《尼采與哲學》第二篇第10節到第13節整理

 

本次心得為第二篇第10節到第13節(Pp.1-5＋ Active第一、二章串珠(Pp.6-7)

10 等級

尼采遭遇了他的對手，自由思想家，即那些當代實證主義者，他們膜拜事實，不問事實之性質及起源，他們被動接受呈現在他們眼前的一切，他們是宿命論者。自由思想家雖然批判教會，但不是批判教會的毒，自由思想家與教會人士共享著相同的卑賤出身，他們忽略力量的性質，他們無力詮釋，他們的人道主義與實證主義是宿命論式的。尼采用主動之「自由精神」，對立於反動之「自由思想家」，自由精神是主動詮釋自身，能判斷力量之起源與性質之立場。尼采說「沒有事實，只有詮釋」，對既有的一切進行重新評估，分出高下等級。

所謂的等級，有兩層意思。首先意指主動力優異於反動力，且征服（諸如法律／德性等僵固之）反動力。第二，則是視道德、宗教或國家仍為等級之諸理論，道德、宗教與國家，是所有等級的守門人或掌控者。我們把前述這些當成主人，我們還以為自己是主動的、能動的。我們因為這些「主人」，覺得我們自己有許多事不能作或不值得作，我們把這種「不為」稱為我們的「主動」，這是「反動力的勝利」──以一種顛倒的形象獲得的勝利。這些「主人們」如何獲得勝利的呢？他們透過機巧詭詐機智魅力等等，來以小博大。（蛇的智慧詭詐V.S.鷹的高貴自傲）

力量的判準不在於鬥爭的成功或結果，而在於是自主動力或被動力來考量、是肯定的權能意志或否定的權能意志以及力，以及發動的時刻相親和的力量是主動的或反動的。[1]因此，被動力為部分限制與適應的效益之力、將主動力分離所能，否定主動力的力（此為弱者或奴隸的勝利）、將力自自身分離，使其否定或轉而指向自身的力（弱者或奴隸的支配）。相應的，主動力是通達的、支配的與屈折他者的力；能達致極限或其所能的力；能肯定自身差異，並且能讓這樣的差異成為享受與肯定的對象。力量唯有在上述三組特徵都同時納入考量時，才能夠具體與完整地確定。

11.權能意志（追求權能的意志）與權能感受

        權能意志的展現（見乃謂之象），是關係性的，或上位力／下位力之間的關係。從生成的立場來看，權能意志（緣起）決定兩力之間的關係，但自權能意志自身的展現來看，權能意志則是由關連著的力決定（起於攀緣之緣）。權能意志既是自身的因，又是自身的果，緣緣相攀相滅，相比於中觀論頌重破實觀的說法「諸法不自生，亦不從他生，不共不無因，是故知無生」，權能意志之說，則是重生生，權能意志既是自生，又是他生，亦為共生，兩者相因，在具體的歷史脈絡當中，呈現為我們現在所知的世界諸變化。因此，德勒茲說「The will to power must therefore manifest itself in force as such.」世界如其所是，展現為現在的樣子。權能意志的展現，並不是佛理上朝往抽象真空之路，而是使這個世界得以實現與充滿的諸力之疊加、改變與重塑，而成為了我們當今的、具體的、現實的、肉身可感知的恆動世界。權能意志是塑造著的，也是被塑造著的，雖然類似紀登斯的結構化理論，但權能意志之力，乃量上之差異，對(既成之)「體」(body)有較強塑造力的，就是較多的力，此力非被動消極，而在是每一刻對既成之體的改變之力，是主動的感受與感知，就像貓會被小事物吸引注意力，貓的注意力是主動的、去捕捉那些造成差異的差異，並在差異不再產生差異之時，去捕捉其他能造成差異的差異，即捕捉其他訊息。因而，這是尼采在開展權能意志的概念前，之所以要先論述權能感受(a feeling of power)的緣由。

        感知先於意志，身體的大理性，優先於意識的小理性。在分析上，權能感知優先於權能意思，但在現實面上，感知乃是權能意志之展現，這就是尼采為何總是說權能意志是「原始的感受形式」，自此形式，其他的感覺得以衍生。或者用好的說法是「權能意志既非存有，亦非生成，而是激情a pathos」。也就是說，權能意志展現自身為力的感知能力(the sensibility of force)；力的感知能力，就是諸力的差異元素展現自身為他們的差異感知能力。「感而後通」是基本事實，為了要讓權能意志能夠展現自身，權能意志必須感知它所見之外物，並且感受被它所消化的方式（按：以權能意志所能媒介的形式，把外物納進自身當中，消化掉，成為自己的部份，進而排除，再繼續尋求新的差異）。

主動力佔有抵抗者，強制下位力服從，當力是受上位力影響時，它服從於那要求屈服、使動(acted)的力（諸如眼皮好沉，而意志只能服從眼皮的沉，而睡去）。因此，服從也是權能意志的展現。但下位力則是能分離上位力的力，譬如明明人需要睡覺，但人類卻透過攝取咖啡因的方式，讓大腦的知覺無法感受到疲勞或身體發出的睡眠信號，而使得身體的主動能力無法發揮作用。此類阻斷感知的物質，具體化了下位力對於上位力的改造形式，讓身體的大理性，受制於意識的小理性，但這亦然是權能意志的結果。

受到影響的力之所能，直到相應的力進入一個感知生成的過程或歷史中，才算充分實現。1.主動力命令；2.反動力服從；3.發展的反動力分離主動力；4.主動力變得反動，權能被分離，轉而反對自身。所有的感知能力，只是諸力之生成，而力之生成的過程裡，存在有力的循環（例如，主動力變成反動力），並且尚有其他諸力能抗衡彼此之諸生成，因此單單把主動力與反動力對立起來是不充分的。主動的與反動的是力的性質，兩者都衍生於權能意志，而權能意志自身有其性質，即被感知者sensibilia[2]（能被感知者，能見者也）。權能意志首先以諸力的感受能力展現自身，其次，則以諸力之能成為被感知者展現自身：激情(pathos)是當這樣的成為（becoming）出現時之最基本事實。廣而言之，力之生成必須與力的性質區分開：這是這些性質自身的生成，即權能意志自身的性質。力之性質不再能從自身的生成中抽離，如同力自身不再能自權能意志中抽離。(The qualities of force can no more be abstracted from their becoming than force itself can be abstracted from the will to power.)要具體研究諸力量，必定意味著（掌握其）動態。

12.諸力之變成了反動的 (The Becoming-Reactive of Forces)

        反動力分離了主動力，而主動之諸力變成了反動的，我們稱他們為「變成反動的」(becoming-reactive)。反動力如何獲勝？透過求虛無的意志，透過反動與否定的親和性。否定是權能意志的一種性質，把自身虛無化，是構成諸力之變成反動的（the becoming-reactive of forces）那種權能意志。我們在解釋上，不應該將反動力與主動力實體化，說是反動力把主動力變成了反動力，而是要理解成，反動力讓主動力與所能分離，使得主動力背叛自身，而指向虛無意志，成了一個比自身更深刻的「變成反動的」。諸反動力的勝利（如怨恨、內疚與禁欲理想）首要是虛無主義的形式。力之所以變成反動的、變成虛無的，似乎是力與力的關係的本質元素。

        存在另一種變形嗎？這些反動難道不是人的本質嗎？在永恆回歸中，人不是一再地墮落嗎？就算有主動力，難怪不是再次又變成反動的嗎？這是令人難以承受的秘密，也是查拉圖斯特拉說「對人類的大噁心」，如哽咽在喉的大黑蛇，自我渺小化的人類一再出現。但恰恰在於，此種變成虛無，也是生命的環節，因此必須咬下（親和、面對；火雷噬嗑→震動、刑罰、決斷）[3]，並且吐掉（健忘、離、麗也，走自己適合／誓合的道路[4]），因而超克了人的自我渺小化，而成就另一種感知能力：超克人。

13.價值的與感官的對反張力(Ambivalence of Sense and of Values)

        諸力之成為主動者、反動諸力的成為主動者，將會是一種不同於我們已知的生成。對這樣子的生成的評價，提出了幾個問題，並且必須是尼采概念在力的理論中的系統連貫性的最終考驗。對反動之反動，能否是主動力呢？在批判了蘇格拉底的反動之聚合仍是反動的，德勒茲說反動走到極致，即人願意直接面對自己的無能，並且接受與承認當下，在當下所能的情況下，探索著自己的可能，那麼這樣的視角轉換，能將我們自（所願與所能分離的）「無能」轉變成「危險的」、「有利害關心的」("dangerous" and "interesting".)的權能，為我們帶來了新的感受，以及教導我們能以新方式感動。[5]

        諸力之變成反動者之中，有值得讚揚者。病人、宗教人，皆有其雙重面，「沒有他們所引入的精神及無能，人類歷史將成為蠢事」，蘇格拉底、基督、猶太教、基督教或任何形式的頹廢或退化，尼采都發現了這些事物中的對反張力(ambivalence)，這歸諸於細膩多視角的詮釋能力：詮釋反動力在每個個案的階段發展，詮釋主動力在每個階段的機會萌生(nuance)，換言之，即詮釋否定與虛無意志以及主動與肯定之間的關係及其發展程度。站在否定自身的立場以來判斷肯定自身，以及反之；自虛無意志的立場上判斷肯定意志，並且反之──這正是系譜學家的技藝以及系譜學家作為醫生之故「自病者觀更健康者的概念與價值；反之，自充盈生命的自我確定與圓滿來深入頹廢本能之秘密工作」（EH 11 P.223）。

        但是，無論感官或價值的對反張力是如何，我們無法總結說，反動力能透過走到其所能達到的極限而成為主動的。因為「到極限」或「終究」，有兩個意思，得看一個人是否肯定或否定，是否他肯定自身的差異或者否定能夠為他帶來差異者。當反動力發展到最終時，它與否定相關連，以虛無意志作為動機力量。另一方面，變得主動，預設了行動與肯定的親和性；為了要成為主動的，單單讓一個力量走到所能作的極限是不充分的，它必須讓它自身所能作的成為肯定的對象。換言之，主動的力量，就是自我肯定的力量，是肯定自身差異的力量，也是與反動力產生差異的差異化，而針對此差異化的自我肯定。變得主動是持續肯定以及肯定的(affirming and affirmative)；如同變得反動是持續否定以及虛無的。

 

 

 

主動力之串珠

批判是主動的，攻擊是一種積極的存在方式。無力回擊者，則以否定方式，否定力之活動。在力的關係中，支配力為主動力，被支配力為反動力，兩者之間的差異為量差，而此差異本身被稱為「等級」。主動力是難以描述的，因為主動逃離意識，而是無意識的偉大活動，意識僅僅是某些反動力對於支配自身的主動力的關係的表達。難題在於發現主動力，因為反動力自身若無主動力，將不成為力。主動力是能夠實現自身權能的力，主動力是佔有、擁有、宰制與支配，這些是主動力的特徵。如同身體的主動力，使自身成為令人驚訝與優位的存在。(The body's active forces make it a self and define the self as superior and astonishing.)尼采肯定拉馬克，因為拉馬克提出了真正具有主動塑造的力，能適應、能變形的力。

反動力則是僅能在與主動力相關連的意義上被詮釋的力。諸力有量，但他們也有相應於量差的質，這些質被稱為主動的與反動的。而權能意志有反動的或被支配的力，也有主動的或支配的力。德勒茲主張必須留意尼采提出的區分：主動的與反動的，指稱力的原始性質，而肯定的與否定的，指稱權能意志的源初性質。即使是反動力也仍是力，否定的意志、求虛無的意志，也仍是權能意志。

所謂的肯定，不是主動，而是變得主動的權能，即人格化的變得主動。否定不是單純的被動，而是人格化的變得被動。正是肯定與否定，對於主動與被動來說，即是內在的又是超越的；出於諸力之網絡，它們成為生成之鏈。

包括在力的性質中的感受的重要性在於：這力是主動的，還是反動的？尼采稱高貴、高尚與主人有時是主動力、有時是肯定意志；而低微卑賤與奴隸，則是反動的或有時是否定意志。

主動力與反動力共生共存，主動力肯定差異，製造差異，反動力服從，進而限制主動力，強加限制於主動力上。主動力在反動力的媒介下，發現自己進入了顛倒的形象，自我的肯定，成為他者的否定。（我的好是你的惡；我有能，而你使我愧疚；我要追求理念而禁欲，成為自我壓抑的主體化過程追求者）。反動力的積聚不會成為主動力，唯有當「變成反動的主動力」自我肯定自身差異時，反動力才會顛倒回成為主動力。若我們使用了既有的狀態或結果，來區分主動力與反動力，實際上我們正好落入了反動力的範圍，（例如基於上帝的calling，使我們投入世俗職業生活，但這個例子也有ambivalence，因為是我主張，或者被主張，似乎可以區分主動力與反動力，但問題恰恰在於「上帝存在嗎」？因而這樣的區分，反而把上帝實體化，而落入了反動力的自我限制當中）。

因此，德勒茲才接著說，詮釋是門困難的技藝，因為首先必須打破事實的拜物教，而走入詮釋世界，以自由精神航行其中，乘風破浪。主動力的特性，恰恰在於走向權能的極限，支配遭遇的一切，指稱、命名、控制、而持續的形塑與改造，此乃主人的特權。德勒茲歸結說：主動力是1）可塑的、支配性的和征服性的力量；2）達到它所能做到的極限的力量；3）肯定其差異的力量，使其差異成為享受和肯定的對象。反動力是1）適應和部分限制的功利性力量；2）將主動的力量與它能做的事情分開的力量，它否認主動的力量（弱者或奴隸的勝利）；3）與它能做的事情分開的力量，它否認或反對自己（是弱者或奴隸的統治）。因此，主動力是佔有任何抵制它的東西，並迫使劣勢力量服從的力。

接著，德勒茲引入了生成的觀點，來主動力與反動力之間的關係。如同我在下述第11節的整理所說「受到影響的力之所能，直到相應的力進入一個感知生成的過程或歷史中，才算充分實現。1.主動力命令；2.反動力服從；3.發展的反動力分離主動力；4.主動力變得反動，權能被分離，轉而反對自身。所有的感知能力，只是諸力之生成，而力之生成的過程裡，存在有力的循環（例如，主動力變成反動力），並且尚有其他諸力能抗衡彼此之諸生成，因此單單把主動力與反動力對立起來是不充分的。主動的與反動的是力的性質，兩者都衍生於權能意志，而權能意志自身有其性質，即被感知者sensibilia^[6]（能被感知者，能見者也）。權能意志首先以諸力的感受能力展現自身，其次，則以諸力之能成為被感知者展現自身：激情(pathos)是當這樣的成為（becoming）出現時之最基本事實。廣而言之，力之生成必須與力的性質區分開：這是這些性質自身的生成，即權能意志自身的性質。力之性質不再能從自身的生成中抽離，如同力自身不再能自權能意志中抽離。(The qualities of force can no more be abstracted from their becoming than force itself can be abstracted from the will to power.)要具體研究諸力量，必定意味著（掌握其）動態。」由於其他部分尚未進入我們的讀書會的討論中，我決定先寫到這裡就好。

附上這次整理的”active串珠”（第一章及第二章）

Critique is not a re-action of re-sentiment but the active expression of an active mode of existence; attack and not revenge, the natural aggression of a way of being, the divine wickedness without which perfection could not be imagined (EH 16-7). (p.3 in悲劇,系譜學概念)

The negative is not present in the essence as that from which force draws its activity: on the contrary it is a result of activity, of the existence of an active force and the affirmation of its difference. The negative is a product of existence itself: the aggression necessarily linked to an active existence, the aggression of an affirmation. (p.9) in悲劇,反對辯證法)

In a body the superior or dominant forces are known as active and the inferior or dominated forces are known as reactive. Active and reactive are precisely the original qualities which express the relation of force with force. (p.40, 主動與反動, the body)

This difference between forces qualified according to their quantity as active or reactive will be called hierarchy. (p.40, 主動與反動, the body)

It is no doubt more difficult to characterise these active forces for, by nature, they escape consciousness, "The great activity is unconscious" (VP II 227). Consciousness merely expresses the relation of certain reactive forces to the active forces which dominate them. (p.41主動與反動,力量的區分)

The real problem is the discovery of active forces without which the reactions themselves would not be forces(p.41主動與反動,力量的區分)

The body's active forces make it a self and define the self as superior and astonishing: "A most powerful being, an unknown sage - he is called Self. He inhabits your body, he is your body" (ZI "Of the Despisers of the Body" p. 62*).(p.42主動與反動,力量的區分)

"What is active? - reaching out for power" (VP II 43/WP 657). Appropriating, possessing, subjugating, dominating - these are the characteristics of active force.(p.42主動與反動,力量的區分)

He admires Lamarck because Lamarck foretold the existence of a truly active plastic force, primary in relation to adaptations: a force of metamorphosis. (p.42主動與反動,力量的區分)

The reactive is a primordial quality of force but one which can only be interpreted as such in relation to and on the basis of the active.(p.42主動與反動,力量的區分)

Forces have quantity, but they also have the quality which corresponds to their difference in quantity: the qualities of force are called "active" and "reactive". (p.42主動與反動,量與質)

Forces are said to be active or reactive depending on their quality. There is will to power in the reactive or dominated force as well as in the active or dominant force. (p.53主動與反動,尼采的術語)

It is therefore essential to insist on the terms used by Nietzsche; active and reactive designate the original qualities of force but affirmative and negative designate the primordial qualities of the will to power. Affirming and denying, appreciating and depreciating, express the will to power just as acting and reacting express force. (And just as reactive forces are still forces, the will to deny, nihilism, is still will to power: " . . . awill to nothingness, an aversion to life, a rebellion against the most fundamental presuppositions of life; but it is and remains a will!" GM III 28 p. 163) (p.53主動與反動,尼采的術語)

Affirmation is not action but the power of becoming active, becoming active personified. Negation is not simple reaction but a becoming reactive. It is as if affirmation and negation were both immanent and transcendent in relation to action and reaction; out of the web of forces they make up the chain of becoming.(p.54主動與反動,尼采的術語)

The signification of a sense consists in the quality ofthe force which is expressed in a thing: is this force active or reactive and of what nuance?(p.54-55主動與反動,尼采的術語)

What Nietzsche calls noble, high and master is sometimes active force, sometimes affirmative will. What he calls base, vile and slave is sometimes reactive force and sometimes negative will. (p.55主動與反動,尼采的術語)

In the beginning, at the origin, there is the difference between active and reactive forces. Action and reaction are not in a relation of succession but in one of coexistence in the origin itself. Moreover, the complicity of active forces and affirmation and that of reactive forces and negation is revealed by the principle that the negative is already wholly on the side of reaction. Conversely, only active force asserts  (itself, it affirms its difference and makes its difference an object of enjoyment and affirmation. Reactive force, even when it obeys, limits active force, imposes limitations and partial restrictions on it and is already controlled by the spirit of the negative (GM II11).(p.55主動與反動,起源與顛倒形象)

An inverted image of the origin accompanies the origin; "yes" from the point of view of active forces becomes "no" from the point of view of reactive forces and affirmation of the self becomes negation of the other. This is what Nietzsche calls the "inversion of the value-positing eye".1 5 Active forces are noble but they find themselves before a plebeian image, reflected in reactive forces. (p.56主動與反動,起源與顛倒形象)

Going one step further, let us suppose that, with the help of favourable external or internal circumstances, reactive forces get the better of and neutralise active force. (p.56主動與反動,起源與顛倒形象)

That is to say: when they get the better of active forces do reactive forces themselves also become dominant, aggressive and subjugating? Do they, by getting together, form a greater force that would then be active? Nietzsche's answer is that even by getting together reactive forces do not form a greater force, one that would be active. They proceed in an entirely different way - they decompose; they separate active force from what it can do; they take away a part or almost all of its power. In this way reactive forces do not become active but, on the contrary, they make active forces join them and become reactive in a new sense. We can see that, from its beginning and in developing itself, the concept of reaction changes in signification: an active force becomes reactive (in a new sense) when reactive forces (in the first sense) separate it from what it can do. Nietzsche will analyse how such a separation is possible in detail. But it is important to notice that, even at this stage, he is careful never to present the triumph of reactive forces as the putting together of a force superior to active force but, rather, as a subtraction or division. (p.57主動與反動,起源與顛倒形象)

In each case he shows that reactive forces do not triumph by forming a superior force but by "separating" active force (cf. the three essays of the GM). (p.57主動與反動,起源與顛倒形象)

Thus if we want to give a numerical transcription of the victory of reactive forces we must not appeal to an addition by which reactive forces would, by getting together, become stronger than active force, but rather to a subtraction which separates active force from what it can do and denies its difference in order to make it a reactive force. Thus getting the better of action is not enough to stop reaction being reaction; on the contrary. Active force is separated from what it can do by a fiction but is not therefore any less "really" reactive, in fact, this is the way in which it becomes really reactive. This is where Nietzsche's use of the words "vile", "ignoble" and "slave" comes from - these words designate the state of reactive forces that place themselves on high and entice active force into a trap, replacing masters with slaves who do not stop being slaves. (p.57-58主動與反動,起源與顛倒形象)

We cannot use the state of a system of forces as it in fact is, or the result of the struggle between forces, in order to decide which are active and which are reactive. (p.58 主動與反動, 力的量度的問題)

It is primarily in this sense that interpretation is such a difficult art - we must judge whether the forces which prevail are inferior or superior, reactive or active; whether they prevail as dominated or dominant. In this area there are no facts, only interpretations. (p.58 主動與反動, 力的量度的問題)

Every force which goes to the limit of its power is, on the contrary, active. (p.59 主動與反動, 力的量度的問題)

In Nietzsche the word hierarchy has two senses. It signifies, firstly, the difference between active and reactive forces, the superiority of active to reactive forces. (p.60 主動與反動, 等級)

Forces can only be judged if one takes into account in the first place their active or reactive quality, in the second place the affinity of this quality for the corresponding pole of the will to power (affirmative or negative) and in the third place the nuance of quality that the force presents at a particular moment of its development, in relation to its affinity. Thus reactive force is: 1) utilitarian force of adaptation and partial limitation; 2) force which separates active force from what it can do, which denies active force (triumph of the weak or the slaves); 3) force separated from what it can do, which denies or turns against itself (reign of the weak or of slaves). And, analogously, active force is: 1) plastic, dominant and subjugating force; 2) force which goes to the limit of what it can do; 3) force which affirms its difference, which makes its difference an object of enjoyment and affirmation. (p.60 主動與反動, 等級)

The effects of force are active insofar as the force appropriates anything that resists it and compels the obedience of inferior forces. (p.63 權能意志與權能感受, 等級)

But this capacity for being affected is not fulfilled unless the corresponding force enters into a history or a process of sensible becoming: 1) active force, power of acting or commanding; 2) reactive force, power of obeying or of being acted; 3) developed reactive force, power of splitting up, dividing and separating; 4) active force become reactive, power of being separated, of turning against itself. (p.63 權能意志與權能感受, 等級)

All sensibility is only a becoming of forces. There is a cycle of force in the course of which force "becomes" (for example, active force becomes reactive). There are even several becomings of forces that can struggle against one another.20 Thus it is not sufficient to parallel or oppose the respective characteristics of active and reactive force. The active and the reactive are qualities of force that derive from the will to power. (p.63 權能意志與權能感受, 等級)

But, the dynamic of forces in fact leads us to a distressing conclusion. When reactive force separates active force from what it can do, the latter also becomes reactive. Active forces become reactive. (p.64 主動與被動, 力之成為反動 The Becoming-Reactive of Forces)

It must not be said that active force becomes reactive because reactive forces triumph; on the contrary, they triumph because, by separating active force from what it can do, they betray it to the will of nothingness, to a becoming-reactive deeper than themselves. (p.64 主動與被動, 力之成為反動)

Even if active forces return they will again become reactive, eternally reactive. (p.65 主動與被動, 力之成為反動)

A becoming-active of forces, a becoming-active of reactive forces, would be a different becoming from the one that we know now. (p.65 主動與被動, 價值與感受的對反張力)

What Nietzsche calls an active force is one which goes to the limit of its consequences. An active force separated from what it can do by reactive force thus becomes reactive. But does not this reactive force, in its own way, go to the limit of what it can do? If active force, being separated, becomes reactive, does not, conversely, reactive force, as that which separates, become active? Is this not its own way of being active? Concretely, is there not a kind of baseness, meanness, stupidity etc. which becomes active through going to the limit of what it can do? "Rigorous and grandoise stupidity . . ."Nietzsche writes (BGE 188). (p.65 主動與被動, 價值與感受的對反張力)

One on longer says, like Socrates, that inferior forces only triumph by forming a greater force but rather that reactive forces only triumph by going to the limit of their consequences, that is, by forming an active force. (p.66 主動與被動, 價值與感受的對反張力)

One reactive force both obeys and resists, another separates active force from what it can do; a third contaminates active force, carries it along to the limit of becoming-reactive, into the will to nothingness; a fourth type of reactive force was originally active but became reactive and separated from its power, it was then dragged into the abyss and turned against itself - these are the different nuances, affects and types that the genealogist must interpret, that no one else knows how to interpret. (p.67 主動與被動, 價值與感受的對反張力)

The problem of interpretation is to interpret the state of reactive forces in each case - that is the degree of development that they have reached in relation to negation and the will to nothingness. - The same problem of interpretation would arise on the side of active forces; to interpret their nuance or state in each case, that is, to interpret the degree of development of the relation between action and affirmation. There are reactive forces that become grandiose and fascinating by following the will to nothingness and there are active forces that subside because they do not know how to follow the powers of affirmation (we will see that this is the problem of what Nietzsche calls "culture" or "the higher man"). (p.67 主動與被動, 價值與感受的對反張力)

But whatever the ambivalence of sense and values we cannot conclude that a reactive force becomes active by going to the limit of what it can do. For, to go "to the limit", "to the ultimate consequences", has two senses depending on whether one affirms or denies, whether one affirms one's own difference or denies that which differs. . (p.68 主動與被動, 價值與感受的對反張力)

Becoming active, on the contrary, presupposes the affinity of action and affirmation; in order to become active it is not sufficient for a force to go to the limit of what it can do, it must make what it can do an object of affirmation. Becoming-active is affirming and affirmative, just as becomingreactive is negating and nihilistic (p.68 主動與被動, 價值與感受的對反張力)

Because it is neither felt nor known, a becoming-active can only be thought as the product of a selection. (p.68 主動與被動, 永恆回歸第二面向：倫理與選擇思考)

Its essence was to deny active force and to lead it to deny and turn against itself. (p.69 主動與被動, 永恆回歸第二面向：倫理與選擇思考)

4) Turning against oneself should not be confused with this destruction of self, this self-destruction, in the reactive process of turning against oneself active force becomes reactive. In self-destruction reactive forces are themselves denied and led to nothingness. This is why self-destruction is said to be an active operation an "active destruction" (VP III 8, EH III 1). It and it alone expresses the becoming-active of forces: forces become active insofar as reactive forces deny and suppress themselves in the name of a principle which, a short time ago, was still assuring their conservation and triumph. Active negation or active destruction is the state of strong spirits which destroy the reactive in themselves, submitting it to the test of the eternal return and submitting themselves to this test even if it entails willing their own decline; "it is the condition of strong spirits and wills, and these do not find it possible to stop with the negative of 'judgement'; their nature demands active negation" (VP III 102/WP 24). This is the only way in which reactive forces become active. Furthermore this is why negation, by making itself the negation of reactive forces themselves, is not only active but is, as it were, transmuted. It expresses affirmation and becoming-active as the power of affirming. Nietzsche then speaks of the "eternal joy of becoming. . . that joy which includes even joy in destroying", "The affirmation of passing away and destroying, which is the decisive feature of a Dionysian philosophy" (EH III "The Birth of Tragedy" 3 p. 273); 5) The second selection in the eternal return is thus the following: the eternal return produces becoming-active. (p.70-71 主動與被動, 永恆回歸第二面向：倫理與選擇思考)

In Nietzsche's terminology the reversal of values means the active in place of the reactive (strictly speaking it is the reversal of a reversal, since the reactive began by taking the place of action). But transmutation of values, or transvaluation, means affirmation instead of negation - negation transformed into a power of affirmation, the supreme Dionysian metamorphosis. (p.71 主動與被動, 永恆回歸問題)

From afar we can hardly see this summit. The eternal return is the being of becoming. But becoming is double: becoming-active and becoming-reactive, becoming-active of reactive forces and becoming reactive of active forces. But only becoming-active has being; it would be contradictory for the being of becoming to be affirmed of a becoming-reactive, of a becoming that is itself nihilistic. (p.71-72 主動與被動, 永恆回歸問題)

The eternal return teaches us that becoming-reactive has no being. Indeed, it also teaches us of the existence of a becoming-active. It necessarily produces becoming-active by reproducing becoming. This is why affirmation is twofold: the being of becoming cannot be fully affirmed without also affirming the existence of becomingactive. The eternal return thus has a double aspect: it is the universal being of becoming, but the universal being of becoming ought to belong to a single becoming. Only becoming-active has a being which is the being of the whole of becoming. Returning is everything but everything is affirmed in a single moment. Insofar as the eternal return is affirmed as the universal being of becoming, insofar as becoming-active is also affirmed as the symptom and product of the universal eternal return, affirmation changes nuance and becomes more and more profound. Eternal return, as a physical doctrine, affirms the being of becoming. But, as selective ontology, it affirms this being of becoming as the "self-affirming" of becoming-active. (p.72 主動與被動, 永恆回歸問題)

 

---

[1] Forces can only be judged if one takes into account in the first place their active or reactive quality, in the second place the affinity of this quality for the corresponding pole of the will to power (affirmative or negative) and in the third place the nuance of quality that the force presents at a particular moment of its development, in relation to its affinity.

這句我不太懂德勒茲要說什麼…。

[2] Those things that are sensed; the immediate objects of sense perception. （見Oxford Reference）

[3] 震《象》曰：洊雷震，君子以恐懼脩省。

[4]離《象》曰：明兩作，離，大人以繼明照于四方。

[5] 尼采：我既是個頹廢者，也是其對立面。

[6] Those things that are sensed; the immediate objects of sense perception. （見Oxford Reference）