英文版译者注（一、二）

译者：面包里的猫猫虫

LETTER TO A HARSH CRITIC

1. 《Recherches》杂志是瓜塔里在1965年创办，作为他的组织“FGERI”的核心。FGERI和他建立的其他的以字母缩写为名的的组织类似（ Fédération des Groupes d'Etude et de Recherches Institutionelles，也许意思是 "研究团体的团体组合"）。FGERI在68年5月的 "事件（指法国68年的学潮）"中发挥了重要作用。其中之一便是对法国国家剧院的占领（由瓜塔里、戈达尔、朱利安-贝克、丹尼-科恩-本迪特等人主导）。在那里，他们在台上台下戏剧性地辩论关于"革命 "的原则。68年5月后，《Recherches》成为各种 "边缘 "团体的中心，1973年，瓜塔里因出版题为 "三十亿个变态，同性恋的大百科全书 "的特刊而被起诉，罪名是 "对公共道德的侮辱"。这本出版物的撰稿人包括德勒兹、德勒兹的妻子范妮、福柯、萨特、热内（Genet）和二十四岁的同性恋活动家米歇尔-克雷索尔（本信就是写给他的）。特刊里的文章都没有署名，但克雷索尔大概率就是那个 "24岁的M“了。他的文章《我们和阿拉伯人》以他本人与阿拉伯男人的性经验开始（颇具丑闻式的开篇）叙述。这封信的后面提到了这篇文章，并在本书第二篇收录中被批评为种族主义、法西斯主义和恋母情结（德勒兹在这里引用了卡夫卡的短篇小说《阿拉伯人和豺狼》，抱怨道 "你不是阿拉伯人，你是豺狼"），就像在最后一篇文章《狂热的驴子》（Les Culs nerguménes）中一样。克雷索尔写给德勒兹的信显示了被抛弃的（而且是恋母情结的）求爱过程中酸楚的娇媚和受伤的自尊，这也反映在德勒兹偶尔挑逗的语气中（他的结束语可以理解为 "不管别人怎么说，我确实喜欢你）。

The journal Rechercheswas started by Guattari in 1965, as the organ of one of the many acronym-designated groups he founded over the course of his career, the FGERI (Fédération des Groupes d’Etude et de Recherches Institutionelles, “grouping of groups for the study of groups” perhaps). The FGERI went on to play a major role in the “events” of May 68, notably orchestrating the occupation of the National Theater (directed by Guattari, Godard, Julian Beck, Danny Cohn-Bendit, and others), where the principles of the “Revolution” were dramatically debated and enacted in exchanges between stage and floor that ran continuously for several days and nights. After May 68, Recherches became a focus for a wide range of “marginal” groups, and in 1973 Guattari was prosecuted for “an outrage to public morals” for publishing a special issue entitled “Three Billion Perverts: Grand Encyclopedia of Homosexualities.” The opening list of contributors included Deleuze, his wife Fanny, Foucault, Sartre, Genet, and the twenty-four-year-old gay activist Michel Cressole (to whom the present letter is addressed). The various contributions were unsigned, but Cressole was presumably the “M, 24 years old” who directed the opening (and scandalously open) discussion of sexual experiences with Arab men, “Us and the Arabs,” referred to later, and criticized as racist, fascistic, and oedipal in the second contribution (?coauthored by Deleuze, who here, alluding to Kafka’s short story “Arabs and Jackals,” complains “You’re not an Arab, you're a jackal”), as in the closing essay, “Les Culs nerguménes” (“Fanatical Asses”—in every sense). Cressole’s letter to Deleuze displays the sour coquetry and wounded pride of a spurned (and rather oedipal) courtship, and this is reflected in Deleuze’s occasionally teasing tone (his closing remark may be read as “Whatever people say, I do like you”).

————————————

译者猫猫虫发现的另一则有关克勒索尔的八卦材料：克雷索尔是德勒兹的学生。在一本讲德勒兹和瓜塔里的合作故事的书（ Intersecting Lives ）里提到过这个人：

米歇尔-克雷索尔是一个优雅的同性恋者，他对自己的诱惑力很有信心，他想写一本关于他的老师德勒兹的书。德勒兹受宠若惊，但认为他的学生应该做自己的工作（研究自己的东西），并拒绝手把手帮他实施计划。误会产生了。克雷索尔开始厌恶他曾经的偶像。他报复性地嘲笑德勒兹，声称《反俄狄浦斯》是精神分析学派的新教派的圣经，他们 "类似于这些歌剧营，一直在重复'让我们前进'，却没有移动，只是制造一种移动的假象"。据他说，这本书除了增加一个自称是艺术家的小丑外，对马克思-弗洛伊德（的理论）没有什么作用。这次攻击让克雷索尔和德勒兹之间又多写了几封书信，并在克雷索尔的小册子中发表。

An elegant homosexual who was confident about his powers of seduction, Michel Cressole wanted to write a book about his teacher. Deleuze was flattered but considered that his student ought to do his own work and refused to take him by the hand to carry out his plan. Because of this misunderstanding, Cressole began to loathe his former idol. He was vengefully derisive, claiming that Anti-Oedipus was the bible of a new sect of adepts of schizoanalysis who “resemble these operatic battalions who keep repeating ‘let’s march” without moving, and merely creating an illusion of movement.” According to him, the book did little more to the Marxo-Freudian couple than add a clown claiming to be an artist. The attack led to an epistolary exchange between Cressole and Deleuze that was published in Cressole’s pamphlet.

克雷索尔的语气是痛苦的，他的目标是摧毁德勒兹，"如他所言"。在提到希拉（Sheila）的一首流行歌曲时，他写道："你已经不在了，爸爸，就像歌里唱的那样"。他谴责德勒兹是文森（Vincennes）的大头目，在那里，一个已然僵化的大师提出了各种不光彩的要求，在一个烟雾缭绕的小厅里慢慢窒息。同时，克雷索尔建议将《反俄狄浦斯》作为两个 "疯狂的天才 "为孩子们提供的 "奇妙玩具"。德勒兹的前学生最终似乎暗示，在他的单恋故事中，他既宣传自己，也宣传这本书。"如果那些精神分裂者成为你的经纪人呢？你的黑色工人大衣已经像玛丽莲-梦露的粉色连衣裙，上面有褶皱，你的长指甲和眼镜就像嘉宝的太阳镜。"

Cressole’s tone was bitter and his objective was to destroy Deleuze “as he is spoken of.” Referring to a popular song by Sheila, he wrote, “You’re out of it dad, like the song says.” He denounced Deleuze as the great ringleader of Vincennes, where all kinds of unsavory demands were made by a rigid Master who was suffocating in a little smoke-filled hall. At the same time, Cressole suggested that Anti-Oedipus could be used as a “fantastic toy” that two “mad geniuses” had made available for kids. Deleuze’s former student ultimately seemed to suggest, in his story of unrequited love, that he promote both himself and the book. “And what if the schizos became your impresarios? Your black worker’s coat is already like Marilyn Monroe’s pink dress with its pleated bodice, and your long fingernails and glasses are like Garbo’s sunglasses."

————————————

2. 乔治-阿德里安，被称为 "达里安"，是世纪之交的极右自由主义作家和活动家，他对所有压抑的社会制度的暴力拒绝反映在他对有意制定的语言的暴力歪曲上。

Georges Adrien, known as “Darien,” was an extreme-right libertarian writer and activist around the turn of the century, whose violent rejection of all repressive social institutions was reflected in his violent distortions of conventionally instituted language.

3. 各种各样的“疯子和边缘人（fous et marginaux）。1968年5月的学生 "革命 "失败后，社会上异议的主要议题从60年代的主流左派反对派转移到了在传统机构的边缘地带表达的反叛文化。德勒兹在68年后在巴黎边缘设立的万森 （Vincennes ）"反大学 "任教，在法国学术界引起了很大的敌意。而他自己也成为了（尤其是在《反俄狄浦斯》出版后） "疯子和边缘人 fous et marginaux "的象征。这里使用了68年后才出现的边缘人marginaux这个词，是为了 强调”正是这类曾聚集在陷入困境的柏格森身边的人，现在却在批评柏格森陷入困境的继承人们“。他只是在那些接受了传统哲学史所呈现的被封建化和神圣化的形象的人那里看来是 "传统的"。

All sorts of fous et marginaux. After the failure of the student “revolution” of May 68, the prime forum of social dissent shifted from the mainstream leftist opposition of the sixties to a counterculture articulated in the margins of conventional institutions. Deleuze’s teaching at the “counteruniversity” of Vincennes, set up on the margins of Paris after 68, provoked much hostility in the French academic establishment, and itself became (especially after the publication of Anti-Oedipus in 1972) a focus for “crazies and marginals.” The use here of the word marginaux, only current after ’68, serves to underline the fact that it was precisely the sort of people who had rallied around an embattled Bergson who were now criticizing his embattled heir for writing about Bergson—a figure who only appeared “conventional” to those who accepted the canonized and sanitized image presented by the conventional history of philosophy.

4. 原文为：Des enfants dans le dos, c'est lui qui vous en fait。“（尼采）猫手猫脚地走到你身后，给你带来陌生的孩子。” 在上一段中，德勒兹一直在把玩"在别人背后做事faire un enfant dans le dos "这一俗语的各种性意义上和文字意义上的玩笑（共鸣）。

Des enfants dans le dos, c'est lui qui vous en fait: Nietzsche creeps up behind you and gives you strange children. In the previous paragraph Deleuze has been playing with various sexual and textual resonances of the colloquial expression for “doing things behind someone’s back,” faire un enfant dans le dos.

5. 对于德勒兹和瓜塔里来说，"意义就是使用"（meaning is use），《资本主义与精神分裂症：千高原》可以被看作是“德勒兹-瓜塔里语”（"在法语中的另一种语言"）的速成课程。"从中间开始 "，而不是从初级语法和词汇开始。（不过，初级的语法也是存在的）。比如说："欲望着的机器"，Machine désirantes，不是désirer（欲望）的机器，（就像洗衣机，Machine a laver，是洗涤的机器）。相反，它们是任何连接部件配置的自由运作，被视为一个导向的过程或对其他配置的处理，它与这些配置相交或共享组件--作为 "欲望的生产"。作为生产线的 "欲望"，作为 "机器 "对生产某些或不确定的效果的这种内在定向，以及机器作为 "欲望 "的特征，颠覆了机器作为工具的标准概念，这些工具被用来生产一些由所谓自我决定的超验主体（The transcendent subject）在机器的内在运作之外决定的 "目的"。超验的主体像幽灵一样消失在无意识的机器中，这个机器产生了（与其他东西一同）经验的主体和他们有意识的目的。欲望不是植根于主体或其目标或对象（甚至不是植根于拉康的 "丢失missing "的主体和对象），但主体和对象是由欲望机器产生的。在从《反俄狄浦斯》到《千高原》的过渡中，残余在"欲望 "机器中的主体被消除了，取而代之的是更加非个人化的"装配agencement"。但是，正如《反俄狄浦斯》的欲望机器不是为了任何东西的机器一样，《千高原》的 "战争机器 "并不是一种 "为了战争的机器"，而是沿着一条 "逃逸线：linesof flight"的自由装配，这些机器在一个超越性国家的外在目的中配置或编纂了所有过程和生产，沿着单一的 "静态 "历史线的方向。在《资本主义与精神分裂症:千高原》中，所有的机器、装配（arrangement）、生成（becomings）、过程和产品都自由地相互作用，在本质上是欲望的、生产性的，和扰乱性的：创造性、艺术性和革命性。

For Deleuze and Guattari, “meaning is use,” and Capitalism and Schizophrenia may be seen as a crash immersion course in Deleuzoguattarian (“another language within the French language”) that “begins in the middle” rather than with an elementary grammar and lexicon. One might, though, make the elementary grammatical point that “desiring machines,” machines désirantes, are not machines a désirer, machines for desiring (as washing machines, machines a laver, are machines for washing). They are rather the free functioning of any configuration of linked components, considered as an oriented process or a processing of other configurations with which it intersects or shares components—as “desiring production.” “Desire” as production line, as this intrinsic orientation of “machinery” toward the production of certain or uncertain effects, and the characterization of machines as “desiring,” inverts the standard conception of machines as instruments employed to produce some “end” determined outside the immanent operation of the machine by a supposedly self-determining transcendent subject. The transcendent subject vanishes like a ghost into the unconscious machinery that produces (among other things) empirical subjects and their conscious ends. Desire is not rooted in a subject or its objectives or objects (not even in “missing” Lacanian subjects and objects), but subjects and objects are produced by desiring machines. In the transition from Anti-Oedipus to A Thousand Plateaus, the residual subjectivism of “desiring” machines was eliminated in favor of more impersonal agencements, “arrangements.” But just as the desiring machines of Anti-Oedipus are not machines for anything, the “war machines” of A Thousand Plateaus are not “machines for war,” but free arrangements oriented along a “line of flight” out of the repressive social machinery that configures or codifies all processes and production within the extrinsic ends of a transcendent state oriented along the single “static” line of a unitary history. In Capitalism and Schizophrenia the free interplay of all the machines, arrangements, flows, processes, becomings, events into which a given thing (component, variable) enters is intrinsically desiring, productive, and disruptive: creative, artistic, and revolutionary.

6. 拉康和他的团队从巴黎精神分析协会（弗洛伊德国际精神分析协会的法国分会）分裂出来，在他1953年被迫辞去主席职务后，成立了法国精神分析协会。经过漫长的谈判，1969年，国际精神分析协会最终拒绝承认任何由拉康主导的团体，而他也被 "逐出"{从他自己的分裂团体中分离出来，在第二年形成了巴黎弗洛伊德学派，作为分裂团体的一个分支。他对新团体日益专制的控制反过来又激起了1969年的第三次分裂，各种持不同政见者，即 "没有拉康的拉康派"，建立了（法国弗洛伊德派的）第四小组。在这次分裂中，弗洛伊德学派与最初作为德勒兹哲学系的一个部分在新的 "持不同政见 "的文森大学设立的精神分析系之间的暧昧关系最终在1974年得到解决，拉康将他自己的女婿任命为重组后的独立系主任，其入口与德勒兹在同一大楼同一楼层的研讨会的入口在楼的相对两角。同样具有象征意义的是（也是叔本华和黑格尔之间争斗的几个回声之一），德勒兹的研讨会与拉康的研讨会在同一天的同一时间举行，场所却同在巴黎市中心距离几英里的地方，人们无法同时参加两个会议。尽管瓜塔利相当典型和矛盾地（令拉康女婿不高兴地）从1964年开始是弗洛伊德学派的成员，直到1980年拉康在去世不久前戏剧性地解散该学派（也导致了1980年代新团体的激增）。

Lacan and the group around him split from the Paris Psychoanalytical Society (the French affiliate of the Freudian International Psychoanalytical Association), following his forced resignation from the presidency in 1953, to form the French Psychoanalytical Society. Following lengthy negotations, the IPA in 1969 finally refused to recognize any group dominated by Lacan, and he was “excommunicated” {rom his own splinter group, forming the Paris Freudian School as a splinter from the splinter the following year. His increasingly autocratic control of the new group in its turn provoked a third schism in 1969, with various dissidents, the “Lacanians without Lacan,” establishing a Fourth Group (of French Freudians). The ambiguous relations between the Freudian School and the department of psychoanalysis initially set up as a section of Deleuze’s philosophy department at the new “dissident” university of Vincennes at the time of this split were finally resolved in 1974 when Lacan imposed his own son-in-law as director of a reorganized independent department whose entrance, diametrically opposite the entrance to Deleuze’s seminar on the same floor of the same building, was thereafter kept carefully locked. Equally symbolic (and one of several echoes of the feud between Schopenhauer and Hegel) was the fact that Deleuze’s seminar was held at the same time on the same day as Lacan’s, several miles away in central Paris, so that one could not attend both—although Guattari rather typically and paradoxically, and much to the son-in-law’s displeasure, remained a member of the Freudian School from 1964 until its theatrical dissolution by Lacan in 1980, shortly before he died (leading to a proliferation of new groups in the 1980s).

7. not a belle ame：暗指歌德、黑格尔等人分析的悲剧性（或受虐性）的浪漫主义人物形象。

not a belle ame: an allusion to a tragic (or masochistic) Romantic persona analyzed by Goethe, Hegel, and others.

8. “Un devenir animal“可以被解读为 "一个动物性的生成 "或 "一个生成-动物"：动物既可以被理解为修饰动词名词un devenir（一个动物性的生成）的形容词，也可以被理解为描述变成动物的过程所趋向的最终状态（动物）的名词。语法上模棱两可的结构的两种意思都不同程度地存在于此本访谈和其他地方关于 "生成 "的种种主题里，但这里的意思（un devenir universel animal而不是un devenir animal universel：一种普遍的动物性生成而不是普遍地生成-动物），反映了德勒兹瓜特主义对存在和生成（这里是人类和动物生成）传统关系的颠覆。生成不是两种存在状态之间的过渡，不是由起点和终点定义的发展路线，而是线条或流动的自由游戏，其交叉点定义了不稳定的过渡性身份点（主体的人类 "存在 "和他们的对象）。流动的生成与 "革命"、"艺术"、"少数派minoritarian "等各种语境中的静态存在相对立：这与其说是人类成为革命者或艺术家或少数派（同一人类的不同种类）的问题，不如说是存在本身是一种生成，有着内在的变革性、创造性和边缘性以及作为内在的多重性。生成 "本身 "没有固定的定义或存在，而是意味着（某人某物）总是在不断地成为另一个人：改变而不是交替，纯粹的差异而不是重复，复多生成而不是单一生成。而且，生成没有 "历史"，而是不断地从压抑性的铭文或编码中突破出来，把它们的多条线放在一个统一的发展中，朝着国家、道德和宗教的超越性目的或终点前进。

Un devenir animal may be read either as “an animal becoming” or “a becoming-animal”: animal can be construed either as an adjective qualifying the verbal noun un devenir (an animal kind of becoming), or as a noun characterizing the end-state (animal) toward which the process of becoming-animal tends. Both resonances of the grammatically ambiguous construction are present in varying degrees in the numerous variations on the theme of “becoming” in Negotiations and elsewhere, but the sense here, indicated by the position of universel (un devenir universel animal rather than un devenir animal universel: a universal animal becoming rather than a universal becoming animal), reflects the Deleuzoguattarian inversion of the traditional relations of being and becoming (here, human being and animal becoming). Rather than a transition between two states of being, a line of development defined by starting point and endpoint, becoming is a free play of lines or flows whose intersections define unstable points of transitory identity (the human “beings” of subjects and their objects). Fluid becoming is opposed to static being in various contexts below as “revolutionary,” “artistic,” “minoritarian,” and so on: this is not so much a matter of human beings becoming revolutionaries or artists or minorities (different kinds of the same human being), but of becoming itself as intrinsically transformative, creative, and margin al—and as intrinsically multiple. Becoming has “itself” no fixed identity or being, is always becoming-other, alteration rather than alternation, pure difference rather than repetition, multiple becomings rather than unitary becoming. And becomings have no “history,” constantly breaking out of the repressive inscription or encoding of their multiple lines within a unitary development toward the transcendent ends or endpoints of state, morality, and religion.

ON ANTI-OEDIPUS

1. 出生于加泰罗尼亚的精神病学家弗朗索瓦-托斯奎勒（Fran¢ois Tosquelles）于1940年在法国南部开设了一家实验性医院，拒绝(当时)类似于法西斯集中营的精神病院的所有元素。他曾在西班牙内战期间被关在集中营里。他著名的实验成为Jean Oury（和瓜塔里一样，接受过拉康的培训）在1953年于巴黎南部卢瓦尔河谷的拉波德城堡开设的诊所的主要灵感来源。 Oury的哥哥是年轻的瓜塔里的老师，当 "费利克斯（小瓜塔里）"（生于皮埃尔）15岁时，两人相识；20岁时，瓜塔里将Oury作为他的导师，从1953年开始直到他1992年在那里去世，拉波德诊所一直是他的主要基地。Oury说，（瓜塔里）“他在60岁时和15岁时一模一样"）。

The Catalan-born psychiatrist Fran¢ois Tosquelles opened an experimental hospital in southern France in 1940, rejecting all elements of psychiatric institutions resembling the Fascist prison camp in which he had been interned during the Spanish Civil War. His celebrated experiment was the prime inspiration for the clinic opened at the Chateau de la Borde in the Loire valley south of Paris by Jean Oury (trained, like Guattari, by Lacan) in 1953. Oury’s brother was the young Guattari’s schoolteacher, and the two met in 1945 when “Félix” (born Pierre) was fifteen; by the age of twenty Guattari had adopted Oury as his mentor, and La Borde became his principal base from 1953 until his death there in 1992 (when Oury remarked that “he was exactly the same at sixty as at fifteen”).

2. Investissement是弗洛伊德的Besetzung的标准法语术语，对于它的标准英语术语是 "cathexis"。但德勒兹和瓜塔里（虽然从精神分析中获得了这个术语）几乎不认同精神分析的解释，而是强调 “欲望的力比多经济“（“libidinal economy” of desire”）。所以我（英译者）偏离了弗洛伊德的正统观念，英译版中使用”投注（对应“经济”）"这个词的各种共鸣来呼应德勒兹-瓜塔里式的多重共鸣。

Investissement is the standard French term for Freud’s Besetzung, for which the standard English term is “cathexis,” but Deleuze and Guattari (while taking the term from psychoanalysis) hardly subscribe to a psychoanalytic interpretation and emphasize the “libidinal economy” of desire—so I have departed from Freudian orthodoxy and allowed the various resonances of “investment” to echo the multiple resonances of the Deleuzoguattarian term.

3. 从词源上看，délirer是指离开沟渠，"脱离轨道"，在想象和思考中徘徊：意义、图像等等在梦中的逻辑中漂浮，而不是沿着熟悉的线条或冷酷的理性的轨道平静地跟随。但对德勒兹和瓜塔里来说，坚实的 "理性 "和自由漂浮的délire仅仅只是从不同地角度描述 "意义的逻辑”的改变。Delire并没有锚定在拉康的 "父亲的名字 "，nom du pere（及其 "圣经 "的双关 – nom du pere也可以翻译成天父之名），也没有锚定在拉康试图用他的符号逻辑所取代的任何所谓固定的参照系统（用符号取代思想和事物，包括生物学上的父亲）中。Jean-Jacques Lecercle把Deleuzoguattarian思想描述为一种 "关乎délire的哲学"，认为这个词是无法翻译的（Philosophy Through the Looking-Glass [1985], pp.6-7），而我（英译者）也没有试图翻译它。

Etymologically, délirer is to leave the furrow, go “off the rails,” and wander in imagination and thought: meanings, images, and so on float in a dream logic rather than calmly following one another along the familiar lines or tracks of cold reason. But for Deleuze and Guattari solid “reason” and free-floating délire are simply converse articulations of a single transformational “logic of sense” that is no more anchored in a central fixed signifier—Lacan’s “name of the father” or nom du pere (with its “scriptural” resonance)—than in any supposedly fixed system of reference (of signifiers to ideas and things, including biological fathers) that Lacan’s logic of signifiers supposedly supersedes. Jean-Jacques Lecercle, characterizing Deleuzoguattarian thought as a “philosophy of délire,” argues that the term is untranslatable (Philosophy Through the Looking-Glass [1985], pp. 6-7), and I] have nowhere attempted to translate it.

4. Agencements. see “Breaking Things Open,” n. 9.

5.我（英译者）处处将un énoncé译为 "一种话语，utterances ，utter有发出声音/发声的意思"，将énonciation译为[一种]"说出 "或 "说出来"[的行为]an act of utterance。马苏米跟从福柯的译者谢里丹，将这些术语翻译为 "陈述statement "和 "发声enounciation"，但这似乎彻底误导了读者们（并忽略了一些词源上，比如énoncer，utterances、uttering、the utterable等之间的简单关系）。德勒兹和瓜塔里坚持认为，所有的言说utterance（作为“言表意”行为或事件 –不管是"illocutionary"还是"表演性的performative "，都受制于词语数量，组合规律和特定的某些个人或群体在某些情况下的使用规则。他们坚持认为，言语本质上总是指令性的（directive）（规范性的、规定性的语词），哪怕是表面看起来陈述事实的语句（以及表面上的询问性、表达性、承诺性和其他语词），实际上也是在以特定方式解释事物，从而隐蔽地发出行动的指令。将言说（utterance）称为 "陈述 （事实）"甚至可以被看作是一种隐蔽的指令，以维持 "作为表征的语言（representation） "的强制系统，这正是德勒兹和瓜塔里所反对的。像福柯一样，德勒兹和瓜塔里从词语和事物的 "中间 "开始，把特定情境或语境中的特定语言动作视为超越于任何一个单一的“语言系统”。因此，他们认为本尼维斯特Benveniste在 "语言"（作为所有可能的话语的抽象框架）中以术语（"我"）为标志的 "说出这句话的主体 "与特定主体在特定情境中对该术语的使用或说出（特定话语或假话）之间的区别，是从特定文本和语境的群体互动动态中抽象出来的，而不能作为所有这种互动模式的普遍框架。Langue（语言）和discours（言语），énoncé（说出的话）和énonciation（说出话的行为），competence（能力）和performance（展演）的关系，本身并不能在语言使用的单一系统中得到阐述：把 "语言 "作为一个单一系统提出来，反而是一种话语行动本身，是一个特定的群体试图通过它来维持其对语言和事物的象征性。在这个过程中，此特定的群体试图保持其对语言、事物和其他群体的象征和物质权力。人们可以看到，我们可以把德勒兹-瓜塔里式的和福柯式的 "言说，utterance "概念之间的区别视为 "话语性安排discursive arrangements "和 "装置apparatuses "之间的区别(见 "Breaking Things Open"，n.9)。

I have everywhere translated un énoncé as “an utterance,” and énonciation as [an act of] “utterance” or “uttering.” Massumi follows Foucault’s translator Sheridan in translating these terms as “statement” and “enunciation,” but this seems thoroughly misleading (and obscures the simple relations between various aspects of the same activity of énoncer. utterances, uttering, the utterable, etc.). Deleuze and Guattari insist that all utterances (as locutionary acts or events) correspond to “illocutionary” or “performative” moves open within a given space of available words, rules for combining them, and rules about how particular combinations of words may be used by certain individuals or groups in certain situations. They insist that such verbal acts are always essentially directive (normative, prescriptive mots d’ordre), and that apparently “constative” acts, statements that “represent” how things are (along with apparently interrogative, expressive, commissive, and other utterances) are really concealed directives to interpret things, and act, in a particular way. To call utterances “statements” might even be seen as a concealed directive to maintain the coercive system of “language as representation” that is the main target of Deleuze and Guattari’s analysis. Like Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari “begin in the middle” of words and things, taking particular linguistic moves in particular situations or contexts as prior to any unitary system of “language” projected beyond the particular historical situations of language-use. They therefore see Benveniste’s distinction between “the uttered subject” marked by a term (“I”) in “language” (as the abstract frame of all possible utterances), and a particular subject’s use or uttering of that term in a particular situation (a particular discours or parole), as an abstraction from the group dynamics of interaction of specific texts and contexts, rather than the universal framework of all such interaction. The relation of langue and discours, énoncé and énonciation, competence and performance, is not something that can itself be articulated within a unitary system of language-use: presenting “language” as a unitary system is, rather, a discursive move by which a particular group seeks to maintain its symbolic and material power over words and things and other groups. One might see the distinction between Deleuzoguattarian and Foucaldian conceptions of “utterance” as a distinction between discursive “arrangements” and “apparatuses”: see “Breaking Things Open,” n. 9.

6. Crest cette question méme en tant que barrée：barré的意思是 "阻挡的"，被阻挡的，这里是 "无法解决的"；但也有"划掉的，被删除的"的意思， --呼应了拉康的中心主题barre，代表了能指（signifier）和所指（signified）的关系，“象征界”的意指关系。"S/s"（"大写能指S意指所指小写s"）。在拉康理论中（也许和笛卡尔一样），"主体 "被形式地认同为一个能指，这种能指本身就标志着意指的位置 (the locus of signification) ：主体作为意指的形式来源被某种 "次级的 "或递归的、自反性的意指本身所意指：$。主体性的变动因此被表述为主体的意指行为（作为说uttering的主体：见第5条译者注）不断逃离主体将其自身固定为所指或所说uttered的企图（能指和所指只有在亚里士多德的自我思考的思想或摩西的上帝 "我是'我是'"的形式循环中才会重合，或在基督教神学中对这些人物的认同中重合：在永恒，而绝非时间中）。这种变动的被划杠的主体（sujet barré），$在形式上等同于问题的空洞形式（就像笛卡尔关键的“怀疑怀疑本身”一样，它用人类主体的有限反思代替了“学者之神”的无限思考），因为它标志着一个能指替代另一个能指的一般位置（"什么是......？？"；"......是什么意思？"：比如亚里士多德的一个词替换另一个词的逻辑的形式基础，或拉康的“数-学”matheme-matical的形式主义，都是这样）。

Crest cette question méme en tant que barrée: barré means “barred,” blocked, here “irresoluble;” but also “crossed-out”, deleted—echoing the central Lacanian theme of the barre that formally represents the relation of signifier and signified, the “symbolic” relation of signification: “S/s” (“the signifier S signifies s”). In Lacanian theory (as perhaps in Descartes) the “subject” is formally identified in terms of a signifier that itself marks the locus of signification: the subject as the formal source of signification is so signified by a sort of “second-level” or recursive, reflexive signifier of signification itself: $. The dynamic of subjectivity is then articulated as the constant flight of the subject’s act of signification (as uttering subject: see n. 5) from its attempt to pin itself down as signified or uttered (signifier and signified would coincide only in the formal circularity of Aristotle’s self-thinking thought, or Moses’ God, “I am ‘I am,’” or in the identification of these figures in Christian theology: in eternity but never in time). This dynamic subject or sujet barré,$, is (as in Descartes’s pivotal doubting of his doubt, which substituted the finite reflection of a human subject for the infinite Thought of a scholastic God) formally equivalent to the empty form of the question as marking the general place of substitution of one signifier for another (“What is .. . ?”; “What does . . . mean?”: the formal basis of Aristotle’s logic of substitution of one word for another, as of Lacan’s “matheme-matical” formalism).

7. Schize（希腊动词schizein的现在分词的法国化形式）是德勒兹和瓜塔里创造的一个词，用来描述分裂或破裂的过程，其中"分裂 "将是结果。

Schize (a gallicized form of the present participle of the Greek verb schizein) is a word coined by Deleuze and Guattari to characterize the process of splitting or rupture, of which (say) “schism” would be the result.