可能不是類似 210f

可能不是類似 210f

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 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971

From a serious construction, that of object relations as it can be separated out from
the experience described as Freudian. That is not enough. I had to scupper these relations to make them the bowl of Marx‟s surplus value, which nobody had ever dreamt of as having this use. Marx‟s surplus value cannot be imagined just like that.

根據一個嚴肅的建構,客體關係的建構,它能夠跟被描述為佛洛伊德的精神分析經驗區隔開。光是這樣還不足夠。我必須要將這些關係吸取過來,使它們成為馬克思的剩餘價值的承受器。從來沒有人夢想過擁有這個用途。馬克思的剩餘價值不能夠像那樣被想像。

If it is invented, it is in the sense that the word invention means that one finds a good thing already well established in a little corner, in other words that one makes a lucky discovery.

假如它被杜撰,它的意義是,這個字的杜撰意味著:我們找到一件好的事情,已經在一個小角落被穩定地建立。換句話說,我們有一個幸運的發現。

To make a lucky discovery, it was necessary that it should be there already well polished, grounded, by what, by a discourse. So then, surplus enjoying, like surplus value, is only detectable in a developed discourse, that there is no question of
debating whether it can be defined as the discourse of the capitalist.

為了要有一個幸運的發現,它需要已經被充分精鍊,根據一種真理論述作為基礎。所以,剩餘享受,就像剩餘價值一樣,僅能在已經被發展的真理論述裏被覺察出來。至於它是否能夠被定義為資本主義的真理論述,那是無庸置疑的事。

13.1.71 I 66
(49) You are not very curious, and then especially not very interventionist, so that last year, when I spoke to you about the discourse of the Master, no one pushed me to ask me how the discourse of the Capitalist was situated within it.

你們並沒有很好奇,特別你們並不是很喜歡介入。所以去年,當我跟你們提到關於主人倫述,沒有人逼迫我問我自己,資本主義者的真理論述如何定位在它裏面。

For my part I was expecting that, I was only waiting to explain it to you, especially because it is the simplest thing possible. A tiny little contraption that turns and your discourse of the master shows everything that is highly transformable into the discourse of the capitalist.

就我而言,我一直在期待它,我僅是等待著要跟你們解釋它,特別是因為它是我們可能的最簡單的事情。你們只要將這個小機件這們轉動一下,你們的真理論述就會顯露一切非常可轉換的東西,成為資本主義者的真理論述。

That is not what is important, the reference to Marx was enough to show you that it had the closest relationship with the discourse of the master.

那並不是重要的事情,提到馬克思,就足夠跟你們顯示:它跟主人的真理論述會有最親密的關係。

What I am trying to get to is the following, it is to catch hold of something as essential as what is here, let us say the support – the support, everyone knows that I do not pile it on for you, it is indeed the thing that I am most distrustful of in the world, because it is indeed with that of course that people make the worst extrapolations, it is with this in a word that people construct psychology, psychology, this is what is necessary to be able to manage to think out the function of language – so then when I realise that the support of surplus enjoying is metonymy, it is because here I am entirely
justified, this is what ensures that you follow me, through the fact that this surplus enjoying is essentially a sliding object. Impossible to stop this slide at any point of the sentence.

我正在嘗試到達的是以下,它是要捉住某件東西當作是如同這裏的東西一樣基本。容我們說這個支援—這個支援,眾所周知,我並沒有將它堆在你們身上。確實是這件我在世界上最不信任的東西,因為使用那個當然的東西,人們從事最糟糕的推斷。總之,使用這個,人們建構心理學,心理學,這是我們需要的東西,為了要成功地想出語言的功用—所以,當我體會到,剩餘享樂的支持就是換喻。這是因為在此,我完全能夠自圓其說。這是確定你們會跟隨我的東西,通過這個事實:這個剩餘享樂,基本上是一件溜滑不定的東西。我們不可能在句子的任何一點,阻擋這種溜滑。

Nevertheless, why should we refuse to notice that the fact that it is useable in a discourse – a linguistic one or not, as I already told you, it is all the same to me – in a discourse which is my own, and that it is only such by being borrowed not from the discourse, but from the logic of the capitalist, something that introduces us, or rather brings us back to what I contributed the last time and which left some people a little bit perplexed.

可是,為什們我們應該拒絕注意到,它在真理論述可被使用的事實—無論是語言學的論述與否,如我已經告訴你們的,它對於都一樣—在屬於你們自己的真理論述,它僅有從被借用,才能夠是如此,不是從真理論述借用,而是從資本主義者的邏輯借用。某件東西跟我們介紹,或是帶我們回到我上一次貢獻的地方,它讓一些人們感到有點困惑。

Everyone knows that I always finish what I have to tell you in a little gallop, because perhaps I dragged things out too much, dawdled along earlier, some people tell me,
what matter, everyone has his own rhythm. That is how I make love.

眾所周知,我總是完成我必須告訴你們的,以一個小小的跨步,因為或許我洩漏的事情太多,早先浪費太多時間。有些人告訴我,重要的是,每個人都有他自己的節奏。那就是我作愛的方式。

13.1.71 I 67
I spoke to you about an under-developed logic. That left some people scratching their heads. What could that be, this underdeveloped logic?

我跟你們談論到一種沒有發展的邏輯。那讓一些人墮入五里霧中。這個未被發展的邏輯,那可能會是什麼?

Let us start from this. I had clearly marked out beforehand that what carries along the extension of capitalism, is under-development.

讓我們從這裏開始。我事前清楚地標示,沿著資本主義的延伸發展的東西,就是這個未發展。

Anyway I am going to say it now because someone that I met on the way out and to whom I confided something, I told him “I would really like to have illustrated the thing by saying that Mr Nixon, is in fact Houphouet-Boigny in person”, “Oh”, he told me, “you should have said it”. Well then I am saying it.

無論如何,我現在將要說它,因為某個我在離去途中遇見的人,我對他坦誠以告。我告訴他說「我真的想要說們這件事,尼克遜事實上是赫豪特與波格尼本人。」「哦!」他告訴我說:「你本來應該說出來。」呵呵,我現在就在說了。

The only difference between (50) the two, is that Mr Nixon is supposed to have been
psychoanalysed! You see the result! When someone has been psychoanalysed in a certain way, and this is always true in every case, when he has been psychoanalysed in a particular way, in a certain field, in a certain school, by people that one can name, well then, he is incurable.

在它們之間的唯一差異是,尼克遜被認為是應該接受精神分析!你們知道結果會是如何!當某個人曾經以某種方式被精神分析,無論哪一種狀可,這總是真實的。當他以特別的方式被精神分析,在某個領域,在某個學派,由某些我們能夠命名的人,呵呵,他是可以治癒的。

All the same you have to say things the way they are. He is incurable. It even goes very far. It is for example obvious that it is ruled out that someone who has been
psychoanalysed somewhere, in a certain place, by certain people specifically, not by just anyone, well then, he can understand nothing of what I am saying. That has been seen and there are proofs.

你們仍然必須說出事情的真相是什們。他是可以治癒的。我們甚至可以這樣說。例如,顯而易見的,這件事被排出,某個人曾經在某個地方被精神分析,被某些人明確地,不僅是被任何人,呵呵,他對於我說的話,根本就不瞭解。有一些證據,讓我們可以看得出來。

Books even come out every day to prove it. Just by itself, that gives rise all the same to questions about what is involved in the possibility of performance, namely, of functioning in a certain discourse.

書本甚至每天出版,用來證明它。光是書本的本身,那仍然會產生一些問題,有關實踐的可能性所牽涉的東西,換句話說,充當某種真理論述的功用。

So then, if the discourse is sufficiently developed, there is something, let us say no more, this something as it happens is you, but that is a pure accident, nobody knows your relationship to this something, it is a something that interests you all the same.

因此,假如真理論述充分地被發展,會有某件東西,讓我們不要再說了,這個某件東西恰恰就是你們。但是這是純粹的意外,沒有人知道你們跟這個某件東西的關係,這是仍人讓你們感到興趣的東西。

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: