Archive for October, 2010

sinthome 03 Jacques Lacan

October 25, 2010

sinthome 03

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 1: Wednesday 18 November 1975

Ah! This is what I would have really wished – I did not bring it, stupidly – what I would have wished you, I would at least have like to have shown it to you, and which being badly informed, I knew that it was difficult, and that is why I am specifying how much you ought to insist. But Nicole Sels, here present, sent me an extremely precise scribble, that’s what a letter is called, in which for two pages, she explains to me that it is impossible to get it. It is impossible, at the present time, to get hold of this text and what I called this criticism, namely, that a certain number of persons, all academics, it is moreover a way of getting into the university, the university sucks in Joyceans, but anyway, they are already in the right place, it gives them grades, in short you will not find neither the .., I don’t know how that’s pronounced, Jacques Aubert will tell me: is it Beebe or Bibi?

啊!這是我本來真正所希望的,我沒有帶來,真可惜。我本來希望你們,至少我本來想要給你們顯示,我表達得真糟糕。我知道這很困難,那就是為什麽我明確指出你們應該堅持到什麽程度。但是尼可、希勒,此時在現場,他遞給我一個明確的訊息,所謂的文字書寫,有兩頁。她跟我解釋說,不可能找到它。目前不可能找到這個文本。我所謂的這個批評,換句話說,許多人學院派的人士,那就是進入大學的方式,大學在研究喬埃斯作品。無論如何,他的作品已經有了定論,被分等級,總之,你們既然找不到、、、我不知道這個字怎麽拼法,亞克、歐伯特能否告訴我,是Beebe ?還是Bibi?

– Ordinarily, one says Beebe.

通常,我們拼為 Beebe。

– You say Bibi? Good, you will not find the Bibi that opens the list with an article on Joyce, that I must say is particularly upper crust, following which you have Hugh Kenner who, in my opinion, perhaps because of the sinthome madaquin in question, in my opinion, speaks rather well about Joyce. And there are others up to the end that I regret you do not have at your disposition. In truth, I made a blunder, make no mistake, by putting this little note in small characters, I had them shortened, thank God, that I did this note in small characters. You will have to make arrangements
with Nicole Sels to make a series of photocopies of it for yourselves.

你說是Bibi? 謝謝,你們將找不到Bibi開始的列表,在論喬埃斯的文章裏。我必須說,那是在特別上層的部分,你們會找到修、肯納 。我的看法是,因為「病徵阿奎那哲學化」的討論,他對喬埃斯頗有見地。那個列表,還有其他的人,可惜你們現在拿不到那個列表。事實上,我犯了一個錯誤,將用小字體寫下這張紙條,我縮短那些列表,真是的,我用小字體寫下來。你們跟尼可、希勒洽商一下,影印一些跟你們。

Since I think that, fundamentally, that there are not so many people who are ready, I mean equipped, to speak English and especially the English of Joyce that will only give all the same a small number. But anyway there will obviously be some
competition. And, good God, a legitimate competition because The portrait of the artist or more exactly A portrait of the artist, of the artist that must be written in putting the whole stress on the the which, of course, in English is not quite our definite article; but one can trust Joyce, if he says the, it is indeed because he thinks
that in terms of artist, he is the only one. That in this he is singular.

我認為,基本上,沒有那麽多人準備,我的意思是,能夠用英文溝通,特別是用英文閱讀喬埃斯作品,雖然數量不算多。無論如何,會有人競爭。這個競爭是有道理的,因為「藝術家的畫像」。更精確地說,是「這位藝術家的一幅畫像」。強調點必須放在這個「the」。在英文,那是一個指定冠詞,但是我們相信喬埃斯,假如他說這個「the」,那確實是因為,就藝術家而言,他是唯一的一位。就這一點而言,他是獨特的。

18.11.75 I-27
As a young man, is very very suspect. Because in French, that would be translated by comme. In other words what is at stake is the how (comment). On this French is indicative. Is indicative (16) because of this, the fact is that when one says comme, making use of an adverb, when one says: réellement, mentalement, héroïquement, the adjunction of this ment is already sufficiently indicative in itself. Indicative of the fact, which is, which is that one is lying (ment). There is something of, there is something of a lie indicated in any adverb. And it is not there by accident.

作為一位年輕人,他是很可疑的。因為在法文,它被翻譯成為 comme。換句話說,岌岌可危的是這個「如何comment」。這個法文字是指示詞。當我們說 comme, 使用一個副詞,我們會說:réellement, mentalement, héroïquement 這個ment 的字尾,本身就已經是充分的指示。指示著這個事實,那就是我們正在說謊言 ment。有某個謊言,用副詞指示出來。謊言在那裏不是巧合。

When we interpret, we should pay attention to it.

當我們解釋時,我們必須注意到這一點。

Someone who is not too distant from me, made the remark in connection with the tongue, in so far as it designates the instrument of the word, that it was also the tongue that carried what are described as taste buds. Well then, I retorted that it is not for nothing that what one says lies – qu’on dit ment (condiment).

不久之前,有個人對於這個語言講過這樣的話,因為它指明這個字的功用,這個語言帶有我們所描述的「味蕾」。我反駁說:我們所說的話是謊言,不是沒有道理的。qu’on dit ment (condiment).

You are good enough to laugh. But it is not funny. Because when all is said and done, because when all is said and done, that is the only weapon we have against the sinthome: equivocation.

你們哄堂大笑。但是這沒有什麽可笑,因為當一切都說都做了,當一切都說都做了,那是唯一的武器,我們用來對抗「病徵」的模棱兩可。

I sometimes offer myself the luxury of supervising, as it is called, a certain number, a certain number of people who have authorized themselves, in accordance with my formula, to be analysts. There are two stages. There is one stage when they are like the rhinoceros; they do more or less anything and I always approve them. In effect they are always right. The second stage consists in playing with this equivocation which might liberate from the symptom. Because it is uniquely by equivocation that
interpretation works. There must be something in the signifier that resonates.

我有時候讓自己所謂的享有這個崇高地位,檢視一下某些的人。他們宣稱遵照我的學說模式,成為精神分析師。有兩個階段。其中一個階段,他們就像犀牛,他們什麽都做,我總是認同他們。事實上,他們總是正確定。第二個階段,在於玩弄從病徵解放出來的模棱兩可的遊戲。在意符裏一定有某件東西迴響。

18.11.75 I-28
It must be said that one is surprised, in short, that this has in no way appeared to the English philosophers. I call them philosophers because they are not psychoanalysts.
They have a rock solid belief that the word does not have an effect. They are wrong. They imagine to themselves that there are drives, even indeed when they are willing not to translate drive by instinct.

我們必須說,我們大吃一驚,總之,英國哲學家絕對不會這樣。我稱他們叫哲學家,因為他們不是精神分析師。他們有著像磐石一般的信仰,認為字詞不會產生影響。他們錯了。他們自己想像,會有些欲望驅力,甚至,他們將這些欲望驅力翻譯成為「本能」。

They cannot get it into their heads that drives are the echo in the body of the fact that there is a saying. But for this speech to resonate, for it to be consonant with, to use another word of the sinthome madaquin, for it to consonate, the body must be sensitive to it. And that it is, is a fact. It is because the body has some orifices of which the most important, of which the most important because it cannot be stopped, be closed, of which the most important is the ear, because it cannot be shut, that it is because of this that there is a response in the body to what I called the voice.

他們就是沒有想到,欲望驅力是這個身體的事實的迴響,因為語言的存在。為了要讓這個言說有所迴響,為了讓它能引起共鳴,為了使用別的字詮釋「病徵阿奎那哲學化」,為了讓它引起共鳴,身體的感覺必須要很敏銳。這就是一個事實,因為身體有一些很重要的洞口。這些洞口很重要,因為它們不能被阻塞,被封閉。其中最重要的是耳朵,因為它無法充耳不聞。因為這樣,身體會有一個回應,我稱之為「聲音」。

The embarrassing thing is assuredly that there is not only the ear, and that the look is an outstanding rival to it. More geometrico, because of the form, so dear to Plato, the individual presents himself as best he can, as a body. And this body has a power of
(17) captivation which is such, up to a certain point, that it is the blind that one should envy. How can a blind man, even if he is able to use Braille, how can he read Euclid?

令人尷尬的事情確實是,不但是耳朵,臉孔也是它的競爭對手。從形式上來說,臉孔的幾何圖形的均稱,是柏拉圖最喜愛的。個人儘可能讓自己打扮得好看,作為一個身體。這個身體有吸引人的力量,直到某個程度,令人羡慕瞎子,可以避開這種誘惑。問題是一位瞎子如何能夠,即使他能夠使用點字法,他如何能夠閱讀歐幾里得的幾何學?

The astonishing thing is something that I am going to state, it is that the form only
delivers the sack, or if you wish the bubble. It is something that can inflate itself, and whose effects I have already mentioned in connection with the obsessional who is more set on it than anyone else. The obsessional, I said somewhere, I was reminded of it recently, is something of the order of a frog who wants to make himself as big as an ox. We know the effects from a fable. It is particularly difficult, as we know, to tear away the obsessional from this grip of the look.

令人驚奇的是某件我要陳述的東西,身體這個形式只會遞送出「囊包」,或者是你們喜歡的「氣泡」。那是本身會膨脹的東西,它的影響力我已經提到過,妄想症者,比起其他人,更是明顯。我在別的地方說過,我最近又想起來,妄想症者像是屬於青蛙層次的東西,想要膨脹自己像牛一般龐大。我們從伊索寓言知道這樣的效果。我們知道,這個特別困難,要妄想症者擺脫對於自己臉孔形象的沾沾自喜。

雄伯譯
springherohsiung@gmail.com

sinthome 02 Jacques Lacan

October 25, 2010

sinthome 02

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 1: Wednesday 18 November 1975

Is it impossible for truth to become a product of know-how (savoir-faire)? No. But then it will only be half-said, incarnated in the signifier S1, where there must be at least two of them in order that the unique one, the woman, by always having been
mythical in this sense that the myth has made her singular – what is at stake is the Eve of whom I spoke earlier – that the unique one, the woman, by having undoubtedly been always possessed, for having tasted the fruit of the forbidden tree, that of science, Evie, (13) then, is no more mortal than Socrates. The woman in question is another n

要使真理成為按部就班的技術手冊,難道是不可能的嗎?不是不可能。但是真理如果是這樣,那只是欲語還休,具體地表現在第一意符的身上。在那裏至少一定有兩個真理存在,為了要讓女人作為獨特的一個真理,總是神秘難測。這個神秘難測使女人懸得奇特。岌岌可危的是我早先提到的夏娃。女人作為獨特的真理,總是無可置疑地被擁有,因為她品嚐過知識樹,這棵禁樹的水果,科學的水果。夏娃因此跟蘇格拉底一樣,都屬於不朽的生命。我們討論中的這個女人,是上帝的別名,那就是為什麽她不存在。

Here we can note the cunning side of Aristotle, who does not want the singular to play a role in his logic. But contrary to what he admitted in this aforesaid logic, it must be said that Socrates is not a man, because he accepts to die in order that the city may live, because he accepts it is a fact. Moreover on that occasion he does not want a word out of his wife. Hence my formula, which I pick out, rewash [relave] as I might say for your use, by making use of the me pantes that I picked out in the Organon in which moreover I did not succeed in finding it, but in which all the same I am sure
I read it, and even to the point that my daughter, here present, highlighted it, and swore to me that she would find the place where this me pantes as the opposition dismissed, dismissed by Aristotle from the universal of pan, the woman is not all except in the form whose equivocation takes on a piquant quality from the
equivocation in our lalangue in the form of mais pas ça, as one says anything, but not that! This indeed was the position of Socrates. The but not that, is what I am introducing under my title this year as the sinthome.

在此我們能夠注意到,亞里斯多德狡猾的一面,他不想要奇特性在他的邏輯扮演一個角色。但是跟這個先前說過的邏輯,他所承認的,恰恰相反,我們必須說,蘇格拉底不是一個凡夫,因為他坦然接受死亡,為了讓城邦可以延續存在,因為他接受這個事實,當著是天經地義。而且,在那個場合,他不想要讓他的妻子表達意見。因此。我的公式,我精挑細選的公式,我重新整理,為了讓你們能夠使用。我使用從亞里斯多德的「工具論」挑選出來的這個「部分的我」。我並沒有在裏面明確找到這個字眼,但是我仍然很確定我閱讀過,甚至我的女兒當時在場,她將它用紅筆標示,對我宣稱說,她會找到這個位置,這個「部分的我」作為亞里斯多德排斥,女人獨特性的普遍化。女人不是普遍的全體,除了以曖昧形成辛辣的特質表現的形態,就像是我們的語言會以模棱兩可的辭彙,顯現「非耶,非耶」的形式。儘管一個人說了一切,但是沒有一語道中真意!這確實是蘇格拉底的立場。這個「非耶,非耶」的形態就是我今年的講座題目「病徵」,所要介紹的內容。

There is for the moment, for The agency of the letter as it has been currently sketched out – and do not expect anything better, as I said, something that will be more efficacious will not do any better than displace the sinthome, indeed multiply it – for the present moment then there is the sinthome madaquin, which I write however you like madaquin after sinthome. [Play on the French form of St Thomas Aquinas)

我們暫時先回顧一下「文字在無意識界的代理」,我的這篇文章,因為它目前被描繪出來。如我所說的,我們最佳的期望,不是取代病徵,而確實是要加倍病徵。在目前這個時刻,病徵成為哲學家阿奎那表現的形態,你們不妨在病徵sinthome這個字的後面,加個阿奎那哲學化madaquin。

As you know Joyce had a hard time with this sinthome. One should state things clearly: as far as philosophy goes, it has never been bettered. It alone is true. This does not prevent the fact – consult Jacques Aubert’s book on this – that Joyce does not find his bearings very well in it concerning something that he values highly, and which he calls the Beautiful.

你們知道,喬埃斯跟這個病徵奮鬥很長一段時間。我們應該清楚地說:就哲學而言,它可以說是登峰造極。只有它到達真實境界。這並無礙於這個事實,(請參照一下歐伯特討論這一點的書),喬埃斯並沒有在裏面,悠遊自在,關於某件他非常推崇的東西,他稱之為「美麗」。

There is in sinthome madaquin, something or other that he calls claritas, for which Joyce substitutes something like the splendour of Being, which is indeed the weak point of what is at stake. Is this a personal weakness? I do not find the splendour of Being very striking. It is in this respect that Joyce displaces the Sinthome from his madaquinisme. And contrary to what may appear of it at first glance, mainly his detachment from politics, produces what I would call sint-home Rule. This Home Rule which The Freeman’s Journal depicted rising behind the Bank of Ireland, (14) which makes it, as if by chance, rise in the north west, which is not usual for sunrise. It is nevertheless, despite the grinding that we see on this subject in Joyce, it is all the same indeed the sinthome-roule, the sinthome on wheels that Joyce marries together.

在病徵被阿奎那哲學化當中,有某件東西,他稱之為「清澈」。喬埃斯使用某件類似「生命實存的輝煌」,來取代這個「清澈」。這確實是岌岌可危的東西,最大的弱點。這僅是個人的弱點嗎?我看不出「生命實存的輝煌」,有何引入注目之處。在這一方面,喬埃斯將「病徵」跟「阿奎那哲學化」拆離。跟乍然看起來,外表所顯現的恰恰相反,喬埃斯跟政治的疏離,產生了我所謂的「病徵的規則」。
「自由人手記」所描述的基本規則,來自於愛爾蘭的銀行,使它在西北部,好像因緣際會般興起,問題是,太陽通常不是從那裏上升的。可是儘管在喬埃斯身上,我們看到生命主體的內心煎熬,那確實仍然是「病徵的基本規則」,喬埃斯將它們像兩個輪子般,聯接在一起。

It is certain that these two terms could be named differently. I named them thus in function of two aspects offered to the art of Joyce, which is going to occupy us this year by reason of what I said earlier, that I introduced and that I could do no better than to name him, this sinthome, because he deserves it, with the name that suits him by displacing in it, as I said the spelling, the two, the two spellings that concern him.

的確,這兩個術語可以用不同方式命名。我是以喬埃斯的藝術所提供的兩個方面的功用,來替它們命名。憑藉我先前所說過的,今年我們的講座專門就是要討路喬埃斯的藝術。我介紹他,我所能做的就是替它命名,命名為「病徵」,因為他值得這個病徵,這個名稱跟他名符其實。他在病徵裏,如我所說的,有兩個跟他有關的不同拼字法。

But it is a fact that he chooses. In doing so he is like me, a heretic. For haeresis is indeed here what specifies the heretic. One must choose the path along which the
truth must be taken. And this all the more that once the choice has been made, this does not prevent anyone from submitting it to confirmation, namely, being properly a heretic; the one who because of having well recognised the nature of the sinthome, does not spare himself using it logically, namely, to the point of reaching its Real at the end of which he is no longer thirsty. Yes. Of course he did this at first sight. Because you could not have had a worse start than him.

這個一個他選擇的事實。當他這樣做時,他就像我一樣,是一位攻乎異端者。
「異端者」在此確實明確指明這些追求旁門左道的人。我們必須要選擇真理被必須被追尋的途徑。一但這條途徑的選擇被決定,再大的困難都不會阻礙他勇往直前,適當地成為一位異端份子。對於這個「病徵」的特性充分體認的人,他會不遺餘力地,從邏輯上推演到底,換句話說,他最終要到達真實界,這樣他的渴望才能夠被滿足。當然,他第一眼看到時,就已經是在從事當中。因為從一開始,他所遭遇的坎坷,就已經是遠勝過任何人。

To be born in Dublin, with a drunken and more or less Fenian father, namely, a fanatic, from two families, for this is always how things present themselves for anyone who is the son of two families, when it happens that he believes himself to be male because he has a little bit of a prick. Naturally, excuse my use of this word, something more is needed. But since his prick was a little craven, as I might say, it was his art that supplied for his phallic bearing. And it is ever thus. The phallus is the
conjunction of what I called this parasite, which is the little piece of prick in question, it is the conjunction of this with the function of the word. And this is why his art is the real warrant of his phallus. Apart from that, let us say that he was a poor devil and
even a poor heretic. There are no Joyceans to enjoy his heresy except in the university.

喬埃斯出生于都伯林,父親是一位酗酒者及從事愛爾蘭獨立運動者,換言之,一位激進份子。他來自兩個家庭,因為這個一位來自兩個家庭的小孩,常會有的表現模式。當事情發生時,他相信自己是一位男子漢,因為他有一點以這樣的氣概自豪。當然,恕我使用這個字眼,當男子漢可不是光憑口頭囔囔。但是如我所說的,他的自豪其實有點懦弱,因為他是憑藉筆端的藝術,替他的陽具耀威揚威。即使是這樣,這個陽具是我所謂的這個寄生物的結合,受到質疑的那一點自豪,跟文字到功用結合在一起。這就是為什麽,他的藝術是他的陽具的耀威揚威的真實保證。除了這個,容我們這樣說,他是一位可憐的惡魔,也是一位可憐的異端者。除了在大學那段日子外,他對於自己的異端行徑,只有痛苦,沒有快樂。

But it was he who deliberately wanted this lot to busy themselves with him. The funny thing is that he succeeded in it. And beyond all measure. It lasts, and it will
continue to last. He specifically wanted it for three hundred years, he said so. I want academics to be kept busy with me for three hundred years. And he will have them, provided God does not blow us to smithereens. This poor devil {ce hère) because one can not say cet hère, it is forbidden by the aspiration, this does not worry everyone all that much, that it is for that that once says pauvre hère, this hère is conceived of as a hero. Stephen Hero, (15) this is the title explicitly given for the one from whom he
prepared A portrait of the artist as a young man.

因此是他自己刻意要選擇這樣的命運,日以繼夜地忙碌寫作。好笑的是,他竟然還成功地做到這一點。歷經各種考驗,他的作品保存下來,而且還會繼續保存下去。他明確地說,他的作品至少要保存三百年,他這樣說:「我要學術界研究我的作品,三百年之久。」他將實踐這些話,只要上帝沒有將我們全部都毀滅。他是一位可憐的惡魔,因為我們無法說他是「上帝的繼承人」,這樣的渴望會遭受天譴。可是,並不每一個人都會有這種的憂慮。因為這樣,曾經有段時間,當我們說「令人哀憐的異端者」時,那個異端者被構想成為英雄。「史蒂芬,這位英雄」,這是他準備寫作「一位年輕藝術家的畫像」時,明確給予他的小說主角的名稱。

雄伯譯
springheroshiung@gmail.com

sinthome 01 Jacques Lacan

October 24, 2010

sinthome 01

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病徵

Seminar 1: Wednesday 18 November 1975

What I announced on the notice was Le Sinthome. It is an old way of writing what was subsequently written as symptom.

我在公告宣佈的議題是「病徵」。Le Sinthome 是一個以前的拼字方式,來書寫隨後我們所謂的病徵的新式拼法symptom。

If I allowed myself to… this orthographic modification obviously marks an epoch, an epoch that happens to be that of the injection into French, into what I call lalangue, my lalangue, the injection of Greek. Of this tongue about which Joyce, in A portrait of the artist, clearly expressed the wish, no, its not in A portrait of the artist, it is in Ulysses, in Ulysses, in the first chapter, it is a matter of Hellenising, of injecting in the same way the Hellenic lalangue into something or other. Since it was not a matter of Gaelic, even though it was Ireland that was at stake, but Joyce had to write in English.

容我這樣說。我用Le Sinthome 的拼法,而不是symptom 的新式拼法,懸而易見地,是要標示著一個不同的時代。在這個時代,希臘文剛好融入法文,融入我所謂的「語文」,我的法國語文。至於喬埃斯的語文則是英文,在「一位年輕藝術家的畫像」,他清楚地表達這個願望,不,不是在「一個年輕藝術家的畫像」,而是在「尤裏西斯」,在尤裏西斯的第一章,討論到希臘文化的影響,如同要將希臘的語文,融入某件其他的東西。我們不確定是什麽東西,但確定不是愛爾蘭的蓋爾方言,即使愛爾蘭當時岌岌可危,但是喬埃斯必須用英文寫作。

That he wrote in English in such a way that – as was said (10) by someone whom I hope is in this audience, Philippe Sollers, in Tel Quel – he wrote it in such a way that the English tongue no longer exists. It already had I would say, little consistency.

他必須用英文寫作,情非得已,如菲力浦、梭勒在「真理雜誌」所說的。我想梭勒本人現在應該是在聽眾席。他用英文寫作,好像英文的語言,快要滅絕。可是,我覺得這種說法有點前後不一致。

Which does not mean that it is easy to write in English. But Joyce, through the series of works that he wrote in English, added something to it that makes the same author say that it should be written l’élangues. That’s l’élangues. L’élangues by which I suppose he intends to designate something like elation. This elation that we are told is at the source of some symptom or other that in psychiatry we call mania.

這並不意味著,英文寫作很容易。但是喬埃斯,透過一系列他用英文寫作的作品,替英文增添了某件東西,使得菲力浦、梭勒不禁說,那真是「絕妙好文」。「絕妙好文」的意思是,我想他是用來指示某個像是「興高采烈」。我們聽說,興高采烈的情緒是某種病徵的來源,在精神分裂學,我們稱之為「狂躁症」。

This indeed in effect is what his last work resembles, namely, Finnegans Wake which is the one that he held back for such a long time to attract general attention. The one also in connection with which I put forward at a time, at a time when I had allowed myself to be lured into…by a pressing solicitation, pressing, I should say, on the part of Jacques Aubert here present and still just as pressing, into which I allowed myself to be lured to inaugurate, to inaugurate under the name of a Joyce symposium.

事實上,這確實是他最後一部作品可以比擬的東西,換言之,就是「芬尼根守靈」。這部作品他保留很久的時間,才決心公諸於世。關於這部作品,我有段時間提出,當我情不自禁地應雅克、歐伯特懇切的邀請,他人現在現場。他是如此的懇切,所以我就開始情不自禁地主講起有關喬埃斯的講座。

That is why in short I allowed myself to be diverted from my project which was, this year – I announced it to you last year – to entitle this seminar by 4,5 and 6. I have contented myself with the 4 and I am very glad of it, because I would surely have succumbed to 4,5,6. Which is not to say that the 4 in question is any less weighty for me.

那就是為什麽,我最後從原先計畫的議題,我去年跟你們宣佈的議題,我原先將我的講座按四、五、六排列命名,我轉移過來。我滿足於先到達第四講座,告一段落。若非這個轉移,我本來會四、五、六講座一直延續下去。這並不是說,我的第四講座,就能講得比較輕而易舉。

I inherit from Freud. Very much in spite of myself. Because I have stated in my time what could be extracted in proper logic from the babble of those he called his band. I do not need to name them, they are that clique which frequented the Vienna meetings.
Not one of them can be said to have followed the path I describe as properly logical.

我的學說從佛洛伊德延續而來,對我而言,我是情非得已。因為一路走來,我對於佛洛伊德學派所謂的門人,他們的作風及主張,實在是不敢苟同,不得不根據邏輯推演,力爭到底。我不需要道出他們的姓名,他們成群結隊,時常在維也納會議叱詫風雲。可是,他們沒有一位是,遵照我所描述的邏輯上「言之成理,析之有據」。

(11) Nature, I will say, to be done with it, is distinguished by being not-one. Hence the logical procedure for tackling it. To call nature what you exclude in the very act of taking an interest in something, that something being distinguished by being named,
nature, by this procedure, only runs the risk of being characterized as a pot-pourri of what lies outside nature.

總而言之,容我這樣說,人的天性的區別特徵,就是它不是一個天性。因此,我們必須用邏輯的程式來克服它。假如你替人的天性定義為,你正在對於某件東西感到興趣時,所排除的東西,某件東西,你以命名的方式區別它。以這種程式定義的天性。危險的地方在於:它的特徵會成為天性本質之外的一堆大雜燴。

The advantage of this last proposition is that if you find, in carefully counting it, that to name it is in contrast with what appears to be the law of nature- that there is not in him, I mean in man any naturally (this naturally with every possible reservation)
naturally sexual relationship- your are positing logically as proves to be the case that this is not a privilege, a privilege of man.

這個最後命題的優點是:假如在小心計算的時候,你發現到,替某件東西命名,等於就是跟看起來像是天性的法則作對比。例如,在人的天性裏,我指的是人的自然天性裏,(這個自然天性,我暫且這樣使用),性愛的關係並不存在。你們從邏輯的觀點提出,證明這是通例,這不是特權,不是人的特權。

Be careful however not to go so far as to say that there is nothing natural about sex. Rather try to see what is in question in each case, from bacteria to birds. I have already made an allusion to both. From bacteria to birds because they have names. Let us note in passing that in so-called divine creation – divine only in that it refers to nomination – bacteria in not named.

可是,你們要小心翼翼,不要過度解讀為:關於性愛,沒有任何屬於自然天性的東西。相反的,你們要設法看出,每一種情況,從細菌到鳥類,受到質疑的問題是什麽。這兩樣東西,我曾經引用過,從細菌到鳥類,因為它們已經被命名。我們不妨再稍加注意,所謂神聖的創造。萬物之所以神聖,因為它接受上帝的命名,可是細菌並沒有被上帝命名到。

Nor is it (12) named when God, fooling around with man, with what is supposed to be the original man, suggests that he begin by saying the name of each little beast. Of what we must call this first blunder around we have no trace unless we conclude from it that Adam was, as his name sufficiently indicates- this is an allusion to the function of the index in Peirce – that Adam was of course, in the joke made precisely by Joyce, a madame.

細菌也沒有被命名,即使當上帝為創造人的事情手忙腳亂,為了要創所謂造最初的人,上帝建議,對於每個小動物都應該給予命名。我們沒有線索知道,為什麽上帝會犯這個錯誤,除非我們根據這個錯誤推論:亞當是一位女士,如同他的名字充分顯示,按照皮爾斯的命名索引的功能,喬埃斯當然會把這個當作是上帝跟我們開玩笑。

And the fact that he named the beasts in her language can be safely assumed because she whom I would call Evie, l’évie that I have a perfect right to call such because this indeed is what it means Hebrew – if indeed Hebrew is a tongue- the mother of the living, well then, Evie immediately chattered away in this tongue, since after the supposed naming by Adam, she was the first person to make use of it in order to speak to the serpent.

事實上,我們可以合理地推測,亞當使用自己的語言,替所有的動物命名,因為我願意稱呼她為「夏娃」。我有充分的權利稱呼她為「夏娃」,因為這確實是在希伯來文裏的意思:所有生物的原始母親。假如希伯來文確實是一種語言,夏娃立即使用這個語言,開始喋喋不休。在亞當的所謂命名之後,夏娃是第一個人使用這個命名,為了要跟蛇談話。

The creation described as divine is thus reduplicated by the chitchat of the speaking being (parlêtre) with which Evie makes the serpent into what you must forgive me for calling an ass-tightener, later described as flaw or even phallus, since one is certainly
required to make a faux-pas. This is the fault my sinthome has the advantage of beginning with, the English sin, that means péché means sin, the first sin.

上帝創造萬物,被描述為神聖,因此人作為言說的生物,喋喋不休時也有樣學樣。夏娃就稱呼蛇為「纏繞物」,恕我用詞不雅,後來被描述為瑕疵品,或甚至就叫著陽具,因為我們確實不得不明知「失禮」而為之。我現在替我的講座命名為「病徵」,也是根據這種錯誤開始。英文的原罪sin 一詞,指的是亞當與夏娃不聽上帝的戒令所犯的原罪,病徵與原罪有關。

Hence the necessity – I think all the same, seeing you here in such large numbers, that there are some of you who have already heard my old refrains – hence the necessity that the flaw should never cease but always grow unless it submits to the cease of castration as possible. This possible, as I have previously said without you noticing it, because I myself did not note it by not putting in the comma, this possible, I formerly said, is what does not cease to be written, but you have to put in the comma: it is what ceases, comma, to be written. Or rather would cease to take that path if the discourse I have evoked, which might not be a semblance were at last to arrive.

因此這個需要,(你們出席這個講座的人,大多數曾經聽我喋喋不休過),這個瑕疵品永遠不應該停止,而要總是在成長中的這個需要,除非它儘可能逃避閹割的中斷。這個儘可能,我先前說過,你們可能沒有注意到,因為我自己並沒有以逗點的停頓予以強調。我先前說過,這個儘可能,就是「不要停止被書寫」,但是你們必須加上逗點的停頓:「不要停止,為了要被書寫」。說得更明確些,我們要停止走正途,因為正途似是而非,假如我所闡明的真理論述,要到達終點的話。

雄伯譯
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Unconscious 08 Jacques Lacan

October 24, 2010

Unconscious 08
Jacques Lacan

雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK V
拉康講座:第五冊

The Formations of the Unconscious
無意識界的形成
1957 – 1958

Seminar 1; Wednesday 6 November 1957

You will see that it is towards this that the little bobs at the start and the arrow heads at the end tend, as well as the little ailerons that concern the segments which must always be in a secondary, intermediary position, the others being either initial
or terminal.

你們將會看出,一開始的懸掛的浮標跟結尾的箭頭,還有這個小小的副翼,都朝向這個地方。副翼跟處於中間次要位置的片段有關,其餘的部分不是前頭,就是結尾。

Thus, in three moments the two chains, that of the discourse and that of the signifier, have managed to converge at the same point, at the point of the message.

因此,在這三個時刻,這兩個鎖鏈,真理論述的鎖鏈與意符的鎖鏈,成功地同時彙集在一起,在訊息的時刻。

This is why Mr. Hirsch-Hyacinth was treated quite famillionairely. This message
is quite incongruous in the sense that it is not received, not in (31) the code. That says it all! The message in principle is constructed to have a certain relationship distinguishing it from the code, but here it is on the plane of the signifier itself
that it manifestly violates the code, from the definition of the witticism that I gave you, in the sense that it is a question of knowing what is happening, what is the nature of what is happening here, and the witticism is constituted by fact that the
message that is produced at a certain level of signifying production. It contains by its difference, by its distinction from the code, it takes on from this difference, from this distinction, the value of a message. The message lies in its very difference from the code.

這就是為什麽海欣斯被如此異常親切地對待。這個訊息是相當不協凋的,因為它不是在被接受的意義裏,而是在法則裏。那就說明一切。這個原則的訊息被建構,是為了要有某種的關係,區別它跟法則的不同。但是就在意符本身的層次,它明顯地違背了法則,從我給予你們的機智語的定義。現在的問題是要知道正在發生什麽事,發生的事情的特性是什麽。機智語的形成是由於這個事實:訊息在意符產生的某個層次被產生。它包含自己的差異,自己跟法則的區別。從這個差異,這個區別,它形成一個訊息的價值。這個訊息就在於它跟法則的差異。

How is this difference sanctioned? This is the second plane that is involved. This difference is sanctionned as a witticism by the Other. This is indispensable, and it is in Freud. Because there are two things in Freud’s book on the witticism: there is
the promotion of the signifying technique, and the express reference to the Other as a third party, which I have been drumming into you for years. It is articulated in an
unquestionable way in Freud, very especially in the second part of his work, but it has to be there from the beginning. For example, Freud continually emphasises for us that the difference between the witticism and the comic is determined by the fact that the comic is dual. As I have said, the comic is a dual (32) relationship, but this third Other is necessary for there to be a witticism. In fact the sanction of this third Other, whether it is supported by an individual or not, is absolutely
essential.

這個差異如何被認可呢?這是牽涉到的第二個層次。這個差異被大它者認可作為一個機智語。這是無可免除的,而且是在佛羅伊德的著作裏。佛洛伊德論機智,探討到兩件事情:一是意符技巧的提升,二是生動地尊崇大它者作為第三者。這個觀點幾年來,我曾經一再地喋喋不休。在佛洛伊德的著作裏,這個觀念是無可置疑地被表達,特別是在他的著作的第二部分,但是它從一開始就必須在那裏。例如,佛洛伊德不斷地跟我們強調,機智語跟滑稽之間的差別,是由下面的事實決定:滑稽是雙重的。我曾經說過,滑稽是雙重的關係,但是機智語則是需要這個第三者的大它者在那裏。事實上,這個第三者的大它者的認可,是絕對需要的,無論它是否被個人所支持。

The Other returns the ball, that is to say ranks something in the code as a witticism; it says that in the code this is a witticism. This is essential, so that if nobody does
it there is no witticism. In other words, if famillionaire is a slip of the tongue and nobody notices it, then it is not a witticism. The Other must codify it as a witticism.

大它者將球拋回來,換句話說,將某件東西列在法則裏,當作是機智語。它說,在法則裏,這個機智語。這是很重要的,這樣假如沒有人這樣做,就沒有機智語。換句話說,假如「親切的百萬富翁famillionaire」是一時口誤,沒有人注意到,那麽它就不是機智語。大它者必須將它法則化,它才算是機智語。

And the third element of the definition? It is inscribed in the code, through this intervention of the Other, that the witticism has a function that is related to something that is profoundly situated at the level of meaning, and that is, I will not say a truth – I shall illustrate for you in connection with this example that it is not so much with regard to famillionaire that we can make subtle allusions about the psychology of the millionaire and of the parasite, for example.

定義的第三個因素是什麽?它被銘記在法則裏,透過大它者的介入,機智語擁有的功用,跟某件深深定位在意義的層次有關。這個東西,我姑且不稱之為真理。我將跟你們舉例說明,這個例子不像「親切的百萬富翁」那樣,會讓我們聯想到百萬富翁及其周遭攀附人物的心理學

This certainly contributes a good deal to our pleasure, and we will return to it, but I am laying down from today that the witticism, if we wish to discover it, and discover it with Freud, because Freud leads us as far as possible in the direction of finding the point of it, because it is a question of a point and (33) a point exists, and its essence depends on something that is related to something absolutely radical in the sense of truth, namely something that I called elsewhere (in my article on “The
Agency of the Letter”) something that depends essentially on the truth, that is called the dimension of the alibi of the truth, namely in a point that may enable us, by using a sort of mental diplopia, to better circumscribe the witticism.

這個確實對我們的快樂貢獻良多,我們將回頭探討它。但是從今天起,我定義機智語,假如我們想要發現它,跟佛洛伊德一起發現它,因為佛洛伊德引導我們朝向找到它的要點,因為這是一個要點的問題,這個要點存在,它的本質依靠某件跟真理意義積極運作的東西有關,換句話說,某件我在別的地方(在我那篇文章「文字在無意識界的代理」)稱之為,主要是依靠真理的東西。換句話說,它被稱之為真理的藉口的向度,它的要點使我們能夠憑藉精神上的雙重觀點,更加明確地定義機智語

What is in question, is what it is that expressly constructs the witticism in order to designate that which is always to one side, and which is seen precisely only by looking elsewhere. This is where we will begin again the next time. I am certainly leaving you on a note of suspense, with an enigma, but I think that I have at least been able to set out the very terms that we must necessarily hold onto, and this I hope to demonstrate in what follows.

受到質疑的是,是什麽生動地建構機智語,為了指明總是偏向一邊的東西,確實只有眼光看到別處,它才能被看得見。這就是我們下一次要重新開始的地方。我現在確實讓你們停留在懸疑當中,帶著謎團,但是我認為,我至少已經能夠指明這些術語,我們必須緊捉不放。我希望以下面的說明證實它。

13.11.57 18
Seminar 2: Wednesday 13 November 1957

Let us take up our account at the point we left it the last time, namely at the moment that Hirsch-Hyacinth speaking to the author of the Reisebilder whom he met at the Baths of Lucca, said to him: “And as true as God shall grant me all good things, I sat down quite as an equal, quite famillionairely.”

讓我們從上一次留下的地方開始我們的描述。換句話說,在海欣斯跟「旅行見聞集」的作者談話的時刻。他在魯卡的浴場會見他,跟他說:「感謝上帝,賜予我這些好東西。我跟他平起平坐,相當親切。」

This then is where we will begin, with the word famillionaire which has had its good fortune. It is known because Freud takes it as his starting point.

這就是我們將開始的地方,以「親切的百萬富翁」這個字,它的運氣始終很好。眾所皆知,佛洛伊德就以它當著一個出發點。

This then is where we will recommence, and it here that I am already going to try to show you the way that Freud approaches the witticism. The analysis is important for our purposes.

這就是我們將重新開始的地方。就在此,我已經跟你們顯示,佛洛伊德探討機智語的方法。這個分析非常重要,可供我們之用。

In fact, the importance of this exemplary point is to show us, because, alas, there is need for it, in an unmistakable fashion the importance of the signifier in what we can call with him the mechanisms of the unconscious.

事實上,這個典範要點的重要性,就是要告訴我們,在我們能夠跟隨佛洛伊德稱之為「無意識的機械學」,這個意符千真萬確地重要,因為有迫切的需求。

(2) It is clearly very surprising to see already that the whole body of those whom their discipline does not especially prepare for it – I mean the neurologists – in the measure that they are working together on the delicate subject of aphasia, namely of speech deficits, are from day to day making remarkable progress in what is in question, what can be called their linguistic formation, while psychoanalysts whose whole art and technique is based on the use of the word, have not up to the present taken the least account of it, even though what Freud shows us, is not
simply a type of humanistic reference manifesting his culture and the extent of his reading in the field of philology, but a reference that is absolutely internal and organic.

顯而易見,我們會大吃一驚地已經看到,所有那些專業訓練對於這一點並沒有特別的準備的人,(我是指腦神經病學家)。他們聚集在一起探討「失語症」的微妙議題,換句話說,語言能力的障礙。對於討論中的議題,可以稱之為「他們的語言的形成」,他們每天都有顯著的進展。而精神分析學家的全部專業技巧都建立在文字的使用上,直到目前,並沒有絲毫描述到它,即使佛洛伊德給我們顯示的,不僅是一種人道主義的指稱,證明他的文化素養及語言學領域的博覽,而且是一種絕對是內在及有機體的指稱。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Unconscious 07 Jacques Lacan

October 23, 2010

Unconscious 07
Jacques Lacan

雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK V
拉康講座:第五冊

The Formations of the Unconscious
無意識界的形成
1957 – 1958

Seminar 1; Wednesday 6 November 1957

It may well happen that from time to time these are found together, and indeed all three may become mixed up, but nevertheless it is not the same problem.

可能發生的情形是,有時候,這些不同會被發現聚集在一起。的確,機智語、笑話、與哈哈大笑這三種不同,可能會被混淆,但是彼此的問題就是不同。

To clarify the problem of wit, Freud starts with the signifying technique. It is also from there that we will begin with him, and there is the very curious fact that all of this takes place at a level at which there is nothing at all to indicate at first
that it is at the level of the unconscious, and it is precisely from this, and for profound reasons that concern the very nature of Witz, it is precisely by considering this that we will see most about what is not quite there, what is to one side, which is
the unconscious, and which in fact cannot be clarified, does not betray itself, except when you look a little to one side.

為了澄清機智語的問題,佛洛伊德先以意符化的技巧開始。我們將跟隨他,也是從這裏開始。這個事實很耐人尋味,所有這些都發生在相同層次,起初並沒有任何跡象指示,都是處於無意識界的層次。確實是從這裏,跟機智語的特性有關的深層理由,確實是考慮到這一點,我才會看出,關於那個地方欠缺的是什麽。其中有一邊是無意識界,事實上,它無法被澄清,也沒有背叛它自己,除了當你稍微只觀看一邊。

Here you will discover also something that you will find all the time in the Witz, it is the nature of the Witz that appears thus when you look here, it is what allows you to look where it does not exist.

在此你們將也會發現到,有某件東西,你們在機智語當中始終會找到。當你們看著這裏的時刻,機智語的特性因此會出現。那就是為什麽你們能夠觀看,在它並不存在的地方。

Let us begin then with Freud by means of the keys of the technique of the signifier. Freud did not go to very much trouble to find his examples, since all the examples he gives us, which may appear a bit banal to you and to be not all of the same quality, are taken from his professors, Fischer, Vischer and Lipps, which is why I told you that I hold them in considerable esteem.

那麽就讓我們從佛洛伊德開始,憑藉著意符的技巧當鑰匙。佛洛伊德並沒有花費很大功夫去找到他的例子,因為他給予我們的所有的例子,都從他的教授們,菲察、維斯察、及裏普斯那裏取來。這些例子,你們可能覺得有點陳舊,而且品質各不相同。那就是為什麽我告訴你們,我對它們表示崇高的敬意。

(27) There is however another source that Freud has really explored. It is Heinrich Heine. It is from this source that he takes the first example, the marvellous mot that is put into the mouth of Hirsch-Hyacinth, an impoverished and half-starved Jewish
collector from Hamburg, whom he comes across at the Baths of Lucca. If you want to make a thorough study of the Witz you must read the Reisebilder. It is amazing that this book is not a classic.

可是,還有另外一個來源,佛洛伊德真正探索過。那就是海瑞奇、海音。從這個來源,他取得第一個例子,最神奇的警語,海瑞奇、海音的嘴巴所說出,一位來自漢堡的貧窮而且處於饑餓邊緣的猶太收藏家。他在魯卡的巴斯浴場偶然遇到他。假如你們想要徹底研究「機智語」,你們必須閱讀「旅行見聞集」這本書。它沒有成為經典,真是難於相信。

You find in the Reisebilder a passage in the Italian section on the Baths of Lucca, and it is there that with this indescribable character Hirsch-Hyacinth, about whose attributes I hope I will have the time to tell you something, it is in speaking with him that he obtains the declaration, that he had had the honour of treating the corns of the great Rothschild, Nathan the Wise, and that at the time he, Hirsch-Hyacinth, thought himself an important man because, while he was paring his corns, he thought that Nathan the Wise was thinking of all the courtiers that he would be sending to kings, and that if he, Hirsch-Hyacinth, pared his corns a bit too closely there would result an irritation in the upper regions, that would make Nathan too cut more deeply into the hide of the kings.

在「旅行見聞集」,你們會找到一段義大利部分有關魯卡的浴場。就在那裏,以這個無法描述的人物海欣斯,關於他的屬性,我希望我將有時間告訴你們某件事,那就是跟他談話時,他得到這個宣稱,他很榮幸治療羅斯察德大帝,這位英明的拿撒大帝,他的過敏皮膚。當時,海欣斯以為自己是位重要的人物,當他正在處理他的敏感皮膚時,他以為英明的拿撒帝心中掛念的是他將派遣到各國的大使。假海欣斯處理他的過敏皮膚過於深入,那將會引起上層地帶的刺痛,那會使拿撒大帝更加激怒各國的國王。

And, little by little, he goes on to tell us too of another Rothschild that he has known, Solomon Rothschild, and that one day when he announced himself as Hirsch-Hyacinth, he received a (28) reply in the most debonair language: “I too am a collector of …….. I do not wish my colleague to have to eat in the kitchen. ” And”, cried Hirsch-Hyacinth, ” he treated me quite famillionairely.”

漸漸地,他也繼續告訴我們,另外一位元他認識的羅斯察德,索羅門、羅斯察德。有一天,當他宣佈他自己是海欣斯,他得到最和藹親切的回答:「我也是一位收藏家、、、我不希望我的同事在廚房裏吃飯。」海欣斯喊叫起來,「他對待我是多麽的親切!」

It is at this point that Freud pauses and goes on to ask very acutely: What is this? A neologism? A slip of the tongue? A witticism? It is certainly a witticism, but the fact that I could ask the other two questions already introduces us into an ambiguity, into the signifier, into the unconscious ………… ; and in fact what is Freud going to tell us? We recognize in it the mechanism of condensation materialized in the
material of the signifier, a sort of collision, with the help of some machine or other, between two lines of the signifying chain:

在這個時候,佛洛伊德停頓一下,繼續很尖銳地問:「這是什麽?」舊詞新用?說溜了嘴?機智語?這確實是機智語,但是事實上,我問起的其他兩個問題,就已經將我們導入模棱兩可的曖昧中,導入意符,導入無意識中、、、事實上,佛洛伊德想要告訴我們什麽?我們在裏面體認出意符的材料精鍊濃縮的功用,一種衝突,靠著某種機制的幫忙,在兩行的意符索鏈裏。

“Solomon Rothschild treated me quite familiarly (familiar)”, and then beneath it – Freud too constructs a signifying schema – there is ” millionaire (Millionar)”, and thus there is ar in both, and also mil. They are condensed, and in the interval
there appears ” famillionaire” (famillonar).

「索羅門、羅斯察德對待我相當親切」,在這個句子下,佛洛伊德也建構一個意符的基模:在「百萬富翁millionaire」及「親切familarly」這兩個字裏,有「ar」及「mil」。它們被精鍊濃縮,介於中間,出現一個新字「待我親切的百萬富翁famillionaire」。

Let us try to see what this gives on our schema. I must go a bit quickly, but there is still something to which I want to draw your attention.

讓我們設法看出,在我們的基模上面這意味著什麽。我必須講快一點,還有某件東西我想要吸引你們注意。

The discourse is obviously something that begins in “I”, and goes to the Other. This can be schematized here as going towards (29) the Other. More correctly we can also see that every discourse which begins from the Other, whatever we may think of it, begins and returns, is reflected in the “I,” because it must play some part in the affair, and goes towards the message. This simply introduces in a second moment the invocation of the other originating chain of the discourse : “I was with Solomon Rothschild, quite familiarly”, a return to the Other in a second moment.

顯而易見,真理論述是從這個「我」開始,繼續到大它者。只有朝向大它者,這個基模才能夠被建立。說得更確實些,我們也能夠看出,每一個從大它者開始的真理論述,無論我們怎麽看待它,當它從開始到回轉,都被反映到這個「我」身上,因為在這個事物上,它必須扮演一些角色,然後朝向訊息。在轉瞬間,這就導入這個召喚,另外一個真理的意符鎖鏈的開始。「我跟索羅門、羅斯察德在一起,異常親密地」。在轉瞬間,就回到了大它者。

Nevertheless because of the mysterious property of the mil and the ar, which are in both one and the other as correlatives – do not forget that these two lines are after all two lines that are only of interest to us if things are circulating at the same time
on this line. If something stirs that gives rise to a vibration in the elementary signifying chain as such, and that here at the first moment of the outline of the message is going to be reflected onto the metonymical object which is “my millionaire”, because the metonymical object of “my belonging” schematized here
is what concerns Hirsch-Hyacinth; it is his millionaire who at the same time is not his millionaire, because it is much more the millionaire who possesses him, so that things do not turn out as planned. It is precisely because this does not happen that the millionaire comes to be reflected in a second moment, that is to say at the same time as the other, the “quite familiarly”, has arrived there.

可是,因為「mil」及「ar」的神秘的屬性,這兩者是彼此互相關聯,你們不要忘記,這兩行畢竟就是我們只感到興趣的兩行,假如事情同時在這一行流通的話。假如某件事情發生騷動,產生一個共鳴,在基礎的意符鎖鏈的本身。訊息的輪廓,在剛出現的第一時刻,會反映到換喻的客體上,那就是我的「百萬富翁」。「我的財產」的換喻的客體在此的基模,是海欣斯所關心的地方。他所謂的百萬富翁,同時並不是他的百萬富翁,因為不如說是,百萬富翁擁有他,所以事情並不如他所計畫地回轉。確實是因為並沒有發生,百萬富翁在第二個時刻被反映回來。換句話說,在大它者「親切地」到達這裏的同時。

(30) In the third moment millionaire and familiar have come to meet and to join with one another in the message, in order to produce fami1lionaire.

在第三個時刻,「百萬富翁milliaire」跟「親切familiar」漸漸相會,在訊息中聯接在一起,為了產生這個新字「親切的百萬富翁familliaire」。

This may seem to you to be completely puerile as a discovery, especially since I constructed the schema myself. However when this has had its effect on you for a year, you will perhaps be able to say that this schema is of some use. It has, after all,
one interesting feature, which is that thanks to what it presents in terms of topological necessity, it allows us to measure the steps that we take with regard to what concerns the signifier, namely that because of the way it is constructed, and whatever way you go around it, it limits every step we take. What I mean is that every time a step is required, it will necessitate that we take no more than three elementary ones.

你們可能覺得我把這個當發現,有點童心未泯,特別是我自己在建構這個基模。可是,這一年來,它已經對你們產生它的影響力。你們能夠說,這個基模有點用途。畢竟,它有一個有趣的特徵,由於它是藉著拓樸地形學的需要,呈現出來,它讓我們能夠測量我們所採取的每一個步驟。我的意思是,每當一個步驟被要求的時候,我們就有需要採取至少三個基本的步驟。

雄伯譯
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Unconscious 06 Jacques Lacan

October 22, 2010

Unconscious 06
Jacques Lacan

雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK V
拉康講座:第五冊

The Formations of the Unconscious
無意識界的形成
1957 – 1958

Seminar 1; Wednesday 6 November 1957

I could equally well say this about the German tradition, and in particular about the link between the promotion of wit to its place of prime importance, and the literary Christianity which in Germany followed a strictly parallel evolution, and where the
essential question of Witz is at the heart of all Romantic speculation in Germany.

關於德國的傳統,我同樣可以言之成理,特別是關於機智語的提升到舉足輕重的地位。在有關基督教的文學作品裏,在德國,它們遵照一個嚴格對比的進化,而機智語的基本問題,就位於德國浪漫主義思潮的核心。

This is something which from a historical point of view, and also from the point of view of analysis, that we will have to reconsider again.

從歷史的觀點,以及從精神分析學的觀點,有某件東西,我們必須重新考慮。

Something that is very striking is the extent to which the criticism concerning the function of Witz or of wit – to which I have to say there is nothing comparable in this country, and whether you are aware of this or not, the only people who were
seriously concerned with it here in France were the poets, by which I mean that in this period of the 19th century, the question is not only alive, but is at the heart of Baudelaire and Mallarmé’ – but in any case it was never considered even in essays
except from the critical point of view, I mean from the point of (23) view of an intellectual formulation of the problem.

耐人尋味的事情是,關於機智語或機智的功用,批評可類比到什麽程度,我必須說,在這個國家,簡直是無與倫比。不論你們知道與否,在法國這裏,唯一真正關心的人們是詩人。我的意思是,在十九世紀的這個時期,這個問題不但迫切生動,而且是波特賴爾與馬拉美的核心思維。但是無論如何,這個問題在論文中從來沒有被考慮,除了從批評的觀點,我指的是,從知識的角度說明這個問題的觀點。

The decisive point is this. The fact is that whatever you read on the subject of the problem of Witz or of wit, you will always come up against very real impasses, which I cannot expand on for you today due to lack of time – I will come back to it. I must
omit this part of my lecture but it bears witness, as I will prove to you later on, to the leap forward, to the clear-cut difference of quality and results that is brought about by the work of Freud.

決定性的觀點是這樣。事實上,關於機智或機智語的問題,不管你閱讀什麽讀物,你總是會碰觸到真正的僵局。由於時間關係,我今天無法跟你們詳加發揮這個僵局。我會回頭探討它。我必須先跳過我講座的這個部分,但是我後來會跟你們證明,它見證到我跳躍前進到品質與結果的明顯的差異,那是佛洛伊德的著作所導致的結果。

Freud did not carry out this inquiry that I have just been alluding to, that which would embrace the whole European tradition on the subject of Witz. I left to one side another one, the principal one, the Spanish tradition, because it is so important that we will certainly have to come back to it frequently. Freud did not do this. He tells us what his sources are. They are clear. They are three books, very sensible, very
readable books, written by good German professors from small universities, who had time to calmly reflect on things, and who produced works that were not at all pedantic.

佛洛伊德並沒有從事我剛剛提到的這個研究,那就是涵蓋整個歐洲的傳統,關於機智語這個議題。我將另外一個議題,主要的議題,西班牙的傳統,擱置一旁。它是如此的重要,所以我們確定會一再地回溯它。佛洛伊德並沒有這樣做。他告訴我們他的來源是什麽。來源是很清楚的。它們是三本書,非常條理分明,非常具有可讀性的書,作者是不挺著名的大學優秀教授。他們有時間冷靜地思考這些問題,而且他們創作出來的作品,一點兒也不賣弄知識。

Their names are ■ Kuno Fischer, Friedrich Theodore Vischer and T. Lipps, a Munich professor who certainly wrote the best work of the three and who goes a long way, in fact one could say that he really reaches (24) out, to meet up with Freud’s investigation. If only Herr Lipps had not been so careful about the respectability of his Witz, if he had not wanted there to be a false and a true Witz,
he would certainly have gone much further.

他們的名字是庫諾、菲齊,佛列其、維察,以及赫爾、裏普思,一位慕尼黑的教授。後者是三個當中寫得最好,花費的心力也較多。事實上,我們可以說,他真正用功從事,達到佛洛伊德研究的水準。假如不是赫爾、裏普思當時如此的用心,提升他的機智語到受人尊敬的層次,假如他當時沒有區別虛假的機智跟真實的機智語,他本來還可以更登峰造極。

On the contrary this is something that did not hold Freud back at all. Freud was already in the habit of committing himself, and that is why he saw things much more clearly. It is also because he saw the structural relationships that exist between the Witz and the unconscious.

相反的,這是佛洛伊德根本沒有望而卻步的東西。佛洛伊德已經習慣於孜孜從事,那就是為什麽他觀看事情更加清楚。這也是因為他看到結構性的關係,存在於機智語與無意識界。

On what plane did he see them? Exclusively on what could be called the formal plane. I mean formal not in the sense of pretty forms, the confused notions of everything that tries to swamp you in the blackest obscurantism: I am talking about form
in the sense that it is understood, for example, in literary theory. There is still another tradition that I have not spoken to you about, also because we will often have to come back to it, a tradition of recent birth, the Czech tradition.

他從什麽層次去看待它們?他轉心一致地集中於所謂正式的層次。我所謂的正式,不是指漂亮形式的意義,那種漂亮形式只是將一切的觀念都混淆,讓你陷入晦澀的蒙昧當中。我談論的正式形式,是指它被瞭解,例如在文學的理論裏。依舊還有另外一個傳統,我還沒有跟你們談論到。原因也是我們將會必須時常回溯到它,那是最近誕生的傳統,捷克的傳統。

This is the group that formulated formalism which you may think is just a vague reference, not at all, it is only your ignorance that makes you think that; formalism is a school of literary criticism that has an extremely precise meaning, and that the organization of states that is situated over there in Sputnik-land has already been persecuting for some time past.

這是自成一家之言的「形式主義」的團體,你們可能以為它無藉藉名氣。那你們可錯了。只是由於你們自己的無知,你們才會以為,形式主體是文學批評的一個學派,以為它具有極端明確的意義。在過去一段時間來,監控人造衛星的國家的情報單位,一直在迫害著他們。

In any case , it is precisely at the level of this formalism, (25) namely of a structural theory of the signifier as such, that Freud situates himself from the beginning. There is no doubt either about the results – they are absolutely convincing. This is a key that will allow you to make much greater progress.

無論如何,確實就是以這個形式主義的層次,換句話說,在意符本身的結構理論的層次,佛洛伊德從一開始就將自己定位在那裏。關於結果,那是無可置疑的,他們絕對讓人信服。這是一把鑰匙,使你能夠開啟更大的進步。

After having asked you from time to time to read my articles, I hardly need to ask you, since we are talking this year about Witz, to read Freud’s book. This does not seem to me to be demanding too much. When you look at how it is organized, you
will see that is based on the fact that Freud starts from the technique of the joke, and that he constantly comes back to it. and that it takes as support the technique of joking.

我曾經不時要求你們閱讀我的文章,我幾乎不需要再提出要求,你們應該閱讀佛洛伊德的書,因為今年我們要探討到機智語。我覺得這個要求不算太過分。當你們看到機智語是如何被組織,你們就會明白,它是被建立在這個基礎上:佛洛伊德就是從笑話的技巧開始,然後不斷地回溯它。機智語被用來充當是笑話技巧的支持。

What does that mean for him? It means what is called verbal technique, something that I call more precisely the technique of the signifier.

這對佛洛伊德意味著什麽?它意味著,文辭的技巧,某件我更明確稱之為意符的技巧。

It is because he speaks of the technique of the signifier, and because he comes back to it repeatedly, that he really works out the problem. He shows its different planes, which means that all at once you see with the greatest clarity what must be recognized and distinguished in order not to get lost in the perpetual confusions of the signified, and of thoughts, which gives absolutely no hope of ever clarifying matters. Right away, for example, you see that there is a problem of wit, and a
problem of the comic which is not at all the same thing, any more (26) than the problem of the comic and the problem of laughter.

那是因為他談論到意符的技巧,因為他不斷地回溯到它,他才真正地解決這個問題。他表現不同的層次,那意味著,你突然恍然大悟,為了不要迷失於意旨及思想的永恆的混亂裏,你必須要體認,並且區別是什麽東西,因為那些東西絕對沒有希望讓事情豁然開朗。立刻,例如,你看出機智語的問題,還有幽默漫畫的問題。它們根本就不是相同的事情,如同幽默漫畫的問題,跟哈哈大笑的問題,也截然不同。

雄伯譯
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Unconscious 05 Jacques Lacan

October 22, 2010

Unconscious 05
Jacques Lacan

雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK V
拉康講座:第五冊

The Formations of the Unconscious
無意識界的形成
1957 – 1958

Seminar 1; Wednesday 6 November 1957

You should notice that in this schema you can see in a very (18) concrete way both what links and what distinguishes the truth that is perfectly and immediately accessible, from linguistic experience; this is something that the Freudian
experience of analysis rejoins with the distinction that exists originally between this “I” which is nothing other than the place of the one who speaks in the chain of discourse, and which does not even need to be designated by an “I”, and on the other hand the message, that is to say the thing that absolutely requires a
minimum of the apparatus of this schema to exist.

你們應該注意到,在這個基模,你們能夠很具體地看到,是什麽東西連接,並且區別完美而立刻可接近的真理,跟語言學的經驗,彼此之間的不同。這是佛洛伊德學派的精神分析經驗,重新加入的某件東西,區別原先存在於這個「我」,道道地地就是另一個言談者的位置,在真理論述的意符鎖鏈裏。它甚至不需要由一個「我」來指明。在另一方面,這個訊息,換句話說,它絕對需要至少要有這個基模的工具,才能存在。

It is absolutely impossible to produce a message or any word whatsoever in a sort of concentric, radiating fashion coming from the existence of some subject or other, if there is not all this complexity.

我們絕對不可能用同心圓的擴散方式,產生一個訊息或任何字詞。這個方式來自某一個生命主體的存在,即使並不都是那麽複雜。

No word is possible for the very good reason that the word presupposes precisely the existence of a signifying chain, which is something whose origins are far from simple to discover – we spent a year trying to arrive at it – and which
presupposes the existence of a network of uses, in other words of the usage of a tongue; and which presupposes besides all this mechanism which ensures that whatever you say, whether you think about it or not, whatever you formulate, once you’ve got caught in the wheel of this word-mill, your discourse always says more
than you are saying, and very obviously basing itself, by the simple fact that it is speech, on the existence somewhere of this term of reference that is the dimension of truth; of truth in so (19) far as it is distinct from reality and something that brings
into play the possible emergence of new meanings being introduced into the world, which the truth (realité) literally introduces into it – not the meanings that are there, but rather the meanings that it makes emerge.

沒有字詞是可能的,充分的理由是,字詞預先假定確實就是一個意符鎖鏈的存在。這個意符鎖鏈的起源,很難去考究,雖然我們花費一年時間去探索。它預先假定一個用法網路的存在,換句話說,一個語言的用法網路。它預先假定,除了所有保證你說話內容的這些機械學,是否你思考到它,或你怎麽說明它,一但你被陷入字詞磨坊的轉輪中,你的真理論述總是言過其實,顯而易見地將自己的基礎,建立於言詞之上,於這個術語指稱的存在的地方,那就是真理的向度。這個真理的向度,截然不同於現實界,不同於某件運作新的意義的可能出現,被介紹到這個世界。真理實質上介紹這個東西進入這個世界,不是存在那裏的意義,而是它使之出現的意義。

Here you have, radiating out from the message on the one hand and from the “I” on the other hand, the meaning of these little wingtips that you see here; two diverging directions, one that goes from the “I” to the metonymical object and towards the
Other, to which corresponds in a symmetrical fashion the message by way of the return of the discourse, the direction of the message towards the metonymical object and towards the Other; all of this is provisional and I would ask you to take it down.

在此你所擁有的是,一方面,從這個訊息擴散出,另一方面,從這個「我」擴散出,你們在此所看的這些小小翅膀尖端的意義,兩個分叉的方向。一個方向從這個「我」開始,到換喻的客體,然後朝向大它者。訊息以一個均稱的方式,藉由真理論述的回轉,對應這個大它者。另一個方向,從訊息開始,朝向換喻的客體,朝向大它者。所有這些都是暫時性的,我要求你們記錄下來。

On the schema you will see that there is something which will be of great use to us and which might seem to you to require no explanation, the line that goes from “I” to the Other and the line that goes from “I” to the metonymical object, and you will see to what these two other extremely interesting lines correspond which go from the message to the code on the one hand, because in fact this return line does exist; if it did not exist, as the schema itself indicates, there would not be the slightest hope for the creation of meaning. It is precisely in the interplay between the message and the code, and also in the return of the code to the message, that the essential dimension into which the witticism immediately introduces us will have its effect. It is here I think we will remain for a certain number (20) of lectures in order to see all the extraordinarily suggestive and instructive things that can take place here.

在這個基模,你們看到,有某件東西對於我們非常有用,對於這個東西,你們似乎要求解釋。這條線從這個「我」,擴散到大它者,這條線從這個「我」,擴散1到換喻的客體。你們看得出來,這兩個其他極端有趣的線跟什麽對應。一方面,它們從訊息到法則,因為事實上,這個回轉線確實存在。假如它並不存在,如這個基模本身所指示,對於意義的創造,將不會有絲毫的希望。確實就是在訊息與法則之間的互相運作,而且在法則回轉到訊息,這個機智語當下所介紹給我們的重要的向度,才具有它的價值。在這一點,我想我們還需要好幾個講座,才能看出所有的具有特別意涵及啟發性的事情,會在這裏發生。

In addition this will give us a further opportunity to grasp the relationship of dependence in which the metonymical object is, this famous object that never is, that object which is always situated elsewhere, that is always something else, and which we began to concern ourselves with last year.

除外,這將給我們更進一步的機會,來理解換喻的客體存在所依靠的關係。這個從未存在的客體,這個總是位在別處,總是別的東西的客體,去年我們開始關心的這個客體。

Now let us approach this Witz. What does this Witz mean? It has been translated by le trait d’esprit and also by le mot d’esprit.

現在讓我們來探討這個機智語。這個機智語是什麽意思呢?有人給它翻譯成「詼諧」,也有人翻譯成「幽默」。

I will not go into the reasons why I prefer le trait d’esprit.

我就不說明為什麽我比較喜歡「詼諧」一詞。

The Witz can also mean l’esprit. We must admit that l’esprit immediately introduces something that appears to be extremely ambiguous because in fact a witticism is something that is occasionally looked down on: it is frivolity, lack of seriousness, fantasy, capriciousness. But esprit by itself brings us up short, and we think twice before thinking of esprit in the same way. Nevertheless the spirit in the sense of un
homme spirituel has not got an excessively good reputation.

機智語有時也意味著雙關語。我們必承認,雙關語立即介紹某件似乎是極端曖昧的關係,因為事實上,機智語是某件偶爾受到輕視的東西。它輕浮,缺乏莊重,充滿幻想,飄浮不定。但是敏銳思維本身讓我們刮目相看,我們若再三考慮,就會發現敏銳思維不容小覷。可是,具有「男人氣概」的「精神」一詞的意義,卻還沒有得到過高的推崇。

However it is around this that the centre of gravity of the notion of 1’esprit is to be found and it is better to allow it to keep all its ambiguities. This includes the spirit in the widest (21) sense, the spirit that all too often has the stamp of very shoddy goods, the spirit of spiritualism.

可是,就是在這附近,時代風潮的觀念的引力核心能夠被找到,而且它容許自己表現所有的曖昧性。這包含廣義的精神,而精神往往具有粗製濫造的貨品的標記,精神主義的精神。

We can centre the notion of spirit on the witticism, that is to say on that which appears to be most contingent, most out of date, most open to criticism. It is really part of the genius of psychoanalysis to do something like this, and that is why we
should not be surprised that it is in fact the only point in the work of Freud where he mentions the Spirit, this time ornamented with a capital letter. Nevertheless there still remains this relationship between the two poles of the term spirit, and it has
always given rise to disputes about classification.

我們可以將精神的觀念集中在機智語上面。換句話說,集中在似乎是最迫切,最不合時宜,最飽受批評的事情上。這確實是精神分析學的天才,在從事某件諸如其類的事。這就是為什麽我們不應該大驚小怪,當事實上,在佛洛伊德的著作中,這是唯一我們提到「精神」的地方,此次我們用大寫字母來強調。它總是會產生有關分類的爭議。

It really would be fun to evoke for you the English tradition in which the term used is wit, which is still more ambiguous than Witz and even than 1’esprit in French – the discussions on the true, the genuine spirit, the good spirit to call him by his name; and then of the bad spirit, the one with which charlatans amuse people. How can we distinguish all of this? The only thing that we must really take as a reference-point is the difficulty that all the critics have found themselves in, and this continues
after the 18th century with Addison, Pope, etc., up to the (22) beginning of the 19th century. In the English Romantic school the question of wit could not but be on the agenda and in a place of first importance, and in this respect the writings of Hazlitt are also very significant, and someone else that we will have to talk about, namely Coleridge, is the one who has gone farthest along this path.

跟你們引述英國的傳統,真是一件饒有趣味的事。在英國傳統裏,這個術語被使用當著是「捷思」,比「機智語」,甚至比法文的「時代風潮」,語義還要更曖昧。對於真正的,真實的精神,善良的精神的討論,而直呼其名,然後再輪到不好的精神,江湖郎中的招搖撞騙,直呼其名。我們要如何區別這一切?唯一我們真正必須採取,作為指稱點的是這個困難,所有的批評者都曾經發現,他們自己陷在這個困難當中。這個困難繼續下來,在十八世紀,阿迪舜、波普,等詼諧名家之後,一直到十九世紀。在英國浪漫主義時期,機智語的問題不得不浮上枱面,地位是舉足輕重。在這一方面,哈茲立特的作品也是非常重要,還有一位我們必須談論到的人是柯勒瑞吉,他在這條途徑,可說是登峰造極。

雄伯譯
springherohsiung@gmail.com

雄伯手記991020

October 21, 2010

雄伯手記991020

上星期一位我以前教過的學生回來看望我。她居住美國三十幾年,己經跟丈夫離婚,目前正在跟一位從商業企劃諮詢退休的美國人同居。丈夫跟同居者的住宅,相距不到十幾分鐘。

「我現在是腳踏兩條船,」她坦然地說:「我中午到前夫家跟他煮午餐,晚上則到同居者那裏煮晚餐。」

「現在回想起來,我的前夫對待我,其實不錯,是蠻有責任感的一個人。可是,離婚前的那一陣子,我確實感覺到,我無論如何也無法再跟他在一起過一輩子。現在跟這位美國人同居,雖然沒有夫妻的名分,他在他的財產所有權,也將我的名字列入。感覺起來,他對我也不錯。」

「只是我現在已經停經了,對於情欲並沒有很強烈的需求。」

「那對方要求時,你怎麽辦?」

「我還是會配合他,雖然自己並沒有多大興趣。」

「問題是,沒有激情的性愛、、、」

我沒有繼續發揮下去,轉而跟她講述一個從前幾天的報紙看來的新聞:一位政府濟貧專案的臨時清潔工,兩年前中了兩千萬元的彩券。在親朋好友的連借帶騙,以及自己花天酒地的奢侈浪費下,兩年不到,竟然揮霍得一乾二淨。現在看破人情世故,過著靠救濟金檢垃圾過日子,心裏反而比較踏實。

「假如是我,在揮霍到剩一千萬的時候,我就要有所警覺了!」我感慨地說。

「假如是我,在揮霍到剩五百萬的時候,我就會警覺!」她認同地說。

我不禁會心一笑。

「你我目前都還不是清潔工,也沒有中過兩千萬彩券,所以我們都是假設性的回答。不過用比喻的方式來說,你在美國及臺灣目前所擁有的財產、金錢、人際倫理的資源,所剩餘的,距離五百萬的數目,該也不遠了吧?」

「、、、」

她低頭沉默良久,然後若有所悟地抬起頭,下決心地說:「明天,我回鳳林去瞧一瞧那廢棄的老家!」

Unconscious 04 Jacques Lacan

October 21, 2010

Unconscious 04
Jacques Lacan

雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK V
拉康講座:第五冊

The Formations of the Unconscious
無意識界的形成
1957 – 1958

Seminar 1; Wednesday 6 November 1957

You will recognize my first line here, and the other hooked on to it after having
twice crossed over it. I would like to point out however that you cannot confuse what the two lines represent here, namely the signifier and the signified, with what they represent in this case which is slightly different, and you will see why.

你們會認出我在此的第一行,及附屬在它身上的另外一行,在兩次越過它之後。可是,我想要指出的是,你們不可能誤解這兩行在此所代表的,換句話說,意符與意旨,跟它們在這個情況所代表。兩者之間有些微的不同,你們將會看出為什麽?

In fact we are situating ourselves entirely on the plane of the (14) signifier. The effects on the signified are elsewhere, they are not directly represented on this schema. It is a matter of two states, of two functions of a signifying sequence that we can apprehend.

事實上,我們將自己完全定位在意符的層次。意符對於意旨的影響在於別的地方。在這個基模,它們並沒有直接被代表。問題是,我們必須要理解一個意符的系列有兩種狀態,兩個功用。

In the first moment of this first line, we have the signifying chain in so far as it remains entirely permeable to the properly signifying effects of metaphor and metonymy, and this implies the possible actualization of signifying effects at every level, in particular down to the phonematic level, to the level of the phonological element of what grounds the pun, the play on words, in short that which in the signifier is that something with which we analysts must continually operate, because I think that except for those of you who arrive here for the first time, you should be able to remember how all this happens in the play on words and in puns. Moreover it is precisely the way in which today we are going to begin our entry into the subject of the unconscious, by the witticism and the Witz.

在第一行的第一個時刻,我們擁有意符的鎖鏈,當它始終保持在比喻與換喻的合理意符化的影響,可以參透的地方。這意味著,意符化影響可能在每一個層次實現,特別是化簡到語音的層次,到同音異義作為雙關語的層次,文字的遊戲。總之,意符的實質是我們精神分析師必須不斷地用以運作的東西,因為我認為,除了是第一次出席的人外,你們應該能夠記得,文字及雙關語的遊戲,這一切是如何發生。而且,確實就是這個方式,今天我們將要開始我們的進入無意識界的生命主體,憑藉著機智語跟反諷語。

The other line is that of rational discourse into which are already integrated a certain number of reference points, of things that are fixed, those things which as it happens cannot be grasped except at the level of what is called the usages of the
signifier, that is to say that which concretely in the use of discourse constitutes the fixed points which, as you know, are far from corresponding in a univocal way to a thing. There is (15) not a single semanteme that corresponds to a particular thing or to things which for the most part are very different.

另外一行是理性的真理論述的一行,某些的指稱點已經被合併在裏面,那些固定的事情,那些恰巧是無法理解的事情,在所謂意符的用途的層次。換句話說,在真理論述的用途中,具體組成固定的點。你們知道,這些固定的點根本就沒有明確地對應某件東西。沒有一個單一的語義對應特別的東西。這些特別的東西,大部分是不同的。

We pause here at the level of the semanteme, that is to say at what is fixed and defined by a use.

我們暫停在語義的層次 換句話說,暫停在語詞約定成俗的地方。

This other line then is that of current, everyday discourse, as it is admitted into the code of the discourse, of what I would call the discourse of reality which is common to us all. It is also the level at which the fewest creations of meaning are produced, because the meaning is, in a way, already given, and because most of the time this discourse only consists in a rehashing of what are called received ideas. It is at the level of this discourse that there is produced the famous empty speech from which a number of my remarks on the field (parente) of language began.

另外一行因此是流動的,日常的真理論述的一行,因為它被容許進入真理論述的法則,我所謂現實的真理論述的法則,這是我們耳熟能詳的。也就是在這個層次,最罕見的意義的創造被產生,因為在某方面,意義已經被給予,因為大部分的時間,這個真理論述的組成,只是所謂既有觀念的重新組合。在這個真理論述的層次,這個著名的空洞的言語被產生。許多我對於語言領域的談話,就從那裏開始。

You can see clearly then that this is the concrete discourse of the individual subject, of the person who speaks and who makes himself understood. It is the discourse that can be recorded on a record. The other is what all of that includes as a
possibility of decomposition, of reinterpretation, of resonance, of metaphorical or metonymical effects. One goes in the opposite direction to the other for the simple reason precisely that they slide over one another. But they do intersect with one another, and they intersect at two points that are perfectly recognizable.

你們能夠清楚看出,這就是個別生命主體的具體的真理論述。這個人言談,這個人使他自己被人瞭解。這個真理論述能夠被記錄在記錄中。另外一行是被包含作為,比喻或換喻影響,可以被分解,重新解釋,迴響的可能性。我們朝著相反方向到另外一邊,理由很簡單,確實是因為它們互相滑動。但是它們也互相交會,它們在完全可以體認出來的兩個點互相交會。

(16) If we begin from the discourse, the first point at which the discourse meets the other chain which we shall call the properly signifying chain, is from the point of view of the signifier, what I have just explained to you, namely the collection of usages, in other words what we shall call the code; and this code must be somewhere if discourse is to be heard. This code is obviously in this capital 0 which is here, namely in the Other in so far as it is the companion of language. It is absolutely
necessary that this Other should exist, and I would ask you to note in passing that there is absolutely no need to call it by the imbecilic and delusional name of “collective consciousness”.

假如我們從這個真理論述開始,真理論述跟另一個意附鎖鏈交會的第一點,我們將稱之為適當的意符鎖鏈。從意符的觀點而言,我剛剛跟你所解釋的,換句話說,各種用途的累積,也就是我們所謂的法則。這個法則必須是在別的地方,假如真理論述想要被人理解的話。顯而易見的,這個法則是在以大寫字母O代表的大它者那裏,因為它是語言的同伴。大它者的存在,是絕對必要的。我將要求你們偶爾注意一下,我們絕對沒有這個必要將它稱之為「集體意識」,那個名字真是既白癡,又純屬幻想。

An Other is an Other, and a single one is sufficient for a tongue to be alive. And it is all the more sufficient that there should be just one, that this other can all by itself also be the first moment. If there is one who remains and who can speak his tongue
to himself, this is sufficient and not only an Other, but even two others, in any case someone who understands him. One can continue to produce witticisms in a tongue, even though one is the only person who knows it.

一個大它者就是單一的大它者,足夠讓一種語言自成一家靈活之言。更加足夠的是,它僅是一家之言,其外語言本身也都是自己的第一時刻。假如有一個語言始終存在,它能夠自言自語,這樣也足夠讓它是一個大它者,而且在其他兩個大它者,無論如何,對於瞭解他的人而言。我們能夠繼續產生一個語言的機智語,即使我們是唯一瞭解這個語言的人。

This then is the first encounter at the level of what we have called the code. In the other, the second encounter which completes the loop, which properly speaking constitutes the meaning, constitutes it in terms of the code which it (17) encountered first, is the culminating point. You see two arrows which end here, and today I will spare myself the trouble of explaining the meaning of the second arrow that ends here at this point gamma; it is the result of the conjunction of the
discourse with the signifier as a creative support of meaning – it is the message.

這因此是第一個遭遇,在我們所謂的法典的層次。對於大它者,第二個遭遇會完成這個圈套。適當地說,這個圈套組成意義,用法則的名義組成它,它第一次遭遇的時刻是最高潮的時刻。你們看到,有兩個箭頭在這裏結束。今天我要節省一些麻煩,解釋第二個箭頭在這個第三點結束的意義。那是由於真理論述跟意符結合的結果,作為意義的創造性的支援,那就是訊息。

It is here that meaning is born; the truth that is to be announced, if there is any truth, is there in the message. Most of the time there is no truth enunciated, for the simple reason that the discourse in no way passes through the signifying chain, that it is the pure and simple droning of mere repetitiveness, of the word-mill (moulin k paroles), and that it passes through here in a sort of short-circuit between B and B’ , and that the discourse says absolutely nothing except to indicate to you that
I am a speaking animal. It is the commonplace discourse of speech that says nothing, but thanks to it you reassure yourself that you are not face to face simply with what man is in hisnatural state, namely a savage beast.

就在這裏,意義被產生,假如在訊息那裏,有所謂真理的話,這就是我們即將宣佈的真理。大部分時刻,並沒有真理被宣佈,理由很簡單,真理論述根本就沒有通過意符的鎖鏈。它僅是類比文字的重複的純粹喋喋不休,它通過這裏時,僅是以B點跟B2點之間,短路迴圈的方式。真理論述絕對沒有說出任何事情,除了就是跟你們指示:「我是一個會說話的動物」。這種共同的言說的真理論述,沒有說出任何事情。但是由於它,你們讓自己安心,你們跟人處於自然的狀態,換句話說,處於野蠻動物的狀態,你們沒有面對面正視真理實相。

These two points B and B’ being the minimal nexuses on the short-circuit of discourse are very easily recognizable. One is the object precisely in the sense of the metonymical object that I spoke to you about last year; the other is the “I” in so far as it indicates in the discourse itself the place of the one who is speaking.

B跟B’的這兩點,是真理論述的短路迴圈的最小核心,是很容易體認出來。從換喻客體的意義來說,其中一點確實是去年我跟你們提到的客體,另外一點是這個「我」,當它在真理論述中指示自己,作為言說的生命主體的地位。

雄伯譯
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Unconscious 03 Jacques Lacan

October 20, 2010

Unconscious 03
Jacques Lacan

雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK V
拉康講座:第五冊

The Formations of the Unconscious
無意識界的形成
1957 – 1958

Seminar 1; Wednesday 6 November 1957

This is the point that we will take up again when I have evoked for you the function served by the fourth year of the séminaire, when I will have shown you in a way that is parallel and symmetrical to this – and it was at this point that the dialogue
between Joad and Abner culminated – that there is no true subject who can sustain himself, unless he speaks in the name of the word, in the name of speech. You will not have forgotten the (10) plane on which Joad speaks:

這就是我們將要再一次探討地方,當我跟你們召喚我第四年講座所提供的功用,當我用某種方式跟你們顯示,跟這個並列及均稱的東西。焦德與阿布拿之間的對話在這個地方達到高潮。真正的生命主體無法維持他自己,除非他以文字的名義,以言辭的名義,交談。你們將不會忘記焦德言談的層次。

“Here is how God answers you through my mouth.”

這就是上帝如何透過我的嘴巴來回答你。

There is no subject other than in a reference to that Other. This is symbolic of what exists in every word worthy of the name.

除了跟那個大它者有關的生命主體外,別無生命主體。這就是存在於每一個具有意義的文字的象徵意符

In the same way in the fourth year of the seminaire, I tried to show you that there is no object that is not metonymical, the object of desire being the object of the desire of the other, and desire always being desire of something else, precisely of what
is lacking in the object that has been primordially lost, in so far as Freud shows it as something that has always to be rediscovered. Likewise the only meaning that exists is metaphorical, a meaning that only arises from the substitution of a signifier for another signifier in the symbolic chain.

同樣的,在講座的第四年,我設法跟你們顯示,沒有一個客體不是換喻的客體,欲望的客體就是大它者的欲望的客體。欲望總是某件其他東西的欲望,準確來說,就是原初已經失落的客體的欠缺,佛洛伊德顯示它,當著是某件總是必須重新發現的東西。同樣的,唯一存在的意義是比喻,這個意義的出現僅是作為一個意符的代替另一個意符,在意符的鎖鏈中。

This is precisely what was meant in the work that I spoke about above, and that I invited you to consult, B The agency of the letter in the unconscious”. In the following symbols of metaphor and metonymy respectively, S is linked in the
combination of the chain to S|, and the whole with reference to which culminates in the fact the S, in its metonymical function, is in a certain metonymical relationship with s in signification

這確實就是我以上所談論的意義,我邀請你們參照一下「字母在無意識界的代理」。在以下的比喻及換喻各別的符號裏,生命主體S跟第二生命主體Sl 的鎖鏈的連接,整個的指稱在這個事實達到最高潮,這個生命主體S,在換喻的功用中,跟第二生命主體Sl在意義中,處於某種的換喻的關係。

Likewise, it is in the substitution of S with respect to S e relationship of substitution in the metaphor that we have the (11) following which is symbolized by the relation of capital to small s , which indicates here – it is easier to express in the case of metonymy – the function of the emergence, of the creation of meaning.

同樣的,就在生命主體的代替在比喻中,被第二生命主體所取代,我們擁有底下大寫字母代表的大它者跟小客體的關係的象徵。在此,它指明是意義創造的出現的功用。(在換喻的情況,比較容易表達。)

This then is where we are, and now we are going to approach what will be the object of our research for this coming year. To approach it I first of all constructed a schema for you, and I will now tell you what, at least for today, it will serve to
connote for us.

這個因此是我們所在的地方。現在我們將要去探討我們這一年研究的客體。為了探討它,首先我替你們建構一個基模,然後我將告訴你們,它將會用來幫我們指明意義,至少是今天。

If we have to find a way of approaching more closely the relationships of the signifying chain with the signified chain, it is by this crude image of the buttoning point. But obviously, if it is to be worthwhile, we must ask where the upholsterer is.

假如我們必須找到一個方法,更仔細地探討意符鎖鏈跟意旨鎖鏈的關係,那就是憑藉著鈕扣點的簡陋意象。但是顯而易見的,假如要讓這個意象有價值,我們必須要問,這個套墊的位置在哪里。

He must clearly be somewhere; the place where we could put him in this schema might after all be a little bit too infantile.

他必須很清楚地在某個地方。我們能夠擺置他在這個基模的地方,目前畢竟還是有點處於初期階段。

You may be lead to the idea that since the essential aspect of the relation of the signifying chain in relation to the current of the signified is something like a reciprocal sliding, and that despite the sliding we must grasp where the liaison is, the
coherence between these two currents, you might come to the idea that this sliding, if there is a sliding, is necessarily a (12) relative sliding; that the displacement of each one produces a displacement in the other and also that it must be related to a
sort of ideal present, to something like an intersection in the opposite direction of these two lines, that we should be able to find some sort of schema to serve as an example.

你們可能會有這個觀念,既然意符鎖鏈跟意旨的流動的關係,基本上,是某件像是相互的滑動,儘管這個滑動,我們必須捉住中間的仲介,在兩個流動中間的一貫性,你們可能會得到這個觀念:這個滑動,假如存在的話,必然是一個相對的滑動,。每一個滑動的代替會產生另外一個滑動的代替,而且,它必須跟一種理想的當下有關,跟某件交叉在這兩條線的相反方向的東西有關。我們應該能夠找到某種的基模,來充當一個例子。

You can see that it is around something like this that we can organize our speculations.

你們能夠看出,就是壞繞著某件像是這樣的東西,我們能夠組織我們的推理的思考。

This notion of the present is going to be extremely important, except that discourse is not simply, what I might call, a series of punctuations a la Russell. A discourse is something which leads somewhere, has a fabric, a texture, and not only does it
take time, not only does it have a dimension in time, a certain density which means that we cannot in any way be satisfied with the instantaneous present, but in addition all our experience, everything that we have said and everything that we are capable of making present immediately by experience – it is quite clear for example that if I begin a sentence you will not understand its meaning until I have finished, since it is after all absolutely necessary (it is the very definition of a sentence)
that I should say its final word if you are to understand the relevance of the first – this shows us in the most tangible way what we can call the retroactive action of the signifier, precisely what I repeatedly tell you is given in the text of the analytic experience itself, on an infinitely greater scale in the (13) story of the past.

「當下」的這個觀念將是極端重要,除了,真理的論述不僅是我所謂一連串標點。一個真理的論述是某件會導致某個地方,會有一個織料,一個實質。它不但需要時間,不但要有時間的向度,某種時間的密度意味著,無論如何,我們不能滿足於瞬間的當下,而且,除了我們所有的經驗外,每一樣我們所說過的,每一樣我們憑藉經驗能夠使之當下存在。顯而易見,假如我開始一個句子,你們要等到我說完,你們才會瞭解它的意思,畢竟這是絕對需要(假如那是一個句子的定義),假如你們想要瞭解跟第一個字有關,那這個句子的最後一個字,應該由我來說。這個句子具體地告訴我們,我們所謂意符反射的功用,確實是我一再告訴你們的,是從精神分析經驗本身的文本所提供,在過去的講述著,儘量發揮。

In any case it is clear – that is one way to say it I – I think it is something that you have grasped, and besides I re-emphasized it in my article on the agency of the letter in the unconscious in a very precise fashion and I would ask you provisionally to consult it, something that I expressed in the form of what might be called a topological metaphor: it is impossible to represent the signifier, the signified and the subject on the same plane.

無論如何,這是顯而易見,我用某種方式說,我認為這是某件你們已經瞭解的東西。除外,我在我「文字在無意識界的代理」的文章中,斬釘截鐵地一再強調,我會提出條件,要求你們參閱它,這是某件我表達,用所謂拓樸學的比喻。我們無法以相同的層次,來代表意符,意旨,及生命的主體。

This is neither mysterious nor opaque, it can be demonstrated in a very simple fashion with reference to the Cartesian cogito. I will refrain from going back on this now because later we will rediscover it in another form. This is simply to justify to you these two lines that we are now going to manipulate, and which are the following. The little bob means the beginning of a trajectory, and the tip of the arrow the end.

這既不是神秘,也不是難理解。關於笛卡爾的「我思故我在」,它能夠用簡單的方式來證明。我現在抑制不再重述一遍,因為等一下我們還會以另外一種方式,重新發現它。這只是要跟你們證明,我們將要處理的這兩行是有道理的,我說明如下:這懸掛的目標物意味著一個投射的開始,箭矢要到達的目標。

雄伯譯
springherohsiung@gmail.com