「 虛擬」的悖論－－從解構哲學觀點探討網路空間

The Virtual Paradox: A Deconstruction Perspective on Cyberspace

本文將從解構哲學所具有的悖論特質，探索我們該如何面對網路世界的虛擬性。解構哲學以悖論的策略造成了三個效果，無從判定、無法化約、未（到）來的幽靈學。以解構哲學的角度來說，虛擬僅是相對於「現實」的「不可能性」，一種與「現實」之間的差異，一種對「現實」越界的他異性，一種遲到而尚未出現的「實在」，它以不在場的方式，懸置了一切「在場」，卻也為「在場」提供了更多可能性。實在與虛擬的問題，是由於以往我們將「實在」定義在可見、可理解的「現實」、「真實」脈絡下，以此把不可見或無法歸納的事物當成假或虛擬。這說明了若要討論虛擬網路空間，必然涉及對實在論（realism）的重探。「現實」、「真實」是否就是實在？我們對於「真實」是否該有不同的理解？是否該繼續停留在可見性「現實」的暴政下，順從者稱之為「真實」，不服（符）者統稱為「虛擬」？抑或是，我們不該如此簡化地區分真實與虛擬，而是必須將這兩個概念視為一個無法輕易化約的複雜概念？抑或是，虛擬與真實，是一種相互的外在性，彼此相互補充又相互交雜？本文最後想指出，面對網路空間，問題不在於區別虛擬還是真實，而是這個包含了虛擬空間的現實空間中，我們如何重新面對這個新的世界。面對虛擬性，我們要問的或許不是真假的問題，而是更徹底的「人是什麼」的問題？藉由解構，我們最終所面對的既非真實與虛擬的問題，亦非意識與身體的問題，更絕非是科技與創新的問題，而是活的問題，一個關於何謂生存意義的問題。如同德希達說：「我們最終要學會生活。」若虛擬實在是一種新的全然不同的事物，它作為我們所正遭逢的他者、另一種不可能性。我們的工作便是去遭逢它，並且重新與它展開新的生存與世界意義。

Through the means of paradox that characterizes deconstruction philosophy,this paper seeks to discuss how we deal with the virtuality of the Internet.Three effects stemming from deconstruction philosophy are (1) the undecidability,(2) the irreducibility, and (3) hauntology of the future (avenir/à venir).From the deconstructive perspective, the virtual is only the impossible of theactual, a difference between the actuals, an alterity that transgresses the actual.It is a belated reality to come, and it suspends the presence in an absent manner.Yet, by so doing, such a manner provides more possibilities for “presence”.The problem between the virtual and the real is grounded on the fact thatboth of them are defined in terms of our ability to see and understand, throughwhich the invisible and the irreducible are contended as unreal or virtual. Thisexplains that a reexamination of realism is necessary if we intend to discuss thevirtual space of the Internet. Do the actual and the real imply reality? Should wehave an alternative understanding concerning the real? Should we continue tostay under the despotism of the actual? That is, should we continue to call thosewho are reconciled under the despotism of the actual the real, and those who arenot the virtual? In other words, should we not simply try to distinguish betweenthe virtual and the real, but rather conceptualize the two notions as a notion tooirreducible and complicated to determine? Or does it suggest that a relationbetween the virtual and the real implies a self-referring exteriority, supplementingand referring to each other?Finally, the paper notes that the problem, in the face of cyberspace, reliesnot on the attempt to distinguish between the virtual and the real, but on theactual space underlying the virtual space. How can we face the new world again? In the face of the virtual, the question we tend to ask concerns not theone between true and false, but a rather radical one—what is human? Throughdeconstruction, the question we finally face is no longer the one that concernsthe virtual and the real, nor one of conscious and body, let alone a question oftechnology and creation. Rather, it is a question about living, a question aboutraison d’être, as Derrida emphatically argues, “We finally have to learn tolive.” If virtual reality is a new different thing, it serves as an Other we encounter,or an impossibility. Our task, then, is to encounter it, and recompose a newform of existence and world meaning with the Other.