Archive for July, 2010

Logic of phantasy 10 JACQUES LACAN

July 31, 2010

Logic of phantasy 10
JACQUES LACAN
雅克 拉岡

SEMINAR 14: THE LOGIC OF FANTASY
The Logic of Fantasy 4
幻见的逻

The question of the way in which the field of interpretation is presumed, the mode in which Freud’s technique offers an opportunity for it, free association in other words, carries us to the heart of this formal orgnisation from which there are outlined the first paths of a mathematical logic, which has a name which, all the same, could not possibly have failed to tickle the ears of all of you, that is called network (reseau) – yes, and it is specified, but it is not my function today to specify and to remind you of what is called a trellis or lattice (an English transposition of the word treillis).

解释的领域所被假定的方式,佛洛伊德的技巧提供一个机会给它一个模式,换句话说,就是自由联想。这个技巧使我们到达这个正式机构的核心。从那里,数学逻辑的前五条途径被描绘出来。那个逻辑有一个名字,铁定会引起你们聆听的興趣,那就是所谓的网络。不错,网络是很明确的,但是我今天的功用,並不是要指明它的细节,及提醒你们所谓的一个框架。

This is what is involved in what Freud, as much in his first outlines of the new psychology, as in the fashion in which, subsequently, he organises the handling of the analytic session as such, this is what he constructs in advance (avant la lettre), as I might say, And when the objection is put to him, at a precise point of the Traumdeutung (as it happens I did not bring today the copy in which I had picked out the page for you), he has to respond to the objection: “of course, with your way of proceeding, at every cross-roads you will indeed have the opportunity of finding a signified which will provide the bridge between two meanings and with this fashion of organising the bridges, you will always go from somewhere to somewhere else”. (It is not for nothing that I had put the little poster taken from Aurus Apollo, as it happens, namely, from an interpretation in the (5) XVIth century of Egyptian hieroglyphs, on a journal which has now disappeared which was called “La Psychanalyse”: the Ear and the Bridge.) This is what is involved in Freud, and every point of convergence of this network or lattice, in which he teaches us to ground the first questioning, is in effect a little bridge.

这就是佛洛伊德所建构的,当他第一次描绘新心理学的轮廓,以及随后他组织分析节数的处理,这就是他预先的建构,我可以这样说。当有人跟他提出异议,对於「梦的解析」的某一特点(很不凑巧,我今天没有带到我预先挑好的几页。)他必须要回答这个异议:「当然,以你的方式前进,在每个十字路口,你确实有机会找到一个意符化的东西,作为两个意义之间的桥粱,然后以这个架构桥梁的方式,你总是从某个地方,到达某一个其它地方。」(凑巧地,我曾经带来这个阿波罗的海报,换句话说,从十六世纪对於埃及象形文字的解释,在一份现在已经停刊的「精神分析学」杂志:耳朵与桥梁)

This is what is involved in Freud, and every point of convergence of this network or lattice, in which he teaches us to ground the first questioning, is in effect a little bridge. This is how it functions and the objection made to him is that in this way everything will explain everything else. In other words, what is fundamentally opposed to psychoanalytic interpretation, is not at all any kind of “scientific critique” (in quotes) – as is imagined from what is ordinarily the only piece of baggage that minds who enter the field of medicine shill have from their year of philosophy, namely, that the scientific is founded on experience!

这是佛洛伊德所讲的内容,在这个「网洛」或「脉络」的每一个汇聚点,他教导我们奠定第一个问题的基础,事实上,就是一座小桥梁。这就是桥梁运作的方式,对於他的异议是,以这种方式,每一件事情将会解释每一件其它事情。换句话说,基本上,它是跟精神分析学的解释恰恰相反,根本不是任何种类的「科学的批判」。我们可以想像,通常来说,这仅是一个泛泛之见,表达的人,从他们读哲学的岁月,进入精神医学的领域,换句话说,他们将科学被建立在经验的基础。

Naturally, they have not opened Claude Bernard, but they still know the title. It is not a scientific objection, it is an objection which goes back to the medieval tradition, when people knew what logic was. It was much more widespread than in our time, despite the means of diffusion that we have.

当然,他们没有读过柯劳德、伯纳的书,但是他们依旧知道,那本书名。这並不是一个科学立场的异议。这个异议可以回溯到中世纪的传统,当人们知道逻辑是什麽。逻辑当时比我们现在这个时代还要盛行,儘关我们拥有方法五花八门。

Things have, in fact, got to the point that, having let slip recently in one of the interviews that I spoke to you about, that I had got my taste for commentary from an old practice of the scholastics, I asked them to take it out. God knows what people would have deduced from it! (laughter).

事实上,事情已经到达这一点,最近我跟你们谈到的那个电视上的对谈,我曾经遗漏,我曾经从一个学术的习惯,培养我对於评论的品味。我要求他们将那个品味拿出来。天晓得,人们会从那个品味推论出什麽玩意儿!(笑声)

Anyway, in short, in the Middle Ages people knew that: Ex falso sequitur quod libet. In other words, that it is characteristic of the false to make everything true. The characteristic of the false, is that one deduces from it in the same step, on the same footing, the false and the true. It does not exclude the true. If it excluded the true, it would be too easy to recognise it! Only in order to see that, it is necessary precisely to have carried out a certain minimal number of exercises in logic, which up to now, as far as I know, do not form part of medical studies, and it is very regrettable! And it is clear that the fashion in which Freud responds, brings us immediately onto the terrain of the structure of the network. He does not express it, of course, in every detail, in the modern specifications that we could give it. It would be interesting moreover to know how he was able and how he was not able to profit from Brentano’s teaching, which he was certainly not unaware of – we have the proof in his university cursus.

无论如何,总之,在中世纪,人们已经知道,「假作真时真亦假」,换句话说,虚假的特色,就是使每一样东西都成为真实。这个虚假的特色,是我们从里面,以相同步伐、相同的立足点,推论出虚假与真实。虚假並没有排除真实。假如虚假排除真实,那要辨认出虚假就太容易了!为了明白这一点,我们所需要做的,就是从事少数几样逻辑的练习。据我所知,直到目前,这些练习並没有形成精神分析医学的内容,这委实是一件遗憾的事。显而易见的,佛洛伊德回答的方式,立即带我们进入「网络」的结构这个平台。当然,他並没有条分缕析地表达它,並没有用我们现代人能够提供的明细分类。而且,耐人寻味的是,他如何能够,以及他如何不能够从布瑞坦诺的教学获的利益。我们从他的大学的论述集找到证据,他确实並不是不知道布瑞坦诺的教学。

The function of the structure of the network, the way in which the lines – of association, precisely – come to overlap one another, to cross-check with one another, to converge at elective points from which they depart again electively, this is what is indicated by Freud. We know enough by all his subsequent work, the unease, we would say, the veritable concern, to be more precise, that he had about this dimension which is indeed properly speaking that of the truth. Because from the point of view of reality, one (6) is at ease! Even to know that perhaps the trauma is only a phantasy. In a certain fashion, a phantasy is even more sure, as I am in the process of showing you; it is structural. But this does not leave Freud – who was just as capable of inventing this as I am, as you can imagine – this does not leave him any more at peace. Where is here, he asks, the criterion of truth? And he would not have written the Wolfman, if it were not on this track, on this particular requirement: is it true or not?

网络的结构的功用,联想的脉络互相重叠,互相交会,汇聚在某些的选择点,也从那里选择性地离开。这就是佛洛伊德的指明。根据他后来的着作,我们一目了然,我们可以说,他对於这个向度,适当的说,这个真理的向度,忐忑不安,準确地说,他尤心忡忡,因为从现实界的观点来看,我们是安之若素!即使我们知道,或许这个創伤仅是一个幻见。以某种方式,一个幻见还更加确定,因为我正在显示给你的过程当中。那是结构性的。但是这並没有使得佛洛伊德,你们想像得到,他构想杜撰的能力,丝毫不逊於我,这个並没有使得佛洛伊德变得更加自在安逸。「真理的标准在哪里?」他问道。他本来不会写下「狼人」这本书,假如不是他困陷在这条途径,困陷在这个特别的要求:这是真实与否?

“Is it true?”
「这是真实的吗?」

He supports this by what is discovered in questioning the fundamental figure manifesto in the repetition dream of the Wolfman. And “is it true?”, is not reduced to knowing whether yes or no and at what age he experienced something which had been reconstructed with the help of this figure of the dream. The essential – it is enough to read Freud in order to perceive it – is to know how the subject, the Wolfman, had been able to verify this scene – to verify it with his whole being. It is through his symptom. Which means – foes not doubt the reality of the original scene – which means: now had he been able to articulate it properly in terms of signifier?

对於「狼人」重复出现的梦中,基本的人物的宣称,他提出置疑然后发现到的东西,他用来支持这一点。「这是真实的吗?」这个问句,並不能仅仅解释为,想要知道是或不是的回答,在几岁他经验到某件事情,他始终要靠着梦中的这个人物的帮忙,才能够被建构得起来。我们暂且先将佛洛伊德的本文搁置一旁,重要的是要知道,「狼人」这个生命的主体,是如何拥有这个能力来验证这个场景,来验证他的整个生命的存在。那就是透过他的病症。那意味着,无可置疑,他敌视原先场景的现实界。那意味着:他始终能够使用意符的术语,适当地表达它吗?

You only have to remind yourselves of the figure of the Roman five, for example, in so far as it is involved and reappears everywhere in the outspread legs of a woman, or the beating of the wings of a butterfly, to know, to comprehend that what is involved is the handling of the signifier.

你们若是想要知道,想要理解,这里所牵涉到的,就是意符的处理,你们所需要做的就是回顾一下在罗马数字标示的第五章的那个人物,因为它牵涉到,而且到处都出现一位女人的脚的伸出,或是一个蝴蝶的翅膀的拍动。

The relation of the truth to the signifier, the detour through which analytic experience rejoins the most modern process of logic, consists precisely in the fact that this relation of the signifier to the truth can short-circuit all the thinking which supports it. And just as a sort of aim is outlined at the horizon of modern logic – one which reduces logic to a correct handling of what is simply writing – in the same way for us, the question of verification, concerning what we have to deal with, passes along the direct line of the operation of the signifier, in so far as on it alone the question of the truth remains suspended.

真理跟意符的关系,是一种迂迴,精神分析经验透过这样的迂迴,重新加入逻辑的现代的过程。这种关系确实由这个事实组成:意符跟真理的关系,能够挡开所有支持它的思想。就像是有某一个目标,在现代逻辑的地平线上被描绘出轮廓。这个目标将逻辑简化成为是在处理写作的内容。我们也是一样,关於我们必需处理的问题,必须亲身验证的问题,通过意符运作的直线,使得真理的问题,始终仅仅被悬置在那里。

It is not easy to put forward a term like that of the true, without making immediately resonate all the echoes in which there come to slip in the most suspect “intuitions” (in inverted commas) and without immediately producing objections, made up from the old experiences that those who engage themselves on this terrain know only too well, so that, like scalded cats, they fear cold water. But who says that because I make you say: “Me, the truth, I speak”, that through this I am allowing the re-entry off the theme of Being, for example? Let us look twice at it, at least in order to know. Let us be content with this very particular knot that I have just made between the truth -! and by this I have not indicated any person, except the one whom I made say these words: “Mek the truth, I speak”. No person, divine (7) or human is involved outside her, namely: the point of origin of the relations between the signifier and the truth.

这委实不是一件容易的事,因为要是提出像真理这样的术语,立刻会引起所有回声的共鸣,在回声中,悄悄溜走的就是最大的嫌疑犯「直觉」,也立刻会引来在这个精神分析的平台,那些从事古老经验,自以为是的人,群起而攻之。就像曾经被烫伤过的猫,他们害怕冷水。但是,只因为我要你们说:「我乃是真理,我在说话!」是谁说,透过这样的言说,我就让生命存在的主题,重新再出现?让我们再一次回顾一下,至少,我们会知道。让我们满足於我刚刚制作的这个特别的结,它处於真理与「负一」之间。这个负一,我並没有指明是任何一个人,除了我要你们说出这些字:「我乃是真理,我在说话!」我没有指明是任何人,无论是神或人类,都置身於真理这个点之外,换句话说:这个点,是意符与真理之间的关系的起源。

雄伯译
springherohsiun@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 9 Jacques Lacan

July 29, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 9
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The
Logic of Fantasy 4
Seminar 4: Wednesday, December 6, 1966

You were able, the last time we met here, to hear what Jacques-Alain Miller put to you. I was not able to add many observations to it by reason of time.

上一次你们在这里的时候,你们能够听见亚伦、米勒对你们提出的问题。由於时间关系,我不能多做评论。

I think that you were able to notice in this presentation – marked by a sure knowledge of what, properly speaking, was inaugurated, we can say, on the whole, as modern logic, by the work and the labour of Boole – (it is perhaps not a matter of my last lecture, let us say, who had not been able either to have it communicated to him, since I myself only got the text two days ago, found himself then, by the path and the presentation that he chose … and you were able also to sense very well, I think, that at the moment that I announced him at my last lecture, I was not too sure of the subject that he had chosen. These remarks have their interest, precisely, because of the extraordinary convergence, let us say, or again if you wish reapplication of what ha was able to state before you, no doubt, of course, knowing what he was about, namely, knowing what are the principles and, as I might say, the axioms around which, for the moment, my development is turning …).

我认为,你们能够在这个演讲中注意到,确实地知道,适当地说,由於布林的辛勤努力,他替现代逻辑大体上,做了开启的功夫。(这或许不是我上一次演讲的内容,我当时没有办法跟你们沟通这些,因为我自己只有在两天前才拿到那个文本,透过他选择的管道及讲演。我认为,你们能够清楚感觉得到,在我上一次的演讲中,我宣布他,我並不十分确定他所选择的题目。这些谈话确实拥有它们的興趣,因为特别的汇聚,或是假如你们希望从新应用他所能够你们表述的内容,当然,你们知道那些内容是什麽,换句话说,你们知道,那些原理是什麽,如我所说,我的理论正在应用的那些定理。)

It is nevertheless striking, that with the help of Boole – in whom, of course, there is absent this major articulation that no signifier is able to signify itself – that in starting from Boole’s logic … namely, from this turning point at which, in a way, one sees, by having wanted to formalist classical logic, that this formalisation itself allows there to be brought to it not simply major extensions, but is revealed to be the hidden essence on which this logic had been able to orient itself and to construct itself, while believing it was following something which was not really its foundation, while believing that it was following what we are going to try to (2) circumscribe today in order, in a way, to set it apart from the field in which we are going to proceed, in so far as we have announced: the logic of phantasy.

可是,耐人寻味的是,由於布林的帮助,在他身上,当然是欠缺这个主要的表达:没有意符能够使自己意符化。从布林的逻辑开始,换句话说,从这个转捩点开始,我们看到,由於想要将古典主义形名化,这个形名主义本身不但容许它接纳主要的延伸,而且让逻辑能够定位及建构自己时,所隐藏的本质被显露出来。在另一方面,它相信它遵照並非它的基础的某件东西,它相信它遵照我们今天所设法要界定秩序的东西。在某方面,它是为了使它脱离我们正要继续探讨的这个领域,也就是我们所宣布的这个领域:幻见的逻辑。

The surprising ease with which, from fields left blank in the logic of Boole, Miller rediscovered the situation, the place, where the signifier in its proper function is in a way elided, in this famous (-1), whose exclusion he admirably separated out in the logic of Boole – the fashion in which, by this very elision, he indicated the place where what I am trying to articulate here is situated, is here something which I believe, has its importance, not at all that I am complimenting him on it here, but which allows you to grasp the consistency, the straight line, in which there is inserted this logic that we are obliged to found in the name of the facts of the unconscious and which, as is to be expected, if we are what we are, namely, rationalists – what must be expected, is, of course, not at all that the previous logic `should be in some way overturned, but that it should rediscover there its proper foundations.

这是令人驚奇的容易,从布林逻辑留下空白的领域,米勒重新发现这个情况,这个位置,发挥适当功用的意符,在某方面,会有所省略,在这个著名的负一(-1),他将它的排除功用,在布林逻辑里,令人赞赏地区分开来。用这种省略,他指示我正在表达的这种东西的位置,那是我相信有其重要性的东西。我现在说这些,目的根本不是在恭维他,而是要让你们理解这个一贯性,直线性。在这里,我们不得不創立的这个逻辑被插入,以无意识的名义。所能被预期的是,假如我们是我们目前这个样子,换言之,假如我们是理性主义者,所必需被期望的,当然根本不是,前述的逻辑应该用某种方式翻转,而是,它应该在那里重新发现它适当的基础。

Moreover you were able to see it being marked, in passing, that in this point which requires for us the bringing into play of a certain symbol, this something which corresponds to this (-1) which Boole does not use, or forbids himself to use, not being sure whether this (-1) is the best to use. For what is proper to a logic, to a formal logic, is that it operates, and what we have to bring out this year are new operators whose shadow, in a way, has already been profiled in the fact that, depending on the ears to which I was addressing myself, I already tried to articulate in a manageable fashion – manageable for what had to be handled, which was nothing other, on that occasion, than analytic praxis – but what, this year, we are taking to its limits, to its edges properly speaking, obliges us to give more rigorous formulations to circumscribe what we are dealing with, and which deserves in some aspects to be taken, to be undertaken, in the most general articulation which is given to us at the moment in the matter of
logic, namely: what is centred on the function of sets.

而且,你们能够看到它偶尔地标示。对我们而言,这个时刻要求某些符号的运作,对应於这个负一的符号,布林逻辑没有使用的,或是他禁止他自己使用,因为他並不确定,是否这个负一就是最好的用途。一个逻辑的本体,一个正式逻辑的本体,就是在於它的运作。今年我们所要显露的内容,就是新的运作者。它们的阴影,在某方面,已经在这个事实中显露轮廓:依照我正在演讲的听众的水平而定,我已经以一个可处理的方式,设法表达,而这个方式可处理,是因为它必须要被处理。在那个场合,那道道地地就是精神分析的本体。但是,今年,我们将讲到它的极限的部分,适当来说,将讲到它的边缘部分。这将使我们不得不极力陈说,为了要限制我们所要处理的东西,在某些方面,应该被接纳,应该被从事的东西。我们将用最深入浅出的表达方式,来谈论逻辑的事情,换句话说,就是专注於讨论集合的功用

I leave this subject, of what Miller brought us then the last time, less as an articulation of what I am developing before you, than as confirmation, assurance, a framework in the margin. It is not without interest to highlight for you that in designating, in Sartre, under the name of “thetic self-consciousness”, the fashion in which, in a way, he occupies the place where this logical articulation resides – which is our task this year – what is involved here is indeed only what is called a substitute (tenant-lieu) – very properly – namely: that which, what we have to occupy ourselves with, we analysts, only in a fashion that is strictly equivalent to the way in which we occupy ourselves with other substitutes, when we have to handle what is an effect of the unconscious.

我离开米勒上一次带给我们的这个主题,不是因为我要表达我正要展示在你们面前,而是作为一种肯定、确定,一种边缘的架构。我颇感到興趣,想要跟你们强调,哲学家薩特所指明的「专断的自我意识」。他以这个意识的方式,据有他的逻辑表达的位置。这就是我们今年的工作。我们这里所牵涉到的,确实仅是所谓的「一种替代」,恰当地说,就是我们必须专注据有的位置,我们精神分析师,使用的这种方式,相当等於是我们专注从事其它的代替,当我们必须处理无意识的情怀。

(3) This is the reason why one can say that in no way can what I am stating about the structure be situated with respect to Sartre, since this fundamental point, around which turns the privilege that he tries to maintain of the subject, is properly this sort of substitute which can in no way interest me except in the register of its interpretation.

(三)这就是为什麽为我们能够说,我对於无意识的结构的陈述,无法被定位为跟薩特有关,因为他设法要维持他的主体,是以理性为特权,基本的要点,适当地说,就是这种专断的自我意识的「代替」。我对於这种代替,丝毫不感興趣,处了借用它来作为解释。
Logic, then, of the phantasy … It is almost necessary to recall – but we can only do it very rapidly in the way that, touching a bell with the tip of the finger, one makes it vibrate for an instant – to remind you on this point of the unextinguished vacillation of what is attached to the tradition, that the term “university” will pinpoint here (if we give to this sense not at all anything whatsoever which designates or shames a geographical point, but this sense of Universitas litterarum or a cursus classici, let us say), it is not useless in passing to indicate that – whatever may be the other much more historical sense that one can give to this term of “university” – there is here some allusion to what I called the Universe of discourse. At least it is not vain to bring the two terms together.

幻见的逻辑因此是、、、我们有需要回顾一下,即使是简单地回顾。当我们用手指尖碰触一下钟铃,我们会使它共鸣一阵子。我了提醒你们跟传统息息有关的那种细微的震荡,「大学」这个术语在这里所界定的这个点(假如我们对於大学的感觉,指的根本不是替地理位置蒙羞的那个点,而是环宇通识或博大精深的经典)。容我们偶尔指明一下,不无帮助:「大学」这个术语,我们给予的历史的意涵之外的另一面,这里会提到我所谓的「真理论述的宇宙」。至少,我们将两个术语相提並论,不会徒劳无功。

Now, it is clear that in this hesitation (remember the waltz) that the professor of philosophy – in the year I think you all went through, more or less as many of you as are here – performed around logic, (namely: what is involved in it, the laws of thinking or its norms, the way it functions and that we are going to extract scientifically, will we say, or the way it ought to be conducted?) – you must admit that in so far as this debate has not yet been settled, perhaps a suspicion may arise for us that the function of the University in the sense that I articulated it earlier, is perhaps precisely to put off the decision about it.
all that I can say is that this decision, perhaps, is more involved – I am speaking about logic – in what is happening in Vietnam, for example, than what is involved in thinking, if in fact it still remains suspended in this way, in this dilemma between its laws … which in that case leaves us asking ourselves whether it is applied to the “world” as they say, let us say rather: to the real, in other words: whether it is not dreaming? (I am not losing my psychoanalytic bearings. I am speaking about things that interest us, us analysts, because for us analysts, to know whether the man who is thinking is dreaming is a question that has the most concrete sense. To whet your appetite, to keep you in suspense, you should know that I have indeed the intention of posing the question, this year, of what is involved in the waking state …) Norms of thinking, opposed to the other, here indeed is something that also interests us, and in the dimension that is not reduced by this little sand papering by which generally, the professor, when he is dealing with logic in the philosophy class, will end up by ensuring that these laws and these (4) norms end up by being presented with the same “smoothness”, which allows one to pass one’s finger from one to the other, in other words to handle all of that blindly.

现在,显而易见的,在这个犹豫(不要忘了,跳华尔兹舞,跳一步,要犹豫两步),我想你们今年你都读过哲学,哲学教授演示逻辑(换句话说,逻辑所牵涉到的思想或其思维的法则,它所运作的方式,我们将会用科学的方式抽离出来,或是它应该被运作的方式)。你们将会承认,这场辩论尚未终了,可能我们都会产生一个怀疑,大学的功能,就我早先所表达的意义来说,确实是要拖延这个决定。我所能说的是,这个决定所牵涉到的,纯就逻辑来说,跟美国在越南战争所发生的事情有关。例如,思想所牵涉到的,即使事实上,它被悬置在它的法则之间的困境。在那种情境,它使我们不禁要问自己,它是否被运用到这个「世界」,也就是说,被运用到「真实界」,换句话说,是否它是一场梦境?(我並没有失去我的精神分析师的教养。我现在谈论到我们感到興趣的事情,我们精神分析学,因为对於我们精神分析师而言,了解正在思想的这个人,是否正在做梦,是一个很有具体意义的问题。为了激发你们的興趣,为了让你们保持在悬疑当中,你应该知道,我今年确实有意要提出这个问题,关於在清醒时刻所牵涉到问题、、、)思想的模式,相对於另外一个模式,是某件我们也感到興趣的事情。一般说来,当一位大学教授在哲学课处理逻辑的问题时,他像是用一张沙纸在使表面变得光滑,结果要能保证,这析法则呈现出来是,要能具有同样的「光滑」。这样,我们才能够用我们的手指在上面触摸,换句话说,闭着眼睛,也能触摸出来。

For us, the relief has not been lost (I am saying, us analysts) of this dimension which is entitled: that of the true. In so far as, after all, it does not require, does not imply in itself the support of thinking, and that if in questioning what it is – the true that is at stake – in connection with which there is stirred up the phantasy of a norm, undoubtedly, it clearly appears – from the origin – that this is not immanent to thinking. If I allowed myself, to touch the ears that it was necessary to make vibrate, to write one day, erecting a figure which it was not moreover very difficult to bring to life – that of the truth, emerging from the well, as it has always been depicted – in order to make it say: “Me, the truth, I speak”, it is indeed in effect to highlight this relief in which it is a matter for us of maintaining that to which, properly speaking, our experience is attached and which is absolutely impossible to exclude from the articulation of Freud: for Freud is here put, immediately, up against it – and there is no need to intervene for that: he put himself there himself.

对於我们,(我是说,对於我们精神分析师而言。)救济的几会尚未失去,救济这个真实界的向度,也就是我们题目的这个向度。畢竟,它並没有要求,它本身並没有暗示具有思想的支持。当我们在置疑它是什麽,这个岌岌可危的真实界是什麽,会有一种模式的幻见会被激发起来。无可置疑的,从起源的地方,清楚地出现这个幻见:这个並不属於思想的内在性。为了引起听众所需要的共鸣,容许有一天我能够写作,竖立一个人物,设法要让它复活起来,也就是真理这个人物,从这个井中出现,如童话中所描述的人物,为了让它说出:「我,是真理,我在说话!」。实际上,我是要强调我们一直设法要维持的这个救济,适当地说,我们精神分析师的经验跟这个救济息息相关,要将这个救济,从佛洛伊德的学说里排除掉,是绝对不可能的。我们在此将佛洛伊德抬举出来,跟真理等量齐观。这其实也不需要我们妄加干预,佛洛伊德本人就将自己定位在那里。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of phantasy 08 Jacques Lacan

July 26, 2010

Logic of phantasy 08
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 07
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 3: Wednesday, November 30, 1966

There will be one next Friday at 10:45, which is what is called, I have been assured, a “peak listening time” (laughter). I am thinking: not for those who are listening to me here at this hour, precisely, because I think at this peak listening time, they are at the hospital.

下个星期五,十点四十五分,将会有一场谈话会,有人告诉我说,那就是所谓的「颠峰倾听时间」(笑声)我正在想:不是为了那些目前正在听我演讲的那些人,确实的,因为在这个颠峰的倾听实间,我认为,他们是在医院里。

Anyway, too bad, you can organise things as you wish and I hope after all to be able to communicate this text if the Ardio is willing to give me the authorisation. There will be another one on Monday – you can see that they are in a hurry. For the first, it is Georget Charbonnier who is kind enough – I will not say to receive it – to give me a place and for the second it is M. Sipridio, thanks to whom you will perhaps have something a bit more lively than the first one, since it will be a dialogue with the person who is most qualified to sustain it, namely, Francois Wahl who is here and was kind enough to agree to carry out this exercise with me.

无论如何,这是非常遗憾。你们可以随自己愿望来组办事情,畢竟我希望能够跟你们讲解这一篇文章,假如雅迪欧愿意给我这个授权。在星期五,还有另外一场谈话会,你们明白,他们很迫不及待。对於第一场谈话会,那是蔡朋倪帮我安排接受,谢谢他的好意,让我有一次的几会。至於第二场谈话会,那是希瑞迪欧女士安排,感谢她,你们才会有比第一次更精彩的内容,因为那将是一场跟一位学养丰富的飽学之士做对谈。他的名字是佛兰科斯。他人在这里,很感谢他同意来跟我做这样的对谈。

Now then, (in the audience: “At what time?”) Well it appears that it is at … I (5) would not swear to it, it appears that it is starting at 6:15, only they are not going to be speaking just about my book and I cannot very well tell you at what stage it will appear between 6:15 and 7PM, each one having his quarter of an hour…. What then, is there another question? It is a peak listening time (laughter) which in general is accompanied by exercises in gymnastics. There you are, anyway, we will see how all of that works out.

(听众中有人问:「什麽时间」?)似乎是,我不大确定,似乎是六点十五分开始。只是他们不是完全要谈论我的书,我无法清楚告诉你们,在六点十五分跟七点之间的哪一个阶段。我们每一个人的时间分别是十五分钟。那麽,还有没有其它问题?那是颠峰的倾听时间(笑声),一般来说,它们还会伴随着健身软操等。就这样,我们再看看结果怎麽样。

And now I give the floor to Jacques-Alain Miller (the audience: “Oh!”).
现在,我将现场交给亚伦、米勒主持。(听众驚呀声!)

I am going all the same to communicate something very amusing to you, which was brought to me by one of my faithful followers. It is a little paper done by a sort of special journal, linked, I think, both to IBM machines and what has been done on an experimental level in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, as it is usually called) and which speaks to us about the use of one of these high-level machines that are being made now, to which there was given – and certainly not for nothing – the name of Elisa; at least it is called Elisa for the use that is made of it – that I am going to tell you about … (Elisa is, as you know, the person who in a well known play – Pygmalion – the person who is taught to speak properly; she was a little flower seller on a busy London street and it is a matter of training her to be able to express herself in the best society, when it is noticed that she does not belong to it).

我仍然要跟你们说一件有趣的事情,这是我的一位忠实的听众告诉我的。有一个特别的杂志,登载了一篇小论文,关系到IBM 的电脑机器及麻省科技研究所(通常简称文MIT)。这篇论文跟我们谈到这些正在制造的高科技机器的使用,这种机器被取名为「艾丽莎」,真是名符其实。至少,它被称为艾丽莎的原因,是跟它的用途有关。现在,我要跟你们谈到,众所皆知,艾丽莎是一齣名剧「卖花女」的女主角。她被教导如何讲话要得体。她原先是伦敦街上的一位卖花女,然后一位语言学家训练她成为能在上流社会表达自己。

It is something of this order which emerges with this little machine; in truth, what is involved is not properly speaking that a machine should be capable of giving articulated answers, simply when one speaks to it – I am not saying when one questions it – it is something which now proves to be a game and which puts in question what can happen in terms of obtaining responses from the one who is speaking to it.

从这台小小的机器,类似这样的事情就出现了。事实上,所牵涉到的,严格来说,並不是一台机器能够提供文辞表达的回答,只有当一个人在跟它说话。我的意思不是说,当一个人在问它。那是我们现在证明是遊戏的东西。而是它会置疑事情的后果,它会从跟它谈话的人那里,得到它所要的回应。

The thing, faith, is not absolutely articulated in a fashion which would be completely satisfying for a situation, in effect, that is so usable for us – which gives us such an interesting reference in the discourse pursued here – it is not properly speaking stated in a fashion which would satisfy us completely – in other words which takes into account the framework into which we might insert it – nevertheless, it is very interesting because, when all is said and done, there is something suggested which may be considered as a therapeutic function of the machine and in a word, it is nothing less than the analogue of a sort of transference which can be produced in this relationship, about which the question is raised.

信心这件事,在这种情况下,绝对无法用完全令人满意的方式来表达。事实上,这对於我们是那麽有用,因为它有趣地关系到我们所追求的真理论述。适当地说,它並不是以让我们完全满意的方式来陈述。换句话说,它考虑到我们可能会插入的架构。可是,这仍然引人興趣,因为当我们说过及做过,会有某件暗含东西,被认为是这台机器具有治疗的功用。总之,它道道地地是在这种关系下产生类似某种「移情」。关於这种移情,问题就产生了。

The thing did not dissatisfy me. I would like simply in this connection … – since moreover it is not unrelated to everything that I am leaving open concerning the fashion in which, in short, I have to manage the diffusion of what is called my teaching – I could say that what you will find in terms of the handling of a first symbolic chain (designed in its time, for me, to give me the notion that (6) psychoanalysts are required to conceive of … the notion to which their mind should accommodate itself, to centre in a proper fashion on what Freud called memory (rememoration), to give them a sort model that is suggestive of that), in the construction of this symbolic chain and of its own kind of memory, that is undoubtedly consistent and even insistent, which is articulated in what comes now in this book, in the second, let us say chapter or moment, namely, in the inverse position in which the Introduction to the purloined letter which precedes it is fixed in this book, namely, just after The purloined letter.

我对於这种状况並不满意。在这方面,我只是想要、、、而且,它跟我展开的一切並非没有关系,总之,我必须处理所谓我的教学的扩散。我可以这样说,你们所发现的是,在处理一个初起的符号的锁链时,这个锁链被设计,为了要给我精神分析师所被要求构想的这个观念:他们的心智应该接纳它自己进入这个观念, 为了要以适当的方式,专注於佛洛伊德所谓的记忆,给他们一种有如此意涵的模式,在建构这个符号的锁链,以及它自己的记忆。无可置疑地,那是具有一贯性,甚至是持续性的。这是将要出版的这本书的内容。其次,让我们谈到章节,换句话说,採用倒转的立场,在它之前的「偷窃的信的导论」,在这本书中,被修正过来。换句话说,它出现在「偷窃的信」之后。

I recall to those who were listening to me at that time that this construction, like all the others, was made before them and for them, step by step, and that I started very exactly: first of all, from an examination, starting from a text by Poe, about the way in which the mind works on this theme: can one win in the game of odds and evens, and that my second step was the following: to imagine a machine, precisely of this kind – and what is effectively produced today differs in nothing from what I articulated then – simply: the machine is supposed by the subject to be provided with a programme which takes into account the gains and the losses.

我回想起当时听我演讲的那些人,我的理论建构,像所有的其它建构,都是在他们面前,並且都是针对他们建造的,一步一步地。我脚踏实地开始:首先,我先审查,从艾伦坡的一篇小说开始,关於心智对於这个主题的运作:一个人可能在精打细算的遊戏中获胜吗?我的第二步骤如下:想像一台机器,确实是这种机器,今天我们所产生的这种有效的机器,跟我当时所表达的机器,没有什麽两样。仅有的差别是:小说的主角认为的机器,供应有一种程式,这个程式会考虑到所有的利益跟损失。

I mean that starting from this: that the subject might question the aforesaid machine, by playing the game of odds and evens with it – starting from this single supposition, that it preserves, at least for a certain number of throws, the memory of its gains and its losses, one can construct this sequence of: +, +, -, +, – … which encompass, united in a parenthesis of a typical length and which is displaced by a notch each time, allows us to establish this trajectory that I constructed and upon which I am founding this first most elementary type of the model … (We do not need to consider memory under the register of the physiological impression but only of the symbolic memorial),…

我的意思是,从这里开始,小说的主角可能置疑到前述的那台机器,用它来玩精打细算的遊戏,从这个单一的假设开始,它保留,至少投掷几次后,它保留了获利跟损失的记忆。我们能够建构这种系列:+, +, -, +- …。这个系列涵盖到某个长度后,会用括弧把它们联合起来,每一次都用一个刻痕来替代。这样它使我们能够建立这个我建构的投掷的轨道,也是我目前正在創建的这个最基本的模式、、、(我们不需要将记忆放置在生理的印象层次,而仅仅放置在符号的记念层次。)

It is starting from a hypothetical game with what was not yet perhaps in a position to function then at this level, but which all the same existed as such, as electronic machine, namely, in fact, something which can be written on paper (this is the modern definition of the machine), it is starting from there – well before, then, this got onto the agenda of the preoccupations of engineers, who devoted themselves to these apparatuses, as you know, that are always progressing, because people expect nothing less than automatic translation – it is starting from there that 15 years ago I constructed a first model for the proper use of psychoanalysts, with the goal of producing in their mens, mind, this sort of necessary detachment from the idea that the functioning of the signifier is necessarily the flower of consciousness, which was at that time to introduce a step that was absolutely unprecedented.

它从一个假设的遊戏开始,使用可能还不算是这个层次的运作的立场,但是仍然是像这样的电子机器,换句话说,实际上,某件能够被写在纸上的东西(这是机器的现代意义)。它就从这里开始,然后,这样进入工程师全心贯注的工作进度表。你们知道,工程师对於这些机器会致力研发,总是在进展当中,因为人们所期盼的,道道地地就是自动的翻译机。就是从那里开始,十五年前,我构想一台第一部这样的模型,来充当精神分析师的适当地使用,目标是要在它们的「心智层」,产生这种必须要的观念上的疏离:意符的运作必须是意识的开花结果。这在当时,算是介绍了绝对是史无前例的一步。

Over to you … (There follows the presentation of <b>M Jacques-Alain Miller</b> on Boolean logic) <b>Doctor Lacan</b>: – I am not going to add any commentary. I consider that the work which has been pronounced before you as being truly able to guarantee by the perfect ease of its presentation, something which supports, grounds, corresponds to what I introduced the last time as being the absolutely necessary starting point for any logic which is properly the one the psychoanalytic terrain requires.

麦克风递交给你、、、(接着是亚伦、米勒对於布林逻辑的讲演)、、、我不是要妄加评论,我认为,你们所听到的这场讲演,真正能够保证讲演内容的丰富充实。它支持、支撑、並对应我上一次所介绍的内容,作为一个绝对需要的开始点。适当地说,开展精神分析学的平台所需要的幻见逻辑。

This commentary is not to be considered as a reduplication. It showed you something in the confrontation with the first of these sets, in the mathematical-logic sense of the term: which was given by this Boole set and the confrontation of this Boole set – in so far as it finds itself apparently much more homogeneous with classical logic – You have seen that from this set itself, we are allowed to construct this logical precedence, this necessity which radically distinguishes the status of meaning and its origin in the signifier – I find that you have had there, at once a very elegant demonstration and at the same time this constitutes a which was necessary for the assimilation, in a way, and the complement, the control, the configuration of what, the last time, I succeeded in bringing before you and which you will have the continuation of the next time.

这个评论不应该只是被认为是内容的复述。它给你们显示某件跟这些集合的前面几组的冲突,用数学逻辑的意义来说,这是布林逻辑的集合所提供的。而布林逻辑的集合的冲突,它发现它自己显而易见地跟传统的逻辑,更加具有同质性。你们看的出来,从这个集合本身,我们被允许建构这个逻辑的先后顺序,这对於区别意义跟它在意符的起源是有必要的。我发现到,你们在那里所听到的,既是一种高雅的证明,它同时也建造了一个小客体,作为吸收、互补、控制、及整合我上一次所呈现给你们的,下一次,我们还会再接续下去。

雄波译
springheroshiung@gmail.com

.Logic of phantasy 06 Jacques Lacan

July 26, 2010

.Logic of phantasy 07
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 07
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 3: Wednesday, November 30, 1966

Today you are going to hear a piece of work, a paper by Jacques-Alain Miller. This – about which I warned you the last time, perhaps a little late, a part of the audience having already dispersed when I announced it – marks the fact that I would like there to remain justified this curious name of seminar, which was attached to my teaching from the time of Sainte-Anne where, as you know, it was held for ten years.

今天你们将听到一部着作,亚伦、米勒的一篇论文。关於这篇论文,我上一次警告过你们,可能有一点迟,因为有一部分的听从已经散了,当我宣布的时候。这表示我想要让这个讲座的怪异的名字,能够自圆其说,它跟我自从聖安妮的时代以来的教学有密切关系。你们知道,这个讲座举办了十年。

To speak only of the two previous years here, some of you are not unaware – to your great annoyance – that I wanted this seminar to be held in an effective fashion, believing that this effectiveness could be linked to a certain reduction in this so numerous and so kindly audience that you offer me through your assiduity and attention. And, good God, so much assiduity and attention deserve a lot of respect, and they made the sorting out that was necessary for this reduction very difficult. So that, in total, your more reduced number was not such that from the point of view of quantity – which plays such an important role in communication – the scale of things changed to any great extent. So I will leave in suspense this year the solution of this difficult problem. Until further notice and without in any way committing myself to it, I am not closing any of these Wednesdays whether they are terminal, semi-terminal or other.

仅是为了谈前两年的事情,你们有一些人可能会懊恼並不知道,我想要这个讲座举行得有声有色,相信这种有声有色,跟听丛人数的丛多,以及他们专注聆听与热心捧场,有密切的关系。谢天谢地,专注地聆听应该值得赞赏,可是为了迎合他们的需求,而必须将内容深入浅出却不容易。所以,总的来说,你们现在人数的减少,从品质的观点来说,在沟通方面扮演一个重要的角色,事情的状况不无改善。所以,今年我将这个困难的问题的解答,先卖个关子。除非我另行通知,或我心有旁骛,我不会关闭这些星期三的讲座,儘管它有一点摇摇欲墜,或已经奄奄一息。

I Would like simply that there should be at least maintained this name of seminar, in a more marked style than we experienced as Saint-Anne, where up to the very last years there were meetings in which I delegated the role of speaking to one or other of those who were following me at that time.

我只是想要这个讲座的名字至少应该保留,比我们在聖安妮的纪念馆所经验的,更为明显。直到前几年,那里都有举行演讲会,我都担任演讲的角色,对於当时很愿意听我演讲的那些人。

Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains, which suspends this appellation of seminar between the proper usage of a category: – a place where something ought to be exchanged, where the (2) transmission, the dissemination of a doctrine ought to be manifested as such, namely, in the process of being transmitted – there remained some ambiguity between this usage proper to the category and some other usage or other, not properly speaking of the proper name – because every discussion of the proper name can become engaged in this – let us say a nomination par excellence, the which nomination par excellence might become a nomination par ironie. Hence, in order to mark clearly that it is not the state of things in which I intend there to be stabilised the use of this appellation, you will see intervening periodically a certain number of people who show themselves disposed to it.

可是,讲座的名称在专有的分类与某些其它分类之间,始终保持着一个模糊不清的地带。在前者,某件事情应该被交换,传递或信条的扩散应该被证明,换句话说,在传递的过程,始终保持一个模糊不清的地带。後者,严格来说,並不是属於专有的名字,因为专有名字的每一个讨论会牵涉到,我们所谓的命名,而最佳的命名可能成为一种命名的反讽。因此,为了清楚标明,这並不是我打算让名称的使用确定下来的事情的状态。你们明白,总是有某些人自告奮勇地不时介入。

Undoubtedly, Jacques-Alain Miller, in inaugurating what follows, has some right, this year, since he provided you with this index in my book, with this reasoned index of concepts, which, according to what I hear is very welcome for many people, who find a great advantage in this Ariadne’s thread which allows them to move through a succession of articles in which one or other notion, one or other concept (as the term is used more correctly), is found at diverse stages.

无可置疑地,亚伦、米勒,在开始我后来的讲座,也就是今年,有某些的权利,因为他提供给你们,关於我书中的这些索引,这个条理分明的概念的索引。依照我听说受到许多人欢迎的内容。很多人发现这个像阿瑞吶赖以逃离洞中怪物的线索,可以帮助他们阅览一连串的文章,可以各个阶段,找到一个或其它的观念,一个或其它的概念(更正确地说)。

A tiny detail: I note, to answer a question which has been put to me by someone, that in this index, the numbers in italics mark the essential passages, the straight or roman numbers, mark the passages where the concept is involved more in passing. It can happen that on the page that is designated for you, what is referred to in this way is simply limited to an indication in one line of the page. This will tell you the care with which this little apparatus, which is so usable, is constructed.

有一个小细节:为了回答某个人对我提出的问题,我注意到。在这个索引里,斜体字的数字标示着基本的讯息,这些连续或罗马的数字,标示着,偶尔牵涉到的观念。凑巧地,在指定给你们的那一页,以这种方式所提到的,仅仅被限制在这一页的某一行所指示的。这个将会告诉你,这个如此好用的小仪器是如何小心地被建构。

I am told, in this connection, that this book is, as they say in this franglais which I, for my part, do not reject, “out of print”, which means epuise (exhausted). I find “out of print” nicer, with epuise people ask what has happened to it (laughter). I hope that this “out of print” will not last too long, it is what is called a success, but a success in terms of sales. Let us not prejudge the other success. We have to wait and see and this, after all, leaves the question open. It has been remarked that I was hardly in a hurry to put this book into circulation.

我听说,在这一方面,这本书,如他们在「夹杂英语的法语」所说,就我而言,我並不排斥「已成绝响」,意思是「江郎才尽」了。我觉得「已成绝响」还比较好听些。说「江郎才尽」,人们会问怎麽一回事(笑声)。我希望这个「已成绝响」的时间不要延续太久,这就是人们所称的「成功」,这个成功指的是行销方面。让我们对於种另类的成功,不要预先怀有成见。畢竟,我们必须先等着瞧,再开展问题。有人曾经说过,我这个人老是迫不及待,想要发行我的书。

If I delayed so long in doing so, one could pose this question: “Why now?” “What do I expect from it?” It is clear that the reply: “that it should be of service to you!” was no less valid a year or two ago, or even earlier. The question is therefore not simple. It involves everything about my relations with what plays the function of a base, namely, psychoanalysis in its incarnated – we might say quickly – or again subjectified form, in other words: with psychoanalysts themselves. It is certain that there were many elements which appeared to me to justify that what I was trying to construct should remain in a reserved field, which allowed, in a way, this selection (3) which was made of those who wanted to decide to recognise what the study of Freud implied as a consequence in their practice.

假如我拖延太久才出版新书,人们可能会问这个问题:「为什麽现在才出版?」「我们对於这本书有什麽期待?」显而易见的,「这本书是为你们效劳」的这个回答,会跟一两年前,或更早,同样是面面俱到。这个问题因此並不简单。它牵涉到我跟基础的功用相关的一切事情,换句话说,那就是精神分析学的具体展现。或马上换另外一种说法,「在主体身上体现」,换言之,在精神分析学的本身体现。的确,有许多的因素出现,让我能够自圆其说,我设法建构的内容,始终是保持在一个预留的领域。这样在某方面,可以提供一个选择,给个那些人,假如他们想要了解,佛罗伊德的学说在实行的结果,将会意味着什麽。

Finally, things never happen in the way you plan, in these difficult matters in which resistance is not restricted to what must be designated in the narrow sense of this term in analytic praxis, but where it has another form, in which the social context is not without its impact. This indeed is what makes it very delicate for me to explain myself before such a large audience.

到最后,永远是人算不如天算。在这些困难的事情上,抗拒不会仅是局限於精神分析学本身的这个术语的狭隘的领域。而会扩大到另外一种形式的地方,那就是社会的背景必然会有它的反响。这确实使得我要在大庭广众的面前,解释自己,成为一件很微妙的事情。

This indeed is why, in everything which concerns the external relations of my teaching – for I do not envisage in any other way the hullabaloo and the to-do around a certain number of my terms, with which I see myself associated in a way that I do not like, including that of structuralism, which for the moment benefiting from a certain fashion, is not the least to inspire my suspicion – nevertheless, here again, it is not the case – except in as much as I am forced to it by some incidence of what I called earlier the success of the book – this is something for which I am in no way disposed to take time here, to eat into this measured time in which you see – in which you ought to sense more or less by your experience of these last years – that I have no time to lose, if I want to state things before you at the level of the construction that you saw me inaugurating in its style by my last seminar and the points on which I wanted to establish the beginning of this logic that I have to develop before you this year.

这确实是为什麽,在跟我的教学的外在关系有关的一切,因为我不会以任何其它方式,来拟想我的某些术语会有引起怎样的幻想或做法。我自己並不喜欢这样,但是我看待我自己跟跟这些术语的联想,包括「结构主义」,目前是让我沾一点光的某方面的显学,还是相当地引起我的怀疑。可是,情况也不完是这样,除了我早先提到过的我的书发行的成功,使我不得不对自己有所怀疑。书的发行的成功,根本不是我想要在这里花时间絮呱的事情,我不想要浪费你们的宝贵时光。你们看得出来,你们从你们前几年的经验,应该多多少少感受得出来,我实在迫不及待,假如我想要以这个建构的层次陈述事情,以我上一次的演讲所开展的那种风格。我想要根据那些要点,建立这个幻见逻辑的开始,这是今年我必须要跟你们展示的。

Hence, and since all the same this book exists with the first movements that it is bringing with it – which will be followed by others – and that, in short, the two or three points that I have brought up like that, as principal – but there others – risk remaining in suspense for you, I believe that because of this, I ought to warn you that you will find, faith, the explanation – at least a sufficient explanation to permit you to respond to at least some of the questions which may remain in suspense for you – in two sorts of conversations, as they say, or again interviews, which are going to appear, I believe – if my information is correct, this week – in places, God knows, which have nothing of the fairground about them, which are called respectively the Figaro litteraire and Lettres francaises, where perhaps you will get to know a little more about these points.

因此,这一本书依旧还在发行,带来前面的一些动作,随之而来,还会有一些动作。总之,有两三点,我曾经提出来作为原则,但是还有其它几点,我宁可让你们保持在疑虑当中。我相信,因为这样,我应该警告你们,你们将会找到信仰,找到解释,至少找到充分的解释。这样,你们才能够回应你们依旧存有疑虑的一些问题。这两种对话内容,或人们所说的这两种面谈,这个星期将会出现,假如我的资讯正确的话,只是出现的地方,跟它们的展示场地根本没有关系。这两个杂志的名字分别为「菲加洛文季」及「法国文学」。在那里,你们将会看到我说的这几点。

Besides, since I cannot help myself, every time that I have one of these kinds of external relation, putting into it all the same what is on-going, it is possible that you will find here and there something which refers to our discourse of this year.

除外,我每一次谈到这种「外在关系」,我都会情不自禁地将来龙去脉详述一番,在里面,你们很可能找到一些,跟今年我们的精神分析学的真理论述有关的事情。

It is obvious that I have some scruples – for example, as I did the last time, in speaking to you about the repetition of the unary stroke, as being situated, (4) established fundamentally from this repetition (of which one can say that it only happens once, which means all the same that it is double, otherwise there would be no repetition) which right away, in short, for whoever wants to delay on it a little, establishes in its most radical foundation the division of the subject – I cannot avoid having some scruple at having announced it before you the last time almost in passing, while at this congress which took place at Johns Hopkins – as a certain number of you know) in October, I chewed it over for about three quarters of an hour. It is perhaps because I give you greater credit than my listeners at that time; certain echoes received since having showed me that the structuralist ear – to take up again the term from earlier – well then, my God, the structuralist ear, whoever may be its bearer on a particular occasion, is capable of
showing itself to be a little deaf! (laughter).

显而易见,我有一些顾虑。例如,上一次,我跟你们谈到「独特小客体的重复」,它的位置被找到,基本上就就是因为重复被建立(我们可以说,它只发生过一次,意思是,相同的东西的再现,否则就不会称之为从复)。总之,这个小客体立刻被建立,因为每个人都想要拖延一下,以最激进的基础,建立「生命主体的分裂」。我不能不有一些顾虑,要像上一次我偶然在你们面前所宣布的,虽然在十月份,在霍普金大学举行的那次演讲会,你们有些人也知道,我花了四十五分钟,我不愿其烦地再三陈述。当时可能是因为我对於听丛有较大的期待。我后来收到一些迴响,让我知道,结构主义的耳朵,我从早先开始採用的这个术语,我的天,这个结构主义的耳朵,在一个特别的场所,不管是挂在谁的头上的耳朵,它们会呈现自己有一点耳聋的现象(笑声)。

There are two still more unexpected places, where you will perhaps see … (in the audience: “We can’t hear!” – <b>Doctor Lacan</b>: “What? Who can’t hear? How long have you not been able to hear anything?” (laughter)) – Good, then, in still more unexpected places you will perhaps find on these different themes – up to and including these little initial indications, my God, which can never come too soon – on certain themes which I will have to develop subsequently and, for example, in passing, on the function of the preconscious – a curious thing, that people do not seem to have occupied themselves with for a long time, namely, ever since people mixed up everything while believing they had kept it distinct, people no longer occupy themselves after all so much with the functions that Freud reserved for it – it slipped in in passing, if I remember rightly, in one of these conversations, I cannot remember which one, to which, then, it would be well to add the two other unexpected ones, I think, for you, which are
conversations at the O.R.T.F.

还有两个你们意想不到的地方,你们可能会看到、、、(听从喊说:「我们听不见!」「什麽?谁听不见?你们什麽时候,能够听得见什麽?」(笑声)。好,在一个你们可能会碰到的更加出乎意料之外的地方,关於这个不同的主题,包括这些小小的开头的指示,我的天,还是越早讲越好,关於我随后必须开展的某些的主题。随便举个例子,关於前意识的功用,说来奇怪,人们似乎有一段长时间,並没有专注於它,换句话说,当人们以为自己将前意识清楚区分出来,其实他们将一切都混肴。畢竟,人们不再那麽专注於佛洛伊德保留给它的功用。可是,前意识却还是会偶然滑溜进来。假如我记得没有错,在有一次这样的谈话中,哪一次我记不得。再多填加两次其它的谈话,也还是适用。我想,你们会记得在O.R.T.F 电视台的那些谈话会。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of phantasy 06 Jacques Lacan

July 22, 2010

Logic of phantasy 06
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 06
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 2: Wednesday, November 23, 1966

Here indeed is where there may be situated the phantasy which is properly the poetic phantasy par excellence, the one which obsessed Mallarme: of the absolute Book.

的确,这就是幻见的位置被找到的地方。这个幻见,适当地说,是最完美的诗的幻见,是诗人马拉梅为之沉迷不拔的诗的幻见,是这本绝对真理书的幻见。

It is at this level where things are tied together at the level of the use not of pure signifier, but of the purified signifier, in so far as I say – and that I write that say – that the signifier is here articulated as distinct from any signified and I then see there being outlined the possibility of this absolute Book, whose property would be that it would encompass the whole signifying chain, properly in the following: that it may no longer signify anything. In this, then, there is something that proes to be founded in existence at the level of the Universe of discourse, but (11) we have to suspend this existence on the proper logic which that of the phantasy may constitute, because moreover, it is the only one that can tell us the way in which this region is attached to the Universe of discourse.

就在这个层次,事情紧密地结合在一起,不是在纯粹意符的实用层次,而是在被纯净化的意符的实用层次。就我的言说而言,我以那种方式书写,这个意符在这里被表达,不同於任何被意符化的意符。因此,我看到这个绝对真理书的可能展现的轮廓。这本绝对真理书的属性将是:它会涵盖整个意符的锁链,以下面这个方式:它可能不会使任何东西意符化。因此,在这里,会有某件东西建议要将基础建立在真理论述的宇宙的存在上,但是我们必须将这个存在,悬置於幻见的逻辑的适当的逻辑上,因为就是这个逻辑告诉我们用什麽方式,这个地区跟真理论述的宇宙紧连在一起。

Undoubtedly, it is not excluded that it should enter it, but on the other hand, it is quite certain that it specifies itself in it, not at all by this purification of which I spoke earlier, for purification is not at all possible of what is essential to the Universe of discourse, namely, meaning. And were I to speak to you for another four hours about this absolute Book it would nevertheless remain that everything that I tell you has a sense.

无可置疑地,意符应该进入真理论述的宇宙,这一点並没有被排除。但是在另一方面,相当确定的是,意符在里面,明确指明自己。它根本不是依据我早先提到过的纯净化,因为在真理论述的宇宙里,最重要的事情,也就是意义,纯净化根本就不可能。关於这本绝对的真理书,即使我跟你们再多谈四个小时,我告诉你们的这一切,谈的将还是事情要有意义这个事情。

What characterises the structure of this B – in so far as we know where to situate it in the Universe of discourse, inside or outside – is very precisely this feature that A announced earlier, in making for you the circle, simply of this A B C D E, in so far as, by simply closing the chain, there results that each group of four can easily leave outside itself the extraneous signifier, which can serve to designate the group, for the simple reason that it is not represented in it, and that nevertheless the whole chain will be found to constitute the totality of all these signifiers, giving rise to this additional unit, uncountable as such, which is essential for a whole series of structures, which are precisely the ones on which I founded, since the year 1960, my whole operation (operatoire) of identification.

表现B这个意符的结构的特征(我们知道将B这个意符的位置,定义在真理论述的宇宙里,不论是里面,或是外面),确实就是A这个意符早先宣布的这个特征,它为了你而制作成一个仅仅就是ABCDE园圈,仅仅就是封闭这个意符的锁链,造成的结果是,四个集合成一群,很容易将这个外来的意符置身在自己之外。这个外来的意符被用来充当这四个一群的集合的指标,理由很简单,它在四个一群的集合里面,没有被代表。儘管如此,这整个意符的锁链,还是被认为是组成所有这些意符的整体性,而产生这个增加的单位,虽然这个单位本身不可数,这对於一整个的系列的结构是很重要的。这一系列的结构,确实是我自从1960年以来所創建的,这是我的自我认同的全部运作。

Namely, what you find of it, for example, in the structure of the torus, being quite obvious that by buckling on the torus a certain number of circuits, by making operate a series of complete circuits at a cut and by making of them the number that you like (naturally the more of them there are, the more satisfying it is, but the more obscure it is). It is enough to make two of them to see there appearing at the same time this third required for these two to buckle together and, as I might say, for the line to bite its own tail: it will be this third circuit, which is assured by the buckling around the central hole, through which it is impossible not to pass in order for the first two loops to cut one another.

换句话说,你们在里面所发现的,例如,这个圆形突出形状的结构,显而易见,某些数目的园环,扣住这个园形突出形状的结构,使得一系列的完整园环在切口处运作起来,然后使它们成为你喜欢的数目(当然,它们的数目越多,越会令人满意,但是也越会模糊焦点。)假如能够使其中两个园环看出,同时会出现有第三个需要的园环,来让这两个园环扣紧在一起,或如我所说,让这一条线索紧咬住自己的尾巴,这就很足够了。那将就是这个第三园环,绕着中央的空洞扣紧而稳定下来,因为前面的两个环套,若是要切开,不可能不通过这个中央的空洞。

If I am not making any drawing on the board today, it is because in truth – in saying it – I am saying enough about it for you to understand me and also a good deal too little for me to show you that they are at least two paths, at the origin, along which this can be effected and that the result is not at all the same as regards the emergence of this additional One (Un en plus) that I am in the process of speaking to you about.

假如我今天没有在黑板上画任何图表,那是因为事实上,我在说的时候,我已经说的足够让你们了解我,也足够详细让我告诉你们,在起源处,它们至少是两条途径。沿着它们,就会产生这样的结果,而且结果各不相同,关於出现这个额外增加的这一个,我现在正在个你们谈到的。

This simply suggestive indication contains nothing to exhaust the richness of what the least topological study provides us with.

这个仅仅是建议性的指标,並不足以将我对於地形学的些微研究所提供的丰富内涵,一网打尽。

What it is a matter simply of indicating today, is that the specificity of this world of writing is precisely to distinguish itself from discourse by the fact that it can close. And, closing on itself, it is precisely from there that there arises this possibility of a “one” which has a completely different status to that of the one which unifies and encompasses.

我今天只是要指出,书写的这个世界的明确目标,就是要区别它自己,跟真理论述的不同,因为它自己会封闭。在封闭它自己的时候,确实就是在封闭它自己的地方,产生了一个「唯我独尊的个体」的可能性。这个个体享有的地位,完全不同於原先统一及涵盖的那个个体的地位。

But from this “one” which already, from the simple closing – without there being any need to go into the status of repetition, which nevertheless (12) is closely linked to it – just from its closing, it gives rise to what has the status of the additional One, in so far as it is only sustained by writing and that it is nevertheless open, in its possibility, to the Universe of discourse: since it is sufficient, as I pointed out to you, for me to write – but it is necessary that this writing should take place – what I say about the exclusion of this one, this is enough to generate this other plane where there unfolds properly speaking the whole function of logic: the thing being sufficiently indicated to us by the stimulus that logic received, by submitting itself to the simple operation of writing, except for the fact that it still fails to remember that this only reposes on the function of a lack, in the very thing that is written and which constitutes the status, as such, of the function of writing.

但是从这个「唯我独尊的个体」,从这个简单的封闭,没有任何必要进入重复的地位,这个重复确实跟它息息相关,仅仅从它的封闭,它产生了一个额外增加的个体所享有的地位:它仅是依靠书写来维持,却又能将它的可能性,开放给真理论述的宇宙。我曾经跟你们指出过,我只要能够书写,我的愿望就满足了。但是这个书写的动作要发生,关於这个「唯我独尊的个体」必须被排除在外,这样才足够产生这一个其它的平台,展开逻辑的整个运作,严格来说。关於这件事,我们得到的指示,是来自逻辑接收到的刺激反应,以及屈服於书写的简单运作,除了这是事实:它无法记住,它的和谐在於一个「欠缺」的功用,在於被书写的东西,以及组成书写的功用的这个地位的东西。

I am saying simple things to you today, and perhaps this in itself risks making this discourse appear disappointing to you. Nevertheless, you would be wrong not to see that this is inserted into a register of questions which henceforth give to the function of writing something which cannot but have repercussions down to the deepest level of any possible conception of structure. For if the writing of which I speak is only supported from the return buckled onto itself, from a cut (as I illustrated it from the function of the torus), we find ourselves lead to the following: that precisely the most fundamental studies, linked to the progress of mathematical analysis, have put us in a position to isolate in it the function of the edge.

今天我跟你们说的问题比较简单。可能过於简单,会让这个真理论述令人失望。可是你们将会犯错,如果你们没有看出,这是一系列问题的一环,有关书写的功用,它在结构的深奥层次会有所影响。假如我谈论到的这个书写,只是靠着扣紧自己的回转,靠着切割来支持(如我从突出的园环状的举例说明),我们会发现我们会导致以下的结果:确实就是跟数学分析的进步,息息相关的最基本的研究,使我们所处的立场,必须将「边缘」的功用,从里面孤立出来。

Now, once we speak about edge, there is nothing which can make us substantify this function, in so far as here you might improperly deduce that this function of writing is to limit this changeability (mouvant) of which I spoke to you earlier as being that of our thoughts or of the Universe of discourse. Far from it! If there is something which is structured as edge, what it itself limits is in a position to enter in its turn into the edging function. And here indeed is what we are going to have to deal with.

现在,我们一但谈论到「边缘」,没有一样东西使我们能够将这个功用,具体表现出来。你们可能会不恰当地推论说,书写的这个功用,就是要限制这种多变的性质,我早先跟你们谈论到,当着是我们思想,或真理论述的宇宙的多变性质。完全不是这麽一回事!假如有某件东西可以充当「边缘」的结构,它自己的立场,就是要限制自己,在回转到这个边缘的功用时,不要再进入。

Or indeed – and this is the other face on which I intend to end – it is the reminder of what has always been known about this function of the unary stroke (trait unaire)

的确,这是另外一个面貌,我打算要以它作为今天的终结。它让我们想到,长久以来众所皆知的「单一的特征」的功用。

I will end by evoking the 26th verse of a book which I have already made use of, at one time, to begin to make understood what is involved in the function of the signifier: the book of Daniel and in connection with the story about the zouave’s trousers which is designated in it by a word which remains in the state of what is called an hapax and which is impossible to translate unless it was the socks that the characters in question wore.

我将引述一本书的第二十六首诗篇,作为结束今天的演讲。这首诗篇,我有一次曾经使用过,为了让人理解意符的功用会牵涉到什麽。丹尼尔的书,以及跟鄒威的裤子有关的故事。这个故事会被牵扯在里面,是由於一个始终被称为「hapax」的单字,这个单字不可能翻译,除非它指的是里面的人物所穿的袜子。

In the book of Daniel, you already have the theory of the subject that I am presenting to you, and precisely arising at the limit of this Universe of discourse. It is the famous story of the dramatic festival of which we no longer find, moreover, the slightest trace in the annals, but no matter!

在丹尼尔的书里,你已经有人作为生命主体的理论,那是我正在提供给你们,它的出现确实受到真理论述的宇宙的限制。这个热闹的庆典的著名的故事,我们已经找不到丝毫的文献记载,不过,那不重要。

(13) Mene, Mene, for this is how verse 26 is expressed, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin, which is usually transcribed in the famous Mene, Tekel, Parsin. It does not seem useless to me for us to notice that Mene, Mene which means “counted” – as Daniel pointed out in interpreting it to the worried prince – is expressed twice in order to show the most simple repetition of what constitutes counting: it is enough to count up to two for everything that is involved in this additional One, which is the true root of the function of repetition in Freud, to take place and to be marked in the following: except for the fact that contrary to what occurs in set theory, one does not say it.

「计算,计算,」这确实是第二十六诗篇的表达,「计算,计算,铁克,欠缺重量 」这几句通常被书写在这篇著名的「计算,铁克,欠缺重量」。我们如果注意到 Mene Mene 的意思是「计算」,对於理解似乎不无帮助。如丹尼尔对这位焦虑的王子的解释,「计算」一词被表达两次,为了显示组成计算的最简单的重复;牵涉到这个「额外的个体」的每一样东西,计算到两次,也就足够了。这个「额外的个体」,在佛洛伊德的着作里,重复的功用的真实的根源。它运作及被标示如下:除了这个事实,跟集合理论相反,我们不将它说出来。

One does not say the following: that what repetition seeks to repeat is precisely what escapes, because of the very function of the mark, in so far as the mark is original in the function of repetition. That is why repetition takes place, not because the mark is repeated, but that for the mark to provoke the sought-for repetition, it is necessary that on what is sought because the mark marks the first time, this very mark in effaced at the level of what it has marked and that is why what is sought for in repetition, of its nature slips away, allows there to be lost the fact that the mark cannot not be reduplicated, except by effacing, on what is to be repeated, the first mark, namely, to let it slip out of reach.

我们並不说出以下的话:重复之所以设法要重复,确实就是要逃避,因为那个词语的功用,因为那个词语,在重复的功用方面是独创的。重复会发生的原因,不是因为那个词语被重复,而是为了让那个词语激发它所寻求的重复。这是需要的,在那个词语第一次标示的地方,所被寻求的东西,这一个词语在它曾经被标示的层次,被抹除掉。那就是为什麽它要在重复中设法寻求,因为它的特性就是滑溜不定,为了模糊这个事实:这个词语无法被复制,除了以抹除的方式,对於应该被重复的东西,换句话说,为了让第一次的词语,溜滑不定。

Mene, Mene … something in what is rediscovered lacks weight: Tekel. The prophet Daniel interprets it, and interprets it by saying to the prince that he was in effect weighed, but that something is missing there, which is expressed as “Parsin”. This radical lack, this first lack which flows from the very function of the counted as such, this additional One that one cannot count, it is this which constitutes properly this lack to which it is a matter for us of giving its logical function, in order that it should secure what is involved in the final “Parsin”, the bubble, of the empire in question, of the sufficiency of what is closed in on the image of the imaginary whole.

「计算,计算,重新发现的东西,欠缺重量:铁克」。预言家丹尼尔解释它,並且对着王子说话,来解释它,事实上,他的地位是举足轻重,但是这里漏失了某件东西,那件东西被表达为「欠缺重量」。这个强烈的欠缺,这个第一个欠缺,从被「计算的东西」的功用里流露出来,这个「额外的一个个体」是我们无法计算的。就是这个额外的一个个体,适当地组成这个欠缺,现在要由我们来给予它逻辑的功用,为了让欠缺获得它所参与的,在这个最后的「欠缺重量」,这个受到置疑的王国的空洞之字词,在想像界的整个领域的意象,已经被封闭的自给自足的空洞之字词。

Here is exactly the path along which there is brought to bear the effect of the entry of what structures discourse at the most radical point, which is undoubtedly – as I always said and accentuated, to the extent of employing the most popular images for it – the letter that is involved, but the letter in so far as it is excluded, as it is lacking.

确实就是这条途径,沿着它,我们进入真理论述的结构,在最紧张的时刻,所必需承受的影响。我曾经一再说过,並强调,甚至用最通俗的意象来形容它。无可置疑,这个影响就是参与的这个「字词」,但是这个「字词」被排除在外,因为它是一种漏失。

This is indeed about what – that moreover, since today A am making anew irruption into this Jewish tradition – to tell the truth, I had so many things prepared, even to the extent of having come to grips with a little exercise of learning to read Massoretic, a whole work which was in a way put in cold storage because of the fact that I was not able to construct the thematic that I had intended to develop around the Name of the Father – and that moreover, there remains something of all of this and specifically that at the level of history of Creation: “Berechit, Bara, Elohim” the Book begins, namely by a Beth. And it is said that this very letter that we have used today, the capital A, otherwise called Aleph, was not, at the beginning, among those from which there emerged the whole of creation.

确实就是这种情况。因为「阿拉」我,今天从新闯入这个犹太教的传统,坦白说,我事先做了许多预备的功课,甚至殚精竭力地学习阅读犹太教经文的学者马索惹提克的着作,他的全部着作曾经受到世人冷淡地对待,因为我没有能力建构我的主题宣扬它们。环绕「以天父之名」的这个主题,我曾经打算周延建构,可是在创世纪的历史的层次,总是有某件东西,很明确地漏失:创世纪书的开始写着:「Berechit, Bara,Elohim」,换句话说,作者是伯利恒的人。据说,这就是我们今天还在使用的这个「字词」,这个大写的字母「A」,也被称为「阿拉」,在开始的时候,並没有被列入整个宇宙的创造者之一。

(14) This indeed is here to indicate to us, but in a fashion that is in a way turned in on itself, that it is in so far as one of these letters is absent that the others function, but that no doubt it is in its very lack that there resides the whole fruitfulness of the operation.

(十四)这个字词在这里确实是要指示我们,但是指示的方式却又像是自言自语。由於其中一个字词消失不见,其它的字词才能发挥功用,但是无可置疑地,就是由於它本身的这种的欠缺,字词发挥功用的成果反而更加丰硕辉煌。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of phantasy 05 Jacques Lacan

July 22, 2010

Logic of phantasy 05
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 05
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 2: Wednesday, November 23, 1966

(8) But let us leave “obsolete” and let us start from the opposition that Russell sets up to mark something which is supposed to be a contradiction in the formula which might be stated as follows:
(B A / S W S)
of a sub-set B whose status it would be impossible to guarantee, starting from the fact that it would be specified in a different set A, by a characteristic such that an element of A would not contain itself.
Is there some sub-set, defined by this proposition of the existence of elements which do not contain themselves?

(八)但是我们先将「过时」这个单字放置一旁。让我们先从罗素所建立的对立,为了标示某件在公式里,应该是一个矛盾的东西。这个公式可以书写如下:
(B的意符大於或小於A的意符
————————————————-
S的意符跟S的意符,彼此之间有鸿沟)

次级集合的B意符的地位,不可能得到保证,因为它必须在不同的A集合那里被明确指出。这样的一个特性,使的A的元素,无法包容自己。事实上,这样一个次级集合会存在吗?它的定义是由没有包容自己的元素的存在所提出。

It is undoubtedly easy, in this condition, to show the contradiction that exists in this because we have only to take an element y as forming part of B, as an element of B: for us to see the consequences that there then are in making it at the same time, as such, form part, as an element, of A:
(y E B) (y E A / y ~E y)

在这种情况下,要指出存在於这里的这个矛盾,毫无疑问是很容易,因为我们只需要拿一个y的元素,来组成B意符的一个部分,我们就能看出所有的这些结果,当我们同时也使它当一个元素,来组成A的意符的一个部分。(y E B) (y E A / y ~E y)

And not being an element of itself. The contradiction is revealed by putting B in the place of y:
(B E B) (B E A / B ~E B)

由於本身並不是一个元素,,这个矛盾的显露,是用B的意符代替y的元素。
(B E B) (B E A / B ~E B)

and seeing that the formula operates from the fact that every time we make B an element of B, there results, because of the solidarity of the formula, that since B forms part of A, it ought not to form part of itself. If on the other hand — B having been put, substituted for the place of this y – if on the other hand it does not form part of itself, satisfying the parenthesis on the right of the formula, it the forms part of itself being one of these y’s which are elements of B.

然后看到,这个公式根据这个事实来运作:每一次我们使B的意符成为B的意符的一个元素,因为这个公式的凝聚力,产生的结果是,因为B的意符组成A的意符的一部分,它不应该组成自己的一部分。另一方面,假如B的意符被提出,被用来代替这个y的元素的位置,假如在另一方面,它没有组成自己的一部分,而满足公式右边的这个括弧内容,它会让它自己的一部分成为那些y的元素的一个元素,那些y的元素,就是B意符的元素。

This is the contradiction before which Russell’s paradox put us.

这就是罗素的矛盾律使我们面对的二律悖反。

It is a matter of knowing whether, in our register, we can stop at it, provided we notice in passing what is meant by the contradiction highlighted in set theory, which would allow us perhaps to say the way in which set theory is specified in logic, namely, what step forward it constitutes as compared to the more radical one that we are trying to establish here.

问题是要如何知道,在我们的铭记里,是否我们能够适可而止,假如我们偶然注意到,集合理论所强调的二律悖反是什麽意思。它让我们能够说出,集合理论在逻辑里明确被标示的方式,换句话说,我们能够说出,组成向前的步骤是什麽,相较於我们目前正在建立的这个较激进的步骤。

The contradiction involved at this level where Russell’s paradox is articulated, depends precisely – as the simple usage of words shows us – on the fact that I say it. For if I do not say it, nothing prevents this formula, the second one, very precisely, from holding up as such, written out and there is nothing to say that its use will stop there.

罗素的矛盾律所表达的这个二律悖反,在这个层次所牵涉到,準确地说,是依靠我在说它的这个事实。这一点,我们从字词的简单用法可以看出。因为假如我不在说它,没有一样东西会阻挡这个公式,这个第二个公式,不继续照这样演绎,以及被书写下去。没有一样东西能够说,它的用途将就此停止。

What I say here is no word play, for set theory as such has absolutely no other support except the fact that I write as such, that everything that can be (9) said about a difference between the elements is excluded from the operation.

我在这里所说的,並不是文字遊戏。因为集合理论本身绝对没有其它的支撑,除了「我在书写」这个事实,除了关於元素之间的差异,每一件能够被说的出来的东西,都被排除在这个运作之外。

To write, to manipulate the literal operation which constitutes set theory consists in writing, as such, what I am saying there: namely, that the first set can be formed at once from the charming person who is in the process today, for the first time, of typing my discourse, from the mist on this window and from an idea which just now is going through my head, that this constitutes a set, from this fact, that I say expressly that no other difference exists than the one which is constituted by the fact that I can apply to these three objects, that I have just named and which you see are rather heteroclite, a unary stroke upon each one and nothing else.

书写,操作形成集合理论的实质上的运作,关键在於书写。这就是我在那里所说:换句话说,第一组的集合理论能够同时被形成,从今天正在这里,第一次替我的论述打字的那位可爱的人,从这个窗户上的雾气,以及从闪过我的脑海的一个意念。这样就形成一个集合,从我清楚地说出这个事实,没有其它的差异存在,除了我能够运用这三样东西所形成的差异,从我刚刚提到,以及你们看到的,相当诡异的这三样东西。打字的人、窗户上的雾气、脑海的意念,每一样都是独特的述写,除外没有别的。

Here then is what ensures that since we are not at the level of such speculation, since what I bring into play is the Universe of discourse, my question does not encounter Russell’s paradox, namely, that there is deduced no impasse, no impossibility to the following, that B which I do not know, but which I have begun to suppose forms part of the Universe of discourse, undoubtedly for its part, although constituted from the specification that the signifier cannot signify itself, may perhaps have this sort of relation to itself which escape Russell’s paradox, namely, demonstrate to us something which might be perhaps its own dimension and in connection with which we are going to see in which status it forms part or not of the Universe of discourse.

因此,这就获得确定,我的问题並没有遭遇到罗素的矛盾律,因为我们並不是处於如此推理的层次,因为我所运作的是真理论述的宇宙。换句话说,我的演绎没有僵局,没有以下的不可能,我不认识,但是我却已经开始假设的B的意符,组成真理论述的宇宙的一部分。无可置疑地,组成的这个部分,虽然是由这个明确细节:意符无法使自己被意符化,它跟它自己,可能拥有免除罗素的矛盾律的这种关系,换句话说,它可以替我们证明,某件可能属於它自己的向度的东西,关於这件东西,我们将看出,以怎样的地位,它组成真理论述的宇宙的部分。

In effect, if I was careful to remind you of the existence of Russell’s paradox, it is probably because I am going to be able to make use of it to make you sense something. I am going to make you sense it first of all in the simplest fashion and, after that, in a fashion that is a little bit richer. I am going to make you sense it in the simplest fashion because I am prepared, for some time now, for any concession (laughter). People want me to say simple things, well then, I will say simple things! You are already, all the same, sufficiently formed to the following, thanks to my care, to know that there is not such a direct path towards understanding. Perhaps, even if what I tell you appears simple, there will remain with you, all the same, a little mistrust …

事实上,我小心翼翼地提醒你们,有关罗素的矛盾律的存在,可能是因为我将能够使用它,来使你们感觉到某件事情。首先我将用最简单的方式,使你们感觉到它。然后,我将再用稍加复杂的方式。我将用最简单的方式,来使你们感觉到它,因为有一段时间来,我準备要做任何的妥协(引起一阵笑声)。人们期望我说些简单明白的事情。好吧,我就说些简单明白的事情。儘管如此,你们已经足够组成一个集合,由於我的小心翼翼,你们知道,对待了解,其实並没有如此一条直接的通道。即使我告诉你们的内容,看起来简单,你们可能还是会存有不敢置信的心理。

A catalogue of catalogues: here indeed, in a first approach, is what is involved as a signifier. Why should we be surprised that it does not contain itself? Naturally, since this seems, to us, to be required from the beginning.

分类目录中的一个分类目录:以第一个方法,这确实是作为一个意符所牵涉到的东西。为什麽我们竟然没有驚奇地发现:一个分类目录没有包含它自己本身?当然,对於我们而言,这个问题应该从一开始就必须要问。

Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent the catalogue of all the catalogues which do not contain themselves, from printing itself, inside it! In truth, nothing would prevent it, even the contradiction that Lord Russell would deduce from it!

可是,虽然所有的分类目录都没有包含它们本身,却没有一样东西能够阻挡这样一个目录,不能出版自己,不能在它自己里面出版!事实上,没有一样东西将会阻挡它,即使罗素爵士从它这里演绎出一个矛盾律。

But let us consider precisely this possibility that exists, that in order not to contradict itself, it does not inscribe itself in itself.

但是,让我们準确地考虑这个存在的可能性:这个分类的目录为了避免跟自己相牴触,它没有将自己铭记在自己里面。。

Let us take the first catalogue; there are only four catalogues, up to then, which do not contain themselves:
A B C D
让我们以第一个分类目录当例子。直到当时,只有四个分类目录。它们都没有包括它们自己。
A B C D

(10) Let us suppose that there appears another catalogue which does not contain itself, we add it on: E.
Why is it inconceivable to think that there is a first catalogue which contains A B C D, a second catalogue which contains B C D E, and not be surprised that each of them lacks this letter which is properly the one which would designate itself?

(十)让我们假定,又出现另外一本没有包括自己的分类目录。我们就给它填加为:E。为什麽我们那麽难於想像地认为,有这麽第一本分类目录,包括A B C D,然后又有第二本分类目录,包括B C D E,然后不大吃一惊,每一本分类目录都短缺这个将会适当地指明自己的字母?

But from the moment that you generate this sequence, you have only to arrange it around the circumference of a disc and see that it is not because in each catalogue one of them will be missing, indeed even a greater number, that the circle of these catalogues will not add up to something which is precisely what corresponds to the catalogue of all the catalogues which do not contain themselves. Simply what will constitute this chain will have this property of being an additional signifier (un signifiant en plus) which is constituted from the closure of the chain. An uncountable signifier and which, precisely because of this fact, is able to be designated by a signifier.

但是从你产生这个系列的时刻,你所需要做的,就是安排它,环绕着一个园盘的四周,然后注意到,在每一本分类目录里,它们每一个都会欠缺一个更大的数目,那就是,所有这些分类目录的园周,将不会增加到所有对应於「並没包括它们自己」的分类目录的这个目录里。仅仅是组成这个意符锁链的本身,就会具有成为一个填加的意符的这个属性,而这一个填加的意符的组成,却是因为意符锁链的封闭。它是一个不可数的意符,也确实因为它的不可数,它才能够被一个意符所指明。

Because, being nowhere, there is no difficulty in a signifier arising which designates it as the additional signifier: the one that is not grasped in the chain.

因为意符並不固定属於哪个地方,所以要出现一个意符来指明它,当着是一个填加的意符,这並不困难。
这个填加的意符在意符锁链里,並没有被了解到。

I take another example: catalogues are not made, in the first place, to catalogue catalogues, they catalogue objects which have some right (titre) to be there (the word “titre” having here all its importance). It would be easy to become engaged on this path in order to open up the dialectic of the catalogue of all the catalogues, but I am going to go to a more lively path, since it is necessary that I should leave you some exercises for your own imagination.
我再举另外一个例子。起初,分类目录並不是为了要将分类目录予以分类而制作。它们是将具有资格(「资格」这个字有其意义的重要性)被列在那里的东西编排分类目录。然后,我们很容易就会乐此不疲地去从事将所有分类目录,再编一本总分类目录的辩证法,但是,我要要走的途径,还会更加灵活,因为我还要留个你们一些想像的练习的空间。

The book: with the book we enter, apparently, into the Universe of discourse. Nevertheless, in the measure that the book has some referent and that it also may be a book that has to cover a certain surface, in the register of some title (titre), the book will include a bibliography. Which means something which is presented properly for us to image the following, what results in so far as the catalogues live or do not live in the Universe of discourse. If I make the catalogue of all the books that a bibliography contains, naturally I am not making a catalogue of bibliographies! Nevertheless, in cataloguing these books, in so far as in the bibliographies they refer on to one another, I may very well cover the totality of all the bibliographies.

这本书:用我们进入的这本书,我们进入真理论述的宇宙。可是,就这本书会有一些指称的幅度而言,它也可能是一本包括某些表面的书,从它的某些标题看出,这本书会包括一个索引目录。这意谓着,某件事情适当地呈现,是为了让我们想像以下随之而来的内容,因为分类目录本身並不存活於真理论述的宇宙里。假如我将索引目录里所包括的一切的书,制作成一个分类目录,当然,我正在制作的,並不是索引的分类目录!可是,在将这些书制作一个分类目录时,我很有理由涵盖所有索引目录的全部,因为在索引目录里,它们会互相提到。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of phantasy 04 Jacques Lacan

July 21, 2010

Logic of phantasy 04
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 04
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 2: Wednesday, November 23, 1966

(5) Mathematical usage which depends precisely on the fact that when we have somewhere – and not only, as you know, in an exercise of algebra – when we have posited somewhere a letter, capital A, we take it up, subsequently, as if it were still the same the second time that we make use of it. Do not raise this objection; today is not the day I am going to give you a class in mathematics.

(五)数学的用法主要是依靠这个事实,当我们在某个地方拥有, 不单是在代数的练习中,你们知道,而且在某个地方,我们提到一个大写字母A,我们随后接纳它,好似我们第二使用它时,它都会一成不变。

You should know, simply, that no correct statement about any use whatsoever of letters – even if it were, precisely, in what is closest to us today, for example, in the use of a Markov chain – would require of any teacher (and this is what Markov himself did) a stage, which is in a way propaedeutic, to make clear the impasse, the arbitrariness, what is absolutely unjustifiable (quite apparent moreover) in employing A the second time to represent the first A, as if it were still the same. It is a difficulty which is at the source of the mathematical use of so-called identity.

不过,你们应该知道,关於字母的任何用途,没有任何一个陈述,会要求老师一个舞台(这是语言学家马可夫自己作这样的要求),这个舞台是一个预备的阶段,来澄清这个僵局、这个任意性、这个绝对无法自园其说(那更加显而易见),当他第二次使用这个大写字母A,来代表第一次的大写字母A,好像它依旧会一成不变。例如,马可夫的意符锁链的用途里,即使在我们最密切的日常生活中,我们是有可能做这种的要求。可是,在数学用途所谓的符号的认同一致的根源处,我们会遭遇这麽一个困难。

We do not have to deal with it explicitly here today, because we are not dealing with mathematics. I want simply to recall to you that the foundation, that the signifier is not grounded by signifying itself, is admitted by those very people who, on occasion, may make a use that is contradictory to this principle – at least in appearance. It would be easy to see the intermediary by which this is possible, but I do not have the time to go astray in this. I want simply to pursue – and without tiring you any more – my proposition which is then the following: what is the consequence in this Universe of discourse of this principle: that the signifier cannot signify itself?

今天在这里,我们並不需要明确地处理它,因为我们不是在处理数学的问题。我仅仅是要提醒你们,这个基础,那就是意符的基础不是在意符本身,已经受到人们的承认,即使他们有时候会抵触这个原理,至少在外表上,他们常以意符本身充当意符的基础。我们很容易看出因此显现的中间的矛盾,但是我没有时间离题去讨论它。我只是要直接了当地探讨我以下的命题:在「意符无法使自己被意符化」的这个原理的真理述述的这个宇宙里,其结果是什麽?

What does this axiom specify in this Universe of discourse in so far as it is constituted, in short, by everything that can be said? What sort of specification is it and does the specification that this axiom determines, form part of the Universe of discourse? If it does not form part of it, this is undoubtedly a problem for us. What specifies, I repeat, the axiomatic statement that the signifier cannot signify itself, will have the consequence of specifying something which, as such, would not be in the Universe of discourse. Even though, precisely, we have admitted saying that it encompasses everything that can be said, into its ambit. Are we going to find ourselves in some diversion which would signify that what, thus, cannot form part of the Universe of discourse, cannot be said in some way or other?

在真理论述的这个宇宙里,这个定理明确指出什麽?总之,这个真理论述的宇宙,难道不就是由我们所能够言说的一切所组成?它是哪一种明确细节?这个定理所决定的这种明确细节,会形成真理论述的宇宙的一部分吗?假如它並没有组成真理论述的宇宙的一部分,无可置疑地,这对於我们会形成一个问题。我再重复一遍,「意符无法使自己被意符化」这个定理般的陈述,它的明确细节将会造成某件东西的明确细节,而具有这样明确细节的东西,将不可能存在於真理论述的宇宙里。

And, of course, it is clear that since we are speaking about it, about what I am bringing to you, it is obviously not to tell you that it is the ineffable thematic regarding which you know that from pure consistency and without for all that belonging to the school of Mr. Wittgenstein, I consider as: that it is vain to speak.

当然,这是显而易见,因为我们正在谈论它,谈论我正在跟你演说的内容,这个内容显而易见,不是要告诉你们,这是一个言不尽意的主题,关於这个主题,你们会区别它的内容,不同於维根斯坦的逻辑学派的条理一贯。我认为如下:言行道断。

(6) Before coming to such a formula, and you can see after all that I am not sparing you either bits relief or the impasse that it constitutes, since moreover we are going to have to come back to it – really do everything to open up the paths to what I am trying to get you to follow me in – let us take care to put to the test the following: that what specifies the axiom that the signifier cannot signify itself, remains part of the Universe of discourse.

(六)在到达这样一个公式之前,畢竟你们也能看得出来,我並没有替你们省略任何麻烦,或它所形成的僵局,因为我们还是回到这个问题。(我只是儘量展开各种途径,设法使你们跟随我进入。)让我们小心来测试下面这个命题:「意符无法使自己被意符化」这个定理的明确细节,始终是真理论述的宇宙的一部分。

What do we then have to posit? What is at stake in, what specifies the relation that I stated in the form that the signifier cannot signify itself – let us take arbitrarily the usage of a little sign which serves in this logic which is founded on writing, this Win which you will recognise the shape (these games are not perhaps purely accidental) of my diamond, in a way with its hat knocked off, that has been opened up like a little box, and which serves, this W, to designate, in the logic of sets, exclusion. In other words, what is designated by the Latin ora, which is expressed by an aut: one or the other. The signifier, in its repeated presentation, only functions qua functioning the first time or functioning the second. Between one and the other there is a radical gap, this is what is meant by: the signifier cannot signify itself.
S W S

那麽,我们要提出怎样的命题呢?什麽东西会岌岌可危?在「意符无法使自己被意符化」里,我所陈述的这个关系的明确细节是什麽?让我们随意地拿一个小符号的用法当例子,这个小符号可以运用在以书写为基础的逻辑里。在「赢」这个单字的字首W,你们认出我的方块鑽石的形状(我玩弄这个遊戏,不完全是巧合。)只是它的上一半被踢掉,它像一个小盒子被打开,这个W 的形状,在集合的逻辑里,指明的意义是:排除。换句话说,ora这个拉丁字,在法文是aut, 指明的是:一个或另外一个。这个意符,以重复地出现的方式,充当的功用仅仅是,作为第一次的功用,或第二次的功用。在一个或另外一个之间,有一道很大的鸿沟,那就是它的意思:意符无法使自己被意符化。代号就是:S W S

We suppose, as we have said, that what determines this axiom as a specification in the Universe of discourse is what we are going to designate by a signifier, B – an essential signifier which you will notice can be appropriated to something the axiom specifies: that it cannot, in a certain relation and from a certain relation, generate any meaning. B is very specifically the signifier which can be specified, without objection, by the fact that it marks, as I might say, this sterility. The signifier in itself being characterised precisely by the fact that there is nothing obligatory, that it is far from being in the first spurt that it generates a meaning. It is this that gives me the right to symbolise by the signifier B this feature: that the relation of the signifier to itself does not generate any meaning.

我们说过,我们假定,在真理论述的宇宙里,决定这个定理充当明确细节的内容,就是我们将要用意符B指明的内容。意符B是一个基本的意符,你们将会注意到,它能够被合并到定理所明确指定的某件东西上,可是,在某个关系中,由於某种关系,它无法产生意义。很明确地,B是一个无法明确指定的意符,是无可置疑,因为它标示的内容就是「不能生育」,容我这样说。这个意符本身的特色,确实就是:没有一样东西是强制性的,产生意义绝非是它的第一使命。就是这个特色使我有权利,来使用意符B象征这个特征:意符跟本身的关系並没有产生任何意义。

But let us start, to begin with, from the following which after all seems to be required: the fact is that something that I am in the process of stating to you forms part of the Universe of discourse. Let us see what results from that. That is why I make use for the moment – because after all it does not seem to me to be inappropriate – of my little diamond in order to say that B forms part of A, that it has relations with it whose richness I will certainly have to bring into play, for you, throughout this year, and whose complexity I indicated to you the last time, by decomposing this little sign in all the binary fashions in which it can be done.
B A

但是首先让我们从以下的问题开始,畢竟那似乎是必要的条件,这个事实是,我目前正在跟你们陈述的某件事情,组成了真理论述的宇宙的某一部分。让我们瞧一瞧,那造成的结果是什麽。那就是为什麽,我现在会使用我那个小方块鑽石的符号(畢竟这样使用,对我而言,似乎並没有什麽不适当),为了要说,B的意符组成A的意符的一部分。B的意符跟A的意符,彼此关系的繁复,今年一整年,我确实还要跟你们一再演说。它们的复杂性,我上一次已经跟你们指明,我拆开这个小符号,以双边的关系,可以书写成公式如下:B A的念法是: B的意符大於或小於A的意符。

(7) It is a matter of knowing, then, whether there is not some contradiction resulting from it. Namely, whether from the very fact that we have written that the signifier cannot signify itself, we can write that this B, not signifies itself, but, forming part of the Universe of discourse, can be considered as something which, in the style which characterises what we have called a specification, can be written: B forms part of itself. It is clear that the question arises: does B form part of itself? In other words what the notion of specification grounds, namely, what we have learned to distinguish in several logical varieties, I mean that I hope that I hope that there are enough people here who know that the functioning of a set is not strictly speaking super-imposable on that of a class, but that in fact all of this at the origin, must be rooted in this principle of a specification.

(七)因此,问题是如何知道,这个关系会不会造成一些矛盾。换句话说,从我们书写下「意符无法使自己被意符化」,我们能不能够也书写:「B这个意符,无法使自己被意符化,却组成真理论述的一部分」,这件事能够被认为,是某件能够被书写为下面的事:「B这个意符组成它自己的一部分。」显而易见,底下这个问题出现了:「B这个意符有组成它自己的一部分吗?」换句话说,明确细节的观念的基础在哪里?也就是说,在好几个逻辑的变化例子里,我们学习去区别出来的是什麽?我的意思是,我希望,我希望,这里有足够的人知道,严个来说,一个像班级的团体,它的集合力量的运作並非绝对不可能。事实上,从一开始,它的运作就必须以一个明确细节的原理当根源。

Here, we find ourselves before something whose kinship in fact should sufficiently resonate in your ears with what I called the last time Russell’s paradox, in so far as to what I am stating, that here, in the terms which interest us, the function of sets – in so far as it does something that I, for my part, have not yet done, for I am not here to introduce it but to maintain you in a field which logically is on this hither side, but to introduce something that there is an opportunity to grasp in this connection: namely, what is grounded by the bringing into play of the apparatus described as set theory, which today is presented as something quite original, undoubtedly, for any mathematical statement, and for which logic is nothing but what mathematical symbolism can grasp – this function of sets will also be the principle, and this is what I put in question, of the whole foundation of logic.

在此,我们发现我们自己处於某件东西的前面,事实上,这个东西应该早已经迴响在你们的耳际,用我上一次所称为的「罗素的矛盾律」。就我正在陈述的内容而言,使用我们感到興趣的术语,也就是集合的功用,就我而言,它做到以前从未被做过的事情。因为我目前在此,並不是要介绍它,而是要将你们维持在一个逻辑上在此时此地的领域,並且要介绍某件相关的你们有机会了解的东西。换句话说,被描述为集合理论的这个仪器,它的运作的基础是什麽?今天,我呈现集合理论,当着是某件具有原创性的事情,就任何数学的陈述而言,那是无可置疑。就集合理论而言,逻辑仅仅就是数学符号所能理解的东西。集合理论的这个功用,将也是逻辑的整个基础的这个原理,这就是我提出质疑的地方。

If there is a logic of the phantasy, it is because it is more fundamental (principielle) than any logic which flows into the formalising defiles where it has revealed itself, as I have said, to be so fruitful in the modern epoch.

假如有一个幻见的逻辑,那是因为它更加具有基本的重要性,比起任何演变成为实际被运用到浮滥的逻辑。
我曾经说过,在目前这个时代,这些逻辑真是洋洋大观。

Let us try then to see what Russell’s paradox means, when it covers something which is not far from what is there on the board. Simply, it promotes as altogether enveloping this fact of a type of signifier, that it takes moreover to be a class. A strange error! … To say, for example, that the word “obsolete” represents a class in which it would itself be included, under the pretext that the word “obsolete” is obsolete, is undoubtedly a little conjuring trick, which has strictly no interest except to found, as a class, the signifiers which do not signify themselves. While precisely we posit as an axiom, here, that in no case can the signifier signify itself and that it is from there that one must start to sort oneself out, even if it were only to see that it is necessary to explain differently that the word “obsolete” can be qualified as obsolete. It is absolutely indispensable to bring into it what the division of the subject introduces.

然后让我们设法瞧一瞧,当逻素的矛盾律,涵盖某件根本就没有被书写在黑板上的东西,那会是什麽东西?很简单,作为完全涵盖一种意符的事实,它提升成为一个分类的集合。这真是一个奇怪的错误!例如,我们说,「过时」这个单字,代表一个它自己被包括在里面的单字分类,藉口的理由是,「过时」这个单字已经过时,无可置疑的,这是一个卖弄文字的小把戏,完全不会引起人们的興趣,除了充当一种分类,建立没有被自己意符化的意符的基础。在此,我们确实提出一个定理:意符无论个如何,都无法使自己被意符化,从那里,我们开始替自己分类,即使只是要看出,要将「过时」这个单字定义为过时的意涵,我们需要以不同的方式来解释。我们绝对无可免除地要运用到,人作为一个生命的主体,本质上是分裂,所产生的影响。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of phantasy 03 Jacques Lacan

July 20, 2010

Logic of phantasy 03
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 03
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 2: Wednesday, November 23, 1966

I am going to try today to trace out for your use some relations that, I would say, are essential and fundamental to secure at the beginning what constitutes our subject this year. I hope that no one is going to object that they are abstract, for the simple reason that this would be a quite improper term, as you are going to see!

今天我将设法追踪一些关系让你们使用,我不妨这样说,这些关系的获得是重要而且基本,在形成我们今年的讲题。我希望没有人会因为他们是抽象而反对,理由很简单,你们後来会看出,这个术语相当不适当。

There is nothing more concrete than what I am going to put forward, even if this term does not correspond to the quality of density which is its connotation for many. It is a matter of making tangible for you one or other proposition like the one that up to now I have only put forward under the appearance of a sort of aphorism, which may have played at one or other turning point of our discourse the role of axiom, such as the following: there is no metalanguage – a formula which has the appearance of being: properly speaking, contrary to everything that is given, if not in the experience, at least in the writings of those who try to ground the function of language.

即使这个术语对於许多人而言,並没有对应於它本身具有的丰富的内涵,我今天将要提出的内容其实再具体不过。我会将一两个命题具体解释,这些命题直到目前我仅仅提出,以一种警语的方式,在我们真理论述的一两个转捩点,这些警语可能曾经扮演定理的角色。例如,「形上语言並不存在」。这个公式具有生命实存的面貌:恰当地说,即使不是在我们精神分析的经验里,至少在许多作者的著作里是这样,他们设法建立语言的功用的基础。这跟它内容所表达的一切恰好相反。

At the very least, in many cases, they show in language some differentiations that they find it good to begin from, starting, for example, from an object-language, in order to construct on this base a certain number of differentiations. The very act of such an operation seems to imply that in order to speak about language one should use something which is not part of it or which, in a way, is supposed to envelope it in an order different to the one that makes it function.

至少在许多例子里,它们使用语言显示一些差异。例如,他们发现,他们最好从一个客观的语言开始,这样他们才能够在这个基础上,建立某些数量的差异。这样一个运作的行动似乎暗示着,为了要谈论一个语言,我们应该使用某件不是语言里面的东西,或是,这个东西在某方面应该涵盖它,但是方式要不同於使它运作的方式。

I believe that the solution of these apparent contradictions which, in short, manifest themselves in discourse, in what is said, is to be found in a function which it seems to me essential to bring out, at least from the angle that I am going to try to inaugurate it today – to bring out and especially for our purposes – because the logic of phantasy, it seems to me, can in no way be articulated without reference to what is involved, namely, to something that at least in order to announce it I pinpoint under the term of writing (l’ecriture).

总之,在真理论述里,或在我们的内容理,这些矛盾的显现是显而易见的,它们的解决方法,能够被找到,以我认为是很重要的一种功用的表达,至少从今天我要开展的一个角度来表达,特别针对我们的目的,因为我觉得,假如不提到所牵涉到的内容,假如不提到我以书写的术语所强调的内容,幻见的逻辑根本无法表达。

Naturally, this is not to say, for all that, that it is what you know under the ordinary connotations of this word. But if I choose it, it is because it must have some relation with what I have to state.

当然,这並不是要说,儘管如此,在这个术语的一般内涵里,这就是你们所知道的。但是,我既然选择它,那是因为它跟我所要陈述的内容,一定会有一些关系。

A point, precisely, on which we are going to have to operate ceaselessly today is the following: that it is not the same thing, after we have said it, to write it or indeed to write that one is saying it. Because the second operation, essential to the function of writing, precisely from the angle, from the point of view whose importance I am going to show today, as regards our most appropriate references in this year’s subject, this, I am saying, immediately and from the beginning presents itself with paradoxical consequences.

确实地,今天我们将要不停地论述的这一点内容如下:「我们说过的话,跟我们将它书写下来,或书写下我们正在说的话,並不是相同的一件事。」因为第二个论述,对於书写的功用是很重要,确实从这个角度,从我今天将要显示其重要性的这个观点,关於今年的演讲的题目,我们最适当的内容。我正在表达的意思是,立刻从一开始,这个内容会以互相矛盾的结果,来呈现自己。

After all, why not, in order to alert you, start from what I already presented before you from a particular angle? Without you being able to say, I believe, that I am repeating myself. It is sufficiently in the nature of the things that are discussed here, that they emerge from some angle, from some line that breaks through a surface to which we are forced to keep by the simple fact of speaking – that they should appear at some moment before they really take on their function. Here, then, I remind you, is what I one day wrote on the board and which someone, after all, who is here will render me the service of writing in my place, so that I do not have to immerse myself to the level of your dear heads.

畢竟,为了要警告你们,我们为何不从我已经呈现在你们面前的内容开始,从一个特别的角度?我相信,这样可以避免让你们说,我老是在重复我说的话。我们在这里所讨论的内容的特性,它们是从某个角度出现,从我们不得不以言说的简单的动作的表面被突破的某一行,它们应该在某个时刻出现,这样它们才真的能发挥它们的功用。因此,我提醒你们,这就是有一天我书写在黑板上的内容,这个内容,在现场的某个人,曾经代替我将它们謄录下来,这样我就不需要不厌其烦地讲。

Madame! Take this little piece of chalk, make a rectangle, write …no! make it very big almost as big as the board, there you are! Write: 1, 2, 3, 4, on the first line. No! inside the frame … 1, 2, 3, 4, and then write: the smallest whole number which is not written on the board, beneath 1, 2, 3, 4 (laughter). No, write the sentence: “the smallest whole number which is not written on this board”.

这位女士!拿着这一支小小的粉笔,画一个长方形,书写、、、不是这样!将它画得跟这个黑板一样大。开始画!在第一行,书写:1、2、3、4。不对!要在框架里。1、2、3、4,然后书写:在黑板上没有书写到的最小的整数,在1、2、3、4 底下。不是这样,请写这个句子:「没有书写在这个黑板上的最小的整数」。

This could have been presented in a different form, namely – instead of doing me the service which has been done, and I thank the person who was good enough to write this sentence that you see written out – that I could, without writing it, have asked you or even, if you wish, made a little person from those mouths there would emerge what they call in comic strips a bubble: “the smallest whole number which is not written on this board”.

我们本来可以用不同的方式来呈现,换句话说,不是用刚才帮忙我的方式。我感谢那位女士好心帮我书写这个句子,你们看到句子被书写出来,我自己没有书写,但是我本来能够要求你们,或甚至要求你们那里的某一个人,用嘴巴像连环漫画里所谓的喃喃自语:「没有被书写在黑板上的最小的整数」。

In which case you would all have been in agreement, and I would not have contradicted you, that it is the number -. It is clear that from the moment that this sentence is written: “the smallest whole number which is not written on this board”, the number 5 – being written, there by this very fact – is excluded. You have only to search, then, whether the smallest whole number which is not written on the board might not, perchance, be the number 6, and you find yourself with the same difficulty, namely, that from the moment that you pose the question, the number 6 as the smallest whole number which is not written on the board, is written on it and so on.

在这种情形之下,你们大家本来都会同意,我本来也不会反驳你们说,显而易见的,从「没有被书写在黑板上的最小的整数」这个句子被书写开始,就是这个数字,五 ,这个数字,虽然被书写,事实上,它被排除在外。你们只要研究一下,没有被书写在黑板上的最小的整数,有没有可能是六,你们就会发现你们会遭遇到相同的困难。从你们提出这个问题开始,六这个数字,作为没有被书写在黑板上的最小的整数,事实上是已经是被书写,等等

This, like many paradoxes, is only of interest, of course, for what we want to make of it. What follows is going to show you that it was, perhaps, not useless to introduce the function of writing from this angle from which it may present some enigma to you. It is, let us say, properly speaking, a logical enigma and it is no worse a way than any other to show you that there is, in any case, some close relation between the apparatus of writing and what one can call logic.

像许多的矛盾律一样,这个矛盾律会引起我们的興趣,当然是因为我们想要去解释它。以下就是我要显示个你们,我要从对於你们可能会是一个谜团的这个角度,跟你们介绍书写的功用,因为这样做並非没有用途。容我们说,恰当地说,这是一个逻辑的谜团,这是一个颇为恰当的方法给你们显示:无论在任何情况,书写的工具跟我们所谓的逻辑之间,有着某些紧密的关系。

This also deserves to be recalled, at the start, at the moment at which – the majority of those who are here, I think, having it adequate notion of it, even for those who have done this can serve as a point to hang onto – at which to recall that undoubtedly, if there is something which characterises the new state, undoubtedly, undoubtedly, undoubtedly new … – in this sense that they are far from and in no way able to be contained, to be reabsorbed within the framework of what was called classical or again traditional logic – the new developments, I am saying, of logic are entirely linked to these operations of writing.

这个也应该值得让我们回想一下,在开始的时刻,你们在场的大多数人,曾经有过充分的概念,甚至那些有够这样的概念的人,可以将它充当一个紧咬不放的论点。在那个时刻,你们无可置疑地回想一下,是否有某件东西能够表现这个新的状态的特色,这个状态无可置疑是新的状态。在这样的意涵下,它们根本就无法被包含在里面,无法重新被吸收到所谓的古典或传统的逻辑的这个架构里,我正在说的是:逻辑的这些新的发展,跟书写的这些运作,有密切的关系。

So let us pose a question. Ever since I have been speaking about the function of language, ever since, in order to articulate what is involved in the subject of the unconscious, I constructed – I must say that it was necessary for me to do it stage by stage, and before an audience of whom the least one can say is that they needed to be coaxed in order to listen – that I constructed the graph which is designed to order, precisely what, in the function of the word, is defined by this field, this field which the structure of language requires: it is properly what is called the paths of discourse or again what I called the defiles of the signifier.

所以,让我们提出一个问题。自从我一直在谈论语言的功用以来,自从为了表达无意识的生命主体所牵涉到的内涵,我建构这个图表,我必须说,我有需要按部就班地来,对於听众循循善诱,这样他们才会倾听,我建构这个图表,用来规范这个领域以这个字的功用所定义的秩序,因为语言的结构需要这个领域:这确实是所谓的「真理论述的途径」,或者是我所称为的「意符的污染」。

Somewhere in this graph there is inscribed the letter capital O on the right, on the lower line: if someone would rub this out I could rapidly draw the whole graph for those who do not know it. This small o (sic) that in a sense one can identify to the locus of the Other, which in fact is the locus where there is produced everything that can be described as a statement in the broadest sense of the term, namely, what constitutes what I, incidentally, called the treasury of the signifier – which is not
limited, in principle, to the words in the dictionary.

在图表的某个地方,铭记着这个大写字母O在右边,在较低的那一行:假如有某个人将它擦掉,我可以很迅速地将整个图表画出来,替那些没有看到的人。这个小客体o,在某个意义上,我们能够将它辨认为跟大它者的轨迹。这个大者事实上是一个轨迹,廣义来说,每一件能够被描述为陈述的东西,换句话说,组成我刚好称之为意符的宝库,它们运作的轨迹。这个意符的宝库,原则上,並不局限於字典里的单字。

When, precisely, correlatively to the construction of this graph, I began to speak about the witticism, taking things from the angle, which perhaps appeared the most surprising and the most difficult for my listeners at that time, but which was precisely indispensable to avoid any confusion. The non-sensical feature – not senseless but close to this operation that English defines extremely well, makes resonate under the term of nonsense – that exists in the witticism; whose kinship, after all, in order to make understood the dimension that it was a matter of bringing out, I then showed – at least at the level of reception, of tympanic vibration – the kinship it has with what was, for us, at a testing time, the personal message.

当我开始谈到机智语,确实的,它跟这个图表的建构有相对关系,从这个角度来看事情。对於我当时的听众而言,机智语是最令人驚奇,也最难於令人了解,但是确实是非要用不可,以免引起混肴。这个存在於机智语里的「无为而治」的特色,不是没有意义,而是靠近英语以「无为而治」的术语底下,发挥得最为为淋漓尽致。它有一个相关语,我不妨显示出来,帮助大家的了解,至少大家比较能接受,那就是耳膜的震动,在测试的时候,它会传递「个人的讯息」。

I alluded to the personal message – namely, every statement, in fact, in so far as it is cut up “non-sensically” – the last time, by recalling the celebrated: “Colourless green ideas, etc”. The totality of statements then – I am not saying of propositions – also forms part of this Universe of discourse which is situated in capital O.

我提到这个个人的讯息,换句话说,事实上是每一个陈述,,当它被「无为而治地」被切割粉粹,如上一次,我们回想起那著名的「黯然无色的生涩点子,等等」。陈述(我不是指它的命题)的整体性,也形成定位在大写字母o ,也就是大它者的真理论述的宇宙的一部分。

The question which is posed and which is properly a question of structure, the one which gives its sense to the fact that I say that the unconscious is structured like a language, which in my stating it is a pleonasm, since I identify structure to this “like a language”, in the structure, precisely, that I am going to try today to make function before you.

被提出的问题,适当地说,是一个结构的问题。这个问题使我所说的这个事实具有意义:无意识的结构像一个语言。在我陈述的时候,它是一句重复冗语的句子,因为我将结构比喻为「像一个语言」。準确地说,这个结构,就是我今天要在你们面前,发挥的题目。

What is involved in this Universe of discourse, in so far as it implies this operation of the signifier? In so far as it defines these who dimensions of metaphor – in as much as the chain can always graft itself (se enter) with another chain along the path of the operation of substitution – in so far as on the other hand, is its essence, it signifies this sliding which comes from the fact that no signifier belongs properly permits this sea (mer) of variations in what constitutes meanings – this essentially moving and transitory order, where nothing, as I said at one time, can be guaranteed except from the function of what I called in a metaphorical form: buttoning points (points de capiton) – today, it is this Universe of discourse that it is a matter of questioning, starting from this single axiom regarding which it is a matter of knowing what it may specify within this Universe of discourse.

当这个真理论述暗示着意符的运作,它会牵涉到些什麽呢?它定义着比喻的这些向度,这个锁链总是会连接到另一个锁链,沿着代替的运作的途径。在另一方面,它会牵涉到它的本质。它将这个滑动给予意符化,这个滑动来自这个事实:没有一个意符有固定的归属,每个意符在形成意义的内容里,它容许各种的千变万化,基本上,它的秩序常常瞬间流动。如同有一次我所说的,没有一件事能够被保证,除了从我使比喻的形式所称的功用:缝合点。今天,就是这个真理论述的宇宙受到质疑,从这一个单一的定理。
关於这个定理,我们要知道的是,在真理论述的宇宙里,它指明出什麽?

An axiom which is one that I put forward the last time: that the signifier – this signifier that we have, up to now, defined by its function of representing a subject for another signifier – this signifier, what does it represent faced with itself, with its repetition as signifying unit? This is defined by the axiom that no signifier – even if it is, and very precisely when it is, reduced to its minimal form, the one that we call the letter – can signify itself.

上一次,我提出这麽一个定理:意符,我们迄今所拥有的意符,是根据它代表一个主体对於另一个意符的功用。这个意符,当它面临自己,以自己的重复,作为意符的单位的时候,它代表着什麽呢?这就是这个定理所定义的:没有一个意符能够使自己被意符化,即使它被简化到它最渺小的形式,或事实上,它已经被简化成为我们所称为的仅是一个「字母」的代号。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

The Logic of Phantasy 02

July 19, 2010

Fantasy 02
JACQUES LACAN
雅克、拉岡

SEMINAR 14: THE LOGIC OF FANTASY
第十四讲座:幻见的罗辑
The Logic of Fantasy 02
Seminar 1: Wednesday, November 16, 1966

The barred subject, in its relation to this o-object, is joined in this formula written on the board, by this something which is presented as a lozenge shape, which I earlier called the diamond (le poincon) and, which, in truth, is a sign that was forged expressly to join together in itself what can be isolated from it, depending on whether you separate it with a vertical stroke or with a horizontal stroke.

这个被禁制的主体,跟小客体的关系,用书写在黑板上的这个公式来连接,这公式的符号像是我早先提到过的四角形的鑽石方块。事实上,这个符号生动地被铸造,为了将能够被孤立出来的东西,跟本身连接在一起,端看你要有用垂直或水平的切割方式。

Separated by a vertical stroke, it represents a double relation which can be read in the first place as greater (>) or lesser (
S1

$

由於被垂直的横杆切割,它代表一个双重关系,首先可以被阅读为生命的第一主体大於或小於被禁制的主体。

S, in so far as it takes the place of the subject, only functions for another signifier.

被禁制的主体,由於取代了原有的生命主体,只有代表其它意符时,才发挥功能。

Urverdrangung, of primal repression, is the following: what a signifier represents for another signifier. It does not bite on anything, it constitutes absolutely nothing, it accommodates itself to an absolute absence of Dasein.

原初的压抑如下:一个意符代表对於另外一个意符的关系。它並没有紧紧咬住任何东西,它也完全没有组成任何东西。它接纳自己进入存在的绝对空无中。

For around sixteen centuries, at least, the Egyptians hieroglyphs remained as solitary as they were
uncomprehended in the desert sands. It is clear and it has always been clear for everyone, that this meant that each of the signifiers cut into stone at least represented a subject for the other signifiers. If it were not so, no one would ever even have taken this to be writing! It is not at all necessary that writing should mean something for anyone at all, for it to be writing, and for it to manifest, as such, that each sign represents a subject for the one that follows it.

至少经过大约十六个世纪,埃及的象形文字始终如同它们在荒凉的沙漠里,有着无法受人理解的孤单。显而易见的,每个人也始终明白,这意味着,被切割到石头里的每个意符,都代表着一个生命的主体,对於其它的意符。假如不是这样,本来没有人会将象形文字认为是一种书写。对於任何人,书写本身根本不需要有任何的意义,才能够让书写成为书写,或让书写公开於世,因为每一个符号就代表一个生命的主体,对於跟随它而来的另一个生命的主体,产生关系。

If we call that Urverdrangung it means that we are admitting that it appears to us to be in conformity with
experience, to think about what happens – namely, that a subject emerges in the state of barred subject – as something which comes from a locus in which it is supposedly inscribed, into another locus in which it in going to be inscribed anew.

假如我们称呼它为原初的压抑,那意味着,我们承认,我们觉得它跟我们的经验相一致,它思考到我们所发生的事,换句话说,生命的主体以被禁制的主体的状态出现,作为来自铭记它的存在的轨迹的某件东西,然后进入它将重新要被铭记的另外一个轨迹。

Namely, exactly in the same fashion in which I structured, formerly, the function of metaphor in to far as it is the model of what happens as regard the return of the repressed:
S1 –> $
— / —
$ –>- s

换句话说,跟我以前建构比喻的功用的方式一模一样,因为它就是被压抑的东西反扑回来,所发生的模式:第一生命的主体,被横杆垂直切割后,总是大於被禁制的主体。

In the same way, it is in the measure that with respect to this primary signifier, and we are going to see what it is, the barred subject that it abolishes comes to emerge at a place to which we are going to be able today to give a formula which has not yet been given: the barred subject, as such, is what represents for a signifier – this signifier from it has a arisen – a sense.

同样地,关於原初的意符,我们将根据被禁制的幅度,看出那是什麽,它所废弃的被禁制的主体会出现在,我们今天将能够给予公式的地方。这个公式,我现在第一次提供:被禁制的主体,就本身而言,它代表对於另一个意符的关系,它来自那个意符而产生意义。

(11) By “sense” I understand exactly what I made you understand at the beginning of one year in the formula: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. Which can be translated into French by the following, which depicts admirably the ordinary order of your cogitations: “Des idees vertement fuligineuses s’assoupissent avec fureur”.

所谓「意义」,在某一年的开始,我确实了解到我曾经使你们了解的,使用以下的公式:「生涩的点子蠢蠢欲动地沉睡」。这个公式生动地描述你们一般的认知过程,能够被翻译成为下面的法文,:”Des idees vertement fuligineuses s’assoupissent avec fureur”.

This, precisely, for want of knowing that they are all addressed to this signifier of the lack of the subject that a certain first signifier becomes, once the subject articulates his discourse. Namely – as all psychoanalysts glimpsed clearly enough, even though they were not able to say anything worthwhile about it – namely, the o-object which, at this level, fulfills precisely the function that Frege distinguishes from sign under the name of Bedeutung. The o object is the first Bedeutung, the first referent, the first reality, the Bedeutung which remains because it is, after all, all that remains of thinking at the end of all the discourses.

一但生命的主体清楚表达他的真理论述,某一个最初的意符确实变成这样, 因为他不知道,他们的表达都是针对着生命主体的这个欠缺。换句话说,如所有的精神分析师足够清楚瞥见的,即使他们不能够说出任何有价值的东西,关於这个小客体。在这个层次上,小客体确实填补的这个功用,福瑞杰以「意义」的名义,将它跟符号区别不同。小客体就是第一个意义,第一个指称,第一个现实界,这个小客体始终是所有的真理论述结束之后,思想的残余物,畢竟,它本来就是这样的残余物。

Namely, what the port can write without knowing that he is saying when he addresses himself to “his mother Intelligence from whom all sweetness flows”: “what is this neglect that allows her milk to dry up?”
Namely, also, what remains of so many thoughts dispensed in the form of a pseudo-scientific hotchpotch that one can also call by its name, as I have long done, about part of analytic literature, and which is called shit. On the admission, moreover, of the authors! I mean except for a tiny failure of reasoning about the function of the o object, one of them can very well articulate that there is no other support for the castration complex than what is modestly called “the anal object”.

换句话说,什麽意义能够被书写,而自己並不知道,他正在自言自语地说:「他的母亲的智慧,一切的甜美从那里流露。」「是怎样的疏忽,使她的奶水乾涸?」换句话说,这麽多思想的残余物被使用,以虚假的科学的大雜燴形式,我们甚至还可以直称其名,如我一向所做的,关於精神分析学的一些论述,都可以被称之为狗屎。而且,我们还可以将作者的名字公布出来!我的意思是,关於这个小客体的功用,除了推理逻辑不通外,其中有一篇很清楚地表达,对於阉割情结,除了一般俗称的「肛门客体」外,别无其它意义。

This is not then a pinpointing coming from a pure and simple judgement, but much more the necessity of an articulation, the simple statement of which ought to give us pause. Since, after all, it is not formulated by the least qualified writers, and since it will be, in fact, this year, our method, in formulating the logic of the phantasy, to show where, in analytic theory, it has tripped up. I have not, after all, named this author whom many of you know.

我不过是从一篇内容简单,但是雄心不小的文章中,举其荦荦大者。这个单纯的陈述应该让我们停下来三思,畢竟表述这篇文章的作者群,名气来头都还不小。事实上,这将是今年当我们说明这个幻见的逻辑时,我们要採用的方法,用来显示,在精神分析学的理论,它曾经在哪里犯下错误。畢竟,我还姑隐作者的姓名,其实我不说,你们许多人也知道。

Let it be clearly understood that the flaw in reasoning is still reasoned, namely, examinable (arraisonable), but not necessarily so. And the o-object in question can in a certain article show itself quite nakedly while not being appreciated by him. This is what we will have occasion to show in certain texts, after all, which I do not see why, as a kind of practical work, I should not soon distribute rather generally to you, if I have enough at my disposal, which have been given to my function of metaphor from being admitted, (I mean among those of which I have just given you the least ambiguous example) by confusing it with anything whatsoever that makes of it a sort of proportional relation.

让我们打开天窗说亮话,推理虽然有瑕疵,依旧是可以推论,换句话说,还是可以加以审查,但是事实上未必是这样。这个受到置疑的小客体,在某一篇文章中,昭然若揭,虽然作者自己並没有觉察到。这就是我们将在某些文本中,有机会予以揭露出来,当着是一种实际验证的例子,我觉得並无不可。假如我有足够运用的资料,我不久会散发给你们。那些文章将我对於小客体的比喻的功用,跟任何具有某种均称关系的东西混为一谈,使得我的原意无法让人明白(我指的是,我刚刚给你们的那些一清二楚的例子)

When I wrote that substitution – the fact of grafting a signifier substituted for another signifier into the signifying chain – was the source and origin of all meaning, what I articulated is correctly interpreted in the form in which, today, through the emergence of this barred subject as such, I gave you the formula. Which requires of us the task of giving it its logical status, but to demonstrate to you right away the example of the urgency of such a task, or even of its necessity, note that the confusion was made in this four fold relation:
S1 ———> S
——————————————————————————————————————————————
S —->- s
当我书写那个代换公式:衔接一个意符代替另一个意符,成为意符的锁链,这个事实是所有意义的资源跟起源,我所要表达的,可用一个公式来正确解释。今天,透过这个被禁制的生命主体的出现,我给你们这个公式。这个公式要求我们给予这个小客体它的逻辑的地位。但是为了马上跟你们证明,这个任务的急迫性,或它的需要性的例子,请注意一下,在底下这个四个重叠的关系,所造成的混乱:人作为第一个生命主体,蜕变成为主体,这个主体,再蜕变成为一个被意符化的主体。

(the S1, the two S’s and the small s of the signified) with this relation of proportion in which one of my
interlocutors, M. Perelman, the author of a theory of argumentation, promoting once again an abandoned rhetoric, articulates metaphor, seeing in it the function of analogy, and that it is from the relation of one signifier to another in so far as a third reproduces it by giving rise to an ideal signified that he grounds the function of metaphor. To which I replied, at the appropriate rime. It is only from such a metaphor that there can emerge the formula that was given, namely: S1 over small s of meaning enthroned above a first register of inscription of which the Underdrawn of which the Unterdruckt, of which the other register substantiating the unconscious, is supposed to be constituted by the strange relation of the signifier to another signifier, and we are told that it is from there that language takes its ballast:

(这个第一位生命的主体,这两位主体,还有被意符化的小主体)使用这种均称的关系,我的对谈者之一,佩惹门先生,辩论理论的作者,再一次推广一个已经被扬弃不用的雄辩术,清楚表达小客体的比喻,在里面看到类比的功用,他将小客体的比喻功用的基础,建立在一个意符跟另一个意符的关系,然后第三个意符繁殖它,而产生一个理想的被意符化的生命的主体。对於这个论点,我在适当的时间回答过。他这样的公式的出现,只是作为小客体的比喻,换句话说,第一个生命的主体,位於被意符化的生命的主体之上,享有最崇高的地位,高於受到压抑的原初意符的铭记之上,以及高於具体表现无意识的另一个意符的铭记之上。这个第一个生命的主体,应该由一个意符跟另一个意符的奇妙的关系所组成。我们知道,语言就是从那里,奠定它的基础。

S1
——————————————————————————————————————————————
S
——————————————————————————————————————————————
S
——————————————————————————————————————————————
S

I think that you now sense that this formula, described as that of “reduced language” (du langage reduit), is based on an error which is to introduce into this four-fold relation the structure of proportionality. It is difficult to see, in fact, what can emerge from it, since, in fact, the relation S/S then becomes rather difficult to interpret. But we do not see in this reference to a reduced language any other plan (which is moreover admitted) than to reduce our formula that the unconscious is structured like a language – which, more than ever, is to be taken literally.

我认为你们已经感觉到,这个公式,被描述为「被化简的语言」的公式,它的基础是一个错误,因为它介绍一个均称对比的结构到这一个四层重叠的关系。事实上,我们很难看出,从这个公式里,什麽会出现,因为事实上,主体与主体的均称对比,变的相当难於解释。但是在他提到一个被化简的语言时时,我们没有看到任何其它一个计划(这是显而易见的),除了化简我们「无意识的结构像一种语言」的公式,更遭糕的,是对它望文生义。

And since it is obvious that today I will not finish the five points that I announced to you, I am nonetheless able to punctuate, for you, the key of the whole structure which reduces an enterprise articulated in this way – precisely at the beginning of the little collection I spoke about to you earlier which concerns the turning point in my relations with my audience that was constituted by the Congress of Bonneval – to futility. It is erroneous to structure in this way on a so-called myth of reduced language any deduction of the unconscious, for the following reason: it is of the nature of each and every signifier not to be able in any case to signify itself.

显而易见,今天我将无法讲完我对你们宣布的这五点。可是,我仍然要跟你们强调,重点在於,他用这种方式表达的企图,对於我所提出的像语言一般的无意识的整个结构而言,将是徒劳无功。确实就在早先我跟你们谈到的这个小小的集会的开始,这个集会关系到我跟我的听众的关系,这些听从的成员大多来自波尼伯的精神分析师协会。根据所谓化简的语言的神话的这种方式,来架构任何无意识的化简都是错误的,理由如下:每一个意符的特性,就是,无论在任何情形之下,都没有办法自己使自己意符化。

It is too late for me to impose on you, in a hurry the writing of this inaugural point for the whole of set theory, which implies that this theory can only function starting from an axiom described as that of specification.

对於这一整套理论,要我从开始的时刻的书写给你们一些概念,即使是青蜓点水式,时间都已经太迟。因为这意味着,只有从一个被描述为「明确」的公理开始,这个理论才能发挥功用。

Namely, that the only interest in making a set function is when there exists another set which can be defined by the definition of certain x’s in the first as freely satisfying a certain proposition. “Freely” means: independently of any quantification: small number or all. The result of this, (I will begin my next lecture with these formulae) the result of this is that by positing any set whatsoever, by defining in it the proposition that I indicated as specifying x’s in it, as being simply that x is not a member of itself. – that which, as regards what interests us, namely, for the following, which is necessary once one wishes to introduce the myth of a reduced language that there is a language which is not one, namely, which constitutes, for example the totality of signifiers.
换句话说,我们唯一有興趣,要使一组的集合运作,是因为有另外一组的集合存在。这另外的一组集合的定义,是根据第一组的集合的许多未知点的定义,可以自由地满足某一个建议。「自由地」的意思是:独立於任何的数量化,不论是小数量,或全部数量。结果是,(下一次的演讲,我将先以这些公式开始),这样的结果是:以提出任何一组的集合,以在这组的集合里,定义我所指出的建议,当着是在里面标明许多未知点,当着是每一个未知点並不是它自己的一份子。我们感到興趣的是,所以会产生这种需要,是因为我们希望介绍一个简化的语言的神话,那个神话就是:有一种並不是个体生命的语言,换句话说,这种语言组成意符的整体性。

What is proper to the totality of signifiers. I will show it to you in detail, involves the following as necessary – if we simply admit that the signifier cannot signify itself – involves the following as reduced language, simply because of the fact that language cannot constitute a chosen set; in other words: that there is no Universe of discourse.

什麽是意符的整体性的本体位置?我将会详细地指给你们看,它牵涉到以下的需要:只要我们承认,意符自己无法使自己被意符化,它牵涉到以下作为被简化的语言,仅仅因为这个事实:语言本身无法形成一个被选择的集合,换句话说,没有真理论述的宇宙存在。

For those who may have had some difficulty in understanding what I have just formulated, I will recall simply the following which I already said at the appropriate time: that the truths that I have just stated are simply those which appeared in a confused fashion at the naive period of the establishment of set theory in the form of what is wrongly called Russell’s paradox – because it is not a paradox, it is an image – the catalogue of all the catalogues which do not contain themselves. What does that mean? Either it contains itself or it contradicts its definition, or it does not contain itself and in that case it foils in its mission. This is not at all a paradox. One has only to declare that in making such a catalogue one cannot take things all the way, and for good reasons…

对於无法理解我刚刚所说明的那些人,我仅仅提醒一下,以下我曾经在某个适当时刻说过的事实:我刚刚所陈述的那些真理的论述,就在数学集合理论刚建立的初期,混乱出现的真理的论述,形式上一般被错误地称之为「罗素的矛盾律」。可是,它並不是一个矛盾律,它是一个意象,一个没有包括自己本身的一切目录的目录。那是什麽意思?它要就是包括自己,要不然就是跟自己的定义相矛盾,要不然就是它没有包括它自己,但是在那种的情形下,它会使自己的任务功败垂成。这根本不是什麽矛盾律。我们所需要做的就是宣称:当我们在制作这样一个目录时,我们无法收容所有的目录,这样的理由就够充分了。

But, that I earlier gave you the statement of, in the formula that in the Universe of discourse there is nothing that contains everything, this is something which properly speaking encourages us to be particularly prudent here as regards the handling of that is called whole and part, and requires us, at the origin, to distinguish very severely – this will be the object of my next lecture – the One from the totality – which, precisely, I have just refuted, saying that at the level of discourse there is no Universe, which undoubtedly leaves still more in suspense whether we can suppose it to be anywhere else – to distinguish this One from the countable One in so far as, of its nature, it slips away and slides, and can only be the One by repeating itself at least once and closing in on itself, to establish, at the origin, the lack involved the one involved in the establishment of the subject.

但是,如我早先给你们的陈述,以这个公式:在真理论述的宇宙中,没有一样事情包括每一样事情,严格来说,是有某件事情在鼓励我们要特别的谨慎,关於处理所谓整体与部分的问题,它从一开始,就要求我们做严格的区分。这将是我下一次演讲的题目:生命的个体跟整体性。準确地说,我刚刚反驳过了,当我说,在真理论述的层次,没有这样的宇宙存在。无可置疑地,一个更加令我们挂怀的问题是,我们是否能够假定这样的宇宙存在於任何其它一个地方,可以让我们区分这个生命的个体,跟可以计算的生命的个体,因为在特性上,它会不断地滑溜,溜走,重复自己至少一次,然后再将自己封闭,从起源的地方,证实牵涉到主体的建立时的欠缺空洞,这样它才能够成为这个生命的个体。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

The logic of phantasy 01

July 18, 2010

Fantasy 01
JACQUES LACAN
雅克、拉岡

SEMINAR 14: THE LOGIC OF FANTASY
第十四讲座:幻见的罗辑

Today I am going to throw out some points that are rather in the nature of a promise.
今天,我将抛弃一些我先前曾经过要讲的几点。

“Logic of phantasy”, I entitled, this year, what I count on being able to present to you about what is required at the point that we are at on a certain path. A path which implies, I will recall it forcefully today, this sort of very special return that we have already seen, last year, inscribed in the structure and which is properly speaking fundamental in everything that Freudian thinking uncovers. This return is called repetition. To repeat is not to find the same thing again, as we will articulate later, and contrary to what is believed, it is not necessarily to repeat indefinitely.

我今你讲座的名称是「幻见的罗辑」, 这是我相信可呈现给你们,关於目前我们从事某种途径所要求的内容。这个途径暗示着,今天我将清楚地回溯一下,对於去年我们已经看过被铭记在结构中,是佛洛伊德的思想所揭发的一切基本的东西,这是一种非常特别的回转。这种回转被称为重复。重复並不是要再一次找出相同的东西,如我们后来所表达的。跟一般的观念相反,那未必是要无穷尽地重复下去。

We will come back then to themes that I have in a certain fashion already situated for a long time. It is, moreover, because we are at the moment of this return and of its function, that I believed I could no longer put off presenting to you in a unified way what up to now I thought necessary as a minimal indication of this journey, namely, this volume that you already find within hand’s reach. It is because this year it will no doubt be possible for us to study in depth the function of this relation to writing – which after all, in a certain way, I forced myself up to the present if not to avoid, at least to delay – that here again I believed I could take this step.

我们就回到我长久以来用某种方式探讨到的这些主题。而且,正因为我们处於这个回转及其发挥功用的时刻,我相信我不再能够拖延用一贯的方式呈现给你们,迄今我认为有需要当着是这个探讨之旅的基本指标。换句话说,就是你们现在拿在手上的这本书。因为这一年我们很有可能深度探讨到跟书写的这个关系的功用,迄今我一直用某种方式强迫我自己,即使不是避免,至少也是拖延。现在我终於相信,我能够开展这一步。

These few indicative points that I am going today to state before you. I have chosen to be five:

这些少数的指标,我今天将要呈放在你们面前,我选择五个。

(1)The first consisting in reminding you of the point that we are at about the logical articulation of phantasy, which this year will be, properly speaking, my text.

第一个指标用意在提醒你们,关於幻见的逻辑表达,我们所处的时机,严格来说,那将是我今年的主题。

(2) The second, to the reminder of the relation of this structure of phantasy – which I will have first recalled to you –to the structure of the signifier as such.

第二个指标,是要提醒有关幻见的结构的关系,我首先要你们回想一下,意符作为幻见的结构。

(3)The third, to something essential and really fundamental which has to be recalled, about what we can, what we ought, this year, call – if we put in the foreground what I called the logic in question – an essential remark about the Universe of discourse.

第三个指标,是要提醒我们,必须回想到的某件重要而真正是基本的东西,关於今年我们能够,或我们应该称为是可置疑的幻见的逻辑,假如我将它呈现在前头。这是关於「真理论述的宇宙」,一个重要的指标。

(4) The fourth point, some indication relative to its relation to writing as such.

第四个指标,是要提醒我们,跟书写本身的关系的相对的指标。

Finally, I will end on the reminder of what Freud indicates to us, in an articulated fashion, about what is involved in the relation of thinking to language and to the unconscious.

最后,我结束时,将提醒你们,有关佛洛伊德对我们表达过的指示,关於思想跟语言的关系,以及思想跟无意识的关系,会牵涉到什麽。

S, the logic of phantasy. We will begin from the writing of it that I already constructed, namely, from the formula: S barred diamond small o ($o).

S 代表幻见的逻辑。我们将先从我已经建构好的有关它的书写开始。换句话说,先从这个公式:被禁制的主体、透过小客体,从事迴转的运作 。

I recall what the S barred signifies: the S barred represents, takes the place in this formula of what it returns from concerning the division of the subject, which is found at the source of the whole Freudian discovery and which consists in the fact that the subject is, in part, barred from what properly constitutes it qua function of the unconscious.

我提醒一下这个被禁制的主体表示什麽:在这个公式里,这个被禁制的主体,代表或代替它从主体的分裂过程回转过来的主体。整个佛洛伊德的学说的根源,就是发现到这个人作为生命主体的分裂,它的事实是:主体有一部分被禁制,不能接近自己的本体所组成的,作为无意识的功用。

This formula establishes something which is a link, a connection between this subject as thus constituted and something else which is called small o. Small o is an object whose status what I am calling, this year, “constructing the logic of phantasy”, will consist in determining – its status, precisely, in a relation which is a logical relation properly speaking.

这个公式建立某种的联系,连接作为这样的本体的主体,跟被称为小客体的其它某件东西。小客体是一个客体,它的地位,我今年称之为「建造幻见的逻辑」。恰当地说,小客体的地位在於使用逻辑的关系来决定自己确实的地位。

A strange thing, no doubt, which you will allow me not to go into. I mean what this term phantasy suggests in terms of a relation to phantasia, to the imagination. I will not give myself the pleasure, even for an instant, of marking its contrast with the term logic with which I intend to structure it.

无可置疑,这是一件奇怪的事,但是我们暂且不论这个问题。我的意思是,幻见这个词语的字源是来自「幻影的想像」,对於想像,它给我们暗示着什麽?我目前不想藉此机会,将它跟我打算要用来建构它的逻辑这个词语,做对比的任意发挥了。

The fact is, no doubt, that phantasy as we claim to instaure its status is not so fundamentally, so radically antinomical as one might first think to this logical characterisation which, properly speaking, disdains it. Moreover, the imaginary feature of what is called the o-object will appear still better to you – in the measure that we will mark what permits it to be characterised as a logical value – to be much less related, it seems to me, at first sight, to the domain of what is properly speaking the imaginary.

无可置疑,事实是:我们宣称要恢复它的地位的幻见,跟这个逻辑的特性,並不像我们起初所认为的那样徹底或根本地相对立,虽然严个来说,逻辑是鄙视幻见的存在。而且,我们所谓的小客体,它具有幻想的特色,你们似乎也比较能够接受,它在某个程度上,也被容许拥有逻辑的价值。依我之见,乍然一看,小客体,适当来说,跟它原来的领域,也就是幻想的领域,还扯不上关系。

The imaginary, rather, is attached to it, surrounds it, accumulates in it. The o-object that a different status. Undoubtedly, it is desirable that those who listen to me this year (3) should have had the opportunity last year to get some grasp, some idea of it. Of course, this o-object is not something which is yet, so easily – for all and especially for those for whom it is the center of their experience, the psychoanalysts, even more – has yet, as I might say, sufficient familiarity for it to be. I would say, presented to them without fear or indeed even without anxiety.

但事实上,幻想的领域跟小客体紧密相连,包围它,累积它。小客体具有一个不同的地位。那些去年听过我演讲的听众,我期望你们去年本来应该就有机会获得一些了解,一些概念。当然,这个小客体,对於精神分析经验核心的人,如精神分析师,已经是耳熟能详,容我这样说。我甚至要说,跟他们提起小客体,不需要担心引起恐惧,或使他们产生焦虑。

“What have you done then,” one of them said to me, ” what need did you have to invent this little o-object?”

「那你为什麽要这样做?」其中有一个听众问我:「你有何需要,要杜撰这个小客体?」

I think, in truth, that taking things from a broader horizon it was about time. Because, without this o-object – whose incidences, it seems to me, have made themselves widely enough felt for the people of our generation – it seems to me that much of what is done as analyses, of subjectivity as well as of history and of its interpretation, and specifically of what we have lived through as contemporary history, and very specifically of what we have, rather crudely, baptised with a most improper term, under the name of totalitarianism … Anyone, who after having understood it, is able to occupy himself in applying to it the function of the category of the o-object, will perhaps see there being illuminated what it returned from, in that for which we still lack, in a surprising manner, satisfying interpretations.

事实上,我认为,现在该是我们从较宽广的视野,来看待事情的时候。因为,假如没有这个我们这一代的人们耳熟能详的小客体,我觉得许多我们精神分析经验的所做所为,不管是解释小客体的主观性,以及有关它的历史,明确地说,就是作为当代的历史,我们所经历过的,确实就是我们给它冠上一个昭彰的恶名,那就是极权主义。任何人,在理解它之后,就能够从事於将它应用到小客体的分类的功用。他可能会恍然大悟地明白,令人驚奇的是,我们对於这些小客体,依旧还缺乏令人满意的解释。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com