A love letter 03

A love letter 03

After that, to calm you back down, I need back speak to you of love—which I will do in a moment. But what does it mean that I have come to such a pass as to speak to you of love, whereas it is not very compatible with the direction from which analytic discourse can provide a semblance of something that would be science?

亢奮之後，要讓諸位平靜下來，我還需要回頭來談愛，等一下我會談到愛。問題是，精神分析學研究的是一種類似科學的東西，而我卻要侃侃而談愛的問題，這跟科學的研究方向，並不是很相容的。我這樣的窘境意味著什麼？

You are barely aware of this “ would-be science.” Of course, you know, because I have made you take notice of it, that there was a time when one could, not without reason, assure oneself that scientific discourse was grounded in the Galilean turning point. I have stressed that enough to assume that, at the very least, some of you have gone back to the sources, I mean to Koyre work.

對於這個「未來的科學」，你們可能知道不多。當然，因為我曾提醒你們注意，你們會知道，有一陣子，你們曾心安理得地相信，科學的真理論述是以伽利略的地球繞日轉學說，作為基礎的轉捩點。我曾一再強調，認為你們至少有些人會回頭去探討這些理倫的來源，我指的是柯伊爾的著作。

Regarding scientific discourse, it is very difficult to maintain equally present two terms that I will mention to you.

關於科學的真理論述，我將會跟你們提到兩個術語，但是很難同時並重地進行。

On the one hand, scientific discourse has engendered all sorts of instruments that we must, from our vantage point here, qualify as gadgets. You are now, infinitely more than you think, subjects of instruments that, from the microscope right down to the radio television, are becoming the elements of your existence. You cannot currently even gauge the import of this, but it is nonetheless part of what I am calling scientific discourse, insofar as a discourse is what determines a form of social link.

一方面，科學的真理論述產生各種必需的工具，我們人類之所以凌駕萬物，這些機械技術是不可或缺的。你們現在自己渾然不覺下，就已經成為這些科技的對象。這些科技，從顯微鏡，一直到收音機及電視，已經漸漸成為你們日常生活的一部份。你們目前甚至無法評估你們所受到的影響。但這是我現在所謂的科學的真理論述的一部份，因為我們社會的人倫關係也是受到真理論述的影響。

On the other hand—and here there is no linkup—there is a subversion of knowledge. Prior to that, no knowledge was conceived that did not participate in the fantasy of an inscription of the sexual link. One cannot even say that the subjects of antiquity’s theory of knowledge did not realize that.

在另一方面，人倫關係並沒有被套牢，因為真理的知識會受到顛覆。在以前，每一種知識的構想，都會牽涉到跟性愛有關的各種銘記的幻見。我們甚至不能說，古人的知識的理論，會沒有體會到這一點。

Let us simply consider the terms “ active” and “ passive,” for example, that dominate everything that was cogitated regarding the relationship between form and matter, a relationship that was so fundamental, and to which each of Plato’s steps refers, and then Aristotle’s, concerning the nature of things. It is visible and palpable that their statements are based only on a fantasy by which they tried to make up for what can in no way be said, namely, the sexual relationship.

例如，讓我們考慮到，在形式與物質之間的關係，一舉一動都會牽涉到「主動」與「被動」這兩個術語。這個關係是如此的根本，先是柏拉圖，然後是亞力斯多德，他們研究事物的本質時，每一個步驟，都提到這個主動與被動的關係。顯而易見，他們陳述的基礎是一種幻見，他們設法憑藉這種幻見，來彌補無法言說的東西，換句話說，性愛的關係。

The strange thing is that in this crude polarity that makes matter passive and form the agent that animates it, something, albeit, something ambiguous, nevertheless got through, namely, that this animation is nothing other than the a with which the agent animates what? He animates nothing—he takes the other as his soul.

奇怪的是，這個簡陋的二分法，將物質視為被動，將形式視為激發物質運作的主動的仲介。然後就有某件東西，某件混沌不清的東西流露出來。換句話說，這個激發出來的物質，其實只是另一個主動仲介的小客體，他們彼此激發出什麼？形式並沒激發任何物質，形式將另外一個形式，當著是他自己的靈魂。

Consider what progresses over the course of the ages regarding the idea of a God that is not the God of Christian faith, but that of Aristotle—the unmoved mover, the supreme sphere. The idea that there is a being such that all other beings with less being than it can have no other aim than being the most being they can be, is the whole foundation of the idea of the Good in Aristotle’s ethics, which I encouraged you to look at in order to grasp the impasse therein. If I base myself now on the inscrptons on the blackboard, it is assured revealed that it is in the opaque place of jouissance of the other, of the Other insofar as woman, if she existed, could be it, that the supreme Being is situated—this Supreme Being that is manifestly mythical in Aristotle’s work, this unmoving sphere from which all movements stem, whatever they may be: changes, generations, motions, translations, increases , etc.

思考一下，過去幾個世紀來，關於神的觀念，有怎樣的進展。不是基督教信仰的那個上帝，而是亞力斯多德的上帝。本身如如不動的操控者，最崇高的上天之神。有一位這樣的上天之神存在，然後其它渺小的芸芸眾生的存在，沒有其它目的，就是要盡其可能成為這位上天之神的垂眷。這就是亞力斯多德倫理學的善的觀念的基礎。我鼓勵你們去思考一下，這樣你們才能理解到這裡的僵局。假如我將自己的基礎放在黑板上的這個圖形的銘記，你們一定會看得出來，我最崇高的生命的存在，就位在大它者歡爽的矇矓不清的那個位置，那個以女人（假若是有這麼一個女人）作為我生命大它者的位置。亞力斯多德的理論，有一個如如不動的中心，一切動作都從那個中心發出，無論是改變、繁延下一代、舉動、翻譯、增產等等。那個最崇高的存在顯而易見是奧秘難測的。

It is insofar as her jouissance is radically Other that woman has more of a relationship to God than anything that could have been said in speculation in antiquity following the pathway of that which is manifestly articulated only as the good of man.

就女人的歡爽就是大它者而言，女人跟上帝的關係可以說是更加密切，既然自古來，人類的善的表達顯然都跟大它者有密切關係。

The aim of my teaching, insofar as it pursues what can be said and enunciated on the basis of analytic discourse, is to dissociate a and A by reducing the first to what is related to the imaginary and the other to what is related to the symbolic. It is indubitable that the symbolic is the basis of what was made into god. It is certain that the imaginary is based on the reflection of one semblable in another. And yet, a has lent itself to be confused with S(A), below which it is written on the blackboard, and it has done so by means of the function of being. It is here that a scission or detachment remains to be effectuated. It is in this respect that psychoanalysis is something other than a psychology. For psychology is this uneffectuated scission.

因為我的教學是以精神分析學的真理論述為基礎，探討可能的內涵與表達，我教學的目的，就是分析這個作為主動仲介的小客體跟大它者，將前者視為跟想像界有關，後者則是與象徵符號界有關。無可置疑的，象徵符號界是我們創造上帝作為大它者的基礎。而想像界的基礎則確定是模擬象徵符號界的一種反映。可是，小客體往往會冒充為大它者隱身在後的主體，這就是黑板上被寫在底下的S(A)，這樣它能發揮存在的功用。就在這裡，一種斷裂或疏離始終會若隱若現。從這個角度來說，精神分析學與心理學並不相同。因為心理學認為可以將這個斷裂或疏離縫合。

雄伯：
大它者隱身在後的主體S( A)，原來的A上面有一斜槓，我的電腦如法輸入，請參照底下圖形的銘記符號。法文它者的字首是A，打一斜槓，表示人作為主體，一進入象徵符號界，就受大它者的象徵符號的制約及操控，括弧起來，表是大它者隱身在後，但無時無刻，不在制約及操控我們。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
springherohsiung@gmail.com