Desire 036 Jacques Lacan

Desire 036

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋

Seminar 5: 10 December 1958
10.12.58 70

I spoke to you about Robinson Crusoe and about the footstep, the trace of Friday’s footprint, and we dwelt a little while on the following: is this already the signifier, and I told you that the signifier begins, not with the trace, but with whatever effaces the trace, and it is not the effaced trace which constitutes the signifier, it is something which poses itself as being able to be effaced, which inaugurates the signifier. In
(6) other words, Robinson Crusoe effaces the trace of Friday’s footprint, but what does he put in its place? If he wants to preserve the place of Friday’s footprint, he needs at least a cross, namely a bar and another bar across it. This is the specific signifier.

我跟你們談論到羅賓遜飄流記,以及腳步,星期五足跡的痕跡。底下我們稍微要詳加敍述的是,這已經是意符的本身,我告訴過你們,這個意符開始,不是帶著這個痕跡,而是帶著任何抹除這個痕跡的東西。組成意符的,並不是這個被抹除的痕跡,而是某件提出它自己,當作能夠被抹除的東西。這樣就開啟了意符的人生之旅。換句話說,羅賓遜抹除星期五的足跡的痕跡。但是,他用什麼來代替它呢?假如他想要維持星期五的足跡的位置,他至少需要一個十字,換句話說,一條橫槓,還有另一條直槓交叉。這就是明確的意符。

The specific signifier is something which presents itself as being itself able to be effaced and which subsists precisely in this operation of effacing as such. I mean
that the effaced signifier already presents itself as such with the properties proper to the unsaid. In so far as I cancel the signifier with the bar, I perpetuate it as such indefinitely, I inaugurate the dimension of the signifier as such. Making a cross is properly speaking something that does not exist in any form of locating that is permitted in any way. You must not think that non-speaking beings, the animals, do not locate things, but they do not do it intentionally with something said, but with traces of traces.

明確的意符是某件呈現它自己,當作是某件能夠被抹除的東西。它確實是存在於抹除本身的這個運作裏。我的意思是,這個被抹除的意符,已經呈現它自己的本身,帶有沒有說出的本體的特性。當我用這條橫槓取消這個意符,我使它成為不確地永久存在。我開啟意符本身的向度。適當來說,畫一個十字,是某件並不存在於任何它被容許佔有一席之地點形式裏。你們一定不要認為,沒有言說的生命主體,例如動物,它們就沒有真實界。但是他們並沒有使用某件說出來的話,刻意地定位自己,而是用痕跡的痕跡。

We will come back when we have time to the practice of the hippopotamus, we will see what he leaves behind him for his fellows. What man leaves behind him is a
signifier, it is a cross, it is a bar, qua barred, qua overlaid by another bar which indicates on the one hand that as such it has been effaced.

當我們有時間來練習河馬的做法,我們將會回頭談它。我們將會看到,河馬走過後,後面會遺留什麼東西。人類死後所遺留的東西,是一個意符,它是一個十字記號,它是一條橫槓,作為被禁止,作為被另一條橫槓重疊。這另一條橫槓一方面指示著,作為意符本身,它已經被抹除。

This function of the not of the not in so far as it is the signifier which cancels itself, is undoubtedly something (7) which just of itself would deserve a long development. It is very striking to see the extent to which the logicians, because they are as always too psychological, in their classification, in their articulation of negation, have left strangely to one side the most original one.

無可質疑的,十字否定槓的功用,本身將會獲得長期的發展,因為它作為取消它自己的意符耐。耐人尋味的是看到這個程度,邏輯專家將這個最原創性的東西,奇怪地擺置一旁,因為在分類方面,在否定的表達方面,他們總是太心理傾向。

You know, or you do not know, and after all I have no intention of introducing you into the different modes of negation, I simply want to tell you that more originally than anything which can be articulated in the order of the concept, in the order of what distinguishes the meaning of negation, of privation, etc., more originally it is in the phenomenon of the spoken, in experience, in linguistic empiricism that we should find originally what is most important for us, and it is for that reason that I will
dwell only on this, and here I cannot at least for a moment not take into consideration some researches which have the value of being experiential, and in particular the one made by Edouard Pichon who was as you know, one of our predecessors in
psychoanalysis, who died at the beginning of the war from a serious heart illness, Edouard Pichon in connection with negation made the following distinction which you should at least have seen, have some notion about, have some idea about.

你們知道,或者你們不知道,畢竟我沒有意圖介紹你們進入否定的不同模式。我僅僅想要告訴你們,比任何能夠表達的東西更加原創,在觀念的秩序上。在區別否定及被剝奪的意義方面,更加原創地,它屬於沒有被說出的現象。在經驗,在語言學的實證主義,我們應該發現,對於我們而言,什麼是重要的。因為那個理由,我將僅是詳述這一點。在此,我至少根本就無法考慮到某些的研究。它們具有經驗的某個價值。特別是約德、皮瓊所做的研究。你們知道,他是精神分析學的前驅,死于二戰之前,因為嚴重的心藏病。關於這個「否定」,約德、皮瓊做以下的區別:你們本來應該看出,應該會有些觀念。

He noticed something, he would have liked as a logician, obviously he wanted
to be a psychologist, he tells us that what he is doing is a sort of exploration from words to thought.

他注意到某件事情,他本來會想要當一位邏輯專家。顯而易見,他想要成為一位心理學家。他告訴我們,他所正在做的是一種從文字到思想的探索。

(8) Like a lot of people, he is open to illusions about himself, because luckily this is precisely the weakest part of his work: his pretension of going back from words to thought. But on the contrary he happened to be a wonderful observer, I mean that he
had a sense of the stuff of language which means that he taught us far more about words than about thought.

像許多人一樣,他接納許多關於自己的幻見。因為幸運地,這確實是他的著作的最弱點部份:他偽裝從文字回到思想。但是相反的,他恰巧是一位高明的觀察者。我指的是,他擁有一種語言材料的感覺。這意味著,他教導我們,有關文字,遠勝過於思想。

And as regards words, and as regard this usage of negation, it is especially in
French that he dwelt on this usage of negation, and there he could not avoid making this discovery which is made by this distinction, which is articulated in this distinction that he makes between the forclusive and the discordant.

關於文字,關於否定的這個用法,確實是在法文裏,他詳述否定的這個用法。在法文裏,他無可避免會有這個區別形成的發現。在他所做的這個區別表達的是:「文辭後的否定」跟「不協調」動區別。

I am going to give you examples right away of the distinction that he makes between them. Let us take a sentence like: “There is nobody here” (il n’y a personne ici). This is foreclosure, that anybody should be there is excluded for the moment. Pichon
dwells on the remarkable fact that every time we have to deal with a pure and simple foreclosure in French, we must always use two terms: A ne and then something which here is represented by the personne, and which could be by the^ pas: Je n’ai pas ou loger(I have nowhere to stay), Je n’ai rien a vous dire (I have nothing to say to you) for example.

我立刻就要給予你們,他所做的在這兩者之間的區別的例子。讓我們舉一個句子像:「沒有人在這裏。」這是事先封閉,因為它排除暫時會有任何人應該在那裏。皮瓊詳述這個明顯的事實:每一次我們必須處理法文裏,一個純粹及單純的事先封閉,我們總是使用兩個術語:一個「沒有」,然後有某件東西被這個「各別的沒有」所代表。例如,我「沒有」地方可居住,我「沒有」話跟你說。

On the other hand I notice that a great number of the usages of ne and precisely the most indicative here as always, those which(9) pose the most paradoxical problems, always manifest themselves, namely that first of all a pure and simple ne is never, or almost never, used to indicate pure and simple negation, what for example in German or in English would be embodied in the “nicht” or the “not”. The ne by itself, left to
itself, expresses what he calls a discordance, and this discordance is very precisely something which is situated between the process of enunciating and the process of the enunciation.

在另一方面,我注意到,許多「沒有」的用法,確實是最具有指標性的,在此總是會形成最矛盾的難題,總是顯示它們自己。換句話說,首先,一個純粹而簡單的「沒有」,從來沒有,或幾乎從來沒有,被使用來指示純粹及簡單的否定。例如,在德文或英文,它會被這個「nicht」或是「not」所具體代表。這個「沒有」,就本身而言,表達他所謂的一種不協調。這個不協調確實是某件東西,被定位在表達的過程,及表達內容的過程之間。

To be clear and to illustrate right away what is in question, I am going precisely to give you the example which Pichon in fact focused most on, because it is specially illustrative, it is the use of those ne’s that people who understand nothing, namely
people who want to understand, call the expletive ne. I am saying this to you because I already began it the last time, I alluded to it in connection with an article on the so-called expletive ne which appeared in Le Monde and which appeared to me
to be quite scandalous.

為了清楚些,我立刻舉例說明是什麼受到質疑。我確實要給予你們這個例子,事實上,皮瓊最專注的例子。因為它具有典範性,這就是這個「沒有」的用法。那些什麼都不瞭解的人,也就是想要瞭解的人,稱這個添加詞為「沒有」。我是在跟你們說,因為我上一次已經開始它。我提到它,關於一篇文章,討論所謂的「沒有」這個添加詞。它出現在「列蒙晚報」,我覺得它是相當八卦。

This expletive ne which is not an expletive ne, which is a ne that is quite essential to the usage of the French tongue, is the one which is found in the sentence: Je crains qu’il ne vienne (I am afraid that he will come).

這個「沒有」的添加詞,並不是一個添加詞「沒有」。對於法國語言的用途,這是很重要的一種「否定」。它在這個句子「我恐怕他將會來」,可以發現出來。

Everyone knows that the Je crains qu’il ne vienne means: I am afraid that he will come and not I am afraid that he will not come, but in French one says: Je crains qu’il ne vienne.

每個人都知道,「我恐怕他不會來」意味著:「我恐怕他會來」,而不是「我恐怕他將不會來」。但是在法文,我們說「我恐怕他不會來」。

In other words, French at this point of its linguistic usage lays (10) hold, as I might say of the ne somewhere at the level as one might say of its straying, of its descent from the process of enunciating where the ne refers to the articulation of the
enunciating, refers to what is called the pure and simple signifier in act. “I am not saying that…” (je ne dis pas que …), “I am not saying that I am your wife” for example, of the ne of the enunciation where it is, “I am not your wife”.

換句話說,在它的語言用法的這個時刻,法文掌控這個「沒有」,我不妨這樣說,在它的散失的這個層次,在它從表達的過程降下的層次。在那裏,這個「沒有」提到表達過程表達內容,提到所謂的在行動中的純粹及簡單的意符:「我並不正在這樣說、、、」例如,「我並沒有說,我是你的妻子。」表達內容裏的這個「沒有」,意味著:「我並不是你的妻子。」

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

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: