鬼魅與城市：法蘭克．奧哈拉詩中的德希達式「魂在論」

Abstract

本論文試圖從德希達所提出之｢魂在論｣的解構哲學視角，重新詮釋及反思法蘭克．奧哈拉詩中獨特之｢此時此刻的在場美學｣。

此一再詮釋的目的乃為雙向；其一，本論文以反思奧哈拉｢此時此刻｣美學中具極端｢當下性｣之在場為途徑，來檢視德希達的｢魂在｣哲學中死亡及鬼魂等核心概念的解構力量。其二，利用｢魂在論｣中對於形上學進行批判的幽靈纏繞之哲學觀為觸媒，重新剖析並質疑該美學中｢立即在場｣的純粹性。

本論文主要部分共分為三個章節；第一章前半部分主要闡釋德希達的｢魂在論｣中的鬼魅觀念如何從其早期所提出的｢延異｣發展而來。並進一步探討與此鬼魅性密切相關的原初死亡與哀悼等概念如何對形上學所認知的主體及在場之純粹性進行批判。本章後半部分探討法蘭克．奧哈拉藉由再現具高度在場性之｢稍縱即逝的當下｣所呈現的｢此時此刻｣美學；並從德希達的｢魂在｣哲學觀點，反思書寫中此種｢永恆化的稍縱即逝｣所展現的其實是一種極度鬼魅性的不在場(缺席)。第二章透過德希達針對攝影及檔案的鬼魅性之論述，將奧哈拉詩中的｢此時此刻｣美學視為一種攝影式的死亡書寫。奧哈拉為呈現極端主體在場所建構之｢立即｣的場景(包括｢當下｣時刻的即時捕捉及永恆現在式時態)，其｢當下性｣已然被一種書寫的死亡性及鬼魅性的時態結構所制約；其所表現的因而是一種純粹在場的原初異化，｢單一｣的永恆回返。第三章前段首先討論奧哈拉如何利用高度自傳性的｢命名｣來強化一種獨特的､排他性的主體之立即在場經驗；而後根據德希達將｢署名｣及｢自傳｣視為一種被異化的死亡書寫之理論視角，檢視奧哈拉詩中此種自傳性的命名如何在初始便已被｢他者化｣；此種試圖透過命名來達成的獨特在場經驗呈現的反而是一種自我異質化的過程。本章後段藉由延伸｢命名｣之異化的論述，進一步論證奧哈拉詩中同樣為呈現自傳性之立即在場的第一人稱｢我｣其實是一種被鬼魅化的自我分化及自我抹除；｢我｣在此處並不作為主體在場的建構，而是一種魂在的哀悼狀態，不斷指向主體的原初死亡､離去､及鬼魂纏繞式的回歸。

透過闡論奧哈拉詩中在場之鬼魅性，本論文嘗試驗證並總結其所構築之純粹的立即在場其實在初始便被一種自身的延異狀態所｢空間化｣；所謂｢在場美學｣所呈現的因而是一種原初的魂在式書寫。

This thesis is an attempt to probe how Derridean hauntology can provoke a reconsideration of the effect of presence in Frank O’Hara’s aesthetics of the present. The critical end that such an attempt seeks to arrive at is two-fold: first, the study approaches and examines the deconstructive force that Derrida’s philosophization of death and specter exerts through the aesthetics of the present Frank O’Hara performs. Second, it reconsiders the problem of absolute presence in such aesthetics with Derridean hauntology as a catalyst which actively provokes a philosophical problematization of the notion of immediate presentness.

The thesis is composed of three main chapters. Chapter 1 offers an examination of Jacques Derrida’s thematization of hauntological discourse. Such an examination first explores how the notion of the specter is developed out of and serves as an extension of Derrida’s earlier philosophization of differance; and it further investigates the deconstructive force of the hauntological spectrality and its interrelated philosophical themes, namely, originary death (the thanatographical) and mourning, upon which Derridean hauntology rests. The second part of this chapter introduces Frank O’Hara’s poetics of the present and proposes how it can be complicated by the Derridean hauntological perspective; O’Hara’s radicalization of the immediate presentness, which is performed through the poet’s simultaneous ephemeralization and eternalization of the here-and-now, is in fact predicated upon the thanatographicality of writing and thus does not solidify the immediate self-presence but may only lead toward a sense of radical absence, the loss of presence and the presence of loss. The eternalized present(s) belongs to a spectral spatiotemporal domain as the work of mourning itself, a form of surviving and living-on, which has always already engaged in the politics of death.

Chapter 2 thus embarks on a further investigation of O’Hara’s poetics of the present as a form of photo-thanato-graphy through Derrida’s contemplation on the notion of death and spectrality in photography and the archive. The presentness of the “scenes of immediacy” which O’Hara creates in order to achieve a radicalization of immediate presence (including the capturing of the instant and the employment of eternal present tense) is in fact pre-inscribed by a thanatographical and spectral temporal structure of death. What the poetics of the present presents is thus always already the originary spacing of the absolute presentness and its eternal spectral return.

Chapter 3 first discusses how O’Hara further radicalizes the absolutely singular immediate self-presence through the highly autobiographical use of proper nouns; and it then illustrates that such autobiographicality, if observed through Derrida’s thematization of the auto-hetero-thanato-biography, is always already undercut by a sense of alterity and thus can only point toward a process of self-detachment. Extending the notion that the auto is always already pre-inscribed by the hetero which opens up a crypt within the autobiographical selfness, the later part of this chapter further argues that the presence of the autobiographical “I-ness” in O’Hara in fact suggests the divisibility and erasure of the self, which paradoxically makes possible the writing of the self. The immediate “I” has to be inaugurated through the posthumousness of the subject; it is thus always already the spectral voice in mourning that announces the originary death and departure of the subject as other.

Through exploring the hauntological spectrality in O’Hara’s aesthetics of presence, the thesis concludes by redefining O’Hara’s poetics of the present as in fact the poetics of the "spacing" of the present; that is, as the aesthetics of hauntology.