可能不是類似 217h

可能不是類似 217h

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 17 February 1971

Look at page 22. It is very instructive and I could translate it in more ways than one, including making use of my earlier being and having. But I will tackle things more simply in order to recall to you something that I already emphasised, namely,
that none of the so-called paradoxes that classical logic dwells on, specifically the one of I am lying, hold up except from the moment they are written. It is quite clear that to say I am lying is something that creates no obstacle, because we do nothing but that, so then why would it not be said? What can that mean?

請看22頁。這是非常具有教導性的，我能夠用不僅一種方式翻譯，包括使用我早期的生命實存與擁有。但是我還更加簡單地克服事情，為了要提醒你們某件我已經強調過的事情。換句話說，古典邏輯詳述的所謂的矛盾律，明確地說，就是「我正在說謊」這一條，沒有一樣足為榜樣，除了從它們被書寫的那一刻開始。顯而易見的，說「我正在說謊」，根本不會引起阻礙，因為我們僅是那樣，那麼為什麼不能那樣說呢？那還會是什麼意思？

That it is only when it is written that here there is a paradox, because people say: “Well here, either you are lying or you are telling the truth?” It is exactly the same thing that I pointed out to you at one time, as to write: “The smallest number that can be written in more than 15 words”. You see no obstacle to it when you say it. If it is written, you count them, you see that there are only 13 of them, in what I have just said.

只有當它被書寫時，它才會是一個矛盾，因為人們說，「嗯，要不是你正在說謊，要不你正在說實話？」這確實是同樣的事情，我有一次跟你們指出的，關於書寫：「即使是最小數目，都能用超過15個字內書寫。」你們瞧，當你用說時，它並沒有什麼阻礙。假如是書寫，你計算它們，你看出，只有十三個字，在我所說的話裏。

But that is only counted when it is written. Because if it is written in Japanese, I
would defy you to count them. Because here you ask yourself the question all the same, there are little bits of wailing like that, little o‟s and little oua‟s, about which you ask whether they must be stuck to the word, or whether they must be detached and counted as a word, it is not even a word, it is eh, it is like that. Only when it is written, it is countable.

但是只有當它們書寫時被計算。因為假如它用日文書寫，我會抗拒你們去計算它們。因為在此你們同樣詢問自己這個問題，有一些小小的尾助詞，像是「也」及小小的「了」。關於它們，你們問，它們是否跟文字連在一起。它們是否要隔開計算。它甚至不算是一個字，就像那樣。只有當它被書寫時，它才被計算。

So then the truth, you will notice that exactly as in the metamathematics of Lorenzen, if you posit that one cannot at the same time say yes and no on the same point, there you win. You will see later what you win. But if you bet that it is either yes or no, there you lose. Consult Lorenzen, but I am going to illustrate it immediately. I posit: it is not true, I say to the truth, that you are telling the truth and that you are lying at the same time.

然後談到真理，你們將會注意到，確實就在羅蘭任的「形上數學」，假如你提出：我們無法對同一點同時說「是」與「不是」，那你就贏了。你以後將會看出，你贏得什麼。假如你打賭，它是「是」或是「不是」，那你就輸了。請教羅蘭任，但是我將會立刻說明。我提出：這個並非真實，當我對真理說，你沒有正在說實話，你同時正在說謊話。

The truth can answer many things. Because it is you who make it answer, it costs
you nothing. In any case, this is going to culminate at the same result, but I will detail it for you to remain close to Lorenzen. She says: “I am telling the truth!”; you answer her: “I am not making you tell it!”. So then to piss you off, she says to you: “I am lying.”

真理能夠回答許多問題。因為是你使它回答，它不耗費你什麼代價。無論如何，這將會在相同的結果達到顛峰，但是我將會詳細說它，為了靠近羅蘭任。她是：「我正在說實話！你的回答是：「我正在強迫你說！」那麼為了滾開，她對你說：「我正在說謊。」

To which you reply: “Now I have won, I know that you are contradicting yourself!” It is exactly what you discover with the unconscious, it is no more important. That the unconscious always tells the truth and that it lies, is, from its point of view, perfectly
(72) sustainable. It is simply up to you to know it. What does that teach you? That you do not know something about the truth until it is unleashed; because it is unleashed, it has broken your leash, it has told you the two things, moreover, when you said that the conjunction was not sustainable.

對此，你回答，「現在我已經贏了。我知道你正在自我矛盾！」這確實是你們發現的，對於無意識，它已經無所謂。無意識總是說實話，並且它說謊話，從它的觀點，是可以成立的。問題是你要去知道它。那給你的教導是什麼？直到真理被釋放，你才知道什麼是真理。它已經突破你的約束，它已經告訴你兩件事情，而且，是在當你說，這個連接不能成立的時候。

But suppose on the contrary, that you had said to her: “Either you are telling the truth, or you are lying”. Well in this case you have had all your trouble for nothing. Because what is she going to answer you:

但是假定相反地，你已經對她說：「你要就是正在說實話，要不然你正在說謊話。」嗯，在這種情況，你是平白無故遭遇你的麻煩。因為她將要回答你的東西。

“I grant it to you, I put myself in chains; you tell me: either you are telling the truth or you are lying and in effect that is quite true.” Only in that case then, you for your part know nothing. You know nothing about what she has told you, since either she tells the truth or she lies, so that you lose out. I do not know whether you see the relevance of this, but it means something that we have constant experience of, which is that if the truth refuses itself, in that case it is of some use to me.

「我給予你這個，我將我自己放在能指鎖鏈裏，你告訴我說：你要就是正在說實話，或要不你正在說謊話，而實際上，那是完全真實。」僅有在那個情形，就你而言，你是什麼都不知道。關於真理告訴你的東西，你什麼都不知道。因為要就是真理告訴你實話，要不就是真理說謊話，所以你輸了。我不知道你是否看出，這個的相關點。但是它意味著某件我們不斷經驗到的事情。假如真理拒絕它自己，在那個情況，真理對我是有些用途。

This is what we have to deal with all the time in analysis and that, that she gives up, that she accepts the chain, whatever it may be, well then, it‟s all Greek to me. In other words that…that leaves me desiring.

這就是在精神分析我們始終要處理的東西。真理放棄，她接受鎖鏈，不管是什麼鎖鏈，對我來說，是晦澀難懂。換句話說，那讓我充滿欲望。

That leaves me desiring and that leaves me my position of demanding, since I am wrong to think that I can only deal with the truth that I can only recognise when it is unchained, showing you in what un-chaining you are participating.

那讓我充滿欲望，讓我處於要求的立場。因為假如我這樣認為，我就錯了。我僅能夠處理我能夠體認得真理，當它沒有受到鎖鏈約束，顯視給你，你正在參與怎樣的沒有受到約束。

There is something that deserves to be highlighted in this relationship, it is the function of this something that for a long time I have been putting like that on the mat, and which is called freedom.

在這層關係，有某件東西應該值得被強調，那就是這個某件東西的功。長久以來，我一直受到處罰地像那樣說，這就是所謂的自由。

It happens that through the phantasy, there are people who lucubrate about certain ways in which if not the truth itself, at least the phallus could be tamed. I am not going to tell you about all the variety of details in which these lucubrations can be laid out. But there is one striking thing.

湊巧地，透過這個幻見，有些人孜孜不倦地研究某些方式，即使無法馴服真理，至少馴服到陽具。我並不是要告訴你關於各種各樣的細節，在裏面，這些孜孜不倦能夠被攤開來。但是有一件耐人尋味的事情。

It is that, apart from a certain kind of lack of seriousness which is perhaps the most solid way to define perversion, well then these elegant solutions, it is clear that the people for whom that … it is serious, this whole little affair, because good God, language counts for them and so does writing, if only because it allows for a logical questioning, because when all is said and done, what is logic if not this absolutely fabulous paradox that only allows writing to take the truth as a referent?

除了某種的認真的欠缺，那可能是最具體的方式定義「變態」，這些高雅的解決，顯而易見的，對於某些人，這是認真的，整個小小的事情，因為我的天，語言對於他們無足輕重，書寫也是一樣。假如僅是考慮到邏輯的質疑，因為當一切都說都做了，所謂邏輯，不就是這個絕對難以置信的矛盾：它僅容許書寫把真理當作指稱物？

It is obviously through this that one communes, when one begins by giving the first, the very first formulae of propositional logic, one takes as a reference that there are
propositions that can be marked as True and others that can be marked as False. It is with this that there begins the reference to (73) truth.

顯而易見是透過這個，我們在親密交談。當我們開始給予第一個，第一個命題邏輯的公式，我們接納它當作一個指稱：有好幾個命題能夠被標示為「真實」，還有一些命題能夠被標示為「虛假」。就是這樣，真理的指稱物就開始了。

To refer oneself to the truth, is to posit an absolute false, namely, a false to which one could refer oneself as such.

將自己指稱到真理，等於提出一個絕對的虛假。換句話說，一個我們能夠指稱自己本身的虛假。

Serious people, I take up again what I am in the process of saying, to whom there are proposed these elegant solutions which might bring about the taming of the phallus, you know it is very curious, it is they who reject them. And why, if not to preserve what they call liberty, in so far as it is precisely identical to this non-existence of the sexual relationship.

認真的人，我再一次考慮到正在言說時，我生命的本質，對於他們，會有這些高雅的解決方法被提出。這些解決可能會導致陽具的馴服。你們知道，這是耐人尋味的，這是他們在拒絕解決方法。為什麼呢？難道不是為了保存他們所謂的自由？只是這種自由等於是性關係的不存在？

Because after all, do we need to point out that this relationship of man and woman, in so far as it is radically falsified by the law, the law described as sexual, is all the same something that leaves it to be desired that each man has his woman (qu‟á chacun il y ait sa chacune) to respond to it. If this happens what can we say?

因為畢竟，我們需要指出嗎？男女的這個關係，當它被法則弄得強烈地虛假化，被描述為性的法則，它仍然是某件男人要求他的女人回應的讓人渴望的東西嗎？假如恰巧就是這樣發生，我們能夠說什麼？

Certainly not that this is something natural, because in this respect there is no nature, since The woman does not exist – that she exists is the dream of a woman, and it is the dream from which Don Juan emerged, if there were A man for whom The woman existed, it would be marvellous, one would be sure of one‟s desire. It is a feminine
lucubration. For a man to find his woman, what else if not the romantic formula: it was destined, it was written.

當然，這並不是自然的事情，因為在這方面，沒有自然，因為這樣的「女人」並不存在—女人存在這件事，是一位女人的夢想。從這個夢想，出現情聖唐璜，假如有個男人，這個「女人」是為他而存在，那將是奇跡，我們將可以確定我們的欲望。這是一種女人的千方百計。一位男人要找到「他的女人」，這不是浪漫的公式，還會是什麼？它被註定！它被書寫！

Once again, we have come to this crossroads at which I told you I would tip over what is involved in the true lord, this chap who is translated, very badly, faith, by man, like that a little bit above the common, it is this see-saw, between the hsing, this nature as it is inscribed by the effect of language, inscribed in this disjunction between a man and a woman. And on the other hand this: “it is written”, this ming, this other character, whose shape I already once showed you here, which is the one before which freedom retreats.

再一次，我們來到這個十字路口。在這裏，我告訴你們我將傾覆真實的上帝牽涉到東西，這位被人們翻譯得很糟糕的人，就像稍微上方處於這個「性」與「命」之間的公共領域，這個翹翹板。「性」是這個自然，如同被語言的影響銘記的自然，銘記著男人與女人之間的這個分離。在另一方面，這個「它被書寫」，這個「命」，這個另外的特性，它的形狀我曾經在此給你們顯示，就是這個字，自由隱退到它面前。

雄伯曰：
拉康繞了老半天，終於回到孟子的「性」與「命」，還跟「沒有性關係There is no sexual relationship 」「女人不存在the woman doesn’t exist 」扯在一起！我翻都翻糊塗了，不知道有沒有人願意幫我解惑？

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

拉康論通過制度

 

拉康論通過制度 La passe
Lacan invented the pass to clarify and formalize the transition between analysand and analyst: “This dark cloud that covers this juncture I am concerned with here, the one at which the psychoanalysand passes to becoming a psychoanalyst—that is what our School can work at dissipating” (Lacan, 1995).
拉康建構這個「通過制度」，為了澄清及正式化受分析者與分析師之間的這個轉移：「這個黑雲籠罩在跟此地有關的時刻，在這個時刻，這位精神受分析者，通過這個時刻，成為一位精神分析師。這就是我們的學派所要驅散的黑雲。
（1995年，拉康）
Lacan’s foundation of theÉcole freudienne de Paris (Freudian School of Paris) on June 21, 1964, was marked by the originality of its membership categories. No longer were there permanent members or didacticians, since an analysis could be recognized as didactic only after the fact by the analysand in question becoming an analyst.
1964年6月21日，拉康在巴黎創建「佛洛伊德學派」，它的原創性在於它的成員的分類：不再有教導式的永久會員，因為只有當受到質疑的分析者成為分析師的這個事實之後，精神分析才會被承認。

There were three categories of membership: analyst of the school (a title initially given to all the former permanent members of the Société psychanalytique de Paris [Paris Psychoanalytic Society] and the Société française de psychanalyse [French Society of Psychoanalysis]), member analysts of the school (who were nominated by a reception committee that guaranteed the “competence” and “regularity” of the candidate’s analytic practice), and practicing analysts (who declared their own practice to be analytic, although it was not guaranteed by the school).

會員有三種：一、學派的分析師，（這個頭銜最初給予原巴黎精神分析協會，及法國精神分析協會的所有以前的永久會員。）二。學派的分析師會員（被審查委員會提名，保證被提名者的精神分析開業的「勝任能力」與「從業常規」）三、正在開業的精神分析師，（他們宣稱他們的開業是精神分析，雖然學派並不保證它。）
Internal conflicts soon developed within the school over training and clinical ability. In an attempt to overcome this crisis, François Perrier proposed, on March 31, 1967, in an address to the analysts of the school, the formation of a college of analysts of the school, which would be devoted to “the clinic as a career and a vocation” (1994). This initiative did not receive any support from Lacan, who wrote up an alternative plan under the title “Proposition of 9 October 1967 on the psychoanalyst of the school” (1995). The procedure that Lacan proposed involved having a candidate give an account of an analysis in which the candidate was the analysand before three “passers,” who had been nominated by their own analysts. The passers would then report about their sense of the analysis to an acceptance committee, which could then allow the candidate to pass from analysand to analyst.

在學派之內，內部的衝突不久就顯現，因為訓練及臨床的能力。當法蘭克思企圖要克服這個危機，在1967年3月31日，他對學派的分析師的演講建議成立一所學派的精神分析學院，致力於「臨床作為事業及職業」（1994）。這個創議並沒有受到拉康的支持。他發表一個替代的計畫，標題是：「1967年10月9日，對於學派精神分析師的建言」（1995年）。拉康建議的程式，牽涉到要申請者描述一場精神分析，他是充當受分析者，在三位的「已通過者」面前。這三位「已通過者」，曾經被他們自己的分析師提名。這三位已通過者將會報導有關他們對於精神分析的看法，對於審查委員會。然後，這個委員會才會准許申請者從受分析者，通過成為分析師。
This initiative gave rise to a lively debate within the school. As early as 1968, Piera Aulagnier, Maud Mannoni, François Perrier, and Jean-Paul Valabrega made their objections known (later published in Analytica, 7 [1978]). And when Lacan put the proposal to a vote for inclusion in the school’s statutes during the Lutetia (Paris) session, Piera Aulagnier, François Perrier, and Jean-Paul Valabrega resigned from the school.

這個創議在學派之內，產生熱烈的辯論。早在1968年，奧拉尼爾、曼諾尼、皮瑞爾、瓦拉瑞嘉就發表他們眾所周知的反對（1978年在「精神分析期刊」發表）。在巴黎的魯特夏會議，當拉康要將這個建議交付投票表決，列入學派的條款，奧拉尼爾、曼諾尼、皮瑞爾、瓦拉瑞嘉就辭職離開學派。

Nevertheless, the pass was put into practice. It seemed that Lacan expected the pass to be not an “experiment in unconscious knowledge,” but a “revelation.” Thus the pass had nothing to do with analysis. In 1974, in a letter to three of his Italian adherents (Giacomo Contri, Muriel Drazien, and Armando Verdiglione), Lacan recommended that they create an Italian group, “including the principle of the pass for those who apply for it” (1982). In Italy the pass was thus proposed at the outset before the school was functioning.

可是，這個「通過制度」被付之實行。似乎拉康期望這個「通過制度」成為並不是「無意識知識的試驗」，而是一種「啟示」。因此這個「通過制度」跟精神分析沒有絲毫關係。在1974年，在給他的三位義大利追隨者的信件（康特利、德拉欣、及威地力內），推薦他們應該創建一個義大利的團體，「包括通過制度的原則，對於申請加入的人」（1982年）。在義大利，這個通過制度因此被建議，在學派運作的開始。
On January 7 to 8, 1978, during the Deauville session on the pass experiment, Lacan heard much discussion on the value of the pass. He mostly heard objections to the procedure, notably from Ginette Raimbault and Serge Leclaire. So he closed the session with these words: “I had wanted to hear testimonials about how it’s working. And obviously I didn’t hear any. The pass really is a complete failure” (Lettres de l’école, April 1978).

在1978年，1月7日到8日，在督委樂會議討論通過制度的試驗，拉康聽到許多討論，對於通過制度的價值。他聽到的大部分都是反對這個程式，最激烈的是來保特及雷拉爾。所以他結束這個會議，用以下的話：「我曾經想要聽到關於它如何運作的證詞。顯而易見，我並沒有聽到。這個通過制度是徹底的失敗！」
Lacan’s declaration that the pass was a failure seemed to indicate that it is impossible to pinpoint within the analytic situation the passage from analysand to analyst. Thus analysts must resort to the other way of recognizing a psychoanalyst, namely an ability to maintain the analytic position as verified by a supervised analysis. This leads to the hypothesis that one is an analyst only in the analytic situation.

拉康的宣稱，這個通過制度是失敗，似乎指示著：要在精神分析的情境裏，明確地定位從受分析者成為分析師的過程，是不可能的。這導致這個假設：我們只有在精神分析的情境裏，我們才是分析師。
JACQUES SÉDAT
See also: École de la Cause freudienne; École freudienne de Paris; France; Quatrième Groupe (O.P.L.F.), Fourth group; Training analysis; “Unconscious, The.”

可能不是類似 217g

可能不是類似 217g

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 17 February 1971

The person who reminded me about the thing in connection with the flute, also pointed out to me that for singing, where in appearance there is no instrument, this is why singing is particularly interesting, it is because here too you have to divide your body, that you divide two things which are quite distinct, in order to be able to sing, but which usually are absolutely synergetic, namely, the placing of the voice and breathing.

提醒我有關吹簫這件事的人，也跟我指出，就唱歌而言，外表上沒有樂器。這就是為什麼唱歌特別有趣，這是因為在此你們必須區分你們的身體，你們區分兩件完全不同的東西，為了要能夠唱歌。但是通常他們絕對是協調的，也就是聲音跟呼吸要一致。

Good! These primary truths which I did not need to be reminded of, because moreover I told you that I had my last experience of it with a golf club, this is what leaves open, as a question, whether there is still somewhere a knowledge of the
instrument phallus.

好！這些基本的真理，我不需要被人提醒，因為我也告訴你們，我上一次打高爾夫球的經驗。這就是攤開作為問題的地方，是否某個地方有陽具這個樂器的知識。

Only the phallus instrument is not an instrument like the others, it is like singing, the phallus instrument, I already told you that it is not at all to be confused with the penis.

只是陽具這個工具，並不像其他樂器那樣的工具。它像唱歌，陽具的樂器。我已經告訴過你們，陽具根本不要跟陰莖混淆在一塊。

The penis, for its part, is regulated by law, namely, by desire, namely, by surplus enjoying, namely, by the cause of desire, namely, by phantasy. And this, the supposed
knowledge of the woman who is supposed to know encounters a problem (un os) precisely the one that the organ is lacking, if you will allow me to continue in the same vein.

陰莖就本身而言，是被法則，被欲望規範，也就是被剩餘享樂規範，也是被欲望的原因，換句話說，被幻見規範。被認為應該知道的女人的被認為的這個知識，遭遇到一個問題，確實是這個問題：這個器官是欠缺的，容我以同樣的心情繼續說。

Because in certain animals there is one of bone. Yes! Here there is a lack, it is a missing bone, it is not the phallus, it is desire or its functioning. The result is that a
woman has the testimony of her insertion into the law, of what supplies for the relationship, only through the desire of the man.

因為在某些的動物，陽具有骨頭。是的！在此有一個欠缺，骨頭的欠缺，它並不是陽具，它是欲望，或是它的功用。結果是，女人擁有她插入法則的這個證詞，供應作為這個關係，僅是透過男人的欲望。

Here it is enough to have a tiny little bit of analytic experience to be certain of it, the desire of the man, as I have just said, is linked to its cause, which is surplus enjoying, or again as I put it on several occasions, if it has its source in the field of…from which everything starts, the effect of language, in the desire then of the Other, and the woman, on this occasion, one sees that it is she who is the Other.

在此，我們只要擁有一點點精神分析經驗，我們就足夠確定它，如同我剛剛說過的，男人的欲望是跟它的原因連接在一塊，那就是剩餘享樂。或者，如同我在好幾個場合表達的，假如它擁有它的來源，是在、、、的領域。從那裏，每一樣東西開始，語言的效果，在大它者的欲望，女人在這個場合，我們看到，她就是大它者。

Only she is the Other from a completely different source, from a completely different register than her knowledge, whatever it may be. (70) Here then the phallic instrument is posited, with inverted commas, as “cause” of language, I did not say the origin.

只是她就是大它者，從一個跟她的知識完全不同的來源，從一個完全不同的銘記，無論那是什麼。在此，陽具的工具被提出，以倒轉的引號，作為語言的「原因」，我並不是說這個器官。

And here, despite the late hour, good God, I will go quickly, I will point out the
trace that one can have of it, namely, the maintaining, whatever you may wish, of a prohibition on obscene words.

在此，儘管時間很晚了，我的天，我要講快一點。我將指出我們能夠擁有的這個痕跡，換句話說，禁止講低俗話語的這個禁忌維持，不管你們怎麼希望。

And because I know that there are people who are waiting for this something that I
promised them, to make an allusion to Eden, Eden, Eden, ah! And to say why I do not sign, what are they called, these things, these petitions, in this connection, the fact is, it is certainly not because my esteem for this attempt is lukewarm. In its way, it is comparable to my Ecrits. Except that it is much more despairing; it is completely
hopeless to language the phallic instrument. And it is because I consider it as being hopeless at this point that I also think that nothing but misunderstandings can develop around such an attempt. You see that my rejection is placed at a highly theoretical point on this occasion.

因為我知道，有些人等待我許諾給予他們這個東西，跟他們提到伊甸園，伊甸園，伊甸園，哈！說我為什麼不替這些東西，這些懇求背書，關於這一點，那確實不是因為我對對這種企圖不是很熱衷。在這方面，它可類比我的「精神分析論文集」。除了它更加令人絕望，要將陽具的工具用語言表達是沒有希望。這是因為我認為在這個時候表達它是沒有希望的。我也認為，環繞這樣一個企圖發展，除了誤解，沒有別的。你們看出，在這個場合，我的拒絕被放置在非常理論的地方。

What I want to get to is this: from where does one question the truth?

我想要讓人瞭解的是：我們從哪里質疑這個問題？

Because the truth can say whatever it wants. It is the oracle. That has always existed, and after that, we can only do the best we can.

因為真理能夠說它所要說的話。那就是預言。預言始終存在。說出預言後，我們僅能盡人事而聽天命。

Only there is a new fact, huh? The first new fact ever since the oracle has been functioning, namely, from all time. The new event is one of my writings called The Freudian thing where I indicated something that no one had ever said, huh? Only since it is written, naturally you have not heard it. I said that “the truth speaks I, la vérité parle Je.”

只是這裏有一個新的事實，呵呵？自從有預言以來，也就是自古以來，這第一個新的事實一直在發揮功用。這個新的事件就是被稱為「佛洛伊德的真實界」的我的著作。在裏面，我指示某件沒有別人說過的東西，呵呵？只是自從它被書寫以來，當然你們並沒有聽過它。我說：「真理說我！」

If you had given its weight to this kind of polemical luxuriance that I carried out to present the truth as that, I no longer even know what I wrote, like coming into a room to the sound of a shattering mirror, that would perhaps have opened your ears. This sound of breaking mirrors does not strike you in something written. It is nevertheless
rather well written, this is what is called an effect of style.

假如你們重視這種我從事的高談闊論，為了呈現像那樣的真理，我甚至不再知道我寫的東西，就像聽到鏡子破碎的聲音，進入一個房間，那本來可能會讓你們豎耳傾聽。書寫的東西，無法像這種破碎鏡子的聲音，給予你們印象。可是，它仍然是寫得很好，這就是所謂風格的影響。

This would certainly have helped you to understand what is meant by “the truth speaks I”.

這確實會幫助你們瞭解，這是什麼意思：「真理說我！」

That means that you can say thou to it and I am going to explain what use that is to you. You are going to think of course that I am going to tell you that it can be used for a dialogue. It is a long time now since I said that there was no dialogue. And with the truth, naturally, still less.

那意味著，你們能夠對真理說「你」。我將要解釋，這對於你們有什麼用途。當然，你們將會認為，我將告訴你們，它可以被用來作為對話。很久以前，我說過：沒有對話。當然，就真理而言，尤其沒有對話。

Nevertheless, if you read something La Métamathématique by Lorenzen, I brought it along, it is published by Gauthier-Villars et Mouton. Good! And then I am even going to indicate the page where you will see some very clever things.

可是，假如你們閱讀羅連岑的「形上數學」，我帶一本來這裏，它由牟敦出版社發行。好吧！我甚至要指出這一頁，你們將會看到很清楚的東西。

They are dialogues, they (71) are written dialogues, namely, that it is the same person who writes the two rejoinders. It is a quite particular dialogue, only it is very instructive.

它們是一些對話，它們是被書寫的對話。也就是說，同一個人寫下兩邊的對話。這是很特別的對話，只是非常說教式的。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http；//springhero.wordpress.com

可能不是類似 217f

可能不是類似 217f

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 17 February 1971

This is where and in what there resides the incompatibility of being and having. In this text, this is repeated with a certain insistence, and putting into it certain emphases of style, which I repeat are just as important to make one‟s way as the graphs at which they culminate.

這就是生命實存與擁有的格格不入所駐居之地。在這個文本，這個主題持續地被重複，並且給予某種風格的強調。我重複一遍，我們探討前進時，這些風格的強調，跟它們達到顛峰時的圖形是同樣的重要。

And behold, I had in front of me, like that, at the famous Congrès de Royaumont,
some people who laughed derisively, if everything is there, if it is a matter of being and having, that did not seem to them to have any great importance, being and having. One makes one‟s choice, huh!

請注意，在著名的羅由門研討會，我遇到一些類似這樣的人在我面前，他們冷嘲熱諷，一切是否都在那裏，它是否是生命實存於擁有的問題，對於他們而言，似乎沒有什麼重要性。我們要有所選擇，呵呵！

(67) This is nevertheless what is called castration. What I am proposing is the following, it is to posit that we will put language here (1), in its reserved field in this gap of the sexual relationship, as the phallus leaves it open, by positing that what it introduces here, is not, not two terms that are defined as male and female, but this choice between these terms of a quite different nature and function that are called being and having. What proves, what supports, what renders this distance absolutely obvious, definitive, is the following, something whose difference it does not seem people have noticed, is the substitution for the sexual relationship of what is
called sexual law.

可是，這就是所謂的閹割。我正在建議的是以下，那就是要提出我們將語言放置在這裏，在它被保留的領域，在這個性關係的差距裏，當陽具讓它張開，提出它在此所介紹的東西，它並不是被定義為男性與女性的兩個術語，而是完全不同性質及功用，也就是生命實存與擁有的這些術語之間的選擇。證明，支持，彰顯，及定義這個距離的內容如下，某件人們似乎沒有注意到的東西，就是：對於所謂性的法則的性關係的替代。

It is here that there is this distance in which it is inscribed that there is nothing in common between what can be stated as a relationship which lays down the law in so far as it derives, in some form or other, from the application that a mathematical function circumscribes most closely, and a law that is coherent to the whole
register of what is called desire, of what is called prohibition, of what underlines that it is from the very gap of the inscribed prohibition that there derives the conjunction, indeed the identity, as I dared state, of this desire and of this law, and what is posited correlatively for everything that derives from the effect of language, from everything
that establishes the demansion of the truth from a structure of fiction.

在此，有這個距離，它被銘記，沒有一個共同的東西，處於能夠被陳述為一個關係，奠定這個法則。因為它以某種的形式，從這個運用獲得，一個數學的功用限制的最仔細。這個法則是一致的，對於所謂欲望，所謂的禁止的整體銘記，對於從被銘記的禁止的差距強調它。這種被銘記的禁止獲得對於欲望與這個法則的這個連接，確實是這個認同，容我大膽地陳述。所被提出跟一切相對應的東西，它得自於語言的影響，得自于一切建立真理的「維度」，得自幻想的結構。

13.1.71 I 85
The correlation that has always been made between ritual and myth, whose ridiculous weakness is to say that myth is supposed to be simply a commentary on the ritual, what is done to sustain it, to explain it, while it is, in accordance with a topology that I have already for long enough given a destiny not to have to recall it, ritual and myth are like the front and the back (l‟endroit et l‟envers), on condition that this front and this back are in continuity.

這個共同關係總是被建立在儀式與神話之間。它的荒謬的弱點，是說神話應該僅是對於儀式的評論，為了維持儀式，解釋儀式所做的東西。另一方面，為了符合一個拓撲圖形，那是我長久以來念茲在茲的拓撲圖形，儀式與神話就像是正面與反面，只要這正反兩面是連續性的。

The maintaining, the maintaining in analytic discourse of this residual myth that is called the Oedipus complex, God knows why, which is in fact that of Totem and taboo, in which there is inscribed this myth that is entirely invented by Freud, of the primordial father in so far as he enjoys all the women, it is all the same here that we ought to question a little further from the point of view of logic and of writing, what it means.

在精神分析的真理論述，維持所謂的伊底普斯情結的這個殘餘的神話，天曉得為什麼，事實上，在「圖騰與禁忌」，完全由佛洛伊德構想的這個神話，被銘記在那裏，原始的父親享受所有的女人，仍然是在這裏，我們應該從邏輯與書寫的觀點，稍微深入地質疑，那是什麼意思。

It is a long time since I introduced here the schema of Peirce about propositions in so far as they are divided into four, universal, particular, affirmative and negative, the two terms, the two couples of terms interchanging. Everyone knows that to say that: every x is y, if the schema of Peirce, Charles Sanders, has an interest, it is to show, it
is to define as necessary that every something is provided with such an attribute, is a perfectly acceptable universal position without there being for all that any x. In Peirce‟s little formula, little schema, I remind you, here we have a certain number of vertical strokes, here we have none, here we have a little mixture of the two, and that it is from the overlapping of two of these boxes that there results the specificity of one or other of these propositions.

長久以來，我介紹皮爾斯關於這些命題的這個基模。它們被分成四個，普遍性，特殊性，肯定與否定。這兩個術語，兩對術語互相交換。眾所周知，說每個X，都等於Y，皮爾斯的這個基模的有趣之處，它是要顯示，它是要定義為必須：每一件被供應這樣一個屬性的東西，是一個完全可被接受的普遍性的立場，而不需要有任何的X給它們。在皮爾斯的小基模，我提醒你們，這個小基模，我們擁有某些數目的垂直的筆劃，目前我們沒有，目前我們只有這兩個的混合，從這些盒子的兩個的重疊，形成一兩個這些命題的明確性。

And that it is by bringing together these two quadrants that one can say: every stroke
is vertical. There is no stroke if it is not vertical. To give the negative, it is these two that must be brought together. Either there is no stroke, or there are none that are vertical.

將這兩組的四分之一聚集一塊，我們能夠說：每一筆劃都是垂直。假如它不垂直，它就不是筆劃。從否定來說，這兩組必須聚集在一塊。要就是：都沒有筆劃，要就是：沒有筆劃是垂直。

What the myth of the enjoyment of all the women designates, is that there are not all the women. There is no universal of the woman. Here is what is posed by a questioning of the phallus, and not of sexual relationship, as regards what is involved in the enjoyment it constitutes, because I said that it was feminine enjoyment.

「所有女人」的享樂的神話指明的是，沒有所謂「所有女人」。沒有普遍性的女人。對於陽具的質疑所提出的問題，不是性關係，關於性關係組成的享樂所牽涉的東西，因為我說，它是女性的歡爽。

It is starting from these statements that a certain number of questions can be radically displaced. After all, but it is possible that there is a knowledge of the enjoyment that is called sexual which is attributable to this particular woman. This is not unthinkable, there are like that, mythical traces of it in certain corners. The things called Tantra, it is said that this is practised. It is all the same clear that for a good while, if you will allow me to express my thinking in this way, the skill of female flute players is much more open to view. It is not to… play with obscenity that I am putting forward that at this point.

這是從這些陳述開始，某些的問題能夠完全地被更換。畢竟，這是可能的，有享樂的知識被稱為性，被歸屬於這個「特別的女人」。這是不可思議的，就像是，在某些的角落會有神秘的痕跡。被稱為「密宗佛教」的那些東西，據說，有歡喜佛男女雙修。這仍然是顯而易見，有一陣子，請容許我這樣表達我的思想，女性的吹簫的技巧，是更加公開討論的。在這個時刻，我提出這個問題，不是賣弄低俗下流。

The fact is, there is here, and I suppose there is at least one person who knows what it is to play the flute, it is the person who recently, pointed out to me in connection with this flute playing, but one can (69) say it also with respect to any use of an instrument, what division from the body the use of an instrument, whatever it may be, makes necessary.

事實上，在此我認為至少有一個人知道，吹簫是什麼意思。這個人最近跟我指出，關於這個吹簫。但是我們也能夠說到它，關於一種樂器的使用，這種樂器的使用，不管它是什麼，有需要跟身體區分開來。

I mean a breakdown of synergy. It is enough to play any instrument whatsoever. Get onto a pair of skis, and you will see immediately that your synergies have to be broken. Take up a golf club, I do this from time to time, I started again, it‟s the same
thing, huh? There are two types of movement that you have to make at the same time, at the beginning you will absolutely not succeed in doing it, because synergetically, it is not arranged like that.

我是指協調能力的瓦解，演奏樂器，我們點到為止。現在來談雪屐，你們將會立刻看出，你們的協調能力必須被瓦解。從事一個高爾夫球棒，我有時也玩一下，我重新開始，這是相同的事情，呵呵？有兩種的動作，你們必須同時做，在開始，你絕對不要設法做到，因為從協調能夠來說，它並不是這樣被安排。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

可能不是類似 217e

可能不是類似 217e

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 17 February 1971

There was a first condition which could have immediately allowed us to see it, which is that the sexual relationship, like every other relationship when all is said and done,
only subsists from the written. What is essential in the relationship, is an application, a applied onto b (a b), and if you do not write this a and b, you do not sustain the relationship as such.

有一個首要條件本來能夠讓我們立刻看到它。那就是性關係，就像其他的關係，當一切都說都做了，僅是存於與書寫文字裏。這個關係重要之處，在於是一種應用，某甲被應用到某乙身上（甲乙合為一體）。假如你沒有書寫這個某甲與某乙，你就無法維持這個關係的本身。

This does not mean that things are not happening in the real. But by what right
would you call it a relationship? Something as crude as that would be already enough, let us say, to make it conceivable, that there is no sexual relationship, but it would in no way settle the fact that one cannot manage to write it. I would even say more, there is something that has been done for some time, which is to write it like this: ♂ ♀,
(65) using little planetary signs, namely, the relationship of what is male to what is female.

這並不意味著，事情沒有發生在真實界。但是憑藉怎樣的權利，你稱它是一種關係？某件如此簡陋的事情已經足夠讓它被想像為：沒有性關係，我們不妨說。但是這樣想像絲毫沒有解決這個事情：我們無法成功地書寫這個關係。我甚至說得更過分：有段時間，某件事情被做，可以使用小小的平面符號，書寫成像這樣的公式：♂ ♀。換句話說，男性的東西跟女性的東西的關係。

I would even say that for some time, thanks to the progress that the use of the microscope allows, because let us not forget that before Swammerdam, one could have no kind of idea of it, this…may seem to articulate the fact that the relationship,
however complex it may be, however meiotic the process may be by which cells described as gonadic give a model of fecundation from which proceeds reproduction, well then, it seems that in effect something is founded, established there, that allows there to be situated at a certain level described as biological what is involved in
the sexual relationship.

我甚至會說，有某段時間，由於顯微鏡的使用所導致的進步，因為我們不要忘記，在史瓦莫丹發明顯微鏡之前，我們根本不知道那是啥東西。這似乎要表達這個事實：這個關係無論如何複雜，這個過程如論如何減數分裂，被描述為生殖腺的細胞，給予一種受胎的模式，繁殖就從那裏延續。似乎某件東西事實上被建立，在那裏被建立，使性關係所牽涉到東西，能夠被定位在某個被描述為生物的。層次

The strange thing assuredly – and after all, good God, not all that much so, but I would like to evoke for you the dimension of strangeness of the thing – is that the duality and the sufficiency of this relationship have from all time had their model, I
evoked it for you the last time in connection with little Chinese signs, they are those whose signs, all of a sudden I became impatient to show you, this seemed to be done simply to startle you, well then, the yin that I did not make for you the last time here it is – and the yang, here it is. I am repeating myself am I not, right!

這確實是奇異的事情—畢竟，我的天呀，並不是都是那樣。但是我想要跟你們召喚事情的奇異的維度—這個關係的雙重性及充分性，自古以來就擁有它們的模式。上一次，我替你們召喚它，關於這些小小的中文符號，它們都是這次符號，突然我急切地想要顯示給你們看，這樣做似乎僅是要驚嚇到你們。上一次我沒有提到「陰」，這樣寫，還有「陽」，這樣寫。我正在自己重複，不是嗎？沒關係。

Another little feature here. The yin and the yang, the male and female principles, are things which after all are not special to the Chinese tradition.

在此，還有另外一個小特徵。「陰」與「陽」，男性與女性的原則，畢竟，對於中國的傳統而言，它們並沒有那麼特別。

This is something that you will find in every kind of cogitation about the relationships of action and passion, about the formal and the substantial, about Purusha, the spirit, and Prakriti some feminised matter or other. The general model of this relationship of the male to the female is indeed what has always haunted for all time the mapping out, the mapping out of the speaking being as regards the forces of the world, those which are t‟ien hsia, under the heavens.

這是某件你們將會發現，在行動與激情的關係的各種設計，關於正式及實質，關於印度教的「普魯薩」，這位精神，及「普拉立提」，某種女性化的物質。男性與女性的關係的一般模式，確實是自古以來總是縈繞出現，描繪出言談的生命主體的位置，關於這個世界的力量，在「天下」，在天底下。

It would be well to mark something completely new, what I called the effect of surprise, to understand what has emerged, whatever it may be worth, from analytic discourse.

我們最好標示某件完全是新穎的東西，我所謂的驚奇的影響，為了要瞭解從精神分析的真理論述，出現什麼，不管它有無價值。
，
It is that it is untenable to (66) remain in any way with this duality as sufficient, the fact is that the function described as the phallus, which is to tell the truth very
awkwardly handled, but which is there, which functions in what is involved, not simply in an experience, linked to something or other that would be considered as deviant, as pathological, but which is essential as such for the establishment of analytic discourse.

要以這個雙重性保持是充分的東西，是難以自圓其說。事實上，被描述為陽具的功用，坦白說，它就被處理得很笨拙，但是它就在那裏，在牽涉到的東西裏發揮功用，不僅是在精神分析經驗裏。它跟某件被認為是偏離及病態的東西連接。對於精神分析真理論述的建立，陽具的本身是很重要的。

This function of the phallus renders henceforth untenable this sexual bipolarity, and untenable in a way that literally makes vanish into thin air anything involved about what can be written about this relationship.

陽具的功用因此使這個性的兩個極端難以維持。難以維持的方式，實質上，使任何牽涉到關於這個關係所被書寫的東西，消失於淡漠的空中。

It is necessary to distinguish what is involved in this intrusion of the phallus, from what some people thought they could express by the term of “lack of signifier”. It is not the lack of signifier that is at stake, but the obstacle raised to a relationship.

我們必須區別陽具的闖入牽涉的東西，跟一些人認為他們能夠使用「能指欠缺」這個術語來表達。岌岌可危的，不是能指的欠缺，而是對於這個關係所引起的阻礙。

The phallus, by emphasising an organ, does not designate, does not in any way
designate the organ described as the penis with its physiology, nor even the function that one may, faith, attribute to it with some verisimilitude, as being that of copulation.

陽具，作為一個器官的強調，並沒有指明，並沒有以任何方式指明這個被描述為陰莖的器官，帶著它的生理特徵，甚至也沒有指明是我們歸屬於它的功用，相信是帶有某種真理信心，作為男女交媾的真理信心 。

It aims in the least ambiguous way, if one refers to analytic texts, at its relationship to
enjoyment. And this is how they distinguish it from the physiological function.

似乎，即使以最不曖昧的方式，假如我們提出精神分析的文本，處於它跟享樂的關性。這是他們如何區別它跟生理上的功用。

There is, this is what is posited as constituting the function of the phallus, there is an enjoyment which constitutes in this relationship, different from the sexual relationship, what, what we will call its condition of truth.

這就是它被提出作為構成陽具的功用。有一種享受構成這個關係，不同於性的關係。我們所謂的它的真理的條件。

The angle from which the organ is taken which, with respect to what is involved for the totality of living beings, is in no way linked to this particular form; if you knew the variety of organs of copulation that exist in insects, you could, which is after all the source of what is still wearing well, namely, astonishment, to question the real, you could certainly, in effect, be astonished that it is like that in particular that it functions in vertebrates.

這個角度，這個器官被採取的角度，關於所牽涉到的，對於活生生的生命主體的整體性2，它絲毫沒有跟這個特別的形式連接，假如你們知道，存在於昆蟲的交媾的器官的多樣性，。畢竟，這種多樣性依舊維持得好，換句話說，令人驚奇。為了質疑這個真實界，實際上，你們你們可能會大吃一驚。特別是陽具在脊椎動物的功用。

What is at stake here is the organ in so far – I have to go quickly here, because I am not after all going to go on forever and take up everything again, people can consult the text that I spoke about earlier, The direction of the treatment and the principles of its power – the phallus is the organ in so far as it is, it is being that is at stake, in so far as it is …feminine enjoyment.

在此岌岌可危的就是這個器官—我在此必須講快一點，因為我畢竟我無法一直進行下去，然後每件事情都談到。人們可以參照我早先提到的文本。「治療的方向與其力量的原則」–陽具是這個岌岌可危的器官，因為它是女性的享樂。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

可能不是類似 217d

可能不是類似 217d

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 17 February 1971

There is no more free association than one could say that a variable linked to a mathematical function is free, and the function defined by analytic discourse is obviously not free, it is bound, it is bound by conditions that I will rapidly designate as those of the analytic consulting room. At what distance is my analytic discourse as it is here defined by this written arrangement, at what distance is it from the analytic consulting room, this is precisely what constitutes what we will call my disagreement with a certain number of analytic consulting rooms.

自由聯想其實並不自由，如同我們不能說，跟某個數學功用連接的變數是自由。精神分析論述定義的這個功用顯而易見並不自由。它被約束，被這些條件約束，這些條件將會很迅速地指明，當作是精神分析諮商室的那些條件。我的精神分析論述要保持多少距離，在此依照這個文字的安排，它要距離精神分析諮商室有多遠來定義。這確實是為什麼會有我所謂的不認同某些的精神分析諮商室的做法。

So then this definition of analytic discourse, to highlight where I am, does not appear to them to be adapted to the conditions of the psychoanalytic consulting room. Now, what my discourse outlines, or at least delivers, is one part of the conditions that constitute the analytic consulting room. Just measure what one does when one goes into analysis, it is something that indeed has its importance, but in any case as far as I am concerned, is indicated by the fact that I always undertake numerous of preliminary conversations.

因此精神分析論述的這個定義，為了強調我的立場，他們似乎不覺得應該適應精神分析諮商室的條件。現在，我的論述所描繪，或至少是我傳遞的輪廓，只是組成精神分析諮商室的一部分。當某從事精神分析時，你只要衡量一下他的作為，這是某件具有重要性的東西。但是無論如何，就我而言，這個事實指示著，我總是從事無數的最初的談話。

A pious person that I will not designate otherwise found, it appears, according to the latest news, anyway news three months old, at least it was an unsustainable wager for her to ground transference on the subject supposed to know, because moreover the method implies that it is sustained by a total absence of prejudice as regards a case. The subject supposed to know what, then? I would allow myself to ask this person, if the psychoanalyst should be supposed to know what he is doing, and if he effectively does it?

有一位我無以名之，只有稱為虔誠的人。她似乎發現，依照最近的新聞，就是這三個月的新聞，她將移情建立在「應該知道的生命主體」身上，這是一種無法維持的賭注。因為這個方法也暗示著，移情是靠著完全缺乏偏見來維持，關於這個案例。那麼，「應該知道的生命主體」是什麼？我將容許我自己詢問這個問題，精神分析師是否應該知道他正在做什麼？他是否有效地從事精神分析？

Starting from there, starting from there one will understand that I pose my questions on transference in a certain way, in The direction of the treatment for example, which is a text to which I see with pleasure in my school (63) something new is happening. The fact is that in my school people are starting to work as a school, this is all the same a step that is new enough to be noted. I was able to note not without pleasure
that people had seen that in this text, I do not in any way settle what is involved in transference. It is very precisely by saying the subject supposed to know, as I define it, that the question is…remains untouched as to whether the analyst can be supposed to know what he is doing.

從那裏開始，從那裏開始，我們將會瞭解，我提出我以某種方式討論移情的問題，例如，在「治療的方向」。這個文本，我很欣慰在我的學校看到它遭遇某件新奇的事情。事實上，在我的學校，人們開始工作，作為一所學校，這仍然是一步足夠新穎，讓人注意到。我能夠不無欣慰地注意到：人們曾經在這個文本看見過它。我並沒有絲毫解決移情所牽涉到問題。當我定義它，確實地說「應該知道的生命主體」，這個問題依舊沒有被碰觸到，關於精神分析師是否能夠被認為應該知道，他正在做什麼。

13.1.71 I 80
To take it up in a way at the start, the start of what today is going to be stated, and for which this little Chinese character because this is one, it is one of them, I greatly regret that the chalk did not allow me to put in the accents that the brush would allow, it is one of them which has a meaning, to satisfy the requirement of the logical
positivists, a meaning which you are going to see is completely ambiguous because it means at the same time twisted (retors) that it also means personal in the sense of private.

從開始就以某種方式探討這個問題，從今天要陳述什麼開始，這個小小的中文字，因為這是其中一個中文字。我非常遺憾，這支粉筆無法讓我給予筆觸會有的強調。其中有一個字有一個意義，可以滿足邏輯實證論者的要求。你們將會看到的這個意義，完全是曖昧的，因為它同時意味著「扭曲」，它也意味著「個別的人」，從隱私的意義來說。

And then there are still other ones. But what appears remarkable to me, is its written form, and its written form is going to allow me to tell you immediately where there are placed the terms around which my discourse today is going to turn.

還有其他的中文字。但是引起我注意到是它的書寫形式，而它的書寫形式將會讓我能夠立刻告訴你們，這些術語的位置在哪里，我今天的真理論述，將會繞著它發揮。

If we place here somewhere (1) what I am calling in the broadest sense – you are going to see that it is broad…I should say that I have no need, it seems to me, to underline it – the effects of language, it is here (2) that we will have to put what is involved, where they find their source. Where they find their source, is in the fact that analytic discourse reveals something which, which is a step, I tried to recall it,
even though what is at stake for analysis is primary truth. It is with this that I am going to begin right away. We would have here then (3) the fact of writing.

(64) It is very important at our epoch, and starting from certain statements that have been made and that tend to establish very regrettable confusions, to recall that all the same writing is not the first step but the second with respect to a whole function of language, and that nevertheless without writing, it is in no way possible to come
back and question what results in the first place from the effect of language as such, in other words the symbolic order, namely the dimension, to please you, but you know that I introduced the term of demansion the demansion, the residence, the locus of the Other of truth. I know that this demansion raised a question for some people, echoes have come back to me, well then, if demansion is in effect a term, a new term that I fabricated and if it still has no meaning, well then, that means that it is up to you to give it one.
在我們的時代，這是很重要的，從某些已經被發表的陳述開始，那些陳述傾向于建立非常令人遺憾的混淆，為了要回想起，同樣地，書寫並不是第一個步驟，而是第二個步驟，關於語言的整個功用。可是，假如沒有書寫，我們根本不可能回轉而質疑，語言本身影響首先造成的結果是什麼。換句話說，象徵的秩序，也就是要討好你們的這個維度。但是你們知道，我介紹「維度」這個術語，它是住所，真理的大它者的軌跡。我知道這個「維度」對於許多人會引起一個問題，我曾經獲得迴響。即使「維度」實際上是一個術語，我建構的一個新的術語，假如它依舊具有意義，那意味著，那個意義要由你們給予我。

To question the demansion of the truth, of the truth in its dwelling place, is something, here is the term, the novelty of what I am introducing today, which can only be done by writing, and by writing in so far as it is only from writing that logic is established.

要質疑真理的「維度」，在它的居住場所的真理的「維度」，在此時某件術語的東西，我今天正在介紹的新奇性。它只能憑藉書寫來從事。僅有憑藉書寫，邏輯才被建立。

This is what I am introducing at this point of my discourse this year. There is no
logical question unless it starts from writing, in so far as writing is precisely not language. And this is why I stated that there is no metalanguage, that writing itself in so far as it is distinguished from language is there to show us that, if it is from writing that language is questioned, it is precisely in so far as writing is not it, but that it only
constructs itself, only fabricates itself from its reference to language.

這就是今年在我的真理論述的這個時刻，我將要介紹的東西。除非從書寫開始，否則不會有邏輯的問題，因為書寫確實不等於就是語言。這就是為什麼我陳述：沒有形上語言。書寫的本身，當它跟語言區別出來，是要跟我們顯示：假如從語言被質疑的書寫開始，確實地，書寫並不就是語言，書寫僅是建構語言，僅是從它指稱到語言，建構它自己。

After having posited this which has the advantage of opening up to you my perspective, my project, I start again from something which concerns this point, this point which is of the order of this surprise to which there is signalled the effect of retrogression by which I have tried to define the junction between truth and knowledge, and that I stated in these terms that there is no sexual relationship in the
speaking being.

提出這一點之後，我將我的觀點角度，我的計畫，攤開給予你們明白的優點，我再一次從跟這一點有關的某件事情開始。這一點屬於這個驚奇，倒退的影響所引起的驚奇。以倒退的方式，我曾經嘗試定義處於真理與知識之間的關聯。我以這些術語陳述：在言談的生命主體，性關係並不存在。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

可能不是類似 217c

可能不是類似 217c

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 17 February 1971

You will see, if you refer to the text of Meng-Tzu, you have two ways of doing it, you can find it on the one hand in an edition that in short is very good which was produced by a Jesuit at the end of the 19th Century, someone called Wieger, in an edition of the Four fundamental books of Confucianism.

你們將會看出，假如你們提到孟子的文本，你們有兩種方式做到，一方面，你們能夠找到它，在這個版本，總之，非常好的版本，由耶穌會出版，在十九世紀末，某一位名叫威吉爾的人，在「儒家四書」的版本。

You have another way, which is to get hold of this Mencius on the mind, which was published by Kegan Paul in London. I do not know if nowadays there are a lot of copies still available, as they say, but after all it is worth the trouble, why not, to try to get it for those who might be curious to consult something that is so fundamental, for a certain illumination of a reflection on language which is the work of a neo-positivist and which is certainly not negligible. Mencius on the mind, therefore, by Richards, can be found in London at Kegan Paul.

你們還有另外一種方式，那就是找到這本「孟子論心」，由倫敦的凱甘、保羅出版。我不知道是否今天據說依舊還有許多版本可用，但是畢竟這是值得我們費點心嘗試找到它，給那些對於如此基本的問題，有請教的好奇心的人。對於語言的反思獲的某種的啟明。對於語言的反思是新實證主義的工作，確實是不容忽視的。因此，李察茲的「孟子論心」在倫敦的凱甘、保羅出版社找到。

And those who find it worthwhile to take the trouble of getting a copy, if they cannot
get the book, could get perhaps a photocopy, and they will understand all the better a certain number of references that I will make to it this year because I will come back to it.

那些願意費心去找到這一個本的人，假如他們找不到，或許可以去影印一下。他們將會更加瞭解某些的指稱，我今年會提到它們，因為我會回頭談論它。

It is one thing then to speak about the origin of language, and another thing of its link to what I am teaching, to what I am teaching in conformity with what I articulate, what last year I articulated, as the discourse of the analyst.

談論到語言的起源是一回事，談到它跟我教學內容的相關，跟我作為分析師的真理論述的教學相關，以便跟我現在所表達，及去年所表達的相吻合，又是另外一回事。

Because you are well aware, linguistics began with Humboldt with this sort of prohibition, not to ask oneself the question of the origin of language, otherwise one would certainly go astray. It is no small thing that someone should have noticed at
the height of the period of developmental mythmaking, this was the style at the beginning of the 19th Century, should have posited that nothing would ever be situated, established, articulated, about language, if one did not start first of all by forbidding the questions of (61) origin.

因為你們心知肚明，語言學開始于漢伯特，帶著這種禁止，不要詢問自己語言的起源的問題，否則我們一定會迷失。這就茲事體大，某個人竟然會注意到，在發展的製造神話的顛峰時期，這是十九世紀開始的風格，竟然有人會提出：關於語言，沒有東西將會被定位，被建立，被表達，假如我們沒有首先禁止起源的問題。

It is an example which might well have been followed elsewhere, this would have avoided us a lot of lucubrations of the type called primitivist. There is nothing like a reference to the primitive to…make thinking more primitive. It is what regularly
regresses to the very measure of what it claims to discover as primitive.

這一個例子，很有可能從別的地方追尋下去，這本來可以讓我們避免許多的所謂探討原始起源的人孜孜窮研。提到原始起源是最為貼切不過的事、、、它讓人想到更原始起源。這就是為什麼我們不時地退回到衡量它所宣稱的發現，作為原始起源的東西。

The discourse of the Analyst, I have to tell you, because in short you have not heard it, the discourse of the Analyst is nothing other than the logic of action. Why have you not heard it? Because in what I articulated last year with these little letters on the
board, in this form, the small o over the S2 and of what happens at the level of the
analysand, namely, the function of the subject in so far as he is barred and in so far as what he produces as signifiers, and not just any ones, master signifiers.

精神分析師的真理論述，我必須告訴你們，因為總之，你們沒有聽見過它。精神分析師的真理論述道道地地就是行動的邏輯。為什麼你們沒有聽見它呢？因為我去年所表達的，以這些小字母，書寫在黑板上，以這個形式，小客體o在第二生命主體的上方，在受分析者的層次，換句話說，生命主體的功用。因為他被禁止，因為他產生作為能指的東西，不僅是任何其他能指，主人的能指。

It is because it was written like that, because I wrote it down on many occasions, it is for that very reason that you did not hear it. It is in this way that writing is differentiated from speaking, and it is necessary to put the word back into it and to butter it up seriously, but naturally not without fundamental drawbacks for it to be heard. One can write then a whole pile of things without them reaching any ear. It is nevertheless written.

這是因為它像那樣被書寫，因為我書寫它在許多場合。因為那個理由，你們沒有聽到它。以這種方式，書寫跟言談被區別出來。我們有需要將這個字放回言談，對它肅然起敬。但是當然，讓言談被聽見，並不是沒有基本的缺點。我們因此書寫一整堆疊事情，而沒有讓它們到達任何的耳朵。可是，它仍然被寫下。

That is even the reason that I called my Ecrits as I did. That scandalised, like that,
sensitive people and not just anyone. It is very curious that the person that this literally threw into convulsions was a Japanese woman. I will deal with that later.
Naturally here, it did not give anyone convulsions, the Japanese woman that I spoke about is not here.

這甚至就是這個原因，我為什麼要給予我的精神分析論文集的標題。像那樣的受到譭謗者，是敏感的人，不僅是任何人。耐人尋味的是，實質上被拋入這些災禍的這個人，是一位日本女人。我後來處理那件事情。當然在此，我的演講並沒有給任何人帶來災禍。我提到的那位日本人不是在這裏。

And anybody at all, who comes from that tradition, will be able I think on this occasion to understand why this kind of effect of insurrection was produced. It is through the word of course that the path towards writing is opened up.

從那個傳統來的任何人，我認為在這個場合，他將能夠瞭解為什麼這種造反的影響會被產生。當然是憑藉著文字，朝向書寫的途徑被展開。

If I entitled my Ecrits that, it is because they represented an attempt, an attempt at writing, which is very sufficiently marked by the fact that it culminated in graphs. The
trouble, is that, is that people who claim to give a commentary on me start immediately from the graphs. They are wrong, the graphs are only understandable in function, I would say, of the slightest effect of style of the aforesaid Ecrits, which are in a way the steps to reach it.

假如我替我的「精神分析論文集」定如此書名，那是因為它們代表一種嘗試，嘗試要書寫。書寫根據這個事實是非常顯著的：它以圖形到達顛峰。麻煩的事是，宣稱對我給予評論的人，立刻就從圖表開始。他們錯了，圖表僅是以上所說的「精神分析論文集」，它的風格的些微影響的功用可瞭解的部分，我不妨這樣說，這些圖表在某方面僅是到達它的步驟。

As a result of this the written, the written taken up all by itself, whether it is a matter of one or other schema, the one that is called L or any other one whatsoever, or the big graph itself, presents an opportunity for all sorts of misunderstandings. What is at stake is a (62) word, in so far as, of course, and why, it tends to clear the way to
these graphs that is at stake. But it would be well not to forget this word, for the reason that it is the very one that is reflected by the analytic rule which is as you know, speak, speak, speak. It is enough for you to speak, here is the box from which there come all the gifts of language, it is a Pandora‟s box.

由於這樣的結果，這些書寫，本身被從事的這些書寫，無論是某個基模的問題，被稱為的L基模，或是任何其他基模，或是這個大的圖形本身，都提供一個機會，導致各種的誤解。岌岌可危的是，一個字。當然，這個字傾向於澄清岌岌可危的圖形的途徑。但是我們最好不要忘記這個字，理由是：就是這個字被精神分析的規則所反映。你們知道，這個字就是「言談」「言談」「言談」。你們能夠言談就很足夠，在此是包裝各種語言禮物的這個盒子，這是潘朵拉的盒子。

What is the relationship then with these graphs? These graphs of course, no one has yet dared to go that far, these graphs in no way show you anything whatsoever that allow you to return to the origin of language. If there is something that appears there immediately, it is that not alone do they not give it, but they do not promise it either.

跟這些圖形的關係是什麼呢？當然是這些圖形，沒有人膽敢探索的這麼深入。這些圖形跟你們顯示任何東西，容許你們回到語言的起源。假如有某件東西馬上出現在那裏，那不僅是他們沒有給予它，而且他們也沒有許渃它。

What is going to be at stake today is the situation with respect to the truth that results from what is called free association, in other words a free use of the word. I have never spoken about it except with irony.

今天岌岌可危的事是關於真理的這個情況。因為所謂的自由聯想所造成的真理，換句話說，自由地使用文字。我從來沒有談論到真理，除了以反諷的方式。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

可能不是類似 217b

可能不是類似 217b

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 17 February 1971

And yeh is something that concludes a sentence without saying, properly speaking, that what is at stake is something of the order that what we are stating here is, being, it is a conclusion.

「也」是某件結束一個句子的東西，而沒有說，適當地說，岌岌可危的是某件秩序的東西，我們在此正在陳述的是「命」，這是一種結論。

It is a conclusion or let us say a punctuation, because the sentence continues here since things are written from right to left, the sentence continues here with a certain tse which means consequently, or which in any case indicates the consequence. So then let us see what is at stake.

它是一種結論，或是讓我們說是一種標點符號，因為這個句子在此繼續，因為事情被寫從右到左，這個句子在此繼續帶有某種的「则」，意思是「結果」。無論如何，它指示這個結果。所以讓我們看，岌岌可危的是什麼。

Yen means nothing other than language, but like all the terms stated in the Chinese tongue, it is liable also to be used in the sense of a verb. So then that can mean both the word and the one who speaks, and who speaks what? In this case that would be what follows, namely hsing, nature, what speaks about nature under the heavens, and yeh would be a punctuation.

「言」的意思道道地地是語言，但是像中文語言裏，被陳述的所有其他的術語，它很容易被使用當作動詞的意涵。那樣的話，它能夠意指這個字及說話的這個人。是誰說什麼？在這種情況，那將是後面的東西，也就是「性」，自然，什麼東西談論到天底下的自然，「也」將是一個標點符號。

Nevertheless, and this is why it is interesting to take an interest in a sentence of the written tongue, you see that you can cut things up differently and say: the word, indeed the language, because if it was a matter of specifying the word, we would have another character that is slightly different. At this level, as it is written here, this character can just as well mean word as language. These sorts of ambiguities
are altogether fundamental in the use of what is written, very (58) precisely, and this is the importance of what I am writing.

可是，這就是為什麼對於文字語言的一個句子感到興趣是如此耐人尋味。你們看出，你們能夠以不同方式切割東西，然後是：這個字，確實就是這個與言，因為它是明確指明這個字的問題，我們會有另外一個字，稍微不同。在這個層次，因為它被書寫在這裏，這個字很有理由意味著這個字當語言。這些的曖昧性完全是基本的，在使用被書寫的東西，非常確實地。這就是我正在書寫的重要性。

As I pointed out to you, as I pointed out to you at the start of my discourse this year, and especially the last time, it is very precisely in so far as the reference as regards everything involved in language is always indirect that language takes on its import.

當我跟你們指出，如同在今年我的論述的開始，我跟你們指出，特別是上一次，確實是當這個指稱，關於每一樣牽涉到語言的東西，語言形成它的意義，總是間接、

We could then also say: language, in so far as it is in the world, as it is under the heavens, language, is what makes hsing, nature, because this nature is not, at least in Meng-Tzu, just any nature, what is at stake is precisely the nature of the speaking being, which, in another passage, he is careful to specify is the difference between this nature and the nature of the animal, a difference, he adds, he highlights in two terms which mean what they mean, “an infinite difference.” And which perhaps is the one that is defined there.

我們因此也能夠說：語言，就它存在於世界而言，它是在天底下，語言是使「性」成為自然的東西，因為自然並不是，至少在孟子裏，自然不僅是任何自然，岌岌可危的，確實是說話的生命主體的天性。在另外一個段落，他很小心指明這個差異，處於自然與動物的天性，一種天性，他補充說，他以兩個術語強調，它們的意思是「無限的差異」。或許那就是在那裏被定義的東西。

You will see, moreover, whether we take one or other of these interpretations, the
axis of what is going to be said as a consequence will not be changed. Tse therefore, is the consequence. In consequence, ku, is here ku, in consequence, relates to the cause – because cause means nothing else, whatever may be the ambiguity that in a certain book, a certain book called Mencius on the mind, namely, a book produced by someone called Richards, who was certainly not a newcomer – Richards and
Ogden are two leaders of a position originating in England and altogether in agreement with the best tradition of English philosophy, who established at the beginning of this century the doctrine described as logical positivism, whose major work is entitled The meaning of meaning.

而且，你們看出，是否我們接受這些解釋，將要被說作為結果的軸心，將不會被改變。因此，「则」就是結果。結果是「故」，在此的「故」，結果會跟原因有關，因為原因不意味著任何其他東西，無論曖昧的是什麼。在某本書裏，某本被稱為「孟子論心」，也就是一本名叫李察茲的人所寫。我們對他確實並不陌生—李察茲跟奧格敦是起源於英國的一家之言的領導者，跟英國哲學的最佳傳統完全一致。在這個世紀初，他創建被描述為邏輯實證論的信條。他的主要著作標題是：「意義的意義」。

It is a book to which you will already find an allusion in my Ecrits where I take up a certain disparaging position with regard to it. The meaning of meaning means le sens du sens. Logical-positivism proceeds from this requirement that a text should
have a graspable meaning, which leads it to a position which is the following: a certain number of philosophical statements find themselves in a way devalorised in principle by the fact that they are not…that they give no graspable result as regards a search for meaning. In other words, if a philosophical text is caught red handed
in non-sense, it is ruled out for that very reason.

在我的精神分析論文集，你們將會發現我提到這本書。在書裏，我採取某種貶低它的立場。「意義的意義」意思是「le sens du sens.」。邏輯實證論繼續從這個要求出發，一個文本應該有一個可理解的意義，這個意義引導它到一個如下的立場：某些的哲學陳述發現它們自己，原則上被它們並不存在這個事實，貶低價值、、、他們沒有給予可理解的結果，關於對於意義的追尋。換句話說，假如一個哲學的文本在無意義的場所被人贓俱獲，它會因為那個理由而被排除。

It is only too clear (59) that this is a way of pruning away the things that scarcely allows us to find our way, because if we start from the principle that something that has no meaning cannot be essential in the development of a discourse, we quite simply lose our bearings.

這太顯而易見，有某種方式修剪這些東西，它們很少讓我們找到我們的道路。因為假如我們從這個原則開始，某件沒有意義的東西，在真理論述的發展中，不可能是重要的。我們就是失去我們發言的立場。

I am not saying of course, that such a requirement is not a procedure, but that this procedure forbids us in a way any articulation whose meaning is not graspable, this is something which, for example, may culminate in the fact, for example, that we can no longer make use of mathematical discourse, which, on the admission of the most qualified logicians, is characterised by the fact that it may be that at one or other of its points, we can no longer give it any meaning – which does not prevent it from being precisely, among all the discourses, the one that is developed with most rigor.

當然，我並不是正在說，這樣一種要求並不是一種程式，而是說，這個程式禁止我們以任何方式，發表無法理解意義的表達。例如，這件事情會在這個事實達到顛峰的：即使是最傑出的邏輯專家都承認，我們不再能夠使用數學的論述，數學論述的特性在於這個事實：很有可能在某個點，我們不再能夠給予數學論述任何意義。儘管如此，數學論述並沒有被阻礙，不能跟其他的論述一樣，讓人全力以赴地追尋。

We find ourselves moreover, because of this fact, at a point that is quite essential to highlight concerning the function of writing.

而且，因為這個事實，我們發現自己處於這個點，關於寫作的功用，必須強調的一點。

So then, it is ku that is at stake, it is ku that is at stake and as i wei, because I already told you that this wei that can in certain senses mean to act indeed something that is of the order of to do even though it is not just anything whatsoever, i here has the sense of something like with, it is with that we are going to proceed like, like what? Like li, this is the word about which I point out to you, I am highlighting for you the fact that li, I repeat, that this li which means reward, interest, profit, and the thing is all the more remarkable in that precisely Mencius, Mencius in his first chapter, in presenting
himself to a certain prince, it does not matter who, of what made up the kingdoms described, described afterwards, as the warring kingdoms, finds himself with this prince who demands his advice, with this prince, pointing out that, he is not there to teach him what constitutes our law which is present to everyone, namely, what is
appropriate for the increase of the wealth of the kingdom, and specifically what we would call surplus value. If there is a meaning that one can give retroactively to li, this indeed is what is at stake.

因此，這個「故」變得岌岌可危。這個「故」岌岌可危。作為「无為」，因為我已經告訴過你們，這個「為」，在某些意義是「採取行動」。它確實是屬於「行動」的層次，即使它並不僅是任何其他東西。「義」在此的意義有點像是「用」，用那個東西，我們將繼續前進，像什麼，像「利」。這是我跟你們指出的這個字。我正在跟你們強調這個事實。我重複一遍：這個「利」義是說「酬勞」「利益」「利潤」。事情更加引人注意，因為確實是在孟子裏。在孟子的第一章，當他出現在一位國王面前，哪一位國王並不重要，被描述的王國由什麼組成，後來被描述為戰鬥的王國。孟子發現國王請教他的意見，他就跟這位國王指出：他在那裏，並不是要教他建構我們的法律來規範每個人，換句話，不是要從事增加王國的財富，明確地說，就是我們所謂的「剩餘價值」。若是有一種意義，能夠反彈地給予「利」，這確實岌岌可危之處。

(60) Now, it is indeed here that it is remarkable to see that what Mencius points out on this occasion, is that starting then from this word which is nature, or if you wish from the word that concerns nature, what is going to be at stake, is to arrive at the cause, in so far as the aforesaid cause, is li, erh, i i, which means the li, erh is something that means at the same time like and, and like but, erh i, is simply that, and so that there can be no doubt about it, the i that ends, which is a conclusive i, this i has the same accent as simply. It is li, and that is enough. Here I am allowing myself in short to recognize that, as regards the effects of discourse, as regards what is under the
heavens, what emerges from it is nothing other than the function of the cause, in so far as it is surplus enjoying.

現在，確實就是在這裏，值得注意的讓我們看出，孟子在這個場合所指出是，從自然這個字開始，或是假如你們希望從跟自然有關的這個字開始，將會岌岌可危的是，到達這個原因，以上所提的原因，是「亦而已矣」，它的意思是「利」，「而」是某件東西，同時是「像」，但是「像利」僅是那樣。關於那件事情，是無可置疑點。結果是這個「义」，它是一個結論的「义」，這個「義」跟「亦」的發音一樣。這才是「利」，那就很夠了。在此，我容許自己，總之，體會到：關於真理論述的影響，關於天底下的東西，從那裏出現的，道道地地就是這個原因的功用，因為它是剩餘享樂。

雄伯：
拉康談論孟子梁惠王的義利之辨，夾了幾個中文的拼音字。可是對照孟子原文，似乎有點出入。能否有人給我指教一下。

性，物性或人性。
故：故常之迹，指事物在运行中已表现于外的现象。

梁惠王章句上‧第一章

孟子見梁惠王。

王曰，「叟，不遠千里而來，亦將有以利吾國乎？」

孟子對曰，「王何必曰利？亦有仁義而已矣。」

「王曰：『何以利吾國？』大夫曰：『何以利吾家？』
士庶人曰：『何以利吾身？』上下交征利，而國危矣！
萬乘之國弒其君者，必千乘之家；千乘之國，弒其君者，必百乘之家。
萬取千焉，千取百焉，不為不多矣；苟為後義而先利，不奪不饜。」

「未有仁而遺其親者也，未有義而後其君者也。」

「王亦曰仁義而已矣，何必曰利？」

可能不是类似 217

可能不是類似 217

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 4: Wednesday 17 February 1971

[Before the seminar Lacan writes on the board a quotation from Meng-Tzu: probably the following.]

在演講之前，拉康在黑板上寫下一句孟子的引言，可能如下：

“Everywhere under the heavens, when one speaks about nature, what is meant are natural effects”

天底下的每個地方，當我們談到自然，它的意思是自然的影響。

孟子曰：“天下之言性也，则故而已矣

– This is the name of the author of this little formula…
這就是這個小公式的作者的名字。

– Louder!
大聲一點！

– This is the name of the author of this little formula!
這就是這個小公式的作者的名字。

– Thank you.
謝謝

– this little formula to which, despite the fact that it was written around 250BC, in China as you see, in chapter 2 of Book IV, the second part, sometimes it is classified in a different way, so that in that case it would be part VIII, of Book IV, the second part of paragraph 26 of Meng-Tzu, whom the Jesuits called Mencius, because they are the ones who took a step forward, well before the epoch when there were sinologists, namely, at the beginning of the 19th Century.

這個小公式，儘管這個事實，它是在紀元前250年被寫，在中國，如你們所見，在第四冊第二章，第二部分，有時它被分類的方式不一樣。所以在那個情況，那將是第四冊第八部分，孟子第二十六節的第二部分。耶穌會稱他為孟子，因為他們是走在時代前面的人，就在有漢學家的時代之前，也就是在19世紀的開始。

I had the pleasure of acquiring the first book on which there are found conjointly a plaque of Chinese printing, it is not quite the same thing as the first book in which there were at the same time Chinese characters and European characters, it is the first book in which there was a Chinese printing plate with things written, with
things printed, from our part of the world. It is a translation of Aesop‟s fables.

我很榮幸獲得第一本書，跟這本書共連地發現中文印刷的飾板。這跟第一本書不完全相同，同時具有中文字與歐洲文字。這並不是第一本書，有中文的印刷鉛體字的書寫，還有印刷的東西，來自我們歐洲的部分。這是一本「伊索寓言」的翻譯本。

This appeared in 1840, and it prides itself, quite rightly in being the first book in which this conjunction was realised. (56) 1840, you can say that it is more or less, precisely, the notice of the moment when sinologists came on the scene. The Jesuits were in China for a very long time, as perhaps some of you may remember.

這本書出現在1840年，它頗為自傲，因為它確實是第一本書實現東西方的連接。你們可以說，它差不多就是漢學家來到現場的時刻的通知。耶穌會教徒在中國很久的時間，或許你們有些人還記得。

They almost made the connection between China and what they represented as missionaries. Only they allowed themselves to be a little, a little bit impressed by the Chinese rites, and as you know perhaps, in the middle of the 18th Century, that created some difficulties for them with Rome, which did not show on this occasion particular political acuity. That happens sometimes in Rome.

他們幾乎是從事連接中國跟他們作為傳教士所代表的東西。只有他們容許他們自己對於中國的儀式稍微有點印象。或許如你們所知，在十八世紀中葉，這些儀式引起一些困難，對於在羅馬的他們。在這個場合，他們並沒有顯示特別的政治敏銳性。在羅馬，有時會發生這樣的事。

Anyway in Voltaire, if you read Voltaire, but of course no one reads Voltaire anymore, you are making a great mistake, it is full of all kinds of things. In Voltaire, there is, very exactly in Le Siècle de Louis XIV, an appendix, I think that it forms a particular lampoon, a long elaboration about this Quarrel of the Rites, of which many things in history now find themselves in a position of filiation.

無論如何，在伏爾泰，假如你們閱讀伏爾泰，但是當然，若以為再沒有人閱讀伏爾泰，你們可是犯了一個大錯誤，它依舊包含各種的事情。在伏爾泰的著作，有個附錄，確實就在「路易十四時期」。我認為它形成一個特別的諷刺文章，對於儀式的繁文縟節長篇構想。在這些儀式裏，歷史上的許多事情現在發現自己處於起源於那裏。

In any case then, we are talking about Mencius, and Mencius wrote this – because I wrote it on the board….to begin with that does not form properly speaking a part of my discourse today, that is why I finished it before the exact hour of 12.30 – I will tell you, or I am going to try to make you sense what it means, and then this will get us into the swing of what, properly speaking, is the object of what I want to state today, it is namely that….in what preoccupies us, what is the function of writing (l‟écriture).

無論如何，我們正在談論有關孟子。孟子當時寫下這個—因為將它寫在黑板上、、、適當地說，從那裏開始並沒有形成我今天論述的一部分。那就是為什麼我要在12點半的確實時間以前講完。我將會告訴你們，否則我將嘗試讓你們感覺到那是什麼意思。然後這將會讓我們進入適當來說我今天想要陳述的目標。也就是說，在我們專注的部分是書寫的這個功用。

Since writing, exists in China since…time immemorial, I mean that well before we have to properly speak of works, writing already existed for an extremely long time, and one cannot evaluate how long it did exist.

因為書寫，自從遠古以來就存在於中國。我的意思是遠在我們必須適當地談論著作之前，書寫已經存在有極端漫長的時間。我們無法評估它確實存在有多久。

This writing has, in China, an altogether pivotal role, in a certain number of things that happened, and it is rather…it is quite illuminating as regards what we may think about the function of writing.

在中國，這個書寫具有一個非常重要的角色，在許多發生的事情上。它相當、、、它相當程度闡明，關於我們可能認為有關書寫的功用。

It is certain that writing has played a quite decisive role in supporting something, something to which we have… this particular access and no other, namely, a type of social structure that was sustained for a very long time and from which, until a recent epoch, one could conclude that there was a completely different filiation as regards what was supported in China, than what was engendered among us, and specifically by one of these phyla that interest us particularly, namely, the philosophical phylum in so far as, I highlighted it last year, it is nodal to understand what is at stake as
regards the discourse of the Master.

的確，書寫曾經扮演關鍵性的角色，在支持某件東西，某件我們擁有這個特別接近的東現，不是別的，也就是一種社會的結構，被維持很久的時間。直到最近的時代，我們才能獲得結論：有一種完全不同的起源，關於在中國所被報導，跟我們歐洲產生的不同。明確地說，有一種語系我們特別感到興趣，也就是說，哲學的語系。如同我去年強調它，瞭解岌岌可危的事情是很重要的，關於主人的真理論述。

(57) So then this is how this exergue is stated. As I showed you on the board the last time this designates the heavens, it is called tien. T‟ien hsia, is under the heavens, everything that is under the heavens.

這就是這個飾板所被陳述的方式。當我上一次在黑板上顯示給你們看，這指明是上天，它被稱為「天」，「天下」是指在天之下，每一樣在天之下的東西。

Here there is a determinative tchih, what is at stake is something that is beneath the heavens; what is beneath the heavens, is what comes afterwards. What you see there is nothing other than the designation of the word that on this occasion we will state as yen. Yen hsing, I already put it on the board the last time, in signalling to you that this
hsing, was precisely one of the elements that will preoccupy us this year, in so far as the term that gets closest to it is nature.

在此，有一個限定詞「青」，岌岌可危的是某件在天之下的東西，在天之下的東西，是隨後而來的東西。你們在那裏看到，道道地地就是那個字的指稱。在這個場合，我們將陳述為「言」。「言性」，我已經將它寫在黑板上，跟你們指示：這個「性」，確實是其中一個元素，今年我們將專注探討的，因為最靠近它的術語是「自然」。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

可能不是類似 15

可能不是類似 15

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
雅克 拉康研討班

BOOK XVIII
第十八冊

On a discourse that might not be a semblance
可能不是類似，而是真理論述

And what is introduced, what is introduced anew by what I will call the Freudian hypothesis? It is, in an extraordinarily prudent, but all the same a syllogistic form, the following: if we call pleasure principle the fact that always, by the behaviour of the living being, he comes back to a level which is that of minimal excitation, and that
this rules his economy; if it proves to be the case that repetition is exercised in such a way that a dangerous enjoyment, an enjoyment that goes beyond this minimal excitation, is brought back – is it possible, it is in this way that Freud states the question – that it could be imagined that life, caught up itself in its cycle – it is a novelty with (20) respect to this world which does not universally comprise it –
that life includes this possibility of repetition which would be the return to this world in so far as it is a semblance?

我們所謂的佛洛伊德學派，介紹什麼，重新介紹什麼？以特別慎重的方式，可是仍然是邏輯推論的形式，它介紹以下：假如我們稱這個事實為快樂原則：根據生活的人的行為，他回到這個層次，屬於最小量興奮的層次，這個規範了他的生命活力。假如它證明是這個情形。重複被運作，以這樣一種方式，一種危險的享受，一種享受超越了這個最小的興奮，被帶回來—這是可能的嗎？以這種方式，佛洛伊德陳述這個問題：生命包括這個重複的可能性，這個重複將是盡可能以類似物的方式回到這個世界？（我們可以想像為：生命深陷於它自己的迴圈當中，關於這個世界的一種新奇，並沒有普遍性地包含它。）

雄伯：這有點類似哲學家尼采所焦慮的「永恆的輪迴」eternal recurrence。這是每個人必須面對的生命意義的問題：重複意味著厭倦與無聊嗎？

high point 顛峰

I can point out to you by a drawing on the board that this involves, instead of the series of ascending and descending curves of excitation, all close to a limit, which is an upper limit, the possibility of an intensity of excitation that can moreover go to infinity, what is conceived as enjoyment not involving in itself, in principle, any other
limit than this lower tangential point, this point that we will call high (supreme), in giving its proper sense to this word which means the lowest point of a higher limit, in the same way as the lowest (infime) is the highest point of a lower limit.

我能夠在黑板上畫，跟你們指出，這個牽涉到所有靠近極限的東西，而不是興奮的上升與下降的曲線的系列。這個極限是一個高度的極限，強烈興奮的可能性，能夠到達永恆。所被構想的歡樂，原則上，在自身並不牽涉任何其他的極限，除了這個低下的正切點、這一點我們稱為「顛峰」，給予它適當的意義，給這個字，它意味著一個較高極限的最地點，以同樣的方式，如同這個最低點是一個較低點的最高點。

The coherence given of the mortal point, then conceived without Freud underlining it, as a characteristic of life but in truth, what people do not think of is, in effect, the fact that we confuse what is non-life, and which is far, my word, from not stirring up the eternal silence of the infinite spaces that dazed Decartes.

關於無常生命被給予的有限點的一致性，實際上是這個事實：這個無常生命的有限點被構想，但是佛洛伊德沒有強調它，作為生命的特性，但事實上，人們沒有想到的是這個事實：我們跟無生命的東西混淆，依我之見，無生命的東西根本沒有攪動永恆空間的永恆沉默，那是令笛卡爾暈眩害怕的空間。

They talk, they sing, they move about in every (21) way, now when we look at them. What is called the inanimate world is not dead. Death is a point, is designated as a terminal point, a point at the term of what? Of the enjoyment of life.

人們談話，人們唱歌，人們以各種方式到處走動，現在我們觀看他們。所謂的沒有生命的世界並不就是死亡。死亡是一個點，被指明作為一個終端點，這一點的術語是什麼？生命的享樂。

This is precisely what is introduced by the Freudian statement, one that we could qualify as hyper-hedonism, if I can express myself in this way. Who can fail to see that the economy, even that of nature, is always a fact of discourse. It cannot grasp that this indicates that nothing else could be at stake here but enjoyment in so far as it is itself not only a fact, but an effect of discourse.

這確實是佛洛伊德學派的陳述所介紹，我們能給予定義為「高度享樂主義」，容我用這種方式表達。有誰會看不出：經濟，甚至是天性的經濟，總是真理論述的事實。它無法理解，這指示著：在此岌岌可危的，不是別的，就是享樂，因為它本身不僅是一個事實，而且是真理論述的影響。

If something that is called the unconscious can be half-said as a language structure, it is so that finally there can appear to us the relief of this effect of discourse that up to then appeared to us as impossible, namely, surplus enjoying.

假如某件被稱為無意識的東西，作為一種語言結構，能夠被說一半，這樣到最後，真理論述的影響的的解除，才會出現在我們面前。直到當時，在種真理論述對我們而言，似乎是不可能的，也就是說，它是剩餘享樂。

Does that mean, to follow one of my formulae, that in so far as it was impossible, it functioned as real? I am opening up the question, because in truth, nothing implies that the irruption of the discourse of the unconscious, however stammering it remains, implies anything whatsoever, in what preceded it, that was subjected to its structure. The discourse of the unconscious is an emerging, it is the emerging of a certain function of the signifier. That it existed up to then as a token, is indeed the reason why I put it at the source of the semblance.

那難道意味著，為了遵照我的一個公式，雖然是不可能，它的功用是真實界嗎？我開放這個問題，因為事實上，沒有一樣東西暗示著：無意識的真理論述的闖入，無論它始終欲入還出，會暗示著任何東西，在它隸屬於結構的的先前的東西。這種無意識的真理論述，是一種出現，是能指的某種功用的出現。直到當時，它存在作為一種象徵，這確實就是為什麼我將它擺在類似物的來源。

13.1.71 I 36
But the consequences of its emerging, is what ought to be introduced so that something may change, which cannot change, because it is not possible. It is on the contrary because a discourse is centred from its effect as impossible that it will have some chance of being a discourse that might not be a semblance.

但是由於它出現的結果，是應該被介紹的東西，這樣某件無法改變的東西，才會改變，因為這是不可能的。相反的，因為真理論述根據它的影響，被集中作為不可能，它才會有某個機會成為可能不是類似物的一種真理論述。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

雄伯：
拉康希望無意識的真理論述，成為可能不是類似物的一種真理。是他一廂情願的信仰，還是真有可能在你的生命歷程被驗證？就看信不信由你。你信仰，你實行，因此產生的影響就是你獲得的東西。至於客觀現實是否證實或認同？你若是真的超越到那個顛峰high point，你那裏還會在乎？