A love letter 6

A love letter 6
一封情書
Encore by Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

If the unconscious has taught us anything, it is first of all that somewhere in the other it knows ( ca sait). It knows because it is based precisely on those signifiers with which the subject constitutes himself.

假如無意識曾經教導我們什麼,首先就是,在大它者的某個地方,它知道。它知道,因為它建立在意符或能指的基礎上,那是主體賴以組成自己的內涵。

Now that leads to a conclusion, because it is difficult for whoever souloves not to think that everything in the world knows what it has to do. If Aristotle props up his God with the unmoving sphere on the basis of which everyone must pursue his good, it is because that sphere is supposed to know what is good for it. That is what the break ( faille) induced by scientific discourse obliges us to do without.

可是,混淆卻因此而產生,因為熱愛靈魂的主體很難不這樣認為,宇宙萬物都能知道它必須做些什麼。亞里斯多德的上帝的觀念,是以一個靜止的地球作為基礎,然後依照這個基礎,每個人追求他的至善,因為那個地球應該知道,什麼對自己是最好的利益。可是,現在科學真理卻發現,地球不是靜止不動,而是繞著太陽運轉。這個宇宙觀的分歧迫使我們揚棄亞里斯多德至善的觀念。

There is no need to know why—we no longer have any need whatsoever for the knowledge Aristotle situates at the origin. In order to explain the effects of gravitation , we don’t need to assume the stone knows where it must land. Imputing a soul to animals makes knowing the act par excellence of nothing other than the body—you see that Aristotle wasn’t completely off the wall—except that the body is made for an activity, an ενεργεμγ, and that somewhere the entelechy of this body is based on the substance he calls the soul.

沒有需要去知道為什麼,對於亞里斯多德的宇宙起源的知識,我們就是不再有任何絲毫需要。我們不需要假定石頭知道它一定會掉落在哪裡,我們才能夠解釋地心引力的影響。將靈魂賦予動物,會使認知成為一種道道地地就是身體的活動。你們明白,亞里斯多德還不至於那麼糊塗,會看不出這一點。問題是,身體原是為活動而創造的,這個身體的活動的整體一致,還需要以他所謂的靈魂的物質為基礎。

Analysis allows for this confusion by restoring the final cause, by making us say that, as concerns everything at least related to speaking beings, reality is like that—in other words, phantasmatic. Is that something that can, in any way whatsoever, satisfy scientific discourse?

精神分析學考慮到這種身體與靈魂的混淆,恢復最終的原因,使我們明白,至少與說話主體有關的事情,真相就是那樣,換句話說,就是一廂情願的幻想。這種說法能在哪一方面,使科學的真理論述能自圓其說?

There is, according to analytic discourse, an animal that happens to be endowed with the ability to speak ( qui se trouve parlant) and who, because he inhabits the signifier, is thus a subject of it. Henceforth, everything is played out for him at the level of fantasy, but at the level of a fantasy that can be perfectly disarticulated in a way that accounts for the following—that he knows a lot more about things than he thinks when he acts. But this isn’t tantamount to the beginnings of a cosmology.

依照精神分析學的真理論述,有一種動物恰好稟賦有說話的能力,並且因為居住在意符的世界,也是一個意符的主體。從此,他的所作所為,都是以意符世界產生的幻見的層次。但是這個幻見的層次卻脫離原有的真實世界,而自成一個幾乎就是真實的世界。這說明以下的情境:他對於自己正在做些什麼,他的腦筋所思想的,遠不如他實際所知道。可是,這個情境並不就是等於是宇宙洪荒開始時的情境。

That is the eternal ambiguity of the term “ unconscious.” Certainly, the unconscious is presupposed on the basis of the fact that there is, somewhere in the speaking being, something that knows more about things than he does, but this is not an acceptable model of the world. Psychoanalysis, insofar it derives its very possibility from the discourse of science, is not a cosmology, though it suffices for man to dream for him to see reemerge this immense bric-a-brac, this cluttered storeroom with which he has to make do, which assuredly makes a soul of him, a soul that is occasionally lovable when something is willing to love it.

那就是「無意識」這個術語永遠會模糊不清的原因。的確,無意識所根據的理論基礎是:人作為一個說話主體,身上有某個部位知道事情的原委,遠超過他的理智所知道的。可是,在意符的世界,這並不是大家所接受的認知模式。精神分析學能夠成立,是起源於它作為一門科學的真理論述,所以它並不是一種宇宙起源學,儘管它的種種表現,足夠引起人們期盼它能使宇宙起源的真實面貌重現。這樣,人才能夠成為具有靈魂的主體。靈魂有時是蠻可愛的,假如有人願意愛它的話。問題是,精神分析學只能以科學的真理論述,在宇宙起源的巨大古董室,在這雜亂的儲藏室,將就地翻箱倒篋。

A woman can, as I said, love in a man only the way in which he faces the knowledge thanks to which ( dont) he souloves. But, concerning the knowledge thanks to which (dont) he is, the question is raised on the basis of the fact that there is something, jouissance, regarding which ( dont) it is not possible to say whether a woman can say anything about it, whether she can say what she knows about it.

如我所說,女人之所以愛男人,是因為那個男人能夠認知到隸屬於自己的靈魂,並且熱愛自己的靈魂。但是,關於這個隸屬於自己的靈魂的存在之愛的認知,發生了一個問題,那就是靈魂之愛,也就是存在之愛,是一種歡爽。關於這個歡爽,女人內心是否知道是一回事,嘴巴是否說得出來,又是另一回事。

At the end of today’s lecture, I have thus arrived, as always, at the edge of what polarized my subject, namely, whether the question of what she knows about it can be raised. That is no different from the question whether the term she gets off on ( don’t elle jouit) beyond all this “ playing” ( jouer) that constitutes her relationship to man—the term I call the Other, signifying it with an A—whether this term knows anything. For it is in this respect that she herself as subjugated ( sujette) to the Other, just as much as man.

今天的演講結束時,如平常一樣,我已經講到人作分裂主體的兩極的邊緣,換句話說,人對於自己分裂的認知,究竟懂多少的問題會被提出來。這個問題等於是在問:女人對於愛這個術語的期盼,是否超越它在意符界的「扮演」?對於組成她自己跟男人的關係,跟我所謂的大它者的關係,用字母A作為大它者的意符的關係,愛這個術語是否懂得自己的意涵。因為在這一方面,女人隸屬於大它者,如同男人也同樣隸屬於大它者。

Does the Other know?
問題是:大它者知道嗎?

There was someone named Empedocles—as if by chance, Freud uses him from time to time like a corkscrew—of whose work we know but three lines but Aristotle draws the consequences of them very well when he enunciates that, in the end, God was the most ignorant of all beings according to Empedocles, because he knew nothing of hatred. That is what the Christians later transformed into floods of love. Unfortunately, that doesn’t fit, because not to know hatred in the least is not know love in any way either. If God does not know hated, according to Empedocles, it is clear that he knows less about it than morals.

古希臘有一位哲學家恩比多克勒斯,湊巧地,佛洛伊德也時常提到他,充當激情的愛的典範。他遺留下來的作品只有三行,但是亞里斯多德從這三行借題發揮成許多結論。他宣告說,依照恩比多克勒斯的說法,追根究底,上帝是宇宙萬物中最純樸無知,因為他不曉得什麼叫恨。那就是後來轉變成為基督徒的說不盡的愛。不幸地,這樣的轉變前後並不一致,因為根本不知道什麼叫恨的人,也根本不知道什麼叫愛。假如依照恩比多克勒斯的說法,上帝不知道什麼叫恨,那顯而易見,我們人類對於恨的理解,遠勝過於上帝。

The upshot is that one could say that the more a man can believe a woman confuses him with God, in other words, what she enjoys, the less he hates ( haie), the less he is (est) –both spellings are intended—and since, after all, there is no love without hate, the less he loves.

結論是:我們可以說,男人越是相信女人把他跟上帝混淆,換句話說,把他跟她的仰慕混淆,他就恨得越少,他的靈魂的存在就越少,也就是他愛得越少。這裡的兩個拉丁拼字haie 跟est是殊途同歸,畢竟,沒有恨,就沒有愛。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
springherohsiung@gmail.com

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: