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

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: