Archive for November, 2009

拉岡講座202

November 18, 2009

拉岡講座202

The Rat of the Maze
迷宮之鼠

I just got hold of an important book by an author named Bateson about which people had talked my ears off, enough to get on my nerves a bit.

我剛剛拿到一本重要的書,作者叫巴特森。關於這本書,很多人跟我一再提過,足夠讓我感到不勝其煩。

I should say that it was given to me by someone who had been touched by the grace of a certain text of mine he translated into his language, adding something that went significantly further than ‘ the unconscious structured like a language.’

我應該說,給我這本書的人曾經被我的某篇講演的深刻所感動,翻譯成他自己的語言,再將「無意識結構像個語言」發揮闡釋。

Now Bateson, not realizing that the unconscious is structure like a language, has but a rather mediocre conception of it.

現在這位巴特森並沒有體會到無意識結構像個語言,他對於這個觀念僅僅只有粗淺的瞭解。

But he creates some very nice artifices he calls “ metalogues.”

但是他創造了一些非常漂亮的命題,他稱為「後設語言學」。

They ‘re not bad, insofar as they involve, if we take him at his word, some internal, dialectical progress, being produced only by examining the evolution of a term’s meaning.

這些命題還不錯,假如我們相信他所說的為真實,因為他們牽涉到一些內部的辯證的進展,只有審察一個術語意義的演變才能獲得這樣的進展。

As has always been the case in everything that has been called a dialogue, the point is to make the supposed interlocutor say what motivates the speaker’s very question, in other words, to incarnate in the other the answer that is already there.

如同我們所謂的對話常有的情形,重點是要誘使假定的對話者說出問這個問題的動機,換言之,要對方具體說出他事先已有定見的達案。

It’s in that sense that dialogues,, classical dialogues—the finest examples of which are represented by the Platonic legacy—are shown not to be dialogues.

就這個意涵而言,對話,古典的對話,最有名的範例就是柏拉圖對話錄所留下的,其實顯示出來的不是對話。

If I have said that language is what the unconscious is structured like, that is because language, first of all, doesn’t exist. Language is what we try to know concerning the function of Ilanguage.

假如我說語言是無意識構成的樣子,那是因為語言首先不存在。語言是我們設法去知道的東西關於「真語言」的功用。

Certainly, it is thus that scientific discourse itself approaches languages, except that it is difficult for scientific discourse to fully actualize language, since it misrecognizes the unconscious.

不錯,科學論述就是這樣接近語言,但是科學語言很難完整地實踐語言,因為它誤認無意識。

The unconscious evinces knowledge that , for the most part, escapes the speaking being. That being provides the occasion to realize just how far the effects of Ilanguage go, in that it presents all sorts of affects that remain enigmatic.

無意識閃躲知識,大部份時間,還閃避說話的主體。說話主體供應機會來體會「真語言」的情意有多強,因為它展現各種迄今是謎團的各種情意。

Those affects are what result from the presence of Ilanguage insofar as it articulates things by way of knowledge that go much further than what the speaking being sustains by way of enunciated knowledge.

那些情意是「真語言」的存在而產生的,因為它藉由知識所表達的事情,意涵遠比說話主體藉由被說出的知識所道出還要深遠。

Language is, no doubt, made up of Ilanguage. It is knowledge’s harebrained lucubration about Ilanguage. But the unconscious is knowledge, a knowing how to do things with Ilanguage.

語言無疑地是由「真語言」所組成。語言是知識對於「真語言」孜孜不息的成果。但是無意識是知識,知道如何來處理「真語言」的內涵。

And what we know how to do with Ilanguage goes well beyond what we can account for under the heading of language.

我們所知道如何來處理「真語言」,遠超過我們在語言的標題下所能解釋的。

Llanguage affects us first of all by everything it brings with it by way of effects that are affects. If we can say that the unconscious is structured like a language, it is in the sense that the effects of Ilanguage, already there qua knowledge, go well beyond anything the being who speaks is capable of enunciating.

「真語言」首先以各種情意產生影響的方式影響到我們。假如我們能夠說,無意識結構像個語言,那是因為「真語言」的影響已經存在那裡作為知識,遠超過任何說話主體所能表達的內涵。

It is in that regard that the unconscious, insofar as I base it on its deciphering, can only be structured like a language, a language that is always hypothetical with respect to what supports it, namely, Ilanguage.

以這個角度看,無意識只能結構像個語言,因為我將它建立於解說的基礎上。這個語言總是假設性,關於所支撐它的東西,換言之「真語言」。

Language is what allowed me to turn my S2 into a question earlier and ask—is it truly a question of them-two in language.

憑藉語言,我才能夠將我的第二意符早先轉變成疑問,然後問:在語言中真的有一分為二的問題嗎?

Stated otherwise, it has become clear, thanks to analytic discourse, that language is not simply communication.

假如換個方式陳述,就顯而易見,由於精神分析的真理論述,語言不僅僅是溝通。

Misrecognizing that fact, a grimace has emerged in the lowest depths of science that consists in asking how being can know anything whatsoever. My question today regarding knowledge will hinge on that.

若是誤認那個事實,科學界的淺薄之士不免會嗤之以鼻,因為他們的知識立場就是在於問主體如何能知道任何事物。我今天關於知識的問題,就決定在那個地方。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座201

November 17, 2009

拉岡講座201

The rat of the maze
迷宮之鼠

Thanks to someone who is willing to polish up what I tell you here, four or five days ago I received the nicely scrubbed truffle in my elocutions this year.

感謝有人費心潤飾我對你們的講演,四五天前,我收到這本對於我今年講演整理得清楚明白的錄音稿。

With this title, Encore, I wasn’t sure, I must admit, that I was still in the field I have cleared for twenty years, since what it said was that it could still go on a long time.

我必須承認,我用「再來一次」這個書名,但是我並不確定我還依舊停留在這二十年來我開闢出來的領域,因為書的內容意味著,這個演講還有一段漫長的路要走。

Rereading the first transcription of this Seminar, I found that it wasn’t so bad, especially given that I began with a formulation that seemed a tad trivial to me, that
The Other’s jouissance is not the sign of love.

重讀這個講座的錄音初稿,我發現整理得還不錯,特別是考慮到我開始時的說明有點小題大作:大它者的歡喜並不是愛的跡象。

It was a point of departure I could perhaps come back to today in closing what I opened at that time.

那是個出發點,今天我回來重新替我當時開展的命題做個結語。

I spoke a bit of love. Yet the crux or key to what I put forward this year concerns the status of knowledge, and I stressed that the use ( exercise ) of knowledge could but imply a jouissance.

我略微提到愛。可是今年我提出的重點是有關知識的地位。我強調,知識的發揮只能意謂著歡喜。

That is what I’d like to add to today by a reflection concerning what is done in a groping manner in scientific discourse with respect to what can be produced by way of knowledge.

那就是我今天想要補充的。讓我們回顧一下,藉由知識,我們找出些什麼?科學的論述以探索的方式做了些什麼?
1
To get right to the point–Knowledge is an enigma.
言歸正傳:知識是個謎團。

That enigma is presented to us by the unconscious, as it is revealed by analytic discourse.

精神分析論述顯示:無意識所呈現給我們的就是那個謎團。

That enigma is enunciated as follows: for the speaking being, knowledge is that which is articulated.
那個謎團陳述如下:對於言說的主體,所表達出來的是知識。

People could have noticed that a long time ago, because in tracing out the pathways of knowledge they were doing nothing but articulate things, centering them for a time on being.

人們本來能夠知道,很久以前,追蹤知識的曲折幽徑時,他們所正在做的僅是表達事情,有一陣子,他們專注討論存在問題。

Now it is obvious that nothing is, if not insofar as it is said that it is.
現在顯然地,空無一物存在,就他們所說的存在而言。

I call that S2. You have to know how to hear that—is it of them-two that it speaks?
我稱那種存在為第二意符。你們必須知道如何區別,因為主體說話一分為二。
It is generally said that language serves to communicate.
通常人們說,語言是用來溝通之用。

To communicate about what, one must ask oneself, about which them?
為了溝通什麼,我們必須先問自己,哪一個我在溝通?

Communication implies reference.
溝通意謂提到事情。

But one is clear—language is merely what scientific discourse elaborates to account for what I call Ilanguage.

但有件事很清楚:語言僅僅是科學的論述建構來說明我所謂的「真語言」。

Ilanguage serves purposes that are altogether different from that of communication.
「真語言」充當的功用跟溝通的目的截然不同。

That is what the experience of the unconscious has shown us, insofaras it is made of Ilanguage, which, as you know, I write with two I’s to designate what each of us deals with, our so-called mother tongue, which isn’t called by accident.

無意識的經驗由「真語言」所組成,給我們顯示的就是這樣。你們知道,我寫作時有兩個我,各別指明處理的是哪一個我,才是我們所謂的母語,這可不是隨意稱呼的。

If communication approaches what is effectively at work in the joussance of Ilanguage, it is because communication implies a reply, in other words, dialogue. But does Ilanguage serves, first and foremost , to dialogue? As I have said before, nothing is less certain.

假如溝通到達「真語言」的歡喜踴躍的境界,那是因為溝通意味著回答,換言之,對話。但重要的是:「真語言」是充當對話之用嗎?如我先前所說,我們絲毫無法確定。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

雄伯手記981106

November 16, 2009

雄伯手記981106

幾個星期來在家深居簡出,上網沖浪下載一些免費電影及檔案資料觀看及閱讀。由於令人著迷的東西多到享受不盡,讓我玩得不亦樂乎。渾然忘了我應該寫作,應該翻譯,應該有所貢獻或成就。

今天中午過後,發現秋日的陽光依然明媚,決定牽出腳踏車沿著海濱腳踏車道前進。騎到港口過後的幽深海邊,發現有三個人頭在藍天碧海的波浪中載浮載沉。我佇立觀望良久,心想:問沖浪有何目的、意義或價值是件很無聊的問題。他們玩得高興,玩到不想上來,難道還不夠說明一切嗎?

我的餘生為什麼不能就像他們那樣:玩就是玩嘛!誰說人生非要有什麼意義或價值,將來才死得瞑目?

雄伯手記981101

November 4, 2009

雄伯手記981101
日夜是循環,春夏秋冬的季節周而復始,宇宙會有生死的輪迴流轉,似乎也是必然的道理。只是人的意識跟我執自戀,卻常常欲罷不能,美好的東西希望永遠一直持續下去。怎麼可能呢?

興奮要懂得結束,清醒要懂得睡眠,擁有要懂得割捨,最難做到的是生命要懂得死亡。