sinthome 05 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 05

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 1: Wednesday 18 November 1975

But because of this we find ourselves in the following situation, the fact is that what is 1 to 2, indeed 2 to 1, since it has in its middle, as one might say, the sigma and the S, must ensure – and this is precisely what is figured here – must ensure that the symptom and the symbol are caught up in such a way – I would have to show it to you by some simple figuration – in such a way that there are, as you see below, that there are four which are, as you see here (fig I-9), there are four which are drawn by the capital R and here, it is in a certain way that the I is combined, by passing above the symbol, figured here, and underneath the symptom. It is always in this form that there is presented the link, the link that I expressed here by the opposition of R to I.

但是因為這樣，我們發現自己處於以下的情境。事實上，從一到二，確實也是從二到一，我們不妨說，因為在中間，它有個標幟及生命主體的這個意符界的S記號，它必須保證，這確實就是這裏的圖形，它必須保證，病徵及符號如此的糾纏不清。我必須用某個簡單的圖形顯示給你們看，如你們在底下看到的，總共有四個圖形，如你們看到的（圖形I-9），這裏有四個圖形用大寫字母代表真實界的R所畫的。在此，以某種方式，這個想像界的「I」在符號的上方，偶爾被連接起來，這裏的圖形，它則是在符號底下。總是以這種方式，這個連接被呈現。我將真實界的R跟這個想像界的I，對立起來，而形成一個連接。

In other words, the two symptom and symbol are presented in such a way that here, one of the two terms takes them altogether, while the other passes, let us say, over this one which is below [probably an error by Lacan, immediately rectified] above, and
(21) under this one which is below. (fig I–10).

換句話說，這兩個病徵及符號以如此的方式被呈現，這兩個術語中的其中一個，將它們結合在一起，當另外一個從這個底下的上方通過，讓我們這樣說。對不起，不是從底下，而是從上方，然後再從底下的這個下面。（圖形I-10）

This is the figure that you obtain regularly in an attempt to make the Borromean knot of four and it is the one that I have put here on the extreme right.

這就是你們正常得到的圖形，企圖要製作這個四個一組的波羅米因金剛結。這個結，我將它擺在最右邊。

The Oedipus complex, as such, is a symptom. It is in as much as the name of the father is also the father of the name that everything is sustained, which does not render the symptom any less necessary. This Other that is at stake, is this something
which, in Joyce, is manifested by the fact that he is, in short, charged with the father.

伊底普斯情結本身就是一個病徵。父親的名字，也是維繫一切的名字的父親，使病徵的需要同樣迫切。岌岌可危的是大它者，在喬埃斯的作品，某件東西被顯現出來，總之，他被賦予父親角色的責任。

It is in the measure, as is established in Ulysses, that he must sustain this father for him to subsist, that Joyce, by his art, his art which is always that something which,
from the earliest times, comes to us as a product of the artisan, it is by his art that Joyce does not simply enable his family to subsist but makes it illustrious it, as one might say. And at the same time renders illustrious what he calls somewhere my country. The uncreated spirit, he says, of his race, that is how A portrait of the
artist finishes, this is the mission that he gives himself.

如同在「尤利西斯」所證明的，他必須維持父親到某個程度，這樣他才能生存下去。喬埃斯憑藉他的藝術，他的藝術總是從遠古時代，一直作為藝術作品傳遞給我們。憑藉他的藝術，喬埃斯不僅使他的家庭維持下來，而且耀祖榮宗，我們不妨這樣說。同時，他還使他所謂的祖國顯耀於世界。他說，他要發揚光大他的種族。那就是他致力於完成「一位年輕藝術家的畫像」，這是他給予自己的使命。

In this sense, I am announcing what is going to be, this year, my questioning about art: how can artifice explicitly aim at what is presented at first as a symptom? How can art, the artisan, undo, as one might say, what is imposed in terms of symptom, namely,
what? What I already figured in my two tetrads: the truth (fig I – 11).

以這個意義，我宣佈今年我將要談論我對於藝術的質疑。藝術作品是如何明確地朝向所表達的東西，起初是作為一種病徵？藝術及藝術家，如何能夠以病徵的方式化解所被賦予的東西？換言之，那是什麽東西？我曾經用兩個四元價值描繪出的東西：那就是真理。（圖形I-11）

18.11.75 I-34
Where is the truth of this occasion? I said that it was somewhere in the discourse of the master, as supposed in the subject. In so far as it is divided, it is still subject to the phantasy. It is, contrary to (22) what I first imaged, it is here, at the level of the truth that we must consider the half-saying. Namely, that the subject, at this stage, can only be represented by the signifier index 1, S1. That the signifier index 2, S2, is very precisely what is represented by the …, to figure it as I did earlier, by the duplicity of the symbol and the symptom. S2, here is the artisan: the artisan in so far as by the conjunction of two signifiers, he is capable of producing what, earlier, I called the
little o-object (fig I-12).

這個場合的真理在哪里？我說，它在主人真理論述的某個地方，在被認為是生命主體的某個地方。雖然它處於分裂的狀態，它依舊隸屬於幻見。這跟我起初的想像相反，就在這裏，處於真理的層次，我們必須考慮到這個似是而非的真理。換句話說，在這個階段，生命的主體只能夠用意符的第一索引及第一意符來代表。
意符的第二索引及第二意符，千真萬確是被符號及病徵的欺騙代表，如我早先所描述的。第二意符，在此是這位藝術家，憑藉跟兩個意符的結合，他能夠產生我早先所謂的小客體。

Or more exactly I illustrated it by the relationship to the ear and to the eye, even evoking the closed mouth. It is indeed in so far as the discourse of the master reigns, that the S2 is divided. At this (23) division, is the division between the symbol and the symptom.

或者我將以耳朵跟眼睛的關係，甚至引用封閉的嘴巴，更加明確地舉例說明。就主人的真理論述統治一切而已，這個生命主題的第二意符是分裂的。處於這個分裂點是符號跟病徵的分裂。

But this division between the symbol and the symptom, is, as one might say, reflected in the division of the subject. It is because the subject is what one signifier represents for another signifier that we are necessitated by its insistence to show that it is in the symptom that one of these two signifiers, the Symbolic, takes its support. In this sense, one can say that in the articulation of the symptom to the symbol, there is, I will say, only a false hole.

但是我們不妨說，這個符號跟病徵的分裂，被反映在生命主體的分裂上。因為生命主體是一個意符代表對於另外一個意符，我們不得不接受它的堅持，顯示就在病徵當中，這兩個意符中的一個，這個意符界接受它的支持。以這個意義來說，我們能夠說，在這個病徵對於符號的表達，只有一個虛假的空洞，容我這樣說。

If we suppose the consistency, the consistency of any one at all of these functions, symbolic, imaginary and real, if we suppose this consistency as making a circle, this presupposes a hole. But in the case of the symbol and of the symptom, it is something else that is at stake. What makes a hole, is the totality, it is the totality folded
over of one onto the other of these two circles (Fig 1-13).

假如我們認為這個一致性，所有這些功用的任何一個功用的一致性，無論是意符界，想像界及真實界，假如我們認為這個一致性，當著是成為一個圓圈，這是預先假定是一個空洞。但是在符號及病徵的情況，還有某件其他的東西岌岌可危。形成一個空洞的內涵是這個整體性，兩個圓圈的其中一個，被折疊進入另外一個圓圈的整體性。

Here, as has been rather well figured by Soury – to call him by his name, I do not know whether he is here – it must be framed by something that resembles a bubble, what we call in topology a torus. Each of these holes must be circumscribed by something which makes them hold together, in order for us to have here
something that can be described as a true hole (fig I – 14).

在此，如同梭瑞先生的清楚描繪，（我直呼其名，不知他是否在現場），他使用某件類似氣泡的東西的架構，在拓樸地形學，我們稱之為「圓形突隆面」。這些突隆空洞的每一個，必須以某件維繫它們在一起的東西，予以限制。這樣，我們才能擁有某件被描述為「真實空洞」的東西。

This means that we must imagine, in order for these holes to subsist, to be maintained, simply suppose here a straight line, this will fulfil the same role, a straight line provided it is infinite. We (24) will have to come back in the course of the year to what this infinite is. We will have to speak again about what a straight line is, how it subsists, how, as one might say, it is akin to a circle. A circle, I will assuredly have to come back to it, will I not; this circle has a function which is well known to the police.

這意味著，我們必須想像，為了讓這些空洞能夠生存，能夠被維持，我們就必須假定有一條直線。這條直線如果是延伸到無限，它就可以滿足這個相同的空洞。在今年的講座過程，我們將必須回頭來探討這個無限是什麽。我們將必須再一次談論到一條直線是什麽，它如何維持，我們不妨問，它如何近似一個圓圈。一個圓圈，我確定會回頭談論它。這個圓圈有一個員警耳熟能詳的功用。

The circle, is used for traffic and that is why the police have a support that does not date from today or yesterday. Hegel had very clearly seen, in short, what was its function. And he had seen it in a form which is assuredly not what is at stake, what is in question. For the police it is simply a matter of the turning around continuing.
The fact that we can, in this false hole, make the addition, the addition of an infinite straight line and that, just by itself, this makes of this false hole a hole which subsists in a Borromean manner, this is the point on which I will end today.

這個圓圈被用來流暢交通。那就是為什麽員警得到一個支持，不是今天或是昨天才擁有的。總之，黑格爾很清楚地看出，這個圓圈的功用是什麽。他曾經看到這個圓圈，以一個確定不會是岌岌可危的形式，不會是遭受質疑的形式。對於員警而言，問題只是要讓繼續的交通運轉下去。事實上，我們能夠以這個虛假的空洞，造成增加，造成一條無限的直線的增加。光是憑藉自身的功用，這就能夠使這個虛假的空洞，成為以波羅米因金剛結的方式生存下去。這就是我今天要告一個段落的地方。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw