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?

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: