Archive for August, 2011

拉康論移情 0201e

August 31, 2011

拉康論移情 0201e

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 10: Wednesday 1 February 1961

It is first of all in Book III in the Telemachus section and it
is a question of sacrifices which are being made for the arrival
of Telemachus. The pretenders, as usual, make their contribution and there is sacrificed to the god a boos which is translated by “a heifer”, which is a specimen of the bovine species.

首先在第三冊,在鐵力馬丘斯篇。那是奉獻給鐵力馬丘斯的到達,而提供的犧牲問題。這些偽裝者,像平常一樣,提出貢獻,然後奉獻給神祗一種祭品。這個祭品被翻譯為「小牛」。這是屬於牛的的一種品種。

And it is said that there was specially invoked someone called Laerkes who is a goldsmith, like [Hephaistos] and who is charged with making “a golden ornament”, agalma for the horns of the beast.

據說,有某個人名叫勞爾凱斯,是位金匠。像赫費投斯一樣,他的職責是製造「一個黃金的裝飾」,這是作為野獸的角的貢品。

I will spare you all the practicalities of the ceremony. But what is important, is not what happens afterwards, whether it is a question of a voodoo-type sacrifice, what is important is what it is said they expect from agalma; agalma in effect is involved in this, we are expressly told it.

我將跟你們省略典禮的各種實際做法。但是重要的,並不是隨後發生的事情,無論是巫術魔法的犧牲的問題與否。重要的是據說他們從貢品所期望的。貢品實際上牽涉這一點,我們印象鮮明地被告知。

The agalma, is precisely this golden ornament, and it is as an
offering to the goddess Athena that this is sacrificed, so that
having seen it, she may be kecharoito, “gratified” – let us use
this word, because it is a word from our own language. In other
words, the agalma appears indeed as a kind of trap for the gods;
the gods, these real beings, there are contraptions which catch
their eye.

貢品確實是這個黃金的裝飾,這是作為給予女神雅典娜的一種貢物。這是獻祭,所以女神看見祭品後,她可能感到「滿足」—讓我們使用這個字,因為這個字來自我們自己的語言。換句話說,貢品出現,確實作為一種對於眾神的陷阱。眾神,這些真實的生命,有陷阱吸引他們的注意。

You must not believe that this is the only example that I would
have to give you of the use of agalma, for example when, in Book
VIII of the same Odyssy, we are told what happened at the fall of
Troy, namely the famous history of the big horse which contained
in its belly the enemies and all the misfortunes. [The horse] who
was pregnant with the ruin of Troy, the Trojans who had dragged
it inside the walls question themselves and ask themselves what
they are going to do with it.

你們一定不要相信,這是唯一的例子,我將給予你們,有關貢品的使用。譬如,在相同的奧德賽第八章,我們被告訴特洛伊城淪陷後,發生的事情。換句話說,這匹巨大木馬的著名歷史,木馬的肚子裏包藏敵人及各種不幸的東西。木馬懷孕著特洛城的毀滅。特洛伊人將木馬拖進城牆,質疑自己,詢問自己,他們將要如何處理它。

They hesitate and we have to think that this hesitation was what was fatal for them, because there were two things to do – either, to open the belly of the hollow wood to see what is inside – or, having dragged it to the
summit of the citadel, to leave it there to be what?

他們猶豫不決,我們必須認為,這個猶豫不決對於他們是致命的,因為有兩件事要做—一要就打開空洞木頭的肚子,瞧瞧裏面是什麼—要不就是將它拖到城堡的頂端,留置它在那裏,準備幹什麼?

Mega agalma. It is the same idea, it is the charm. It is something
which is here as embarrassing for them as for the Greeks. To tell the truth it is an unusual object, it is this famous extraordinary object which is so much at the centre of a whole series of preoccupations which are still contemporaneous – I do not need to evoke here the surrealist horizon.

巨大的貢品。這是相同的觀念,這是魔咒。這是某件令他們,也是令希臘人感到尷尬的東西。坦白說,這是一件不尋常的東西。這個著名的特別的客體,處於一整個系列專注事物的中心。這些專注事物是同時發生—在此,我並不需要召喚超現實主義的地平線。

What is certain is that, for the ancients also, the agalma is
something in terms of which one can in short capture divine
attention. There are a thousand examples of it that I could
give you. In the story of Hecuba (again in Euripides), in
another place, there is recounted the sacrifice to Achilles’
manes, of her daughter Polyxenes.

確定的是,對於古代人,這個貢品是某件東西,總之,憑藉它我們能夠補捉神祗的注意。我能夠給予你們有關它的上千的例子。在赫丘巴的故事(尤利皮底斯的戲劇),在另外一個地方,她的女兒波力欣尼斯,獻給阿基力的頭髮的祭品被描述。

And it is very well done: we (8) have there the exception which is the occasion for evoking in us erotic mirages: it is the moment that the heroine herself offers her admirable breast which is we are told “like an agalma, hos agalmatos”.

這個祭品做得很精緻:我們在那裏有這個例外。這就是這個場合,跟我們召喚性愛的幻覺。就在這個時刻,女主角自己提供她的令人崇拜的乳房,我們被告訴,「就像貢品」。

Now it is not sure…. there is nothing to indicate that we should be satisfied here with what that evokes, namely the perfection of the mammary organs in Greek statuary.

現在這並不確定、、、沒有東西指示:我們在此應該滿意於那所召喚的東西,換句話說,在希臘的雕像,乳房器官的完美。

I indeed rather believe that what is in question, given that at
the epoch it was not about objects in a museum, is indeed rather
about something the signs of which we see everywhere moreover in
the use that is made of the word when it is said that in the
sanctuaries, in temples, in ceremonies people “hang up anapto,
agalmata”.

我確實相信,受到質疑的東西,假如考慮到,在那個時代,它並不是關於博物館的東西,它確實是關於我們到處看到的某件東西的訊息,而且是在文字的使用。據說在聖殿,在神廟,在典禮,人們「都懸掛起貢品」。

The magical value of objects which are evoked here is indeed linked rather to the evocation of these objects which we well know which are called ex voto.

在此被召喚的東西具有魔力的價值,確實是跟這些東西的召喚有關聯。我們清楚地知道,這些東西被稱為「許願」。

In a word, for people much closer than we are to the differentiation of objects at the origin, it is as beautiful as ex voto breasts; and in effect
ex voto breasts are always perfect, they are machine-turned, moulded. Other examples are not lacking, but we can stay with that.

總之,對於比我們更加靠近起源處客體的差異化的人們,這是美麗的作為「許願的」乳房。實際上,「許願的」乳房總是完美的,他們用機器轉動,鑄造。其他例子,並不欠缺,但是我們在此點到為止。

What is in question, is the brilliant sense, the gallant sense,
because the word galant comes from galer in old French; it is
indeed, it should be said, the function of this that we analysts
have discovered under the name of partial object.

受到質疑的是這個傑出的意義,這個英勇的意義,因為「英勇」這個字來自法文的「galer」。我們應該說,這個的功用,我們精神分析師曾經發現,在「部分客體」的名稱下。

One of the greatest discoveries of analytic investigation is this function
of the partial object. The thing which on this occasion should astonish us most, us analysts, is that having discovered such remarkable things our whole effort should always be to efface their originality.

精神分析研究的一個最大的發現是,這個部分客體的這個功用。在這個場合,我們精神分析師,應該最感到驚奇的這個東西是,當晚們發現如此傑出的東西,我們整個的努力,應該總是要抹除它們的起源。

It is said somewhere, in Pausanias, also in connection with a usage of agalma, that the agalmata which referred in such and such a sanctuary to sorceresses who were there expressly to hold back, to prevent Alcmenes from giving birth were amudroteros amudrota, “a little bit effaced”. Well, that’s it!

據說在某地方,在保撒尼亞斯,關於貢品的用途,在如此這般的神廟提到的貢品,獻給召魂師。他們在那裏生動地阻擋阿克民尼斯不要誕生的是「被抹除的一點東西」。呵呵,那就是了!

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

拉康論移情 0201d

August 31, 2011

拉康論移情 0201d

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 10: Wednesday 1 February 1961

I am giving you already – we are not playing at riddles here – the key to the question in telling you that it is the fetish accent of the object in question that is always stressed.

我已經給予你們—我們在此並不是在玩弄謎團—這個問題的解答在於告你們,總是受到質疑的這個客體,總強調物神。

Moreover of course, I am not giving here a course of ethnology, nor even of linguistics.

當然,而且,我在此並不是發表一種民族學的課程,甚至也不是語言學。

And I am not going, in this connection, to link up the function of the fetish nor of those round stones, essentially at the centre of a temple (the temple of Apollo for example).

關於這一點,我並不是要連接物神的功用,也不是那些圓卵石的功用,基本上是在一座廟宇的中心,(譬如,阿波羅神廟)。

You very often see (this thing is very well known) the god himself represented, a fetish of some people, tribe at the loop of the Niger; it is something unnamable, formless, upon which there can be poured out on occasion an enormous lot of liquids of different origins, more or less
stinking and filthy and whose accummulated superimposition, going
from blood to shit, constituted the sign that here is something around which all sorts of effects are concentrated making of the fetish in itself something quite different to an image, to an icon, in so far as it might be a reproduction.

你們時常看到神祗本身被代表,(這件事情非常著名),作為某個種族,某個部落的一位物神,在尼日河灣那裏。它是某件無法命名的東西,沒有形狀。有時會有大量不同起源的的液體傾注在那裏,那些液體相當惡臭及骯髒。它們的累積會重疊,從血液到糞便,組成這個跡象。在此是某件東西,環繞它的是各種影響集中在一塊造成物神的本身。這個某件東西完全不同於一個意象,不同於偶像,因為它可能是一種複製。

But this occult power of the object remains at the basis of the
usage whose accent, even for us, is still preserved in the term idol or icon. In the term idol, for example in the use Polyeuctus makes of it, it means: it is nothing at all, it is to be thrown away. But all the same if you say about one or other person: “I have made him my idol”, that means all the same that (6) you do not simply make of him the reproduction of yourself or of him but that you make of him something else, around which
something happens.

但是這種客體的奧秘力量始終是作為應用的基礎,甚至對於我們,它的強調依舊被保留在「偶像」或「聖象」的術語。譬如,以「偶像」的術語而言,在波力塔斯對於它的使用,它意味著:它根本沒有意義,它應該被丟棄。但是假如你談論到某一個人,他仍然是物神:「我將他作為我的偶像」,那意味著:你仍然不僅將他作為你自己的複製品或他的複製品。你是將他作為某個其他東西。某件事情環繞這個東西發生。

Moreover it is not a question for me here of pursuing the phenomenology of the fetish but of showing the function that this occupies in its place.

而且,對我而言,在此的問題並不是要追求這個物神的現象,而是顯示佔據它的位置的這個功用。

And in order to do this I can rapidly indicate to you that I tried, as far as my strength allowed me, to make a survey of the passages which remain of Greek literature where the word agalma is employed. And it is only in order to go quickly that I will not read each one to you.

為了做在這個,我能夠很快地跟你們指示,我盡我的力量所及嘗試調查,這個屬於希臘文獻的過程。在那裏,「貢品」這個字被應用。我將不跟你們逐句閱讀,僅是為了加快速度。

You should simply know for example that it is from the multiplicity of the deployment of significations that I extract for you what is in a way the central function that must be seen at the limit of the usages of this word; because naturally, it is not our idea – I think here along the line of the teaching I give you – that etymology consists in finding the meaning in the root.

譬如,你們僅是知道,從意義的運用到多重性,我跟你們抽取中央的功用,在這個字詞的運用到極限,我們看得出來。這並不是我們的觀念—我認為,在此沿著我給予你們教學的脈絡—詞源學在於找到字根的意義。

The root of agalma is not all that easy. What I want to tell you, is that the authors, in so far as they link it to agauos from this ambiguous word agamai, “I admire” but just as much “I am envious, I am jealous of”, which is going to give agazo, “what one tolerates with difficulty”, going towards agaiomai which means “to be indignant”, from which the authors looking for roots (I mean roots which carry a meaning with them, which is absolutely contrary to the principle of linguistics) separate out
gal or gel the gel of gelao the gal which is the same in glene, “the pupil”, and galene – the other day, I quoted it for you in passing – “it is the sea which shines because it is perfectly unified”: in short, that it is an idea of eclat which is hidden here in the root. Moreover aglaos, Aglae, the Brilliant is there to provide us with a familiar echo.

「貢品」的字根並不是那麼容易。我要告訴你們的是,作者將它跟「agauos」連想在一塊,從「曖昧 ambiguous」這個字。「我崇拜」,但是同樣「我妒忌,我羡慕」,這將產生「agazo」,意思是「憤怒」。從那裏,作者尋找字根(我的意思是帶有它們的意義的字根,這絕對是相反於語言學的原則),他們將「gelao」的「gel」跟在「glene」相同的「gal」區分開來。後者的意思是「瞳孔」。前天,我偶而跟你們提到它—「海洋在閃耀,因為它完美地一致。」總之,「eclat」
的觀念,在這裏被隱藏在字根裏。而且,aglaos, Aglae, 這個光輝物在那裏,供應給我們一種熟悉的共鳴。

As you see, this does not go against what we have to say about it. I only put it here in parentheses, because also this is rather only an occasion to show you the ambiguities of this idea that etymology is something
which carries us not towards a signifier but toward a central
signification.

你們看出,這並不違背我們所擁有,去談論它。我僅是將它放在這裏的括弧裏,因為這也僅是一個場合,跟你們顯示這個觀念的曖昧性。詞源學引導我們不是朝向一個能指,而是朝向一個中央的意義。

Because one could just as well interest oneself not in gal, but in the first part of the phonematic articulation, namely aga which is properly the reason why agalma interests us with respect to agathos.

因為我們最好不要對gal「瞳孔」 感到興趣,而是要對語音的表達的第一個部分。換句話是,對 aga 感到興趣。這適當是這個理由,為什麼我們對agalma 感到興趣,關於agathos。

And along this path, you know that if I do not jib at the import of the discourse of Agathon, I prefer to go frankly to the great phantasy of the Cratylus you will see that the etymology of Agathon is agastos, admirable, therefore God knows why one should go looking for agaston, the admirable that there is in thoon, rapid!

沿著這條途徑,你們知道,假如我對於阿加封 Agathon 的論述的意義,不望而卻步。我寧可坦率地探討科來提拉斯的偉大幻見,你們將會看出,Agathon 阿加封這個名字的詞源是agastos「令人崇拜」。因此,天曉得為什麼我們應該尋找agaston 「令人崇拜物」,在「thoon快速」裏的令人崇拜物。

This moreover is the way in which everything is interpreted in the Cratylus, there are some rather fine things; in the etymology of anthropos there is “articulated language”. Plato was really someone very special.

而且,這是在科來提拉斯,每件事情被解釋的這種方式。有些事情解釋得很好。在anthropos 的詞源學,它是「被表達的語言」。柏拉圖確實是某個很特別的人。

(7) Agalma, in truth, it is not to that aspect that we have to turn to give it its value; agalma, as one can see, had always referred to images on condition that you see clearly that, as in every context, it is always a very special type of image.

事實上,Agalma 貢品這個詞,我們必須求助於那個方面,為了給予它的價值。我們能夠看出,agalma 貢品,總是提到各種意象,只要你們清楚看出,如同在每個內文,它總是一個特別種類的意象。

I have to choose among the references. There are some in Empedocles, in Heraclitus, in Democritus. I am going to take the most popular, the poetic, the ones that everybody knew by heart in antiquity. I am going to look for them in an interlined edition of the Iliad and of the Odyssy. In the
Odyssy for example there are two places where one finds agalma.

我必須從這些意象指稱裏選擇。在恩培德克利斯,在赫拉克利圖斯,在德謨克利圖斯,會有些意象。我將採取最受歡迎,最詩意,在古代家喻戶曉的意象。我將會尋找它們,在伊利亞得與奧德賽的字裏行間。譬如,在奧德賽,有兩個地方,我們找到agalma 貢品這個詞。

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

拉康論移情 0201c

August 31, 2011

拉康論移情 0201c

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 10: Wednesday 1 February 1961

We know that this is not alone the discourse of passion, but the
discourse of passion at its most quaking point, namely the one
(4) which is in a way entirely contained in the origin.

我們知道,這不僅是激情的論述,而且是激情處於它最顛峰的論述。也就是說,在某方面,它完全被包含在起源那裏。

Even before he explains himself, he is there, charged with the most
fundamental aspect of everything that he has to tell us, what is
going to begin.

甚至在他解釋他自己以前,他在那裏,擔負著他必須告訴我們的一切都最基本的東西,將要開始的東西。

Therefore it is indeed the language of passion. Already this unique, personal relationship: no one has ever seen what is in question, as I once happened to see; and I saw it!” “I found them, these agalmata already so divine, chrusa”, c’est chou, “it was golden and all beautiful and wonderful, that there remained only one thing to do, en brachei, as soon as possible, by the quickest means, do whatever Socrates commands,
poieteon, what is to be done”; what becomes duty, is whatever Socrates is pleased to command (217a).

因此,那確實是激情的語言。這已經是獨特的個人的關係:沒有人曾經看見所被質疑的東西,如同我有一次恰巧看見。「我看見它!我找到它們,這些如此神聖誕貢品」。那是黃金,一切美麗而神奇的東西。那始終只有一件事要做,盡可能快,用最快的方法,做任何蘇格拉底命令的事情,做應該被做的事情。」將它當著是責任,這是蘇格拉底很樂意命令的。

I do not think it useless for us to articulate a text like this a
step at a time. This is not to be read as one reads France-Soir
or an article in the International journal of psychoanalysis.

我並不認為這是無用,讓我們逐步地表達像這樣的一個文本。這個文本不應該被閱讀,如同我們閱讀法蘭西、索爾,或是國際精神分析雜誌的一篇文章。

It is indeed something whose effects are surprising. On the one hand we are not told for the present what these agalmata (in the plural) are and, on the other hand, this involves all of a sudden this subversion, this falling under the influence of the commandments of the one who possesses them.

這確實是某件影響相當令人驚奇的東西。在一方面,我們目前並沒有被告訴,這些貢品「複數」是什麼。在另一方面,這突然牽涉到這個顛覆,這個掉落,在擁有它們的這個人的命令的影響之下。

You cannot fail to find here all the same something of the magic which I already highlighted for you around the Che vuoi? What do you want? It
is indeed this key, this essential cutting edge of the topology of the subject which begins with: what do you want? – In other words: is there a desire which is really your will?

你們在此一定會發現,仍然有某件魔術性的東西,我已經跟你們強調,環繞「你到底想要什麼?」這確實就是這個解答,生命主體的拓樸圖形的這個重要的切割邊緣。它開始於這個問題:「你到底想要什麼?」換句話說:「這個欲望真的是出於你的意志嗎?」

“And” – Alcibiades continues – “as I thought he was in earnest when he spoke about hora, eme hora” – this is translated by – “youthful bloom…”, and there begins the whole seduction scene.

「而且」–阿西比底斯繼續—「如同我認為他是認真的,當他談論的年輕的 “hora, eme hora” 可翻譯為:「春花怒放、、、」整個的誘拐場景就從這裏開始。

But as I told you, we will not go any further today, we will try
to make you sense that which renders necessary this passage from
the first phase to the other one, namely why it is absolutely necessary that at any price Socrates should unmask himself.

但是我告訴你們,今天我們將不會再更加深入。我們將會嘗試讓你們感覺到,從第一個詞語到另外一個詞語的這個過程,成為必須的東西。也就是說為什麼這是絕對需要的,蘇格拉底應該不惜一切代價,揭露自己真實面目。

We are only going to stop at these agalmata. I can honestly tell
you that it is not – give me credit for this – to this text that
there goes back for me the problematic of agalma, not that this
would be in the least inappropriate because this text suffices to
justify it, but I am going to tell you the story as it is.

我們僅是要停留在這些貢品。我能夠誠實地告訴你們,對於我而言,貢品的難題並不是要回溯到這個文本—-請相信我這一點—不是:這根本就不合宜,因為這個文本已經證實它。而是:我將告訴你們它真實的故事。

I can tell you, without being really able to date it, that my
first encounter with agalma is an encounter like every encounter,
unexpected.

我能夠告訴你們,雖然我無法確認日期:我跟貢品的第一次邂逅,是像每一次的邂逅一樣,是偶然機緣。

It is in a verse of Euripides’ Hecuba that it struck me some years ago and you will easily understand why. It was all the same a little while before the period when I introduced here the function of the phallus, with the essential articulation that anaylytic experience and Freud’s doctrine shows us that it has, between demand and desire; so that in passing, I
did not fail to be struck by the use that was given to this term in the mouth of Hecuba. Hecuba says: “Where am I going to be brought, where am I going to be deported?”

就在尤利皮底斯的「赫丘巴」的詩篇,好幾年前,我感到印象深刻。你們很容易瞭解為什麼。那正是我在此介紹陽具的功用那段時期前不久,我基本上是在表達:精神分析經驗及佛洛伊德的信條跟我們顯示,在需求與欲望之間,它擁有。偶然地,我必然對這個用法感到印象深刻,從赫丘巴的嘴中的這個術語。赫丘巴說:「我到底會被帶往哪里?我將被驅逐到哪里?」

As you know, the tragedy of Hecuba takes place at the moment of
the capture of Troy and, among all the places that she envisages
in her discourse, there is: “Might it be to this at once sacred
and plague-stricken place…. Delos?” –

你們知道,赫丘巴的悲劇發生在特洛伊城的淪陷之際。在她的論述裏,她擬想到的所有地方當中,這是:「可能是被帶到這個既神聖又充滿瘟疫的地方,迭洛斯?」

As you know no one had the right either to give birth there or to die there. And then, at the description of Delos, she makes an allusion to an object
which was celebrated, which was – as the fashion in which she speaks about it indicates – a palm tree of which she says that (5) this palm tree, is odinos agalma dias, namely odinos, of the pain, agalma dias, the term dias designates [Leto], it is a question of the birth of Apollo, it is “the agalma of the pain of the divine one”.

你們知道,沒有人用這個權利要在那裏出生,或是要在那裏死亡。然後,為了描述迭洛斯,她提到一個著名的客體—依照她談論它的方式指示—那就是一棵棕櫚樹。她提到它說:這棵棕櫚樹是odinos agalma dias,也就是痛苦的貢品。這是阿波羅太陽神誕生的問題,這是神祗的痛苦的貢品。

We rediscover the thematic of giving birth but all the same rather changed because here this trunk, this tree, this magical thing erected, preserved as an object of reference throughout the ages, is something which cannot fail – at least for us analysts – to awaken the whole register that there exists around the thematic of the [female] phallus in so far as its
phantasy is, as we know, at the horizon and situates this infantile object [as a fetish].

我們重新發現誕生的這個難題,但是它仍然相當被改變。因為在此,這個樹幹,這棵樹,這個魔術的東西被豎起,被保存當著是幾世紀以來,指稱的一個客體。它是某件必然會喚醒整個的銘記—至少對於我們精神分析師而言—環繞這個「女性的」陽具的難題,在地平線處,存在著它的幻見,你們知道,這個幻見定義這個嬰兒般的客體,當著是一種物神。

The fetish that it remains can hardly fail either to be for us the echo of this signification.

它始終是物神,這個幻見,對於我們而言,也必然是這個意義的共鳴。

But in any case, it is quite clear that agalma cannot be translated here in any way by “ornament, adornment”, nor even as one often sees it in the texts, “statue” – because often theon agalmata, when one is translating rapidly one thinks that it fits in, that it is a question in the text of “statues of the gods”.

但是無論如何,顯而易見,這個貢品在此無法僅翻譯為「裝飾及增光」,它也無法如我們經常在文本裏看到的,翻譯為「雕像」。因為當我們在翻譯時,我們會想到,它會被套用,問題出現在「眾神的雕像」的文本裏。

You see right away, the point I am keeping you at, the reason why I believe that it is a term to highlight in this signification, this hidden accent which presides over what must be done to hold back on this path of banalisation which always tends to efface for us the true sense of texts, the fact is that each time you encounter agalma – pay careful attention – even if it seems to be a question of “statues of the gods”, if you look closely at it, you will perceive that it is always a question of something different.

你們立刻看出,我一直要你們注意的這一點:為什麼我相信這個術語在這個意義裏的強調,這個隱藏的強調,它監管必須要被做到事情,為了要阻止陳腐化的這條途徑。這個陳腐化途徑總是傾向於替我們抹除掉文本的真實意義。事實上,每一次你們邂逅這個貢品—-請仔細注意— 即使問題似乎是「眾神的雕像」,假如你們仔細瞧它,你們會感覺到:問題總是某件其他的東西。

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

拉康論移情 0201b

August 31, 2011

拉康論移情 0201b

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 10: Wednesday 1 February 1961

Today therefore, what we are highlighting, is something which is
essential in order to rejoin this topology, in the measure that
it is on the subject of love that we have to rejoin it.

因此今天,我們正在強調的是某件基本的東西,為了重新加入這個拓樸圖形。在討論愛的主體時,我們必須重新加入它。

It is about the nature of love that there is question, it is about a
position, an essential articulation too often forgotten, elided,
and to which we analysts nevertheless have contributed the element, the mainspring which allows its problematic to be defined, it is on this that there should be concentrated what I have to say to you today about agalma.

關於愛的特性,有個問題,關於一個立場,一個往往被忘記,被省略的基本的表達。可是,我們精神分析師對於這個表達,貢獻這個因素,這個原動力,容許它的難題被定一。今天我必須跟你們談論「貢品」,我們就必須集中這一點。

It is all the more extraordinary, almost scandalous that this
should not have been better highlighted up to now, that it is a
properly analytic notion that is in question, is what I hope to
be able to make you sense, put your finger on in a little while.

這是更加特別的,近乎醜聞。迄今,我們本來不應該更加被強調,因為受到質疑的,恰恰是精神分析的觀念。這是我希望能夠讓你們感覺到的東西,過一下子,會讓你們理解到。

Agalma, here is how it is presented in the text: Alcibiades
speaks about Socrates, he says that he going to unmask him – we
will not today get to the end of what the discourse of Alcibiades
signifies – you know that Alcibiades goes into the greatest
detail about his adventure with Socrates.

「貢品」,在此是它在文本裏被呈現的方式:阿西比底斯談論蘇格拉底,他說,他將於揭發他的真面目—我們今天將不會探討到阿西比底斯的論述意味的目的—你們知道,阿西比底數對於他跟蘇格拉底的浪漫情事钜細無遺地描述。

He tried what? To make Socrates, we will say, manifest his desire to him because he knows that Socrates has a desire for him; what he wanted was a sign.

他嘗試什麼?為了讓蘇格拉底展示對於他的欲望,我們不妨說,因為他知道,蘇格拉底對他有欲望。他所要的就是一個跡象。

Let us leave this in suspense, it is too soon to ask why. We are only at the beginning of Alcibiades* approach and, at first sight, this approach does not seem to be essentially distinguished from what was said up to then.

讓我們懸置這個,現在問為什麼還太早。我們僅是在阿西比底斯接近的開始部分。乍然一看,這個接近似乎跟直到當時所說的,沒有很基本的區別。

At the beginning there was question, in the discourse of Pausanias, of what one was going to look for in love and it was said that what each one
sought in the other (an exchange of proper procedures) was what he contained in terms of eromenon, of the desirable.

在開始,在保撒尼亞斯的論述,就有我們將要在愛裏尋求什麼的問題。據說,一個人在另外一個人身上尋求的,(一種適當程式的交換),就是他用垂涎之物的術語,包括在裏面的東西。

It indeed is the same thing that appears … that seems to be in question
now. Alcibiades tells us that Socrates is someone whose “amorous dispositions draw him towards beautiful boys…”. – this (3) is a preamble – “he is ignorant of everything and knows nothing, agnoei; that is his pose!” (216d) – and then, he goes into the celebrated comparison with the Silenos which has a double import.

這確實是跟目前受到質疑的相同的事情、、、阿西比底斯告訴我們,蘇格拉底的「多情性情引導他跟帥俊的少男、、、」這是個前奏—「他對每件事情都無知,他一無所知,那就是他的姿態」—然後,他從事那個著名的比較,跟具有雙重意義的「半人半獸」比較。

I mean first of all that this is what he appears like, namely with nothing beautiful about him and, on the other hand, that this Silenos is not simply the image that is designated by this name, but also something which is its usual aspect: it is a wrapping, a container, a way of presenting
something – these things must have existed.

首先我的意思是,這是他表面的樣子,也就是他沒有帥俊的地方,在另一方面,這個「半人半獸」並不僅是根據這個名字指明代這個意象,而且是某件它通常的一面:這是一種包裝,一種容器,一種呈現某件東西的方式—這些東西當時一定存在。

These tiny instruments of the industry of the time were little Silenos which served as jewel boxes, as wrapping to offer presents and
precisely, this is what is in question.

這些當代的勤奮的小小的工具,就是「半人半獸」,它充當珠寶盒,呈送禮物時代包裝,這確實是受到質疑的地方。

This topological indication is essential. What is important, is
what is inside. Agalma can indeed mean “ornament or adornment”,
but it is here above all “a precious object, a jewel, something
which is inside”.

這個拓樸圖形的指示是很重要的。重要的是裏面的東西。「貢品」確實意味著「裝飾或增光」,但是在此尤其是「一種珍貴的東西,一個珠寶,某件裏面的東西。」

And here expressly, Alcibiades tears us away from this dialectic of the beautiful which was up to then the path, the guide, the mode of capture on this path of the desirable and he undeceives us in connection with Socrates himself.

在此,生動地,阿西比底斯將我們從有關美的這個辯證法拉開。直到當時,這個有關美的辯證法,是這條途徑,這個響導,在垂涎之物的這條途徑的捕捉模式。關於蘇格拉底,他並沒有欺騙我們。

“Iste hoti, you should know,” he says, “Socrates apparently loves
beautiful boys, oute ei tis kalos esti melei auto ouden, whether
one or other is beautiful, melie auto ouden, does not matter a
straw to him, he does not give a hang, on the contrary he despises it, kataphronei”, we are told, “as no one would ever believe, tosouton hoson oud’an eis oietheie you could not even imagine…”. and that really, the aim that he pursues –

「呵呵,你們應該知道」,他說,「蘇格拉底喜歡帥俊的少男,無論是哪一位帥俊,對他而言,並無所謂。他並不迷戀,相反的,他輕視它」,我們被告訴,「沒有人會相信,你們甚至無法想像、、、」那確實是他追求的目標。

I am underlining it because after all it is in the text – it is
expressly articulated at this point that it is not alone external
goods, riches for example, which everyone up to then (we are
delicate souls) has said that it was not what one sought in others, “nor any of the other advantages which might seem in any way to procure makaria, happiness, felicity, hupo plethous to anyone whatsoever;” one is quite wrong to interpret it here as a sign that it is a question of disdaining goods which are goods “for the mob”.

我正在強調它,因為畢竟,它出現在文本裏—在這個時候,它生動地被表達,美不僅是外在的東西,譬如財富。直到當時,(我們是很敏銳的靈魂),每個人曾經說,這並不是在別人身上,他所尋求的,「也不是任何其他的利益,似乎可用任何方式獲得快樂,幸福,對於任何一個人」。我們在此若是將它解釋為一種跡象,那就錯了。問題是要輕視俗眾所看重的東西。

What is rejected, is precisely what had been spoken about up to then, good things in general (216e).

所被拒絕的,確是就是直到當時一直被談論的東西,一般而言,是美好的東西。(第216頁)

“On the other hand”, Alcibiades tells us, “do not pause at his strange appearance if, eironeuomenos, he pretends ignorance, he questions, he plays the fool in order to get a response, he really behaves like a child, he spends his time making fun.

「在另一方面」,阿西比底斯告訴我們,「不要停在他的奇怪的外表,即使他偽裝無知,他詢問,他扮演傻瓜,為了要獲得回答,他確實行為像個小孩,他花時間來逗趣。」

But spoudasantos de autou” – not as it is translated -” when he
decides to be serious” – but – it is – “you, be serious, pay
careful attention to it, and open this Silenos, anoichthentos,
opened out, I don’t know if anyone has ever seen the agalmata
which are inside, the jewels” about which right away Alcibiades
states that he really doubts whether anyone has ever been able to
see what he is talking about.

但是「spoudasantos de autou」這句的翻譯並不真實,「當他決定要認真時」—就是這樣—「你們請認真些,仔細聽它,請打開這個半人半獸,它被展開。我不知道是否有任何曾經看過貢品的裏面,這些珠寶」。關於這一點,阿西比底斯立刻陳述:他真的懷疑是否有任何人曾經能夠明白,他在談論什麼。

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

拉康論移情 0201

August 30, 2011

拉康論移情 0201

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 10: Wednesday 1 February 1961

I left you the last time, as a kind of staging-post in our account, on the word to which I also told you I would leave until the next occasion all its enigmatic value, the word agalma.

上一次我留給你們這個字詞,作為我們描述的一種展示標杆。我也告訴你們,我會留下所有它的謎團一般的價值,給「貢品」這個字詞。

I did not think that what I said would turn out to be so true. For a great number, the enigma was so total that people were asking: “What was that? What did he say? Do you know?”. Well, for those who manifested this unease, one of my own family was able at least to give this response – which proves at least that in my house secondary education has its uses – that means:
“ornament, adornment”.

我不認為我所的內容結果會是真實。對於許多人,這個謎團是如此完整,以致人們會問:「那是什麼?他說什麼?你們知道嗎?」呵呵,對一那些展示這種不安的人,我自己的家人至少能夠給予這個回答—那至少證明,在我的家裏,中學教育擁有它的價值—那意味著「裝飾,增光」。

In any case, this response was only in effect a first level response about something that everyone should know: agalma, from agallo, “to adorn, to ornament”, signifies in effect – at first sight – “ornament, adornment”.

無論如何,這種回答實際上僅是一種初級層次的回答,關於某件每個人應該知道的東西:agalma, 字源從 agallo 衍變而來,意思是「裝飾,增光」,實際上意味著—乍然一看—「裝飾,增光」。

First of all the notion of ornament, of adornment is not that simple; it can be seen immediately that this may take us very far. Why, and with what does one adorn oneself? Or why does one adorn oneself and with what?

首先,裝飾及增光的觀念,並不是那麼簡單;我們立刻能夠看出來,這可能讓我們深入探討。我們為什麼,以及用什麼裝飾自己?或我們為什麼裝飾自己?用什麼來裝飾自己?

It is quite clear that, if we are here at a central point, many avenues should lead us to it. But I finally retained, in order to make of it the pivot of my explanation, this word agalma.

顯而易見的,假如我們在此處於中央點,許多管道應該引導我們到那裏。但是我最後保留「貢品」這個字,為了解釋它,當著我的解釋的軸心,「貢品」這個字。

You should not see in it any taste for rarity but rather the fact
that in a text which we suppose to be extremely rigorous, that of
the Symposium, something leads us to this crucial point which is
formally indicated at the moment at which I told you the stage
revolves completely and, after these games of praising regulated
as they had been up to then by this subject of love, there enters
this actor, Alcibiades, who is going to change everything.

你們不應該在裏面看出我喜好賣弄僻字,相反的,你們應該可出這個事實:在我們認為應該極端嚴謹的文本,「饗宴」的文本,某件東西引導我們到正式被指示的這個關鍵時刻。在這個時刻,我告訴你們這個舞臺完全地轉變,經過直到當時都一直根據愛的這個主體,充當讚賞的這些遊戲之後,進來這位演員,阿西比底斯。他將會改變一切。

As proof I only need the following: he himself changes the rules of
the game by making himself the presiding authority.

作為證據,我僅需要以下的話:他讓他自己成為主持人的權威,而自己改變遊戲規則。

From that moment on he tells us, it is no longer a question of praising
love but the other person and specifically each one is to praise his neighbour on the right. You will see that this is important for what follows, that it is already a lot to say about it, that, if it is a question of love, it is in act in the relationship of one to the other that it is here going to have to manifest itself (213e, 214d).

從那個時刻開始,他告訴我們,問題不再是讚美愛,而生讚美另外一個人。明確地說,每一位都要讚美他右邊的鄰居。你們將會看出,對於後面的發展,這是很重要的。這已經說明大部分。假如這是愛的問題,在行動上,它就是一個人跟另外一個人的關係。就在此,愛將會證明它自己。(213頁及214頁)

I pointed out to you the last time, it is noteworthy that from the moment that things get started on this terrain, with the experienced producer whom we suppose to be at the source of this dialogue (which is confirmed for us by the incredible mental genealogy which flows from this Symposium, whose second-last echo I highlighted for you the last time in connection with Kierkegaard’s banquet – the last, I already named for you: it is
Eros and Agape by Anders Nygren, all this is still dependent on the framework, the structure of the Symposium) well then, this experienced personage can do nothing else…. once it is a question of bringing the other into play, there is not just one of them, there are two others, in other words there are a minimum (2) of three.

上一次我跟你們指出,值得注意的是,從事情在這個平臺開始,有經驗的製作人,我們認為應該處於這個對話的來源,(這個難以置信的來自饗宴的精神系譜跟我們證實),它的倒數第二個共鳴,我上一次跟你們強調過,關於齊克果的宴會—上一次,我已經跟你們提到:這事安得爾、奈格寧所著的「性愛與驚奇」。這一切都依靠架構,饗宴的架構)。呵呵,這個經驗老到的人物會做的僅就是,一旦問題是要讚賞另一個人,不僅是他們其中一位,還有其他兩位,換句話說,至少有三位。

This, Socrates does not allow to escape in his reply to Alcibiades when, after this extraordinary admission, this public confession, this thing which is somewhere between a declaration of love and almost one might say a malediction, a defamation of Socrates, Socrates replies to him: “It was not for me that you were speaking, it was for Agathon” (222c,d).

這一點,蘇格拉底容許避開,當他回答阿西比底斯。經過這個特別的准許後,這個公開的告白,處於愛的宣言與我們幾乎可說是憎惡,對於蘇格拉底的譭謗之間,蘇格拉底回答他說:「你這樣說,不是為了我,而是為了阿加封。」(222頁)

All of this makes us sense that we are getting into a different register.
The dual relationship of the one who, in the ascent towards love,
proceeds by way of identification (if you wish, moreover by the
production of what we have indicated in the discourse of Diotima)
being helped in it by this marvel of beauty and, coming to see in
this beauty itself identified here at the end with the perfection
of the work of love, finds in this beauty its very term and
identifies it to this perfection.

所有這一切都讓我們感覺到,我們正進入一種不同的銘記。這個人的雙重關係,藉由認同,前進提升到愛,(而且,藉由在帝奧提瑪的論述所指示的,我們擁有的製作),這個人在認同當中受到美的神奇的幫助,在被認同的這個美本身裏,前來看到,結果擁有愛的作品的完美。他在這個美麗裏發現它的術一,並且將它認同于這個完美。

Something else therefore comes into play here other than this
univocal relationship which gives to the term of the work of love
this goal, this end of identification to what I put in question
here last year, the thematic of the sovereign good, of the
supreme good.

除了這個意義明確的關係,給予愛的作品的這個術語,某件其他的東西因此在此運作,這個目標,這個認同我去年在此置疑的東西,統治的善,最崇高的善的主題。

Here we are shown that something else is suddenly substituted in the triplicity, in the complexity, which shows us, presents itself to reveal to us that in which, as you know, I maintain the essential of the analytic discovery is contained, this topology in which fundamentally there results the relationship of the subject to the symbolic in so far as it is esssentially distinct from the imaginary and its capture.

在此,我們被顯示,某件其他的東西,在這個三重性,在這個複雜性裏被替代。它跟我們顯示,呈現它自己,為了跟我們顯示,你們知道,我主張精神分析發現的這個基本的東西,被包含在這個拓樸圖形。在裏面,基本上,生命主體跟象徵界的關係所造成的結果,因為它基本上不同於想像界及它的捕捉。

This is our term, this is what we will articulate the next time to
bring to a close what we will have to say about the Symposium.

這是我們的術語,這是我們下一次將會表達,為了結束我們所必需說的,關於「饗宴。」

It is with the help of this that I will make re-emerge old models
which I have given you of the intrasubjective topology in so far
as this is the way that we should understand the whole of Freud’s
second topography.

藉由這個的幫助,我將重新我曾經給予你們呈現舊的模式,關於主體內部的拓樸圖像。這就是這個方式,我們應該瞭解佛洛伊德的第二個拓樸圖形的全部。

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

拉康論移情 0118h

August 30, 2011

拉康論移情 0118h

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 8: Wednesday 18 January 1961

Here then the matter is clearly put. The fact is that on the one hand it is the masculine which is desirable and that, it is the feminine which is active, this at least is how things happen at the moment of the birth of Love and, when one formulates “love is giving what one does not have”, believe me, I am not the one who is telling you this in connection with this text in order to produce one of my hobby horses, it is quite evident that this is what is in question here because the poor Penia, by
definition, by structure has properly speaking nothing to give, except her constitutive lack, aporia.

在此事情清楚地被表達,事實上,在一方面,被欲望的是男性,主動的是女性。這至少是「愛」的誕生的時刻發生的方式。當我們說明「愛是給予我們所沒有的東西」,請相信我,我並不是在告訴你們關於這個文本,為了產生我的嗜好之馬。顯而易見的,這是受到質疑的地方,因為可憐的「貧瘠」,顧名思義,在結構上,適當來說,就是沒有東西可給予,除了就是她的本質的欠缺,貧瘠。

And what allows me to tell you that I am not forcing things here, is that if you refer to number 202a of the text of the Symposium you will find the expression “to give what one does not have” literally written
there in the form of the development which starting from there Diotima is going to give to the function of love, namely: aneu tou echein logon dounai – it fits exactly, in connection with the discourse, the formula “to give what one does not have” – it is a question here of giving a discourse, a valid explanation, without having it.

我所以被容許告訴你們,我在此不強迫灌輸,理由是,假如你們參照「饗宴」文本的第202頁,你們將會發現這個表達「給予我們所沒有的東西」。在那裏,它實質上是用帝奧提瑪開始的發展的形式被書寫,它將給予愛的功用。換句話說,它搭配得恰到好處,關於這個論述,這個公式:「給予我們所沒有的東西」。在此,這個問題給一種論述,一種正確的解釋,卻沒有擁有它。

It is a question of the moment when, in her development, Diotima is going to be led to say what love belongs to.

問題是關鍵時刻,在她的推論裏,帝奧提瑪將會被引導說,愛屬於什麼。

Well, love belongs to a zone, to a form of affair, a form of thing, a form of pragma, a form of praxis which is at the same level, of the same quality as doxa, namely the following which exists, namely that there are discourses, ways of behaving, opinions – this is the translation that we give to the term doxa – which are true without the subject being able to know it.

呵呵,愛屬於一個地區,屬於一種情事的形式,一種真實事情的形式,一種真實界的形式,一種相同層次的本體的形式,跟信仰的特質相同。換句話說,以下存在東西,也就是有論述,有行為的方式,有意見—這個是我們給予「信仰」這個術語的翻譯。那些論述,行為方式及意見是真實的,只是生命主體自己無法知道。

The doxa in so far as it is true, but is not episteme, it is one
of the commonplaces of the Platonic doctrine to distinguish its
field, love as such is something which forms part of this field.

這個「信仰」是真實的,但不屬於認識論,而是柏拉圖的信條的共同位置,用來區別它的領域。愛的本身是某件組成這個領域的部分。

It is between episteme and amathia, just as it is between the
beautiful and the true. It is neither one nor the other.

愛處於智慧與無知之間,就像它處於美麗與真實之際。它既不是前者,也不是後者。

To remind Socrates that his objection (a naive pretended objection
no doubt, that if love lacks the beautiful then it must be ugly,
but it is not ugly)…. there is a whole domain which is, for
example, exemplified by the doxa to which we ceaselessly refer in
the Platonic discourse and which can show that love, according to
the Platonic term, is metaxu, “between the two”.

為了提醒蘇格拉底,他的反對(無可置疑地,他天真地假裝反對,因為假如愛缺乏美麗,愛一定是醜陋)、、、有一整個的領域,譬如說,可用信仰作為例子,我們不停地提到這個「信仰」,在柏拉圖的論述。這個「信仰」能夠顯示:依照柏拉圖的術語,愛是「處於兩者之間」。

That is not all. We cannot be satisfied with such an abstract, indeed negative definition of the intermediate.

不僅如此。我們無法滿足于,愛作為這樣一種抽象的,處於中間的負面的定義

It is here that (12) our speaker Diotima, brings into play the notion of the demonic: the notion of the demonic as intermediate between immortals and mortals, between gods and men, is essential to evoke here in so far as it confirms what I told you about the way we must think of what the gods are, namely that they belong to the field of the real.

在此,我們的演說者帝奧提那發揮這個「惡魔」的觀念:惡魔的觀念作為處於不朽神祗與有限生命的人的仲介,處於神與人之間。在此召喚這個觀念是很重要的,因為它證實我告訴你們,關於我們對於神祗是什麼的看法。也就是說,他們屬於真實界的領域。

We are told this, these gods exist, their existence is not at all contested here and the demoniacal the demon, to diamonion, there are many others besides love, is that through which the gods make their message heard by mortals, “whether they are awake or asleep” (203a) a strange thing which
does not seem either to have caught people’s attention much is that: “whether they are awake or asleep” if you have heard my phrase, who does this refer to, to the gods or to men?

我們被告訴,這些神祗存在,他們的存在在此根本沒有受到考驗,而惡魔,除了愛以外,還有許多其他的惡魔。透過這個惡魔,神祗讓他們的訊息被有限生命的人聽見,「無論他們在清醒或睡眠時刻」(第203頁)。這句話是一件奇怪的事情,它似乎沒有吸引人們的許多注意力。「無論他們在清醒或睡眠時刻」,假如你們聽清楚我說的話。這是提的誰?提到神祗?還是提到人們?

Well, I can assure you that in the Greek text there is some doubt about
it. Everybody translates, according to the norms of commonsense, that this refers to men, but it is in the dative which is precisely the case in which the theios are in the phrase, so that it is another little riddle on which we will not dwell very long.

呵呵,我能夠告訴你們,在希臘的文本,這句話受到質疑。每個人翻譯,依照各人的普通常識。這是提的人們,但是這是「屬格」。在這片語裏,這個「神祗」確實是「屬格」。所以這是另外一個小小謎團,我們就不詳述了。

Simply, let us say that the myth situates the order of the demonic at the point where our psychology speaks about the world of animism. It is calculated in a way also to encourage us to rectify what is over-hasty in this notion that the primitive has an animist world.

僅是讓我們這樣說,神話定位惡魔的秩序,在我們心理學談論有關「靈魂存在論」的時刻。它也以某種方式被估算,為了鼓勵我們矯正過於輕率的東西,在原始人對於靈魂存在的世界的這個觀念。

What we are told here, in passing, is that it is the world of what we would call enigmatic messages, which means simply for us messages in which the subject does not recognise his own part.

我們在此順便被告訴,這是我們所謂的謎團一般的訊息的世界。對於我們而言,這僅是意味著訊息。在訊息裏,生命主體並沒有認出他自己扮演的角色。

The discovery of the unconscious is essential in that it has allowed us to extend the field of messages which we can authenticate – the only ones that we can authenticate as messages, in the proper sense of this term in so far as it is founded in the domain of the symbolic – namely that
many of those which we would believe to be opaque messages of the real are only our own, this is what has been conquered from the world of the gods, this is also what at the point that we have got to, has still not been conquered.

無意識的發現是很重要的,因為它讓我們能夠延伸這些訊息的領域,我們能夠證實這些訊息—我們能夠證實作為訊息的領域。用這個術語的適當意義來說,它的基礎是在象徵界的領域—換句話說,許多那些訊息,我們將會相信是真實界的朦朧訊息,僅是我們自己的訊息。這就是被從神祗的世界,所被贏得的東西。這也是我們已經到達的地方,但是還沒有贏得。

It is around this thing which is going to develop in the myth of
Diotima that we will continue with from beginning to end the next time; and having gone right through it we will see why it is condemned to leave opaque that which is the object of the praises which constitute the sequence of the Symposium, condemned to leave it opaque and to leave as a field in which there can be developed the elucidation of its truth only what is going to follow after the entry of Alcibiades.

環繞著在帝奧提瑪的神話,將要發展的這個真實界,下一次我們將繼續從頭講到尾。當我們講完它之後,我們將會明白,為什麼將組成「饗宴」的過程的讚賞的客體,不求甚解,會受到譴責。我們會受到譴責,對它不求甚解,留下它作為一個領域。在這個領域,對於它的真理的解釋能夠被發展,只有在阿西比底斯進入後發生的事情。

Far from being an addition, a useless part which is to be rejected, this entrance of Alcibiades is essential, because it is from it, it is in the action which develops with the entry of Alcibiades, between Alcibiades, Agathon and Socrates, that there can only be given in an efficacious fashion the structural relationship.

阿西底比斯的進入,絲毫不是一種補充說明,一個應該被拒絕的沒有用的部分。他的進入是很重要的,因為從那裏,隨著阿西底比斯的進入發展的行動,處於阿西比底斯,阿加封,與蘇格拉底之間,這個結構的關係,才能有效地被給予。

It is even there that we will be able to recognise what the discovery of the unconscious and the experience of psychoanalysis (specifically the transferential experience), allows us for our part, finally, to express in a dialectical fashion.

甚至在那裏,我們將能夠體認出,無意識的發現及精神分析經驗是什麼(明確地說,就是移情的經驗)。就我們而言,它使我們最後能夠以辯證的方式來表達。

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

拉康論移情 0118g

August 30, 2011

拉康論移情 0118g

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 8: Wednesday 18 January 1961

And first of all, to clearly mark the continuity, Socrates is going to say that it is on the same plane, that it is with the same arguments that he had used with regard to Agathon that Diotima introduced her dialogue with him.

首先,為了清楚標記這個繼續性,蘇格拉底將會說,帶著他曾經使用過的相同論點,關於阿加封的相同層次。帝奧提瑪跟他介紹她的對話。

The stranger from (10) Mantineia who is presented to us in the personage of an priestess, and magician (let us not forget that at this turning
point of the Symposium we are told a good deal about these arts of divination, of how to operate, in order to make oneself heard by the gods in order to move natural forces), is a woman who is wise in the matter of witchcraft, of divination as the comte de Cabanis would say, of all sorts of sorcery (goétie).

這位來自曼提尼亞的陌生人,她被介紹給我們,作為一位僧尼及魔法師(讓我們不要忘記,在饗宴的這個轉捩點,我們被告訴許多關於這些預卜及如何運作的技藝,為了讓自己被人聽見,在巫術的事情,在預卜,在各種的召魂術,如同卡本尼斯所說的。)

The term is Greek, goetia, and is in the text (203a). Moreover, we are told something about her which I am astonished to find not much is
made of in reading this text, which is that she is supposed to have succeeded by her artifices in putting off the plague for ten years, and what is more at Athens!

這個「goetia」術語是希臘文,出現在文本裏(203頁)。而且,我們被告訴某件關於她的事情。我很驚訝地發現,在閱讀文本時,她並沒有受到重視。她應該是憑藉她的法術,成功地阻擋瘟疫有十年,而且是在雅典。

It must be admitted that this familiarity with the powers of the plague is all the same something to make us reflect, to make us situate the stature and the style of the figure of the person who is going to speak to
you about love.

我們必須承認,這種對於瘟疫力量的熟稔,仍然是某件讓我們反思的事情,讓我們定位這個人物的身份跟風格。她將跟我們談論愛。

It is on this plane that things are introduced and it is on this
plane that she takes up the thread about that which Socrates, who
at that moment acts naive or pretends to be foolish, poses her
the question: “If Love is not beautiful, then it must be ugly?”

在這個層次,事情被介紹,在這個層次,她從事這個線索。在那個時候,蘇格拉底表現得很天真,假裝糊塗,跟她提出這個問題:「假如愛不美麗,那麼愛就是很醜陋啦?」

(201e) Here in effect is where there ends up the results of the
method called through more or less, of yes or no, of presence or
absence, proper to the law of the signifier (what is not beautiful is ugly), here at least is what is implied in all rigour by the pursuit of the ordinary mode of interrogation of Socrates. At which the priestess is able to respond to him: “My son” – I would say – “you must not blaspheme! And why should everything that is not beautiful be ugly?”

在此,實際上,所謂能指法則的適當性,是或否,存在或不存在,這個方法的效果要告一段落(凡是不美麗的東西,就是醜陋)。在此,至少是一切被暗示的東西,在蘇格拉底的詢問的普通模式,嚴格地從事。在這個時候,僧尼能夠對他回應:「老兄,」容我這樣說,「你一定不要口出惡言!為什麼不美麗的東西,就應該是醜陋?」

In order to say it, she introduces to us the myth of the birth of
Love which is all the same worth our while dwelling on.

為了要這樣說,她跟我們介紹「愛」的誕生的神話,這個神話仍然值得我們詳述。

I would point out to you the myth exists only in Plato that, among the
innumerable myths, I mean the innumerable mythical accounts about
the birth of Love in ancient literature – I took the trouble of
studying a certain amount of it – there is not a trace of this thing which is going to be enounced here.

我將會跟你們指出,這個神話僅存在于柏拉圖。在無數的神話裏,我的意思是無數的神話的描述,關於在古代文獻裏,「愛」的誕生—我費了些功夫研究某些資料—絲毫沒有跡象,這個神話會在這裏被宣佈

It is nevertheless the myth which has remained, as I might say, the most popular one.

可是,這個神話始終是最受歡迎的神話,我不妨這樣說。

It appears then, it seems, quite clear that a personage who owes nothing to tradition in the matter, to speak plainly a writer of the epoch of the Aufklärung like Plato, is quite capable of forging a myth, and a myth which makes its way throughout the centuries in an altogether living way in order by functioning as a myth, because who does not know since Plato told us, Love is the son of Poros and of Penia. Poros, the author whose translation I have before me – simply because it is the translation which is opposite the Greek text – translates it in a way which is not properly speaking irrelevant, by Expedient.

當時似乎顯而易見,一位根本就不理會傳統的人物,在這樣的事情上,明白地說,一位像柏拉圖那樣的劃時代的作家,完全能夠忘記神話。這個神話經過幾世紀以來,生龍活現地一直傳遞下來,為了發揮神話的功用。因為自從柏拉圖告訴我們,有誰會不知道,「愛」是「資源」與「貧瘠」的兒子。「資源」,這位作者,我擁有他的翻譯—僅是因為這個翻譯跟希臘的文本相反—他翻譯它,適當來說,並不是不相關的方式,是一種「權宜之計」。

If expedient means resource, it is undoubtedly a valid translation, cleverness also, if you wish, because Poros is the son of Metis which is again more Ingenuity than wisdom.

假如權宜之計意味著資源,無可置疑的,這是一個正確的翻譯,也很巧妙。因為「資源」是「智巧」的兒子。再一次,這是機智,而非智慧。

Over against him we have the feminine person in the matter, the one who is going to be the mother of Love, who is Penia, namely Poverty, even destitution, and in an articulated fashion in the text who is characterised by what she knows well about herself, aporia namely that she is without resources, this is what she knows about herself, that she is without any resources!

在這件事情,我們擁有這位女性人物跟他抗衡。這個人物將是「愛」的母親,那就是品尼亞,也就是「貧窮」,甚至是饋乏。文本的表達方式,她的特性是,她清楚知道關於她自己,貧瘠,也就是她沒有資源。這就是她有自知之明,她沒有資源!

And the word aporia, which you recognise, is the same word that serves us concerning the philosophical process, it is an impasse, it is
something before which we have to give in, we are at the end of
our resources.

這個「貧瘠」,你們認得出來,關於哲學的過程,它是我們使用的相同的字,它是一種僵局。在這個僵局之前,我們必須屈服,我們的束手無措。

(11) Here then the female Aporia face to face with the male Poros, Resource, which seems rather illuminating for us.

在此,這位女性的「貧瘠」跟男性的「資源」面對面。對於我們,這相當具有啟發性。

But there is something which is very fine in this myth, which is that
in order that Aporia should engender Love with Poros, there is a
necessary condition which it expresses, which is that at the moment this happened, it was Aporia who was staying awake, who had her eyes wide open and had, we are told, come to the feast for the birth of Aphrodite and, like any good self-respecting Aporia in this hierarchical epoch, had remained on the steps, near the door, she had not of course entered, because she was aporia, namely having nothing to offer, she did not enter the festive hall.

但是在神話裏,有某件很好的東西。那就是為了讓「貧瘠」跟「資源」生下愛,會有一個它表達的必要的條件。在愛發生的那個時刻,「貧瘠」保持清醒,她讓她的眼睛張得開開,然後前來赴宴,為了讓「愛神」誕生。就像任何自尊自重的「貧瘠」一樣,在這個階級的時代,她停留在臺階上,靠近門,她當然沒有進入,因為她貧瘠,也就是她沒有東西可以提供。她並沒有進入宴會大廳。

But the good thing about feasts is precisely that at them there happen things which upset the ordinary order and that Poros falls asleep.

但是關於宴會美好的事情,確實是,他們發生了一些事情,擾亂了一般的秩序,「資源」就睡著了。

He falls asleep because he is drunk, which is what allows Aporia to make herself pregnant by him, namely to have this offspring which is called Love and whose date of conception coincides then with the birth-date of Aphrodite.

他睡著了,因為他喝酒醉。這讓「貧瘠」能夠讓她自己跟他受孕。換句話說,擁有這個被稱為「愛」的後代。懷孕的日期跟愛神的誕生日期巧合。

This indeed is why it is explained to us that Love will always have some obscure relationship with beauty, which is what is in question in the
whole development of Diotima, and it is because Aphrodite is a
beautiful goddess.

這確實是為什麼我們被解釋:「愛」跟美總是有些說不清的瓜葛。這是帝奧提瑪的整個發展受到質疑的地方,因為愛神是一位美麗的女神。

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

拉康論移情 0118f

August 29, 2011

拉康論移情 0118f

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 8: Wednesday 18 January 1961

Here I cannot avoid making a remark which it seems has not struck the commentators: Aristophanes, in connection with Love, had introduced a term which is transcribed quite simply in French under the name of dioecisme (193a).

在此,我無法避免發表評論者尚未想到談論:關於愛,亞力斯多芬曾經介紹一種術語,相當簡單地被銘記在法文,以「雌雄同體」的名義。(193頁)

It is a question of nothing other than this Spaltung, of this division of the completely round primitive being, of this kind of derisory sphere of Aristophanes’ image whose value I told you about.

問題道道地地就是這個「分裂」,這個完全圓形的原始生命實存的區分,亞力斯多芬的意象的可笑的這種球形,它的價值我告訴過你們。

And this dioecisme, he describes in this way by comparing it to a practice
which, in the context of community relations, of relations in the city, was the mainspring on which there depended the whole of politics in Greek society, [this practice] consisted [in the fact], when one wished to destroy an enemy city – this is still done in our own day – in dispersing the inhabitants and putting them into what are called reassembly camps.

這個雌雄同體,他以這種方式描述,他將它跟實際做法比較。在社會關係的內文,都市的關係,是這個原動力。希臘社會的整個政治都依靠這個原動論。這個實際做法在於這個事實,當我們希望毀滅一個敵人的城市—在我們的時代,依舊是這樣做—我們將居民驅散,並且將他們收容的所謂的集中營。

This had been done not long before, at the time that the Symposium appeared and it is even one of the reference points around which turns the date
that we can attribute to the Symposium.

在「饗宴」出現的時代,不久以前,這樣的事就被做過。那甚至是一個指稱點,環繞這個指稱點,我們歸屬於「饗宴」的日期,大約是在那附近。

There is here, it appears, some anachronism or other, the thing to which Plato was alluding, namely an initiative of Sparta, having happened after
the text, the supposed meeting of the Symposium and its unfolding
around the praise of love. This dioecisme is very evocative for us.

就在這裏,似乎,有某個時代的錯誤,柏拉圖提到它。也就是說,斯巴達的興起,曾經發生在這個文本之後。被假定的「饗宴」的聚會,及其展開,環繞對於愛的讚賞。這個「雌雄同體」,對於我們而言,非常具有挑釁性。

It is not for nothing that I used the term Spaltung above, a term
evocative of subjective splitting, and what, at the moment that –
this is what I am in the process of exposing before you – in the
measure that something which, (when it is a question of the (9) discourse of love) escapes the knowledge of Socrates, ensures that Socrates is effaced, is split (se dioecise) and allows a woman to speak in his place. Why not the woman who is in him?

我以上使用「分裂」這個術語,並非無的放矢。這個術語具有生命主體分裂的挑釁性。在這個時刻—這是我正在把問題攤開在你們面前的過程—有某件東西逃離蘇格拉底的知識,(當討論到愛的論述時),這個東西確定,蘇格拉底被抹除掉,被分裂,並且容許一個女人代替他談論。這個女人難道不就是他身上的一部分?

In any case, no one contests it and certain people, Wilamowitz
Moellendorff in particular, have accentuated, underlined that there is in any case a difference of nature, of register, in what Socrates develops on the plane of his dialectical method and what he presents to us in terms of myth throughout everything that the Platonic testimony transmits, restores to us of it.

無論如何,沒有人考證這件事。某些人,特別是莫蘭托夫,曾經強調,在任何情況,都會有一種特質,銘記的差異,在蘇格拉底以他的辯證法的層次推展。他使用神話的術語呈現給予我們的東西,在柏拉圖的證詞傳遞的一切,它讓我們恢復雌雄同體。

We should always…. (and in the text it is always quite clearly separated
out) when one comes (and in many other fields besides that of love) to a certain term of what can be obtained on the plane of episteme, of knowledge, in order to go beyond (we can easily conceive that there is a limit in so far as on the plane of knowledge there is only what is accessible to the pure and simple operation of the law of the signifier).

我們應該總是、、、(在文本裏,它總是相當清楚地被分開),當我們來到(除了愛的領域以外的領域),來到某個術語在認識論的層次,在知識的層次,為了超越(我們能夠很容易構想:有一個限制,在知識的層次,對於能指的法則的純粹簡單的運作,僅可以進入的東西。)

In the absence of well advanced experimental conquests, it is clear that in many domains – and in domains which we for our part can pass over – there will be a pressure to let myth speak.

由於欠缺先進的試驗的關注,顯而易見的,在許多領域—對於我們而言,我們能夠忽略的領域—會有讓神話出來代言的壓力。

What is remarkable, is precisely this rigour which ensures that
when one engages with, one locks into the plane of myth, Plato
always knows perfectly well what he is doing or what he makes
Socrates do and that one knows that one is in the realm of myth.

引人注意的是,確實就是這個嚴格的確定,當我們從事,我們套進神話的層次,柏拉圖總是清楚地知道,他正在做些什麼,或是他強使蘇格拉底做什麼,我們知道我們是在神話的領域。

I do not mean myth in its common usage, muthous legein is not
what that means, muthous legein, is the common discourse, what is
said, that is what it is. And throughout the whole Platonic
work we see in the Phaedo, in the Timaeus, in the Republic, myths
emerging, when they are required, to supply for the gap in what
cannot be assured dialectically.

我指的神話,並不是它普通的用法,「muthous legein」並不是那個意思,「muthous legein」 是普通的論述,所被說的話。那是神話的本質。在整個柏拉圖著作裏,我們在費得篇,在提瑪斯篇,在共和國篇,神話都會出現,當它們被要求時,為了要供應辯證無法被確定的差距。

Starting from there, we are going to see better what one could
call the progress of the discourse of Diotima. Somebody here
once wrote an article which he called, if I remember rightly: “Un
desir d’enfant”.

從那裏開始,我們將會更清楚看到,我們所謂的帝奧提瑪的論述的進展。在此,某個人曾經寫過一篇文章,他稱為「Undesir d’enfant」,假如我記得沒錯。

This article was entirely built on the ambiguity of the term: desir de l’enfant, in the sense that it is the child who desires; désir d’enfant, in the sense that one desires to have a child.

這篇文章完全被建立在這個術語的曖昧性:desir de l’enfant。它的意思是:充滿欲望的小孩,另外一個意思是:我們欲望擁有小孩。

It is not a simple accident of the signifier that things are that way. And the proof, is that you have all the same been able to notice that it is around this ambiguity that there is precisely going to pivot the wedge-like attack on the problem by Socrates.

事情發展成為那種方式,並不是這個能指的單純的意外。證據是:你們仍然能夠注意到,環繞著這個曖昧,確實會有對於蘇格拉底的難題,像楔子般地插入。

When all is said and done what did Agathon tell us? It was that Eros was the eros of beauty, the desire of Beauty, I would say in the sense that one might say that the god Beauty desires. And what Socrates retorts to him, is that a desire for beauty implies that one does not possess beauty..

當一切都說都做了,阿加封告訴我們什麼?那就是,性愛就是美的性愛,美的欲望。我將會說,意義就是:美神在欲望。蘇格拉底對他反駁說:對於美的欲望暗示著:我們並沒有擁有美、、、

These verbal quibbles have not the vain, pinpricking, confusing character which would tempt one to turn aside from them. The proof, is that it is around these two terms that the whole discourse of Diotima is going to
develop.

這些口頭文辭的爭辯,並不僅是徒然的,令人懊惱,令人混淆的特性,誘使我們將它們放置一邊。證據是,帝奧提瑪的整個的論述,將會環繞著這兩個術語發展。

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

心靈交會

August 29, 2011

心靈交會

 

In this book I am concerned with the “classical” form of transference and its phenomenology. As it is a form of relationship, it always implies a vis-a-vis. Where it is negative or not there at all,the vis-a-vis plays an unimportant part, as is generally the case, for instance, when there is an inferiority complex coupled with a compensating need for self-assertion.

雄伯
在本書裏,我關心移情及其現象的「古典的」形式。因為這是一種關係的形式,它總是暗示著正面相對。當移情是負面,或是根本就沒有移情,這種正面相對扮演一個微不足道的角色,如通常發生的狀況。例如,當有自卑情結加上對於自我主張有補償性的需求。

yihong:
在本書裏,我提到轉移及其現象的“經典”形式。由於轉移是一個關係的形式,因此它總意味著“在一起”。當轉移是負性的,或根本就沒有轉移的時候,這個“在一起”發揮著微不足道的作用,情況通常是這樣。例如,自卑情結與對自作主張的補償性需要聯繫在一起的時候。

雄伯
In this book I am concerned with the “classical” form of transference and its phenomenology. As it is a form of relationship, it always implies a vis-a-vis. Where it is negative or not there at all,the vis-a-vis plays an unimportant part, as is generally the case, for instance, when there is an inferiority complex coupled with a compensating need for self-assertion.

根據wordweb對於vis-a-vis的定義是

A person or thing having the same function or characteristics as another
跟另外一人或一物,擁有相同功用或特性的人或物

這個段落談的是移情的關係,, it always implies a vis-à-vis 翻為「心靈交會」,是否更貼切些?

依拉康之見,自卑情結加上自我主張的補償需要結合,不算是移情。因為那是各取所需,而沒有「心靈交會」vis-à-vis。

Yihong
嗯,雄伯所言甚是 。有轉移出現的地方,必定有”心靈交會”,倒不一定非要”在一起”,哈哈

但既然翻譯成“心靈交會”,譯者是否有必要對“心靈交會”的內涵另外多一些闡述呢?畢竟”心靈交會“還不算是一個比較常用的辭彙

雄伯

就這句子的上下文而言,it always implies a vis-à-vis 翻為「心靈交會」,是可以通的。只是在別的地方,是沒有人這樣翻譯。是必須要闡述一下。

拉康對「移情」的定義,基本上是以雙方的主命主體的情感,是發自「無意識」的「真實界」,因此「移情」的基本模式是「L模式」的四角關係,而非僅是「雙方關係」,無論是異性的男女,或同性的男男或女女。

所謂「L模式」的四角關係,S1的主體,透過S2的主體,讓自己的無意識界或真實界的大它者the Other,與S2的主體的無意識界或真實界的大它者the Other ,「心靈交會」vis-à-vis。而且要倒過來,S2的主體,也會透過S1的主體,與S1的主體的無意識界或真實界的大它者,「心靈交會」vis-à-vis。

因此,當轉移是負性的,或根本就沒有轉移的時候,這個“在一起”發揮著微不足道的作用,情況通常是這樣。例如,自卑情結與對自作主張的補償性需要聯繫在一起的時候。

根據這個描述,一般年輕人「粉絲」fans的偶像崇拜,無論是影迷,歌迷,球迷,都是「自卑情結與對自作主張的補償性需要聯繫在一起」,不算是真的移情,或僅是負面的移情。

移情的定義如果是拉康所謂的「四角關係」,必然會牽涉到「反移情」counter-transference。而S1主體邂逅的「反移情」,就S2的主體而言,其實是發自他自己無意識界或真實界的「移情」。反過來也是一樣。

問題是,人作為生命主體往往是自戀narcissistic 。自以為的移情或反移情,其實僅是停留在象徵界the symbolic 及想像界 the imaginary,而不是發自真實界the real。卻互相誤識。

若是雙方都發乎真實界,心靈交會vis-à-vis 會產生一種瞬間的永恆或不朽,也就是拉康所說的處於「兩次死亡之間」的永恆eternity與不朽immortal,超越人作為有限生命mortal的渺小與卑微。

所謂「兩次死亡之間」,是指人作為具有靈魂的生命主體,有一大部分存在於無意識界,進入象徵界的主體,若是完全成為「能指」signifier的客體,忽略真實界自動機制重複傳遞的訊息,形同是「所指」signified的死亡。

人在移情或反移情時,必須是作為真實界的生命主體,而非象徵界的客體的身份。問題就出在這裏。移情或反移情的先決條件,必需是邂逅自己無意識的真實的人。是自己的生命主體,而非是象徵界及想像界的客體。移情是真實real 或幻見fantasy,差別就在這裏。

拉康论移情 0118e

August 29, 2011

拉康论移情 0118e

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研讨班第八册

Transference 论移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根据未编辑的法语录音英译

Seminar 8: Wednesday 18 January 1961

If he hands over to Diotima, why should it not be because, concerning love, things could not go any further with the properly Socratic method. I think that everything is going to demonstrate this and the discourse of Diotima itself.

假如他让帝奥提玛接替,那有何不可?倒不是因为关于爱,事情就无法用适当的苏格拉底的方法,更深入下去。我认为,每一样东西将会证明这一点,及帝奥提玛的论述本身。

Why should we be surprised about it, I would say already: if there is
a step which constitutes compared to the contemporaneity of the sophists the beginning of the Socratic procedure, it is that a knowledge (the only sound one Socrates tells us in the Phaedo), can affirm itself from the simple consistency of this discourse which is dialogue which is carried on in terms of the necessary apprehension, the apprehension as necessary of the law of the signifier.

为什么我们对此并不感惊奇,我将会这样说:跟辩护士的当代性相比较,假如有个的步骤组成苏格拉底的程序的开始,那就是:一种知识能个肯定它自己,从这个论述的简单的一致性,(这是苏格拉底在费得篇告诉我们的唯一健全的知识,)这个论述是被执行的对话,用必须能让人理解的术语,这种理解是能指的法则所需要的。

When one speaks about odd and even, with which, do I need to remind you that in my teaching here, I think I took enough pains, exercised you for long enough to show you that it is a question here of the domain which is entirely closed off in its own register, that the odd and the even owe nothing to any other experience than that of the operation of signifiers themselves, that there is no odd or even, in other words nothing countable,
except what is already raised to the function of an element of the signifier, of the texture of the signifying chain.

当我们谈论到奇数与偶数,我并不需要提醒你们,在我这里的教学,我认为我已经尽了足够努力,跟你们运作足够长久时间,为了跟你们显示,在此地是领域的问题,这个领域完全被封闭在它自己的铭记里。奇数与偶数并没有归属于任何其它经验,除了就是能指本身的运作经验。没有奇数或偶数存在,换句话说,没有任何可数的东西,除了已经被提升到能指的元素的功用,能指锁链的材料的功用。

One can count words or syllables, but one can only count things because
of the fact that words and syllables are already counted.

我们能够计算文字或是音节,但是我们仅能计算事情,因为这个事实:文字与音节已经被计算。

We are on this plane, when Socrates begins to speak, outside the
confused world of the discussion, of the debate of physicists who
like the sophists preceded him who, at different levels, in different ways, organise what we might call in an abbreviated fashion – you know that I would only accept it with the greatest of reservations – the magical power of words.

我们处于这个層次,当苏格拉底开始谈话,在讨论的混淆的领域之外,在物理学家的辩论领域之外。这些物理学家,就像辩护士,抢先在他之前,以不同的层次,不同的方法,组织我们简单称为的「文字的魔术力量」—你们知道,我仅是接受它,带着最大的保留。

How does Socrates affirm this knowledge which is internal to the operation of the signifier: he posits, at the same time as this knowledge which is entirely transparent of itself, that this is what constitutes its truth.

苏格拉底如何肯定这个知识,作为能指的运作的内部。他跟这个知识同时提出,这种知识的本身完全是透明的。这就是组成它的真理的原因。

Now is it not on this point that we have taken the step which
makes us disagree with Socrates; in this no doubt essential step
which assures the autonomy of the law of the signifier, Socrates, for us, prepares this field of the word precisely, properly speaking, which, for its part, has permitted the whole critique of human knowledge as such.

现在并不是在这一点,我们曾经採取这个步骤,让我们不同意苏格拉底。在这个无可置疑是很重要的步骤,它确定能指的法则的自主权。对于我们而言,苏格拉底确实准备文字的这个领域。适当地说,就它本身而言,文字容许人类知识的本身承受所有的批评。

But the novelty, if what I am teaching you about the Freudian revolution is correct, is precisely the fact that something can be sustained in the law of the signifier, not simply without this involving a knowledge but by expressly excluding it, namely by constituting itself as unconscious, namely as necessitating at its level the eclipsing of the subject in order to subsist as unconscious chain, as constituting what is fundamentally
irreducible in the relationship of the subject to the signifier.

但是新奇,假如关于佛洛伊德的革命,我正在教导你们的是正确、那确实就是这个事实:在能指的法则,某件东西能够被维持,这个东西不仅没有牵涉到一种知识,而且生动地被排除在外。也就是说,它组成它的本身,作为无意识。也就是作为在它的层次,生命主体的被遮蔽成为必要,作为组成基本上是无法化简的东西,在生命主体与能指的关系。

All this to say that this is why we are the first, if not the only ones, not to be necessarily surprised that the properly Socratic discourse, the discourse of episteme, of knowledge transparent to itself, cannot be pursued beyond a certain limit (8) with regard to a particular object, when this object, if indeed it is the one on which Freudian thought has been able to bring new light, this object is love.

所有这一切,是用来表达,为什么我们是開前锋者,即使不是仅有的一批人,我们并没有必然要大吃一惊,适当的苏格拉底的论述,认识论,知识对自己本身而言是透明的,它无法被追寻到某个限度之外,关于一个特别的客体。当这个客体,假如这确实是佛洛伊德的思想始终能够跟我们啟明的:这个客体就是爱。

In any case, whether you follow me in this or whether you do not follow me, with respect to a dialogue whose effect, throughout the ages, has maintained itself with the force and the constancy, the interrogative power and the perplexity which develop around it, Plato’s Symposium, it is clear that we cannot satisfy ourselves with such miserable reasons as saying that if Socrates allows Diotima to speak, it is simply to avoid too greatly irritating the self-love of Agathon.

无论如何,你们是否同意我的看法,或是不同意,关于一个对话录,经过几世纪以来,它的影响力持续而坚定地屹立不摇,这个询问于困惑都环绕它发展,柏拉图的「飨宴」。显而易见,我们无法满足我们自己,对于如此悲惨的理由,譬如说:假如苏格拉底容许帝奥提玛谈论,仅是为了避免阿加封的自恋,引起太强烈的令人愤怒

If you will allow a comparison which keeps all its ironic value, suppose that I have to develop for you the totality of my doctrine on analysis verbally and that – verbally or in writing does not matter – in doing it, at a certain point, I hand over to Francoise Dolto, you would say: “All the same there is something…. why, why is he doing that?” This, naturally
supposing that if I hand over to Francoise Dolto this is not to have her say stupid things!

假如你们容许一种比较,保持它的反讽价值,假定我必须跟你们,使用口说文辞,发展我对于精神分析的论述的整体性—使用口说文辞,或使用文字书写,都无所谓—当在某个时刻这样做时,我让法兰克兹、德投接替下去,你们将会说:「这仍然是某件东西、、、为什么他这样做?」当然,这假定,假如我让法兰克兹、德投接替下去,这并不是要她说一些傻事情!

This would not be my method and, moreover, I would have great trouble making her say such things.

这将不是我的方法。而且,真的让她说这些事情,我会惹来很多的麻烦。

This embarrasses Socrates much less, as you are going to see, because the discourse of Diotima is characterised precisely by something which at every instant allows there to appear gaps which undoubtedly allow us to understand why Socrates does not assume them.

苏格拉底则是比较不会因此感到尴尬,你们将会看出,因为帝奥提玛的论述的特色,确实是某件在每个时刻都容许差距出现。无可置疑的,这些差距容许我们了解为什么苏格拉底让他一直讲下去。

What is more, Socrates punctuates these gaps with a whole series of replies which are in a way – it is tangible, it is enough to read the text – more and more amused.

而且,苏格拉底用一整个系列的回答,强调这些差距。这些回答在某方面,是具体的,越来越感到興趣,我们阅读文本就知道。

I mean that there are first of all very respectful replies, then more and
more of the style: “Do you really think that?”, then afterwards: “Very well, let us go as far as you are leading me”, and then, at the end, that becomes clearly: “Have fun, my girl, I’m listening, talk away!”. You must read this discourse in order to understand that this is what is in question.

我的意思是,首先,有些回答是表示敬意,越来越多是对于风格的回答:「你真的这样认为?」然后再询问:「呵呵,让我们跟随你的引导前进。」然后在最后,就变得很清楚:「说得有趣,小姐,我正在听,继续说下去!」你们一定要阅读这篇论述,为了了解,这是受到质疑所在。

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