The power of the impossibles 6

The power of the impossibles 6
不可能界的力量
The Other side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学的另一面貌
By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

My little quadrupedal schemas—I am telling this today to alert you to it—are not the Ouija boards of history. It is not necessarily the case that things always happen this way, and that things rotate in the same direction. This is only an appeal for you to locate yourselves in relation to what one can call radical functions, in the mathematical sense of the term.

我的这个四足鼎立的小基模,我今天跟你们说这个,是要提醒你们注意,它並不是历史上的那种「牵亡魂的灵圭」。发生的事情总是类似那样,而且旋转的方向也相同,但是未必就是那种情形。这只是一种呼唤,要你们找出你们的相关位置,相对於我们在数学的专业术语所谓的「无穷演算」。

Concerning functions, the decisive step was taken somewhere around this epoch that I designated some time ago, around what there is in common between Galileo’s initial step, the emergence of the integrals and differentials in Leibniz, and then also the emergence of logarithms.

关於无穷演算,在不久以前我指明的这个时代,某个地方,有人採取驚天动地的行动。伽利略地球绕日说的最初一步,莱布尼斯论圆融与差異的出现,以及对数的出现,都有異曲同工之妙。

A function is this something that entered the real, that had never entered it beforehand, and that does not correspond to discovering, experimenting, seizing, detaching, disclosing, no, but to writing—writing two orders of relations.

演算是这个进入真实界的东西,以前从来没有进入它的东西。这个东西並没有对应於发现、试验、掌握、区别、揭露。不,它对应於彼此之间的关系的秩序。

Let me illustrate where logarithms arose. In one case the first relation is addition. Addition is nevertheless intuitive. There are some things here, some things there, you put them together, and you get a new collection. Multiplying loaves is not the same as collecting loaves. It is a matter of applying one of these relations to the other. You invent the logarithm. It starts to run wild in the world, on the basis of little rules that seem to be insignificant. But do not think that the fact that they exist leaves you, any of you who are here, in the same state as before they appeared. Their presence is all that matters.

让我举例说明对数从那里产生。有一个情况,第一个关系是加法。可是,加法是一种直觉。这里有一些事情,那里有一些事情,你将它们摆在一起,然后,你得到一个新的集合。将面包数加倍乘,跟将它们集合在一起,並不相同。这是此物跟彼物之间的关系,要如何来串连的问题。於是对数的方法被发明。它根据一些似乎微不足道的规则,开始在世界上大行其道。但是,你不要以为,它们存在的事实,会使你们,你们每一位在现场的人,处於跟它们未出现之前的状况相同。它们的存在是举足轻重的。

Well then, let me tell you that these more or less winged little terms—S1, S2, a, $–can be of use in a very large number of relations. One only needs to become accustomed to how to manipulate them.

然后,让我告诉你们,这些旁边附加数字的术语,如第一客体、第二客体、小客体、及被禁制的主体,用来解释许多关系,会很有用途。我们只要习惯了,就会熟能生巧。

For example, starting with the unary trait, though one can restrict oneself to it, one can still try to investigate the functioning of the master signifier. Well then, it is altogether usable, if you notice that, provided you make it structurally well founded, there is no need to add a thing to it, none of this grand comedy of the struggle to death of pure prestige and its outcome. Contrary to what people have concluded from their questioning of things at the level of what is true by nature, there is no contingency in the slave’s position. There is the necessity that something be produced that functions in knowledge as a master signifier.

例如,先从单一特癥小客体开始。虽然我们会受到它的限制,我们依旧能够用它,设法观察主人意符的演算运作。嗯,这完全可以用得上,假如你注意到,只要你让它在结构上建立基础,就没有需要再额外增加东西,根本没有需要再加那些为了维护尊严而死,及其结果的轰轰烈烈的闹剧。迴異於人们的结论,当他们从事情的本质,何为真实的层次开始质疑,奴隶之所以处於奴隶的立场,绝不是偶然的。在知识的运作中,某件东西会被产生,充当主人的意符,这是有必然的道理。

One cannot prevent oneself from dreaming, to be sure, or from trying to find out who was the first to do it, and then, one discovers the beauty of this ball that goes back and forth between the master and the slave. But perhaps it was simply someone who was ashamed, who put himself forward like that.

的确,我们无法阻止自己不要做梦,或无法设法找出谁是第一位先做梦的人,然后,我们发现到,白天为主人,夜间梦为奴隶,夜间梦为主人,白天为奴隶,这个球传来传去,煞是美观。但是,谁敢毫无羞愧地,像我这样公然张扬出来?

Today I have brought you the dimension of shame. It is not a comfortable thing to put forward. It is not one of the easiest things to speak about. This is perhaps what it really is, the hole from which the master signifier arises. If it were, it might perhaps not be useless for measuring how close one has to get to it if one wants to have anything to do with the subversion, or even just the rotation, of the master’s discourse.

今天,我已经跟你们谈到羞愧的向度。张扬这个问题,我自己也很不自在。谈论这个问题,实在不是一件容易的事情。主人意符起源的这个空洞,可能就是它真实的样子。假如就是这个空洞,那麽我们测量一下,我们距离它有多靠近,假如我们想要从事颠覆,或轮替主人的真理论述,这可能不无帮助。

Be that as it may, one thing is certain, you have this introduction of S1, the master signifier, within your grasp in the interest of discourses—it is what defines its readability.

无论如何,有一件事是确定的。我跟你们介绍这个第一意符,主人的意符,让你们理解到真理论述的利益。这就是我们定义它为可读性的原因。

There is, in effect, language and speech and knowledge, and all that seems to have worked in Neolithic times, but we have no trace that any dimension called reading existed. There is not yet any need of any writings, nor of any impression—not that writings haven’t been there for a long time, but, in some way, through a retroactive effect. What makes it the case that when we read any text we can always ask ourselves what characterizes it as readable? We have to search for the point in the direction of what it is that makes the master signifier.

实际上,语言、言说、及知识都存在,而且曾经有效地运作在新石器时代,只是我们並没有痕迹显示,有阅读的向度存在。当时,还没有写作,也没有表达的需要,倒不是长久以来,都没有任何写作,而是,以某种方式,透过某种涉及既往的效应。为什麽会发生这样的情形?当我们阅读任何本文时,我们总是询问自己,是什麽特癥界定它是可以阅读?我们必须朝着主人意符的本质的方向,去寻找关连。

I will point out to you that, as literary works, everything that one has ever read is off in cloud-cuckoo-land. Why does that hang together?

我将跟你们指出,作为文学作品,我们曾经阅读过的每一样东西,都虚无飘渺地存在理想国那里。为什麽它们会聚集在那里?

In my latest blunder—I adore these—I happened to read Balzac’s “ L’Envers dala vie contemporaine. It really is off in cloud-cuckoo-land. If you haven’t read it, you can still have read everything you might like to read on the history of the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth—the French Revolution, to call it by its name. You can even have read Marx. You won’t understand a thing, and there will always be something that escapes you, which is only there, in this story that will bore you stiff, L’Envers de la vie contemporaine.

我最近犯了一个错误。我崇拜那些作品。我刚好阅读巴尔扎克的「巴黎的负面」那些内容确实是虚无飘渺的理想国。即使你没有阅读过它,你依旧可以在阅读十八世纪末与十九世纪初的历史,也就是被称为法国大革命的历史,阅读到里面的一切。你甚至可能阅读过马克斯。你可能根本看不懂,总是有某些东西,你无法理解。在「巴黎的负面」那本书里,都存在有这些,只怕你读的乏味无聊。

Please have a look at it. I am sure not many of you will have read it. It is one of the least read of Balzac’s. Read it, and do the following exercise.

请去阅读一下。我确定,你们没有几个人曾经阅读过。那是巴尔扎克最罕被人阅读的书。请去阅读一下,然后做以下的练习。

Do exactly the same as the one which, about one hundred years ago, I had tried to give to the people I was speaking to a Sainte-Anne concerning the first scene of Act I of Athaliah. All they heard were the quilting Points. I am not saying that it was an excellent metaphor. In the end, it was this S1, the master signifier.

请做跟一百年前确实相同的练习。这个练习,我在聖安娜大学演讲有关阿萨里亚的第一幕第一场景时,我跟人们提到过。他们当时听到的术语是「缝合点」。我並不是说,那是一个很优秀的比喻。最后,它演变成为这个第一意符,主人的意符。

Heaven knows what they made of this quilting point, they even took it off to Les Temps modernes—all things considered, this is not La minute.

天晓得,这个缝合点是由什麽组成。他们甚至将它运用到个案病患马德尼斯身上,总的说来,这不应该牵扯到精神分析师弥纽。

It was a master signifier. It was a way of asking them to notice how something that spreads throughout language like wildfire is readable, that is to say, how it hooks on, creates a discourse.

这是一个主人的意符。它是一个方法,要求人们注意,在语言里像野火一般彌漫的那个东西如何成为可以阅读,换句话说,它是如何廓然成形,如何創造一个真理的论述。

I still maintain that there is no metalanguage. Anything that one might think is of the order of a search for the meta in language is simply, always, a question about reading.

我依旧主张说,形上语言並不存在。任何我们可能想到的东西,在语言里属於形上追寻的东西,仅仅,而且总是我们如何阅读的问题。

Let us suppose—pure supposition—that I am asked for my advice on something I have not been involved in except on the basis of my place in this location—a place that is, it has to be said, quite an unusual one—and I would be astonished if today that would make an open book off my place with respect to the university. But then, if there are others who, from where they are, and for reasons which are not at all negligible but which appear all the more clearly when one refers to my little letters, find themselves in the position of wanting to subvert something in the order of the university, where should they look?

让我们假定,纯粹的假定,有人要求我给他一些建言,关於我从来就没有参与过的事情,除了就是我充当精神分析师的立场。这个立场,换句话说,它必须是一个相当不寻常的立场。我将会大吃一惊,因为我在大学的立场,竟然会使我受到公开的怦击。但是,假如有其他的人,从他们的角度,因为根本不容忽视的理由,或是更加显而易见的理由,来提到我的那些小小的代用字母,他们就会发现他们自己所处的立场,是要颠覆大学的既有秩序,那他们会何去何从?

They can look on the other side, where everything can be threaded onto a little stick, where one can place them, the little pile that they are, along with others who are, as is the nature of the progression of knowledge, dominated.

他们可以转头观看另外一面。在那一面,每一件事情都贯连到一根棒子上,然后他们将那些东西,跟其它们臭味相投的东西,堆成一大堆,耀武扬威。这就是知识进步的特性。

On that side it is intimated to them that one might find a way to live with this. For ages this has been like a myth. I am not here to preach this to you. Myself, I have spoken of the shame of living.

在那一边,他们彼此惺惺相惜,因为他们找到适应这样环境的方式。几百年来,这种方式就像神话一般地始终存在。不过,我在这里,不是要跟你们宣传这个神话。连我自己提到这样的生存方式,自己都有羞愧之感。

If they search on that side, they may find that with my little schemas they can find a way of justifying that the student is not displaced in feeling a brother, as they say, not of the proletariat but of the lumpen-proletariat.

假如他们在那一边搜寻,他们可能会发现到,使用我的这些小基模,他们能够找出一个方法来证明,为什麽学生如他们所说的,並不认同於一般的普罗阶级,而是认同於无业遊民的流浪汉。

The proletariat are like the Roman plebs—these were very distinguished people. The class struggle perhaps contains this little source of error at the start, that it absolutely doesn’t take place at the level of the true dialectic of the master’s discourse—it is located on the level of identification. Senatus Populusque Romanus. They are on the same side. And the entire Empire includes all the rest.

普罗阶级就像是罗马的公民,这些是非常傑出的人无。阶级斗争也许一开始就包含这个小小的错误的来源。这个错误绝对不会发生在主人的真理论述的真实的辩证法的层次,它的位置是在认同的层次。他们是在相同的一边。整个罗马帝国也包括其余的阶级。

The question is why students feel that they belong with all the rest. They don’t at all seem to be able to see clearly how to resolve it.

问题是为什麽学生会觉得,他们会属於所有的其他阶级。他们似乎根本就没有能力来看清楚,要如何解决这个问题。

I would like to point out to them that production is one essential point of the system—the production of shame. This translates as –it’s impudence.

我想要跟他们指出,生产是学术体制的一个基本要点,羞愧的生产。这个也可以翻译成为厚颜的生产。

This is why it would perhaps not be a very bad means not to in that direction.

这就是为什麽,不朝那个方向进步,也不算是方法不对。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: