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

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: