Furrows in the alethosphere 5

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

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: