非生产性支出与地球的空间基础（下

索引参考文献翻译撰写最近添加的内容链接关于/联系方式https://www.generation-online.org/p/fpbataille6.htm

Unproductive expenditure and the spatial ground of the Earth 非生产性支出与地球的空间基础

Bataille on the other side of Deleuze and Guattari 德勒兹和瓜塔里的另一边的巴塔耶

On the one hand, the continuous development of new techno-scientific means to potentially resolve the dominant ecological issues and reinstate socially useful activities on the surface of the planet, and, on the other hand, the inability of organized social forces and constituted subjective formations to take hold of these resources in order to make them work (31). 一方面，新技术手段的不断发展有可能解决主要的生态问题并恢复地球表面对社会有用的活动，另一方面，有组织的社会力量和主观形态的无力掌握这些资源以使它们发挥作用（31）。The latter end of the paradox, Guatttari attributes to the production of capitalist subjectivity: 瓜塔里将悖论的后半部分归因于资本主义主体性的产生：A capitalist subjectivity is engendered through operators of all types and sizes, and is manufactured to protect existence from any intrusion of events that might disturb or disrupt public opinion…Therefore, it endeavors to manage the worlds of childhood, love, art, as well as everything associated with anxiety, madness, pain, death, or a feeling of being lost in the Cosmos…IWC forms massive subjective aggregates from the most personal…Capitalist subjectivity seeks to gain power by controlling and neutralizing the maximum number of existential refrain (50). 资本主义主体性是通过各种类型和规模的经营者产生的，是为了保护存在免受任何可能扰乱或扰乱公众舆论的事件的侵扰……因此，它努力管理童年、爱情、艺术以及生活的世界。与焦虑、疯狂、痛苦、死亡或迷失在宇宙中的感觉相关的一切……IWC从最个人的事物中形成巨大的主观聚合体……资本主义的主观性试图通过控制和中和最大数量的存在主义来获得权力避免（50）。Guattari’s solution to capitalist subjectivity is the production of a logic of intensities that he refers to as eco-logic: 加塔里对资本主义主体性的解决方案是产生一种强度逻辑，他称之为生态逻辑： Ecological praxes strive to scout out the potential vectors of subjectification and singularization at each partial existential locus. They generally seek something that runs counter to the ‘normal’ order of things, a counter-repetition, an intensive given which invokes other intensities to form new existential configurations… 生态实践努力在每个部分存在轨迹上寻找主体化和单一化的潜在向量。他们通常寻求与事物的“正常”秩序相反的东西，一种反重复，一种强烈的给定，它调用其他强度来形成新的存在配置………the expressive a-signifying rupture summons forth a creative repetition that forges incorporeal objects, abstract machines and Universes of value that make their presence felt as though they had been always ‘already there’, although they are entirely dependent on the existential event that brings them into play (45). ……富有表现力的意指断裂召唤出一种创造性的重复，创造出无形的物体、抽象的机器和有价值的宇宙，使它们的存在感觉好像它们一直“已经在那里”，尽管它们完全依赖于带来的存在事件他们进入游戏（45）。Thus eco-logic is a logic of the and that produces anti-capitalist subject groups that deterritorialize nomadically at strategic locations, taking the deterritorialized Earth itself as their object of universal yet singular reterritorialization. Underlying Guattari’s argument is a dual commitment: a commitment to the logic of the and and the ontological status of deterritorialization, and a commitment to productive forces. Deleuze & Guattari’s geophilosophical project is thus one that seeks to “reevaluate the purpose of work and human activities according to different criteria that those of profit and yield (The Three Ecologies, 57). Deleuze & Guattari advocate for the production of singularized subject group formations constituted by new Universal value systems and processes of production. 因此，生态逻辑是一种逻辑，它产生了反资本主义主体群体，他们在战略地点进行游牧式解域，将解域化的地球本身作为普遍但单一的再域化的对象。加塔里论点的基础是双重承诺：对去领土化的逻辑和本体论地位的承诺，以及对生产力的承诺。因此，德勒兹和瓜塔里的地理哲学项目旨在“根据利润和收益的不同标准重新评估工作和人类活动的目的（三种生态学，57）。德勒兹和加塔里主张产生由新的普世价值体系和生产过程构成的单一主体群体结构。It is my sense, however, that trying to hold on to this dual commitment effects a perculiar ontologization of capital, especially the smooth space of smooth capital. Here Walter Benjamin’s critique of vulgar Marxist projects the characterized German labor movements resonates. In “Thesis on the Philosophy of History,” Benjamin writes: 然而，我的感觉是，试图坚持这种双重承诺会影响资本的特殊本体论，尤其是平滑资本的平滑空间。在此，沃尔特·本雅明对庸俗马克思主义的批判反映了德国工人运动的特点。本雅明在《历史哲学论文》中写道：Smelling a rat, Marx countered that “…the man who possesses no other property than his labor power” must of necessity become “the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners…” However, the confusion spread, and soon thereafter Josef Dietzgen proclaimed: “the savior of modern times is called work. The…improvement…of labor constitutes the wealth which is now able to accomplish what no redeemer has ever been able to do.” This vulgar-Marxist conception of nature bypasses the question of how its products might benefit the workers while still not being at their disposal. It recognizes only the progress in the mastery of nature, not the retrogression of society…The new conception of labor amounts to the exploitation of nature, which the naïve complacency is contrasted with the exploitation of the proletariat. Compared with this positivistic conception, Fourier’s fantasies, which have so often been ridiculed, prove to be surprisingly sound. According to Fourier, as a result of efficient cooperative labor, four moons would illuminate the earthly night, the ice would recede from the poles, sea water would no longer taste salty, and beasts of prey would do man’s bidding. All this illustrated a kind of labor which, far from exploiting nature, is capable of delivering here of the creations which lie dormant in her womb as potentials. Nature, which, as Dietzgen puts it, “exists gratis,” is a complement to the corrupted conception of labor (Illuminations, 259). 马克思闻到了老鼠的味道，反驳说，“……除了劳动力之外不拥有其他财产的人”必然成为“其他使自己成为主人的人的奴隶……”然而，这种混乱蔓延开来，不久之后约瑟夫·迪茨根（Josef Dietzgen）宣称：“现代的救世主叫做工作。劳动的……改进……构成了财富，现在能够完成任何救赎者都无法做到的事情。”这种庸俗的马克思主义自然观回避了这样的问题：其产品如何使工人受益，同时仍不由他们支配。它只承认对自然的掌握的进步，而不是社会的倒退……新的劳动概念相当于对自然的剥削，这种天真的自满与对无产阶级的剥削形成鲜明对比。与这种实证主义的观念相比，经常被嘲笑的傅立叶的幻想却出人意料地合理。根据傅里叶的说法，由于高效的合作劳动，四个月亮将照亮地球的夜晚，冰将从两极消退，海水将不再咸味，猛兽将听从人类的命令。所有这一切都说明了一种劳动，这种劳动远非剥削自然，而是能够将潜伏在子宫中作为潜力的创造物释放出来。正如迪茨根所说，自然“免费存在”，是对腐败的劳动概念的补充（Illuminations，259）。Benjamin’s point here is important: the valorization and fetishization of productive forces is linked to an understanding of the Earth as gratis, free for exploitation by man. This understanding of the Earth forecloses the possibility of free and cooperative communities. What is required for a properly Marxist, ecological praxis is thus a particular valuing of the Earth, in other words, taking into consideration the loss of natural resources and energies when attempting to evaluate productive practices. The question thus emerges: Does Deleuze & Guattari’s image of thought, situated at the crossroads of the already there, committed to seeing antiproduction within production itself, enable an understanding of the Earth as non gratis? 本雅明在这里的观点很重要：对生产力的重视和崇拜与对地球的理解有关，地球是免费的，可供人类自由开发。这种对地球的理解排除了自由和合作社区的可能性。因此，正确的马克思主义生态实践所需要的是对地球的特殊评估，换句话说，在试图评估生产实践时考虑到自然资源和能源的损失。因此，问题出现了：德勒兹和加塔里的思想形象，位于已经存在的十字路口，致力于在生产本身中看到反生产，是否能够使我们理解地球是非免费的？ In order to answer this question in the affirmative, it is my contention that Deleuze & Guattari need Bataille more than they may care to admit; for it is precisely as the crossroads of thought that Deleuze & Guattari must find what Bataille understands as the loss principle, the principle of unproductive expenditure that is beyond all thought and productive activity. It is my contention that the logic of the and needs a but that would mark the limit, specifically the terrestrial limit of growth that corresponds to the spatial ground of the Earth. What Guattari sees as needing to be reevaluated in regards to the principles of the world of human works and activities is perhaps just the understanding that not everything can ontologically belong the realm of the productive and infinite growth. The already there is not necessarily antiproduction within production itself (which is the absolute logic of late, globalized capitalism) but the unproductive expenditure that belongs to the impossible, yet there, the logic of a but, that corresponds to an understanding that the earth itself is not free precisely because energetic resources are not infinite. A logic of a but understands that, at some points, operations of production must be reversed and forces must flow back and be lost to the outside which is beyond thought. 为了肯定地回答这个问题，我的观点是德勒兹和加塔里对巴塔耶的需要比他们愿意承认的要多。因为正是作为思想的十字路口，德勒兹和加塔里必须找到巴塔耶所理解的损失原则，即超越所有思想和生产活动的非生产性支出的原则。我的观点是， 和 的逻辑需要一个 但是 来标记极限，特别是与地球空间地面相对应的陆地生长极限。加塔里认为，需要重新评估人类工作和活动世界的原则，这或许只是一种理解，即并非所有事物在本体论上都属于生产性和无限增长的领域。生产本身中已经存在的不一定是反生产（这是晚期全球化资本主义的绝对逻辑），而是属于不可能的非生产性支出，但存在“但是”的逻辑，这对应于地球本身的理解正因为能量资源不是无限的，所以它不是免费的。但是的逻辑明白，在某些时候，生产运作必须逆转，力量必须回流并流失到外部，这是无法想象的。

Bataille’s Demonlover 巴塔耶的恶魔恋人

Demonlover emerges in the wake of Bataille as a slightly different text, precisely because Diane is not a nomad, or to use Bataille’s corresponding category, a being that occupies heterogeneous social reality and is capable of experiencing war in any form. Rather, Diane is invested in the order of work to such an intensive degree that she cannot touch the intimate order, much less reclaim and reverse its operations. The film is a chronicle of her loss of sovereignty and desire at every turn, an experimental poem that explores the inability of subjects like Diane to reclaim and reverse the operations of consciousness and to grasp the impossible. Diane’s desire-- and thus existence-- is totally subsumed by the organization of productive forces particular to global capital. Furthermore, the emergence of the smooth space of smooth capital is in effect a massive overcoding- not decoding- of energetic flows that negates all terrestrial spatial limits (the spatial ground of the Earth) in order to accumulate heterogeneous forces the bring about what Debord sees as “the perfected denial of man” through “augmented survival” (Society of the Spectacle, 27-30) Demonlover seen through Bataille is thus a critique of not only the smooth space of smooth capital, but also a critique of deterritorialization taken as an ontological category; Demonlover demonstrates that deterritorialization taken as an ontological category is just the heterogeneous force of global capital. 《恶魔恋人》是在巴塔耶之后出现的，作为一个略有不同的文本，正是因为黛安娜不是一个游牧民族，或者用巴塔耶的相应类别来说，一个占据异质社会现实并能够经历任何形式战争的存在。相反，黛安对工作秩序的投入如此强烈，以至于她无法触及亲密的秩序，更不用说回收和逆转其运作了。这部电影记录了她在每一个转折点失去主权和欲望的过程，这是一首实验诗，探讨了像黛安这样的主体无法收回和扭转意识运作以及掌握不可能的事情。黛安的欲望——以及由此而来的存在——完全被全球资本特有的生产力组织所包容。此外，平滑资本的平滑空间的出现实际上是能量流的大规模过度编码（而不是解码），它否定了所有陆地空间限制（地球的空间基础），以便积累异质力量，从而带来德波所看到的结果通过“增强生存”来“对人的完美否定”（景观协会，27-30）因此，通过巴塔耶看到的《恶魔恋人》不仅是对光滑资本的光滑空间的批判，而且也是对作为本体论范畴的去领土化的批判； 《恶魔恋人》证明，作为本体论范畴的解域化正是全球资本的异质力量。The way to find the spatial ground of the Earth is to think the limits of growth--ontologically and terrestrially-- the points at which productive force must turn unproductive. Deterritorialization as the instance of thought is just the force of capital; however deteritorrialization as the movement of thought beyond itself, situated as the crossroads of the impossible yet there is an effective strategy for freeing energetic flows from capitalist processes of production. Ultimately, Bataille understands that the Earth is not free, precisely because there are always already limits to all aspirations of growth and expansion. To find Bataille on this side of Deleuze & Guattari is to find the spatial ground of the Earth-- the One of positive deterritorialization-- that the smooth space of smooth capital seeks at every turn to negate. 找到地球空间基础的方法是从本体论和陆地角度思考增长的极限，即生产力必须转变成非生产性的点。作为思想实例的解域化正是资本的力量；然而，去疆域化作为超越自身的思想运动，处于不可能的十字路口，但仍然存在一种有效的策略，可以从资本主义生产过程中释放能量流。最终，巴塔耶明白地球不是自由的，正是因为所有增长和扩张的愿望总是有限的。在德勒兹和加塔里的这一边找到巴塔耶就是找到地球的空间基础——积极的解域化——平滑资本的平滑空间在每一个转折点都寻求否定它。Works Cited: 引用作品：Bataille, Georges. Accursed Share, Volume One. New York: Zone Books, 1991. 巴塔耶、乔治.被诅咒的份额，第一卷。纽约：区域图书，1991。Bataille, Georges. Accursed Share, Volumes Two & Three. New York: Zone Books, 1993. 巴塔耶、乔治.被诅咒的份额，第二卷和第三卷。纽约：区域图书，1993。Bataille, Georges. Theory of Religion. New York: Zone Books, 1989. 巴塔耶、乔治.宗教理论。纽约：区域图书，1989。Bataille, Georges. Visions of Excess Selected Writings, 1927-1939. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985. 巴塔耶、乔治.过多的精选著作的愿景，1927-1939。明尼阿波利斯：明尼苏达大学出版社，1985 年。Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books, 1968. 本杰明、沃尔特.照明。纽约：舍肯图书公司，1968 年。Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books, 1995. 德波，盖伊。景观协会。纽约：区域图书，1995。Deleuze, Gilles, & Guattari, Felix. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. 吉尔斯·德勒兹和菲利克斯·加塔里。反俄狄浦斯：资本主义和精神分裂症。明尼阿波利斯：明尼苏达大学出版社，1983 年。Deleuze, Gilles, & Guattari, Felix. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. 吉尔·德勒兹和菲利克斯·加塔里。千高原：资本主义与精神分裂症。明尼阿波利斯：明尼苏达大学出版社，1987 年。Guattari, Felix. The Three Ecologies. London: Athlone Press, 2000. 加塔里，菲利克斯。三大生态。伦敦：阿斯隆出版社，2000 年。Hochroth, Lysa. “The Scientific Imperative: Improductive Expenditure and Energeticism.” 霍克罗斯，莱莎。 “科学的当务之急：非生产性支出和精力充沛。” Configurations 3.1 (1995): 47-77. 配置 3.1 (1995)：47-77。Irwin, Alexander. Saints of the Impossible: Bataille, Weil, and the Politics of the Sacred. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. 欧文、亚历山大.不可能的圣徒：巴塔耶、韦尔和神圣的政治。明尼阿波利斯：明尼苏达大学出版社，2002 年。