Archive for July, 2010

Rings of string 06 绳之环

July 17, 2010

Encore 706
再来一次

By Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Rings of string 06
绳之环

It is not enough to have found a general solution to the problem of Borromean knots, for an infinite number of Borromean knots. We must find a way to demonstrate that it is the only solution.

光是替波罗米安结找到一般性的解决办法,並不足够,因为波罗米安结数量无穷尽。我们必须找到一个方法来证明,这是唯一的解决办法。

But, as of our point in time today, there is no theory of knots. Currently, there is no mathematical formalization applicable to knots, apart from a few little constructions like those I showed you, that allows us to foresee that a solution like the one I just gave is not simply ex-sistent, but necessary, in other words, that it doesn’t stop—as I define the necessary—being written. I’m going to show it to you right away. It suffices for me to do this.

但是,在我们今天这个时代,並没有解开结的理论。目前,並没有数学的公式,可以运用到结的解开,除了少数像我教你们的那些小小的建构。它们使我们能够预先看到,像我刚刚提供的那个解决办法,不仅仅存在於外面,而且是必须的,换句话说,它没有停止被书写,这就是我对於「必须」的定义。我马上就教你们。只是教是我的事,如可验证是你们的事。

I just passed one of these rings around the other in such a way that they form, not the kind of bending I showed you earlier but simply a sailor’s knot. You immediately see that I can, without any difficulty, pursue the operation on either side by making as many sailor’s knots as I like, with all the rings of string in the world.

我刚刚将其中一个绳之环绕过另外一个环,这样它们会形成仅是一个水手活结,而不是我早先教你们的那种弯曲。你们立刻会看出,我能够毫无困难地在任何一边从事这种运作,使用世界的所有绳之环,制作许多我喜欢的水手活结。

Here too I can close the chain, thereby eliminating the separability these elements had hitherto retained. I use a third ring to join the two ends of the chain.

在此,我也能够封闭这个锁链,减少这些因素的直到目前尚保留的可分离性。我使用第三个环,连接锁链的两个末端。

Here, without any doubt, we have a solution which is just as valid as the first. The knot enjoys the Borromean property that if I cut anyone of the rings that I have arranged in this way, all the others are set free.

在此,无可置疑的,我们有一个解决的办法,跟前面那一个办法同样有效。这个结喜欢波罗米安结的属性,所以假如我切开我用这种方式安排的任何一个绳之环,所有的其它环结将会鬆开。

None of the rings here is any different from the others. There is no privileged point and the chain is strictly homogeneous. You realize that there is no topological analogy between the two ways of knotting the rings of string I showed you. In the case of the sailor’s knots, there is what might be called a topology of twisting compared to the preceding one, which is simply one of being. But it wouldn’t be contradictory to use bent rings in a sailor’s knot.

在此,没有一个绳之环跟其它的绳之环,有什麽不同。没有哪一点有任何特权,锁链是严格同质性的。你体会到,並没有任何地形上的类比,在我教你们的这两种解开结的办法。在水手活结的状况,有所谓扭曲的地形学,跟前面一个结的状况比较起来,後者仅仅是生命实存的一个活结。但是,在一个水手活结里,使用弯曲的活结,彼此没有捍格矛盾。

What is at stake for us, as you have realized, is to obtain a model of mathematical formalization. Formalization is nothing other than the substitution of what is called a letter for any number of ones. What does it mean when we write that inertia is

如你们已经体会到,我们岌岌可危的是,如何得到一个数学的公式化。公式化道道地地就是,要用一个数字代替任何其它数量的数字。我们若是将惯性原理的公式书写如下,那是什麽意思?

If not that, whatever the number of ones you place under each of those letters, you are subject to a certain number of laws—laws of grouping, addition, multiplication, etc.

Those are the questions that I am opening up, that are designed to announce to you what I hope to transmit to you concerning that which is written.

它的意思难道不就是:不管你将多少的数字放那些字母的底下,你一定要接受某些数量的法则,群集的法则、增加的法则,加倍的法则,等等。

That which is written—what would that be in the end? The conditions of jouissance. And that which is counted—what would that be? The residues of jouissance. Isn’t it by joining that a-sexual up with what she has by way of surplus jouissance—being, as she is, the Other, since she can only be said to be other—that woman offers it to man in the guise of object a?

那些被书写下的东西,最後将是什麽?那将是欢爽的状况。那些被计算的东西,那将是什麽?那将是欢爽的残渣。那难道不就是将性的小客体跟她所拥有的东西,藉由多余的欢爽,连接起来。女人作为生命的实存,跟大它者连接在一起,
以伪装的小客体,给予男人的东西,这是女人唯一能够跟大它者扯得上关系的地方。

Man believes he creates—he believes believes believes , he creates creates creates. He creates creates creates woman. In reality, he puts her to work—to the work of the One. And it is in that respect that the Other—the Other insofar as the articulation of language, that is, the truth, is inscribed earlier qualified as the One-missing. That is what S(A) means. It is in that respect that we arrive at the point of raising the question how to make the One into something that holds up, that is, that is counted without being.

男人相信他創造,他相信、他相信、他相信,他創造、他創造。他創造。他創造、創造、創造女人。实际上,他将女人发挥功用,发挥成为一个唯我独尊的生命个体。就在这一方面,大它者,就语言的表达而言,换句话说,就是真理的论述,被铭记在先前被定位为漏失大它者的生命的个体身上。那就是S(A)这个符号的意思。在那一方面,我们到达要提出这个问题的时候:如何使这个唯我独尊的生命的个体成为永续的存在?换句话说,没有生命实存的计算?

Mathematization alone reaches a real—and it is in that respect that is compatible with our discourse, analytic discourse—a real that has nothing to do with what traditional knowledge has served as a basis for, which is not what the latter believes it to be—namely, reality—but rather fantasy.

只有数学的公式化到达一个真实界。就是在那一方面,它跟我们精神分析学的真理论述相合谐。这个真实界跟传统的知识没有丝毫关系。传统的知识曾经供应给我们一个基础,不是现实的基础,而是幻见的基础,问题是它自己渾然不这样认为。

The real, I will say, is the mystery of the speaking body, the mystery of the unconscious.

我将会说,这个真实界,是言说的身体的神秘,是无意识的神秘。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Rings of string 06 绳之环

July 16, 2010

Encore 705
再来一次

By Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Rings of string 05
绳之环

Let us note that, unlike rings of string, the elements of a chain can be forged. It is not very difficult to imagine how—one bends metal to the point where one can solder it. No doubt, it’s not a simple prop, for, in order to be to adequately represent the use of language, links would have to be made in that chain that would attach to another link a little further on, with two or three floating intermediate links. We would also have to understand why a sentence has a limited duration. The metaphor cannot tell us that.

让我们注意,不像绳之环,一个锁链的因素能够被铸造。要想像如何铸造並不困难。我们将金属弯曲到我们可以焊接的地方。毫无疑问,这不是一个简单的支撑,为了适当地代表语言的使用,那个锁链必须要制作一个链接,跟另外一个较远的链接相连,中间还有两三个飘浮的链接。我们也必须要了解,为什麽一个句子停留的期间总是有限。比喻无法告诉我们原因。

Do you want an example that can show you what purpose can be served by this line of folded knots that become independent once again as soon as you cut one of them? It’s not very difficult to find such an example in psychosis, and that’s no accident. Recall what hallucinatorily fills up Schreber’s solitude: “ Now I shall…,” or again “ You were to…” These interrupted sentences, which I called code messages, leave some sort of substance in abeyance. We perceive here the requirement of a sentence, whatever it may be, which is such that one of its links, when missing, sets all the others free, that is, withdraws from them the One.

你们想要一个例子,告诉你们,这个折叠的结的绳的其中一条,一旦被你切掉,整个环结会变成各自独立,这个充当什麽用意吗?要在精神病患身上找到这样的例子,並不很困难,而且也不是什麽巧合的事情。你们回想一下,佛洛伊德的个案,苏瑞伯是如何在胡思乱想中填补他的孤独的时刻:「现在,我要、、、」或者「我要你们、、、」这些中断的句子,我称之为密码的讯息,留下许多欲语还休的蛛丝马迹。我们在此感觉到,不管是怎样的一个句子,它要有成立的要件,当其中一个要件漏失,其它部分的意义将随之涣散。换句话说,人作为一位生命的个体,意义会为之崩塌。

Isn’t that the best basis we can provide for that by which mathematical language proceeds?

那难道不是最好的基础,我们能够供应给数学的语言继续要演算下去。

The nature of mathematical language, once it is sufficiently isolated in terms of its requirements of pure demonstration, is such that everything that is put forward there—not so much in the spoken commentary as in the very handling of letters—assumes that if one of the letters doesn’t stand up, all the others, due to their arrangement, not only constitute nothing of any validity but disperse. It is in that respect that the Borromean knot is the best metaphor of the fact that we proceed only on the basis of the One.

数学语言的特性是,用纯粹证明题的角度来看,各个数字各自独立,但是每一样在那里被提出的数字,都假定:假如其中一个数字不能成立,所有其它的数字,由於彼此互相关联的演算,不但无法构成正确性,而且会整个瓦解。就在这一方面,波罗米安结是最好的比喻,用来解释人作为一位生命个体前进中的事实。

The One engenders science. Not in the sense of the one of measurement. It is not what is measured in science that is important, contrary to what people think. What distinguishes modern science from the science of antiquity, which is based on the reciprocity between the vous and the world, between what thinks and what is thought of, is precisely the function of the One, the One insofar as it is only there, we can assume, to represent solitude—the fact that the One doesn’t truly knot itself with anything that resembles the sexual Other. Unlike the chain, the Ones of which are all made in the same way, being nothing other than One.

人作为一位生命的个体产生了科学。我不是指测量计算的那种科学。跟一般人的想法恰恰相反,科学重要的地方不是在於测量计算。区别现代科学跟古代的科学不同的地方,确实就是在於:人作为一位生命的个体所发挥的功用。古代科学的基础在於,思想家与世界之间,思想的人跟被思想的物之间彼此产生的互动。而人作为一位生命的个体,生存於世间,我们不妨这样认为,就是代表一位唯我独尊的个体。这为唯我独尊的个体,並没有真正地跟任何类似性爱对象的大它者,构成牢固的环结。不像锁链,以相同方式组成的各个单一的生命的个体,其实还是唯我独尊的生命的个体。

When I said, “ There’s such a thing as One”, when I stressed that, when I truly pounded that into you like an elephant all of last year, you see what I was introducing you to.

当我说「唯我独尊的生命的个体具有实存的意义」,当我这样强调,当我去年一整年,像大象一般,往你们身上用力猛踩,你们应该明白,我不厌其烦地要跟你们介绍什麽。

How then can we situate the function of the Other? How—if, up to a certain point, what remains of any language when it is written is based simply on knots of the One—are we to posit a difference ? For it is clear that the Other cannot be added to the One. The Other can only be differentiated from it. If there is something by which it participates in the One, it is not by being added. For the Other—as I already said, but it is not clear that you heard me—is the One-missing.

我们如何能够找出大它者的功用的位置?直到某一个时候,任何语言在书写时的残余物,都仅仅以人作为生命的个体的环结当基础,我们应该如何提出跟它不同的方法?显而易见的,大它者无法填加到唯我独尊的生命的个体上。我们只能够将它们区隔。即使大它者有某些东西,参与这个唯我独尊的生命的个体,那也不是用填加的方法。我已经说过,但是不知道你们有没有听进去:大它者就是人作为一位唯我独尊的生命的个体,所漏失的响往。

That’s why, in any relationship of man with a woman—she who is to question—it is from the perspective of the One-missing that she must be taken up. I already indicated that to you concerning Don Juan, but, of course, there was only one person who noticed—my daughter.

那就是为什麽,在任何男人与女人之间的关系,总是女人受到置疑,因为从男人作为一位漏失大它者的唯我独尊的生命的个体来看,女人必须是他追求的响往。当我谈到风流情聖唐璜时,我已经跟你们指明这一点,但是当然,只有一个人注意到我的话,那就是我的女兒。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Rings of string 04 绳之环

July 16, 2010

Encore 704
再来一次

By Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Rings of string 04
绳之环

Why did I formerly bring in the Borromean knot? It was to translate the formulation “ I ask you”—what? “ to refuse” –what?—“what I offer you”—why?—“ because that’s not it.’ You know what “ it” is; it’s object a. Object a is no being. Object a is the void presupposed by a demand, and it is only situating demand via metonymy, that is, by the pure continuity assured from the beginning to the end of a sentence, that we can imagine a desire that is based on no being—a desire without any other substance than that assured by knots themselves.

为什麽我以前要谈到波罗米安结?那是要翻译底下这个公式:「我要求你们」、「拒绝」、「我提供给你们的」、「为什麽?」「因为真实界不在那里」。你们知道,那里指的是什麽?那里指的是小客体。小客体並不是生命的实存。小客体是一个需求所预先假定的空洞,而需求的位置,只有透过语言的换喻,换句话说,要根据一个句子从头到尾一气呵成的意义,我们才能想像一个以没有生命实存为基础的欲望。这个欲望没有其它物质,除了波罗米安结本身所拥有的物质。

Enunciating that sentence, “ I ask you to refuse what I offer you,” I could only motivate it by the “ that’s not it” that I took up again last time.

若是要清楚表达那个句子「我要求你们拒绝我所提供给你们的」,我只能说,我的动机是上一次我再一次提过的「真实界並不在那里」。

“ That’s not it” means that, in the desire of every demand, there is but the request for object a, for the object that could satisfy jouissance. The latter would then be the lustbefriedigung presupposed in what is improperly called the “ genital drive” in psychoanalytic discourse, that drive in which the full, inscribable relationship of the on with what remains irreducibly the Other is supposedly inscribed. I stressed the fact that the partner of this “ I” that is the subject, the subject of any sentence that constitutes a demand, is not the Other, but that which is substituted for it in the form of the cause of desire—that I have diversified into four causes, insofar as the base of the object of sucking, the object of excretion, the gaze, and the voice. It is as substitutes for the Other that these objects are laid claim to and made into the cause of desire.

「真实界並不在那里」的意思是:在每个需求的欲望里,只有对於小客体的追求,人们只是追求能够满足欢爽的小客体。那种欢爽的客体,在精神分析的真理论述里,将是一种不雅地称之为「性器官的欲望驱力」,所预先假设的性的欢爽,那种欲望驱力,跟大它者应该被铭记在那里的欢爽並不相同。我强调这个事实,作为生命主体的这个「我」的伴侣,这个组成一个需求的任何句子的主词,並不是大它者,而是用欲望的原因来冒充替代。这个欲望的原因,因为构成的多样化,我依照佛洛伊德的发现,将它区分为四样:吸吮的客体、排泄的客体、凝视的客体、及声音的客体。它被用来冒充这些客体所宣称的大它者,然后被假定成为欲望的原因。

It seems that the subject calls inanimate objects to mind as a function of the following –that there’s no such thing as a sexual relation. It’s only speaking bodies, as I said, that come up with an idea of the world as such. The world, the world of being, full of knowledge, is but a dream, a dream of the body insofar as it speaks, for there’s no such thing as a knowing subject. There are subjects who give themselves correlates in object a, correlates of enjoying speech qua jouissance of speech. What does it wedge but other Others?

人作为生命的主体,似乎会回想到一些无生命的客体,当着是以下的功用:没有性关系这样的事情。充其量如我所说的,人只是作为言说的身体,构想出这个世界的观念,认为有性关系这样的事。这个世界,这个生命实存的世界,充满了知识,却仅仅是一场梦境,一场以身体作为言说的梦境。有一些生命的主体,以小客体来彼此互动,享受言说作为言说的欢爽。除了其它生命主体的小客体外,它能够掌握到什麽?

I pointed out to you earlier that bilobulation—the transformation by being of the ring of string into two ears—can be carried out in a strictly symmetrical fashion. Indeed, that is what happens as soon as one gets to the level of four. Well, similarly, the reciprocity between the subject and object a is total.

我早先跟你们指出,作为生命实存的绳之环,转变成两瓣,就像树叶分成两瓣,有时能表现得非常均称。确实,当我们由两瓣,再转变成四瓣的层次,也会发生均称的情形。同样地,生命的实存作为主体跟小客体之间的彼此互动,也是可以完全地均称。

For every speaking being, the cause of its desire is, in terms of structure, strictly equivalent, so to speak, to its bending, that is, to what I have called its division as subject. That is what explains why the subject could believe for so long that the world knew as much about things as he did. The world is symmetrical to the subject—the world of what I last time called thought is the equivalent, the mirror image, of thought. That is why there was nothing but fantasy regarding knowledge until the advent of the most modern science.

对於每一个言说的生命实存,它的欲望的原因,就其结构而言,可以说是完全相等於它的弯曲,也就是完全相等於它的分裂作为生命的主体。那就解释了为什麽生命的主体长久以来,会执迷不悟地相信,他知道的事情,这个世界就会知道。这个世界跟生命的主体是均称並存的。我上一次所称为思想的世界,相等於就是思想的镜中影像。那就是为什麽,关於我们自以为的知识,其实只是我们的幻见,直到现代的科学的来临。

This mirroring is what allowed for the chain of beings that presupposed in one being, said to be the Supreme Being, the good of all beings. Which is also equivalent to the following , that object a can be said to be, as its name indicates a-sexual. The Other presents itself to the subject only in an a-sexual form. Everything that has been the prop, substitute-prop, or substitute for the Other in the form of the object of desire is a-sexual.

这个镜中影像的产生,源自宇宙万物的等级,被预先假定有一个存在,据说是最崇高的存在,是一切万物的最崇高的善德。这也相等於以下的说法:小客体有时候也能够被说成是「性的小客体」。大它者显现自己给生命的主体,只是以性的小客体的形式。每一样欲望的客体的形式,被用来支撑、替代支撑,或冒充大它者时,都是性的小客体。

It is in that sense that the Other as such remains a problem in Freudian theory—though we are able to take a step further –a problem that is expressed in a question Freud repeated—“ What does a woman want?”—woman being, in this case, equivalent to truth. It is in that sense that the equivalence I produced is justified.

以那种意义来说,大它者本身的角色,在佛洛伊德的理论里,始终是一个问题。我们不妨再进一步探究。这个问题被表达在佛洛伊德一再重复的问题:「女人到底想要什麽?」在这个状况,女人的生命实存,相当等於就是真理的论述。我提出的这个相等是可以自园其说的。

Does that enlighten you as to why it is of interest to work with the ring of string? The said ring is certainly the most eminent representation of the One, in the sense that it encloses but a hole. Indeed, that is what makes a true ring of string very difficult to produce. The ring of string I make use of is mythical,since people don’t manufacture closed rings of string.

你们现在该恍然大悟吧?为什麽探讨这个绳之环是如此地引起兴趣?我所说的这个环,确实是人作为一个生命的个体,内部涵盖的只是一个空洞,这是最生动鲜明的符号象征。的确,这就是一个真实的绳之环,那麽难於产生的原因。我利用的这个绳之环神秘难测,因为人制作的绳之环都是开放式,而非封闭式。

But still, what are we to do with this Borromean knot? My answer to you is that it can serve us by representing a metaphor that is so often used to express what distinguishes the use of language—the chain metaphor.

可是,我们应该如何来处理这个波罗米安结呢?我对於你们的回答是:它对於我们的用途,是代表一个时常被使用的比喻,它表达语言的用途的最大特色,就是比喻可以产生连锁的效应。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Rings of string 03 绳之环

July 15, 2010

Encore 703
再来一次

By Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Rings of string 03
绳之环

What cuts a line is a point. Since a point has zero dimensions, a line is defined as having one dimension. Since what a line cuts is a surface, a surface is defined as having two dimensions. Since what a surface cuts is space, space has three dimensions.

切割线条的是一个点。因为一个点有零的向度,一条线就被定义为拥有一个向度。因为一条线切割的是一个表面,一个表面就被定义为拥有两个向度。因为一个表面所切割的是空间,空间拥有三个向度。

The little sign I wrote on the blackboard ( figure 1) derives its value therefrom.

我在黑板上所写的这个小标记(图形一),从它的本身得到价值。

It has all the characteristics of writing—it could be a letter. However, since you write cursively, you never think of stopping a line before it crosses another in order to make it pass underneath, or rather in order to assume that it passes underneath, because in writing something completely different than three-dimensional space is involved.

它拥有所有的书写的特色,它可以是一个字母。可是,你既然是潦草地写,你从来就没有想到要先停止一行,才跨越到下一行,为了让它从底下经过,或者为了认为它从底下经过,因为在书写中,会牵涉到跟三个向度完全不同的东西。

In this figure, when a line is cut by another, it means that the former passes under the latter. That is what happens here, except that there is only one line. But although there is one, it is distinguished from a simple ring, for this writing represents for you the flattening out of a knot. Thus, this line or string is something other than the line I defined earlier with respect to space as a cut and that constitutes a hole,, that is, separates an inside from an outside.

在这个图形里,当一条线被另一条线切过,它意味着,前者从后者底下经过。那是这里所发生的事情,除了只有一条线。虽然只有一条线,它跟一个简单的环截然不同,因为对你而言,这个书写代表一个结的摊开来。因此,这条线或环截然不同於我早先关於空间切割所定义的线,那会形成一个空洞,换句话说,它会隔开里面跟外面。

This new line is not so easily incarnated in space. The proof is that the ideal string, the simpliest string, would be a torus. And it took a long time for people to realize, thanks to topology, that what is enclosed in a torus has absolutely nothing to do with what is enclosed in a bubble.

这条新线不是那麽容易在空间具体显现出来。证据是,这条理想的绳子,这条最简单的绳子,将会是一个园形突起。由於地形学,人们要隔了很久才会体会到,这个园形突起里面所封闭的,跟气泡状里面所封闭的,绝对没有丝毫关系。

Regardless of what you do with the surface of a torus, you cannot make a knot. It is in this respect, allow me to tell you, that the torus is reason, since it is what allows for knot.

不管你如何处理园形突起状的表面,你无法制造一个结。就在这一方面,容我告诉你,这个园形突起状是理性,因为它考虑到结的问题。

It is in that respect that what I am showing you now, a twisted torus, is as neat an image as I can give you of the trinity, as I qualified it the other—one and three in a single stroke.

就在那一方面,我现在给你们看的,是一个扭曲的园形突起状,意象鲜明,就像我跟你们说的基督教的聖灵、聖父、聖子三位一体,三者的关系一气呵成。

Nevertheless, it is by making three toruses out of it, using a little thingamabob I already showed you called the Borromean knot, that we shall be able to operate on the first knot. Naturally, there are people here today who weren’t here last year in February when I spoke about the Borromean knot. I will try today to give you a sense of its importance and of how it is related to writing, inasmuch as I have defined writing as what languages leaves by way of a trace.

可是,将它制作成三个园形突起状,使用我已经显示过的波罗米安结,我们将能够运作第一个结。当然,今天在现场的人,去年二月未必在这里,当我提到波罗米安结,今天我将让你们感觉它的重要性,以及它如何跟书写有关,因为我已经将书写定义为语言遗留的痕迹。

With the Borromean knot, we are dealing with something that cannot be found anywhere,, namely, a true ring of string. You should realize that, when you lay out a string, you never manage to join the two ends together in the woof. In order to have a ring of string, you to make a knot, preferably a sailor’s knot. Let’s make a sailor’s knot with this string.

用这个波罗米安结,我们正在处理在别的地方找不到的东西,换句话说,一个真实的绳之环。你们应该体会到,当你安排一条绳时,你永远没有办法,将两端在纬线的部分连接起来。为了要有一个绳之环,你必须制作一个结,最好是一个水手结。让我们用这条绳制作一条水手结。

That’s it. Thanks to the sailor’s knot, we have here, as you see, a ring of string. I will make two more. The problem that is then raised by the Borromean knot is the following—once you have made your rings of string, how can you get these three rings of string to hang together in such a way that if you cut one, all three are set free?

就是这样。由於水手结,你们看到,我们在这里拥有一个绳之环。我再多做两个。波罗米安结所引起的问题如下:一但你已经制作了你的绳之环,你如何将这三个绳之环,悬挂在一起,然后,你切割一个结,其它三个结都会鬆开来。

Three is really nothing. The true problem, the general problem, is to work things out in such a way that, with any number of rings of string, when you cut one, every single one of the others becomes free and independent.

三个没有什麽困难。真正的问题,也是通常的问题是,如何将事情安排,将任何一个绳之环切开,其它每一个单一的绳之环,会变成自由与独立。

Here is the Borromean knot—I already put it up on the blackboard last year. It is easy for you see that no two rings of string are knotted to each other, and that it’s only thanks to the third that they hang together.

这就是波罗米安结,去年,我已经将它画在黑板上。你们很容易看出来,没有任何两个绳之环互相打成死结,只是由於有第三个绳之环,它们才悬挂在一起,

Pay close attention here—don’t let yourself remain captivated by this image. I’m going to show you another way to solve the problem.

请仔细看这里。不要让你们自己被这个意象所吸引住、我将告诉你们有另外一个方法,来解决这个问题。

Here is a ring of string. Here is another. You insert the second ring into the first, and you bend it ( see figure 4)

这里有一条绳之环。这里还有另一条。你们将第二条插入第一条,然后将弯曲过来。(见图四)

It suffices then to take up the second ring in a third for the three to be knotted together—knotted in such a way that it suffices for you to cut one for the other two to be set free ( see figure 5)

这样就足够将第二个绳之环插入第三个绳之环,为了让第三个绳之环打成一个结。它们互相结合在一起时,你只要将其中一个绳之环切开,其它两个绳之环就会鬆开来。(见图五)

After the first bending, you could also bend the third ring and take it up in a fourth. With four, as with three, it suffices to cut one of the rings for all the others to be set free. You can add an absolutely infinite number of rings and it will still be true. The solution is thus absolutely general, and the line of rings can be as long as you like.

在第一次弯曲后,你也能够弯曲第三个绳之环,然后再从事第四个绳之环。第四个绳之环,跟第三个绳之环一样,你只要切开其中一个绳之环,所有其它的绳之环都会鬆开。这种解决的方法绝对是大家都通用,环的线,你高兴想要玩多长,就可以有多长。

In this chain, whatever its length, the first and last links different from the others: while the intermediary rings, in other words, the bent ones, are all ear-shaped, as you see in figure 4, the extremes are simple rings.

在这个锁链中,不管它有多长,第一个跟最后一个链结不同於其它的链结:中间的绳之环,换句话说,那些弯曲的绳之环,都是像耳朵一般的形状,如你在圖四所看到,前后两端则是简单的绳之环。

Nothing stops us from making the first and last rings coincide, by bending the first and taking it up in the last. The chain is thereby closed ( see figure 6)

没有一样东西阻止我们将第一个及最后一个绳之环结合在一起,方法是将第一个绳之环弯曲,然后套上最后一个绳之环。这个锁链因此就封闭起来。

The collapse of the two extremes into one nevertheless leaves a trace: in the chain of intermediary links, the strands are juxtaposed two by two, whereas, when the chain closes on a simple, single ring, four strands on each side are juxtaposed to one strand, the circular ring.

可是,前后两端的崩塌成为一个,会留下一个痕迹:在中间的链接的锁链,链条会两个同时並列。当这个锁链在一个简单的单一绳之环打成封闭的死结,在每一边的四个链条会並列成一个链条,园形的链条。

That trace can certainly be effaced—you then obtain a homogeneous chain of bent rings.

那个痕迹确实能够被抹除掉,然后,你会得到一个同质性的弯曲的绳之环锁链。

雄伯译
sprigherohsiung@gmail.com

Rings of string 02 绳之环

July 15, 2010

Encore 702
再来一次

By Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Rings of string 02
绳之环

I don’t know how to approach, why not say, the truth—no more than woman. I have said that the one and the other are the same thing, at least to man. They constitute the same conundrum. As it turns out, I relish the one and the other, despite what people say.

我不知道如何接近真理(何不有一说一),正如我不知道如何接近女人。我曾经说过,真理跟女人是相同的一回事,至少对於男人而言。他们组成相同的谜团。结果是,前者或是后者,我都喜爱,不管人们怎麽说。

The discordance between knowledge and being is my subject. One can also say, notwithstanding, that there isn’t any discordance regarding what still (encore)—according to my title this year—directs the game. We are still ( encore) caught up in the insufficiency of knowledge. It is what directs the game of encore–not that by knowing more about it, it would direct us better, but perhaps there would be better jouissance, agreement between jouissance and its end.

知识与生命实存之间的不合谐是我研究的主题。儘管如此,我们也可以说,关於作为遊戏规则的再来一次(这是我今年的演讲题目),並没有任何的不合谐。我们依旧再一次地陷困於知识的不足当中。这就是再来一次的遊戏的指导规则,倒不是随着对他们更加了解,我们相处会越加顺畅,而是因为会有更好的欢爽,在欢爽与其目的之间,会有更好的契合。

Now, the end of jouissance—as everything Freud articulated about what he unadvisedly calls ‘ partial drives ‘ teaches us—the end of jouissance does not coincide with what it leads to, namely the fact that we reproduce.

现在,谈到欢爽的目的。佛洛伊德在他不假思索就一语道出的「部分的欲望驱力」
,教导我们时,清楚地表达了一切:欢爽並没有完全相吻合於它所引导的方向,换句话说,我们欢爽是为了繁殖。

The “ I “ is not a being, but rather something attributed to that which speaks. That which speaks deals only with solitude, regarding the aspect of the relationship I can only define by saying, I have, that it cannot be written. That solitude, as a break in knowledge, not only can be written but it is that which is written par excellence, for it is that which leaves a trace of break in being.

这个「我」並不是一个生命的实存,而是某件被归属於言说的主体。言说的主体所处理的就是孤独,关於这个层面,我曾经说过,或仅能够说出的定义是,这个我与孤独的关系无法被书写。可是,那个孤独,作为知识的一个中断,不但能够被书写,而且它会被书写得淋漓尽致,因为孤独就是在留下一个生命的实存中断的痕迹的地方。

That is what I said in a text, certainly not without its imperfections that I called “ Lituraterre.” “ The cloud of language, “ I expressed myself metaphorically, “ constitutes writing.” Who knows whether the fact that we can read ( lire) the streams I saw over Siberia as the metaphorical trace of writing isn’t linked ( lie) —betware lier ( to link) and lire consist of the same letters. To something that goes beyond the effect of rain, which animals have no chance of reading as such? It seems rather to be linked to that form of idealism that I would like you to get into your heads—certainly not that professed by Berkeley, who lived at a time when the subject had acquired its independence, not the idealism that holds that everything we know is representation, but rather that idealism related to the impossibility of inscribing the sexual relationship between two bodies of different sexes.

那就是我在「文季」刊物发表的一篇文章中所说的,虽然内容确实不无暇疵。「语言的云层」,我比喻地表达我自己,「组成了书写。」天晓得,我们能够阅读我在西伯利亚所看到的溪流,作为书写的比喻痕迹,跟超越下雨的影响的事情,如动物不可能是这样阅读溪流,有没有牵扯上关系?请注意一下,阅读lire 与关系lier的法文字母都相同。相反地,它似乎跟我要你们联想到的理念主义的形式有些关系。我说的不是哲学家柏克来所说的理念主义,因为他出生在主体已经获得独立的时代,也不是那种相信我们所知的一切,都是符号再现的理念主义,而是两个不同性别的身体之间,灵魂的交会的性关系不可能产生,这样的理念主义。

An opening, by which it is the world that makes us into its partner, is created thereby. It is the speaking body insofar as it can only manage to reproduce thanks to a misunderstanding regarding its jouissance. That is to say that it only reproduces thanks to missing what it wants to say, for what it wants to say ( veut dire)—namely, as French clearly states, its meaning ( sens)—is its effective jouissance. And it is by missing that jouissance that it reproduces—in other words, by fucking.

在那里,一个机会被創造,藉着这个机会,世界使我们成为它的伙伴。那就是这个言说的主体,因为它只成功地繁殖,由於误解欢爽的功能。换句话说,它只繁殖,由於无法表达它所要说的话。它所要说的话,顾名思义,也就是它的意义,就是它要实实在在地欢爽。由於无法表达那个欢爽,它只好繁殖,换句话说,它性交作爱。

That is precisely what it doesn’t want to do, in the final analysis. This proof is that when one leaves it all alone, it sublimates with all its might, it sees Beauty and the Good—not to mention Truth, and it is there, as I just told you,, that it comes closest to what is at stake. But what is true is that the partner of the opposite sex remains the Other. It is thus by missing its jouissance that it manages to be reproduced yet agin ( encore) without knowing anything about what reproduces it. And in particular—and this is perfectly tangible in Freud’s work, though of course it’s nothing but gibberish, even if we can’t do any better—it doesn’t know whether what reproduces it is life or death.

追根究底,那确实並不是它所要做的事。证据是,当我们不去干扰它的时候,它会尽它的全力昇华,它观看到美丽跟善德,更不用说是真理了。就在那里,如我刚刚告诉你们,它最接近它岌岌可危的地方。真实的事情是,異性的伴侣始终是大它者。由於没有获得它的欢爽,它成功地一再地被繁殖,而不知道是什麽原因使它繁殖。特别的是,这是佛洛伊德的研究最完美的具体成果,当然有些地方纯属胡扯,即使我们现在也不见得多高明,因为它不知道它所繁殖的是生命,还是死亡。

I must nevertheless say what there is qua metalanguage, and in what respect I coincides with the trace left by language. For this is where the subject returns to the revelation of the correlate of language ( langue), which is the extra knowledge of being, and constitutes for him his slim chance of going to the Other, to its being, about which I noted last time—and this is the second essential point—that it wants to know nothing. It is a passion for ignorance.

可是,我必须说,作为形上语言,那会是一个什麽样子,在哪一方面,我刚好与语言所遗留下来的痕迹巧合交契。因为这是生命主体回归到跟语言的关系的啟示,因为语言是生命实存的额外知识,组成主体前往大它者,前往它大者生命实存的些微的机会。关於这一点,我上一次提到过,这是第二个要点,它並不想要知道任何事情。这是一种追求无知无为的激情。

This is why the other two passions are those that are called love—which has nothing to do with knowledge, despite philosophy’s absurd contentions—and hatred, which is what comes closest to being, that I call “ ex-sisting.” Nothing concentrates more hatred than that act of saying in which ex-sistence is situated.

这就是为什麽其它的两个激情被称为爱与恨。前者跟知识根本没有关系,儘管哲学界如何荒谬地为它争论不休。後者最靠近生命的实存,也就是我所谓的「外在的实存」。在外在的实存所在,言说的动作所凝聚的恨意,没有任何其它东西可以跟它相比较。

Writing is thus a trace in which an effect of language can be read ( se lit). That is what happens when you scribble something.

书写因此是一种痕迹,让语言的影响能够被阅读出来。这就是你在胡乱写作时,常发生的情形。

I certainly don’t deprive myself of doing so, for that is how I prepare what I have to say. It is worth noting that one must ensure things by writing. The latter certainly is not metalanguage, nevertheless, though one can make it fulfill a function that resembles it. That effect is nevertheless secondary with respect to the Other in which language is inscribed as truth. For nothing I could write on the blackboard for you based on the general formuas that relate energy and matter, at the present point it time–Einstein’s last formulas, for example—none of it would stand up if I didn’t prop it up with an act of speaking that involves language ( langue), and with a practice which is that of people who gives orders in the name of a certain knowledge.

我确实没有剥夺自己,不能这样做,因为那是我準备演讲稿的方式。值得注意的是,我们必须以书面写作来确定事情。可是,书写确实並不就是形上语言,虽然我们用它充当一种类似形上语言的功用。可是,那种效果跟大它者比较起来,只是次要,因为在大它者那里,语言被铭记为真理的论述。在目前的这个时刻,我能够根据能源跟物质的一般公式,例如,将爱因斯坦的最後的公式,书写在黑板上,这並非没有意义。假如我没有以牵涉到语言的言说的动作来支撑它们,或以一般人们的做法,以某种知识之名,将它们验证,它们将无法被人所接受。

But let me back up. When you scribble and when I too scribble, it is always on a page with lines, and we are thus immediately enmeshed in this business of dimensions.
但是让我给予後援。当你们潦草地书写,当我也在潦草地书写。我们总是在纸张上书写句子,我们立刻就沉迷於这种书写向度的事件里。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Rings of string 01 绳之环

July 14, 2010

Encore 701
再来一次

By Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Rings of string 01
绳之环

I dreamt last night that when I arrived, no one was here.

我昨晚做一个梦,当我到达时,没有人在这里。

That confirms the wishful character of the dream. Despite the fact that I was rather outraged, that it would all be for naught, since I also remembered in the dream that I had worked until 4;30 in the morning, it was nevertheless the satisfaction of a wish, namely, that then I would have but to twiddle my thumbs.

那个梦证实了,梦具有一厢情愿的特性。儘管我在梦中暴跳如雷,儘管那一切都是白费力气,因为我也记得在梦中,我为讲稿準备到零晨四点,那个梦仍然是一种愿望的满足。

1
I am going to say—that is my function—I am going to say once again—because I repeat myself—something that I say, which is enunciated as follows, “ There’s no such thing as a metalanguage.”

我将要说,那就是我的功用,我将要再说一遍,因为我一再重复我说过的某件事,现在表达如下:「形上语言並不存在」。

When I say that, it apparently means—no language of being. But is there being? As I pointed out last time, what I say is what there isn’t. Being is, as they say, and nonbeing is not. There is or there isn’t. Being is merely presumed in certain words—“ individual,” for instance, and “ substance.” In my view, it is but a fact of what is said.

当我这样说时,显而易见的,我的意思是:生命实存的语言並不存在。但是,生命的实存就存在吗?如我上一次指出来,我说的是,生命的实存並不存在。一般的说法是:生命存在,实存就在,生命不存在,实存就不存在。生命的实存仅仅是赖某些字词来假定,例如,「某个人」以及「物质」。依照我的观点,那仅仅是曾经言说过的事实。

The word “ subject” that I use thus takes on a different import.

我使用「生命的主体」这个字词,因此它具有一个不同的意义。

I distinguish myself from the language of being. That implies that there may be verbal fiction—I mean, fiction on the basis of the word. And as some of you may recall, that is what I began with when I spoke of ethics.

我将我自己跟生命实存的语言区别出来。那暗示着,会有文辞的功用存在,我的意思是,字词的基础会产生幻想。你们有些人可能还记得,那就是我谈论到伦理学时,我开始说的话。

Just because I have written things that serve the function of forms of language doesn’t mean I assure the being of metalanguage. For I would have to present that being as subsisting by itself, all alone, like the language of being.

只因为我曾经写过一些充当语言的形式的功用的文章,並不因此意味着,我确定有形上语言的这个实存。因为我将必须呈现那个实存,当着是单独存在,完全是单独,就像是实存的语言。

Mathemathical formalization is our goal, our ideal. Why? Because it alone is matheme, in other words, it alone is capable of being integrally transmitted. Mathematical formalization consists of what is written, but it only subsists if I employ, in presenting it, the language I make use of. Therein lies the objection: no formalization of language is transmissible without the use of language itself. It is in the very act of speaking that I make this formalization, this idea metalanguage, ex-sist. It is in this respect that the symbolic cannot be confused with being—far from it. Rather, it subsists qua ex-sistence with respect to the act of speaking. That is what I stressed, in my texts called ‘ L’Etourdit,’ by saying that the symbolic bears only ex-sistence.

数学的公式化是我们的目标,我们的理想。为什麽?因为只有数学的公式是数的演算,换句话说,只有它能够完整地演算。数学的公式化由书写过的内容组成,但是只有当我运用我使用的语言来呈现它,它才会生存。矛盾的地方就在此,假如没有语言本身的使用,没有一个语言的公式化能够被演算。就在言说的过程中,我制作这个公式,这个理想的形上语言存在於外面。就是这一点,符号象征无法跟生命的实存混为一谈,根本无法。相反地,就言说的过程而言,符号象征的存在是作为外面的存在。那就是我所强调的,在我被称为「名牌香水」的文本里,我说过:符号象征只具有外面的存在。

In what respect? This is one of the essential things I said last time—analysis can be distinguished from everything that was produced by discourse prior to analysis by the fact that it enunciates the following, which is the very backbone of my teaching—I speak without knowing it. I speak with my body and I do so unbeknownst to myself.
Thus I always say more than I know.

在那一方面?这就是我上一次所说的最根本的事情之一。精神分析学的真理论述,截然不同於从早先於精神分析学之前的真理论述所产生的一切论述。我的论述的教导的骨幹,它的表达如下:我言说时,自己並不知道。我用我的身体来言说,我这样做时,我自己並不知道。因此,我总是言说超过我所知。

This is where I arrive at the meaning of the word “ subject” in analytic discourse. What speaks without knowing it makes me “ I,” subject of the verb. That doesn’t suffice to bring me into being. That has nothing to do with what I am forced to put in being—enough knowledge for it to hold up, but not one drop more.

这就是精神分析的真理论述里,我到达「生命的主体」的意义的地方。当我言说时,我自己並不知道,这个事实使我成为动词的主词的「我」。这样还不足够使我成为生命的实存。这跟我不得不充实我生命的实存根本没有关系。这只是使我知道要去充实它,但是並不就是已经充实。

That is what was hitherto called form. In Plato work, form is the knowledge that fills being. Form doesn’t know any more about it than it says. It is real in the sense that it holds being in its glass, but it is filled right to the brim. Form is the knowledge of being. The discourse of being presumes that being is, and that is what holds it.

那就是迄今我们所谓的形式。在柏拉图的着作里,形式是充实生命实存的知识。形式並不知道自己的言外之意。形式的真实性在於它将生命的实存包容在它的容器里。形式是生命实存的知识。生命实存的真理论述预先假定:生命的实存存在,那就是存在於包容它的容器里。

There is some relationship of being that cannot be known. It is that relationship whose structure I investigate in my teaching, insofar as that knowledge—which, as I just said, is impossible—is prohibited thereby. This is where I play on an equivocation—that impossible knowledge is censored or forbidden, but isn’t if you write “ inter-dit” appropriately—it is said between the words, between the lines. We have to expose the kind of real to which it grants us access.

有某些的生命实存的关系,无法被人知道。那就是我的教学所研究的结构,我曾经说过,那要进入那个个知识是不可能,因为它在那里受到禁止。这就是我有时不得不含混其辞的地方。那个不可能进入的知识一再被检查,或是被禁止。但是如果你懂得标示它的禁忌,它又有灰色地带的空间。你可以透个字里行间,意在言外地表达。我们必须将我们得以窥探的这个真实界显露出来。

We have to show where the shaping of that metalanguage—which is not, and which I make ex-sist—is going. Something true can still be said about what cannot be demonstrated. It is thus that is opened up that sort of truth, the only truth that is accessible to us and that bears on, for example, the non-savoir-faire.

我们必须显示,那个並不存在,或我将它列为外在存在的形上语言,它的形成会引导我们去哪里。有些东西,我们无法证明,但是我们依旧能够说出它是真实的。那种的真理论述就是以这种方式展开。这是唯一我们得以进入的真理论述,而进入它的要件之一,是「没有机心造作」。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Encore 407 再来一次

July 13, 2010

Encore 407
再来一次

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

On the Baroque 07
论巴洛克风格

To once and for all put end to this business about the true religion, I will while there is still time, point out that God is manifested only in writings that are said to be sacred. Sacred in what respect? In that they don’t stop repeating the failure—read Salomon, the master of masters, the master of feeling, someone of my own ilk—the failure of the attempts made by a wisdom tradition to which being is supposed to testify.

为了一劳永逸地解决真实宗教的事情,趁还有一点时间,我先指出,上帝存在的证明,只出现在据说是神聖的着作里。在哪一方面神聖?在於,他们从来没有停止重复失败。请阅读「索罗门王书」,这位主子中的主子,这位真情洋溢的主子,这位我的难兄难弟,智慧的传统屡次使他成为失败者,这样被认为是在考验他的真实生命。

None of that implies that there weren’t things from time to time thanks to which jouissance—without it, there could be no wisdom—could believe that it had reached the goal of satisfying the thought of being. But that goal has never been satisfied, except at the price of a castration.

没有一样智慧的传统暗示着,有时候,会有一些事情,让欢爽能够相信,它已经达到满足存在生命的思想,因为假如没有欢爽,就不可能有智慧的意义。问题是,那个目标从来没有被达到,除了以被阉割作为代价。

In Taoism, for example—you don’t know what it is, very few do, but I have worked at it, by reading the texts, of course—this is clear in the very practice of sex. In order to feel good, one must withhold one’s cum. Buddhism is the trivial example by its renunciation of thought itself. What is best in Buddhism is Zen, and Zen consists in answering you by barking, my little friend. That is what is best when one wants, naturally, to get out of this infernal business, as Freud called it.

例如,在真理之道里,你不知道那是什麽,也很少人知道那是什麽。但是我曾经从事这个研究,当然是以阅读文本的方法,在性爱的实践方面,这是显而易见的。为了修心养性,我们必须戒除性的妄念。佛教是最常见的例子,它甚至自己的思想都要摒弃。佛的最高境界是禅,禅甚至学狗吠叫来回答你,我的朋友。那是最佳的表现,当我们很自然想要摆脱炼狱一般的烦恼,如佛洛伊德所说。

The fantasizing of antiquity, mythology as you call it—Claude Levi-Straus also called it by that name—of the Mediterranean region—which is precisely the one we don’t touch because it’s the most profuse and, above all, because such a big to-do has been made of it that one no longer knows by what strand to approach it—mythology has also come to something in the form of psychoanalysis.

地中海地区的古代的幻想,或如你所称呼的希腊神话,列文、史特劳斯也这样称呼,那确实是我们没有碰触到,因为内涵极其丰富,因为各家的解释纷纭,所以我们不知道根据怎样的脉络去接近它。神话的形式跟精神分析学有几分类似。

There were shovelfuls of gods—all one had to do was find the right one. Which led to this contingent thing that is such that sometimes, after an analysis, we manage to achieve a state in which a guy correctly fucks his “ one gal”. They were gods all the same, that is, rather consistent representations of the Other. Let us pass over here the weakness of the analytic operation.

神话里的神的名称很多,我们只必须做的就是选择合适的一位。这导致因缘的机契,以致於有时候,经过精神分析後,我们成功地发现到一种状态,有人在跟他的「心目中的神作爱交会」。他们仍然都是神,换句话说,他们是大他者的长驻的代表。在此,我们暂且不去论述精神分析经验所发现的人性的弱点。

Oddly enough, that is so completely compatible with Christian belief that we saw a renaissance of polytheism during the era known by the same name.

怪異的是,那跟基督教的信仰是完全和谐的,我们看到一种多神教的复兴,在我们知道的那个时代。

I am telling you all that precisely because I just got back from the museums, and because the Counter-Reformation was ultimately a return to the sources and the baroque the parading thereof.

我现在告诉你们这些,主要是因为我刚刚从博物馆回来,也因为反对宗教改革的风潮,最后回答那些嘉华年会般的巴洛克浮誇的风格及来源。

The baroque is the regulating of the soul by corporal radioscopy.

巴洛克风格以肉体的放纵,来规范灵魂。

I should sometime—I don’t know if I’ll ever have the time—speak of music, in the margins. For the time being, I am only speaking of what we see in all the churches in Europe, everything attached to the walls, everything that is crumbling, everything that is delirious. It is what I earlier called obscenity, but exalted.

不知道我是否还有足够时间,但是我应该有时候也顺便谈一下音乐。目前,我只是谈到我们在欧洲的各个教堂的目睹,跟教堂壁画有关的一切,跟逐渐没落的一切,跟令人興奮的一切。这就是我早先所称呼的低俗,但是又令人狂喜。

I wonder what effect this flood of representations of martyrs must have on someone who comes from backwoods China. That formulation can be revered—those representations are themselves martyrs. You know that “ martyr” means witness—of a more or less pure suffering. That was what our painting was about, until the slate was wiped clean when people began to seriously concern themselves with little squares.

我想要知道,这种殉道者的风潮对於来自偏远的中国的某个人,会有怎样的影响。那种构想是值得崇敬的,那些本身就是殉道者的符号象征。你们知道,「殉道者」的意思是,亲眼见证到相当纯洁的痛苦。那就是我们的图画的意涵,一直到人们开始认真地关心到小壁画方块,版画才被清除乾净。

There is a reduction of the human species here—that word, “ human”, resounds like “ unhealthy humor”, and there is a remainder that creates “ misfortune”. That reduction is the term by which the Church intends to carry the species—that’s the word for it—right up to the end of time. And it is so well grounded in the gap peculiar to the sexuality of speaking beings that it risks being at least as well grounded, let’s say—because I don’t want to give up on anything—as the future of science.

在此,人类的种族被大为削减。「人」这个字,听起来像是「心态很不健康」,宛似都是一些創造「不幸」的剩余的人。那种削减,就是教堂打算用来传递种族的术语。就是那个用词,一直到那个世纪末。它是如此的根深砥固,在人作为言说的生命主体的性爱,所特有的鸿沟那里,以致於它自己作为科学的未来,也有因此根深砥固的危险,容我们这样说,因为我不想要规避任何问题。

The Future of Science is the title of a book by that other priestling named Ernest Renan, who was also an all-out servant of the truth. He only required one thing of truth—but it was absolutely capital, failing which, he panicked—that it have no consequence whatsoever.

「科学的未来」是另一位名叫欧尼、惹安的牧师所写的一本书的书名、他也是一位对於真理的信仰虔诚贯注的奴僕。他对於真理只要求一件事,但那绝对是非常重要的事。那件事一但崩塌,他会陷入驚慌。但是这件事根本也没有什麽结果。

The economy of jouissance is something we can’t yet put our fingertips on. It would be of some interest if we managed to do so. What we can see on the basis of analytic discourse is that we may have a slight chance of finding out something about it, from time to time, by pathways that are essentially contingent.

欢爽的经济学是我们目前还不能够掌握的东西。假如我们有朝一日能够掌握,那该是多麽有趣的事。根据精神分析真理论述的基础,我们所能够看到的是,有时候,我们可能会有一点希望,找出它的奥妙,经由本质上是巧合的途径。

If my discourse today hadn’t been absolutely and entirely negative, I would tremble at having lapsed into philosophical discourse. Nevertheless, since we have already seen several wisdom traditions that have lasted quite a while, why shouldn’t we find, with analytic discourse, something that gives us a glimpse of something precise? After all, what is energetics if it is not also a mathematical thing? The analytic thing will not be mathematical. That is why the discourse of analysis differs from scientific discourse.

即使我今天的真理论述不是绝对及全然的悲观,我还是不免震惊,自己滔滔不绝地陷入这种哲学的真理论述。可是,因为我们已经见识过好几个历史悠久的智慧的传统,我们难道不是也应该用我们精神分析的真理论述,找到某件可以让我们瞥见準确的方向?畢竟,什麽叫着生命精力学?难道它就不能像数学般一清二楚吗?精神分析学就是无法像数学一般地公式化。那就是为什麽,精神分析的真理论述不同於科学的真理论述。

Well, let us leave that chance to lady luck—encore.

让我们将那个几会留给女性的偶然的高潮,再来一次!

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Encore 406 再来一次

July 13, 2010

Encore 406
再来一次

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

On the Baroque 06
论巴洛克风格

I’m going to add a little more frosting on the Christ, because he is an important personage, and because it fits into my commentary on the baroque. It’s not without reason that people say that my discourse has something baroque about it.

我将替基督耶稣稍微增加一点润饰,因为他是一位重要的人物,他跟我对於巴洛克风格的评述若合符节。人们说,我的真理论述有一点巴洛克的浮誇风格,不是没有道理。

I am going to raise a question—of what importance can it be in Christian doctrine that Christ have a soul? That doctrine speaks only of the incarnation of God in a body, and assumes that the passion suffered in that person constituted another person’s jouissance. But there is nothing lacking here, especially not a soul.

我将提出一个问题:基督教的教义认为,耶稣基督应该拥有一个灵魂,是非常重要的吗?那个教义只提到,上帝具体显现到一个人的身上,並且认为,那个人所遭受的激情的痛苦,构成另一个人的欢爽。但是,这里没有什麽欠缺,特别並没有欠缺灵魂。

Christ, even when resurrected from the dead, is valued for his body, and his body is the means by which communion in his presence is incorporation—oral drive—with which Christ’s wife, the Church as it is called, contents itself very well, having nothing to expect from copulation.

耶稣基督因为他的身体而受到推崇,即使当他从死者复活。他的身体是一个工具,作为他在现场时与人交会与融合的证明。他的妻子,也就是所谓的教会,非常满足於这种口腔驱力的发挥,因为它除了这样的言语交流外,别无其它期望。

In everything that followed from the effects of Christianity, particularly in art—and it’s in this respect that I coincide with the “ baroquism” with which I accept to be clothed—everything is exhibition of the body evoking jouissance—and you can lend credence to the testimony of someone who has just come back from an orgy of churches in Italy—but without copulation. If copulation isn’t present, it’s no accident. It’s just as much out of place there as it is in human reality, to which it nevertheless provides sustenance with the fantasies by which that reality is constituted.

跟随基督教的影响而来的一切,特别是在艺术方面,就是在这一方面,我刚好跟「巴洛克的浮誇风格」若合符节。以这样的风格,我接受人家的装扮,一切的装扮都是为了展现召唤欢爽的身体。假如你曾经看见过一位从义大利的教堂的嘉华年会回来,但是灵魂却毫无交会的人,你就会对於这样的装扮仪式备加推崇。假如现场並没有什灵魂的交会,那不是什麽意外的事。灵魂的交会在那里是不合时宜,正如在人类的现实世界,可是,它提供一个幻见的维持,以为灵魂的交会是可能的,现实世界就是这样形成。

Nowhere, in any cultural milieu, has this exclusion been admitted to more nakedly. I will even go a bit further—don’t think I don’t mete out what I say to you—I will go so far as to tell you that nowhere more blatantly than in Christianity does the work of art as such show itself as what it has always been in all places—obscenity.

将灵魂的交会排除在外,毫无掩饰地公开承认,没有任何一个文化的氛围,更胜过这里。我甚至还要继续说下去,你们不要以为我是信口开河,我要继续告诉你们,自古以来,艺术作品将自己作贱得如此低俗,没有一个地方,像在基督教里面,表现得如此明目张胆。

The dit-mension of obscenity is that by which Christianity revives the religion of men. I’m not going to give you a definition of religion, because there is no more a history of religion than a history of art. “ Religion,” like “ the arts,” is nothing but a basket category, for there isn’t the slightest homogeneity therein.

低俗的淋漓尽致,是基督教用来复活人的宗教的策略。我现在姑且就不替宗教下个定义了,因为没有什麽宗教的历史,正如没有什麽艺术的历史。「各种宗教」,正如「各种艺术」,仅仅是一篮子的分类,因为里面根本就没有什麽同质性的一贯之道。

But there is something in the utensils people keep fabricating to one-up each other. What is at stake, for those beings whose nature it is to speak, is the urgency constituted by the fact that they engage in amorous diversions in ways that are excluded from what I could call “ the soul of copulation,” were it conceivable, in the sense that I gave earlier to the word “ soul,” namely, what is such that it functions. I dare to prop up with this word that which—effectively pushing them to it if it were the soul of copulation—could be elaborated by what I call a physics, which in this case is nothing other than the following: a thought that can be presupposed in thinking.

但是,在这些器皿里,人们继续不断地编造某件东西,来互相比较谁优谁劣。因为那些人的天性,本来是作为言说的生命主体,对他们岌岌可危的是这个迫不及待的事实:他们要从事感情的交往,进行的方式,却是将我所谓应该可以想像得到的「灵魂的交会」排除在外,而「灵魂」这个字的意义跟它所行使的功用,我早先已经说过了。若是将「灵魂的交会」这个字作廣义的解释,容我冒昧使用它来支持我所谓物理学所建构的看法。在这个情况,物理学仅仅就是以下的东西:一种在思想中,预先假定的思想。

There is a hole there and that hole is called the Other. At least that is what I felt I could name it, the other qua locus in which speech, being deposited—pay attention to the resonances here—founds truth and, with it, the pact that makes up for the non-existence of the sexual relationship, insofar as it would be conceptualized, in other words, something that could conceivably be conceptualized, and that discourse would not be reduced to beginning solely from semblance—if you remember the title of one of my seminars.

在此,有一个空洞,那个空洞被称为「大他者」。至少,那是我感觉我能够为它正名。当大他者作为真理的轨迹,人的言说由於被虚悬起来,只能注意这里的一些共鸣。大他者創建真理论述,随后,再签定盟約,用来彌補灵魂的交会作为性关系的不存在,把彼此的交往概念化。换句话说,变成可以想像得到的概念化。这样,那种真理论述就不会沦落到要仅仅从外表的类似开始。假如你们还记得,我有一次讲座的名称是:真理论述不是建立於外表的类似。

The fact that thought moves in the direction of a science only by being attributed to thinking—in other words, the fact that being is presumed to think—is what founds the philosophical tradition starting from Parmenides. Parmenides was wrong and Heraclitus was right. That is clinched by the fact that, in fragment 93, Heraclitus enunciates “ he neither avows nor hides, he signifies”—putting back in its lace the discourse of the winning side itself—in other words, the winner—“ who prophecizes in Delphi.”

思想朝着科学方向发展,是因为我们思想的结果,这个事实,换句话说,人作为生命的存在,被认为是会思想,这是从巴门尼底斯以降,哲学被創建的原因。但是巴门尼底斯搞错了,赫拉克利图斯才是正确。底下的事实可以确证,在「思想断简95条」,赫拉克利图斯这样表达:「他既没有承认、他也没有隐藏、他发出讯息」。他将胜利者这一边的真理论述的本尊,送回宝座,成为「君王论」,换句话说,就是胜者为王,充当「爹尔菲神庙的预言者」。

You know the crazy story, the one that arouses my delirious admiration? I roll on the floor laughing when I read Saint Thomas ( Aquinas), because it’s awfully well put together. For Aristotle’s philosophy to have been reinjected by Saint Thomas into what one might call the Christian conscience, if that had any meaning, is something that can only be explained by the fact that Christians—well, it’s the same with psychoanalysis—abhor what was revealed to them. And they are right.

你们知道这个瘋狂的故事,那个引起我崇拜顶礼的故事吗?当我阅读聖、汤姆斯、阿奎那,我不禁捧腹大笑,因为那实在是太维妙维肖了。亚里斯多德的哲学,再加上聖、汤姆斯的神学,就成为我们所谓具有意义的「基督徒的良心」。我们可以藉此来解释这个事实:基督教徒,跟我们精神分析师一样,都憎恶真相的啟明。
说得一点也没有错。

The gap inscribed in the very status of jouissance qua dit-mension of the body, in the speaking being, is what re-emerges with Freud—and I’m not saying anything more than him—through the test constituted by the existence of speech. Where it speaks, it enjoys. And that doesn’t mean that it knows anything because, as far as I’ve heard, the unconscious has revealed nothing to us about the physiology of the nervous system, the process of getting a hard-on, or early ejaculation.

欢爽作为身体的既有向度的地位,在人作为言说的存在生命,会形成这样的鸿沟,佛洛伊德这里又再出现。那是透过言说的存在,组成的考验,恕我就不再多说了。可是,那並不意味着,那个鸿沟就知道什麽,因为据我所知,关於神经系统的生理学,阳具的勃起,或早泄,无意识始终没有跟我们透露任何讯息。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

On the Baroque 405

July 12, 2010

Encore 405
再来一次

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

On the Baroque 05
论巴洛克风格

It is obvious that people have nevertheless tried to do better. There is still something else prior to quantum physics—“ energetism” and the idea of homeostasis. What I called inertia in the function of language is such that all speech is an energy not yet taken up in an energetics, because that energetics is not easy to measure. Energetics means bringing out, in energy, not quantities, but numbers chosen in a completely arbitrary fashion, with which one arranges things in such a way that there is always a constant somewhere. We are forced to take up the inertia in question at the level of language itself.

显而易见,人们依旧设法要做得更好。在量子物理学之前,依旧有某件其它东西,如「生命精力学」及体内平衡学的观念。我所谓的在语言的功用中的惰性,是如此显著,所有的言说,都是一种在生命精力学里尚未被从事的精力,因为那种生命的精力不容易测量。生命精力学的意思是:精力所显露出来的不是数量,而是完全任意选择的数目。我们若是以这样的方式安排事情,在某个地方,总是会有一个固定的常数。我们不得不从语言的层次,来探讨这个受到置疑的惰性问题。

What possible relationship can there be between the articulation that constitutes language and the jouissance that reveals itself to be the substance of thought, of that thought so easily reflected in the world by traditional science? That jouissance is the one that makes it such that God is the Supreme Being and that that Supreme Being can, as Aristotle said, be nothing other than the locus in which the good of all the others is known. That doesn’t have much to do with thought—does it?—if we consider it to be dominated above all by the inertia of language.

在组成语言的表达,跟欢爽显露自己成为思想的材料之间,或是传统科学将思想轻易地反映到世界之中的欢爽之间,能够有怎样的关系可以被建立?欢爽是上帝成为最崇高的生命存在,洋洋得意的表现。如亚里斯多德所说,那个最崇高的生命存在,道道地地就是世间所知的一切品德善行运作的轨迹。那样的话,它跟思想並没有多大的关系,不是吗?尤其是,假如我们将它视为是被语言的惰性所支配。

It’s not very surprising that no one knew how to grasp or catch jouissance, how to make it squeal, by using what seems to best prop up the inertia of language, namely, the idea of a chain, in other words, bits of string—bits of string that constitute rings and hook onto each other, though we’re not too sure how.

那也就难怪,没有人知道如何去理解或捉住欢爽,如何使欢爽快乐尖叫,即使他们似乎拥有最能够支撑语言的惰性的工具,换句话说,一连串的观念,也就是说,一连串的绳环。这些绳环可以形成环圈,互相套在一起,至於如何套法,我们还不十分清楚。

I already presented this notion to you once before, and I will try to do better. Last year—I myself am surprised, as I get older, that last year’s things seem a hundred years away to me—I took as my theme a formulation that I felt I could base on the Borromean knot: “ I ask you to refuse what I offer you because that’s not in it”

以前我曾经给你们呈现这个观念,我现在要设法表达得更清楚。去年(我自己都大吃一惊,随着年岁增长,去年的事情似乎相隔百年之远),我拿一个我觉得可以根据波罗米安环结的构想来当主题:「我要求你们抛弃掉,我曾经给你们的东西,因为真实界並没有在那里。」

That formulation is carefully designed to have an effect, like all those I proffer. See “ L’Etourdit.” I didn’t say ‘ the saying remains forgotten” and so on—I said “ the fact that one says.” Similarly here, I did not say “ because that’s all it is”.

那个构想经过精心设计,为了产生效果,如同我曾经提供过的设计。看一下这个名牌「香水」,我並没有说:「格言如香水,闻过便忘掉」等等。我说的是:「我们说的话,如香水,是个事实。」同样地,在这里,我並没有说:「真实界都在我所说的话里。」

“ That’s not it” is the very cry by which the jouissance obtained is distinguished from the jouissance expected. It is here that what can be said in language is specified. Negation certainly seems to derive therefrom. But nothing more.

「真实界没有在那里」,是一声驚叫,显示我们得到的欢爽,迴然不同於我们所预期的欢爽。就是在这里,语言所能表达的内涵,已经明确道出。否定的表达技巧似乎起源於这里。但是,也仅是如此而已。

Structure, which connects up here, demonstrates nothing if not that it is of the same text as jouissance, insofar as, in marking by what distance jouissance misses—the jouissance that would be in question if “that were it”—structure does not presuppose merely the jouissance that would be it, it also props up another.

在这里作为连接的结构,仅仅证明一件事:结构跟欢爽是属於相同的文本,因为欢爽所漏失的距离被标示在这里。假如「真实界就是在这里」,那欢爽将会受到置疑,因为结构並不预先假定只有欢爽在里面,它也支撑另外的东西。

Voila. This dit-mension—this dit-mension is Freud’s saying.

「重复」。这个重复,这个重复就是佛洛伊德的箴言。

Indeed, that is the proof of Freud’s existence—in a certain number of years we will need one. Earlier I associated him with a little friend, Christ. The proof of Christ’s existence is obvious: it’s Christianity. Christianity, in fact, is attached to it. Anyway, for the time being, we have the Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality that I asked you to look at, because I will have to use it again concerning what I call le derive to translate Trieb, the drift of jouissance.

的确,这是佛洛伊德存在的证据,未来某些年後,我们将需要新的啟蒙人物。早先,我把这个啟蒙人物跟跟我的朋友,基督耶稣,联想在一起。耶稣的存在是显而易见的。那是基督教的关系。事实上,基督教跟耶稣紧连在一起。无论如何,目前,我们有佛洛伊德的「性学理论的三篇论文」,我要求你们看一看,因为我将必须用到它,关於我所说的似曾相识,翻译成为「邂逅」,欢爽的飘浮。

All of that, I insist, is precisely what was covered over during the whole of philosophical antiquity by the idea of knowledge.

我坚决认为,所有这些确实是全部古代哲学史的知识观念,所涵盖的内容。

Thank God, Aristotle was intelligent enough to isolate in the intellect agent what is at stake in the symbolic function. He simply saw that the symbolic is where the intellect must act. But he wasn’t intelligent enough—because he hadn’t benefited from Christian revelation—to think that speech, even his own, by designating the νουδthat is based only on language, concerns jouissance, the latter nevertheless being designated metaphorically throughout his work.

谢天谢地,亚里斯多德有足够的智慧,将符号功能岌岌可危的内容,孤立於知识的代理人之外。他仅仅看到,这个符号是知识份子必须採取行动的地方。但是,他的智慧犹有不足,因为他始终没有从基督教的啟示得到利益。他没有想到,言说,即使是自己的言说,建立在语言之上的字,都跟欢爽有密切关系。而欢爽在他的全部的著作里,都是用比喻的方式表达出来。

The whole business of matter and form—what a lot of old claptrap it suggests concerning copulation! It would have allowed him to see that that’s not it at all, that there isn’t the slightest knowledge ( connissance), but that the jouissance that prop up the semblance thereof are something like the spectrum of white light—on the sole condition that one see that the jouissance at stake is outside the field of that spectrum.

这完全是材料跟形式的问题。关於两者的交会,古代就有许多锦囊妙计可以使用。他本来能够看得出来,情形不是那样。这根本跟知识的问题无关,而是支撑外表相似的内在欢爽,看起来有一点像是白色光的光谱,只有一种可能的状况,看到欢爽岌岌可危的人,站在那个光谱的领域之外。

It’s a question of metaphor. Regarding the status of jouissance, we must situate the false finality as corresponding to the pure fallacy of a jouissance that would supposedly correspond to the sexual relationship. In this respect, all of the jouissances are but rivals of the finality that would be constituted if jouissance had the slightest relationship with the sexual relationship.

这是一个比喻的问题。关於欢爽的地位,我们必须将虚假的最后定论,定位在跟欢爽的纯粹谬误相一致。那个谬误认为欢爽是跟性的关系相一致。在这一方面,所有的欢爽恰恰就是跟那虚假的定论背道而驰。假如欢爽跟性的关系有任何关系的话,那个虚假的定论才能成立。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Encore 404

July 12, 2010

Encore 404
再来一次

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

On the Baroque 04
论巴洛克风格

The soul—you have to read Aristotle—is obviously what the winning thoughts leads to.

关於灵魂,你必须阅读亚里斯多德。显而易见,灵魂是胜利者的思想导致的结果。

It is all the more necessary—that is, it doesn’t stop being written—since what the thought in question elaborates are thoughts about ( sur) the body.

它的存在因此更加需要,换句话说,灵魂並没有停止被书写,因为受到置疑的思想所精心构想的一切,就是有关身体的思想。

The boy should impress you more. In fact, that is what impresses classical science—how can it work like that? A body, yours or any other one besides, a roving body, must suffice unto itself. Something made me think of it, a little syndrome that I saw emerge from my ignorance, and that I was reminded of –if it so happened that one’s tears dried up, the eye wouldn’t work very well anymore. I call such things miracles of the body. That can be grasped immediately. What if the lachrymal gland didn’t cry or drip anymore? You would run into trouble.

身体应该让你印象更为深刻。事实上,那是古典的科学感到印象深刻的地方。那是如何运作呢?身体,无论是你的,或是任何其它人的,一个会走动的身体,本身必须是自给自足的。只要发生状况,就会使我想到它,例如,我看到一个小病癥因为我的无知而出现,我就会想到我的身体。假如我的眼泪乾涸了,我的眼睛就无法发挥功用。我称这样的事情为身体的奇迹。它马上就能让人理解。万一我的眼泪腺不再让我哭,或掉出眼泪,怎麽办?我可是遭遇到麻烦了。

On the other hand, the fact is that it snivels, and why the devil does it when, corporally, imaginarily or symbolically, someone steps on your foot? Someone affects you—that’s what it’s called. What relation is there between that sniveling and the fact of parrying the unexpected, in other words, getting the hell out of there ( se barrer)?
That’s a vulgar formuation, but it says what it means, because it precisely re-converges with the barred subject ( sujet barrer ), some consonance of which you hear therein. Indeed, the subject gets the hell of there ( se barre), as I said, and more often than it is his turn to do so.

在另一方面,事实的真相是,假如有人踩住你的脚,不管是实质上、想像上、或符号上,你的眼泪会呜咽而泣。有人影响到你,我们可以这样说。在呜咽而泣跟躲开意外之间,换句话说,跟禁制一切的麻烦之间,有怎样的关系?这样的构想容或低俗,但是它的意思表达得很清楚,因为它确实让被禁制的生命主体重新回到本身。你会听到你身体内的和谐回应。的确,生命的主体禁制它自己,如我所说的,往往还没有轮到自己时,它就自动先禁制。

Observe here simply that there are many advantages to unifying the expression for the symbolic, imaginary, and the real—I am saying this to you in parentheses — as Aristotle did, who did not distinguish movement from αλλομοηξ. Change and motion in space were for him—though he didn’t realize it—the fact that the subject gets the hell out of there. Obviously Aristotle didn’t have the true categories, but, all the same, he sensed things very well.

在此,请观察一下,将符号界、想像界、及真实界的表达,统一来看,会有许多优点。我现在这样说,略有保留,如亚里斯多德一样。他並没有将动作跟希腊文所说的「变化」区别开来。虽然他自己没有体会到,对他而言,变化跟动作都是这个事实:生命的主体想要禁制一切的麻烦。显而易见的,亚里斯多德並没有将它们真正的分类,但是,它们的差異,他仍然觉察得出来。

In other words, what is important is that all that hang together well enough for the body to subsist, barring any accident, as they say, whether external or internal. Which means that the body is taken for what it presents itself to be, an enclosed body ( un corpi ferme).

换句话说,重要的是,汇聚一切力量,就是要让身体生存下去,如人们所说的,禁制任何的意外,无论外在的意外,或内在的意外。这意味着,身体被认为就是它自己呈现的内涵,一个封闭的身体。

Isn’t it plain to see that the soul is nothing other than the supposed identicalness ( identite) of the body to everything people think in order to explain it? In short, the soul is what one thinks regarding the body—on the winning side.

这难道不是再明白不过?灵魂道道地地就是对於身体假设的认同,认同人们为了要解释身体所思想的一切。总之,灵魂就是我们对於身体的思想看法,跟胜利者这一边有关。

And people are reassured by thinking that the body thinks in the same way. Hence the diversity of explanations. When it is assumed to think secretly, there are secretions. When it is assumed to think concretely, there are concretions. When it is assumed to think information, there are hormones. And still further, it gives itself over ( s’adonne) to DNA, to Adonis.

人们若是认为,身体跟思想的方式若是一致,他们就会心安理得。因此,就产生各种各样的解释。有人认为,思想属於私密,就将身体排泄的动作也视为私密。有人认为,思想要具体表现,就认为身体的病痛都会有具体原因。有人想到资讯情报,就将荷尔蒙视为是生命力的泄露。尤有甚者,还有人要分析美男子阿东尼斯的脱氧核糖核酸,找出英俊帅美的成因。

All of that to bring you to the following, which I announced at the beginning regarding the subject of the unconscious—because I don’t speak just casually, to waster my breath—it is truly odd that the fact that the structure of thought is based on language is not thrown into question in psychology. The said language—that’s the only thing that’s new in the term “ structure,” others do whatever they feel like with it, but what I point out is that—the said language brings with it considerable inertia, which is seen by comparing its functioning to sings that are called mathematical—“ mathemes”—solely because they are integrally transmitted. We haven’t the slightest idea what they mean, but they are transmitted. Nevertheless, they are not transmitted without the help of language, and that’s what makes the whole thing shaky.

我讲了老半天,就是要你们注意以下,我在开始时所宣佈的,关於无意识的主体。因为我不是要闲话家常,徒然浪费口舌。这确实很奇怪,思想的结构被建立在语言之上,这个事实竟然在心理学界没有受到怀疑。所被言说的语言,那是「结构」这个术语唯一新颖的地方,别的学者怎麽研究,暂且不管,但是我要指出的是,所被言说的语言,会带来相当多的惰性。我们比较语言的功用,跟所谓数学的符号,也就是「数号」,我们就可以看出端倪,只因为它们彼此之间,可以完整地被传递。我们根本不知道,它们是什麽意思,但是它们可以被传递。可是,假如没有语言的帮助,它们就无法传递。整件事情就这样动摇。

If there is something that grounds being, it is assuredly the body. On that score, Aristotle was not mistaken. He sorted out many of them, one by one—see his history of animals. But he doesn’t manage, if we read him carefully, to link it to his affirmation—naturally you have never read De Anima ( On the Soul), despite my supplications—that man thinks with—instrument—his soul, that is, as I just told you, the presumed mechanism on which the body is based.

假如有某件东西作为生命存在的基础,那确实就是身体。因为这样,亚里斯多德说得没错。他将许多身体分门别类,一个接一个,为了看出动物的历史。但是,假如我们仔细阅读的话,我们会发现,他並没有成功地将身体,跟对於身体的肯定,并为一谈。当然,你们可能没有读过他的「论灵魂」,儘管我恳求过好几次。上面写说:人会思想,是使用工具,也就是他的灵魂,换句话说,如同我曾告诉过你们,人会思想,是使用身体作为基础的假设中的机械结构学。

Naturally, you have to watch out. We are the ones who introduce mechanisms because of our physics—which is already, moreover, on a dead and path because, ever since the rise of quantum physics, mechanisms don’t work. Aristotle didn’t enter into the narrow straits of mechanism. This, “ man thinks with his soul” means that man thinks with Aristotle’s thought. In that sense, thought is naturally on the winning side.

当然,你们必须小心注意。因为物理学的关系,我们人类最先介绍机械结构。可是,物理学已经快走到穷途末路,因为自从量子物理学興起以来,机械结构学已经不行其道。亚里斯多德並没有进入机械结构学的狭隘的领域。因此,「人使用他的灵魂来思想」这句话的意思是:人使用亚里斯多德的思想来思想。以那个意义来说,思想当然是站在胜利者这一边。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com