可能不是類似 11

可能不是類似 11

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

Seminar 1:Wednesday 13 January 1971

Because if I speak about artefact, it is not to give rise in it to the idea of something that might be different, a nature, that you would be wrong to get engaged in with
a view to tackling its obstacles, because you would never get out of it.

因為假如我談論人為加工品,它並非要在裏面產生某件可能不同的東西,一種特性。假如你們為了要克服它的阻礙而探究於它,你們將是錯誤,因為你們永遠無法從它那裏逃脫。

The question is not set up in the terms: is it or is it not discourse, but in the following: it is said or it is not said. I start from what is said, in a discourse whose artefact is supposed to be sufficient for you to be there; a cut here, because I am not adding, that you should be (13) here in the state of pressurised surplus enjoying. I said a cut
because it is questionable whether it is already as pressurised surplus enjoying that my discourse gathers you together.

這個問題並不是以術語建立:它是真理論述?還是不是?但是在以下,它被說,或是它沒有被說。我從被說的部分開始,在真理論述的人為加工部分,對於你們在那裏而言,應該的充分的。在此有一個切割,因為我並沒有正在補充。你們應該在此,處於承受壓力大多餘享樂的狀態。我說切割,因為我的真理論述將你們聚集在這裏,它是否已經作為承受壓力的多餘享樂,是值得疑問。

It is not decided, whatever one or other may think, that it is this discourse, the one
made up of the series of statements that I present you, that places you where? In this position from which it can be questioned by the “not talking” of the discourse which might not be a semblance. D‟un semblant, what does that mean in this statement?

不管你們怎麼想,這個真理論述,我呈現給予你們的這一連串的陳述所組成的真理論述,會將你們擺放在哪里,還是未知之數。在這個立場,從那裏,可能不是類似的真理論述的「不可說」部分,會受到置疑。「可能不是類似」,在這個陳述裏,那是什麼意思?

A semblance of discourse, for example. You know that this is the position described as logical positivism. The fact is that if starting from a signifier, to be put to the test of something that decides by yes or no, what cannot present itself for this test, this is what is defined as meaning nothing. And with that, people think they have finished with a certain number of questions described as metaphysical.

例如,真理論述的類似。你們知道,這就是被描述為邏輯的實證論的立場。事實上,假如從能指開始,受到某件東西的考驗,由「是」或「不是」來決定,有什麼東西不能呈現自己從事這個考驗。這是「沒有意義」的定義。從事那個考驗後,人們認為他們已經完成被銘記為形上學的某些問題

This is certainly not what I hold to. I want to point out to you that the position of logical positivism is untenable, in any case starting from analytic experience in particular.

這確實並不是我堅持的。我想要跟你們指出,邏輯實證論的立場上難以自圓其說。無論如何,特別是從精神分析經驗開始。

If analytic experience finds itself implicated by taking its claims to nobility from the Oedipal myth, it is indeed because it preserves the cutting edge of the oracle‟s enunciation, and I would say more, that in it interpretation always remains at the same level.

假如精神分析經驗發現它自己,牽涉到將伊底普斯神話獲得高貴的宣稱,那確實是因為它保存預言表達的這個切割的邊緣。容我補充說,在裏面,解釋總是保持相同的層次。

It is only true by its consequences, like every oracle. Interpretation is not put to the
test of a truth that can be settled by a yes or a no, it unleashes truth as such. It is true only in so far as it is truly followed. We will see later that the schemas of implication, I mean of logical implication, in their most classical form, these schemas themselves require the foundation of this truthfulness in so far as it belongs to the word, even if it is properly speaking senseless.

就像每一個預言,它只能根據它的結果,來判斷是否真實。解釋並沒有考驗一項能夠憑藉「是或不是」就能解決的真理。它解開真理的本身。只有它真實地被遵循,它才可能是真實。我們以後將會看出,言外之意的基模,我是指邏輯的言外之意,以它們最古典的形式,這些基模本身要求這個真理作為基礎,因為它屬於文字,即使適當來說,它是無意義的。

The passage from the moment where the truth is settled by its simple unleashing, to that of a logic that is going to try to embody this truth, is precisely the moment when
discourse, qua representative of representation, is dismissed, disqualified. But if it can be so, it is because some part of it is always there, and this is what is called repression.

真理由於單純的解開就能解決的這個時刻,通往即將嘗試具體表現真理的邏輯的解開。這確實是這個時刻,當真理論述作為再現的代表,被排除,被解除資格。但是假如它是這樣,那是因為某個部分總是在那裏,這就是所謂的「潛抑」。

It is no longer a representation that it represents, it is this continuation of discourse
that is characterised as effect of truth.

這不再是它所代表的再現。這是真理論述的這個繼續,被表現特徵為真理的效應。

The effect of truth is not a semblance. The Oedipus complex is there to teach us, if you will allow me, to teach us that it is red blood. Only there you are, red blood does not reject the semblance, it colours it, it makes it re-semble (re-semblant), it propagates it. A little bit of sawdust and the circus starts up again.

真理的效應並不是類似。伊底普斯情結在那兒是要教導我們,請容我這樣說,教導我們,流的血是鮮紅的。你們僅是在那兒,鮮紅的血並沒有拒絕這個類似,它讓類似產生顏色,它讓類似成「相像」,它繁殖類似。看似一些鋸木屑,馬戲團就從那裏開始建立。

This indeed it is why it is at (14) the level of the artefact of the structure of discourse, that the question can be raised about a discourse that might not be a semblance. In the meantime, there is no semblance of discourse, there is no meta-language to judge it, there is no Other of the Other, there is no true of the true.

這的確是為什麼在真理論述的結構的人為加工品的層次,關於可能不是類似的真理論述的這個問題,會被提出。同時,沒有真理論述的類似,沒有形上語言能夠判斷它,沒有大它者的大它者,沒有真實的真實。

13.1.71 I 27
I amused myself one day by making the truth speak. I ask where is the paradox, what could be more true than stating „I am lying‟? The classical quibbling that is stated under the term of paradox is only embodied if you put this I am lying on paper, as something written.

有一天我讓真理說話而自得其樂。我詢問矛盾在哪里,有什麼比「我正在說謊」這個陳述更加真實?這個古典的謬論,以矛盾語的方式被陳述,只有當你將這個「我正在說謊」寫在紙上,作為某件被書寫的東西,它才具體顯現。

Everyone knows that there is nothing truer that one can say on some occasions than to say: „I am lying‟. It is even very certainly the only truth that in this case is not broken (brisée). Everyone knows that in saying: „I am not lying‟, one is absolutely not protected from saying something false. What does that mean? The truth that is at stake, when it speaks, the one that I said speaks I, which states itself as an oracle, who speaks?

眾所周知,我們在某些場合能夠說的,沒有一件事情比說「我正在說謊」更為真實。甚至是非常確定的,這是唯一在這個情形沒有被拆穿的的真理。眾所周知,當我們說「我正在說謊」時,我們絕對沒有被保護免於說某件虛假的事情。那是什麼意思?岌岌可危的真理,當它說話時,我說的這個真理說出「我」。這個「我」陳述它自己,作為一個預言,是誰在說話?

This semblance is the signifier in itself. Who can fail to see that what characterises this signifier that, as far as linguists are concerned, I use in a way that embarrasses them, there were some who wrote these lines designed to clearly warn that undoubtedly Ferdinand de Saussure did not have the slightest idea about it.

這個類似就是能指的本身。有誰會看不出來這個能指的特色?就語言學而論,我以某種方式使用的能指令他們感到尷尬。有些人寫下這幾行,這幾行被設計要清楚地警告:無可置疑地,語言學家索緒爾根本就沒有想到這一點。

雄伯譯
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: