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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: