sinthome 14 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 14

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 3: Wednesday16 December 1975

It is in as much as one of the two couples are distinguished from this specific knot by a different colour, to take up the term I used earlier, it is in so far as there is a link of the symptom to something particular in this set of four, it is, in a word, in as far (Fig III-7) – we do not know if it is this one or that one- it is in as much as we have a red-green couple here on the left, a blue-red here on the right, that we have a couple.

我們妨用不同顏色，將這兩對環圈之一，跟這個明確的結，區分開來，為了從事我早先用過的這個術語。這個病徵跟這個四個環圈一組的某件特別的東西有關連，總之，在遠遠的這裏（圖形III-7）。我們不知道是否就是這個或是那個，在左邊這裏，有一對紅色跟綠色的環圈，在右邊這裏，有一對藍色跟紅色的環圈。

And it is in as much as the sinthome is linked to the unconscious and that the Imaginary is linked to the Real that we are dealing with something from which the sinthome emerges.

當這個病徵跟這個無意識結合在一起，想像界跟真實界結合在一起，我們是在處理某件「病徵」出現的來處。

These are the difficult things that I wanted to state to you today.

有些困難的事情，今天我要跟你們陳述。

Assuredly this deserves a complement, the complement of the reason why here I opened up in a way the knot of three. Why did I give it the shape that you see here, which is not the circular one that is found drawn in the way that you see at the bottom (Fig II- 6).

的確，這個應該有一個補充，補充這個理由，為什麽我在此開展三個環圈的這個結。為什麽我給予你們看到的這個形狀。你們在底端看到的這個方式，並不是圓形的形狀（圖形II-6）

It results from the fact that with regard to this field, that I already, here noted as JØ, what is at stake is enjoyment (jouissance), the enjoyment not of the Other, because of the fact that I stated that (53) there is no Other of the Other, that there is nothing opposite the Symbolic, locus of the Other as such. That there is no enjoyment of the Other because there is no Other of the Other, and that this is what this Ø means.

這是因為這個事實而形成，關於這個領域，在此注明是「大它者的歡爽被禁制」的地方，岌岌可危的是歡爽，不是大它者的歡爽，因為我陳述過，這裏沒有大它者的大它者，沒有一樣東西，在意符界的對面，大它者本身的軌跡。這裏並沒有大它者的歡爽，因為沒有大它者的大它者，這就是這個「大它者的歡爽被禁制」的意思。

The result is that here J Ø, this enjoyment of the Other of the Other which is not possible for the simple reason that there is not, once what results from this that there remains only what is produced in the field, in the flattened out field of the circle of the Symbolic with the circle of the Imaginary which is meaning (fig III-8). And that on the other and what is here indicated, figured, is the relationship, is the relationship of the Symbolic to the Real in as much as from it there emerges what is described as the enjoyment of the phallus.

結果是，在此，大它者的這個歡爽是不可能存在。理由很簡單，一但這裏的結果是，只剩下這個領域所產生的東西，在這個意符界的圓圈，被想像界的圓圈處理過的領域，只剩這個意義（圖形III-8）。在另一方面，在這裏所被指示，所被描繪的，就是意符界跟真實界的關係。從那裏，所被描述為陽具的歡爽出現。

This is certainly not, in itself, enjoyment that is penile as such, but if we consider what it becomes with respect to the Imaginary, namely, the enjoyment of the double, of the specular image, of the enjoyment of the body qua Imaginary, is the support of a certain number of gaps, and properly speaking constitutes the different objects that occupy it.

就本身而言，這個確實並不是陰莖自身的歡爽。但是假如我們考慮到關於想像界，它所成為的東西，換句話說，這個雙重歡圈的歡爽，這個魅影形象的歡爽，這個身體作為想像界的歡爽，就是某些鴻溝的這個支持。適當地說，它組成的客體，跟佔有它的位置的客體，並不相同。

On the other hand, the enjoyment described as phallic is situated there, at the conjunction of the Symbolic with the Real. It is in as much that in the subject which is supported by the parlêtre in the sense that this is what I designate as being the unconscious, there is – and it is in this field that phallic enjoyment is inscribed – there
is the power, the power in short summoned, supported, the power of marrying what is involved in a certain enjoyment which, by the fact, by the fact of this word itself, marries an enjoyment experienced, experienced by the fact of the parlêtre, as a parasitic (54) enjoyment, and which is the one described as of the phallus.

在另一方面，被描述為陽具的歡爽，位在那裏，在意符界跟真實界交會的地方。被「畫板」所支持的生命的主體，這就是我指明是無意識的地方。就在這個領域，陽具的歡爽被銘記，總之，有力量被召喚，被支持，將某些歡爽所牽涉到的東西結合起來，根據這個字詞的本身，結合所經驗到的歡爽，被這個「畫板」所經驗到的歡爽，作為一種寄生的歡爽。這就是被描述為「陽具的歡爽」。

This indeed is the one that I inscribe here as a balance to what is involved in meaning, it is the locus of that which, through the parlêtre, is designated in conscience as power.

這個確實就是我所描述的歡爽，作為意義方面所牽涉到的一種平衡。透過這個「畫板」，就在這個軌跡，良心被指明是一種力量。

What dominates, to conclude with something that I suggest you should read, is the fact that the three rings participate in the Imaginary as consistency, in the Symbolic as hole, and in the Real as ex-sisting to them. The three rings then imitate one another. It is all the more difficult to do this in that they do not imitate one another simply. That by the fact of the said, they are arranged in a knot of three. Hence my concern, after having made the discovery that this knot of three was knotted in threes in a Borromean way, I affirmed that if they have preserved themselves free among
themselves, a knot of three, playing in a full application of its texture, ex-sists, which is well and truly the fourth, and which is called the sinthome. Voilà.

作為結論，我建議你們應該閱讀某件東西。重要的是，這三個環圈參與想像界，作為一致性，在意符界，作為一個空洞，在真實界，作為它們的「預先存在」。這三個環圈因此互相模仿。要互相模仿，其實是更加困難，因為它們不僅僅是互相模仿而已。根據以上所說的事實，它們是安排成以三個環圈組成一個結。因此，我的關心是，當我發現，這三個環圈所組成的一個環結，是以波洛米因結的方式，三個環圈一組所形成，我肯定，假如它們曾經維持自己的自由，在本身之內，這三個環圈組成的一個結，以充分運用它的質料來發揮，「預先存在」的，道道地地就是這第四個術語，也就是所謂的「病徵」。「滿意吧？」

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 13 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 13

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 3: Wednesday16 December 1975

And if you remember the way in which I introduced this fourth element, each one of the others is supposed to constitute something personal with respect to these three elements, the fourth will be what I am stating this year as the sinthome. It is not for
nothing that I wrote these things in a certain order: RSI, SIR, IRS, is indeed what my title last year corresponded to.

假如你記得我介紹這第四個元素的方式，每一個其他的元素被認為是組成某件個人性的東西，關於這三個元素。這第四個元素將是我今年開始作為「病徵」。我按照某種秩序寫下這些東西，不是沒有用意的：真實界、意符界、想像界，或意符界、想像界、真實界，或想像界、真實界、意符界，這確實是我去年的標題所要對應的。

It is moreover the same people, the same Soury and Thomé, I already made an allusion to it, explicitly in this seminar, highlighted that, as regards what is involved in knots, the Borromean knots in question, starting from the moment when they
are orientated and coloured, there are two of them of a different nature. What does that mean?

而且，還是相同的人們，還是相同的梭瑞及童梅，我已經提到過，明確地在這次的講座裏。我強調，關於各種環結，我們討論中的波羅米因結，所牽涉到哦，從他們被定位及被以顏色標示開始，其中有兩個不同的特色。那是什麽意思？

In the flattening out, already, it can be highlighted. Here I am abbreviating. I am simply indicating to you the sense in which one can test it. I told you about the equivalence of these three circles, of these three rings of string. It is remarkable that it is only by the fact that, not between them, there is marked the identity of any one. For the identity would be to mark them by the initial letter. To say R, I and S, is already to entitle each one, each one as such, as Real, as Symbolic and as Imaginary. But it is
notable that it appears that the efficacious thing that is distinguished among them in the orientation is only locatable from that which by the colour marks their difference.

當我們正在處理的時候，我們能夠強調它。在此我有點縮減。我僅僅跟你們指示，我們能夠用怎樣的意義測試它。我告訴你們有關這三個環圈的相等，因為顯而易見的，任何一個環圈的認同被標示，不是在彼此之間。認同將要以第一個字母來標示它們。說出R，I， S的第一個字母，代表真實界、想像界、及意符界，就已經替它們定上標題。但是值得注意的是，在定位時，這個有效的事情能夠從它們中間區別出來，位置就在我用不同的顏色，標示它們的不同。

Not from one another, but as I might say their absolute difference in that it is the
difference common to the three. It is in order that there should be something which is one, but which, as such, marks the difference between the three, but not the difference in two’s, that there appears in consequence the distinction of two structures of the
Borromean knot. Which is the true one? Is the true one with respect to what is involved in the way in which the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real are knotted together, in what supports the subject?

不是標示它們彼此的不同。但是如我所說，它們絕對的差異在於，這個不同對三個環圈而言，是共有。為了要得到某件東西可以標示這三個環圈之間的不同，而不是兩個之間的不同，結果出現了波羅米安結的兩個結構的區。哪一個區別才是真實的？想像界，意符界，及真實界被連接在一起的方式，所牽涉到的區別才是真實的嗎？是什麽在支持生命的主體？

Here is the question that deserves to be examined. You should refer to my preceding allusions about this duality of the Borromean knot in order to appreciate it. Because today I was only able to evoke it for an instant.

這個問題應該值得被審查。你們應該參照一下我前面的引述，關於波羅米因結的雙重性，為了要能夠賞識它。今天，我只能夠簡單概述一下。

There is something remarkable, which is that the knot of three, on the other hand, bears no trace of this difference. In the knot of three, namely, in the fact that we put the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real in continuity, it is not surprising that we should see in (51) it that there is only a single knot of three. I hope that there are enough people here taking notes. Because this is important. Important to suggest to you to go and verify what is at stake.

有某件引人注意的東西，在另一方面，這三個環圈的結，並沒有銘記這個不同的痕跡。在這三個環圈的結裏，換句話說，我們將想像界，意符界及真實界處於連續的狀態。所以我們在裏面看到，只有一個三個環圈的結，也就不足為奇。我希望，有足夠的人們注意。這是很重要，因為我要跟你們建議，你們自己去驗證，什麽東西岌岌可危？

Namely, specifically that as regards the knot of three that homogenises the Borromean knot, there is on the other hand, only one kind.

換句話說，關於這三個環圈的結，讓波羅米因結同質化，在另一方面，很明確的，只能有一種。

Does that mean that it is true?

那意味著，這一種才是真實的嗎？

Everyone knows there are two knots of three. There are two depending on whether it is dextrogyratory or laevogyratory. This is then a problem that I am putting to you: what is the link between these two kinds of Borromean knots and the two kinds of
knots of three?

每一個都知道，有兩種三個壞圈的結。依靠它是向右旋轉？還是向左旋轉？這正是我要跟你們提出，是什麽連接波羅米因結的這兩種結，跟三個環圈組成的兩種結？

In any case, if the knot of three is indeed the support for every kind of subject, how can it be examined? How can it be examined in such a way that it is indeed a subject that is at stake?

無論如何，假如三個環圈組成的結，確實支持每一種生命的主體，它如何能夠被審查？它如何能夠被審查，這樣它才確實是岌岌可危的生命的主體？

There was a time when I was advancing along a certain path, before I had got onto the path of analysis, it was that of my thesis: Paranoid psychosis in its relationships, I said, with the personality. If I resisted the republication of my thesis for so long, it is simply for the following reason: the fact is that paranoid psychosis and personality, as such, have no relationship; simply because of the fact that it is the same thing. In so far as a subject knots together in three, the Imaginary the Symbolic and the Real,
it is supported only by their continuity. The Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real are one and the same consistency. And it is in this that paranoid psychosis consists.

在我從事精神分析學這條途徑之前，曾經有段時間，我沿著某一條研究小徑前行。當時我的論我的論文題目是：「偏執狂精神病患及其跟人格的關係」。長久以來，我一直抗拒將我的論文重新出版，理由很簡單：偏執狂精神病患跟人格本身，沒有關係，因為它們是同一件事情。當一個生命主體以三個環圈連接在一起，想像界，意符界，及真實界，它們要有連續性，它才能受到支持。想像界，意符界，及真實界，三個環結要有一致性。偏執狂精神病患就是因此而造成。

To clearly understand what I am stating today, one could deduce from it that to the paranoid three there could be knotted, under the heading of symptom, a fourth term which would situate as such, as personality, in so far as it itself would be distinct with regard to the three preceding personalities and their symptom. Does that mean that it would also be paranoid?

為了清楚瞭解我今天所陳述的，我們能夠從這裏推論，對於偏執狂精神病患，這三個環圈能夠被連接，在病徵的標題下，有一個第四術語可以找到它的位置，那就是人格。這個術語跟三個前述的人格及它們的病徵不一樣。這意味著，它也是一種偏執狂嗎？

Nothing indicates it in the case, the case which is more than probable, which is certain, in which it is from a certain indefinite number of knots of three that a Borromean chain can be constituted. Which does not prevent that, with respect to this chain, which henceforth no longer constitutes a paranoia if only because it is common, with regard to this chain the possible flocculation of fourth terms, in this braid which is the subjective braid, the possible terminal flocculation of fourth terms leaves us with the possibility of supposing that on the totality of the texture, there are certain elective points which, are found to be (52) the limit of this knot of four.

沒有一樣東西這樣指示，在這個情形，更加可能的情形，確定的情形，一個波羅米因結的鎖鏈能夠被組成的三個環圈的結，有無數的數量。這並沒有阻礙，關於這個鎖鏈，它並不因為普偏存在，就不構成偏執狂。關於這個鎖鏈，第四個術語在最後可能會搖擺不定，使得我們有可能假定，在人作織料的整體性上，有某些選擇性的點，被發現是四個環圈的這個結的限制。

And it is indeed in this properly speaking that the sinthome consists. And the sinthome not in the phase that it is personality, but with respect to three others, it specifies itself by being symptom and neurotic. It is in as much as the sinthome specifies it, that there is a term that there is more specially attached to it which, with regard to what is involved in the sinthome, has a privileged relationship. Just as here in the knot of three knotted in a Borromean way of four, you will see that there is a particular response from the red to the brown, just as there is a particular response from the green to the black.

適當地說，「病徵」的問題確實就是在這裏。這個「病徵」不是在於它是一種人格的問題，而是在於跟其他三個環圈的問題。它藉由病徵及神經質的方式，明確指明它自己。就在「病徵」指明它的地方，有一個術語明確地跟它銜接在一起。關於這個「病徵」所牽涉到的內涵，它具有一種特權的關係。如同用四個環圈組成的波羅米因結的方式，來結合三個環圈組成的結，你們會看出，有一個特別的回應，從紅色環圈到綠色環圈，正如從綠色環圈到黑色環圈，也有一個特別的回應。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 12 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 12

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 3: Wednesday16 December 1975

What is strange, what is strange and it is on this point that I am allowing myself, finally, to betray what they have confided in me, what is strange it seems to me, is the fact that – and that gripped me given that you know what I put forward – the fact is that they told me that them made progress in it by talking among themselves. I did not make this remark to them immediately, because, in truth, this confidence seems to me to be very precious.

神奇的是，神奇的是，就在我容許自己背叛他們對我的信任，我覺得神奇的是這個事實，（假如你知道我提出的是什麽，你會知到我為什麽那麽激動），這個事實上，他們告訴我，他們是在彼此交談的時候，才豁然開朗地有了進展。我沒有要求他們馬上重述一遍，因為這種信任對我而言是珍貴的。

But it is certain that people do not usually think à deux. The fact that it should be by talking about it among themselves and that they arrive at results that are not remarkable simply by this success. For a long time what they compose about the Borromean knot seems to me to be more than, more than interesting, seems to
be an achievement. But this discovery is certainly not its crowning glory. They will make others. I will not add what Soury in particular told me about the way in which he thinks about teaching.

的確，人們通常不會想到「兩人一組」。由兩人一組互相交談，而得來的成功，不僅是這次的成就而已。長久以來，他們關於波羅米因結的製作，我覺得更加有趣，似乎是一種成就。但是這一次的發現，確實還不算是登峰造極。他們還會有其他的成就。我就不贅言，特別是梭瑞告訴我，關於他思考到教學到方式。

This is a business where I think that in following my example, the one that I qualified earlier, he will certainly acquit himself just as well as I am able to do. Namely, in the same risky way. But that this should have been conquered by such a discovery – I do not know moreover if it is especially this discovery that was conquered in dialogue – that dialogue should have proved to be especially fruitful in this domain, is altogether, I (49) may say, what confirms that I was lacking it. I mean that throughout these two months that I unceasingly worked at finding this fourth knot of three and the way in which it could be knotted in a Borromean way, I repeat, to two others, to three others, it is assuredly because I was alone in the search. I mean putting my hope in my cogitating. What matter, I will not insist. It is time to say why this research was important to me.

這件事情，我認為當我遵照我的例子，我早先描述過的例子，他確實跟我一樣，可以免除這種罪惡感，換句話說，以鋌而走險的方式。但是這樣本來應該被這樣的發現所征服。而且，我不知道，特別是這個從雙人對談中被征服的發現，是否就是肯定我正在欠缺它。在這個領域，兩人對談本來應該證明是特別有成效的，我可以這樣說。我的意思是，在這兩個月的過程，我日以繼夜地從事尋找這個三個圓環組成的第四個結，以及它能夠以波羅米因結的方式來形成結，我重複一遍，跟兩個其他的環結，跟所有其他的環結。確實是因為我孤獨地在尋找，我的意思是，我將我的希望寄託在我自己的深思熟慮上。我若不堅持，那又有什麽關係呢？現在該是我說，為什麽這個探索對我是那麽的重要。

This research was extremely important to me for the following reason: these three circles of the Borromean knot have this something which cannot fail to be retained, which is the fact that they are, all three equivalent as circles. I mean that they are
constituted by something that is reproduced in the three.

因為以下的理由，這個探討對於我是極端重要：這三個波羅米因結的環圈擁有某件一定會被保留下來的東西。事實上，它們作為環圈，都是相等的。我的意思是，組成它們的內涵，是某件在這三個環圈裏複製的東西。

It is not by chance that I especially support by the Imaginary – it is the result let us say of a certain concentration – that it should be in the Imaginary that I place the support of consistency. In the same way that it should be from the hole that I make the essential of what is involved in the Symbolic and that, by reason of the fact that the Real, precisely from the liberty of these two from the fact that the Imaginary and the Symbolic – this is the very definition of the Borromean knot – are freed one from the other, that I support what I call ex-sistence, especially from the Real. In this sense that
in-sisting outside the Imaginary and the Symbolic, it knocks, it operates very specially in something which is the order of limitation. The two others, from the moment that they are knotted in a Borromean way, the two others resist it. Namely, that the Real only has ex-sistence, and it is quite astonishing that I should formulate it like that – only has ex-sistence by encountering the arrest of the Symbolic and the Imaginary.

我特別以想像界來支持，不是偶然的。這個結果讓我們談到某一個專注。我將一致性的支持放置在想像界這裏。同樣的，我將空洞當著是意符界所牽涉到基本內涵，因為真實界能夠使想像界跟意符界互相脫離，儘管它們是自己運作，（這確實就是波羅米因結的定義）。我支持我所謂的「預先存在」，特別是因為真實界。以「內在堅持」的這個意義，在想像界及意符界的外面，真實界非常特別地以某件屬於限制的東西敲打及運作。其他的這兩個，從它們以波羅米因結的方式，被環扣在一起開始，這其他兩個就一直抗拒真實界。換句話說，真實界只有這個「預先存在」。令人驚奇的是，我竟然以這種方式詮釋真實界，因為它只有「預先存在」，會遭遇的意符界跟想像界的阻止。

Naturally, this is not a fact of simple chance. The same must be said of the two others. It is in as much as it ex-sists to the Real that the Imaginary encounters also the shock that here is better felt. Why then do I put this ex-sistence precisely there where it
seems to be most paradoxical? It is because I must indeed distribute these three modes, and that it is precisely from ex-sisting that the thinking about the Real is supported.

當然，這個事實並不是偶然發生。其他兩個道理也是一樣。正因為真實界的「預先存在」，想像界也遭遇到在此最能感受到的震撼。為什麽我將這個「預先存在」，擺置在看起來確實是最矛盾的地方？那是因為我必須分配這三個模式，確實是因為這個「預先存在」，有關真實界的構想才受到支存。

But what results from this? If not that we must conceive of these three terms as joined to one another. If they are so analogous, to employ this term, can we not suppose that it is from a continuity?

但是這樣的結果是什麽？難道不就是我們必須構想這三個術語，當著是互相連接？假如它們是如此的類同，為了使用這個術語，我們難道不能假定，這個術語是從它們延續而來？

And this is what leads us directly to making the knot of three. For there is no need to commit a lot of effort in order that, from the way in which they are in equilibrium, are superimposed on one (49) another, to join the points of what is flattened-out which will make a continuity of them.

這就是為什麽我們會直接被引導來製作這三個環圈的波羅米因結。我們沒有需要花費許多努力，為了讓它們互相重疊，因為它們本就是處於均衡的狀態，以便連接平坦的部分，使它們成為一個連續體。

But what then results from this? What results from it for that which from the knot, something that must indeed be called of the order, of the order of the subject – in as much as the subject is never but, but supposed – that which, of the order of the subject, in this knot of three, finds itself, in short, supported? Does it mean that if the knot of three is itself knotted in a Borromean way, at least in threes (à trois), that this is enough for us?

但是這樣的結果是什麽呢？從這個波羅米因結產生的結果是什麽呢？，某件必須被稱為秩序，生命主體的秩序。在這三個環圈組成的結裏，生命主體從來沒有發現自己受到支撐，但是卻以為是有受到支撐。難得這意味著，假如三個環圈組成的結，本身是以波羅米因結的方式環扣，至少是三個一組，對於我們而言，這樣就足夠了嗎？

My question bore precisely on this point.

我的問題確實跟這一點息息相關。

In a figure, a Borromean chain, does it not appear to us that the minimum is always constituted by a knot of four?

以一個圖形，一個波羅米因結的鎖鏈，我們難道不覺得，最小量的環結，總是由四個一組所形成？

I mean that it is by pulling this green cord in order for you to see that the black circle, here knotted to the red cord will be, by being pulled by this blue chord, will be, will manifest the tangible shape of a Borromean chain (Fig III-5).

我的意思是，我拉著這條綠色的線，為了讓你們看出，這個黑色的環圈，在此跟紅色的線圈連接在一起，當它被這條藍色的線拉出時，它會顯示出一個波羅米因結的具體形狀。（圖形III-5）

It seems that the least that one can expect from this Borromean chain, is this relationship of one to three others. And if we suppose, and we have the proof of it here, if we effectively think that a knot of three, for this here (Fig III-6) is no less a knot of three – that these knots will be arranged in a Borromean way with one another, we will have, we will touch on the fact that it is always from three supports that we will call, on this occasion (50) subjective, namely personal, that a fourth will be propped up.

似乎，我們至少能夠從這個波羅米因結的鎖鏈期望到，其中一個環圈跟其他三個環圈的關係。假如我們認為，並且我們擁有它的證據，假如我們有效地認為，這三個環圈組成的一個結，因為這道道地地就是三個環圈組成的一個結，這些結會以波羅米因結的方式互相安排在一起，我們將會碰觸到這個事實，總是從我們現況所謂的主觀性的，也就是個人性的三個環圈的支持，一個第四環圈將會受到支撐。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 11 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 11

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 3: Wednesday16 December 1975

If as much seriousness was put into analyses as I put in to the preparation of my seminar, well then, it would be so much the better. It would be so much the better, and it would surely have better results. For that, for that one would have to have in
analysis, as I have, as I have, but this is part of the senti-mental of which I spoke the other day, the sentiment of an absolute risk.

假如我們對於精神分析學的用心，如同我準備我的講座的用心一樣專注，那當然再好不過了。那當然是最好，而且結果也會更好。精神分析學，跟我的講座一樣，都是耗人心力。但是這樣說，又有點像我前天講的「煽情」，流於輕浮的請感。

There you are. The other day, I told you that the knot of three (à trois), the knot of three that I draw like this (Fig III-1) and which you can see is obtained from the Borromean knot by rejoining the cords at these three points that I have just marked, I told you that as regards the knot of three, I had made the discovery that they were knotted together in threes, in a Borromean way. I also told you why, as one might say, this was quite justifiable by an explanation.

你們明白。前天，我告訴你們，這三個一組的結，這個三個一組的結，我畫成這樣（圖形III-1）。你們看出，這是從波羅米因結演化而來，我在剛剛所標示的這三個點，將這些線連接起來。我告訴過你們，關於這個三個一組的結，我曾經有個發現：它們是三個一組被連結在一起，將像波羅米因結的方式。我也告訴你們為什麽，解釋起來振振有詞。

I told you that I had striven for two months to make ex-sist, for this simplest knot, a Borromean knot of four. I also told you that the fact that I had not managed to make it (44) apart from my clumsiness. I believe, I am even sure, I remember, I believe I told you that I believed that it must exist.

我告訴你們，我曾經奮鬥兩個月，才讓這四個一組的波羅米因結，這個最簡單的結，「預先存在」。我也告訴你們，我起先一直沒有辦法把它製作出來，除了我自己的笨拙外，我相信，我甚至確定，我記得我告訴過你們，我相信這個波羅米因結一定會存在。

I had that very evening the pleasant surprise of seeing appearing – it was late, I would even say that I had gone out rather late, given my obligations – I saw then appearing on my doorstep someone called Thomé, to give him his name. He was coming to bring me, and I greatly thanked him for it, he was coming to bring me, as a fruit of his collaboration with Soury – Soury and Thomé remember those names – he came to bring me the proof, the proof that the Borromean knot of four, consisting of four knots of four, did indeed exist. This assuredly justifies my stubbornness; but does not render my incapacity any less deplorable. Nevertheless I did not welcome the news that this problem had been resolved with mixed feelings. A mixture of my regret at my impotence with that of the success that had been obtained. My feelings were not that.

就在那天晚上，我驚喜萬分地看到某一位名字叫童梅的出現在我家門口，（時間很晚，我甚至要說我是很晚才要出門去辦事情），他報出他的名字。他來帶給我，我實在是很感激他，他來帶給我，他跟梭瑞合作研究的成果。請你們記住梭瑞跟童梅這兩個名字。他來帶給我這個證明，四個一組的波羅米因結的證明，由四個一組形成的四個波羅米因結，確實是存在。這確實證明我的擇善固執是有道理的，雖然我自己沒有能力發現，也沒有什麽慚愧。但是我並不接受這樣的批評，說我對於問題這種方式的解決是妒忌與歡喜參半。我對於自己沒有能力獲得這樣的成功，是難免遺憾，但是我的重點不是在那裏。

They were purely and simply of enthusiasm. And I think I showed them something of this when I saw them, some evenings later, an evening when, moreover, they were not able to give me an account of how they found it. In fact they had found it, and I hope I have not made a mistake in transcribing as I did on this central paper the fruit of their discovery. I reproduced it more or less. I mean that it is, make no mistake, textually what they developed, apart from the fact that the trajectory, the flattened-out trajectory is only slightly different. If this flattened-out trajectory is as I presented
it to you, it is so that you will be able to feel, sense perhaps a little better than in the complete figure, that you will sense perhaps a little better how it is done (Fig III-3).

他們的動機純粹是出於熱誠。我認為我給他們看某件這樣的東西，當我看到他們的時候。幾個晚上以後，有一個晚上，他們無法跟我解釋他們是如何發現這個四個一組的波羅米因結。事實上，他們已經找到了，我希望我沒有犯一個錯誤，當我將他們發現的成果，銘記在這個中間的紙張上。我將它複製起來。我的意思是，這是他們文本的發展的內容，不要弄錯了，除了這個事實，這個軌道，這個被清理過的軌道，只是稍微的不同。假如這個清理過的軌道，是如同我呈現給你們的一樣，你們將會感覺到，比在完整的圖形，感覺得更好，你們對於它被處理的方式，感覺得更好。（圖形III-3）

I think that, at the sight of this figure, I hope, everyone can see, see that, if we suppose for example that the knot of three here, in black, the black triple knot being elided, it appears quite clear that the three other knots of three are free. It is quite clear, in effect, that the green knot of three is under the red knot of three; that it is enough to take this green knot of three out of the red, in order that the brown knot of three, here, also shows itself to be free.

我認為，第一眼看到這個人，我希望每一個人都能看到，例如假如我們認為這三個一組的結，用黑色，黑色的三倍的結被刪掉，這會顯而易見，這三個一組的其他三個結都會鬆開。事實上，這是顯而易見的，三個當中的這個綠色的結，是在三個一組的紅色的結的下面。我們只要將綠色的這個結，從紅色的那個結拿開，為了讓三個一組的棕色的結，也顯示它自己也是鬆開自由。

I saw Soury and Thomé for a long while. As I told you, they did (46) not confide in me how they had got it. I think moreover that there is not just one way. That there is not just this one. And perhaps I will show you the next time how, again, one can obtain it. I would like all the same to commemorate this tiny event, an event moreover that I consider not to be tiny, and I am going to tell you why afterwards, in other words why I was searching, I want to commemorate our encounter a little more.

我認識梭瑞跟童梅有一段長時間了。如我所說，他們並沒有告訴我他們是如何得到這四個一組的波羅米因結。而且我認為，解決的方法不僅一種。不僅只有這一種。或許，下一次我會顯示給你們看，我們如何得到它。我仍然想要慶祝這個小的事件，而且我認為這個事件非同小可。以後我會告訴你們為什麽，換句話說，為什麽我一直在尋找。我想要稍微慶祝我們的邂逅。

I believe that the support for this research is not what Sarah Kofman in a book, in a book, in a remarkable article in which she contributed, a remarkable article that she calls Vautour Rouge and which is nothing other than a reference to the Devil’s Elixir celebrated by Freud. A reference that she takes up again, that she takes up again after having already mentioned it once in her four analytic novels, a book, an entire book by her. This does not prevent me recommending you to read this Mimesis which appears to me, with her five other collaborators, to realise something remarkable.

我相信，對於這個研究的支持，並不就是薩拉、寇門在一本書，一篇她所寫的傑出的文章，一篇傑出的文章，她稱為「妝容術」，那裏提到的道道地就是佛洛伊德所稱頌的「惡魔的鍊金藥」。她再一次研究的東西，雖然她在四篇精神分析的小說中已經提到過，那是一本書，她寫的一本書。除外，我還要推薦你們閱讀這個我拿到的「模擬術」，她跟其他五位合作者，發現某件傑出的東西。

I must tell you the truth, I only read the article of the first, the third and the fifth, because by reason of the preparation for this seminar, I had other fish to fry. I believe nevertheless that Mimesis is very much worthwhile reading. The first article which concerns, which concerns Wittgenstein and, let us say, the fuss his teaching has
created, is altogether remarkable. I read that one from beginning to end.

我必須告訴你們真相。我只是閱讀第一篇、第三篇、及第五篇的文章，因為要準備這個講座的材料。我還有其他的問題要處理。可是，我相信「模擬術」是很值得閱讀的。第一篇文章談論到維根思坦，我們不妨說，他的數理邏輯的教學引起的騷動，是非常引人注意的。那一篇，我從頭讀到尾。

Nevertheless, I should say that this geometry which is that of knots, which I told you manifests an altogether specifically original geometry, is something that exorcises this uncanny. There is here something specific. The uncanny unquestionably pertains to the Imaginary. But that there should be something which allows it to be exorcised is assuredly strange of itself.

可是，我應該說的是，這個環結的幾何學，我告訴過你們，證明是非常明確是原創性的幾何學，它讓某些的神秘驅除開朗。在此是某件明確的東西。無可置疑的，神秘是屬於想像界的東西。但是應該有某件東西，容許神秘被驅除開朗，這個東西本身就是神奇。

To specify where I would put what is at stake, it is somewhere around there [Fig III-4, first double stroke indicated by the arrow].

為了明確指明我所謂的岌岌可危的地方，它就在那裏的某個地方（圖形III-4，箭頭指示的第一道的兩劃。）

(47) I mean that it is in as much that the Imaginary is deployed in the style of two circles, which can also be noted by a drawing, and I will say that a drawing notes nothing, in so far as the flattening out of it remains enigmatic. It is in as much as here, joined to the Imaginary of the body, something like a specific inhibition which
would be characterised especially by the uncanny that, provisionally, at least, I will allow myself to note what is involved, as regards its place, in the aforesaid strangeness. The resistance the imagination experiences in thinking about what is involved in this new geometry is something that strikes me, since I have
experienced it.

我的意思是，想像界被運用在兩個圓圈的方式，我們用一個圖形顯示。我的說法是，一個圖形並沒有告訴我們什麽，因為它攤開的東西始終是一個謎團。就在這裏，跟身體的想像界接合的地方，某件像是明確被壓抑的東西，其特徵特別就是神秘。至少，暫時我會容許我自己注意到裏面所牽涉到的，關於它的位置，就是我們前面提到的「神奇感」。當我們在思考這個新的幾何學所牽涉的東西，想像所經歷到的抗拒，是某件給我印象深刻的東西，因為我自己曾經有過這樣的經驗。

The fact that Soury and Thomé should have been – I am daring to say it, even though after all, I have not had this testimony from them – should have been especially captivated, it seems to me by what in my teaching, was led to explore, to explore under the influence, under the impact of what was imposed on me by the conjunction of the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real, that they should have been very specially caught by what must indeed be called this lucubration of mine, is something which is certainly not pure chance. Let us say that they are gifted for this type of thing.

梭瑞跟童梅本來應該會被這個神奇感所迷惑，（容我大膽地說，即使我並沒有從他們得到這個證詞）。我覺得，我的教學所要探討的，在這個神奇感到影響下探討，在想像界，意符界，及真實界結合的地方，所賦予我的影響下探討，以我所謂的辛勤用功，它們本來應該被我捕捉住，這確實不是機緣巧合。我們不妨說，他們兩位天資聰敏，適合從事這樣的發現。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 09 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 09

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵
II. Seminar 2: Wednesday 9 December 1975

I am waiting from you what I received, what I received more easily than elsewhere in America, namely, that someone would ask me, in connection with today, a question, whatever it may be. Even if it should show that in my discourse, my discourse today, a discourse that I will take up the next time in tackling the fact that Joyce finds
himself in a privileged way to have aimed by his art at the fourth term, the one that in different ways you see figured there (Fig II-2).

我期待從你們那裏得到我所收到的。我從你們那裏得到的，比在美國的其他地方更加容易。換句話說，某個人會問我一個跟今天有關的問題，不管那是怎樣的問題。即使這個問題顯示，在我的真理論述，我今天的真理論述，我下一次將從事的真理論述，來處理這個事實，喬埃斯發現他自己處於一個特權的方式，憑藉他的文學才藝，目標朝著這第四個術語，這個術語的圖形，你們看到，以不同方式呈現在那裏。（圖形II-2）

Whether it is a matter of the red ring which is at the very end, on (35) the right, or whether it is a matter moreover of the black ring here, or whether it is a matter again of this (Fig II-14), which you see is again in a particular fashion, particular in that it is always the same folded circle that is found here, in a special position, namely
bent twice. Namely taken, taken in a corresponding way, that is imaged more or less in this way, taken four times, as one might say, with itself. This effectively permits it to be seen that just as here each of these circles corner (coincent) twice the buckle
figured by this folded circle, here, on the other hand, this little circle, or the green circle, for example, the one here, or the blue circle [probably red] corners it four times. Since moreover, what is essentially at stake is cornering.

無論是處於右邊末端的紅色環圈，或是這裏的黑色環圈，或是否是這個環圈（圖形II-14），你們看出，那是特別的方式，特別的地方在於它總是相同的折疊的圓圈，在那裏被找到，以一個特別的位置，換句話說，彎曲兩次。換句話說，它以對應的方式被接納，差不多是以這種方式被反映，被自身接納四次，我們可以這樣說。這樣可以讓它有效地被看見，如同在這裏，這些圓圈的每一個，兩次轉過這個折疊環圈形成的環扣，這裏的這個，或是藍色環圈（可能是紅色），則是轉過它四次。而且，基本上岌岌可危的就是這個轉過。

It is then about Joyce that this fourth term, this fourth term in so far as it completes the knot of the Imaginary the Symbolic and the Real, that I would put forward that by his art, and that is the whole problem: how can an art aim in an explicitly divinatory way at substantialising in its consistency, its consistency as such, but moreover its ex-sistence and moreover this third term which is the hole, how by his art, could someone have aimed at rendering as such, to the point of approaching it as closely as possible, this (36) fourth term, the one that today I simply wanted to show you
as essential to the Borromean knot itself? I am waiting then for some voice or other to be raised.

關於喬埃斯，這第四個術語完成想像界，意符界，及真實界的波羅米因結。我就根據喬埃斯的文學才藝提出這一點，那就是整個的問題：文學才藝如何能夠以明確的推測的方式，目標朝著具體表現它的一致性，它的一致性的本身，而且朝著它的「預先的存在」？而且，這代表真實界的第三個術語，是一個空洞。憑藉著自己的文學才藝，有某個人如何能夠目標朝著將這個空洞具體表現出來？甚至於他還能夠儘可能地進入真實界？這第四個術語，今天我僅僅想要給你們顯示，這第四個術語是波羅米因結的基本要素。我現在正在期待有某個人提出問題？

QUESTIONS
問答

J. Lacan – So then! What appears to you to be disputable in what I put forward today?

拉康：終於有人！你覺得我今天所提出的內容，有什麽可爭議的？

Mr X – …

某先生、、、

J. Lacan – Pardon?

拉康：對不起，請再說一遍。

Mr X – It is not a question about the knot itself – it is rather a historical question. What first led you to believe that you would find something in Chomsky which would mean something to you or recall something to you. For my part it is something that would never have crossed my mind.

某先生：我不是問有關波羅米因結的問題，而是一個歷史的問題。你最初怎麽會相信，你會在莊士基身上找到某件東西，對於具有意義，或讓你回想到某件東西？就我而言，我作夢都不會想到這件事。

J Lacan – Well! That indeed is why I was flabbergasted to be sure. Yes. But that does not mean that I did not … – one has always this sort of weakness, is that not so – and there are remnants of hope. I mean that since Chomsky busies himself with linguistics, I might have hoped to see a glimmer of apprehension of what I am showing about the Symbolic, namely, that it preserves, even when it is false, something about the hole. It is impossible for example not to qualify describe as this false hole the totality constituted by the symptom and the Symbolic. But on the other hand, it is in so far as it is hooked onto language that the symptom subsists, at least if we believe that by a manipulation described as interpretative, namely, playing on the meaning, we can modify something in the symptom. This assimilation in Chomsky of something, which, to my eyes, is of the order of symptom, namely, that confuses the symptom and the Real, is very precisely what flabbergasted me.

拉康：嗯！這確實是我自己大吃一驚的地方。是的，但是那並不意味著我沒有想到，我們總是有這種弱點，不是嗎？總是存著一線希望。我的意思是，莊士基自己專攻語言學，我可能有希望看到理解的微光，對於我所要表達的意符界，換句話說，意符即使在虛假的時候，仍然會保存某件有關真實界空洞的東西。例如，這個虛假的空洞，由病徵及意符所形成的整體性，不可能完全沒有數量上的描述。但是在另一方面，病徵的存在，依附著語言，至少我們相信，憑藉被描述為解釋的操控，換句話說，憑藉對於意義的探索，我們能夠修正病徵裏的某件東西。莊士基所謂的某件東西的吸納，在我的眼中，就是病徵的層次，換句話說，它混淆病徵跟真實界。這確實是我大吃一驚的地方。

Mr. X – Excuse me. It is perhaps an idle question [une question oisive] about…

某先生：對不起。這或許是一個無聊的問題關於、、、

J. Lacan – What? For you it is…

拉康：什麽問題？請說、、、

Mr. X – … une question peut-être oisive about…

某先生：關於女性的消極性問題。

J. Lacan – oiseuse?

拉康：女性？

Mr X – Oisive. Thank you. Being an American…

某先生：有關女性的問題。謝謝。因為我是一位美國人、、、

J. Lacan – Yes! You are American. Thank you. Only I find that once again, is that not so, there is only an American to question me. Anyway, I cannot say how happy I was, as I might say, by the fact that, in America, I had people who had, who bore witness to me in whatever way, that I had, in short, that my discourse had not been in vain, is that not so.

拉康：哦！你是美國人，謝謝。只是我再一次發現，難道不是嗎？只有美國人才會問我。無論如何，我真說不出我有多快樂，因為在美國，我遇到一些人們，他們用各種方式跟我見證，總之，我的真理論述並非一無所獲，不是嗎？

Mr X – Why yes, for me, try to understand the possibility of several discourses in Paris it seems to me impossible that someone should have been able to conceive that Chomsky, educated in the new tradition born of mathematical logic which he got from Quine and Goodmann, at Harvard…

某先生：是的。我設法在巴黎瞭解好幾個真理論述的可能性。只是我覺得這個有點不可思議，有人竟然認為，莊士基在數學邏輯的新的傳統受過教育，他從哈佛大學跟隨奎因跟古門學習數學邏輯。

J. Lacan – But Quine is no dope, huh!

拉康：奎因是不錯的學者。

Mr X – No, but neither is he, it seems to me… Quine and Lacan, are two names that I would have not found. But as regards a reflection on the subject, this is French, which to find something of, to find a lot of images… I miss a thinking like that…

某先生：是的，兩位都不錯，我覺得。只是奎因跟拉康是兩個我本來不會想到的名字。關於對於生命主體的反思，要找到某個東西，找到許多意象，法國人會怎麽說，我頗感到困惑、、、

J. Lacan – can I expect from someone French something which, anyway which…

拉康：我期望有位法國人能夠站起來回答、、、

R.C. – I would like to question you about something… it is in connection with the alternation finally of the body and the word as you are in the process of experiencing it today…

R.C:我想要問你有關身體與語言最後的輪替問題，如你今天所正在經驗的過程、、

J. Lacan – About the alternation…?

拉康：關於身體與語言的輪替？

R.C. – It is in connection with the alternation of the body and the (38) word. Because there is something that escapes me a little in your discourse, it is the fact that you effectively speak for an hour and a half and that subsequently you have the desire to have a contact, finally, that is more direct with someone. And I asked myself whether, in a more general fashion, in your theory, here, you are not speaking strictly about language, but without thinking about it of these moments when the body also serves as an exchange, and effectively, at that moment, the organ, it is not clear but… the organ can serve to apprehend the real, in a direct way without discourse. Is there not
of a subject? I have the impression that there is a disincarnation of discourse. The discourse being always referred…

關於身體跟語言的輪替，因為在你的論述中，我有一點聽不懂的地方。你有效地談論了一個半小時，隨後你渴望要溝通，直接跟某個人溝通。我的困惑是，在你的理論，你以一個更加通俗的方式，你嚴格地談到語言，但是並不是想到這些時刻，當身體充當一種交換，充當一種器官的時刻，我沒聽得很清楚，但是器官可以用來直接理解真實界，而不必依靠真理的論述。真的有這樣的生命主體嗎？我的印象是，這樣的論述未免太玄虛，而你老是提到這樣的真理論述、、、

J. Lacan – What are you saying? A disincarnation…

拉康：你說什麽？太過玄虛？

R.C. – Of discourse, of the body, that is what I mean. Is there not simply effectively an interplay of alternation between the two? Without language, would not the hole exist because of a direct physical engagement with the real? I am talking about love and of enjoyment.

R.C: 關於論述，關於身體，那是我的意思。這兩者彼此之間，難道不僅是有效地互動？假如沒有語言，這個空洞難道會只因為生理上直接跟真實界接觸而存在？我是談論到愛跟歡樂。

J. Lacan – That indeed, that indeed is what is at stake. It is all the same difficult not to consider the Real, on this occasion as a, as a third. And let us say that that what I may seek as a response belongs to something which is an appeal to the Real, not as linked to the body, but as different. That far from the body, there is a possibility of what I called the last time a resonance, or consonance. And it is at the level of the Real that there can be found this consonance. That the Real, with respect to these poles constituted by the body and on the other hand language, that the Real is here what brings about harmony (accord- à corps). Can I expect something from someone else?

拉康：這確實是岌岌可危的地方。在這種情況，這仍然很困難，不將真實界當著一個第三者。容我們這樣說，我可能尋求作為回答的，會屬於訴諸於真實界的東西，不是當著跟身體連接，而是當著跟身體不同。上一次我所謂的迴響及共鳴的可能性，根本不是在身體那裏。而是在真實界的層次，才可能找到這樣的共鳴。就身體跟語言所形成的兩極而言，真實界是導致它們和諧的地方。還有其他人有問題嗎？

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 08 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 08

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵
II. Seminar 2: Wednesday 9 December 1975

I have on many occasions familiarised you with the fact that the Borromean knot, as one might say, in the third dimension, consists in this relationship which ensures that what is enveloped with respect to one of these circles is found to be enveloping with
respect to the other. This is why something that you ordinarily see in the form of the armillary sphere is exemplary. The armillary sphere used, that is used because it has sextants, is always presented as follows (Fig II-11). Namely, that in order to trace it
out in a clear way, the blue circle is always going to be reduced in the following way around the circle that here I have drawn in green. And that finally the red circle, in accordance with the reduction of the interaxis (l’entraxe) must be like that. I said it
earlier. There you are.

在許多場合，我曾經讓你們熟悉這個事實：波羅米因結，我們可以說是處於第三向度，它的組成的關係保證，這三個圓圈所被包裹的，被發現自己也正在包裹其他另外一個圓圈。這就是為什麽，你們在以這個圓環的形式通常所看的，是個典範。這個被使用的圓環，因為它們是六個一組，所以被使用，它總是被呈現如下（圖形II-11）。換句話說，為了清楚地追蹤它，這個藍色的圓圈總是以下面的方式環繞著這個圓圈化簡，我在此用綠色畫的這個圓圈。最後，為了跟這個內部的軸心相一致，這個紅色的圓圈必須像我早先說過那樣。你們看，就是這樣。

On the other hand, the difference between this circle and its ordinary arrangement in any manipulation of the armillary sphere, will find itself distanced if, let us say, for this circle which appears here in the middle there is found, for this circle there is found substituted the following arrangement (Fig II-12). Namely, that it cannot be reduced because it will be enveloping with respect to the red circle, and enveloped with respect to the green circle.

在另一方面，圓圈跟操作圓環球面時，它的通常的安排之間的差異，會發現自己被拉開距離，例如，假如出現在中央這裏的這個圓圈，在那裏被找到，因為那裏被找到的這個圓圈，代替了底下的安排（圖形II-12）。換句話說，它無法被化減，因為它將會包裹這個紅色的圓圈，並且被綠色的圓圈所包裹。

I am drawing again what is involved (Fig II-13), you see that here the green circle is thus found situated with respect to the blue circle and the red circle. Here even my manifest the awkwardness with which the Borromean knot, the very type of the knot, is necessarily manipulated.

我再一次畫牽涉到的內容（圖形II-13），你們看得出來，在此綠色的圓圈因此被找到，位在跟藍色圓圈及紅色圓圈的關係。在此，即使是我的證明是笨拙，波羅米因結，這種的結，還必須如此笨拙地操作。

(32) The fundamental character of this utilisation of the knot is to allow there to be illustrated the triplicity that results from a consistency which is only affected from the Imaginary, from a hole as fundamental which emerges in the Symbolic. And on the other hand, of an ex-sistence, written as I write it ex-sistence, which for its part belongs to the Real which is its fundamental character.

這個波羅米因結的基本特性，是要能夠容許這個三重性被具體展現，這個三重性來自這個一致性的結果，這個一致性則是受到想像界，從出現在意符界的一個空洞，作為基本的東西。在另一方面，一個預先的存在，被我書寫成為「預先–存在」。就它本身而言，它屬於這個真實界，真實界是預先存在的特性。

This method, since what is at stake is a method, is a method which presents itself as hopeless. Without hope of in any way breaking the constitutive knot of the Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real.

因為岌岌可危是一個方法，這個方法呈現自己作為無助的狀態。它沒有希望以任何方法突破這個意符界，想像界，及真實界的構成的本質的結。

In this regard, it rejects there being constituted, it must be said, and in an altogether lucid way, a virtue, a virtue even described as theological, and that is why our apprehension, our analytic apprehension of what is involved in this knot is the negative of religion.

我們必須說，在這一方面，它拒絕以清晰的方式，被構成本質，而清晰的方式卻是一個優點，一個被描述為神學的優點。這就是為什麽我們的理解，我們分析的理解，對於這個結所牽涉到的，與宗教恰恰相反。

People no longer believe in the object as such, and that is why I deny that the object can be grasped by any organ. Since the organ itself is perceived as a tool. And that being perceived as a tool, as a separate tool, it is, in this respect, conceived as an object. In Chomsky’s conception, the object is itself only tackled by an object. It is by the restitution as such of the subject, in so far as it can only be divided, divided by the very operation of language, that analysis finds its diffusion. It finds its diffusion in the fact that it puts science as such into question. Science in as much as it makes of an object, that it makes of an object a subject, while it is the subject which is of itself divided. We do not believe in the object, but we affirm desire and from this affirming of desire, we infer the cause as objectivised.

人們不再相信這個客體的本身，那就是為什麽我否認，這個客體能夠被任何器官所掌握。因為器官本身被感覺當著是一個工具。器官既然被感覺當著是一個工具，當著是一個分開的工具，在這一方面，它被構想當著是一個客體。在莊士基的觀念裏，這個客體的本身，只能夠當著是一個客體來處理。憑藉著生命主體的恢復，這個主體只能是分裂的，被語言的運作所分裂，精神分析學發現語言會括散。它發現語言會擴散，當它質疑到科學的本身時。當科學在解釋一個客體，它把這個客體當著是主體，然而主體的本身卻是分裂。我們不相信這個客體，但是我們肯定人的欲望，從這個對於人的欲望的肯定開始，我們推論出的原因，被客體化。

(34) The desire to know encounters obstacles. It is to incarnate this obstacle that I invented the knot and one must break oneself into the knot. I mean that it is the knot, the knot alone which is the support, the conceivable support of a relationship between
anything whatsoever and something else. If on the one hand the knot is abstract it must be thought of and conceived of as concrete.

想要知道的欲望遭遇到阻礙。為了具體表現這個阻礙，我杜撰這個波羅米因結，我們必須將自己想像成為這個結。我的意思是，就是這個結，只有這個結，才是這個支持，才是這個關係的可想像的支持，這個關係處於任何東西及某件其他東西之間。在某一方面，雖然這個結是抽象的，可是我們必須想像或構想它是具體的。

The reason why, since today, as you clearly see, I am very weary, very weary from this American ordeal where, as I have told you, I was certainly recompensed, because I was able, with these figures that you see here more or less substantialised, substantialised in writing, in drawings, I was able to create with them what I will
call agitation, emotion. The sensed as mental, the sentimental is weak- minded. Because it is always from some angle or other reducible to the Imaginary. The imagination of consistency goes straight to the impossible of rupture, but this is why the rupture can always be the Real. The Real as impossible and which is no less compatible with the aforesaid imagination and even constitutes it.

今天，你們很清楚地看出，為什麽我經歷美國的考驗回來，如此身心俱疲。我曾經告訴過你們，在美國那個地方，我確實是受到豐厚的獎賞，因為我能夠運作你們在此看到的這些圖形，相當具體生動地，運用在書寫及描繪當中。我能夠使用它們來創造我所謂的興奮激情。可是這種興奮激情，對於意志薄弱的人，是精神層面的煽情。因為它總是從某個角度，化減到想像界的層次。這個一致性的想像，直接到達斷裂的不可能界，這就是為什麽這個斷裂，總是在真實界。這個真實界，作為不可能界，跟前述的想像界，是可以相容並存的，甚至是構成它的內涵。

I have no hope, in any way, of escaping from what I signal as the weak-mindedness of this debate. I can only escape from it, like anyone else, according to my means.

無論如何，我沒有希望逃避，我指明我的演說是討好意志薄弱者的煽情。像任何其他的人一樣，我只能依照我的方式，溜之大吉。

Namely, as if marching on the spot, sure of not being assured of any verifiable progress except in the long term.

換句說，好像在原地踏步行軍，我確定我並沒有獲得任何可驗證的進展，除了從長遠的觀點來看。

It is in a fabulatory way that I am affirming that the Real – as I think it in my pen-se in my pen-se léger – does not work without really comprising, the Real effectively lying, without really comprising the hole that subsists in it because of the fact that its
consistency is nothing other than that of the totality of the knot that it makes with the Symbolic and the Imaginary. The knot qualifies as Borromean. In other words uncuttable without dissolving the myth that makes of the subject, of the subject not supposed, namely as real, no more diverse than anybody that can be signalled
as parlêtre: a body which has a respectable status, in the common sense of the word, only from this knot.

使用寓言的方式，我肯定地說，真實界的運作，必然會形成這個空洞，（如同我在「我的想念中」，我想到它），真實界有效地存在那裡，形成這個空洞，作為它的本質，因為這個事實，它的一致性道道地地就是波羅米因結的整體性的一致性，真實界用意符界及想像界組成的結。這個結的特質是波羅米因結。換句話說，當它一但被切割，它就會瓦解這個解釋生命主體的神話，這個生命主體被認為不是處於真實界，它跟任何人一樣，能夠被標明是一塊畫板，隨你怎麽畫：人的身體擁有一個應該受到尊重的地位，用通俗的話來說，只有從這個波羅米因結開始。

So then after this exhausting attempt, since today I am very weary,

所以經歷這場令人疲憊的嘗試，今天，我真是身心俱疲。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 07 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 07

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵
II. Seminar 2: Wednesday 9 December 1975

If we start, in effect, from analysis, we affirm, it is something different to observing, one of the things that most struck me when I was in America, was my encounter which was certainly not by chance, which was altogether intentional on my part, it was my encounter with Chomsky. I was properly speaking, I will say stupefied by it. I told him so. The idea that I realised he held, is in short one that I cannot say can in a way be refuted. It is even (29) the most common idea, and it is indeed what before my very ears he simply affirmed, which made me sense the whole distance that I was from him. This idea, which is the idea, that in effect is common, is this, which appears precarious to me. The consideration, in short, of something that presents itself as a body, a body provided with organs, which implies, in this conception, that the organ is a tool, a tool for gripping, a tool for apprehending.

假如我們從精神分析學開始，我們肯定，那是某件不同於觀察的東西，其中我印象最深刻的事情是，當我在美國，我的遭遇確實並非是偶然的。就我而言，我完全是刻意的，那就是我跟語言學家莊士基的相會。適當地說，我對這次的會面大吃一驚，我這樣對他說。總之，我體會到他擁有的觀念是一個某方面無法反駁的觀念。那甚至是最普遍的觀念，他當我的面前，僅僅就是肯定的觀念。那使我感覺到我跟他之間的整個距離。這個觀念事實上是很普遍的觀念，對我而言，卻是顯得岌岌可危。總之，考慮到某件呈現自己作為一個身體，一個具有生理器官的身體，在這個觀念中意味著，這個器官是一個工具，一個掌握的工具，一個作為理解的工具。

And that there is no objection in principle to the tool apprehending itself as such, that, for example, language is considered by him as determined by a genetic fact, he expressed it in these very terms before me; in other words, language itself is an organ.

原則上，我並不反對身體作為一種理解本身的工具。例如，語言被他認為是受到基因因素的決定，他在我面前使用三個術語，表達這個觀點，換句話說，語言本身是一個器官。

It seems quite striking to me, this is what I expressed by the term stupefied, it seems quite striking to me that from this language, a return can be made back on itself like an organ.

我對於這一點覺得耐人尋味。這就是為什麽我用大吃一驚這個詞語來表達。我覺得相當耐人尋味，從這個語言開始，語言會回轉到語言的本身，作為一個生理的器官。

If language is not considered from the angle, that it is, that it is linked to something which, in the Real, makes a hole, it is not simply difficult, it is impossible to consider how it can be handled.

假如語言沒有從這個角度來考慮，語言會連接到某件在真實界成為空洞的東西。那不僅是困難，而且是不可能，要來考慮語言如何能夠被處理。

The observation method cannot start from language without admitting this truth of principle that in what one can situate as Real, language only appears as making a hole.

觀察的方法不能夠從語言開始，而不先承認原則存在的真理。在我們將它定位在真實界的地方，語言看起來就像成為一個空洞。

It is from this notion, function of the hole that language puts into operation its hold on the Real. It is of course not easy for me to make you feel the whole weight of this conviction. It appears inevitable to me from the fact that truth as such is only possible by voiding this Real.

從這個觀念開始，語言所運作的空洞的功用，掌握著真實界。當然，我無法輕易讓你們感覺到，這個信仰的整個重量。我覺得這是無可避免的事實，只有先將這個真實界空無化，真理的本身才可能顯現。

Language moreover eats this Real. I mean that it only allows this Real to be tackled, this genetic Real, to speak like Chomsky, in terms of sign. Or, in other words, of message which starts from the molecular gene by reducing it to what brought fame to Crick and Watson. Namely, this double helix from which there are supposed to start these different levels that organise the body throughout a certain number of stages. First of all the division of development, of cellular specialisation, then subsequently this specialisation of starting from hormones which are so many elements on which
there are conveyed, as many sorts of messages, for the direction of organic information.

而且，語言會吃掉這個真實界。我的意思是，語言使真實界能夠被處理，這個基因的真實界，若是用莊士基的說法，就是用符號來處理真實界。換句話是，從分子基因所開始的訊息，到科瑞客與華特遜發現生命秘密DNA，所獲得的名聲。換句話說，DNA的雙重螺旋分佈，應該是從組織身體的這些不同的層次開始，再經歷某些的階段。首先，所有發展的區分，細胞的區隔，跟隨而來就是這個從遺傳因數開始的區隔。這些遺傳因數是那麽多的因素，讓許多的訊息賴以傳遞，朝著生命有機體的資訊方向。

This whole subtilising of what is involved in the Real by so many of these aforesaid messages, but in which there is only marked the veil drawn over what is the efficacity of language. Namely, the fact that language is not in itself a message, but that it is only sustained (30) from the function of what I called the hole in the Real.

真實界所牽涉到的東西，被這麽多的前述的訊息，整個稀釋分化，但是在那裏，語言的功用像一層面紗覆蓋標示。換句話說，語言本身並不是訊息，它被維持在那裏，因為我所謂的真實界的空洞的功用。

For this there is the path of our new mos geometricus, namely, of the substance that results from the efficacity, from the proper efficacity of language, and which is supported by this function of the hole. To express it in terms of this famous Borromean knot in which I put my trust, let us say that it is entirely based on the
equivalence of an infinite straight line and a circle.

因為這樣，我們藉幾何圖形來探討新的途經，換句話說，從語言功用所造成的物質，從語言的適當的功用，那是真實界的空洞的功用所支持。為了用這個著名的波羅米因結來表達它，這是我的信念，讓我們說，它的基礎完全建立在：一條無限長的直線，跟一個圓圈是相等的。

The schema of the Borromean knot is the following (Fig II-5).

底下是波羅米因結的基模（圖形II0-5）

I mean, to mark this just as much as my ordinary drawing, the one that is articulated thus (Fig II-6), this in so far as the ordinary drawing is properly speaking a Borromean knot. By this fact, by this fact, it is equally true that this is one (Fig II-7).

我的意思是，為了標示這一點，如同我平常的圖形，這個被表達的圖形 II-6。適當地說，這個平常的圖形就是波羅米因結。根據這個事實，這個圖形II-7，也是波羅米因結。

I mean that in substituting the couple of a supposedly infinite straight line and a circle, you get the same Borromean knot. There is something that corresponds to this figure three, which is the dawn, as I might say, of a requirement, which is properly speaking
the requirement proper to the knot. It is linked to this fact that in (31) order to account correctly for the Borromean knot, it is starting from three that a requirement especially originates.

我的意思是，這一條假定的無限長的直線跟一個圓圈互相結合的代替物，你得到的就是相同的波羅米因結。有某件東西對應這個三個圓圈組合的圖形。我不妨說，這個三個組合的圖形有一個要件，適當地說，是波羅米因結本身的要件。它連接到這個事實：為了要正確地解釋波羅米因結，一個要件特別是起源於那三條無限長度的直線。

It is possible, by an extremely simple manipulation, to make these three infinite lines parallel (Fig II-8). It will be enough, for that, to make more supple, I will say, what is involved in the already folded false circle, the circle in red, on this occasion. It is starting from three that we must define what is involved in the infinity point of the line as not lending itself, not lending itself in any case to making a mistake in what we call their concentricity (Fig II-9).

憑藉異常簡單的操作，我們就可能使這三條無限長度的直線，並列起來（圖形II-8）。因為這樣，就已經足夠讓我們將這個已經折疊起來的虛假的圓圈，目前是紅色的這個圓圈，裏面所牽涉到的東西，變的較有彈性。就是從這三個組合的結開始，我們必須定義，這條直線的無限點，所牽涉到的內容，但是無論如何，不要跟我們所謂的同心圓混為一談。

I mean that these three points at infinity, let us put them here, for example, must be, in whatever form we may suppose them, and we can moreover invert these positions, I mean ensure that, that this first line at infinity, as one might say, is enveloping with respect to the others instead of being enveloped. It is a characteristic of this point at infinity, not to be able to be situated, as one might express it, on any side.

我的意思是，這三個點朝向無限，讓我們將它們畫在這裏。例如，無論我們假定它們是怎樣的形式，我們能夠倒轉這些位置。我的意思是要確定，這三個點必須是：這第一條朝向無限的線，容我這樣說，它正在包裹其他兩條朝向無限的線，而不是被它們包裹。這是朝向無限的這個點的特性，當我們表達它時，它絕對不會被定位在任何一邊。

But what is required starting from the number three, is the following. It is that
in order to display it in this imaged way (Fig II-10), one must state, specify, that
of these three lines, completed by their point at infinity, there will not be found
one – you clearly sense that if there I put all three in red, there are reasons why I
had to trace them out here in a different colour – there will not be (32) one of them which, because of being enveloped by another, will not find itself enveloping with respect to the other. For this is properly speaking what constitutes the property of the Borromean knot.

但是從這個數目三開始，它所要求的如下。為了以意象的方式展示它（圖形II-10），我們必須要陳述，要指明：這三條線是靠著它們朝向無限的點來完成，其中沒有一條能夠被找出來。你們清楚地感覺到，假如我將所有三條，都畫上紅色。這就是為什麽我必須用不同的顏色追蹤它們，其中沒有一條不發現自己正在包裹另外一條，因為它自己也正在被另外一條所包裹。適當地說，波羅米因結的特性就是這樣形成。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 06 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 06

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

II. Seminar 2: Wednesday 9 December 1975
It can’t go on like this!

事情不能夠像這樣進行下去。

I mean that there are too many of you. There are too many of you for me, in short, to hope all the same to get from you what I got from the public in the United States, where I have just been. I spent 15 full days there and I was able to become aware of a certain number of things. In particular, if, if I properly understood, in short, a certain lassitude experienced there, principally by analysts.

我的意思是，你們人數太多。你們人數太多，總之，我沒有辦法仍然希望，從你們那裏得到我從美國大眾那裏所得來的，因為我剛剛從美國回來。我在美國度過整整十五天，我開始瞭解某些事情。特別是，我適當地瞭解當地人們所經驗到的懨倦，特別是精神分析師的懨倦。

I was, my God, I cannot say that I was not very well treated there, but that is, it is not, that is not saying too much, is it. For myself, I rather felt myself there, to employ a term which is the one I use for what concerns man, sucked in. Or again, if you don’t mind hearing it, sucked up, sucked up into a sort of whirlwind, which obviously can only find its warranty in, in what I bring to light by my knot.

我是懨倦，我的天，我不能夠說，人家招待我不夠周到。但是問題還是那裏，不是嗎？就我而言，我寧可感覺自己在那裏，像是被「吸納進去」，容我使用一個人們很關心的術語。我再說一次，假如你們不介意的話，被吸納進去，被吸納到一陣旋風裏。顯而易見的，在我用我的波羅米因結，詮釋啟發的地方，你們一定會發現那股旋風的存在。

In effect it is not by chance, is it? It is only little by little that you have seen, in short, those who are here for some time, that you have been able to see, namely to understand step by step, how I have come to express by the function of the knot what I had first of all put forward as, let us say, the triplicity, of the Symbolic the Imaginary and the Real.

事實上，那不是偶然的，不是嗎？總之，你是漸漸地看到，那些在這裏有段時間的人，你漸漸能夠看到，換句話說，你們慢慢地瞭解，我為什麽要用這個結的功用來表達，我首先要提出的問題，我們不妨說就是，意符界，想像界，及真實界的三重性。

The knot is made in the spirit of a, of a new mos, mode, is it not, or moeurs, of a new mos goemetricus. We are in effect, at the start, always captivated by something which is a geometry that I qualified, the last time, as being comparable to a sack, namely, to a surface.

這個結是以小客體的精神所構成，一個新的模式，那難道不是一種新的幾何圖形的形式？事實上，我們從一開始就，被某件我上一次稱之為幾何學的東西所吸引住，當著是可比擬為「囊包」的東西，也就是表面的東西。

It is very difficult – you can try it for yourselves – it is very difficult to think – something which happens most often when your eyes are shut – it is very difficult to think about the knot. You cannot find your bearings in it. And I am not all that sure, even though to my eyes it has all the appearance of it, of having correctly put it before
you. It seems to me that there is a mistake. There is a mistake here. There you are. Error is also something that we should try to eliminate.

這個並不容易，你們自己不妨嘗試看看，我們不容易這樣想，當你的眼睛閉著的時候，經常發生的事情，我們很難去想到這個波羅米因結。你無法在結裏面悠遊自在。我可不那麽確定，即使在我的眼中，這個結的表像是那樣栩栩如生，我正確地將它擺置在你們面前。我似乎覺得，有哪里搞錯了。你們現在看到。錯誤是某件我們應該設法減少的東西。

It is a knot which starts from something that you know well, namely, namely, what ensures that in a Borromean knot you have this shape which is such that on occasion it is reduplicated and that you have to complete it by two other rings (fig II-2).

這個結開始於你們耳熟能詳的東西，換句話說，在一個波羅米因結裏，可確定的是，你們擁有這個形狀，有時候，它會被加倍複製，你們必須用其他的兩個結來完成它。

There is another way to reduplicate this folded form, in short, you see that I am trying to confront you with the fact, this folded form, (27) this linked form which are hooked onto each other (fig II-3).

還有一個方法來加倍複製這個折疊的形式。總之，你們看到，我正在設法讓你們面對這個事實，這個折疊的形式，這個連接的形式，被互相掛勾在一起。

There is another way which consists in using what I already showed you once, on one occasion, namely this (Fig II-4). Namely this, which does not work without constituting in itself a closed circle.

還有一個方法在於使用我己經給你們看過一次，在有一個場合，換句話說，這個II-4的圖形。換句話說，這個圖形運用時，本身一定會形成一個封閉的圓圈。

On the other hand, in the following form (Fig II-2), you see that the two circuits can be manipulated in such a way that they can be freed from one another. That is even why the two circles, marked here in red, can make of it a knot which is properly speaking Borromean, namely which, from the fact of cutting any one of them, liberates all the others.

在另一方面，以下面的形式（圖形II-2），你們看到，這兩個環圈能夠被操控，這樣它們才能個彼此脫開。那甚至是為什麽，這兩個圓圈，在這裏用紅色標示，能夠使它成為一個結，適當來說，就是波羅米因結，從中間任何一個結切割，所有其他的結，都會鬆開。

(28) Analysis is, in short, the reduction of initiation to its reality, namely, to the fact that properly speaking there is no initiation. In it every subject betrays the fact that it is always and ever only a supposition.

總之，精神分析學就是將最初的東西化簡成為現實，換句話說，化簡成為事實。適當地說，根本就沒有最初的東西。在那裏，每一個生命的主體都顯示這個事實：
生命主體總是，而且只是一個假設。

Nevertheless, what experience shows us, is that this supposition is always open to what I will call an ambiguity. I mean that the subject as such is always, not simply double, but divided. What is at stake is to account for what, from this division, constitutes the Real.

可是，經驗所告訴我們的是，這個假定總是曝露出我所我謂的曖昧不清。我的意思是，作為這樣的生命主體，總是處於分裂的狀態，而且不僅是加倍分裂。岌岌可危的是，要從這個分裂當中，去解釋真實界的組成的內涵。

How did Freud – since we must come back to him, he was the great ground-breaker in this way of looking at things – how did Freud, of whom in short, if I read it correctly, I think moreover I read it correctly, if I am to believe the last Erich Fromm that you can
easily get, if I remember correctly, at Gallimard, and which is entitled something which, at least on the back of the volume, is stated as psychoanalysis apprehended through its errors.

我們必須回到佛洛伊德，他是最偉大的突破者，以不同的角度觀看事情。佛洛伊德如何解釋真實界的組成的內涵呢？總之，假如我閱讀沒有錯誤，而且我認為我閱讀沒有錯誤，假如我要相信佛洛姆最後一本書，這本書你們很容易找到，假如我記得沒有錯，這個書的開宗明義就說，至少在書的背後，它是這樣陳述：精神分析學的被理解，是透過它所犯的錯誤。

A source of unfindable referrals [?], namely, by Freud. How then, if I read it correctly, did Freud, a bourgeois, and a bourgeois stuffed with prejudices, how did he reach something which gives to what he says its proper value? And which is certainly no small thing, which is the aim of saying the truth about man. To which I
contributed this correction which has not been for me without trouble, without difficulty: that the only truth is one that can only be said, just like the subject that it comprises. That only half of it can be said. That can only, to express it as I have stated it, be halfsaid.

這句陳述實在匪夷所思，佛洛伊德會有這樣的說法嗎？假如我閱讀沒有錯誤，佛洛伊德，作為一位中產階級，一位充滿既有成見的中產階級，他如何得到這種結論，給予他的學說適當的價值？這件事確實非同小可，因為它的目的是要說出有關人的真理實相。我對它提供這個修正，對我而言，並不是那麽輕而易舉。我遭遇到這個困難：唯一的真理，被限定是要能夠說得出來的真理，就像是真理所組成的生命的主體。那說不出來的那一半真理，該怎麽辦？如同我曾經陳述過的，這樣的真理只能說是似是而非。

I start from my condition which is that of bringing to man what Scripture states as, not a help for him, but a help against him.

我從我自身的情況開始，聖經所陳述的人的規範，對於我並沒有多大幫助，反而是障礙重重。

And, from this condition, I try to find my bearings. This indeed is why I was truly, in a way that is worth remarking, why I was led to this consideration of the knot. Which, as I have just told you, is properly speaking constituted by a geometry that one may well say is forbidden to the imaginary, which can only be imagined through all sort of resistances, indeed of difficulties. This is properly speaking what the knot, in so far as it is Borromean, substantifies.

從我自身的情況，我設法找到我的安身立命之道。這確實是為什麽，我反復再三地陳述，為什麽我會千辛萬苦地構想這個波羅米因結。如同我曾經告訴過你們，適當地說，這個波羅米因結是由一個幾何圖形所組成。我們很有理由說，這個幾何圖形被想像界禁止在外，只有經歷各種關卡阻擋，確實是經歷各種艱難困苦，我才能構想出來。適當地說，這就是波羅米因結如此牢不可破的地方。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 05 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 05

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 1: Wednesday 18 November 1975

But because of this we find ourselves in the following situation, the fact is that what is 1 to 2, indeed 2 to 1, since it has in its middle, as one might say, the sigma and the S, must ensure – and this is precisely what is figured here – must ensure that the symptom and the symbol are caught up in such a way – I would have to show it to you by some simple figuration – in such a way that there are, as you see below, that there are four which are, as you see here (fig I-9), there are four which are drawn by the capital R and here, it is in a certain way that the I is combined, by passing above the symbol, figured here, and underneath the symptom. It is always in this form that there is presented the link, the link that I expressed here by the opposition of R to I.

但是因為這樣，我們發現自己處於以下的情境。事實上，從一到二，確實也是從二到一，我們不妨說，因為在中間，它有個標幟及生命主體的這個意符界的S記號，它必須保證，這確實就是這裏的圖形，它必須保證，病徵及符號如此的糾纏不清。我必須用某個簡單的圖形顯示給你們看，如你們在底下看到的，總共有四個圖形，如你們看到的（圖形I-9），這裏有四個圖形用大寫字母代表真實界的R所畫的。在此，以某種方式，這個想像界的「I」在符號的上方，偶爾被連接起來，這裏的圖形，它則是在符號底下。總是以這種方式，這個連接被呈現。我將真實界的R跟這個想像界的I，對立起來，而形成一個連接。

In other words, the two symptom and symbol are presented in such a way that here, one of the two terms takes them altogether, while the other passes, let us say, over this one which is below [probably an error by Lacan, immediately rectified] above, and
(21) under this one which is below. (fig I–10).

換句話說，這兩個病徵及符號以如此的方式被呈現，這兩個術語中的其中一個，將它們結合在一起，當另外一個從這個底下的上方通過，讓我們這樣說。對不起，不是從底下，而是從上方，然後再從底下的這個下面。（圖形I-10）

This is the figure that you obtain regularly in an attempt to make the Borromean knot of four and it is the one that I have put here on the extreme right.

這就是你們正常得到的圖形，企圖要製作這個四個一組的波羅米因金剛結。這個結，我將它擺在最右邊。

The Oedipus complex, as such, is a symptom. It is in as much as the name of the father is also the father of the name that everything is sustained, which does not render the symptom any less necessary. This Other that is at stake, is this something
which, in Joyce, is manifested by the fact that he is, in short, charged with the father.

伊底普斯情結本身就是一個病徵。父親的名字，也是維繫一切的名字的父親，使病徵的需要同樣迫切。岌岌可危的是大它者，在喬埃斯的作品，某件東西被顯現出來，總之，他被賦予父親角色的責任。

It is in the measure, as is established in Ulysses, that he must sustain this father for him to subsist, that Joyce, by his art, his art which is always that something which,
from the earliest times, comes to us as a product of the artisan, it is by his art that Joyce does not simply enable his family to subsist but makes it illustrious it, as one might say. And at the same time renders illustrious what he calls somewhere my country. The uncreated spirit, he says, of his race, that is how A portrait of the
artist finishes, this is the mission that he gives himself.

如同在「尤利西斯」所證明的，他必須維持父親到某個程度，這樣他才能生存下去。喬埃斯憑藉他的藝術，他的藝術總是從遠古時代，一直作為藝術作品傳遞給我們。憑藉他的藝術，喬埃斯不僅使他的家庭維持下來，而且耀祖榮宗，我們不妨這樣說。同時，他還使他所謂的祖國顯耀於世界。他說，他要發揚光大他的種族。那就是他致力於完成「一位年輕藝術家的畫像」，這是他給予自己的使命。

In this sense, I am announcing what is going to be, this year, my questioning about art: how can artifice explicitly aim at what is presented at first as a symptom? How can art, the artisan, undo, as one might say, what is imposed in terms of symptom, namely,
what? What I already figured in my two tetrads: the truth (fig I – 11).

以這個意義，我宣佈今年我將要談論我對於藝術的質疑。藝術作品是如何明確地朝向所表達的東西，起初是作為一種病徵？藝術及藝術家，如何能夠以病徵的方式化解所被賦予的東西？換言之，那是什麽東西？我曾經用兩個四元價值描繪出的東西：那就是真理。（圖形I-11）

18.11.75 I-34
Where is the truth of this occasion? I said that it was somewhere in the discourse of the master, as supposed in the subject. In so far as it is divided, it is still subject to the phantasy. It is, contrary to (22) what I first imaged, it is here, at the level of the truth that we must consider the half-saying. Namely, that the subject, at this stage, can only be represented by the signifier index 1, S1. That the signifier index 2, S2, is very precisely what is represented by the …, to figure it as I did earlier, by the duplicity of the symbol and the symptom. S2, here is the artisan: the artisan in so far as by the conjunction of two signifiers, he is capable of producing what, earlier, I called the
little o-object (fig I-12).

這個場合的真理在哪里？我說，它在主人真理論述的某個地方，在被認為是生命主體的某個地方。雖然它處於分裂的狀態，它依舊隸屬於幻見。這跟我起初的想像相反，就在這裏，處於真理的層次，我們必須考慮到這個似是而非的真理。換句話說，在這個階段，生命的主體只能夠用意符的第一索引及第一意符來代表。
意符的第二索引及第二意符，千真萬確是被符號及病徵的欺騙代表，如我早先所描述的。第二意符，在此是這位藝術家，憑藉跟兩個意符的結合，他能夠產生我早先所謂的小客體。

Or more exactly I illustrated it by the relationship to the ear and to the eye, even evoking the closed mouth. It is indeed in so far as the discourse of the master reigns, that the S2 is divided. At this (23) division, is the division between the symbol and the symptom.

或者我將以耳朵跟眼睛的關係，甚至引用封閉的嘴巴，更加明確地舉例說明。就主人的真理論述統治一切而已，這個生命主題的第二意符是分裂的。處於這個分裂點是符號跟病徵的分裂。

But this division between the symbol and the symptom, is, as one might say, reflected in the division of the subject. It is because the subject is what one signifier represents for another signifier that we are necessitated by its insistence to show that it is in the symptom that one of these two signifiers, the Symbolic, takes its support. In this sense, one can say that in the articulation of the symptom to the symbol, there is, I will say, only a false hole.

但是我們不妨說，這個符號跟病徵的分裂，被反映在生命主體的分裂上。因為生命主體是一個意符代表對於另外一個意符，我們不得不接受它的堅持，顯示就在病徵當中，這兩個意符中的一個，這個意符界接受它的支持。以這個意義來說，我們能夠說，在這個病徵對於符號的表達，只有一個虛假的空洞，容我這樣說。

If we suppose the consistency, the consistency of any one at all of these functions, symbolic, imaginary and real, if we suppose this consistency as making a circle, this presupposes a hole. But in the case of the symbol and of the symptom, it is something else that is at stake. What makes a hole, is the totality, it is the totality folded
over of one onto the other of these two circles (Fig 1-13).

假如我們認為這個一致性，所有這些功用的任何一個功用的一致性，無論是意符界，想像界及真實界，假如我們認為這個一致性，當著是成為一個圓圈，這是預先假定是一個空洞。但是在符號及病徵的情況，還有某件其他的東西岌岌可危。形成一個空洞的內涵是這個整體性，兩個圓圈的其中一個，被折疊進入另外一個圓圈的整體性。

Here, as has been rather well figured by Soury – to call him by his name, I do not know whether he is here – it must be framed by something that resembles a bubble, what we call in topology a torus. Each of these holes must be circumscribed by something which makes them hold together, in order for us to have here
something that can be described as a true hole (fig I – 14).

在此，如同梭瑞先生的清楚描繪，（我直呼其名，不知他是否在現場），他使用某件類似氣泡的東西的架構，在拓樸地形學，我們稱之為「圓形突隆面」。這些突隆空洞的每一個，必須以某件維繫它們在一起的東西，予以限制。這樣，我們才能擁有某件被描述為「真實空洞」的東西。

This means that we must imagine, in order for these holes to subsist, to be maintained, simply suppose here a straight line, this will fulfil the same role, a straight line provided it is infinite. We (24) will have to come back in the course of the year to what this infinite is. We will have to speak again about what a straight line is, how it subsists, how, as one might say, it is akin to a circle. A circle, I will assuredly have to come back to it, will I not; this circle has a function which is well known to the police.

這意味著，我們必須想像，為了讓這些空洞能夠生存，能夠被維持，我們就必須假定有一條直線。這條直線如果是延伸到無限，它就可以滿足這個相同的空洞。在今年的講座過程，我們將必須回頭來探討這個無限是什麽。我們將必須再一次談論到一條直線是什麽，它如何維持，我們不妨問，它如何近似一個圓圈。一個圓圈，我確定會回頭談論它。這個圓圈有一個員警耳熟能詳的功用。

The circle, is used for traffic and that is why the police have a support that does not date from today or yesterday. Hegel had very clearly seen, in short, what was its function. And he had seen it in a form which is assuredly not what is at stake, what is in question. For the police it is simply a matter of the turning around continuing.
The fact that we can, in this false hole, make the addition, the addition of an infinite straight line and that, just by itself, this makes of this false hole a hole which subsists in a Borromean manner, this is the point on which I will end today.

這個圓圈被用來流暢交通。那就是為什麽員警得到一個支持，不是今天或是昨天才擁有的。總之，黑格爾很清楚地看出，這個圓圈的功用是什麽。他曾經看到這個圓圈，以一個確定不會是岌岌可危的形式，不會是遭受質疑的形式。對於員警而言，問題只是要讓繼續的交通運轉下去。事實上，我們能夠以這個虛假的空洞，造成增加，造成一條無限的直線的增加。光是憑藉自身的功用，這就能夠使這個虛假的空洞，成為以波羅米因金剛結的方式生存下去。這就是我今天要告一個段落的地方。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

sinthome 04 Jacques Lacan

sinthome 04

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 1: Wednesday 18 November 1975

18.11.75 I-29
The sack, as it is conceived of in set theory, as Cantor founded it, manifests itself, demonstrates itself, if every demonstration is held to demonstrate the imaginary that it implies, this sack, I am saying, deserves to be connotated by something ambiguous
between one and zero, the only adequate support for what borders on the empty set that is required in this theory. Hence our notation, capital S index 1, S1. I am specifying that that is how it is to be read. This does not constitute the one, but it indicates it as being able to contain nothing, as being an empty sack. It nevertheless remains that an empty sack remains a sack, in other words one which is only imaginable from the existence and the consistency that the body has, that the body has by being a pot.

在康特所創建的集合理論裏，這個囊包展示自己，證明自己，假如每個證明被認為是證明它所意涵的想像界。我是說，這個囊包應該由一與零之間的某件曖昧的東西，指明它的內涵。這個曖昧的東西是唯一充分的支援，作為這個空洞集合的邊緣，這是這理論所要求的。因此，我們的標記，大寫字母S代表生命主體的，1代表索引一，及S1代表第一主體，我是在標示，這是它應該被閱讀的方式。這個並沒有組成這個生命主體的「一」，但是它指示著，它沒有辦法包容任何東西，當著是一個空洞的囊包。可是，這個問題始終存在，空洞的囊包，始終是空洞的囊包。換句話說，我們只能從生命的存在去想像它，以及從身體所擁有的一致性，身體像是一個壺罐，所擁有的一致性。

This existence and this consistency must be held to be real, since the Real is to hold them. Hence the word Begriff which means that. The imaginary shows here its homogeneity to the real, and that this homogeneity only holds up because of number, in so far as it is binary, one or zero. Namely that it only supports the two from the fact that the one is not zero. That it exists to zero, but in no way consists in it.

這個存在跟一致性必須被認為是真實界，因為真實界應該擁有它們。因此「真理」這個字眼指的就是那個意思。想像界在此指示著它跟真實界的同質性，這個同質性能夠維持，只因為數目一或零，是二元的。換句話說，它只是根據這個事實，支援這個二元，因為這個「一」，不會是「零」。一跟零是對立並存，一並沒有被包含在零裏面。

Thus it is that Cantor’s theory has to restart from the couple, but that then the set is third in it. The junction is not made between the first set and what is the other. This indeed is why the symbol falls back on the imaginary. It has the index 2. Namely, by
indicating that it is a couple, it introduces division into the subject whatever it may be from what is stated there in fact (de fait). In fact remains suspended on the enigma of stating which is only a fact closing in on itself. Le fait du fait, as one writes le faîte du
fait or le fait du faîte, as one says ‘equal in fact’, equivocal and equivalent and, through this, the limit of the said.

因此，康特的集合理論必須從這個二元對立重新開始，但是在裏面，這個集合理論成為第三元。這個連接不是處於第一元跟另外一元之間而形成。這確實是為什麽符號要依靠想像界。它擁有第二索引。換句話說，憑藉指示著，它是二元對立，它介紹生命主體的區分，無論是從事實上所陳述出來的是什麽東西。事實上，它始終被懸掛在陳述的謎團那裏。陳述的謎團只是一個封閉自己的事實，如同我們所書寫，如同我們所述說，「事實的相等物」，模棱兩可，而又相等，透過這裏，陳述的內容受到限制。

The incredible thing, is that men saw very clearly that the symbol could only be a broken fragment. And that, as I might say, from (18) all time. But that they did not see at that epoch, at the epoch of all time, that this comprised the unity and the reciprocity of the signifier and the signified. Consequently that the signified originally means nothing, and that it is only a sign of arbitration between two signifiers, but by this fact, not arbitrary for the choice of these. There is no umpire to say it in English – this is how Joyce writes it – except starting from empire, from the imperium over the body, as all carry the mark from the ordeal [origin?].

難於令人相信的事情是，人們看得很清楚，符號只會是一個破裂的碎片。我不妨說，始終是一個碎片。但是他們並沒有在當時就看出，在各個時間的當下看出，意符與意旨的一致性及互補性，就是這樣組成。結果是，意旨原先一無所指，它只是兩個意符之間因緣形成的符號。根據這個事實，就彼此的選擇而言，不完全是因緣造化。在英文裏，沒有一個仲介詞可以表達，這就是喬埃斯所書寫下來。除了就是從仲介詞開始，從身體上方的「主宰」，一切的標記，都是從起源開始。

Here the one confirms its detachment from the two. It only makes three by imaginary forcing, which requires that a will suggests to the one to molest the other, without being linked to any of them.

在此，生命主體的這個「一」肯定它跟這兩者的隔離。憑藉想像的力量，這個「一」變成為三，想像的力量要求一個意志對這個「一」建議去騷擾另外一個，但是自己確置身事外。

Yeah! In order that the condition should be explicitly posited that starting from three rings (anneaux) one makes a chain, such that a break in a single one renders the two others, whatever they may be, free from one another. Because in a chain, the middle ring, as I might say, in this abbreviated fashion, brings that about, the freedom of the two others, whatever they may be. It had to be noticed that it was inscribed in the coat of arms of the Borromeans, that the knot, described as Borromean because of that, was already there without anyone thinking of drawing the consequences from it.

沒錯！為了讓這個條件可以明確地提出：從三個環圈開始，生命主體的一，成為一個意符的鎖鏈，其中任何一個環圈的一個缺口，會使其他兩個環圈互相鬆開，不管它們結合成什麽樣子。因為在一個意符鎖鏈裏，中間的環圈，如我所說的，以一個縮寫的方式，導致其他兩個環圈的自由。我們必須注意到的是，它被銘記在波羅米因思金剛結的標幟上，這個結被描述為「波羅米因思金剛結」，因為這樣，它已經是在那裏，所以沒有人會想到，從它那裏得出結果。

It is indeed here, it is indeed here that there lies the following: that it is an error to think that it is a norm for the relationship of three functions which only exist from one another in their exercise in the being who, by this fact, believes himself to be man. It is not the fact that the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real are broken that defines perversion, it is that they are already distinct (Fig I-5), and that one must suppose a fourth which is the symptom on this occasion. That what constitutes the Borromean link must be supposed to be tetradic, perversion only means turning towards the
father, (version ver le père) and that in short the father is a symptom or a sinthome, as you wish. The ex-sistence of the symptom is what is implied by the very position, the one that supposes this enigmatic link of the Imaginary, the Symbolic and
the Real.

確實就是在這裏，確實就是在這裏，以下的問題就存在這裏。你不要錯誤地認為，它是這三個功用的關係的一個名稱，以為這三個功用只有在生命的實存身上，互相運作時，彼此才互為存在，以為根據這個事實，生命的實存以為自己是個人。並不是意符界，想像界，及真實界彼此破裂這個事實，在定義變態的行為，而是它們原先就是互不相屬。因此我們必須認為還有第四者，在這個場合，那就是病徵。波羅米因思金剛結必須被認為是四價，變態的行為只是意味著，它的物件轉向父親。總之，父親是一個病徵，或是罪征，隨你高興用哪一個。這個病徵的預先存在，就是人的處境立場所暗含的，生命主體的這個「一」，假定了想像界，意符界，及真實界的謎團一般的連接。

If you find somewhere, I already drew it, something which schematises the relationship of the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real, qua separated from one another, you have already, in my previous figurations, with their relationship flattened out, the possibility of linking them by what? By the sinthome.

假如你在某個地方找到，如我所畫的，這個作為想像界，意符界，及真實界的關係的基模的東西，它們本身彼此分開，在我先前的圖形中，它們的關係被拆開，你擁有怎樣的可能性連接它們？只有憑藉病徵 或罪征。

If I had a piece of coloured chalk here.

但願我有一支彩色粉筆在這裏！

– What colour do you want?

你要什麽顏色的粉筆？

– What?

什麽？

– What colour?
–
什麽顏色的粉筆？

– Red. If you don’t mind. You are really too kind. You should have this
– (Fig. I-6 and I-7).

紅色的粉筆。假如你不介意。你真好心，你應該擁有這個。（圖形I-6
及圖形I-7）

The fact is that by folding back this capital S, namely, what is affirmed by the consistency of the Symbolic, by folding it back, as is plausible, I mean open to us, by folding it back in a way that is traced out thus, you have, if this figure is correct, I mean that sliding under the Real, it is obviously also under the Imaginary that it ought to be found, except for the fact that here, it is over the Symbolic that it must pass. You find yourself in the following position, the fact is that starting from four, what is figured is the following (fig I-7), namely, that you will have the following relationship. Here for example, the Imaginary, the Real and the symptom that I am going to image by a sigma and the Symbolic, and that each one is interchangeable with the others. Explicitly, (20) that 1 to 2 can be inverted into 2 to 1, that 3 to 4 can be inverted into 4 to 3. In a way that, I hope, will appear simple to you (fig I –8).

這個事實是，將這個這個代表病徵的大寫字母S，折疊起來，換句話說，使用意符的一致性所肯定的東西，將它折疊起來，這是似乎行得通。我的意思，將它折疊起來，然後再追蹤地跟我們攤開。假如圖形正確的話，我指的是，在真實界底下滑動，顯而易見的，它也是在想像界底下滑動，它應該能夠被找到，除了這個事實，它必須從意符界上面跨越過去。你們會發現自己處於以下的立場，事實上，從第四個開始，在以下圖形（圖形I-7），所畫的輪廓，換句話說，你會有以下的關係。例如，想像界，真實界，及意符界，我將會以一個S形的東西及意符標示，每一個S形的東西跟意符能夠跟其他的部分交換。明確地，這個一跟二，能夠被倒轉成為二跟一，這個三跟四，能夠被倒轉成為四跟三。我希望，以這種方式，你們看起來會簡單明暸（圖形I-8）。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw