的東西享有一部份」的「藝術美學政體」也就將出現了……一種真正的「有…」、一種本真性的「關注自我」也就將出現了……

This thesis is not only a move to diagnose, “re-treat”, and “water” the “desert situation”of Taiwan, but also an attempt to “cinematize” thoughts and discourses. It aims at applying the method of discourse analysis to diagnose the situation of Taiwan through the theories of French thinkers Jacques Ranci?re’s “the Distribution of the Sensible ” and Michel Foucault’ s “Biopoltics”; in addition, it will take example of the discourses of Du yaquan and Donfang Magzine from 1911 to 1939 to point out the exit or the “aurora of redemption” for Taiwanese people nowadays. So in chapter 1, through Professor Chen Tsun-shing’s brave cry-out of the “Banality of Evil” and “the desertification of discourse” of Taiwan in his condensed pamphlet Morality Can’ t be Deposed and Chen Kuan-Hsing’ s indication of “de-imperializing subjectivity” in his Towards de-imperialization:Asia as method, basically, what we can discover is a kind of authentic “care of the self” which is the root of “philosophy” and “democracy”, and through this kind of authentic “care of the self”, the “distribution of the Sensible” of this thesis is born. And in chapter 2, what we gonna explore is the background and the career of Du Yaquan as well as its relationships with the thread of the “politics of perception”. Retrospecting Du Yaquan’s whole life, what we can discover is a kind of fracture between “opinion”(doxa)and “knowledge”(episteme); and through this kind of break, this kind of way of seeing, and this kind of “thirsty for knowledge” or “will to knowledge”, the geneaology of the “politics of perception” —which manifested as the inseparable relations between a pre-existed field and a perceiving, reflexive, and speaking subject—from Kant to Ranci?re appeared. Consequently, in chapter 3, we can discover a kind of intention of the “politicization of the technology” or the “technologisation of the politics” —which is an act of giving art/technology a kind of “political mission” or considering “politics” as a kind of “lucid discovery” of “Ideal”—loomed out of the back of Du Yaquan’s articles such as “Introduction to the Yaquan Magzine,” “Introdution to the Magzine of Industry and Art,” “On the limit and the No-limit,” “Introduction to the Taxonomy of Low-Graded Herbs,” “the Evolution of the Material”. In addition, it’s a “hierarchical system of taxonomy” in light of the “visibility,” “technicality,” or “applicability”. Especially, in the double catalysis of the “subjective technology of translation” and “quasi-scientific discourses,” what we can discover are the shaping movement of the “reflexive subject” and homogeneized “productive community” and the preparation of the systems of knowledge he would like to import to China afterward. In other words, it’s a kind of “policed order” which took knowledge and “technology” as its goal. Therefore, in Chapter 4, what we can sense is the ideal of the “regime of amusement” and “society of manner” (Bildungsgesellschaft) in the “big innovation,” the “hematinic”advertisement, the “perceptual mistranslation”of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, and Du Yaquan’s importation of European notions of “evolution of mind,” experimental psychology, physiology, vitalism, “the union of body and mind” of Maine de Biron and Henri Bergson, the connection of photography and mortality as well as pathology and the idea of the “deviation” or “error”in the discourses of Dongfang Magzine after Du Yaquan assumed the office of the general editor of it. Especially, in light of the moves of promoting nationalism and taking the imagination of the “productive community” of militarism as its reference point, what we can clearly discover is the hierarchical system of the “great chain of being” of Aristotle— which is the “poetic regime of art” Ranci?re mentioned —the “policed order” and its delimitaion of “normal” and “abnormal,” “productive” and “idle,” as well as “healthy” and “unhealthy”. In addition, this “policed order” has produced a kind of reflexive—but also “desirous” and “unrestrained”—subjectivity. As the questioning goes to the chapter 5, we can detect the divined intention of putting chinese people at the position of a detached, objective “biologist”(therefore, in the taste of this barbarous fighting among “animals”, what happened is the “uncanny” overlapping of “animality” and “humanity”), making them feel exciting, venting, and making them sacrifice for the “literary community”—in Du Yaquan, Pin-Yi(平佚), and Chang Jisho(錢智修)’s articles such as “War and Literature” , “The Harmony of the Civilization of East and West after the War”, “Stilled Civilization and Moving Civilization”, “Dazed Modern Mind” and Du Yaquan’s engagement with Chang Dusho(陳獨秀) and Chung Monlin(蔣夢麟) about the “Debate of Culture of East and West” in the period of the First World War. In other words, in light of the different “customs” (ethos) of different ethnic groups, what we can discover is the “ethical regime of image” Ranci?re mentioned—through the process of “fixation” and “conceptualization”—make “East” and “West” two homogeneized, artificial, fictional, ultimate, exclusive, logical(or epistemological)categories. Particularly, in this kind of “policed order” or “ethical regime of image”, we not only can sense the origin of totalitarianism and the violence of “logicality”, metaphysical “world view”(Weltanschauung)—that is to say, the “montage” (le montage)—but also cannot watch the scene of the “emergence” (ph?sis) of singularity or the revelation or the “event” of “philosophical surprise” (thaumazein). Ultimately, facing the “policed order” of the”images” of Dongfang Magzine and Taiwanese situation nowadays, in chapter 6, which is the so-called “conclusion” of this thesis, what we can get a glimpse of”—through Klaus Held’s rediscovery of Heraclitus’ maxim of “Man’s character is his fate”(?thos anthr?po daimon), Emmanuel Levinas’ “intersubjective space” or the “subjectivity of the subject”of the Other(l’ Autre), and Shu Guozhi(舒國治)’s empowerment of the “idle comminity” of those “Wuxia-lovers”(看武俠的), our routine activities such as walking, sleeping as well as all kinds of the “politics of body” accompanied it—is a kind of “aurora of redemption” that we “used to ” confront it with the exclusive “grand narrative” of the logic of “policed order”. Especially, what we can realized is the fact that any concept, image, distribution of the sensible, or the “custom” (?thos) always has two side: the good side and bad side. Yes, the “distribution of the sensible ” may become an exclusive “policed order”; yes, the “habit” or the “custom” maybe the the “opening” of the “uncanny”(unheimlich) as Lacoue-Labarthe wrote, but do the “Wuxia-lovers” Shu Guozhi saw in Schiphol Airport and Township Office, those tea-drinking, card-playing, comic-reading idle people and those countless “ideal afternoon”, countless “good old days”, countless “undisciplined wonderful ages”, countless “travelers”, countless “wanderers”, or countless “purposeless compatriots” in Taiwan not a kind of imagination of “the political” or the “politics” that we used to confront the “community of the policed order” and open the “passage” or “space” we familiar with or we can be “singular plural” in it？In this “space”, “opinion”(doxa)and “knowledge”(episteme), “conscious” and “unconscious”, “sound” and “silence” achieved a kind of surprising harmony, and a kind of true “democracy”, a kind of “aesthetic regime of art” is born…a kind of authentic “there is…” is born…a kind of authentic “care of the self” is born…finally, our destination also comes into being—if we can imagine.