Lacan 302

Lacan 302
The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason Since Freud
自佛洛伊德以降,在無意識界或理性界,字母的代理

The Meaning of the Letter
字母的意義

As my title suggests, beyond this ‘speech’, what the psychoanalytic experience discovers in the unconscious is the whole structure of language.
如我文章篇名「字母的代理」所表明,精神分析經驗在無意識界所發現的,就是語言的整個結構,但是真理在這個「言談」之外。
Thus from the outset I have alerted informed minds to the extent to which the notion that the unconscious is merely the seat of the instincts will have to be rethought.
因此,從一開始,我就反覆再三地提醒過有識之士,我們需要重新再思考
「無意識僅僅是本能的所在」這個觀念。
But how are we to take this ‘letter’ here? Quite simply, literally.
但是我們在此應該如何看待這個「字母」?很簡單,按字面索解。
By ‘letter’ I designate that material support that concrete discourse borrows from language.
所謂「字母」,我指的是,真理的論述從語言借用過支撐素材。
This simple definition assumes that language is not to be confused with the various psychical and somatic functions that serve it in the speaking subject – primarily because language and its structure exist prior to the moment at which each subject at a certain point in his mental development makes his entry into it.
這個簡單的定義認為,我們不應該將語言,跟服侍言談主體的諸般心理與生理的功用混為一談。主要是因為語言及其結構的存在,時間上早先於每個主體的心智發展進入之前。
Let us note, then, that aphasias, although caused by purely anatomical lesions in the cerebral apparatus that supplies the mental centre for these functions, prove, on the whole, to distribute their deficits between the two sides of the signifying effect of what we call here ‘the letter’ in the creation of signification. A point that will be clarified later.
因此,我們需注意到,雖然失語症的病變原因,純粹是語言機能的心智核心,在大腦器官遭受的生理損害,大體上,它已經被証明是,我們在此所謂的「字母」,以意符代理意旨,意義的創造受到意符化的影響,意符與意旨兩邊無法結算,產生的赤字狀態。這一點,容我以後我再詳細澄清。
Thus the subject, too, if he can appear to be the slave of language is all the more so of a discourse in the universal movement in which his place is already inscribed at birth, if only by virtue of his proper name.
因此,假如主體似乎成為語言的奴隸,相對於真理的論述而言,主體一出生的處境,即使自己是一個獨特的個體,就被語言的普遍運作所鐫刻,他也更加是處於失語症的狀態。
Reference to the experience of the community, or to the substance of this discourse, settles nothing. For this experience assumes its essential dimension in the tradition that this discourse itself establishes. This tradition, long before the drama of history is inscribed in it, lays down the elementary structures of culture. And these very structures reveal an ordering of possible exchanges which, even if unconscious, is inconceivable outside the permutations authorized by language.
但是怪罪到社會的背景,或怪罪到真理論述的本質,於事無補。因為這個社會的背景,跟這個真理的論述所建立的傳統息息相關。早在人類的歷史發展之前,這個傳統就奠定文化的基本結構。這些結構顯示互相交換的秩序,這個秩序在語言認可的的領域之外,是無法被理解的,何況是無意識的交換秩序。
With the result that the ethnographic duality of nature and culture is giving way to a ternary conception of the human condition – nature, society, and culture – the last term of which could well be reduced to language, or that which essentially distinguishes human society from natural societies.
人種誌具有自然與文化的雙重特性,逐漸產生人類處境的第三個特性的觀念:自然、社會、與文化三足鼎立。最後一個特性,文化,我們可以用語言作為表達,基本上,區別人類的社會,跟自然的社會的不同。
But I shall not make of this distinction either a point or a point of departure, leaving to its own obscurity the question of the original relations between the signifier and labor. I shall be content, for my little jab at the general function of praxis in the genesis of history, to point out that the very society that wished to restore, along with the privileges of the producer, the causal hierarchy of the relations between production and the ideological superstructure to their full political rights, has none the less failed to give birth to an esperanto in which the relations of language to socialist realities would have rendered any literary formalism radically impossible.
但是,我並非特意要發揮這個不同的區別,而將意符與文化累積的原先關係置之不理。因為我探討歷史的起源,人類作為本體的功用,我確信地指出,即使有社會希望要恢復生產與意識形態的超級結構,相互之間的因果關係,以及生產者的特權,還給它們充份的政治權利,這個社會仍然無法產生一個世界語。使用這樣的世界語,語言跟社會主義的現實之間的關係,本來會使文學的形式主義完全不可能產生。
For my part, I shall trust only those assumptions that have already proven their value by virtue of the fact that language through them has attained the status of an object of scientific investigation.
就我而言,我只相信那些已經被證明其價值的學說。透過這些學說,語言獲得科學研究的客體的地位
For it is by virtue of this fact that linguistics is seen to occupy the key position in this domain, and the reclassification of the sciences and a regrouping of them around it signals, as is usually the case, a revolution in knowledge; only the necessities of communication made me inscribe it at the head of this volume under the title ‘the sciences of man’ – despite the confusion that is thereby covered over.
語言學被認為在這個領域居舉足輕重的地位。依循知識進步的慣例,環繞語言學的諸項文理學科的重新分類,意味著知識的革命。我只是為了溝通的需要,才將它列為本書的首篇,篇名為「人文科學」。但是如此一來,語言學是人文或是科學的混淆,反而遭到漠視。
To pinpoint the emergence of linguistic science we may say that, as in the case of all sciences in the modern sense, it is contained in the constitutive moment of an algorithm that is its foundation. This algorithm is the following:
S/s
which is read as: the signifier over the signified, ‘over’ corresponding to the bar separating the two stages.
為了強調語言科學的出現,我們不妨說,如同所有科學的現代意義,語言學包含其規則系統的組成作為基礎。這個規則系統的標示如下:
S/s
意符與意旨分成兩個階段,中間有一橫槓,意符是意旨的分子,放置在上面。
This sign should be attributed to Ferdinand de Saussure although it is not found in exactly this form in any of the numerous schemas, which none the less express it, to be found in the printed version of his lectures of the years I906-7, I908-9, and I9I0-11, which the piety of a group of his disciples caused to be published under the title, Cours de linguistique génerale, a work of prime importance for the transmission of a teaching worthy of the name, that is, that one can come to terms with only in its own terms.
這個符號應該歸功於佛帝蘭、索緒爾,雖然被運用到無數的模式時,形式略有些差異。索緒爾在I906-7 年, I908-9年, 及 I9I0-11年的出版的著作上,都還是用這個符號表達。他的一些忠實的門徒將這些著作出版,書名為「語言學教程」。這是一本非常重要的著作,對於學術的影響名聲卓著,簡言之,我們無論如何推崇,亦不為過。
That is why it is legitimate for us to give him credit for the formulation S/s by which, in spite of the differences among schools, the beginning of modern linguistics can be recognized.
那就是為什麼我們對於意符與意旨S/s的公式化推崇有加。儘管各學派的主張各有不同,這個公式已經被公認為是現代語言學的開端。
The thematics of this science is henceforth suspended, in effect, at the primordial position of the signifier and the signified as being distinct orders separated initially by a barrier resisting signification. And that is what was to make possible an exact study of the connections proper to the signifier, and of the extent of their function in the genesis of the signified.
事實上,這們科學的主題,因此被擺放在意符與意旨的原初位置,中間有一條橫槓,作為鮮明秩序的區分,表明意義的抗拒。換言之,意符本體的關係的研究,讓我們有可能探索意旨的起源。
雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

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: