Furrows in the alethosphere 1

Furrows in the alethosphere 1

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

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since our meeting, I am speaking of the one in April, and not the most recent one, which took place elsewhere, and only with some of you.

自從我們上次會面,真是逝者如斯夫不捨晝夜。我說的是四月的那次會面,不是最近在別處舉行的那一次,當時你們參加的人數較少。

The exchange of remarks on the steps of the pantheon was not of a bad level, since it enabled me to go over a number of points that deserved to be made precise, in response to questions that were not at all inept. That is what I think with the lapse of a week. But my first reaction immediately after when I was with someone who was accompanying me was, however, of a certain inadequacy.

在萬神廟的台階,我們交換的論述層次並不差,因為它使我們能夠溫習一下必須弄得更明確的幾個觀點,以便回應那些並非信口開河的問題。這就是一星期過後我沉思的感想。但是,我跟我當時的同伴的最初的反應確實是不夠沉著。

Even the best of those who spoke, and who were not unjustified in their questions, seemed to me, except at the start, to be lagging behind a bit. This seems to me to have been reflected in the fact that, at least in this friendly interpellation that was still not a questioning, they situated me within a number of references.

雖然當時提出問題的人振振有詞地單刀直入,我覺得除了開頭的氣勢外,後面的問題其實也是老生常談。不過這個事實倒是值得我一再思維,他友善的質詢依舊不是問題,但是質詢的情境卻使我陷入諸多的聯想。。

These references are not all to be rejected, certainty. I recall that the first was to Georgias, of whom I am supposed to be conducting some sort of repetition. Why not? But what was inappropriate is that in the mouth of the person who evoked this character whose effectiveness we, in our days, cannot evaluate very well it was about someone from the history of thought. This is the distancing that seems disturbing to me—this term enables a sort of sampling of views from a distance concerning this person and that person whom one has bracketed together under “ function of thought.”

的確,這些諸多聯想不完全是空穴來風。我回憶起,我首先聯想到的人是喬治亞斯,我被認為是重覆他所提出的某些問題。那有何不可呢?有所不適宜的地方是,質詢者召喚這個人物的名字,而他的貢獻卻很難從我們這個時代去評估,因為他屬於思想史的功用。我所感到的困擾就是這種差距感,關於這個人,跟我們已經給他歸類為「思想的功用」的這個人,是有所差距的。

It seems to me that there is nothing less homogeneous here—if I can put it like that—nothing that would enable one to define a species. It is not legitimate to give some people, in whatever capacity one might imagine them, the function of a species representing thought. Thought is not a category. I would almost say it is an affect. Although, this is not to say that it is at its most fundamental under the aspect of affect.

我覺得,他們彼此之間的異質性在此是蠻大的。容我這樣說,沒有絲毫東西可以讓我們將某一種人下一個定義。無論我們想像某個人稟賦有怎樣的才能,我們很難合宜地將某些人定義為是代表思想的功用的人物。思想不是一種範疇的歸類。我甚至要說,思想只是一種情懷。儘管如此,我並不是說,思想的最基本的功能就是情懷。

There is only one affect—this constitutes a certain position, a new one to be introduced into the world, which, I am saying, is to be referred to what I am giving you a schema of, transcribed onto the blackboard, when I speak of the psychoanalytic discourse.

情懷只有一種,那就是組成某一個人的情懷,一種被介紹到這個世界的新的情懷。我要說的是,當我提到精神分析學的真理論述時,這種新的情懷應該給予我正在跟你們描述的基模,應該被書寫到黑板上。

As a matter of fact, transcribing it into the blackboard is distinct from talking about it. I remember that at Vincennes, when I appeared there for the first time which hasn’t been repeated since, but which will be repeated. It occurred to someone to call out to me that there were real things that were truly preoccupying the assembly. Namely, that there was a brawl going on at a place at some distance from where we were gathered, that this was what we should be thinking about, that the blackboard had nothing to do with this real. That’s where the error is.

事實上,將情懷書寫到黑板上,跟談論情懷是顯然不同的事。我記得有一次在敏西尼演講,我首次去那裡後,就沒有再去,將來也許會再去。當時,有人突然大聲跟我喊叫,演講廳裡有某件真實的事件正在上演。換句話說,在距離我們集會所在不遠的地方,有人正在爭吵,那是我們無法視若無睹的事件,而那個真實的事件跟黑板上所書寫的內容絲毫沒有關係。這就是陰錯陽差的地方。

I would say that, if there is any chance of grasping something called the real, it is nowhere other than on the blackboard. And even, whatever commentary I am able to give it, which will take the form of speech, relates only to what is written on the blackboard.

我要說的是,假如有任何可能來理解什麼叫著真實的事件,那個地方道道地地就是在黑板上所書寫的。問題是,不管我能夠對著黑板詳加評述,不管我採用怎樣的巧辯,相關的真實的事件就是黑板上所書寫的。

That’s a fact. And it is demonstrated by this fact, by this artifice that is science, whose emergence one would be completely wrong to inscribe as arising solely out of a philosophical concoction. Metaphysical, rather than physical, science, perhaps. Does our scientific physics deserve to be called metaphysical? This is what would need to be spelled out.

那是一個事實。這個事實,這個所謂科學的奧妙,證明了真實的事件。我們常將科學的出現僅僅歸功於是哲學沉思的結果,其實是完全是錯誤的。科學可能只是一種形上學,而不是一種物理學。我們科學物理學難道不應該被稱之為形上學嗎?這一點將需要我們詳加解釋。

Spelling it out seems possible to me, namely on the basis of the psychoanalytic discourse. In effect, from the perspective of this discourse, there is only one affect, which is, namely, the product of the speaking being’s capture in a discourse, where this discourse determines its status as object.

詳加解釋對我而言並不困難,換句話說,我可以運用精神分析學的真理論述當基礎。事實上,從這個真理論述的觀點,情懷只有一種,換句話說,那就是人作為言說的主體,在真理的論述中所捕獲的產物,而這種真理的論述決定了言說的主體作為客體的地位。

This is where the Cartesian cogito derives its exemplary value from, provided that one examine it and revise it, as I will do once again, today, to start with.

這就是笛卡爾的「我思故我在」博得典範價值的地方,只要我們檢視它、修正它,如同我今天一開始的反覆作為。

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

springherohsiung@gmail.com

2 Responses to “Furrows in the alethosphere 1”

  1. Khalilah Kosanovic Says:

    The info is most useful. It is sometimes hard to keep up with all the recalls out there. Your site is another good source that I will include and check from now on for updates. Keep up the good work.

  2. springhero Says:

    Thank you for telling me what is in your mind.
    Springhero

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: