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

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: