“I Now Cast My Judgment:” Analyzing The Four Agonist Archetypes – Part 2

〈血光俠〉 “Blood Lanterns”

同人小說的〈血光俠〉跟《降天下世》的前提很像，描寫一個假的（沒有真正完成革命的）後革命世界。「先鋒主義者的幻想」這副標題也闡明了另外一個能批評認為有所謂的「正確」革命路線的角度。開頭的筆記（加上我自己的強調）說：

The fanfic of “Blood Lanterns” has a similar premise to Felling Heaven, Felling World, describing a false postrevolutionary world (that never completed revolution). The subtitle of “A Vanguardist's Fantasy” also elucidates another angle of criticism towards the assumption that there is a so-called “correct” path to revolution. The notes at the beginning (emphasis own) say:

問題不只是我把所謂的「順利革命」想像成大量武裝的群眾去跟剝削者打大戰打贏、把所謂「革命之後」的問題歸結為「誰才是真正的同志？」的回答、把「同志」想像為「真正理解因此有專有權守護解放原則的人」。問題也是我把革命想像成一種能完全能被繪製出來的計畫，把革命的失敗原因歸結為個人沒預料到的後果，再想說答案是在同志彼此鬥爭中找出管理基本是不確定性現實的「正確」方法。這種鬥爭不是為了革命的鬥爭，而是為了控制革命的鬥爭，為了創造、擴大和保護自己在革命運動中掌權地位的鬥爭。

The problem is not just that I imagined a so-called “successful revolution” as armed masses in great numbers going to war against their exploiters and winning, that I reduced the problems in the so-called “post-revolution” to the issue of “who's the true comrade?”, that I imagined “comrade” as “some who truly understands and therefore has the exclusive right to defend the principles of liberation.” The problem is also that I imagined revolution as a plan that could be perfectly plotted out, that I reduced the reason for any failed revolution to consequences that individuals failed to predict, and then surmised that the answer was to find the “correct” method for managing a fundamentally uncertain reality by struggling against your own comrades. This kind of struggle is not the struggle for revolution, but the struggle for controlling revolution, for creating, expanding, and protecting your position of power within the revolutionary movement.

在這個故事之中，原本是被困在宰制多重宇宙遊戲的非玩家角色的妖怪起義推翻上帝般的玩家，在先鋒血光俠的領導之下建立了自治的公社。後來的期數顯露其實「不是每個人都跑去當俠」、還有法西斯主義者躲在跟血光俠解除同盟的村子之中、俠有支持過監禁質、俠會故意製造創傷恐嚇未成年的見習生引發覺悟、他們沒有道德，尊敬的只有權力。

In this story, NPC goblins who were originally trapped in a game of multiversal domination rose up and overthrew their player, establishing autonomous communes under the leadership of the vanguard Blood Lanterns. Later issues revealed that actually, “[n]ot everyone wanted to be a Lantern,” there were still fascists hiding out in villages that were defederated from The Blood Lanterns, The Lanterns were carceral, The Lanterns would purposely traumatize minor-aged apprentices to trigger enlightenment, they had no morals and only respected power.

原型並不在故事中有主要的角色；反而他們是出現在期數的標題之中，暗示該如何理解那些期數。期數一，〈聖之論〉，敘述「一位革命家在公開呼籲處死㐌前法西斯主義者哥哥的惡果之下重新審議革命的意識。」所謂的革命者，疤茲英名，就是標題中的聖。㐌故意帶人齡十歲左右的見習生，卡拉，到她的第一個共識會議，也就是該不該處死㐌哥哥的會議，為了強迫她「學會當血光俠是多麼殘忍的任務。」

The archetypes don't play central roles in the story; instead they appear in the titles of issues, indicating how those issues should be interpreted. Issue 1, “The Discourse of the Saint,” narrates the tale of “[a] revolutionary reconsider[ing] what it means to have revolutionary consciousness under the fallout of publicly calling for their ex-fascist brother's execution.” The revolutionary in the description, Bazsim, is the titular Saint of the story. They purposely bring their apprentice Kara, who is roughly 10 in human years, to her first consensus meeting, which is a meeting on whether or not to execute their brother, to force her to “learn how cruel it is to be a Blood Lantern.”

這情節點的靈感來源於《V怪客》；此故事中 V 按照自己被法西斯政府逮捕的經驗設計了一個假的監牢來綁架和拷打艾薇，希望她通過同一樣的經驗再發現監牢是完全被設計出來的之後會明白成功反抗權威的必要和可能性。這種實踐是解性設計的基礎—我在 《NS 3416》的舊版中有說過：「遊戲就像監獄一樣。它試圖通過設計來規訓你。因此遊玩就是遊戲的逃逸線，而玩家是那道的追蹤者。」

This plot point was inspired by V for Vendetta, in which V uses his own experiences of being captured by the fascist government to design a false prison where he kidnaps and tortures Evey, hoping that once she has gone through the same experience and subsequently realized the prison is fake, she will understand both the necessity and possibility of successfully resisting authoritarianism. This kind of praxis was the bedrock of agonist design—in the old version of NS 3416, I had written: “A game is like a prison. It tries to discipline you by design. Thus play is a line of flight from the game, and the player the pursuer of that path.”

V 創造假監牢目的是什麼？是要讓艾薇了解世界一切的壓迫也都是人工設計所創造出來的，而不是必然發生的事態。要讓她了解自由不是什麼當權者給她的權利，而是自己拒絕放棄給當權者的權力。可是要拒絕壓迫的話也需要個譴責跟再生產壓迫有同謀關係的人的實踐。而那就是〈聖之論〉的中心問題。如何完全確定地運用譴責對方是革命的敵人的權力？如何保證革命只有完全是「正確」的敵人？

What was V trying to accomplish by creating the false prison? To get Evey to understand that all the oppression in the world was also created through artificial design, and not inevitability. To get her to understand freedom was not some right some authority gave to her, but the power she refused to give up to authority. But to refuse oppression also requires a praxis of condemning those who are complicit in reproducing it. And that is the central question in “The Discourse of The Saint.” How do you wield you power to condemn others as the enemies of revolution with absolute certainty? How do you ensure that the revolution only has enemies that are absolutely “correct?”

我們來看看故事中的典型敵人是誰。禍義而‧恩爪戈—因為在等級制度的血色譜中是最低該處死的突變顏色，成為惡狠的低血獵人，為血脈至上主義的藍血貴族親手執行大屠殺。禍義而原本沒有「突變」的血色；被 troll 艾特尼亞帝國的征服者用病毒強迫變成 troll 之前，妖怪有不同的血色但並沒有按照血色創造有等級制度的物質跟社會關係。相反，他們建立的是互助的關係。在艾特尼亞帝國把 troll 的血色譜帶過來之前，妖怪社會中沒有「突變血色」的種姓這回事。

Let's take a look at who the example enemy is in the story. Waryor Endrag—someone who, because of being the lowest mutant color condemned to death under the hierarchical hemospectrum, became a vicious lowblood hunter, personally carrying out genocide for the blood supremacist Bluebloods. Waryor didn't originally have a “mutant” blood color; before being forcibly transformed into trolls by a virus inflicted by The Conqueror from the troll Alternian Empire, goblins had different blood colors but didn't form hierarchical material and social relations based on them. Rather, they established a relationship of mutual aid. Prior to the introduction of the troll hemospectrum by the Alternian Empire, goblin society had no such thing as a “mutant blood color” caste.

禍義而被殖民和至上主義的「新血秩序」被確認為「突變顏色」的擁有者；他沒有必要接受這身份，沒有必要為了自己生存而變成屠殺別人的法西斯主義者。他一開始就有拒絕血脈至上主義的預示、他知道有其他生存的方式、積極反血脈至上主義的運動也在—但他仍然選擇認為是自己的血「拒絕換色」、仍然選擇壓迫，直到被血光俠逮捕強迫當他們「有用的屍體」。

Waryor was interpellated by the colonial and supremacist “new blood order” as one with “mutant color;” there was no imperative for him to accept this identity, no imperative for him to become a genocidal fascist for the sake of his own survival. He was prefigured to reject blood supremacy from the start, he knew there were other ways to live, there was an active anti-blood-supremacist movement—and yet he still chose to believe that it was his blood that “refused to change,” still chose to oppress, until he was captured by The Blood Lanterns and forced to serve as their “useful corpse.”

也責，其中一個被他殺死的人的母親，認為俠不該處死禍義而，反而用流放「讓他在無可挽回的情況之下活下去」，為了「以示我們對任何曾經選擇跟帝國站在同一邊的人什麼人情都不用欠。」相反，疤茲英名說：「 我想相信潛力。想相信每個選擇都是一瞬間，不算一條命。就算是那個人有重複選擇做出不可原諒的事。我想相信應該對每個人的改變潛力都欠一份信心。[...] 生命是每人都擁有的資格。我最關心的不是今天的最終判決，而是我們為了得到正義必要做出來的事。現在我做出自己的判斷。我要他去死。」

Ezelb, the mother of someone he killed, believes that The Lanterns shouldn't execute Waryor, but employ exile to “let him live with no redemption,” “[a]s an example that we owe nothing to anyone who ever made the choice to side with empire.” On the contrary, Baszim says: “I want to believe in potential. I want to believe every choice is a moment in life, and not a destiny. Even if the person has repeatedly made inexcusable choices. I want to believe we owe everyone faith in their potential to change. [...] Everyone deserves to live. What I am most concerned with is not today's final verdict, but what we must do for the sake of justice. I now cast my judgment. I want him to die.”

之前，我為正義做的定義是真的完成的革命和真的結束的壓迫。可是如果沒讀這文章的前一部分，只聽到疤茲英名的演講會得到同一樣的結論嗎？這就是疤茲英名給卡拉的方便測驗。可以從殺自己哥哥要導出正義嗎？可以在此中的暴力看到革命的存在嗎？

Previously, I defined justice as the true completion of revolution and true end of oppression. But if you hadn't read everything that came before in this essay, would you have come to the same conclusion from just hearing Bazsim's speech? This is the upayan test that Bazsim gives Kara. Can you derive justice from killing your brother? Can you see the revolution in that violence?

也責譴責疤茲英名的情緒恐怖主義也是一種壓迫，爭論沒有必要因為自己的經驗強迫別人從創傷導出對革命的致力。疤茲英名決定向卡拉道歉。卡拉一開始罵㐌是騙子，指責㐌不真的關心哥哥、不真的相信大家都有改變潛力、沒資格談正義。疤茲英名承認㐌其實是自己在決定什麼時候該放棄等待別人的改變，所以㐌的正義無法完美。雖然無法有完美的答案，也是不能避免決定和後果。只能按照希望來辦。

Ezelb condemns Bazsim's emotional terrorism as oppressive, arguing that there is no need to force others to derive commitment to revolution from trauma just because that's how it happened for them. Bazsim decides to apologize to Kara. Kara initially yells at Bazsim for being a fraud, not truly caring about their brother, not truly believing in everyone's potential to change, unqualified to speak on justice. Bazsim admits that the truth is that they actually decide when it is time to stop waiting for someone to change, and so their justice can't be perfect. But despite the inability to have perfect answers, it's impossible to avoid choice and consequence. You can only hope for the result to look like justice.

因此，《血光俠》的聖也就是願意為完美的追求而犧牲完美的權利革命者。Ta 跟陽邊相對的丑合成一體，融入丑的無知。與其知識，他們有的是信念—相信就算是得不到最真的正義，正義的追求還是有用。

Thus, the saint of Blood Lanterns is the revolutionary who is willing to sacrifice the claim to perfection for the sake of perfection's pursuit. They have become one with their yang counterpart of the fool, integrating the fool's lack of knowledge. Instead of knowledge, what they have is faith—faith in the value of pursuing justice even when the truest justice is impossible to attain.

另外跟原型有關的期數是期數四， 〈惡之論〉。它描寫兩個跟禍義而相遇的兄弟最後發生什麼樣的結局。故事中的惡不是禍義而，而是被禍義而殺死的銹血，也責的兒子，死後成為血光祖燀的人物。他被派去當靠，其中一個兄弟的師父。但討論他們之前，我們必須了解另外一個兄弟，諾，和期數一的聖，疤茲英名之間對暴力在革命中的角色的辯論。他們的辯論闡明惡的原型到底不是什麼。

The other issue connected to the archetypes is Issue 4, “The Discourse of the Scourge.” It's about the ultimate fate of two brothers who cross paths with Waryor. The scourge of the story is not Waryor but the rustblood he murdered, Ezelb's son, who became a Blood Ancestern after death. He is dispatched to mentor Kal, one of the two brothers. But before discussing them, we must understand the discourse on the role of violence in revolution between the other brother, Nok, and the saint from Issue 1, Bazsim. Their discourse illuminates what the archetype of the scourge is not.

禍義而為了報仇殺死靠跟諾的父親。因為他們村子跟禍義而聯盟處死父親，靠跟諾逃出去，但不同意該往哪裡逃。靠決定到卡拉的血光俠公社避難，諾決定自己去流浪。在流浪之中，諾趁機伏擊禍義而，同樣為了報仇把他殺死。殺完後，諾繼續走，因為找不到食物和避難所在地上昏倒，被血光俠弄跟疤茲英名拯救。

Waryor kills Kal and Nok's father for revenge. Because their village allied with Waryor to kill their father, Kal and Nok escape, but disagree on where to go. Kal decides to seek shelter with Kara's Blood Lantern commune, while Nok decides to wander off alone. While wandering, Nok takes an opportunity to ambush Waryor, killing him for revenge as well. Nok continues wandering and eventually collapses after not finding food and shelter, and is rescued by the Blood Lanterns Non and Bazsim.

當諾承認他殺死了疤茲英名的哥哥之後，疤茲英名第一個反應就是道歉，說：「他今天能給你造成問題，有一部分是因為我們把他處理得不好。解除你的痛苦是我們該負的責任。」諾感到極端的困感和訝異—他認為問題只不過是禍義而；殺了禍義而就是「解決了」問題，沒有什麼剩下該負責的事。但疤茲英名強調：「就是因為禍義而一部分的原因，我們才會發現你毫無拯救地在森林中一個人昏倒。推而廣之，也就是因為我們一部分的原因，現在的你才會是個流亡者。在最低限度，我們必須要幫助你得到生存需求需要的東西。」

When Nok confesses to killing Bazsim's brother, Bazsim's first reaction is to apologize, saying: “That he could cause problems for you today, was in part because we failed to properly handle him. Your suffering is something we must hold ourselves accountable for removing.” Nok is surprised and confused—he thinks the problem was just Waryor; just killing him “solved” it, and there was nothing left to be accountable for. But Bazsim emphasizes: “Waryor was part of the reason why we found you collapsed in the forest alone with no signs of rescue. And by extension, we're part of the reason why you're an EXILE now. As the bare minimum, we're obligated to help you get what you need for survival.”

在《降天下世》之中，四大原型是彼此在輪迴中的化身。一個解性者必須有能力扮演全四個角色，了解每四個角色對革命的用處，而不是見木不見林。惡不是認為革命只是除掉所有敵人的人。相反，惡深深理解處理敵人只是革命的一部分。

In Felling Heaven, Felling World, the four archetypes are reincarnations of each other. An agonist must have the ability to play all four roles and understand how each one is useful for revolution, instead of not seeing the forest for the trees. The scourge is not someone who just thinks revolution is killing all your enemies. Rather, the scourge deeply understands that dealing with your enemies is just one part of revolution.

祖燀跟靠的辯論關於敵視的解構。在一開始，祖燀要靠了解敵人權威主義實踐的特性。「要完整控制別人的話，該需要什麼？」靠回答：需要很多的威力。祖燀爭論，這威力的目標不是讓人家不敢抵抗，而是「讓他們的自我意識無法存在的威力。讓他們無法擁有不是被霸權者界定的自我意識，然後在違反界定的情況之下，無法避免自我意識的完整崩潰。」

The Ancestern and Kal's discourse is about deconstructing antagonism. At the beginning, The Ancestern wants Kal to reflect on the nature of the enemy's authoritarian praxis. “What do you think it takes to have complete control over someone?” Kal answers: lots of force. The Ancestern argues that the goal of this force is not to make someone feel too scared to fight back, but to “mak[e] it impossible for their sense of self to exist. That makes it impossible for them to possess any sense of self beyond the dominator's limits, and when they try to transgress those limits, makes it impossible for them to stop their sense of self from completely falling apart.”

在這一時刻，祖燀用血光的法力把自己裝扮成禍義而，說如果靠真的想當俠的話，他「必須先修改［他］的界定」，學習放棄過度的信任。說完後，他突然攻擊靠。就跟卡拉在會議中聽到疤茲英名要為了大家的生存處死自己的哥哥一樣，這種情緒恐怖主義實踐的教訓也對靠產生反效果。靠拒絕回擊或保護自己，抗議決鬥虛假的前提，說祖燀「不是［他］真正的敵人」。祖燀反駁真正的敵人不會給靠這種猶豫的機會，而且所謂的「同志」如果認為你的行為背叛了革命、解放、群眾、幹部、同志個人等等（這些也有可能都被他們混合成同一樣的東西），他們動不動就會以對待真正敵人的態度去處理你。

At this point, The Ancestern uses bloodlight magic to disguise himself as Waryor, telling Kal if he really wants to be a Lantern, he's “going to need to work on [his] limits” and learn to let go of excessive trust. After this, he suddenly attacks Kal. Just like with Kara hearing Bazsim justifying the execution of their brother for the sake of everyone else's survival, this praxis of discipline through emotional terrorism also backfires on Kal. He refuses to counterattack or defend himself, protesting against the false premise of the battle, saying that The Ancestern is “not [his] real enemy.” The Ancestern retorts that a real enemy wouldn't give Kal this kind of opportunity to hesitate, and that if so-called “comrades” believed that your conduct betrayed the revolution, liberation, the masses, the cadre, individual comrades themselves, etc. (and sometimes these would all be conflated as the same thing), they would deal with you like a real enemy at the drop of a hat.

祖燀說測驗的目的不是看靠的決鬥能力，而是「明白當同志的意義。」一個同志必須有能力處理壓迫性、反動份子和追逐私利的敵視，並且在過程之中不要讓自己的自我意識崩潰。同時，一個同志也必須在敵視對方的時候避免要求對方的自我意識為 ta 或 ta 事業崩潰。靠該有的反應是什麼？當然是好鬥地還擊，而不是窩囊地像自由主義者一樣請求和平談判。

The Ancestern says the goal of the test wasn't to see how well Kal could fight, but to “understand what it means to be a comrade.” A comrade must have the ability to deal with oppressive, reactionary, and self-serving antagonisms without letting their sense of self fall apart. At the same time, a comrade must be able to antagonize without demanding that other people's sense of self fall apart for them or their cause. What should Kal's reaction have been? To fight back militantly, instead of pathetically begging for peace talks like a liberal.

但靠不願意放棄需要大家同意什麼是對和錯的夢。他認為有真的是對和真的是錯的原因敵視對方，問題只不過是把真實搞懂。對他來說，這就是正義：真正「錯誤的改正」，按照自己有道德的標準來辦。

But Kal refuses to let go of his dream of everybody agreeing on what is right and wrong. He believes there are truly right and truly wrong reasons to antagonize someone, and the problem is only figuring out the truth. To him, this is justice: truly “righting wrongs” according to one's own moral standards.

但對祖燀來說，道德的標準其實是從壓迫者導出來自我規定的限制。要有大家該順從的道德規範，需要大家把自治力交給那規範的界定者，聽從那些界定者對使用自治力的「標準」方法的威權。因為這理想的道德規範是普遍的，這些界定者永遠不能錯。「永遠不能錯」的位置也就是權威主義者佔用的位置。

But to The Ancestern, moral standards are actually self-imposed limits derived from the oppressor. To have a moral code that everyone must follow requires people to give up their autonomy to the delimiters of that code, deferring to their authority on what the “proper” use of autonomy is. Because this ideal moral code is universal, these delimiters can never be wrong. And the position of “never being wrong” is exactly the position that authoritarians occupy.

靠問：那如果你認為別人是在無理地敵視你的話，是不是在跟壓迫者做同一樣的事？祖燀說必須接受這樣的可能性。不，靠說，必須要有一方的敵視在道德方面算正確的。不然為了什麼戰爭？

Kal asks: then if you're convinced that someone else has no good reason to antagonize you, are you acting like an oppressor? The Ancestern says you have to accept that possibility. No, says Kal, somebody's antagonism has to be morally correct. Otherwise what are you fighting for?

你可以為了從剝削者奪回權力而鬥爭，但不必把這個鬥爭變成道德優勢的證明。你可以認為世界不該有壓迫，但不需要證明自己的看法是對的。除了按照自己的看法行動，祖燀什麼都不保證。「正義，」他說，「跟對和錯，是我們管大家去死來決定的東西。」革命發展到哪時候才算完畢、壓迫消失哪個地步才算結束，一切都是我們決定。鬥爭的結果就是我們唯一對和錯的證明，而這對和錯不是按照什麼個人理想判斷的，而是按照被創造跟被計劃的結果的差別來辦。

You can struggle to seize back power from your exploiters without turning it into a struggle to prove your moral superiority. You can believe that the world should not have oppression without proving that your belief is correct. Besides moving according to his beliefs, The Ancestern promises nothing. “Justice,” he says, “like right and wrong, is whatever the hell we want it to be.” When the revolution has gone far enough to end and when oppression has vanished enough to be over is entirely our decision to make. The results of struggle are our only proof of correctness, which is not determined according to personal ideals, but to the discrepancy between the results that were created versus the results that were planned.

在這時候，靠不再考慮祖燀的話，說他是個認為強權就是真理不為人知的權威主義者，在向世界投射思維。對他來說，祖燀的想法是基雅維利主義的—你必須要有真理，不然你唯一有的是強權。但是惡就是認為不需要真理實現革命。如果人家認為你的革命完全不合理、認為你的革命只不過是恐怖分子邪教使用的賊般強權，那你就必須當他們的敵人。革命者的確是「註定是犧牲」的人—註定接受這種敵視。因此，依我之前說過的話：解性派是想結束英雄的人、結束當好人的實踐。

At this point in time, Kal has dismissed The Ancestern as a closeted authoritarian who is projecting his view of might makes right onto the world. To him, The Ancestern's views are Machiavellian—you must have right, otherwise you only have might. But the scourge is convinced you don't need right to realize revolution. If others believe you have no good reason for revolution, that your revolution is merely the thuggish might of a terrorist cult, then you must be their enemy. The revolutionary is indeed a doomed man—doomed to be regarded as an enemy like this. Hence, as I've said before: agonists are those who seek to end heroes, end the praxis of being good guys.

---

在文章的開頭，我說目的是探索自己對革命者的看法被景觀化的發展。最後，我不確定這樣的景觀化到底能不能避免。在《血光俠》的最後一段，我發覺虛構永遠只能是現實的景觀，因為作者完全控制虛構世界中的人物和現實狀況。因此虛構世界永遠不能代表現實，只能代表作者對現實的看法和希望。

At the start of this essay, I said the goal was to explore how my own perspective on revolutionaries became spectaclized. In the end, I'm uncertain whether the spectaclization is unavoidable. In the last section of “Blood Lanterns,” I realized fiction could only ever be a spectacle of reality, because the author completely controlled the characters and conditions of reality in the fictional world. Therefore the fictional world could never represent reality, only how the author perceived it and wanted it to be.

主觀的現實感知對我來說也是一樣。我的現實感知不是實際現實的代表，而是不能跟我對現實的希望分開。在童年中我感知到的虐待對我的虐待者來說只是正常的養育。我希望擺脫他們的控制；他們希望我繼續被他們控制。為什麼我沒有跟我秘密法西斯主義者的弟弟變得一模一樣，跟他們站在同一邊？為什麼我們從同樣的創傷導出相反的結論？因為他跟禍義而‧恩爪戈一樣存心做了要支持壓迫的選擇。而當他做了這選擇之後，一切的權力動態就消失，滅絕在自然秩序。他感受到的不是虐待，而是父母因為關心做的事。那就是他實際上的現實。我無法同意。

Subjective perception of reality to me is very much the same. My perception was not a representation of how reality was, but inseparable from how I wanted reality to be. The abuse I perceived in childhood was just normal parenting to my abusers. I wanted to be free from their control; they wanted me to remain under it. Why didn't I turn out like my cryptofascist brother who sided with them? Why did we derive the opposite conclusions from the same trauma? Because like Waryor Endrag he consciously made the choice to support oppression. And once he did, all power dynamics disappeared, vanishing into natural order. What he experienced wasn't abuse, but what our parents did out of care. That was reality as it was for him. I couldn't agree.

我無法同意。這消不掉的拒絕就是「自我」。一個粗糙的實體，我是從這個「自我」導出關於解放的一切。四大解性遊原型也就是我如何拒絕的模式。我不希望假裝這樣個人的拒絕是跟革命性的抵抗一樣。但我也無法假裝我對革命性抵抗的看法不是從個人拒絕開始的。但除了相信客觀現實的存在和認為自己的主觀是集體感知那現實能力的污染，誰會覺得這是問題？

I couldn't agree. This unvanishing refusal was “self.” A crude entity, this “self” was the source from which I derived everything to do with liberation. The four agonist archetypes are also how I refuse. I will not pretend that this personal refusal is the same as revolutionary resistance. But I also cannot pretend that my perspective on revolutionary resistance does not start from personal refusal. But besides people who believe in objective reality and also believe that their subjectivity has contaminated the collective's ability to perceive it, who would think that this is a problem?

反正我就是會。根據定義，完美完全不可能有問題—它是好到沒人會拒絕的東西。所以它的追求也是不可能有問題；問題是追求的方式。我不想放棄我的完美主義。讓我一切的政治思想向它的傾向發展。只是我自己註定的命。尼采說殺死上帝，隨心所欲。我對你說：忘了我存在之後，去攻擊。

In any case, I do. By definition, perfection is completely unproblematic—it's something that's so good, no one would refuse it. So by extension, pursuing it is also unproblematic; the problem is the method of pursuit. I have no intention of giving up my perfectionism. Let all my political thought develop in its direction. It's only my life to doom. Nietzsche said kill God and do what you will. I say to you, forget that I exist, and attack.