時間：2024.09.07
地點：臺灣大學校史館1樓 外文系會議室
主講人：李鴻瓊副教授（國立臺灣大學外文系）；許景順助理教授（銘傳大學應用英語系）
談話內容：
李鴻瓊（國立台灣大學外文系副教授）
題目：量子武學
構想：電影《奧本海默》（Oppenheimer）裡，主角背誦《博伽梵歌》（Bhagavad Gita）中Krishna（黑天）的自我描述來定義原子彈甚至奧本海默自己：“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of the worlds”。Death並非正確的原字，而是Time（kālaḥ）——原句為 “kālo’smi”（Time I am）（11章32節）。Krishna做為Vishnu的化身，也具有後者代表的保存（preservation）意義。在《博伽梵歌》裡，Krishna最主要的意義在說服阿周那（Arjuna）去執行他做為剎帝利（Kshatriya；戰士貴族）的戰爭行為以維護世間秩序。
這裡Arjuna–Krishna的組合似乎符合德勒茲和瓜達理對統治秩序（國家機器）的雙頭描述：國王–祭司、專制者–立法者。而剎帝利做為維護秩序的唯一「合法暴力」使用者，也似乎符合班雅民對「制法」（lawmaking）或「持法」（law-preserving）暴力的描述。然而，根據《摩訶婆羅多》的記載，俱盧大戰幾乎將全印度都捲入其中，結果造成數十萬剎帝利的死亡，也導致古印度吠陀文明的衰落。最終，Krishna的死亡意義也反身包括自己要維持的秩序，也包含戰士自身，這或許是Arjuna在Krishna的訊息中沒有聽到的。
對於權力、武力的施作，東方或前現代社會向來強調其棄絕、不作的一面，這在武俠傳統中是明顯的，可見於金庸的《天龍八部》、周星馳的《功夫》，甚至侯孝賢的《刺客聶隱娘》等。這或許可用「武為止戈」的一般說法來解釋，但更延伸來說，止戈應同時發為兩個方向，否則會重複俱盧大戰全體戰爭（war of all against all）的狀況。力的施發最後會回到自身，因此只有先反身施力，才有可能不導致循環的結果。在這裡，Agamben對內戰的解說才能找到突破點，否則內外喪失區隔的例外狀態架構並無法產生解釋效力。
啟發德勒茲與瓜達理「戰爭機器」（war machine）概念的法國人類學家Pierre Clastres在《暴力的考古學》（Archeology of Violence）裡理論化了為何原始社會的「戰爭是反國家的」，相反於霍布斯所說，國家是解決全體戰爭的方法。Clastres認為，原始社會的戰爭向外旨在維持差異、自由、自主的存在，向內則在防止分離式權力器官的出現，維持了無階序、平等的社會狀態。這兩個方向的止說明了止戈的意義與運作，而Arjuna的箭是要射向自己親人的，或許也如《一代宗師》裡宮二必須自絕傳承，不為武術「全國」統一做考量：原始社會服從散離（dispersion）原則，國家服從統一（unification）原則——一代宗師原可是「野蠻戰士」。Clastres在處理極端戰士社會的特殊例子時導出，專業戰士的存在是「朝向死亡的」，這除了無休止戰爭至死的命運之外，更且透過女性實現出來：戰士的妻子拒絕生育。特別的是，在這個性別分工的架構裡，女性的選擇倒跟《一代宗師》產生重疊關係。而最近鄭芳婷與劉文在《中外文學》《東亞酷兒情感》專輯（2024年6月）上的論文，可說從另一個面向闡釋了台灣網路武功的止戈範例。在這裡，止戈不是單純廢棄技術與戰爭的意思，而是越過無矛盾律（law of noncontradiction），產生止與戈同時運作的分裂和合（disjunctive synthesis）模式，或可稱為量子武學。這跟Agamben與較晚近Franco “Bifo” Berardi一派強調單向不作（inoperation或quitting/desertion）的說法並不相同，或許某個角度上較為接近張小虹在《止戰》中「未來完成式」的雙向運作。本次談話會將初步推演以上相關想法，採局部、片段的形式，不進行系統性的完整論述。
Chingshun J. Sheu 許景順（Assistant Professor, Department of Applied English, Ming Chuan University 銘傳大學應用英語系助理教授）〔speech in English, discussion in Mandarin or English〕
題目：Sartre and Badiou: A Convergence
構想：Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1905–1980) philosophical work can be roughly divided into three stages. The first stage began with the structure of individual consciousness, climaxing in Being and Nothingness (1943) and culminating in the unfinished Notebooks for an Ethics (1983), unfinished because he considered it a failure. He was unable to escape the solipsistic alternation between self and other to arrive at true intersubjectivity.
The second stage focused more on the dialectic of history and the collective structure of revolutions, and includes the Critique of Dialectical Reason (vol. 1, 1960; vol. 2, 1985, unfinished) and two unpublished lectures: the 1964 Rome Lectures and the 1965 Cornell Lectures, the latter of which went undelivered due to Sartre’s protest against the Vietnam War. Published only posthumously, scholars have spilled not a little ink over them. As the fact that the Critique’s second volume was also unfinished suggests, Sartre considered this stage a failure as well. In his model of revolution, he was able to theorize a collective subject, but it is fleeting and ultimately curdles back into alienation.
Here is where we can bring in self-proclaimed student of Sartre Alain Badiou (1937–, long may he live), whose theory of the faithful subject (in his idiosyncratic definition) can be seen as an effort to sustain Sartre’s collective subject. The key to Badiou’s intersubjectivity (in the traditional sense) is that his “subject” is always already more than the individual. The appurtenances of his theory of the event fill out the faithful subject’s foundations and headwinds, and the idea of evental “waste products” introduced in The Immanence of Truths (2022) enables a historical dialectic. In this, Badiou converges (once again) with Sartre.
Sartre’s third stage began around 1974, when Benny Lévy (1945–2003) became his secretary. As revealed in Hope Now (1980), an approved selection from their conversations, Sartre was developing with Lévy a philosophical paradigm in which, just as existence precedes essence, intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity. In this, Sartre converges with Badiou. This third stage seems promising, but it had only begun to be developed when Sartre died, so his comments repudiating almost all of his previous work are left for us to ponder.