拉岡講座246

拉岡講座246
THE SUBJECT AND THE OTHER: APHANISIS
主體與大它者:失蹤

Small letters
小寫字母

4
Certainty, for Descartes, is not a moment that one may regard as acquired, once it has been crossed. Each time and by each person it has to be repeated. It is an ascesis. It is a point of orientation that is particularly difficult to sustain in the incisiveness that makes its value. It is, strictly speaking, the establishment of something separate.

對於笛卡爾而言,確定性並不被認為是一但被得到,就永遠保存。對於每一個人,確定性需要每次調整。它是一種自我克制。因為它的價值在於它的敏銳性,它是一個特別難於維持的定向點。嚴格說,它建立某件分裂的東西。

When Descartes introduces the concept of a certainty that holds entirely in the I think of cogitation, marked by this point of non-exit that exists between the annihilation of knowledge and scepticism, which are not the same thing—one might say that his mistake is to believe that this is knowledge. To say that he knows something of this certainty. Not to make of the I think a mere point of fading. But it is because he has done something quite different, which concerns the field, which he does not name, in which all this knowledge wanders about—all this knowledge which he had said should be placed in a radical suspension. He puts the field of this knowledge at the level of this vaster subject, the subject who is supposed to know, God. You know that Descartes could not help reintroducing the presence
of God. But in what a strange way!

笛卡爾完全用「我思故我在」來介紹確定性的觀念時,我們可以說,他的錯誤在於相信,這就是知識的真理,在於說明確說,對這個確定性,他已經清楚明白,在於沒有將「我思」僅僅解釋為一個出發點。因為毀滅知識的真理,並不等於就是懷疑主義。笛卡爾的「我思故我在」的特徵是,在知識真理的毀滅跟懷疑主義中間,他並沒有找到存在的出口。關於這個領域,他做了某件相當不同的事情,但是他沒有明確說,因為所有這些知識四處流竄,所有他曾經表明過的知識,確定性應該是懸而未決。他將這些知識的領域,放置在更大的主體的層次,那位主體應該無所不知,那就是上帝。大家知道,笛卡爾不得不重新介紹上帝的存在。但是立場是多麼曖昧!

It is here that the question of the eternal verities arises. In order to assure himself that he is not confronted by a deceiving God, he has to pass through the medium of a God—indeed, in his register, it is a question not so much of a perfect, as of an infinite being. Does Descartes, then, remain caught, as everyone up to him did, on the need to guarantee all scientific research on the fact that actual science exists somewhere, in an existing being, called God? —that is to say, on the fact that God is supposed to know?

在此,就產生了永恆的證實問題。為了告訴自己,他面臨的不是一位騙人的上帝,他必須透過作為媒介的上帝。的確,笛卡爾的思維裡,上帝的存在不是完美,而是永恆。笛卡爾以及他的同樣思維人,難道不是面對如何依據科學的研究,證實實際的科學存在於某個地方,存在於在一個現有的存在,被人稱之為上帝的存在?換言之,他難道不是要用科學研究去證實上帝無所不知?

It may seem that I am taking you a long way from the field of our experience, and yet—I would remind you, both by way of an apology and in order to maintain your attention at the level of our experience— the subject who is supposed to know, in analysis, is the analyst.

我現在似乎引導你們遠離精神分析經驗的立場。可是,我要提醒你們,在精神分析學,應該知道的主體是精神分析師。我很抱歉這樣說,但是你們的注意力,還是應該擺在精神分析的層次。

Next time, we shall discuss, in terms of the function of the transference, how it is that we have no need of the idea of a perfect, infinite being—who would dream of attributing these qualities to his analyst ?— to introduce the function of the subject who is supposed to know.

下一次,我們將討論,作為移情的功用,為了要介紹一位無所不知的主體,我們如何能夠免除不用一位完美的永恆的存在。有誰會夢想將這些屬性歸屬於他的精神分析師?

Let us go back to our Descartes, and to his subject who is supposed to know. How does he get rid of it?’ Well, as you know, by his voluntarism, by the primacy given to the will of God. This is certainly one of the most extraordinary sleights of hand that has ever been carried off in the history of the mind—the eternal verities are eternal because God wishes them to be.

讓我們回到笛卡爾,回到他應該無所不知的主體。他如何能免除不用這樣的主體?大家知道,他採用的方法是,願者前來,願意屈從上帝的意志者前來。相較於古聖先賢,這確實是匠心獨具的靈巧:永恆的證實問題,亙古常在,因為這是上帝對我們的期許。

I think you will appreciate the elegance of such a solution, which leaves a whole portion of the truths, in particular the eternal truths, in God’s charge. Let us be quite clear about this, what Descartes means, and says, is that if two and two make four it is, quite simply, because God wishes it so. It is his business.

我相信你們會欣賞這種解決的巧妙。他將全部的真理問題,特別是永恆的真理,留待上帝來負責。讓我們打開天窗說亮話,笛卡爾的意思是:假如二加二等於四,道理很簡單,因為上帝希望如此。那是上帝的事情。

Now, it is true that it is his business and that two and two make four is not something that can be taken for granted without his presence.

這確實是上帝的事情。假如上帝不存在,二加二等於四,如何能夠被視為天經地義?

I’m going to try to illustrate what I mean here. When Descartes speaks to us of his process, of his method, of clear ideas and confused ideas, simple ideas and complex ideas, he places the order to be followed between these two terms of his method.

我將設法說明我的意思。當笛卡爾對我們提到他的過程,他的方法,他的清楚或模糊的觀念,他的簡單或複雜的觀念,他將順序按照他的方法的兩個術語排列。

It is very possible after all that one plus one plus one plus one do not make four and I must tell you that what I am articulating the vel of alienation on is a good example of it. For, in the cardinal
order, this would give more or less something like the following:

I + (‘ + (‘ + (‘ + (… )))).

畢竟,這也是可能的,一加一、再加一、再加一、再加一,並不等於四。我必須告訴你們,我提到的疏離的欲望驅力的累積,就是一個好例子。因為在基數的順序,出現的結果將是如下:

I + (‘ + (‘ + (‘ + (… )))).

Whenever a new term is introduced, one always runs the risk of letting one or several of the others slip between one’s fingers. In order to reach four, what matters is not the cardinal but the ordinal. There is a first mental operation to be carried out and then a second, then a third, then a fourth. If you do not do them in the right order, you fail. To know whether, in the last resort, it makes three, or four, or two, is of secondary importance. That’s God’s business.

每當一個新的術語被介紹,我們時常遇到的危險是,總是會有一個或幾個其它術語消失不見。為了得到四的結果,重要的不是基數,而是序數。先有一個心算運算出來,然後才有第二個心算,然後第三個心算,然後第四個心算。假如你按照正確順序運算,你會算不出來。至於,最後的結果等於三,或四,或二,那是次要的事情。那是上帝的事情。

What Descartes now introduces, and which is illustrated at once, for, at the same time as his discourse on method he introduces his geometry and his dioptrics, is this—he substitutes the small letters, a, b, c, etc., of his algebra for the capital letters. The capital letters, if you will, are the letters of the Hebrew
alphabet with which God created the world and to each of which, as you know, there corresponds a number. The difference between Descartes’ small letters and the capital letters is that Descartes’ small letters do not have a number—they are interchangeable and only the order of the commutations will
define their process.

笛卡爾現在所介紹的方法,跟他在方法論所介紹的幾何學及折光學,同時進行。他用他的代數的一些小寫字母 a, b,.c 等等,來代替大寫字母。你們知道,大寫字母是上帝用來創造世界的希伯來文的字母,每一個字母都有一個數字相對應。笛卡爾的小寫字母跟大寫字母之間的差異是,笛卡爾的小寫字母沒有一個數字相對應。他們彼此可以互換,只有交換的順序的差異,會界定他們的過程。

To show you that the presence of the Other is already implied in number, I need only point out to you that the series of numbers can only be figured by introducing the zero, in a more or less masked way. Now, the zero is the presence of the subject who, at this level, totalizes. We cannot extract it from the
dialectic of the subject and the Other. The apparent neutrality of this field conceals the presence of desire as such. I will illustrate this simply by a return effect. However, we should take a few more steps forward in the function of desire.

為了顯示,大它者的存在總是暗藏在數字裡,我只需要跟你們指出,數字的系列先要隱隱約約地介紹零,然後才能計算。現在,零就是作為完整的主體,在這個層次的存在,在主體與大它者之間的辯證過程,我們不能抽取掉這個零。零這個領域看起來明顯中立,其實隱藏欲望的本身。我只要用驗算的方式,就能證明。可是,對於欲望的功用,我們應該再進一步探討。

In effect, Descartes inaugurates the initial bases of a science in which God has nothing to do. For the characteristic of our science, and its difference with the ancient sciences, is that nobody even dares, without incurring ridicule, to wonder whether God knows anything about it, whether God leafs through modern treatises on mathematics to keep up to date.

事實上,笛卡爾開展的這門科學的最初基礎,跟上帝完全沒有關係。因為我們科學的特性,以及它跟古代科學的差異是,甚至沒有人敢冒著受人嘲笑的危險,去質問上帝是否懂得科學,是否上帝會翻閱現代的科學論文,才不會被時代淘汰。

I have gone far enough today, and I apologize for not going further. I will leave you at this point, and do no more than indicate for you the last aim of my discourse for this year— namely, to pose the question of the position of psycho-analysis in science. Can psycho-analysis be situated in our science, in so far as this science is considered as that in which God has nothing to do?

我今天已經講得夠多了,很抱歉只能先談到這裡。我將在此先告一段落,我只是要告訴你們,今年我的講座的最後目的是什麼。換言之,我的目的是要提出,精神分析學在科學領域的定位是什麼?假如精神分析學被認為跟上帝沒有任何關係,它能夠被列入我們科學的領域嗎?

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

One Response to “拉岡講座246”

  1. pollus Says:

    APHANISIS 弗洛伊德指环王之一的ernst jones的术语,指性欲缺乏,拉康指主体欲望的消失。

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: