拉康論移情 0118f

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

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: