Furrows in the alethosphere 4

Furrows in the alethosphere 4
媒體氛圍的航跡

From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析學的另類面貌

By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

Our first rule is never to seek the origins of language, if only because they are demonstrated well enough through their effects.

我們的第一條規則是，永遠不要去探索語言的起源，即使理由只是因為透過語言的起源所產生的結果，已經證明起源的存在。

The further back we push their effects, the more these origins emerge. The effects of language are retroactive, precisely in that it is as language develops that it manifests what it is qua want-to-be.

我們越是將語言的起源所產生的結果往後面推展，這些起源的源頭越是五花八門。語言的結果溯及既往，確實是因為隨著語言的發展，它會顯示出來，語言的本質是成形於未來。

Moreover, I will indicate—in passing, for today we have to move on—that we can write it like this, and that we can bring into play here, in its strictest form, something that right from the origins of a rigorous use of the symbolic appeared in the Greek tradition, namely at the level of mathematics.

而且，我將指明，只是順便提一下，因為今天我們必須要趕一下進度，我們能夠將語言的本質書寫如下。我們能夠將出現在希臘傳統的某件東西，從它靈活地使用符號的起源開始，以其嚴格的形式，在此演示一下。換句話說，就是從數學的層次開始。

Euclid is the fundamental reference here, and the definition he gives us of proportion is primary, it had never been given before him, I mean before what remains as having been written in his name—of course, who knows from where he might have borrowed this strict definition? The one that gives the only true foundation of geometrical demonstration can be found, if I remember correctly, in book five.

歐幾里德是我們首先要引證的人物。他替比例所下的定義是最根本的，在他之前，從來沒有數學家下過這樣的定義。我的意思是，在他之前，我們無法找到任何有關比例的記載，天曉得，他是從哪裡借用來這個嚴格的定義？假如我記得沒錯，在第五冊那裡，我們能夠找到真正作為幾何學證明基礎的定義。

The term “ demonstration” is ambiguous here. By constantly highlighting the intuitive elements that are here in the figure, he makes it possible for you to miss the fact that, very formally, the requirement in Euclid is one of symbolic demonstration, of an order that is grouped into equalities and inequalities, which alone enable proportion to be assured in a way that is not an approximation but is properly demonstrable, in this term “ logos,” in the sense of proportion.

「證明」一詞在這裡意義有一點模糊。由於歐幾里德經常強調在圖形裡所蘊含的人的直覺的因素，我們很可能忽視了這個事實，在形式上，歐幾里德幾何學的基本要求是符號的證明，要將相等圖形及不相等圖形分門別類排列。這種作法產生的比例，必然不僅僅是近似，而是適當地可以證明。「定理」這個術語，在這裡已經具有比例的意義。

It is curious and indicative that we had to wait for the Fibonacci series to see what is given in the apprehension of this proportion which is called the proportion mean. I will write it out here—you will be aware that I made use of it when I discussed From an Other to the other.

耐人尋味又具有指標性，我們必須等到費波那契系列出現，我們才明白，所謂
的黃金率的平均比例是怎麼一回事。我現在將它書寫在這裡子，你們將會知道，當我討論「從大它者到它者」時，曾經使用到它。

A romanticism still continues to call this the golden number and goes astray in finding it on the surface of everything that has been possible to paint or draw over the ages, as if it were not certain that this is only about being able to visualize it. One only has to open a work of aesthetics that makes a case for this reference in order to realize that, while it may be possible to superimpose it, it is certainly not because the painter had drawn the diagonals in advance, but because there is in effect a kind of intuitive harmony, which means that it is always this that sings most sweetly.

過去幾個世紀來，浪漫主義者依舊稱呼這條定理叫黃金比例，想要在每一樣可以畫或描繪的東西的表面，找到這個黃金比例，好像那想像的均衡對稱必然會存在，但是卻始終無法得到。我們只需要觀看一件以均衡對稱取勝的美學的作品，我們就會體會到，均衡對稱是可能的，但是不是因為畫家事先將各個斜角線都畫好，而是因為畫家事實上具有一種直覺的和諧，這意味著均衡對稱觀看起來會有一種和諧之感。

Except that there is also something else, which it will not be easy for you to grasp. By taking catch of these terms and starting to calculate from the bottom up, you will quickly see that you are dealing first with 1/2, then with 2/3, next with 3/5. You will thus find the numbers the sequence of which constitutes the Fibonacci series, 1,2,3,5,8,…, each being the sum of the two preceding numbers, as I pointed out to you at the time. This relation of two terms we can write for instance as u (n-1)+un-. The result of the division u n+1/ un will be equal , if the series is continued long enough, to the effectively ideal proportion that is called the proportional mean, or again, the golden number.

除外，另有某件其它東西，你們不容易瞭解。假如你們將這些項目，開始從底端往上計算，你們很快會發現到，你們的答案是1/2 ，然後是2/3，其次是3/5。你們然後會發現到這些數字的系數組成費波那契系列1,2,3,5,8,，、、、，每一個數字都是前面兩個數字的總合，如我剛才我跟你們指出來的。這兩個項目的關係，我們能夠寫成公式：u (n+1) = u( n-1) + u n。相除的結果u n+1/ un 是相等，即使系列一直延續下去，我們會得到極端完美的所謂平均比例，又叫黃金率的比例。

If we now take this proportion as an image of what affect is, insofar as there is repetition of this ‘ I am one’ on the next line, this retroactively results in what causes it—the affect.

假如我們現在將這個比例當著是我們的情懷，下一行的比例當著是這個作為「完整主體的我」的重覆，這種追溯既往的計算會形成它的結果，也就是人的情懷。

We can momentarily write this affect as ‘ equal to a,’ and we can see that we rediscover the same a at the level of the effect.

我們能夠暫時將這個比例書寫成「相等於小客體」，然後我們就明白，我們會在結果的層次上，重新找到這個相同的小客體。

This a, the effect of repeating the 1, is at the level of what is designated here by a bar. The bar is precisely only this, that there is something to get past in order for the 1 to affect. In sort, it is his bar that is equal to a. And there’s nothing astonishing in the fact that we can legitimately write the affect below the bar, as that which is the effect that is here thought, overturned, when the cause is made to emerge. It is in the initial effect that the cause, as thought cause, emerges.

這個小客體，這個「我」的重覆的結果，在此以一條橫槓來指明它的層次。這條橫槓的用意確實僅僅就是，有某件東西越過，為了讓「我」能夠發揮功用。總之，就是這一條衡槓相等於小客體。我們能夠合理地將人作為主體的情懷書寫在這一條橫槓之下，在此把它作為思想的結果，然後，當作為原因的思想明白顯現時，情懷就被推翻，那是我們司空見慣的事。思想作為原因，就出現在這個初始的情懷裡。

This is what is motivating me to find a more certain articulation of what the effect of discourse is in this initial tentative use of mathematics. It’s at the level of the cause, insofar as it emerges as thought, the reflection of the effect, that we attain the initial order of what the want-to-be is. Initially Being only affirms itself with the mark of the 1, and everything that follows is a dream—notably, the mark of the 1 insofar as it supposedly encompasses, could supposedly combine, anything at all. It can emobine nothing at all, unless it is,, precisely, the confrontation, the addition of the thought of the cause with the initial repetition of the 1.

我就是因此受到啟發，想要嘗試使用數學，找出一個更明確的方式，來表達精神分析學的真理論述的結果。就在原因的層次，因為它以思想的形態出現，作為情懷的反映，我們獲得「欲望成形於未來」初始的秩序。起初，獨特的存在主體只是用「我」這個標誌肯定自己，然後每一樣隨之而來的事情像是一場夢，顯而易見，「我」的這個標誌被認為應該涵蓋一切，也被認為應該統合一切。但是事實上，它什麼也統合不了，除非它以思想作為原因，跟這個「我」的重覆互相重疊及對質。

This repetition already costs and institutes, at the level of the a, the debt of language. Something has to be paid to the one who introduces its sign. This year I have designated this something, using a nomenclature that tries to give it its historical weight—strictly speaking it was not this year, but let’s say that for you it was this year—with the term Mehrlust.

在小客體的層次，這個重覆已經耗損，並且開始語言的虧損赤字。對於介紹小客體的符號者，我們必須付出某些的費用。今年，我已經使用一種命名法來賦予歷史的意義，我使用「剩餘價值」這個術語，來指明這個某件費用。嚴格來說，我應該是去年就已經使用，不過，這無關緊要。

What does this infinite articulation reproduce? As the little a is the same here as it is there, it is self-evident that repetition of the formula cannot be the infinite repetition of the ‘ I am thinking” within the “ I am thinking,’ which is the mistake the phenomenologists never fail to make, but only the following; “ I am thinking,’ were it to be done, is only able to be replaced by ‘ I am, ‘I am thinking, therefore I am.’ ” I am he who is thinking,, “ Therefore I am,’ and so on indefinitely. You will observe that the small a always gets farther and farther away in a series that reproduces exactly the same order of Is, such as they are here deployed on the right, with the sole difference that the final term will be a small a,

這個無窮盡的表達複製了什麼？當這個小客體這裡跟那裡都大同小異，顯而易見，這個公式不可能是「我正在思想」在「我正在思想」之內的無窮盡的重覆，這是現象學家常犯的錯誤，而是以下的結果：「我正在思想」，若是要實現，替代它的只能夠是「我存在，因為【我正在思想，因此我存在】」。我成為正在思想的那個人，「因此我存在」，等等無窮盡類推下去。你們將觀察到，在複製「我」的相同秩序的系列裡，小客體越離越遠，如同在右邊的演算。唯一的差異是，右邊最後一個項目都是小客體。

Notice that it’s a remarkable thing, this small a. it is sufficient that it subsist, however, far down you take it, for equality to be the same as in the formula I first wrote up, namely that the multiple and repeated proportion equals, in total, the result of the small a.

請注意，這個小客體非同小可。無論你往下如何演算，它總是存在那裡，那就夠了，因為在我第一次書寫的公式，兩邊總是會相等。換句話說，無論怎樣重覆或加倍，那個比例總是相等於小客體的結果的總數。

In what way is this series marked off? In sum, it does nothing other, if I am not mistaken, than mark the order of the converging series which has the largest intervals while remaining constant. Namely, still the object a.

這個系列要用怎樣的方式來展現？假如我沒有弄錯的話，在總數方面，它道道地地標明了匯聚的系列的秩序，彼此之間的間隔總是固定的常數。換句話說，依舊就是小客體。

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