Lacan 304

Lacan 304
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

But enough. It is beginning to sound like the history of France. Which it is more human, as it ought to be, to evoke here than that of England, destined to tumble from the Large to the Small End of Dean Swift’s egg.
但是我不再說下去,那聽起來會是說法國的歷史。我在此娓娓道來,應該是比引述英國的歷史還要合乎人性些,因為英國的四分五裂,像是葛列佛遊記的作者史威夫特所描述的蛋頭大尾小,註定要崩坍的。
It remains to be conceived what steps, what corridor, the S of the signifier, visible here in the plurals in which it focuses its welcome beyond the window, must take in order to rest its elbows on the ventilators through which, like warm and cold air, indignation and scorn come hissing out below.
剩下要談的,只是這個意符的主體要採取怎樣的步驟,怎樣的走道,來走進窗外的男廁與女廁的門,以便找到排泄的通風口。透過這個通風口,憤怒及藐視像一陣溫暖及寒冷的氣流,從底下嘶嘶吹過。
One thing is certain: if the algorithm S/s with its bar is appropriate, access from one to the other cannot in any case have a signification. For in so far as it is itself only pure function of the signifier, the algorithm can reveal only the structure of a signifier in this transfer.
Now the structure of the signifier is, as it is commonly said of language itself, that it should be articulated.
有一件事是千真萬確:即使中間帶有橫槓的意旨與意符的演算精確的話,從意符到意符旨還是無法產生任何意義。因為那純粹只是意符的功用,演算只能顯示意符的演算結構。現在,這個意符的結構,如同我們提到語言的結構,就是它應該被表達。
This means that no matter where one starts to designate their reciprocal encroachments and increasing inclusions, these units are subjected to the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential elements and of combining them according to the laws of a closed order.
這意味著,無論我們從哪裡指明它們互相的侵佔及逐漸的涵蓋,這些單元一定會遭到雙重的狀況。一是被簡化成為無數差異的元素,二是依照封閉秩序的法則,將這些元素結合起來。
These elements, one of the decisive discoveries of linguistics, are phonemes; but we must not expect to find any phonetic constancy in the modulatory variability to which this term applies, but rather the synchronic system of differential couplings necessary for the discernment of sounds in a given language. Through this, one sees that an essential element of the spoken word itself was predestined to flow into the mobile characters which, in a jumble of lower-case Didots or Garamonds, render validly present what we call the ‘letter’, namely, the essentially localized structure of the signifier.
這些元素在語言學的重大發現中被認為是「音素」。但是我們一定不要期望在這個術語所規範的變數中,可以找到任何語音的常數。我們僅能期望在某個語言當中,找到差異的一對元素,會有同時性的系統。經由這個系統,我們看到,口語單字本身的一個基本的元素,預先註定會流入浮動的字的符號裡。狄德羅或嘉洛門等語言學家,以一大堆低階符號,將我們所謂的「字母」具體地表現出來。換言之,他們找到意符的基本的部份結構。
With the second property of the signifier, that of combining according to the laws of a closed order, is affirmed the necessity of the topological substratum of which the term I ordinarily use, namely, the signifying chain, gives an approximate idea: rings of a necklace that is a ring in another necklace made of rings.
其次,談到意符的第二個特性,依照封閉秩序法則結合元素的特性,地形階層的需要被肯定。我通常使用地形階層這個術語,換言之,意符化的鎖鏈,可以給我們一個近似的觀念:一個由諸多圈環組成的項鍊,圈圈相扣。

Such are the structural conditions that define grammar as the order of constitutive encroachments of the signifier up to the level of the unit immediately superior to the sentence, and lexicology as the order of constitutive inclusions of the signifier to the level of the verbal locution.
這些結構的情況可區分如下:文法的定義是,意符組成的侵佔的秩序,到達優於句子的單元的層次,而辭彙的定義是,意符組成的涵蓋的秩序,到達口說慣用語的層次。
In examining the limits by which these two exercises in the understanding of linguistic usage are determined, it is easy to see that only the correlations between signifier and signifier provide the standard for all research into signification, as is indicated by the notion of ‘usage’ of a taxeme or semanteme which in fact refers to the context just above that of the units concerned.
了解語言的用法時,文法及辭彙這兩種功用有其限制。檢查這些限制時,我們很容易看出,只有意符與意符的相互關係提供所有研究意義的標準,如同語法要素或語意要素的「用法」的觀念所指示,也是如此,僅管它們事實上都會提到有關單元的更高層次的內容。
But it is not because the undertakings of grammar and lexicology are exhausted within ¦certain limits that we must think that beyond those limits signification reigns supreme. That would be an error.
但不是因為文法及辭彙的使用在某個限制之內黔驢技窮,我們就必須認為,超越那些限制之外,意義居於統治的崇高地位。那將是一個錯誤的想法。
For the signifier, by its very nature, always anticipates meaning by unfolding its dimension before it. As is seen at the level of the sentence when it is interrupted before the significant term: ‘I shall never…’, ‘All the same it is…’, ‘And yet there may be. ..’. Such sentences are not without meaning, a meaning all the more oppressive in that it is content to make us wait for it.
因為意符展開它的先前的空間時,它本身的性質,總是讓人預期會有意義。如同在句子的層次,我們所看到的,當它在意義的表達時,突然被中斷:「我將不、、、」,「儘管如此、、、」,「可是還有、、、」。這樣的句子並非沒有意義,那個意義更加吊人胃口,因為它滿意於讓我們等待。
But the phenomenon is no different which by the mere recoil of a ‘ but’ brings to the light, comely as the Shulamite, honest as the dew, the negress adorned for the wedding and the poor woman ready for the auction-block.
但是這個現象類似我們說「但是」一詞作為退讓的表示。如奴隸拍賣場被打扮成新娘模樣,那可憐的黑奴所說:「我嬌美如花,純潔如晨露,但是、、、」
From which we can say that it is in the chain of the signifier that the meaning ‘ insists’ but that none of its elements ‘consists’ in the signification of which it is at the moment capable.
從這裡,我們可以說,意義「堅持」在符號的鎖鏈裡,但是盡其可能,沒有一個意義的元素「存在」於意義當中,
We are forced, then, to accept the notion of an incessant sliding of the signified under the signifier – which Ferdinand de Saussure illustrates with an image resembling the wavy lines of the upper and lower Waters in miniatures from manuscripts of Genesis; a double flux marked by fine streaks of rain, vertical dotted lines supposedly confining segments of correspondence.
因此,我們被迫接受這個觀念:意符底下的意旨不斷地滑動。語言學家索緒爾用一個意象舉例說明。從創世紀原稿的一些小圖畫,上下海水的波狀起浮,那是下雨的雨點造成的波動,雨水的垂直線條被認為要與水面的波紋一致。
All our experience runs counter to this linearity, which made me speak once, in one of my seminars on psychosis, of something more like ‘anchoring points’ (‘points de capiton’) as a schema for taking into account the dominance of the letter in the dramatic transformation that dialogue can effect in the subject.
我們所有的經驗都跟這個垂直的一致恰恰相反。在我討論「精神變態狂」的講座中,我曾提到類似一種「固定點」,作為一種模式,考量到字母的優先性,當對談在主體身上所造成的強烈的轉變。
The linearity that Saussure holds to be constitutive of the chain of discourse, in conformity with its emission by a single voice and with its horizontal position in our writing – if this linearity is necessary, in fact, it is not sufficient. It applies to the chain of discourse only in the direction in which it is orientated in time, being taken as a signifying factor in all languages in which ‘Peter hits Paul’ reverses its time when the terms are inverted.
索緒爾認為這個垂直的一致組成真理論述的鎖鏈,對應於單一聲音的表達,及我們寫作時的平面立場。我則認為,這個垂直的一致是有必要,但是還不足以組成真理的論述。它若是能夠千古不變,在所有的語言中都被接納為意符的因素,如「彼得打保羅」,倒轉為「保羅打彼得」,時間逆轉,道理仍在,它才能夠運用到真理論述的鎖鏈。
But one has only to listen to poetry, which Saussure was no doubt in the habit of doing, for a polyphony to be heard, for it to become clear that all discourse is aligned along the several staves of a score.
但是我們必須傾聽詩,毫無疑問,索緒爾也有這樣的習慣,這樣我們才能聽見多重的聲音,讓這個問題彰顯出來:禪詩幾行,真意無窮。
There is in effect no signifying chain that does not have, as if attached to the punctuation of each of its units, a whole articulation of relevant contexts suspended ‘vertically’, as it were, from that point.
事實上,從那一點出發,任何意符的鎖鏈,都會有一整套相關的內涵的表達「垂直地」懸置在那裡,好像它被連接到每個單元的標點。
Let us take our word ‘tree’ again, this time not as an isolated noun, but at the point of one of these punctuations, and see how it crosses the bar of the Saussurian algorithm. (The anagram of ‘arbre’ and ‘barre’ should be noted.)
讓我們再一次拿「樹」這個字當例子。這一次不是當作是一個孤立的名詞,而是當著標點符號之一。看看它如何越過索緒爾演算法的中間那條橫槓。(請注意ambre 與 barre 字母顛倒拼法。)
For even broken down into the double spectre of its vowels and consonants, it can still call up with the robur and the plane tree the significations it takes on, in the context of our flora, of strength and majesty.
即使它們被分解成為母音與子音兩樣元素,它們依舊能讓人想像到夏櫟樹跟懸鈴木樹,在我們植物界的內涵,它具有力量跟雄偉的意義。
Drawing on all the symbolic contexts suggested in the Hebrew of the Bible, it erects on a barren hill the shadow of the cross. Then reduces to the capital Y, the sign of dichotomy which, except for the illustration used by heraldry, would owe nothing to the tree however genealogical we may think it.
依照聖經的希伯來文所具有的象徵內涵,此樹在荒涼的小山上,巍然矗立,像個十字架的陰影。然後,它輪廓可以簡化成Y大寫字母,那是分叉形狀的符號。這個符號,除了用在勳章的圖案外,我們很難從樹的系譜去聯想到它。
Circulatory tree, tree of life of the cerebellum, tree of Saturn, tree of Diana, crystals formed in a tree struck by lightning, is it your figure that traces our destiny for us in the tortoise-shell cracked by the fire, or your lightning that causes that slow shift in the axis of being to surge up from an unnamable night into the ‘`’`language:
血管的循環樹狀,腦的生命分佈狀,土星的形狀,鍊金術的水晶樹狀,閃電擊中樹形成的水晶樹狀,從被火燒裂的烏龜外殼上,我們可以追蹤到命運的發展嗎?或是你的閃電,引起存在的軸心慢慢地改變,從無以名狀的黑夜,洶湧而出,成為「語言」的世界?
No! seys the Tree, it says No! in the shower of sparks of its superb head
「非也!」樹說。在崇高樹頂星光閃爍中,它說「非也!」
lines that require the harmonics of the tree just as much as their continuation:
底下幾句需要樹的和聲,才接續得下去:
Which the storm treats as universally
As it does a blade of grass. (Paul Valéry)
暴風雨對待我一體同仁
與對待一根草葉無異。
保羅、梵樂希
For this modern verse is ordered according to the same law of the parallelism of the signifier that creates the harmony governing the primitive Slavic epic or the most refined Chinese poetry.
這首現代詩依照意符的對稱法則排列。這種對稱排列,跟創造原始斯拉夫史詩,及中國的精練古詩的排列法則別無二致。
As is seen in the fact that the tree and the blade of grass are chosen from the same mode of the existent in order for the signs of contradiction – saying ‘No!’ and ‘treat as’ – to affect them, and also so as to bring about, through the categorical contrast of the particularity of ‘superb’ with the ‘universally’ that reduces it, in the condensation of the ‘head’ (tête) and the ‘storm’ (tempête), the indiscernible shower of sparks of the eternal instant.
如上所見,樹與草葉的選擇都是從相同的存在模式出發,為了呈現「非也」及「一體同仁」的否定的符號,為了彰顯它們,並透過「崇高」與「一體同仁」的特殊對比,及「樹頂」與「暴風雨」的濃縮,激發永恆瞬間的星光迷離閃爍。
But this whole signifier can only operate, it may be said, if it is present in the subject. It is this objection that I answer by supposing that it has passed over to the level of the signified.
但是據說,這整個意符只能在主體的身上運作。對於這樣的異議,我的回答是,要看他的意符是否傳遞到意旨的層次。
For what is important is not that the subject know anything whatsoever. (If LAD IES and GENTLEMEN were written in a language unknown to the little boy and girl, their quarrel would simply be the more exclusively a quarrel over words, but no less ready to take on signification.)
因為,重要的不是主體應該知道。(假如小男孩及小女孩不認識「女側」與「男廁」上的文字,他們的爭吵將僅僅是文字的差異,而不再具有任何意義。)
What this structure of the signifying chain discloses is the possibility I have, precisely in so far as I have this language in common with other subjects, that is to say, in so far as it exists as a language, to use it in order to signify something quite other than what it says. This function of speech is more worth pointing out than that of ‘disguising the thought’ (more often than not indefinable) of the subject; it is no less than the function of indicating the place of this subject in the search for the true.
這個符號鎖鏈的結構所開展的是,假如我擁有這個語言跟其它東西一樣,換言之,它存在作為一種語言,我有可能使用它來指明它的言外之意。言談的功用,比「思想的偽裝」(往往是匪夷所思),更值得被指明出來。這跟我們在追尋真理時,指出主體的立場是同樣的功用。
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: