Archive for June, 2010

The Impotence of truth 7

June 30, 2010

The Impotence of truth 7
真理论述的无能为力
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学的另一面
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

This, then, is the relationship between these terms that are four in number. The one I have not named is the unnamable one, because the entire structure is founded upon its prohibition—that is to say, jouissance.

因此,这是我所说的四个真理论述之间的关系。其中我还没有命名的真理论述,是无法命名的一个,因为它的整个结构就是被建立在它的受到禁制,换句话说,「欢爽」受到禁制。

This is where the little perspective, the little window, the way of looking that analysis has contributed introduces us to what may be a fertile step, not of thought, but of act. And it is in this that it appears to be revolutionary.

就是这小观点、小窗户、精神分析学所贡献的观看方法,对我们的介绍,虽然它可能不是在思想方面,而是在行为方面,跨了扎实的一大步。

It is not situated around the subject. Whatever fertility the hysteric’s questioning has displayed, questioning which, as I have said, is the first to introduce the subject into history, and although the entry of the subject as agent of discourse has had very surprising results, the foremost of which is that of science, it is not here, for all that, that the key to all the mainsprings is to be found. The key lies in raising the question of what jouissance is.

它的位置不是安放在主体四周。我曾经说过,歇斯底里症对於真理论述的质疑,展示扎实的根据,那是第一个真理论述,将生命的主体,介绍到历史当中,虽然
生命主体的进入作为真理论述的代理人,因此产生了令人意料之外的发展。其中最重要的一项就是科学。儘管如此,对於一切的真理论述源头的解答,並无法在这里被找到。源头的解答,在於要先提出「欢爽」是什麽的问题。

It could be said that jouissance is limited by natural processes. But, actually, we have no idea whether they are natural processes. We simply know that we have ended up considering to be natural the mollycoddling that a society that is more or less orderly maintains us in, except that everyone is dying to know what would happen if things went really bad. Hence this sadomasochistic dread that characterize our nice sexual ambiance.

我们可以说,「欢爽」受到自然的过程的限制。但是,实际上,我们並不知道,它们是否就是自然的过程。我们仅仅知道,结果,我们是将我们赖於生存的井然有序的社会的驯服化的文明,当着是一种自然的过程,除了每个人都渴望要知道,假如一但事情真的恶化,会发生什麽事。因此,这种自我凌虐的恐惧,特癥是,我们拼命想搞好性爱过程的气氛。

That is completely futile, even secondary. What is important is that, whether natural or not, it is well and truly as bound to the very origin of the signifier’s coming into play that it is possible to speak of jouissance. Nobody will ever know anything about what the oyster or the beaver enjoys, because, in the absence of the signifier, there is no distance between jouissance and the body. The oyster and the beaver are at the same level as the plant, which, after all, perhaps may have jouissance at this level.

其实,那完全是徒劳无功,甚至是次要的细微末节。重要的是,无论是自然的过程与否,真理的论述,千真万确一定要是意符运作的最初起源,这样,我们才可能谈到「欢爽」。没有人将会知道,牡蛎或海狸喜欢的东西是什麽,因为它们没有语言意符作为媒介,「欢爽」与身体之间,没有任何距离。牡蛎与海狸跟植物是相同层次,它们所能拥有的「欢爽」,可能就是在这个层次。

Jouissance is very precisely correlated with the initial form of the entry into play of what I am calling the mark, the unary trait, which is a mark toward death, if you want to give it its meaning. Observe that nothing takes on any meaning except when death comes into play.

準确地说,「欢爽」跟我所提到的主体作为一个独特生命的特癥,刚进入世界的最初形式,有相互关系。那个独特生命,即使你要赋予它自己的意义,终有一天它还是会归於死亡。你们要观察到这一点,除了当死亡在运作的时刻。没有任何事情,能够具有任何的意义。

It is on the basis of the split, the separation, between jouissance and the henceforth mortified body, it is from the moment that there is a play of inscriptions, a mark of the unary trait, that the question arises. There is no need to wait until the subject has shown itself to have been well hidden, at the level of the master’s truth. The subject’s division is without doubt nothing other than the radical ambiguity that attaches itself to the very term, “ truth.”

就是在「欢爽」与从此受到死亡羞辱的身体之间的这个分裂,这个分开的基础,就在作为独特的生命主体受到语言意符的铭记开始,问题就开始产生。没有需要等到主体已经显现自己,在主人的真理论述的层次,早已经隐藏得消声匿迹。无可置疑的,主体的分裂,道道地地就是为什麽它跟「真理论述」这个术语,永远纠缠不清的原因。

It is insofar as language, everything that institutes the order of discourse, leaves things in a gap that, in sum, we can be confident that in following our thread we are always doing nothing other than following a contour. But it does bring us something extra, and it is the minimum that it would be really necessary for us to know for a reply to the question with which I began, namely, what is currently going on at the level of the university discourse.

语言是啟动真理论述的机制的一切,它将事物留置在鸿沟当中,追根究底,我们还是会充满自信,只要我们坚执迹象的脉络追寻,我们总是会描绘出真理面貌的轮廓。但是,语言确实带给我们某件特别的东西。至少,我们没有真的有迫切需要去知道,为了得到我刚开始所提出的问题的解答,换句话说,在大学的真理论述的层次,目前所正在进行的事情。

We have to begin by seeing why it is that the master’s discourse is so solidly established, to the point where few of you, it seems, judge how stable it is. This stems from something Marx demonstrated—without, I have to say, emphasizing it—concerning production and which he calls surplus value, not surplus jouissance.

我们首先要先观察到,为什麽主人的真理论述是如此的根深砥固,以致以你们没有多少人会去判断一下,它到底有多麽坚固。这起源於马克斯所证实过的某件东西,我必须说,我不必再强调它,那就是关於生产的问题,他称之为「剩余价值」,而不是「剩余欢爽」。

Something changed in the master’s discourse at a certain point in history. We are not going to break our backs finding out if it was because of Luther, or Calvin, or some unknown traffic of ships around Genoa, or in the Mediterranean Sea, or anywhere else, for the important point is that on a certain day surplus jouissance became calculable, could be counted, totalized. This is where what is called the accmuation of capital begins.

在历史的某一个时刻,主人的真理论述发生了变化。我们不必花费心力去探究,原因是马丁路德、或咯尔文教派、或是热那亚附近、地中海、或任何其它地方的一些不为人所知的轮船运输,因为重点是,在某一天,「剩余欢爽」变成可以斤斤计较,可以仔细衡量,可以总结盘算。这就是所谓的资本的累积。

Don’t you feel, in relation to what I said before on the impotence of conjoining surplus value with the master’s truth, that ground is being won here? I am not saying that it is the most recent step that is the decisive one, but the impotence of this conjunction is all of a sudden emptied. Surplus value combines with capital—not a problem, they are homogeneous, we are in the field of values. Moreover, we are all up to our necks in it , in these blessed times in which we live.

你们难道不觉得,我先前所说的,关於剩余价值不可能跟主人的真理论述合并成为一体,现在这个立场逐渐可以成立?我不是在说,最近的这个转变是决定性的关键,而是说,它们之所以无能为力结合成为一体,突然变得显而易见。剩余价值跟资本结合在一起,这不是问题,它们本来就是同质性的,我们现在是在价值的场域里。而且,在这个我们生活其间的物质幸福的时代,我们都在里面载浮载沉。

雄伯译
springheriung@gmail.com

The Impotence of truth 6

June 29, 2010

The Impotence of truth 6
真理论述的无能为力
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学的另一面
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

I am persuaded that there are five or six people here who will be very well able to displace what I am saying in such a way that it will have a chance of reemerging.

有人劝告过我,有五六个人能够胜任地代替我演讲的内容,让它们有机会唯妙唯肖地重现。

I won’t say that this is Archimedes’ lever. I will not tell you that this makes the slightest claim to a renewal of the world system, or of thinking about history. I am only indicating how it is that analysis places us on a footing to accept, through chance encounters, a number of things that may appear to be illuminating.

我不愿意说,这就是阿基米德的槓杆。我也不会告诉你,这种代替的宣称对於世界体系的复兴,或对於历史的思维,没有任何意义。我只是会指明出来,精神分析学如何让我们有一个立足点,透过偶然的机缘,来接受许多看起来具有啟蒙意义的事情。

Myself, for example, I might easily have never encountered Kojeve. If I had never encountered him, it is highly likely that, like all French people educated over a certain period, I would never have suspected that there was anything in The Phenomenology of Spirit.

以我自己当例子,我很幸运地曾经有这个机缘遇到柯爵比。假如我不曾遇到他,很有可能,我会像所有曾经受过一段教育後的法国人一样,我本来永远不会怀疑到,黑格尔的「精神现象学」有什麽不对劲的地方。

It would not be a bad thing if analysis enabled you to realize what the impossibility is due to, that is to say, what it is that stands in the way of grasping, of seizing the only thing that could perhaps ultimately introduce a mutation, namely, the naked real, without truth.

这也不是一件不好的事情,假如精神分析学使你们能够体会到,真事界不可能掌握的原因是什麽,换句话说,是什麽阻碍到我们无法理解,是什麽阻碍我们无法掌握,那唯一在我们生命大限来临时,促使我们恍然大悟的蜕变,换句话说,没有真理论述掩饰下的赤裸裸的真实界。

But there’s the rub. Between us and the real, there is truth. Truth, as I once told you one day in a flight of lyricism, is the dear little sister of jouissance. I hope that this has come back to mind, at least for some of you, at the moment when I am stressing the contrast between the first line and the second in each of the four formulas that I have given you.

但是,那就是关键所在。在我们跟真实界之间,存在着我们对於真理的论述。真理的论述,如同有一天我诗情洋溢地跟你们说,就是「欢爽」的亲爱小姐妹。我希望我这样说,已经让你们至少有一些人回想起那个时刻,我正在强调,我曾经给你们的四个真理论述的公式,第一条法则跟第二条法则的对比。

The first line comprises a relation, indicated here by an arrow, which is always defined as impossible. In the master’s discourse, for instance, it is effectively impossible that there be a master who makes the entire world function. Getting people to work is even more tiring, if one really has to do it, than working oneself. The master never does it. He gives a sign, the master signifier, everybody jumps. That’s where you have to start, which is, in effect, completely impossible. It’s tangle every day.

第一条法则所形成的关系,这里我用一个箭头来表示,那总是被定义为不可能。例如,在主人的真理论述中,这是千真萬确地不可能,会有一位主人在使整个世界运转起来。假如我们人类真的非工作不可的话,那麽强迫别人去工作,远比自己来工作,还更加令人疲倦。主人自己从来不工作。他只是发出讯号,主人的意符,然後每个人就争先恐後地工作。那就是你们必须开始的地方,那个地方实际上是完全不可能的。它在我们每天的生活中具体可看出。

With impossibility written on the first line, it is now a matter of seeing, as is already indicated by the place given to the term “ truth,” whether it might be at the level of the second line that one would have the last word.

如同在「真理的论述」这个术语的位置,所已经表明出来,在第一条所书写的不可能,是否它跟作为结论之用的第二条是相同的层次,现在是一件可以看的出来的事情。

However, at the level of the second line there is no suggestion of an arrow. And not only is there no communication, but there is something that acts as a block.

可是,在第二条的层次,並没有一个箭头的指示。不但彼此之间没有沟通,而且还有某件东西,作为阻碍。

What is it that is blocking? It is what results from the work. And what a certain Marx’s discovery accomplished was to give full weight to a term that was already known prior to him and that designates what work occupies itself with—it’s called production.

什麽东西正在阻碍呢?那就是由於工作的结果。马克思一生所发现的最大成就之一,就是极力强调一个在他之前,已经廣为人知的术语,那个术语明白指出,人类为什麽要孜孜不息地工作?那就是为了所谓的生产。

Whatever the signs, whatever the master signifiers that come to be inscribed in the place of the agent, under no circumstances will production have a relationship to truth. One can do all one wants, one can say all one wants, one can try to conjoin this production with needs, which are the needs one fashions—there is nothing doing.
Between the existence of master and a production’s relation with truth, there is no way of getting it work.

无论主人发出的讯号是什麽,无论铭记在代理人位置的主人的意符是什麽,生产绝对跟真理的论述没有任何关系。我们可以做我们高兴做的事,我们可以说我们高兴说的话,我们可以设法将我们的生产,跟我们自己創造的的需要结合起来,但是先决条件是没有主人的真理论述。若一边是主人的真理论述的存在,另一边是生产与真理论述的关系,那就不可能行得通。

Each impossibility, whatever it may be, between the terms that we put in play here is always linked to this—if it leaves us in suspense over its truth, it is because something is protecting it, which we shall impotence.

无论不可能的情况是什麽,我们在这里所提出的这两个术语,彼此之间不可能行得通的原因,总是如下:假如它使我们对於它的真理的论述半信半疑,那是因为某件东西正在保护它,这个东西,我们称之为真理论述的无能为力。

Take, for instance, in the university discourse, the initial term, the one that is articulated here under the terms S2 and is in this position of unheard-of pretension of having a thinking being, a subject, as its production. As subject, in its production, there is no question of it being able to see itself for a single instant as the master of knowledge.

以大学的真理论述的第一个术语来当例子。这个术语在此我们用第二意符S2这个符号来表达,它所处的立场是前所未闻的伪装,因为人在此拥有一个思想的存在生命,一个生命的主体,作为自己的生产。人作为一个生命的主体,在自己的生产过程,根本不可能有任何时刻,看到自己是充当真理论述的知识的主人。

This can be detected here, tangibly, but it extends much further back, back to the level of the master’s discourse which, thanks to Hegel, I allow myself to presuppose since, as you will see, we no longer know it now except in a considerably modified form.

这一点在这里能够很具体地觉察出来,但是它延伸得更遥运,一直洄溯到主人的真理论述。由於黑格尔的论述,我才能够让自己从事这样的主人的真理论述。你们也明白,我们不再知道何谓主人的真理论述,除了它已经改头换面。

This surplus jouissance that I have articulated this year is a construction, even a reconstruction, and I am putting it at the start as a support. It is a truer support. Let’s be careful, this is indeed what is dangerous about it, but all the same it does have the strength to be articulated in this way, as one can see by reading people like Aristotle,, principally, who have not read Hegel.

我今年所表达的这个剩余欢爽,是一个建设,甚至是一个重新的建设。我开门见山地提出,作为一种支撑。它是一种更加真实的支撑。不过,让我们小心些,这确实是它的危险所在,但是儘管如此,它确实有力量,足以用这样的方式来表达。我们从阅读像亚里斯多德这样的人,我们就会看的出来,主要是他並没有阅读过黑格尔。

When we read Aristotle we have the suspicion that the master’s relation to the slave really presented him with a problem. He was looking for the slave’s truth, and it is really magnificent to see the way in which he tries to extricate himself in the three or four passages in which he deals with it—he only goes in a single direction, that of an essential difference from which the slave’s good would emerge.

当我们阅读亚里斯多德,我们猜疑到,主人与奴隶的关系带给他一个困扰的问题。他在寻找奴隶的真理论述,看到他设法从他处理的三四段的文本的纠缠中挣脱出来,不禁令人动容。他只朝着单一方向前进,那就是奴隶的德行将会出现的基本的相反的方向。

He is not an academic. He is not a clever little fellow like Hegel. He senses that when he utters this or that, it gets away from him, it slides all over the place. He is neither very sure nor very passionate. He does not impose his own opinion. But then, he feels that this is where there might well be something that motivates the relationship between master and slave. Ah! If they were not the same sex, if they were man and woman, this would be truly sublime, and he hints that there would some hope. Unfortunately, that’s not how is, they are not of different senses, and he shrugs his shoulders. We can see clearly what is going on, it’s what , in the name of surplus jouissance. The master receives from the slave’s work.

他不是一位学院派的人物。他不是像黑格尔那样的精明小人物。他意识到,当他侃侃而谈时,他会无法自制地洋洋洒洒谈下去。他既没有完全把握,也不会激情洋溢。他不会将自己的意见强加在别人身上。但是,他会觉得,就在这个地方,会有某件事情触动主人与奴隶的紧张关系。啊!假如他们不是属於相同性别,假如他们分别是男人与女人,这种紧张关系确实是很崇高,他暗示说,那还有一点希望。不幸地,情况不是那个样子。他们並不是属於不同的性别,他只好耸耸肩膀作罢。我们能够很清楚看出,正在发生什麽事。那就是,以剩余欢爽的名义,主人从奴隶的工作中所得来的东西。

It would seem that this has to be self-evident. And what is unheard of is that nobody seems to notice that there is, precisely, a lesson to be learned from the fact that it is not self-evident. The problems of ethics here, suddenly, start to abound—the Nicomachean Ethics, the Eudemian Ethics, and several other works of moral reflection

似乎,这种情况必须是显而自明的。前所未闻的是,似乎没有人注意到,事实上,这种情况並不是显而自明,我们确实可以从这个事实学习到一个教训。在此,伦理学的问题突然如雨後春笋般冒出,尼康马奇伦理学、欧迪米安伦理学,以及无数其它有关道德问题的反思的论述著作。

It’s irresolvable. Nobody knows what to do with this surplus jouissance. In order to successfully place a sovereign good at the heart of the world, you need to be as embarrassed as a fish with an apple. And yet the surplus jouissance that the slave brings us lies within arm’s reach.

这个问题无法解答。没有人知道如何来处理这个剩余欢爽。为了成功地摆置一个统治的德行在世界的中心,你所需要面临的尴尬,不下於鱼不知道要如何吃蘋果。可是奴隶带给我们的这个剩余欢爽,却是距离我们只有一臂之遥。

What is demonstrated, attested to, by all the thought of Antiquity that Hegel makes us revisit with his wonderful sleight of hand and other acts, including the politicized masochism of the Stoics, is that to calmly set one-self up as the master’s subject cannot be done qua surplus jouissance.

憑藉古人的思想智慧,黑格尔以其生花妙笔的灵巧手腕,及其它行径,包括禁欲学派的自虐行为,替我们证明及验证,人作为剩余欢爽的生命主体,仅是泰然自若地自许为主人的真理论述,是无法达成的。

Let’s now take the hysteric’s discourse, as it is articulated—place the $ on the top left-hand corner, the S1 on the right, the S2 underneath, the small a in the place of truth. It cannot be the case, either, that the hysteric’s division, symptomatic tearing apart, is motivated as the production of knowledge. Her truth is that she has to be the object a in order to be desired. The object a is a bit thin, at the end of the day, although, of course, men go crazy about it and they are unable even to suspect that they could get by with anything else—another sign of the impotence that coverts the subtle of all impossibilities.

现在,让我们以歇斯底里症的真理论述当例子。如这个公式所表达的,我们将这个被禁制的生命主体,摆在左边的上方角落,第一个生命主体摆在右边,第二个生命主体摆在底下,小客体摆在真理论述的位置。歇斯底里症的分裂,受到病癥的撕裂,被激发起来,作为生产的真理论述的认知,也不可能是这种情况。她的真理论述是,她必须先成为小客体,才有办法被人所渴望。这个小客体经过一天的劳累,看起来有点单薄,但是男人当然还是对它着迷若狂,他们甚至於没有怀疑到,它能够被任何其它东西所替代。这是另外一个无能为力的迹象,涵盖了所有的不可能的奥秘。

Let’s move on to the level of the analyst’s discourse. Naturally, nobody has made the observation that it is fairly curious that what he produces is nothing other than the master’s discourse since it’s S1 which comes to occupy the place of production. And, as I was saying last time when I was leaving Vincennes, perhaps it’s from the analyst’s discourse that there can emerge another style of master signifier.

让我们继续谈精神分析师的真理论述的层次。当然,没有人曾经观察到,这是一件很耐人寻味的事情,精神分析师所生产的真理论述,道道地地就是主人的真理论述,因为佔据这真理论述的生产的位置,就是第一个生命的主体。上一次,我刚要离开萬塞纳大学时,我这样说过,很有可能,从精神分析师的真理论述那里,会出现另外一种风格的主人论述。

In truth, whether it is another style or not, it is not in two days’ time that we will learn what it is, and at least for the moment we are completely impotent when it comes to referring it to what is at play in the analyst’s position, namely, this seduction of truth that he presents in the fact that he would know a bit about what, in principle, he represents.

在真理论述里,无论它是另外一种风个与否,我们都不可能在一两天内,就会知道它的内涵。至少在目前,当我们提到在精神分析师的立场,是什麽力量在运作时,换句话说,精神分析师呈现真理的论述作为诱拐,他对於原则上他所代表的真理论述,自己到底懂多少这一点,我们是完全地无能为力。

Am I adequately stressing the features of the impossibility of his situation?–insofar as the analyst puts himself in the position of representing, through being the agent, the cause of desire?

精神分析师将自己的立场定位为,透过充当代理人的角色,代表欲望的原因,但是他的这个立场,使他不可能直达真实界,这个特癥,我现在强调得足够吧?

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

The Impotence of truth 5

June 27, 2010

The Impotence of truth 5
真理的无能
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学的另一面
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

Here in France, you won’t find the philosophers in the universities. We can claim this as an advantage. But in Germany they are in the university. And people are capable, as a certain level of university status, of thinking that these poor fellows, these dear little chaps, the ones who at that time were only just entering the industrial era, the great era of hard labor, of exploitation unto death, will be captivated by the revelation of this truth that they are the ones who make history, and that the master is only there to get the show on the road.

在法国这里,你在大学找不到这样的哲学家。我们能够宣称这是一个犹点。但是在德国,这些哲学家都在大学里。人们能够这样认为,就大学的某个层次而言,这些可怜的人,这些亲爱的小人物,这些在当时只是刚刚讲入工业时代的人,在这个劳力密集的伟大时代,这个人的身心被剥削到死的时代,他们将会被真理的啟明所着迷,然后成为創造历史的人物,主人的真理论述就在成为大师的过程中闪亮显耀。

This is a valuable remark, and it is my intention to emphasize it forcefully, because of Freud’s phrase that the analytic relationship must be founded on the lover of truth.

这是一个很有价值的谈话。我的用意是要再三地强调它,因为佛洛伊德说过,精神分析师的关系必须建立在对于真理的爱好上。

He really was a charming character, this Freud. He really was all fire, all flame. He also had his weaknesses. His relationship with his wife, for example, is something unimaginable. To have tolerated such a trollop his entire existence is quite something.

他真是一位令人着迷的人物,这位佛洛伊德。他真的是热情洋溢,意气风发。他也有他的弱点。例如,他跟他的妻子的关系,就是一件令人匪夷所思的事情。他能够容忍这样一个邋遢的女人那麽久,他的整个一生确实不同凡响。

Anyway, take note of the following—if there is something that truth must inspire you with, if you want to uphold Analysieren, it is certainly not love. For truth, as it happens, makes this signifier “ death” appear. And even, there is every appearance that if there is one thing that gives a completely different sense to what Hegel proposed, it is what Freud had nevertheless discovered at that time, which he characterizes the psychical reality, if there is such a thing, of this being inscribed in language.

那些暂且不管,请先注意以下面的话:假如真理能够对你们有所啟发,假如你们想要支持精神分析经验,那确实並不是爱好的问题。因为事实上,真理所啟发出来的意符是死亡。甚至於,显而易见的,假如有某一件事情可以使黑格尔的建议,赋予完全不同的意义,那就是佛洛伊德当时的发现,当他盡最大能力将它的特癥定义为「死亡本能」,换句话说,人作为生命的主体,被铭记在语言里,他的心里的真实界状态,假如存在的话,特癥就是持续的重复,绵延不断地重复。

It’s perhaps the case that truth has no other face. That’s no reason to go mad over it.

常见的情形是,真理就是这个面貌,没有其它。但是,我们也没有理由,因此就愤忿不已。

This isn’t exact either. Truth has more than one face. But that’s the point, what could be the first line of conduct to maintain as far as analysts are concerned is to be a little suspicious of it, and not to become all of a sudden mad about a truth, about the first pretty face encountered at the first turn in the road.

这个说法也不完全确实。真理的面貌其实不只是一种。但是重点是,就精神分析师而言,行为準则的第一条就是,对於死亡本能只能半信半疑,对於真理的发现,对於在追寻途中,首次邂逅的真理的美丽面貌,也不要突然大喜过望地激动。

This is precisely where we encounter this remark of Freud’s in which we find ‘ reality” accompanied by this Analysieren. It is indeed the sort of remark to make us say that, in effect, there is perhaps, just like that, a completely naïve real—this is how people generally speak—that passes itself off as the truth. Truth is experienced this does not at all mean that it thereby knows any more about the real, especially if one speaks about knowing, and if one bears in mind the features of the real that I point out.

这个确实是我们所阅读到的佛洛伊的谈话。在这里,我们发现到这个精神分析经验所伴随而来的「真实界」。确实就是这样的谈话让我们能够说,事实上,像那样的真实界,可能是一种完全天真纯朴的真实界。人们通常就是这种说法,然後,就将它当着是真理论述般地视若罔闻。真理论述是须要经过验证的,这並不意味着,它因此对於真实界就了解得比我们多,特别是假如我们谈到的了解是觉悟,假如你们还记得我所指出的真实界的特癥。

If the real is defined as the impossible the real is placed at the stage at which the register of symbolic articulation was found to be defined as the impossible to demonstrate to be true. This may help us take the measure of our love for truth—and it may also enable us to put our finger on why governing, educating, analyzing also, and why not, causing desire, so as to complete the series with a definition of what the hysteric’s discourse might be, are operations that, strictly speaking, are impossible.

假如真实界的定义是不可能,这个真实界所处於的阶段,是符号表达的铭记被定义为不可能证明为真实。这可能有助於我们採取我们对於真理的爱好的策略,而且它也可以使我们能够理解到,为什麽统治、教育、心理分析,严格来说,都一些不可能的运作,而引起欲望却是屡试不爽的可能运作,为了将歇斯底里症的真理论述的定义,解释得能自圆其说。

These operations exist, they are robust, very much so, in so far as they raise for us the question of what their truth is—that is to say, how they are produced—these mad things which are defined in the real as only being to be articulated, when one nears them, as impossible. It is clear that their full articulation as impossible is precisely what gives us the risk, the barely glimpsed opportunity, that their real, if I can put it like this, breaks out.

这些运作存在,它们强而有力地存在,因为它们对我们提出一个它们的真理是什麽的问题。换句话说,这些运作是如何产生,这些在真实界被定义为唯一能够被表达出来的瘋狂的事情,当我们靠近它们,当着是不可能的事情的时候。显而易见的,对於它们完整地表达是不可能,这确实是我们所牵涉到的危险。我们有驚鸿一瞥般的机会看到,容我这样说,他们的真实界的耀武扬威。

If we are obliged to swan around at such length in the corridors, the labyrinths of truth, it’s because there is precisely something that prevents us from concluding. And why be astonished by his when it concerns those discourses that for us are brand new? It is not as if one has not yet had a good three-quarters of a century to envisage things from this angle, but then, being seated in an armchair is perhaps not the best position from which to come to grips with the impossible.

假如我们不得不好整以暇地在川堂闲逛,这个真理迷宫的川堂,那是因为确实有某一件东西,阻止我们无法做出结论。为什麽我们要大惊小怪,当它牵涉到那些对我们是崭新的真理的论述?原因倒不是因为,过去整整二十五年来,我们没有足够的时间,从这个角度来拟想这些事情,而是端坐在安乐椅上,可能並不是从事不可能的追寻的最恰当的位置。

Be that as it may, we are forever wandering about in the dimension of the lover of truth, and everything indicates that this dimension makes the impossibility of that which maintains itself as real slide between our fingers, at the level, quite precisely, of the master’s discourse, as Hegel has said. This fact necessitates the reference to what analytic discourse, fortunately, enables us to glimpse and articulate exactly. And this is why it is important that I articulate it.

无论如何,我们作为真理的爱好者,永远是处於漫遊的状态。每一样迹象都指示着,对真理的爱好不可能在真实界维持自己,因为如黑格尔所说的,在主人的真理论述的层次,它不断地从我们的指掌间溜掉,这个事实使我们必须要提到精神分析学的真理论述,因为很幸运地,它使我们能够确实地瞥见真实界,並且表达出来。这就是为什麽,我表达这个真实界是如此的任重道远。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

The Impotence of truth 4

June 26, 2010

The Impotence of truth 4
真理的无能
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学的另一面
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

It is truly the most extraordinary thing there. It is also a cold, I won’t say black, humor. There is one thing you can be absolutely convinced of, which is that he knows perfectly well what he is doing. What he is doing is sleight of hand and he takes the whole world in. And this, on the basis of the fact that what he says is true.

在那里这确实是最特别的事情。即使不是黑色幽默,也是一种很酷的幽默。有一件事情,你们绝对可以相信的。那就是,他非常清楚地知道,他正在做什麽。他正在做的,就是手的灵巧,他玩弄整个世界於手掌中。他能够这样得心应手,基本的要件是,他所说的话是真实的。

There is obviously no better way to pin down the master signifier S1, which is up there on the board, than by identifying it with death. And so, what is involved? It involves showing in a dialectic, as Hegel puts it, what it is that is the zenith, the highest point, the thought of this term’s function.

显而易见的,除了将主人的意符认同於死亡外,我们没有比这个更好的方法来定位它。我现在将它写在黑板上。那会牵涉到什麽呢?如黑格尔所说的,它会牵涉到辩证法中,什麽是最高顶点的问题。

What, in sum, is the point of entry of this brute, the master, into the phenomenology of mind, as Hegel put it? The truth of what he articulates is absolutely seductive and sensational. We can actually read it there, opposite us, provided we allow ourselves to be taken in by it, since I assert, precisely, that it cannot be read off directly. The truth of what he articulates is this—the relationship to this real insofar as it is, properly speaking, impossible.

总而言之,进入这个残酷的主人论述的意义是什麽?如黑个尔所说的,进入精神现象学的意义是什麽?他所表达的真理,绝对是煽动性,以及耸动性。只要我们让自己被它所欺骗,我们就会真的去读它,即使是将它摆在我们相对立场。千真万确地,我主张,这本书无法直接地阅读。他所表达的真理,适当地说,要进入这样的真实界是不可能。

It’s not at all clear why there should be a master who emerges from the struggle to death of pure prestige. And this is despite the fact that Hegel himself says that it would result in this strange outcome at the start.

为人性尊严奮斗,至死方休,是否应该有一位主人出现,这一点我们不得而知,儘管黑格尔自己也说过,从一开始,它就会造成这样的结果。

To cap it off, Hegel finds a way—it is true, in a conception of history that touches on what emerges from it, namely the succession of phases of dominance, of composition of the play of the mind, which runs the length of this thread that is not for nothing, which up until his day was called philosophical thought—Hegel finds a way to show that what results from this is that in the end it is the slave who, through his work,, produces the master’s truth, by pushing him down underneath. By virtue of this forced labor, as you can see from the outset, the slave ends up, at the end of history, at this point called absolute knowledge.

总而言之,黑格尔找到一个方法显示。的確,以一个触及到精神会出现怎样的现象的历史的概念里,换句话说,各个连续支配的阶段,精神运作的形成,挥洒到淋漓尽致,並非一无所得,在他的有生之年,他的哲学思想就已经成为一家之言。黑各尔找到一个方法显示,从这里产生的结果,最後是,奴隶透过自己的辛勤工作,将原有的主人推翻,产生了自己充当主人的真理。如同你们从一开始,就已经看得出来,憑藉这种强制性的劳动,在历史的结束时,奴隶结果会处於所谓觉醒的绝对知识的时刻。

Nothing is said about what happens next, because in truth, in the Hegelian proposition, there were not four terms, but initially the master and the slave. I call this slave S2, but you can also identify him here by way of the term jouissance, which, first, he did not want to renounce and which, secondly, he did indeed want to, since he substitutes work for it, which is not at all its equivalent.

奴隶觉醒之後,会发生什样的事,黑格尔並没有提到。因为在真理的论述中,在黑格尔的命题中,並没有我现在的四个真理论述,而只有主人与奴隶的真理论述。我称这种的奴隶为S2,但是你们也可以藉由「欢爽」这个术语,将他辨认出来。首先,奴隶並不想要抛弃这种欢爽,其次,他确实想要抛弃,因为他已经用工作来代替它。不过,两者根本就无法相等。

Owing to what? Owing to the series of dialectical mutations, to the ballet, the minuet that is established on the basis of this initial moment and that traverses the entire development of culture from start to finish, thread by thread, history finally compensates us with this knowledge that is not described as completed—there are good reaons for this—but as absolute, as indisputable. And the master subsequently appears only aas the instrument, the magnificent Cuckold of history.

什麽原因呢?由於一连串辩证法则的突变,就像巴蕾舞,这种小步舞之所以能够成立,是靠着开始时的脚尖触立,然后旋转全场,这一连串精神现象的辩证法,从一开始到结束,一步又一步地,贯穿整个文化的发展。历史最後给我们的補偿是,让我们觉醒地知道,我们有充份的理由觉醒,欢爽被工作所代替,尚未终了,而是绝对的,无可争辩的觉醒。主人的真理论述随後出现,只是作为工具,作为历史的光冕堂皇的遮羞者。

It is sublime that this quite remarkable dialectical deduction was undertaken, and that it should have succeeded, if one can say this. All the way through—take as an example what Hegel is able to say about Culture—the most pertinent remarks concerning the play of events and exercises of wit abound. I repeat, there is nothing more amusing.

这种高超的的辩证法则的推展,委实是令人肃然起敬,它本来是应该成功的,容我们这样说。一路推展过来,始终被当着是黑格尔对於文化的創见的例子。他一针见血地道中历史事件的演变,淋漓尽致,妙语如珠。我再重复一遍,这种辩证法则真是令人歎为观止。

The cunning of reason is, he tells us, what directed the entire game.

他告诉我们,指导整个历史演变的游戏法则,就是理性的狡狯。

This is a very fine term which has a lot of value for us, analysts, and we can follow it at the level of our ABC, whether reasonable or not, for we are dealing with something very cunning in speech where the unconscious is concerned. However, the high point of this cunning is not where one thinks it is. It is the cunning of reason, no doubt, but one has to recognize the cunning of the reasoner, and take one’s hat off to him.

这是一个很好的术语,对我们精神分析师很有价值。听起来有一点不可思议,但是我们可以从初级的阶段就开始使用它,因为就无意识而言,我们是在处理跟语言的狡狯有关的事情。可是这种狡狯的最高点,並不是在我们所认为的地方。那是理性的狡狯,没有错,但是我们必须辨认出来理性论者的狡狯,然後,对他脱帽致敬。

Had it been possible that at the beginning of the last century, at the time of the battle of Tena, this extraordinary dirty trick called The Phenomenology of Spirit should have subjugated anyone, the trick would have succeeded.

假如在上一世纪的开始,在拿破轮跟普鲁士的铁纳仗役,所谓的「精神现象学」的这个特殊的理性的狡狯,要是能够激发以寡敌众的斗志,它本来可以成功地产生出奇致胜的效果。

It is in effect quite evident that not for a single instant can one hold that we are in any way approaching the ascendancy of the slave. This unbelievable way of giving him the credit—giving his work the credit—for any kind of progress, as we say, of knowledge is, truly extraordinary futile.

事实上显而易见的是,我们没有任何丝毫时刻相信,我们有任何方法可以达到奴隶的超越前进。黑格尔对於奴隶的不可思议地推崇,对於奴隶的工作的推崇,就任何的觉醒知识的进步而言,是全然地徒劳无功。

But what I am calling the cunning of the reasoner is there to make us aware of an essential dimension, which one has to be careful about. If we designate the agent’s place—whoever it is, this place is not always that of the master signifier, since all the other signifiers are going to pass through there in truth—the question is as follows. What makes this agent act? How is it possible to produce this extraordinary circuit around which what deserves, strictly speaking, to be designated by the term “ revolution” revolves?

但是,我这里所谓的理性论者的狡狯,是为了使我们知道一个基本的向度,那是我们必须要小心处理的。假如我们指定不管是哪一位代理人的位置,这个位置未必总是主人的意符的位置,因为所有其他的意符在真理的论述过程,都会经过这里。这样就会发生以下的问题:什麽力量使这位代理人採取行动?严格来说,绕着「革命」这个术语,应该被指定的这个特别循环力量是如何可能产生?

Here, at a certain level, we rediscover Hegel’s expression, “ putting work back into the world.”

在此,在某个层次上,我们重新发现黑格尔的金玉良言:「劳工神圣!」

Which is truth? It is located there, with a question mark. What inaugurates this agent, what brings him into play? For, in the end, it has not been there forever, it has been there ever since historical time.

哪一个才是真理?这个问题摆在这里,是一个问号。最先是什麽力量激发这位代理人?是什麽力量使他开始运作?因为追根就底,那个力量並没有永远在那里,

A good thing to appreciate concerning such a brilliant case, so dazzling that precisely for that reason it doesn’t occur to one, one is unable to see it, is this. Hegel is the sublime representative of the discourse of knowledge and of university knowledge.

这是一件值得赞赏的好事,关於如此一件乾净俐落的辩证推展,如此令人眼花撩乱,因为那个理由,没有人会去想到,我们所无法看到的结果。黑格尔是知识的真理论述,以及大学知识的最崇高的代表。

We others in France only ever have as philosophers people who travel the highways and byways, little members of provincial societies, such as Maine de Biran, or else characters like Descartes, who wander all over Europe. You nevertheless have to know how to read him, too, and listen to his tone-he speaks of what he can expect from his birth. One sees what sort of a fellow he was. This doesn’t mean he was an idiot, far from it.

我们其他在法国的人,所拥有的哲学家,只有公路及乡野道路的行者,民间社团的会员,諸如缅因、比壤,或是其他人物,像环遊全欧洲的笛卡尔。可是,你也必须懂得如何去阅读他,听他讲话的语调,因为他会提到他从出生以来,对自己未来的期望。我们可以看出他是什样的一种人。这並不意谓着他是一位白痴,丝毫不是那个意思。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

The Impotence of truth 3

June 25, 2010

The Impotence of truth 3
真理的无能
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学的另一面
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

Work has never given such credit ever since humanity has existed. It is even out of the question that one should not work.

自从人类存在於世界上,工作從来没有给予如此崇高的地位。甚至於人类想不要工作,都是不可能的事情。

This is surely an accomplishment of what I am calling the master’s discourse.

这的確是我所谓的主人的真理论述的辉煌成就。

For this to be the case it needed to go beyond certain limits. In a word, it comes down to something whose mutation I have tried to point out for you. I hope you remember it, and in case you can’t –which is quite possible—I am going to go back over it straight away. I am speaking of this capital mutation, also, which gives the master’s discourse its capitalist style.

要让这样的情况发生,它需要跨越某些限制。总之,它会演变成为我曾经跟你们提到过的突变,我希望你们还记得。假如你们忘记了,这是可能的,我将马上为你们温习一遍。我现在也正在说到这个资本的突变,让主人的真理论述发挥它资本主义的风格。

Why, good heavens, is this taking place, and why is it not taking place by chance?

我的天呀!为什麽会发生这样的事情?为什麽它的发生不是一种意外?

You would be wrong to think that there are knowledgeable politicians somewhere who are calculating exactly how everything has to be done. You would be equally wrong to think that there are none—there are some. It is not clear that they are always in a place where one can engage in suitable action. But, ultimately, it is perhaps not this that is so important. That they exist, even if in another place,, suffices for what is of the order of the displacement of discourse to be transmitted nevertheless.

假如你们认为是,在某个地方,有一些学识渊博的政治家,将所必需要做的事情,详细地规劃,那你就大错特错了。假如你认为,都没有任何学识渊博的政治家正在规劃,你也将是同样错误,事实上是有一些。至於他们是否适在其位适得其所地发挥他们所长,那就不得而知了。但是,追根究底,可能重要的地方还不是这个。重要的是,他们只要存在,即使是在另一个地方,都已经足够让真理论述的替代位置受到转移。

Let’s now ask how this society called capitalist society can afford to allow itself a relaxation of the university discourse.

现在让我们问一下,这个所谓的资本主义的社会,能够担负得起让自己成为大学的真理论述所懈怠的地带吗?

This discourse is nevertheless merely one of these transformations that I have been expounding all along. It’s the quarter turn in relation to the master’s discourse. Hence a question which it is worth making the effort to envisage—if we embrace this relaxation which, it has to be said, has been offered, aren’t we falling into a trap? The idea is not new.

可是,这个大学的真理论述,仅是我曾经一再阐述的真理论述的转移的替代位置之一。它跟主人的真理论述一样,各占四分之一的位置。因此,这是一个值得我们费心思努力去拟想的问题:假如我们持续我们所享有的这样的懈怠(我们必需如此说),我们难道不就是掉入一个陷阱当中?

As it happens, I have written a short article on university reform, which I had been invited to write for a newspaper, the only one to have a reputation for balance and honesty, by the name of Le Monde. They had insisted that I write this little page concerning the reorganization of psychiatry, concerning reform. Now, it is quite striking that despite this insistence this little article, which I will publish some day, did not get through.

恰巧地,我曾经应邀替报纸写了一篇讨论大学改革的短文。那是仅有的一家具有平衡及诚实报導的报纸,报纸名叫Le Monde。他们坚持我应该写这一篇短论,关於精神分析学系的重新规劃,以及关於大学的改革。现在,耐人寻味的是,儘管他们一再地坚持,这篇短论论当时並没有刊登。将来有一天,我会让它出版出来。

In it I speak of “ a reform in its hole.” Precisely, it was obviously a matter of using this whirlwind of a hole to take a number of measures concerning the university. And good heavens, by correctly referring to the terms of certain fundamental discourses one might have certain scruples, let’s say, about acting, one might look twice before jumping in to profit from the lines that have opened up. It is quite some responsibility to transport carrion down these corridors.

在那一篇短论当中,我提到「在自己洞中的改革」。準確地说,假如仅是採用许多的措施,来做大学的改革,那顯而易见是一件自家内的洞中的风暴。我的天啊!光是明確地指出某些基本的真理论述的单位名称,我们就得瞻前顾後地谨慎,例如,我们必须三思而後行,才能够对於所提出的建言,发挥它们内涵应有的利益。要将死而不僵的腐尸运送出这些穿堂,还真有一点任重道远。

That is what our remarks today, which are not usually, not commonly said, must be linked up with.

那些都是跟我们今天的谈话有密切关係,虽然我通常並不随便说。

This is like an apparatus. You should, at least, get the idea that it could be used as a lever, as a pair of pliers, that it can be screwed down, assembled in one way or another.

这就像是一台仪器。至少,你应该有这样的观念,它能够充当一种槓杆,或当一对钳子,这样,它才能够用某种方式锁紧,或装配起来。

There are several terms. It’s no accident if I have given only these little letters here. It’s because I do not want to put things up that might give the appearance of signifying. I do not at all want to signify them, but to authorize them. Writing them is already to authorize them a bit more.

要批判的单位名称有好几个。但是,我在这裡只列举这几个字母,那並不是偶然的,因为我不想要展现它们,看起来像是意符的外观。我根本不想要将它们意符化,而只是要授权它们。将它们书写下来,就已经是有一点在授权它们。

I have already discussed what constitutes the places in which these non-signifying things are inscribed, and I have already spelt out what it is that is the agent.

我已经讨论过,是什麽组成这些非意符的东西所铭记的位置。我已经说明过那个代理的人是什麽。

This term carries a connotation as if it were a sort of enigma of the French language—the agent is not at all necessarily someone who does but someone who is caused to act.

这个单位名称具有内涵,好像它是一种法国语言的谜团。代理的人根本就不需要是某一位实际在做的人,而是某一位被驱使去做的人。

As a consequence, and as you may already suspect, it is not at all clear that the master functions. This, in all probability, defines the place of the master. This is the best thing one can ask oneself concerning him, and naturally people didn’t wait for me to do it. A certain Hegel had a go at it, though you have to take a closer look.

结果是,如你们已经猜疑到,主人论述的功用根本就模糊不清。很有可能,这就是主人论述的位置。我们最好的表现,就是问一问自己,作为我们生命的主人是谁?当然,有些人不必等待我的提醒,就已经这样问了。黑格尔就曾经这样尝试问过,虽然你们要仔细观察,才看得出来。

It is very irritating to think that there are perhaps not five people here who have fully read The Phenomenology of Spirit since I have been talking about. I won’t ask them to raise their hand.

这实在是令人抑郁不乐,当我想到现场完完整整读过黑格尔的「精神现象学」的人,可能不到五位,因为我曾经一再地谈论过这本书。我就不再要求你们再举一次手了。

It pisses me off that I have until now only come across two people who have read it completely, since I too, I have confess, have not peered into every corner. I have in mind my master, Alexandre Kojieve, who has demonstrated this a thousand times over, and one other person, of a kind that you won’t believe. The latter has truly read The Phenomenology of Spirit in an illuminating manner, to the extent that everything that might be in Kojeve’s notes, which I had and which I passed onto him, was truly superfluous.

我实在感到懊恼,直到现在,我只遇到过两个人,完整地读过这本书,因为我也读过,我必须承认,我也没有巨细弥遗地读。我心目中的大师是柯爵比,他曾经读过一千多遍,还有另外一个人,你们不相信,也是同样读过一千多遍。後者读过「精神现象学」的方式,確实令人肃然起敬。柯爵比的注释、我的注释、以及我留给他的注释,对他简直是多余。

What is unheard of is that, even though at one stage I wore myself out making people aware of the fact that The Critique of Practical Reason is manifestly a book of eroticism that is extraordinary more amusing than what Eric Losfeld has published, it has no kind of effect, and that, if I say to you that The phenomenology of Spirit is hysterically funny, well then, this won’t fare any better. And yet, that is what it is.

前所未闻的是,即使当我不厌其烦地正在使人们了解到,康德的「实践理性批判」可证明是一本色情的书,比乐斯菲德所出版的漫画内容更加有趣得多了,「精神现象学」始终没有这样的效果。容我这样跟你们说,「精神现象学」的可笑处,在於它一板正经到歇斯底里的程度。这种书读起来无趣得很。可是,它確实就是这个样子。

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

The Impotence of truth 1

June 24, 2010

The Impotence of truth 1
真理的无能
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学的另一面
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

We are at that time of the year when final examinations happen. I am going to try to lighten things up a bit.

我们现在正面临期末考要举行的时候。我想要减轻一点你们的课业的压力。

Fortunately, it’s drawing to a close, ca se tire , as we say, I would even be inclined to leave it at that, if I didn’t have to give you, all the same, two little complements that are intended to bring out the essential of what I hope to have got across this year—two little points for the future, which may give you a glimpse, by drawing you a bit closer to it, of the way in which there are perhaps notions that are fairly new, and that have, in every case, this mark that I am always emphasizing, which those who find themselves working with me at a more practical level can confirm, of operating on a level with an experience.

幸运地,随着期末考的结束,我的讲课也将告一段落。但是,我依舊还有两小点補充,打算用来显示今年我希望要传达给你们的东西,两小点有关未来的展望,让你们可以更加仔细地瞥见这个可能是崭新的观念,要如何地运作。我总是一再强调的这个观念,那些曾经跟我一起实习精神分析经验的人,能够在他们的个案中予以证实。

It is not impossible that this will be of use elsewhere, at the level of something that is taking place now, without, for the moment, our knowing quite what. Naturally, when things happen, one never quite knows at the time they are happening what they are, especially when one covers them over with the news. But ultimately something is happening in the university.

这並不是不可能,这个观念在别的地方也是会有用,因为它现在正在流传,只是我们不知道详细情形。当然,当事情发生的时候,我们当时並不完全知道,事情正在发生的真实状况,特别是当我们是根据新闻得知它们。但是,追根究底来说,大学正在发生状况。

In various places people are surprised. What’s eating them, these students, the little dears, our favorites, the darlings of civilization? What’s up with them? Those who are saying this are playing the fool, this is what they are paid to do.

在各个地方,人们都大吃一惊。这些学生,这些宝贝、这些我们的最爱、文明的天之骄子,到底是什麽在毁灭他们?他们到底怎麽了?那些正在这样侃侃而谈的人,其实是正在装模作样,因为他们领了薪水,不得不装模作样。

It should nevertheless be possible that something of what I am elaborating about the relationship between the analyst’s discourse and the master’s discourse should show people a way to enable them, in some way, to explain themselves to one another and to understand one another.

可是,这应该是可能的,我对於精神分析学的真理论述与主人的真理论述之间的关系,所建构的理论,应该能够给人们指示一条道路,让他们能够用某个方法来互相解释,互相了解。

What is happening at the moment is that everyone is competing with everyone else in an attempt to minimize the seriousness of failed, suppressed little demonstrations, increasingly confining them to a street, a corner. To explain it, to make it understood at the very moment at which I say I could do it, I would like you to understand this, which is that to the extent to which I managed to do this, to the extent to which I succeeded in getting you to understand something, you could be certain that to that extent I would have made a big mistake. For it is ultimately limited to this.

目前正在发生的情况是,每个人都在跟每个其他人競争,企图要将本身捍格於现实的压制,以致於无法证明的理论,所产生的严重后果,减少到最低程度,因此,每个人都将证明的领域局限於街角一隅。为了解释这一点,为了让大家了解我说现在我就能够證明,我希望你们了解这一点,我能够成功地做到,我能够成功地让你们了解到某件事情。你们能够確定,假如我真的走到那个地步,我本来是会犯一个严重错误。因为追根究底,这是我们理论的限制。

Today I would like to spell out, as simply as I can, the relationship between what is happening and the things I have been daring to manipulate for a while, which, by virtue of this fact, gives a kind of guarantee that this discourse hangs together. I have dared manipulate them in a way which is, ultimately, completely wild.

今天,我想要盡可能简单地说明,目前正在发生的事情,跟我一直大胆在研究的东西,彼此有什麽关系。憑藉这个事实,我才能够保证我的这个真理论述能够自圆其说。我大胆地研究这个问题,可说契而不舍到奮不顾身的程度。

I have not hesitated to speak about the real, and not for some time, since it is even where I took the first step in this teaching. Then, years later, this little formula emerged, the impossible is the real. Heavens knows that no one abused it at first. Then I happened to trot out some reference to truth, which is more common. There are nevertheless some very important observations to make, and I think I am under an obligation to make a number of them today, before leaving all that within the reach of innocents to use without rhyme or reason, which is really par for the course, sometimes, in my entourage.

我毫不犹豫地谈论到真实界,而且自始至终地谈论,因为那是我从事精神分析学的教学的第一个步骤。然后,数年後,这个小小的公式就出现了:真实界是不可能实现。上天晓得,起初没有人敢随便去引用它。然後,我因缘际会顯示一些较为通俗的真理的论述。可是,还有一些非常重要的观察需要再充实。我想今天我有这个义务要将它们呈现出来,以免让那些经常参加我的讲座的人,他们有时还像是我的随从,以免他们始终弄不清楚地陷在迷雾中。

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

Furrows in the alethosphere 7

June 23, 2010

Furrows in the alethosphere 7
媒體真理氛圍的航跡
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析學的另類面貌
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

We shall name that with the help of the aorist of the same verb that, as a famous philosopher pointed out, aletheia came from. Only philosophers would ever notice such things, and perhaps the odd linguist. I’m going to call that the “ lathouses.”

我們為這個詞命名時,要藉助於這個相同動詞的不定詞過去式,「真理層」alteheia所產生的變化,如一位著名的哲學家所說。只有哲學家才會去注意到諸如其類的事情,怪癖的語言學家可能也會。容我就稱呼它為「逼真小客體」罷。

The world is increasingly populated by lathouses. Since you seem to find that amusing, I am going to show you how it is spelled.

這個世界越來越充斥著逼真小客體。既然你們似乎對它們頗感興趣,我就告訴你們這個字要怎何拼法。

You will notice that I could have called that “ lathousies” That would have gone better with ousia, this participle with all its ambiguity. Ousia is not the Other, it’s not a being, it’s between the two. It is not altogether Being either, but, ultimately, it’s pretty close.

你們將注意到,我本來大可將它稱呼為逼真小客體的複數形lathusies。字尾假如再加個模稜兩可的分詞變化ousia ,本來還會更貼切些。生命的本質Ousia 並不是大它者,它並不是一個存在生命。它處於兩者之間。它也並不完全是一個獨特的存在主體,但是總結來說,它算是相當靠近。

As far as the feminine unsubstance is concerned, I would go as far as “ parousia.” And these tiny objects little a that you will encounter when you leave, there on the footpath at the corner of every street, behind every window, in this abundance of these objects designed to the cause of your desire, insofar as it is now science that governs it—think of them as lathouses.

就女性作為我幻見的空靈存在而言,我會契而不捨,像「耶穌復活般地二次再來」。當你們離去時,你們會遭遇到這些逼真的小小的客體,小客體散佈在每條街道的角落,在每一框窗戶的後面,充斥著這些大量的小客體,被設計來成為你們的欲望的目標。現在既然是科技發明昌明的時代,你們不妨將它們稱呼為「逼真小客體」。

I notice a bit late, since it’s not long since I invented it, that it rhymes with ventouses. There is vent, “ wind” inside, lots of wind, the wind of the human voice. It is quite comical to find that at the end of our gathering.

我後來才又注意,自從我杜撰這個詞語以來,不久就有人將它就跟「吸塵器」ventouses的詞語押韻配對。Vent 的意思是通風,裡面有許多風,人類聲音的風。每次我們在這裡聚集之後,就會聽到一些風言風語,那不是挺可笑的嗎?

If man had less often played the spokesman of God in order to believe that he forms a union with a woman, this word “ lathouse” would have perhaps been found a long time ago.

假如男人相信他跟女人的結合,不要老是扮演像是上帝的發言人,「逼真小客體」這個詞語可能老早就被發現了。

Be that as it may, this little emergence is designed to make you ill at ease in your relation with the lathouse.

無論如何,這個小小的客體的出現,就是被安排要使你們在跟逼真小客體打交道時,會惴惴不安。

It is quite certain that everyone has to deal with two or three of this species. The lathouse has absolutely no reason to limit its multiplication. What is important is to know what happens when one really enters into relationship with the lathouse.

的確,每個人的一生總是必須跟兩三個這種小客體打過交道。逼真小客體的數量當然是多多益善,沒有理由予以限制。重要的是要知道,當你真的跟逼真小客體進入親密的關係時,會發生怎樣的事情。

The ideal psychoanalyst would be one who commits this absolutely radical act, and the least that one can say is that seeing it done causes anxiety.

一位理想的精神分析師將是對於自己的逼真小客體,貫徹始終的人。但是,容我們委婉地說一句,看到它被貫徹始終,會讓你焦慮不已。

One day, at a time when it was a question of my being traded, I tried, because it was part of the ritual, to advance a few little things on this subject. In effect, while I was being traded, people were very keen to pretend to be interested in what I have have to say about the training of analysts, and I put forward, in a spirit of absolute indifference, since everyone was only interested in what was happening in the corridors, that there was no reason why a psychoanalysis should cause anxiety. It is certain if the lathouse exists, anxiety—since that is what we are dealing with—is not without an object. That is what I started with. A better approach to lathouse must calm us a little bit.

有一天,當我面臨必須與現實妥協時,我設法提出對這個主題的一些看法,因為那是座談會的議程。事實上,當我正在設法虛與委蛇時,人們非常熱切地關心到我有關精神分析師的訓練的看法。因為當時大家都被走廊上的爭吵事件所吸引,我就蠻不在乎地提出說,實在沒有理由說,精神分析學竟然會引起大家的焦慮。的確,假如逼真小客體存在,難免就有焦慮的對象,因為那就是我們正在處理的東西。那是我的開場白。假如我提出接近逼真小客體的更好方法,當然一定會安靜一點。

The question is to put oneself in a position where there is someone whom you have taken charge of with respect to his anxiety, who wishes to come and hold the same position that you occupy, or that you do not occupy, or that you barely occupy, who wishes to come to know how you occupy it, and how you do not occupy it, and why you occupy it, and why you do not occupy it.

這個問題是我設身處地地構想,你曾經照料的某個人會有他的焦慮。他希望前來擁有你佔有的位置,或者你能夠讓開位置,或者你只是佔有位置。他希望能夠知道,你佔有的位置狀況如何,要怎樣你肯讓開位置,你為什麼佔有這個位置,以及你為什麼不佔有這個位置。

This will be the object of our next seminar, whose title I can already give you—it will be on the relations, still supported by our little schemas, between impotence and impossibility.

這將是我下一次講座的議題,題目我能夠先給你們。那是關於沒有能力與不可能之間的關係,我們精神分析的基模依舊關懷這個議題。

It is clear that it is completely impossible to hold the position of the lathouse. However, that’s not all that is impossible, there are many other things as well, provided one gives this word “ impossible” a strict meaning—that is to say, provided one determines them only at the level of our formalized truth—namely, that in every formalized field of truth there are truths that one can never demonstrate.

顯而易見,要擁有逼真小客體的位置是完全不可能。可是,不可能並因此而概括一切,因為除外也還有許多其它事情,只要我們將「不可能」這個字眼作狹義解釋,換句話說,只要我們以正式化的真理來決定事情,換句話說,在每個正式化的真理的場域,有些真理我們永遠無法證明。

It’s at the level of the impossible, as you know, that I define what is real. If it is real that there are analysts, it’s precisely because this is impossible. This forms part of the position of the lathouse.

你們知道,我是以不可能的層次,來定義真實界的場域。假如精神分析師的存在是真實,那確實就是因為這是不可能。這樣就形成了逼真小客體的部份地位。

What’s annoying is that, in order to be in the position of the lathouse, it is really necessary to have established that it is impossible. It is for this reason that one loves to emphasize impotence so much more, which also exists, but which is, as I will show you, in another place than strict impossibility.

令人懊惱的,為了要處於這個逼真小客體的位置,我們真的需要先證明它是不可能。因為這個理由,我們更加喜歡強調它的無能為力。我將跟你們顯示,無能為力也存在於跟狹義的不可能以外的另一個場域。

I know that there are some people here who are distressed from time to time by seeing me, as one says—how does one say? Abuse, interpellate, vociferate against analysts. These are young people who are not analysts. They do not realize that I am doing something nice, that these are little signs of acknowledgment that I am giving them.

我知道,這裡有一些人有時會深感痛苦,當他們看到,要怎麼說呢?看到我高談闊論,對於精神分析師多所抨擊。他們是尚未成為精神分析師的年輕人,他們沒有體會到,我現在正在做的事情對他們有益,也沒有體會到,這些抨擊其實是我正在肯定他們的徵兆。

I do not want to put them through too difficult a trial. And when I allude to their impotence, which is therefore my own, it means that at that level we are all brothers and sisters, and that one has to extricate oneself as best one can.

我不想要他們重蹈我歷經千辛萬苦的覆轍。當我跟他們提到他們的無能為力時,那因此也是我自身的無能為力。意思是,在那個層次上,我們是難兄難弟,我們必須要盡一切可能掙脫那個不可能的困境。

I hope this will calm them down before I talk to them about the impossibility of the analyst’s position.

我希望,這番話將會讓大家先平心靜氣,這樣我才能跟他們談精神分析師的立場是如何的不可能。

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

Furrows in the alethosphere 6

June 22, 2010

Furrows in the alethosphere 6
媒體真理氛圍的航跡
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析學的另類面貌
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

This doesn’t make sense, in fact, because it is precisely in the light of the apparatus of science, to the extent that we can grasp it, that it is possible to found the nature of the errors, the obstacles , the confusions that in effect didn’t fail to be present in what was being articulated as knowledge, with this undercurrent that there were two principles to cleave apart—one that forms and one that is formed. This is what science makes quite clear for us, and this is confirmed by the fact that we find an echo of it in analytic experience.

事實上,這並沒有多大意義,因為確實就是從科學的儀器的觀點,根據我們所能理解的程度,我們才可能鑄成這些錯誤、這些阻礙、這些混亂的本質。而當我們以知識作為表達真理的論述時,這些錯誤、阻礙或混亂的本質,就一定會出現,只是有一條被兩個原則分開的暗流,那就是形成的原則跟被形成的原則。這就是科學讓我們看得一清二楚的地方,我們可以從精神分析經驗,找到這條暗流的迴響,足以證明。

To express myself in these large-scale, approximate terms, take the male principle for example—what effect does the incidence of discourse have on it? It is that, as a speaking being, he is summoned to give an explanation of his “ essence”—irony, inverted commas. It is very precisely and solely because of the affect that this discourse effect subjects him to—that is, insofar as he receives this feminizing effect of the small a –that he recognizes what makes him, that he recognizes the cause of his desire.

為了要用這些大規模的近似術語來表達我自己,以男性的原則當例子,偶發性的真理論述能對它產生怎樣的影響呢?人作為言說主體的存在,他被召喚要對他自己的「本質」作解釋。這真是「本質」的反諷!確實就是,而且也只是因為這個真理論述的結果使他產生的情懷,換句話說,從他所接納的小客體具有女性化的效果,他體認到他的生命的本質是什麼,他體認到他的欲望的原因是什麼。

Conversely, at the level of the so-called natural principle, where it is not for nothing that it has always been symbolized, in the bad sense of the word, by a female reference, it is, on the contrary, from out of the in-substance, as I was saying just before, that this void appears. Void of what? Let’s say that the something in question, if we want, very much from a distance, from a long way away, to give it the horizon of woman, is in what is in question as unformed jouissance, precisely without any form, that we can find the place, in the “ operceive” in which science comes to be constructed. What I perceive, which is claimed to be original, must, in effect, be replaced by an operceive.

另一方面,在所謂的自然原則的層次,(這個自然原則惡名昭彰地沿用女性的指稱來象徵,不是沒有道理的。)這個空無感,從生命的內部物質出現,如我以前所說。空無什麼呢?這樣說罷,從遠距離來看,從遙遠地的地方來看,以女性的地平線所展現的某件可疑的東西,就是那可疑的全體一致的「歡爽」,沒有任何形狀,但是我們能夠找到那個位置,那個科學的結構賴以成立的運作的位置。我所感覺到的被宣稱為原創性的東西,事實上,必須以運作來代替。

Insofar as science only refers to an articulation that only takes form in the signifying order, it is constructed out of something where there was nothing beforehand.

科學只提到意符秩序具體成形的表達,科學所賴以建構的東西,事先一無所有。

This is what it is important to grasp if we wish to understand something that has to do with—what? With the forgetting of this very effect. Being what we are, all of us, to the extent that the field increases by virtue of the fact that science perhaps functions as the master’s discourse, we do not know how far—for the reason that we have never known at any point—each one of us is initially determined as object small a.

假如我們希望瞭解的真理論述,跟科學的效果風馬牛不相及,這是我們必須要體會的一點。因為人作為言說主體的本質就是如此,真理論述的突飛猛進,就是以科學充當主人的真理論述,不知為什麼原因,我們並不知道,我們每一個人原先的起心動念,就是小客體所激發。

I was speaking before of these spheres with which the extension of science—which, curiously, is found to be very effective at determining what a being is—encircles the earth, a series of zones that science describes as being what it finds. Why not also take account of the place in which these fabrications of science are located, if they are nothing more than the effect of formalized truth? What are we going to call this place?

以前,我曾談到這些氛圍,在那裡科學的廣泛運用被認為是非常有效,用來決定人的存在意義是什麼。地球就是一個大氣氛圍,有一連串地區被科學描述為它所找到的生命存在的意義。假如科學的建構僅僅就是闡述出來的真理的結果,為什麼不也描述一下科學的建構所在的位置呢?

Here again I am overly emphasizing what I want to say, and I am not necessarily very proud of what I am putting forward on this occasion, but I think that it is useful, you will see why, to raise this question which is not a question of nomenclature.

在此,我似乎再一次危言聳聽,其實,在這個場合,我提出這樣的論點,我未必有什麼沾沾自喜。但是我認為提起這個並非是命名法之辯的問題,是很有用途,你們不久就會明白為什麼。

It is a question about a place that is well and truly occupied—by what? I was speaking just before about waves. This is what is at issue. Hertzian waves or other waves—no phenomenology of perception has ever given us the slightest idea of them and it would certainly never have led us to them.

這個問題牽涉到一個被盤據的根深柢固的位置,被什麼盤據?被我不久前才剛剛提到的波長。這是爭論的所在。電磁波或其它波長。我們所感覺到的現象從來沒有讓我們理解到它們是什麼,的確,將來我們也無法去感覺得到。

We certainly won’t be calling this place the noosphere, which we ourselves supposedly populate. If indeed there is anything that as it happens is in the background, twenty-five rows back, of everything that may be of interest to us, it is this. But in using aletheria in a way which, I agree, has nothing emotionally philosophical about it you could, unless you find something better, call it the alethosphere.

我們實在不願意稱呼這個位置叫「心智層」,因為我們應該就是居住在這裡。假如在背景,在二十五排座位的背後,恰好有任何事情,我們感到興趣的話,那就是這個心智層。但是我承認,我使用「媒體真理層」一詞,跟哲學沒有什麼情感上的瓜葛,若是你們找不到更恰當的名詞,你們不妨稱呼為「媒體真理的氛圍」,

Don’t get too excited. The alethosphere gets recorded. If you have a little microphone here, you are plugged into the alethosphere. What is really something is is that if you are in a little vehicle that is transporting you toward Mars you can still plug into the alethosphere. And, even, this surprising effect of structure which meant that two or three people have gone wandering around on the moon, you must think that, concerning their exploit, it was certainly not for reason that they always stayed within the alethosphere.

請大家稍安勿躁。這個媒體真理層的氛圍可以錄音下來。假如你們現在有麥克風,可以將它們插到這個媒體真理層的氛圍裡。真正重要的是,假如你們正在搭乘一輛載著你們飛往火星的太空梭,你們依舊可以將你們的插頭插到這個媒體真理層。這個結構更令人驚奇的效果是,即使僅是兩三個人正在月球上漫步,你們一定要認為,以他們的豐功偉業而言,他們始終是媒體真理氛圍的注目焦點,這確實是意義重大的。

These astronauts, as they are called, who had some minor problems at the last minute, would probably not have overcome them so well—I am not even talking about their relations with their little machine, for they would perhaps have overcome that on their own—if they had not been accompanied the entire time by this little a that is the human voice. By virtue of this they could allow themselves to say nothing but bullshit, such as for example that everything was going well when everything was going poorly. But that’s beside the point. The point is that they stayed within the alethosphere.

這些名副其實的太空人,在登陸月球時,遭遇了一些次要的問題,本來可能無法駕輕就熟地克服。我現在談論的,倒不是他們跟他們機件之間的細微問題,因為對於這些問題,他們憑藉自己的能力就可能克服得了,假如他們不要老是被人類聲音操控的小客體所困擾的話。由於受到這樣的困擾,他們只能允許自己說出一些無聊透頂的話,例如,一切不順利,就是一切順利。不過,這些還是無關緊要。重要的是,他們始終停留在媒體真理的氛圍裡。

It takes time to observe all the things that populate it, and this is going to oblige us to introduce another word.

我們要花一段時間,才能夠觀察清楚所有居住在這個媒體真理的氛圍裡的事情。在這種情況下,我們不得不再介紹另一個新的單字。

The alethosphere—it sounds good. That’s because we suppose that what I have been calling formalized truth already has, sufficiently, the status of truth at the level at which it operceives. But at the level of the operated-on, of what moves around, the truth is not at all unveiled. The proof of this is that the human voice with its effect of grabbing you by the perineum, as it were, does not unveil its truth at all.

媒體真理的氛圍這個字眼聽起來不錯。那是因為我們認為,我曾經一再提到的正式化的真理,已經足夠擁有真理的地位,就在它運作的層次,就在它感受運作的層次。但是,在被運作的那個層次,在它四處運轉的層次,真理壓根兒就沒有揭開面紗。我提供的證據是,人類的聲音壓根兒就沒有揭開真理的面紗,儘管它已經一語道中你的心坎要害。

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

Furrows in the alethosphere 5

June 21, 2010

Furrows in the alethosphere 5
媒體氛圍的航跡
From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析學的另類面貌
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

In a certain sense, this is only a local articulation. It certainly does not pretend to solve, with a fixed and guaranteed proportion, the question of the effectiveness of the most primary manifestation of number, namely the unary trait. I only did it to remind you what science is such as we have it now, if I can put it like this, on our hands—I mean, present in our world in a manner that goes well beyond anything that an effect of knowledge may lead us to speculate about.

在某個意義上,這是唯一局部的位置。它確實並沒有以固定而保證的比例,假裝解決數字,換句話說,單一特徵的最初的證明問題。我這樣做只是要提醒你們,所謂的科學,容我這樣說,就是我們現在所擁有的這個樣子。我的意思是,我們的世界所展現的科學,其方式遠遠超過知識的情懷可能讓我們去思維的幅度。

In effect, it is, all the same, necessary not to forget that it is characteristic of our science not to have introduced a better and more extensive knowledge of the world but to have brought into existence, in the world, things that did not in any way exist at the level of our perception.

事實上,我們仍然需要去記住,我們的科學的特色,不是要介紹一個更好、更廣泛的對於這個世界的了解,而是去創造一些感官層次以外的東西,進入世界。

Attempts have been made to organize science according to some mythical genesis that begins with perception, under the pretext that such and such a philosophical meditation had supposedly come to a standstill for a long time over the question of knowing what guarantees that perception is not illusory. This is not where science emerged from. Science emerged from what was embryonic in the Euclidean demonstrations. Nevertheless, these still remain very suspect because they still contain that attachment to the figure, the self-evidence of which serves as a pretext. The entire evolution of Greek mathematics proves to us that what rises to the highest point is the manipulation of numbers as such.

曾經有人企圖組織科學,依照某種開始於感官的神秘的起源,藉口是,有什麼可以保證感官不是一種幻覺,諸如其類的哲學沉思被認為已經停頓很久。這並不是科學出現的地方。科學出現於歐幾里德幾何學的證明所開端的地方。可是,這些依舊是非常可疑的,因為它們依舊包含跟某種數字的情懷,這個數字的不證自明,充當是一種藉口。整個的希臘數學的進化証明,最登峰造極的就是這樣的數字的操弄。

Consider the method of exhaustion which, already in Archimedes, prefigures what leads to what is essential, to what for us is, as it happens, structure, namely the calculus, the infinitesimal calculus. There is no need to wait until Leibziz, who, moreover, at his first attempt shows himself to have been a little awkward. It had already been started by Cavalieri, simply by reproducing Archimedes’ exploit on the parabola, in the seventeenth century, but well before Leibniz.

考慮一下,在阿基米德時代已經出現的無所不包的方法,預先假定會導致最基本的東西,導致我們所認為的結構,換句話說,就是微積分。這並不需要等到萊布尼司的到來,而且連他第一次企圖搞微積分,都顯現得有一點灰頭土臉。微積分在卡凡里瑞已經開始,不過,他僅是模擬阿基米德對於拋物線的規模,在十七世紀,但是早於萊布尼司。

What is the result of this? No doubt you can say of science that nihil fuerit in intellectu quod non prius fuit in sensu, what does that prove? The sensus has nothing to do, as people nevertheless know, with perception. The sensus is only there in the manner of what can be counted, and the actual counting rapidly dissolves. Taking what is in our sensus at the level of the ear or eye, for example, leads to counting vibrations. And it was owing to this play of numbers that we in fact set about producing vibrations that had nothing to do either with our senses or with our perception.

這樣的結果是什麼呢?毫無疑問,對於科學,你們可以這樣說:nihil fuerit in intellectu quod non prius fuit in sensu, 那證明了什麼?如同我們所知道的,統計sensu 跟感官沒有絲毫關係。這個統計在那裡,只是為了能夠計算,而實際的計算馬上一清二楚。以耳朵跟眼睛層次的統計當例子,它們可以導致聲波跟光波的計算。事實上,由於數字的運算,我們開始產生聲波跟光波,這些跟我們的感覺或感官沒有絲毫關係。

As I was saying the other day on the steps of the pantheon, the world that is assumed to have always ours is now populated, in the very place where we are, without your having the slightest suspicion of it, by a considerable and intersecting number of what are called waves. “ This is not to be neglected as the manifestation, presence, existence, of science, and to describe what is around our Earth would require that one not be satisfied with speaking of atmosphere, of stratosphere, of whatever you would like to spherize, however distant the particles we can apprehend. It would be necessary to account also of what in our day goes well beyond, and which is the effect of what? Of a knowledge that has progressed less through its own filtering, through its own critique as we say, than through an audacious leap from an artifice, no doubt that of Descartes—others will choose different ones—the artifice of giving the guarantee of truth back to God. If truth there be, that he take responsibility for it. We take it at face value.

如同我前天在萬神廟的台階上所說,以前一向被認為是屬於我們的世界,現在就在同樣的地方,被無數交織的所謂的聲波跟光波所盤據,我們卻絲毫都沒有置疑。這個情況不應該予以漠視,僅僅是把它們當著是科學的證明、存在、及運作。假如我們想要描述我們的地球的狀況,先決條件是,我們不應該滿足於只提到大氣,同溫層,或任何你認為是我們環境的東西,儘管我們所能理解的分子結構是多麼的匪夷所思。我們也需要去說明我們的時代正在發生卻不知其所以然的東西,那是什麼的結果?那個結果是由於知識的發展,不是經由它自己的過濾,或經由它自己的判斷,而是經由巧妙的大膽的跳躍前進,無可置疑地,笛卡爾的「我思故我在」就是這樣。還有一些則選擇不同的奧妙,巧妙地將真理的保證放回上帝的手中。假如有真理存在,那就一切由真理負起責任。這可是茲事體大的事。

Solely by means of the play of a truth that is not abstract but purely logical, solely by the play of a strict combinatory that is subject only to the requirement that rules, under the name of axioms, must always be given—this is where a science is constructed, one that no longer has anything to do with the presuppositions that the idea of knowledge has always implied—namely, the mute polarization, the imagined ideal unification of that is knowledge, where one can always find, whatever the name one dresses them up, in “ endosunia,’ for instance, the reflection, the image, which is moreover always ambiguous, of two principles, the male principle and the female principle.

僅僅憑藉並非是抽象,而是純粹邏輯的真理的運作,僅僅憑藉受到以公理為名的必須給予法則的嚴格規範,這就是科學之所建立的基礎。但是它跟知識所意涵的預先假設不再有任何關係,換句話說,不可思議的陰陽兩極之道,想像中的知識的圓融統合。我們總是會發現到,對於宇宙中陽剛跟陰柔的兩種原則,會有很多的沉思及意象,有時雖然模糊曖昧,有時名稱各有差異。

The space in which the creations of science are deployed can only be qualified henceforth as the in-substance, as the a-thing, with an apostrophe—a fact that entirely changes the meaning of our materialism.

科學的創造所被運用的空間,因此只能夠局限於所謂的「內部的物質」或「小客體的物質」。這個所有格的標記完全改變了我們唯物論的意義。

It is the oldest figure of the master’s infatuation—write “ master” as you will—for man to image that he shapes woman, I think you all have experienced enough to have encountered this comical story at one stage of your life or another. Form, substance, content, call it what you will—this is the myth scientific thought must detach itself from.

人作為真理論述的主人,你們不妨稱之為主人論述,最早的自我陶醉,就是男人想像是他自己創造了女人。我想你們在生命中的某個階段,都曾經有過遭遇這種荒謬故事的經歷。形式、材料、內容容或各有不同,但都是科學的思想所必須敬而遠之的神話。

I figure that I am allowed to plow on fairly crudely in order to express my thought well. I am failing to act as if I had had a thought, whereas, precisely, this is not the case, but, as everyone knows, it’s thought that communicates itself, by means of misunderstanding, of course. Well, let’s communicate and say what this conversion consists in, the conversion by which science is shown to be distinct from any theory of knowledge.

我想,我何其有幸能夠探索耕耘這個真理的論述,將我的思想表達清楚。我現在看似無法將我思想的結果予以實踐,但確實地說,事實上並非如此。大家都知道,思想本身就是在不斷地溝通,憑藉著不斷地誤解,當然是如此。好罷!現在就讓我們來溝通,說出這個從誤解到溝通的轉變是在哪裡。這個轉變就是,科學的表現跟知識的理論格格不入。

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

Furrows in the alethosphere 4

June 18, 2010

Furrows in the alethosphere 4
媒體氛圍的航跡

From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析學的另類面貌

By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

Our first rule is never to seek the origins of language, if only because they are demonstrated well enough through their effects.

我們的第一條規則是,永遠不要去探索語言的起源,即使理由只是因為透過語言的起源所產生的結果,已經證明起源的存在。

The further back we push their effects, the more these origins emerge. The effects of language are retroactive, precisely in that it is as language develops that it manifests what it is qua want-to-be.

我們越是將語言的起源所產生的結果往後面推展,這些起源的源頭越是五花八門。語言的結果溯及既往,確實是因為隨著語言的發展,它會顯示出來,語言的本質是成形於未來。

Moreover, I will indicate—in passing, for today we have to move on—that we can write it like this, and that we can bring into play here, in its strictest form, something that right from the origins of a rigorous use of the symbolic appeared in the Greek tradition, namely at the level of mathematics.

而且,我將指明,只是順便提一下,因為今天我們必須要趕一下進度,我們能夠將語言的本質書寫如下。我們能夠將出現在希臘傳統的某件東西,從它靈活地使用符號的起源開始,以其嚴格的形式,在此演示一下。換句話說,就是從數學的層次開始。

Euclid is the fundamental reference here, and the definition he gives us of proportion is primary, it had never been given before him, I mean before what remains as having been written in his name—of course, who knows from where he might have borrowed this strict definition? The one that gives the only true foundation of geometrical demonstration can be found, if I remember correctly, in book five.

歐幾里德是我們首先要引證的人物。他替比例所下的定義是最根本的,在他之前,從來沒有數學家下過這樣的定義。我的意思是,在他之前,我們無法找到任何有關比例的記載,天曉得,他是從哪裡借用來這個嚴格的定義?假如我記得沒錯,在第五冊那裡,我們能夠找到真正作為幾何學證明基礎的定義。

The term “ demonstration” is ambiguous here. By constantly highlighting the intuitive elements that are here in the figure, he makes it possible for you to miss the fact that, very formally, the requirement in Euclid is one of symbolic demonstration, of an order that is grouped into equalities and inequalities, which alone enable proportion to be assured in a way that is not an approximation but is properly demonstrable, in this term “ logos,” in the sense of proportion.

「證明」一詞在這裡意義有一點模糊。由於歐幾里德經常強調在圖形裡所蘊含的人的直覺的因素,我們很可能忽視了這個事實,在形式上,歐幾里德幾何學的基本要求是符號的證明,要將相等圖形及不相等圖形分門別類排列。這種作法產生的比例,必然不僅僅是近似,而是適當地可以證明。「定理」這個術語,在這裡已經具有比例的意義。

It is curious and indicative that we had to wait for the Fibonacci series to see what is given in the apprehension of this proportion which is called the proportion mean. I will write it out here—you will be aware that I made use of it when I discussed From an Other to the other.

耐人尋味又具有指標性,我們必須等到費波那契系列出現,我們才明白,所謂
的黃金率的平均比例是怎麼一回事。我現在將它書寫在這裡子,你們將會知道,當我討論「從大它者到它者」時,曾經使用到它。

A romanticism still continues to call this the golden number and goes astray in finding it on the surface of everything that has been possible to paint or draw over the ages, as if it were not certain that this is only about being able to visualize it. One only has to open a work of aesthetics that makes a case for this reference in order to realize that, while it may be possible to superimpose it, it is certainly not because the painter had drawn the diagonals in advance, but because there is in effect a kind of intuitive harmony, which means that it is always this that sings most sweetly.

過去幾個世紀來,浪漫主義者依舊稱呼這條定理叫黃金比例,想要在每一樣可以畫或描繪的東西的表面,找到這個黃金比例,好像那想像的均衡對稱必然會存在,但是卻始終無法得到。我們只需要觀看一件以均衡對稱取勝的美學的作品,我們就會體會到,均衡對稱是可能的,但是不是因為畫家事先將各個斜角線都畫好,而是因為畫家事實上具有一種直覺的和諧,這意味著均衡對稱觀看起來會有一種和諧之感。

Except that there is also something else, which it will not be easy for you to grasp. By taking catch of these terms and starting to calculate from the bottom up, you will quickly see that you are dealing first with 1/2, then with 2/3, next with 3/5. You will thus find the numbers the sequence of which constitutes the Fibonacci series, 1,2,3,5,8,…, each being the sum of the two preceding numbers, as I pointed out to you at the time. This relation of two terms we can write for instance as u (n-1)+un-. The result of the division u n+1/ un will be equal , if the series is continued long enough, to the effectively ideal proportion that is called the proportional mean, or again, the golden number.

除外,另有某件其它東西,你們不容易瞭解。假如你們將這些項目,開始從底端往上計算,你們很快會發現到,你們的答案是1/2 ,然後是2/3,其次是3/5。你們然後會發現到這些數字的系數組成費波那契系列1,2,3,5,8,,、、、,每一個數字都是前面兩個數字的總合,如我剛才我跟你們指出來的。這兩個項目的關係,我們能夠寫成公式:u (n+1) = u( n-1) + u n。相除的結果u n+1/ un 是相等,即使系列一直延續下去,我們會得到極端完美的所謂平均比例,又叫黃金率的比例。

If we now take this proportion as an image of what affect is, insofar as there is repetition of this ‘ I am one’ on the next line, this retroactively results in what causes it—the affect.

假如我們現在將這個比例當著是我們的情懷,下一行的比例當著是這個作為「完整主體的我」的重覆,這種追溯既往的計算會形成它的結果,也就是人的情懷。

We can momentarily write this affect as ‘ equal to a,’ and we can see that we rediscover the same a at the level of the effect.

我們能夠暫時將這個比例書寫成「相等於小客體」,然後我們就明白,我們會在結果的層次上,重新找到這個相同的小客體。

This a, the effect of repeating the 1, is at the level of what is designated here by a bar. The bar is precisely only this, that there is something to get past in order for the 1 to affect. In sort, it is his bar that is equal to a. And there’s nothing astonishing in the fact that we can legitimately write the affect below the bar, as that which is the effect that is here thought, overturned, when the cause is made to emerge. It is in the initial effect that the cause, as thought cause, emerges.

這個小客體,這個「我」的重覆的結果,在此以一條橫槓來指明它的層次。這條橫槓的用意確實僅僅就是,有某件東西越過,為了讓「我」能夠發揮功用。總之,就是這一條衡槓相等於小客體。我們能夠合理地將人作為主體的情懷書寫在這一條橫槓之下,在此把它作為思想的結果,然後,當作為原因的思想明白顯現時,情懷就被推翻,那是我們司空見慣的事。思想作為原因,就出現在這個初始的情懷裡。

This is what is motivating me to find a more certain articulation of what the effect of discourse is in this initial tentative use of mathematics. It’s at the level of the cause, insofar as it emerges as thought, the reflection of the effect, that we attain the initial order of what the want-to-be is. Initially Being only affirms itself with the mark of the 1, and everything that follows is a dream—notably, the mark of the 1 insofar as it supposedly encompasses, could supposedly combine, anything at all. It can emobine nothing at all, unless it is,, precisely, the confrontation, the addition of the thought of the cause with the initial repetition of the 1.

我就是因此受到啟發,想要嘗試使用數學,找出一個更明確的方式,來表達精神分析學的真理論述的結果。就在原因的層次,因為它以思想的形態出現,作為情懷的反映,我們獲得「欲望成形於未來」初始的秩序。起初,獨特的存在主體只是用「我」這個標誌肯定自己,然後每一樣隨之而來的事情像是一場夢,顯而易見,「我」的這個標誌被認為應該涵蓋一切,也被認為應該統合一切。但是事實上,它什麼也統合不了,除非它以思想作為原因,跟這個「我」的重覆互相重疊及對質。

This repetition already costs and institutes, at the level of the a, the debt of language. Something has to be paid to the one who introduces its sign. This year I have designated this something, using a nomenclature that tries to give it its historical weight—strictly speaking it was not this year, but let’s say that for you it was this year—with the term Mehrlust.

在小客體的層次,這個重覆已經耗損,並且開始語言的虧損赤字。對於介紹小客體的符號者,我們必須付出某些的費用。今年,我已經使用一種命名法來賦予歷史的意義,我使用「剩餘價值」這個術語,來指明這個某件費用。嚴格來說,我應該是去年就已經使用,不過,這無關緊要。

What does this infinite articulation reproduce? As the little a is the same here as it is there, it is self-evident that repetition of the formula cannot be the infinite repetition of the ‘ I am thinking” within the “ I am thinking,’ which is the mistake the phenomenologists never fail to make, but only the following; “ I am thinking,’ were it to be done, is only able to be replaced by ‘ I am, ‘I am thinking, therefore I am.’ ” I am he who is thinking,, “ Therefore I am,’ and so on indefinitely. You will observe that the small a always gets farther and farther away in a series that reproduces exactly the same order of Is, such as they are here deployed on the right, with the sole difference that the final term will be a small a,

這個無窮盡的表達複製了什麼?當這個小客體這裡跟那裡都大同小異,顯而易見,這個公式不可能是「我正在思想」在「我正在思想」之內的無窮盡的重覆,這是現象學家常犯的錯誤,而是以下的結果:「我正在思想」,若是要實現,替代它的只能夠是「我存在,因為【我正在思想,因此我存在】」。我成為正在思想的那個人,「因此我存在」,等等無窮盡類推下去。你們將觀察到,在複製「我」的相同秩序的系列裡,小客體越離越遠,如同在右邊的演算。唯一的差異是,右邊最後一個項目都是小客體。

Notice that it’s a remarkable thing, this small a. it is sufficient that it subsist, however, far down you take it, for equality to be the same as in the formula I first wrote up, namely that the multiple and repeated proportion equals, in total, the result of the small a.

請注意,這個小客體非同小可。無論你往下如何演算,它總是存在那裡,那就夠了,因為在我第一次書寫的公式,兩邊總是會相等。換句話說,無論怎樣重覆或加倍,那個比例總是相等於小客體的結果的總數。

In what way is this series marked off? In sum, it does nothing other, if I am not mistaken, than mark the order of the converging series which has the largest intervals while remaining constant. Namely, still the object a.

這個系列要用怎樣的方式來展現?假如我沒有弄錯的話,在總數方面,它道道地地標明了匯聚的系列的秩序,彼此之間的間隔總是固定的常數。換句話說,依舊就是小客體。

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