Archive for August, 2011

拉康論移情 0118d

August 29, 2011

拉康論移情 0118d

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

But it also seems to me that it is a very facile way of resolving
this question to say that it is to spare the self-love of Agathon.

但是我也覺得,這是非常簡便的解決這個問題的方式,說這是為了省略掉阿加封的自戀。

Things are the way we are told: namely that Plato has only to produce a quite elementary piece of judo or jiu-jitsu: “I fear I knew nothing of what I said, my discourse is elsewhere” (201b), as he says expressly. –

事情是我們被告知的方式:也就是,柏拉圖只需要運用相當基本的柔道技巧:「我恐怕我對於我所說的,一無所知。我的論述在別處。」如他生動地表達。

It is not so much Agathon who is in difficulty as Socrates himself. And as we cannot suppose, in (6) any way, that what was conceived here by Plato, is to show Socrates as a heavy-handed pedant, after what was undoubtedly an airy, if only because of its amusing style, discourse given by
Agathon, we must believe that if Socrates hands over in his discourse, it is for another reason than the fact that he himself would not have been able to continue, and we can immediately situate this reason: it is because of the nature of the affair of the thing, of the to pragma, that we are dealing with.

處於困難的與其說是阿加封,不如說是蘇格拉底自己本人。如同我們無法以任何方式假定,由柏拉圖在此所構想的,是要顯示蘇格拉底,作為擇善固執的學究,經過無可置疑阿加封發表的風格有趣而輕率的論述,我們必須相信,假如蘇格拉底以他的論述接替下去,那是另外的理由,而非是這個事實:他自己本來無法繼續。我們能夠定位這個理由:那是因為我們正在處理的這個事情的特質,這個「真實界」的特質,

We can suspect – and you will see that it is confirmed by what follows – that it is because it is love that is being spoken about that this path must be taken, that he is led to proceed in this fashion.

我們能夠懷疑—你們將會看出,它被後面的內容所證實—那就是這條途徑必須被採取,因為愛正在被談論。他被引導繼續以這種方式繼續。

Let us note in effect the point upon which his question was brought to bear. The efficacy that he had put forward, produced, being the function of lack, and in a very obvious fashion, the return to the desiring function of love, the substitution of epithumei, he desires, for era, he loves.

讓我們實際地注意跟他的問題有關係的這一點。他曾經提出,曾經產是的這個效果,是欠缺的功用。以顯而易見的方式,回轉到愛的這個欲望的功用,對於他的欲望的替代,對於他所愛的時代的替代。

And in the text, one sees a moment when, interrogating Agathon on the
fact: whether he thinks or not “that love is love of something”…. there is substituted the term: love or desire of something (199d – 199e).

在文本裏,我們看到一個時刻,當詢問阿加封這個事實:他是否認為「愛是某件東西之愛」、、、這個術語被更換:某件東西之愛或欲望。

It is quite obviously in so far as love is articulated in desire,
is articulated in a fashion which here is not properly speaking
articulated as substitution, that substitution is not – one can
legitimately object – the very function of the method of Socratic
knowing, it is precisely because the substitution is here a little rapid that we have a right to point it out, to notice it.

這是相當顯而易見,愛透過欲望被表達,被表達的方式,在此適當地說,被表達作為替代。替代並不是蘇格拉底知道的方法的功用—我們可能很有理由反對—確實是因為替代在此有點匆促,所以我們有權利指出,注意它。

That is not to say that for all that there is any mistake, because it is indeed around the articulation of Eros, Love and of eros, desire, that there is going effectively to turn the whole dialectic as it develops in the dialogue as a whole.

這並不是說,儘管那樣,有任何的錯誤,因為的確環繞性愛,愛及性愛,欲望的這個表達,整個辯證法將會有效地運轉,當它在柏拉圖對話錄作為整體在運轉。

Again it is appropriate that something should be pointed out in passing.
Here, let us remark again that it is not for nothing that what is
properly speaking the Socratic intervention is isolated in this way.

再一次,這是適當地,某件事情應該順便被指出。在此,讓我們再一次談論,適當來說,蘇格拉底的介入,以這種方式被孤立,並不是毫無意義。

Socrates goes very precisely to the point where what I called the last time his method, which is to bring the effect of his questioning to bear on what I called the consistency of the signifier, is properly speaking manifest, visible in the very delivery, in the fashion in which he introduces his question to Agathon: einai tinos ho Eros eros, e oudenos?
“Yes or no, is Love such as to be a love of something (de quelque
chose), or of nothing?”

蘇格拉底確實到達這一點,上一次我稱為是他的方法,它帶來他的詢問的效果,跟我所謂的能指的一致性有關。適當來說,它是明顯可見,在這個傳達,他介紹他詢問阿加封的方式:「是或否?愛是如此,以致成為某件東西之愛?或是抽象之愛?」

And here he specifies, because the Greek genitive tinos [of something] like the French genitive has its ambiguities: quelque chose can have two meanings, and these meanings are in a way accentuated in an almost massive, caricatural fashion and in the distinction that Socrates makes: tinos can mean: to come from someone, to be the descendant of someone, “I do not mean to ask,” he says, “if he is a love of such a mother or such a father” but what is behind it.

在此,他指明,因為希臘文的某件東西的屬格,就像法文的屬格,有它的曖昧性。「quelque chose」能夠有兩個意義,這兩個意義在某方法被強調,以一種幾乎是巨大的嘲諷方式,以蘇格拉底所做的區別,「tinos」的意思是:「從某人那裏來,成為某人的後代。」「我沒有打算要問,愛的背後是什麼」他說,「假如他是某位母親之愛,或父親之愛。」

This is precisely all the theogony of which there was question at the beginning of the dialogue. It is not a question of knowing from what love descends, from whom it comes – as one says: “My kingdom is not of (de) this world” – in a word from what god love comes?

這確實是所有神祗的系譜,在柏拉圖對話錄的開始的問題。問題不是要知道,愛從那裏降臨,從誰那裏來臨—如我們所說的:「我的王國並不屬於這個世界」—總之,愛來自哪一位神?

It is a question of knowing, on the plane of the interrogation of the signifier, of what, as signifier, love is the correlative. And this is why we find marked…. we cannot for our part, it seems to me, not notice that what Socrates opposes to this way of posing the question: from whom does this love come?

問題是要知道,在能指的詢問的層次,是什麼作為能指,愛是互相牽連的。這就是為什麼我們發現被標記、、、就我們而言,我覺得我們無法注意到,蘇格拉底所反對的,對於提出問題的方式:愛從誰那裏來?

What is in question is the same thing, he says, as this name of the Father – we rediscover it here because what we (7) rediscover is the same father, it is the same thing as to ask: when you say Father, what does that imply, not in terms of the real father, namely what he has as a child, but when one speaks about a father one necessarily speaks about a son.

受到質疑的是相同的事情,他說,如同父親之名—我們在此發現它,因為我們重新發現的是相同的父親。這等於是詢問:當你說父親,那意涵著什麼?難道不是以真實父親的術語,換句話說,他所擁有的作為一位小孩。但是當我們談論關有一位父親,我們必須談論有關兒子。

The Father is father of a son by definition, qua father. “You would
say, I suppose, if you wanted to answer right” – translates Leon Robin – “that the Father is father of son or daughter” (199d)

在定義上,父親就是兒子的父親,作為父親。「我認為你將會說,假如你想要適當地回答。」—李昂、羅賓這樣翻譯:「父親是兒子或女兒的父親。」(199頁)

We are here properly speaking on the terrain which is the very one on which there develops the Socratic dialectic of interrogating the signifier about its consistency as signifier.

適當地說,我們在此是屬於蘇格拉底詢問能指的辯證法,賴以發展的平臺,關於它作為能指是否具有一致性。

Here he is very able.„ Here he knows what he is doing. And even that which permits this rather rapid substitution that I spoke about between eros and desire, is that. It is nevertheless a process, a progress which is marked, he says, by his method.

在此,他能夠、、、在此他知道他正在做什麼。甚至容許這個匆促的替代,我談論到的,這性愛與欲望之間。可是這是一個過程,一個被他的方法標示的進程,他這樣說。

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

拉康論移情 0118c

August 28, 2011

拉康論移情 0118c

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

Often the evocation of the ridiculous has been made, of that which may provoke laughter in the preceding text. He does not seem to say to us that it was in any way ridicule that was in question at the moment of this change of register.

往往這種荒謬可笑曾經被召喚,可能在先前的文本引起哈哈大笑。他似乎並沒有跟我們說:受到質疑的是荒謬可笑,在這個銘記改變的時刻。

And at the moment when Socrates brings forward the wedge that his dialectic
has driven into the subject in order to bring to us what one expects from Socratic illumination, we have a feeling of discord, not of a balancing which would entirely cancel out what had been formulated in the discourse of Agathon.

在這個時刻,蘇格拉底提出他的辯證法驅進的楔子,進入這個主題,為了帶給我們從蘇格拉底的啟明所期望的。我們有一種不協調的感覺,而不是平衡的感覺。那還取消在阿加封的論述所被說明的東西。

Here we cannot fail to remark that, in the discourse of Socrates, what is articulated as being properly method, his interrogative method, which means that, if you will allow me this play on words in Greek, the eromenos, the beloved, is going to become erotomenos (the one interrogated), with this properly Socratic interrogation, Socrates only makes emerge one theme which is the one which from the beginning of my commentary I announced on several occasions namely: the function of lack.

在此,我們一定會評論說:在蘇格拉底的論述,被表達作為適當的方法,他的詢問的方法。這意味著,假如你們願意容許我玩弄希臘文的遊戲,這個「被愛者」將會成為「被詢問者」,使用適當的蘇格拉底的詢問。蘇格拉底僅是讓一個主題出現。那就是從我評論的開始,我在好幾個場合宣佈,也就是欠缺的功用。

Everything that Agathon says most especially ……… , that beauty
for example belongs to it, is one of its attributes, saying all
of this succumbs before the interrogation, before this remark of
Socrates: “Is Love such as to be a love of something, or of nothing?” “Is it when he has what he desires and loves that he desires and loves it, or when he has not?” (199d – 200a).

阿加封很明確說的每一樣東西、、、譬如,美屬於它,那是它的屬性之一。所有這個都屈服在詢問之前,在蘇格拉底的這個談論之前:「愛的本身,應該成為某件東西之愛?或為一無所有之愛?」「這是當他擁有他所欲望及所愛之時,他才欲望及愛它?或是當他沒有擁有他所欲望及所愛之時?」

I will pass over the detail of the articulation of this question
properly so-called. He turns it, returns it, with an acuity which as usual makes of his interlocutor someone whom he manipulates, whom he manoeuvers.

我將忽略適當所謂的這個問題的表達的細節。他回轉它,回轉它,帶著一種靈巧,通常將某個他操控的人,解釋為他的詢問者。

This indeed is the ambiguity of the questioning of Socrates: the fact is that he is always the master, even where, for us who are reading it, in many cases there may appear to be a way of escape. It does not matter
either to know what on this occasion ought or can be developed in
strict rigour.

這確實是蘇格拉底的詢問的曖昧之處。事實上,他總是這個大師,對於閱讀它的我們,在許多情況,可能會有一種逃避的方式。重要的並不是要知道,在這個場合,什麼應該或能夠被嚴密地發展。

It is the testimony that is constituted by the essence of the Socratic interrogation that is important to us here, and also what Socrates introduces, expressly wishes to produce, that of which he conventionally speaks for us.

就是蘇格拉底的詢問的本質,所形成的這個證詞,在此對於我們是重要的。這也是蘇格拉底所介紹的,念茲在茲地想要介紹的內容。傳統上,他跟我們談論的內容。

We are assured that the adversary cannot refuse the conclusion,
(5) namely, as he expressly expresses it: “Then he, and every
other who desires, desires what is not in his possession, tou me
hetoimou, kai tou me parontos, and not there, kai ho me echei. what he has not, kai ho me estin autos, and what he is not himself” – it is translated- “kai hou endees esti, what he lacks? Toiaut’ atta estin on he epithumia te kai ho eros estin, those are the sort of things of which there is desire and love” –

我們確定,對手無法拒絕這個結論。也就是說,當他生動地表達它:「然後他及每一位欲望的其他人,都欲望他所沒有擁有的東西,不在那裏的東西,他沒有的東西,不是他本身的東西。」這樣被翻譯:「他所欠缺的東西。 那些是所被欲望及愛的東西。」

the text is certainly translated in a weak fashion – “epithumei he desires tou me hetoimou” – is properly speaking – “what is not ready-made, tou me parontos what is not there, what he does not have, ho me echei kai ho me estin autos, that he is not himself, that which he is lacking, that which he essentially lacks” in the superlative (200e).

這個文本確實以薄弱的方式被翻譯—適當地說—並不是現成有的東西,不在那裏的東西,他所沒有的東西,並非他自己的本質的東西,他所欠缺的東西,他基本上是欠缺的東西。」最為迫切。(200頁)

Here is what is articulated by Socrates in what he introduces to this new discourse, this something which he says is not to be placed on the plane of verbal games – through which we would say that the subject is captured, captivated, is fixated, fascinated (199b).

在此是被蘇格拉底表達的內容,在他介紹給這個新的論述,這個他說的某件東西,並沒有被放在文詞遊戲的層次—通過這些文詞遊戲,我們將會說,生命主體被捕捉,被迷惑,被套牢,被著迷。(199頁)

The thing that distinguishes it from the sophistical method, is
that it makes there reside the progress of a discourse which he
tells us he pursues without any search at all for elegance in
words in this exchange, this dialogue, [in] this consent obtained
from the one to whom he addresses himself, and in this consent
presented as the emergence, the necessary evocation in the one to
whom he addresses himself of knowledge that he already has.

區別它跟辯護士的方法的東西是,它讓一種論述的進展在那裏。他告訴我們他追求這種論述,根本不是在尋求文辭的優雅,作為這種交換,這種對話,在這個認同,從他講述的對象。這個認同被呈現作為出現,必須要的召喚,在他講述的這個物件,關於他已經擁有的知識。

Here, as you know, is the essential articulating point on which
the whole Platonic theory, of the soul and also of its nature, of
its consistency, of its origin, reposes. All this knowledge is
already in the soul and it is enough to have the correct questions in order to re-evoke, to reveal it.

在此,你們知道,是這個基本的表達要點,整個柏拉圖的理論,關於靈魂,也是關於靈魂的特性,關於靈魂的一致性,關於靈魂的起源,所依靠的要點。所有這個知識已經是在靈魂裏。為了重新召喚,顯示靈魂,我們只需要正確地詢問就足夠了。

This knowledge is there from all time and bears witness in a way to the precedence, the antecedent nature of knowledge; from the fact that not only has it always existed, but that because of it we can suppose that
the soul shares in an infinite anteriority, it is not only immortal, it has always existed.

這個知識自古以來就在那裏,以某種方式見證這個先例,知識的先行存在的特性。根據這個事實:它不但總是存在,而且因為它,我們能夠假定,靈魂分享一種無限的先行存在。它不但是永恆,而且它總是存在。

And this is what gives rise and lends credence to the myth of metempsychosis, of reincarnation, which of course on the plane of myth, on a different plane to that of dialectic, is all the same what
accompanies in the margin the development of Platonic thought.

這就是會產生及推崇輪迴轉世的神話,轉世重生的神話。當然,在神話的層次,在辯證法的不同層次,在柏拉圖思想的發展的邊緣伴隨而來的東西。

But there is one thing here which is likely to strike us, it is that having introduced what I called a little while ago this wedge of the notion, of the function of lack as essential, constitutive of the relationship of love, Socrates speaking in his own name remains there. And it is no doubt a correct question to ask oneself why he substitutes the authority of
Diotima for himself.

但是有一件事,很可能讓我們印象深刻。那就是,不久以前,曾經介紹我所謂的觀念的楔子,欠缺的功用作為基本,組成愛的關係。蘇格拉底以他自己的名義談論,他始終在那裏。無可置疑的,這是一個正確的問題,詢問為什麼他以帝奧提瑪的權威來代替他自己。

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

拉康論移情 0118b

August 28, 2011

拉康論移情 0118b

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

[So that] the commentators and specifically the one whom I evoked above, think that Socrates himself is reluctant to push too far the humiliation of his interlocutor and that here we have a reason for what we are going to see.

評論者,及特別是我以上召喚者,認為蘇格拉底本人不願意,將他的對話者的羞辱逼得太過分,在此我們有個理由對於我們將看到的東西。

The fact is that at a given moment Socrates stops and allows to speak in his place (takes as an intermediary someone who is going to be a prestigious figure for the rest of the story) Diotima, the foreigner from Mantineia; that if he allows Diotima to speak and if he allows himself to be taught by Diotima, it is in order not to remain any longer, vis-a-vis the one to whom he has dealt a decisive blow, in the position of
magister.

事實上,在某個時刻,蘇格拉底停止並且容許帝奧提瑪代替他談論,(以在其餘的故事裏具有威望的人物,作為仲介)。他是來自蠻提耐亞的外國人。假如他容許帝奧提瑪談論,假如他容許他自己接受帝奧提瑪的教導,那是為了不再保持與這個人面對面,他曾經給予決定性打擊的這個人,處於管控的位置。

And he allows himself to be taught, and he relays himself through this imaginary personage in order to mitigate the disarray into which he has thrown Agathon.

他容許他自己被教導,透過這個想像中的人物,他傳遞他自己,為了緩和他將阿加封陷入的混亂。

I am completely against this position. Because if we look at
the text more closely, I believe that we cannot say that this is
altogether its meaning. I would say that, just as people want
to show, in the discourse of Agathon, a sort of avowal of his (3)
going astray: “I fear, Socrates, I knew nothing of what I said!”
(201b), the impression that remains with us in hearing him is
rather that of someone who might respond: “We are not on the same
level, I spoke in a fashion that had a meaning, in a fashion
which was well grounded, I spoke let us say at the limit even, in
enigmas”; let us not forget that ainos with ainittomai, leads us
straight to the etymology of the enigma: “What I said was said in
a certain tone”.

我完全反對這個立場。因為假如我們更加仔細觀看文本,我相信我們無法說,這是它完整的意義。我將會說,在阿加封的論述,人們想要顯示他的迷失的一種宣稱,「我恐怕,蘇格拉底,我對於我說的什麼都不知道!」聽到他這樣說,這個印象始終留在我們身上。某個人可能會回應:「我們不屬於相同層次。我談論的方式是具有意義,有根有據的方式。容我們說,我談論有個限度,我用謎團談論。讓我們不要忘記,「ainittomai」這個詞引導我們直接到達謎團的詞源:我所說的,是用某種語調說」

And so we read, in the discourse-response of Socrates, that there
is a certain fashion of conceiving praise that for a moment
Socrates devaluates, namely to place, to wrap around the object
of praise everything good that can be said. But is this really
what Agathon did?

我們如此閱讀,在蘇格拉底的論述與回應。有某個感覺讚賞的方式,有一陣子,蘇格拉底予以貶低,也就是,將每一樣能夠說的美好東西,放置,包裹在讚賞的客體周圍。但是這真的就是阿加封所做的嗎?

On the contrary, it seems, in the very excesses of this discourse, that there was something which it appears was only waiting to be heard. In a word for an instant we can, by listening in a certain fashion – and in fashion which I think is the correct one – to the response of Agathon, we have the impression at the limit that by introducing his critique, his
dialectic, his mode of interrogation, Socrates finds himself in the pedantic position.

相反的,在這個論述的過度裏,有某件東西似乎等待被人聽見。總之,有一陣子,我們能夠以某種方式傾聽。這個方式,我認為是正確的方式—傾聽阿加封的回應。我們擁有這個限制的印象。透過介紹批評,他的辯證法,他的詢問模式,蘇格拉底發現他處於賣弄學問的立場。

I mean that it is clear that Agathon says something, which has its share of irony and it is Socrates who, arriving there with his big boots, simply changes the rules of the game.

我的意思是,顯而易見,阿加封說了某件東西。這個東西擁有它的反諷的成分。蘇格拉底,穿著長靴到達時,僅是改變遊戲的規則。

And in truth, when Agathon says again: ego, phanai, o Socrates, soi ouk
an dunaimen antilegein, “Socrates, I really could not contradict
you; let it be as you say.” (201c) there is there someone who
disengages himself and who says to the other: “Now let us pass on
to the other register, to the other fashion of acting with the word!”

事實上,當阿加封再一次說:「蘇格拉底,我真的無法反駁你;讓我們如你所說的做。」有某個人脫離出來,對另一個人說:「現在讓我們轉移到另外一個話題,轉到另外一個方式,玩弄文字!」

But one could not say, like the commentators and even the one whose text I have before my eyes, Leon Robin, that it is a sign of impatience on the part of Agathon.

但是我們不能說,像評論者,甚至像呈現在我面前的文本的譯者,李昂、羅賓。這是阿加封這一邊不耐煩的跡象。

In a word, if the discourse of Agathon can truly be put between the quotation marks of this really paradoxical game, of this sort of sophistical tour de force, we only have to take seriously – which is the proper way – what Socrates himself says about this discourse which, to
use the French term which corresponds best to it, bewilders him
(le sidère), méduse’s him as it is put expressly, because Socrates makes a play on words on the name of Gorgias and the figure of the Gorgon. Such a discourse closes the door to the operation of dialectic, petrifies Socrates and transforms him, he says, into stone.

總之,假如阿加封的論述,確實被擺放在這個真的很矛盾的遊戲的引號之間,一種「詭辯狡詞」,我們只需要認真看待—這是適當的方式—蘇格拉底自己談論到令他困惑的這個論述,容我們用最對應它的法文術語來說,他感到「狼狽」,這是生動的表達。因為蘇格拉底根據高吉亞斯的名義及高貢的身態,玩弄文字。這樣一個論述關閉了辯證的運作之門,讓蘇格拉底目瞪口呆,他說,他被轉化成為石頭。

But this is not an effect to be disdained. Socrates brought things onto the plane of his method, of his interrogative method, of his way of questioning, of his way also (shown to us by Plato), of articulating, of dividing the object, of operating according to this diairesis, thanks to which the object is presented to examination to be situated, articulated in a certain fashion whose register we can locate with the progress
constituted by a development of knowledge suggested at the origin
by the Socratic method.

但是這並不是應該被藐視的影響。蘇格拉底將事情帶到方法論的層次,他自己的詢問的方式,也是表達的方式,(由蘇格拉底顯示給我們),將客體區分,依照這個停頓的運作。由於這些方法,客體接受檢視,為了要被定位,被表達,以某種的方式。它的銘記,我們能夠找出位置,用知識發展形成的進展。這是蘇格拉底的方法的

(4) But the import of Agathon*s discourse is not for all that
annihilated. It belongs to another register, but it remains exemplary.

但是阿加封論述的意義,儘管這樣,並沒有被毀滅。它屬於另外一種銘記,但是它始終是典範。

It plays in a word an essential function in the progress of what is demonstrated for us by way of a succession of paeans about love.

總之,它扮演一個重要的功用,憑藉對於愛的歌頌,所跟我們展示的進展。

No doubt it is significant, rich in teaching for us, that it should be the tragic which, as one might say produced the comic romancero about love or on love, and that it should be the comic Aristophanes who spoke about love with an almost modern accent, in its sense of passion. This is
eminently rich in suggestions, in questions for us.

無可置疑的,這是很重要,對於我們富有教導意義。我們不妨試,應該是悲劇,才會產生關於愛,或論述愛的這個喜劇的浪漫。應該是喜劇作家亞力斯多芬,他用幾乎是現代的語氣談論愛,以愛的激情的意義。這很明顯是富有建議,對於我們,富有各種質疑。

But the intervention of Socrates intervenes as a rupture, and not as
something which devaluates, reduces to nothing what had just been
enounced in the discourse of Agathon. And after all can we consider as nothing, and as a simple antiphrase, the fact that Socrates puts all the accent on the fact that it was – he says it properly speaking: kalon …… logon, “a beautiful discourse”, that he spoke very beautifully (198b).

但是蘇格拉底的介入作為一種中斷,不是作為某種貶低價值的東西,將阿加封的論述所宣佈的內容化為烏有。畢竟,我們能夠視為烏有,視為僅是反諷語。蘇格拉底強調這個事實,他說出它,適當地說:「那是一個美麗的論述」,他說得很漂亮。

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

拉康論移情 0118a

August 28, 2011

拉康論移情 0118a

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

We have arrived then, in the Symposium, at the moment when Socrates is going to begin to speak in the epainos or the encomion. I told you in passing, these two terms are not altogether equivalent.

在「饗宴」,我們已經到達這個時刻,當蘇格拉底將要開始談論「稱讚」或「讚賞」,我順便告訴你們,這兩個術語並不完全是相等。

I did not want to dwell on their difference which would have drawn us into a rather eccentric discussion. In terms of praising love, it is said, affirmed by himself – and the word of Socrates cannot be contested in Plato – that if Socrates knows anything, if there is something that he is
not ignorant of, it is the business of love (198d).

我並不想要詳述它們的差異,那會將我們帶入一個相當怪癖的討論。據說,用稱讚愛的術語來說,他肯定他自己—蘇格拉底的這個字詞在柏拉圖那裏無法被驗證—假如蘇格拉底知道任何東西,假如有某樣東西,他並非無知,那就是「愛的事情」。(198頁)

We should not lose sight of this in everything that is going to happen.
I underlined for you, in a sufficiently convincing fashion I think, the last time, the strangely derisive character of the discourse of Agathon.

在每件即將要發生的事情,我們對於這一點不應該視而不見。我跟你們強調,以我認我非常具有說服力的方式。上一次,在阿加封的論述的具有奇異可笑的特性。

Agathon, the tragedian speaks about love in a way which gives the feeling that he is clowning …. of a macaronic discourse. At every instant, it seems that the expression that is suggested to us, is that he ………. a little.

阿加封,這位悲劇作家談論到愛,使用的方式讓人感覺到,他是在扮演小丑、、、論述的玩世不恭。在每個時刻,跟我們建議的這個表達,是他稍微、、、

I underlined, in the content, in the body of the arguments, in the style, in the very details of elocution, the extremely provocative character of the little verses in which he himself expresses himself at a particular moment.

我在內文裏強調,在辯論的本體,在風格,在演說的細節,這個極端具有挑釁的詩歌的特性。在裏面,他自己表達他自己,在一個特別的時刻。

It is rather disconcerting to see the theme of the Symposium culminating in such a discourse. This is not new, it is the function, the role that we give it in the development of the Symposium which may be, because this derisive character of the discourse has always struck those who have read and commented on it.

看到「饗宴」的主題以這樣的論述達到高潮,是相當令人困窘。這不是新鮮事,這是這個功用,我們給予它的角色,在「饗宴」的發展上。因為這個論述的這個可笑的特性,「饗宴」讓閱讀它及評論它的人,總是感到印象深刻。

To such a degree that, to take for example what a personage of German
science at the beginning of this century – whose name, the day I
mentioned it to you, made you laugh, I do not know why – Wilamowitz Moellendorff, following in this the tradition of almost all those who preceded him, states that the discourse of Agathon is characterised by its Nichtigkeit, its emptiness.

到達這樣一個程度,拿本世紀初期,德國科學的一個人物充當例子。他的名字,今天我跟你們提到,會讓你們哈哈大笑,我不知道為什麼—維拉毛尾茲、牟蘭德夫,他跟隨那些他的前驅者的傳統,陳述說:阿加封的論述表現的特性,就是它的「空洞」。

It is quite strange that Plato should have put this discourse then into the mouth of the one who is going to immediately precede the discourse of Socrates, in the mouth of the one who is, let us not forget it, currently and on this occasion the beloved of Socrates, at the time of the Symposium.

相當奇特的,柏拉圖竟然會把這個論述,透過這個人的嘴巴表達。這個人將立即就是在蘇格拉底之前,透過這個人的嘴巴。讓我們不要忘記,這個人目前而且在這個場合,是蘇格拉底最愛的人,在「饗宴」的那個時候。

Moreover the way Socrates is going to introduce his intervention, is by two points. First of all, even before Agathon speaks, there is a sort of interlude where Socrates himself said something like: “After having heard all that we have heard and, if Agathon now adds his discourse to the others, how am I going to be able to speak?” (194a).

而且,蘇格拉底將要介紹他的介入,是根據兩點。首先,甚至在阿加封談論之前,就有一個插曲,蘇格拉底自己說了類似的話:「聽過一切我們聽過的話後,假如阿加封現在補充他的論述到其他人的論述述,那我要如何能夠談論?」(194頁)

Agathon for his own part excuses himself. He also announces some hesitation, some fear, some intimidation at speaking before what we could call such an (2) enlightened, such an intelligent, emphrones public.

就他本身而言,阿加封替自己找個藉口。他也宣佈某種的猶豫,某種的恐懼,某種的驚嚇,在談論,在我們所謂如此開明,如此具有聰明的大眾之前。

And the beginnings of a sort of discussion, of debate, takes place with
Socrates who begins at that moment to question him a little in connection with the remark which had been made that, if Agathon, the tragic poet, had just triumphed on the tragic stage, it is because on the tragic stage he is addressing a crowd, and that here it is a question of something else.

一種討論及辯論的開始,隨著蘇格拉底而發生。在那個時刻,蘇格拉底開始稍微詢問他,關於在這個被表達的談論。假如阿加封,這位寫作悲劇的詩人,剛剛在悲劇競賽的舞臺,獲得勝利,那是因為在這個悲劇競賽的舞臺,他正在對著群眾演講,在此,問題就另當別論。

And we begin to be engaged on a slope which could be ticklish. We do not know where we might be led when Socrates begins to question him. It
is more or less the following: “Would you be ashamed of something
in which you might eventually show yourself to be inferior, only
in front of us? In front of the others, in front of the crowd, in front of the mob, would you feel yourself more at ease in advancing themes which might be less certain…” (194c).

我們開始從事一個可能很棘手的斜坡。我們並不知道,當蘇格拉底開始詢問他時,我們會被引導到哪里。它的內容如下:「你會對某件事情感到羞愧嗎?在你可能最後會感覺自卑的事情?就在我們的面前?在其他人的面前,這群眾的面前,在暴徒的面前,你們會感覺你們自己更加自在嗎?當你們提出可能並不是那麼確定的主題、、、」(194頁)

And here, God knows, we do not know very well what we are getting
involved in: whether it is a sort of aristocratism, as one might call it, of dialogue or if, on the contrary, Socrates’ goal is to show (as seems more likely and as his whole practice bears witness) that even a slave, that even an ignorant person, is capable, if appropriately questioned, to show in himself the germs of truth, the germs of a sound judgement.

在此,天曉得,我們沒有很清楚地知道,我們會牽涉到什麼?是否這是一種貴族風範,如我們所稱呼的,一種對話,或相反的,蘇格拉底的目標就是要顯示(這似乎可能,他的整個的做法作為見證)。甚至是一位奴隸,甚至是一位無知的人,都能夠在他自己身上顯示真理的瑰寶,明智判斷的瑰寶,假如他適當地被質疑的話。

But on this slope someone intervenes, Phaidros who, interrupting
Agathon, does not allow Socrates to draw him along this path.

但是對於這個斜坡,某個人會介入,費得洛斯打斷阿加封的話。他不容許蘇格拉底帶領他朝這條途徑。

He knows well that Socrates does not care about anything, as he says expressly, except conversing with someone he loves, and that if we get into this dialogue, we will never get finished….

他清楚地知道,蘇格拉底並不在乎任何事情,如同生動地表達,除了跟他所愛的人談話。假如我們進入這個談話,我們將會沒完沒了、、、

Then at that Agathon begins to speak, and Socrates finds himself in the position of reproving him. He reproves him.

對於這一點,阿加封開始談論。蘇格拉底發現他自己處於責備他的立場,他責備他。

In order to do it, he has as one might say the best of roles and the method immediately shows itself to be of striking superiority, as regards the ease with which it shows up in the middle of the discourse of Agathon what has split apart dialectically, and the procedure is such that here it can be nothing other than a refutation, than an annihilation of the discourse of Agathon, properly speaking, in a way that denounces its ineptitude, its Nichtigkeit, its emptiness.

為了責備他,我們不妨說,他擁有最佳的角色。這個方法立即顯示它自己是顯然的優越,關於這個自在,它出現在阿加封的論述的中間,在辯證上是分裂的部分。這個程式是這樣,以致於在此,它道道地地就是一種反駁,一種對於阿加封的論述的摧毀。適當地說,這個方式抨擊它的不適當,它的空洞。

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

拉康論移情 0111j

August 28, 2011

拉康論移情 0111j

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 7: ____ Wednesday 11 January 1961

(14) Iphigenie by Racine is its most beautiful illustration, in a
sense a sort of incarnation. It was necessary for us to have arrived at the Christian context for Iphigenia not to suffice as tragic.

拉辛的伊菲姬尼,是它最美麗的說明。在某個意義上,它是一種具體表現。我們有需要已經到達基督教的文本,這樣才足夠說明伊菲姬尼充當悲劇。

She has to have Eriphile as understudy, and properly so, not simply in order that Eriphile can be sacrificed in her place, but because Eriphile is the only true lover ………… with a love which is presented to us as terrible, horrible, bad, tragic in order to restore a certain depth to the tragic space and regarding which we also see clearly that it is because love which, moreover sufficiently occupies the play (principally with Achilles), every time it manifests itself as pure and simple
love, and not as black love, the love of jealousy, is irresistibly comic.

她必須擁有阿麗菲利充當替角,這樣做很適當的,不僅是為了讓阿麗菲利代替她犧牲,而是因為阿麗菲利是唯一真實的戀人、、、她呈現給予我的愛是可怕,駭人,遭糕而悲劇化,為了將某種的深度恢復給悲劇的空間。關於這個愛,我們也清楚地看出:因為愛充分地佔據這個遊戲(主要是跟阿基力)。每一次愛證明它自己,作為純潔而簡單的愛,不是作為黑色的愛,妒忌的愛,它是無可抗拒地是喜劇化。

In short, we have arrived at the crossroads where, as will be recalled at the end of the final conclusions of the Symposium, it is not enough in order to speak about love to be a tragic poet, it is also necessary to be a comic poet.

總之,我們已經到達這個十字路口。在那裏,在「饗宴」的最後結論的結束,我們必須提醒的。為了談論愛,光是成為悲劇詩人還不足夠,我們也有必要成為喜劇詩人。

It is at this precise point that Socrates receives the discourse of Agathon and, to appreciate how he welcomes it, it was necessary, I believe – you
will see it in what follows – to articulate it with all the accent that I believed I had to give to it today.

就在確實就是這一點,蘇格拉底接受阿加封的論述。並且為了表示他多麼的歡迎它,我相信這是必要的—你們將會從後面隨之而來的事,看出它-—以各種的強調表達它。我相信今天我必須給予它。

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

拉康論移情 0111i

August 27, 2011

拉康論移情 0111i

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 7: ____ Wednesday 11 January 1961

Truphe for example in Aristophanes, designates that which in a woman, in a wife, is introduced all of a sudden into the life, into the peace of a man, in terms of intolerable pretension. The woman who is said to be trupheros or truphera, is an intolerable little snob: she is the one who never stops for a single instant making the most in front of her husband of the superiorities of her rank and the quality of her family and so
on….

譬如,在亞力斯多芬的「優雅」,指明在女人身上,在妻子身上,突然被介紹具有生命力,進入一位男人的平靜裏,用無法容忍的偽裝。據說是「優雅」或「高雅」是無法容忍的勢利眼;她從來沒有一刻停止在她的丈夫的面前,善用她地位的優越,及她家庭的特質,等等、、、

There is not a single one of these terms which is not habitually
and for the major part, conjoined, juxtaposed by the authors
(whether it is a question this time of tragedians, even the poets
like Hesiod) juxtaposed (chlide. delicacy for example), with the
use of authadia, signifying this time one of the most intolerable
forms of hubris and of infatuation.

這些術語,每一個,或大部分,在習慣上,作者都予以合併,及並列使用,(無論此時的問題是悲劇家,甚是是詩人,像赫希亞)並列的例子如「純真」,「精緻」,使用的方式頗為大膽,這次意味著,最不能讓人容忍的「高傲」與「迷戀」。

I only want to point these things out to you in passing. It continues: love is “careful of good things, careless of bad things; in hardship, in fear, in the heat of passion and in talk a pilot….” (197d).

我僅是想要跟你們順便指出這些東西。它繼續下去:愛是「對於好事情,小心謹慎,對於壞事情,粗心大意。在艱苦,在恐懼,在激情的狂熱,在閒談領航員、、、」(197頁)

These are translations which signify absolutely nothing, because in Greek you have: en pono, en phobo, en logo; en pono, that means in trouble; en phobo in fear; in logo, in speech, kubernetes, epibates, is the one who holds the rudder, the one also who is always ready to direct.

這些是一些翻譯,絕對沒有多大意義,因為在希臘文,你們擁有「en pono, en phobo, en logo; en pono,」這字詞意味著陷入麻煩。「en phobo in fear; in logo,」在口語是「kubernetes, epibates,」是指掌舵的這個人,也總是準備要指揮的人。

In other words, it’s all a big joke. Pono, phobo, logo are in the
greatest of disorder. What is in question, is always to produce
the same effect of irony, indeed of disorientation which, in a
tragic (13) poet, has really no other meaning than to underline
that love is really what is unclassifiable, that which comes to
put itself crosswise in all significant situations, that which is
never in its place, that which is always out of season.

換句話說,這是一個很大的笑話。「Pono, phobo, logo」在極端混亂中。受到質疑的的,總是產生相同的反諷效果,確1是屬於「失去方向」,在悲劇詩人身上,它確實沒有其他意義,除了強調:愛確實是屬於無法分類的東西,在各個有意義的情境,愛都將自己倒置,愛從來沒有在其位置上,愛總是沒有理性可言。

That this position is really something which is defendable or
not, in rigorous terms, this of course is not the high point of
the discourse, concerning love in this dialogue; this is not what
is in question. The important thing is that it should be in the perspective of the tragic poet that we are given on love precisely the only discourse which is openly, completely derisive.

這個立場確實是似是而非,從嚴格意義來說,當然這並不是論述的高潮,關於愛在這個對話裏。這並不是受到置疑的地方。重要的事情是,它應該是屬於悲劇詩人的觀點。確實地,我們被給予的有關愛的唯一的論述,是明顯而完全地可笑。

And moreover, to underline what I am telling you, to seal the cogency of this interpretation you only have to read when Agathon concludes: “This, Phaidros, is my speech,” he said; “may the god accept my dedication partly play, partly modest seriousness, and the best that I am able to do” (197e).

而且,為了強調我正在告訴你們的東西,為了肯定這種解釋的說服力,你們只需要閱讀阿加封的結論:「費得洛斯,這個就是我談論,」他說:「但願上帝接受我的奉獻,半是遊戲,半是謙遜地認真,那是我盡我的全力。」 (197頁)

The discourse itself is marked, as one might say, by its connotation
as an amusing discourse, the discourse of someone who wishes to amuse.

這個論述的本身被標明,我們不妨說,由於它的意涵作為一個有趣的論述,某個希望娛樂眾人的論述。

And it is none other than Agathon as such, namely as the one whose triumph at the competition for tragedy is being celebrated – let us not forget it, we are on the day following his success – who has the right to speak about love.

那道道地地就是阿加封的本身,也就是在悲劇的競賽中獲勝的這個人,現在正在被慶祝—讓我們不要忘記它。我們在那天都觀看他的成功—他擁有權利談論愛

It is quite certain that there is nothing there which ought to
disorient at all events. In every tragedy situated in its full context, in the ancient context, love always figures as an incident in the margins and, as one might say, lagging behind.

這是千真萬確的,無論如何,在那裏沒有任何東西應該迷失方向。在每一齣完整內容的悲劇裏,在古代的內文裏,愛總是充當在邊緣的意外的角色,而且尾隨落後,我們不妨這樣說。

Love, far from being the one who directs and who runs ahead, only
lags behind here, to take up the very terms that you will find in
the discourse of Agathon, lagging behind the thing to which
curiously enough he compares it in a passage, namely the term
which I put forward before you last year under the function of
Ate in tragedy (195d).

愛,根本就不是引導而且向前沖的人,在此它尾隨落後,從事你將會發現的這些術語,在阿加封的論述裏,尾隨在事情之後。耐人尋味地,他在一個段落裏比喻愛,換句話說,我去年在你們面前提出的術語,「不幸」在悲劇裏的功用。

Ate, misfortune, the thing that has been crucified and which can
never be exhausted, the—calamity which is behind every tragic
adventure and which, as the poet tells us – because it is to
Homer that on this occasion reference is made – “Tender are her
feet; she comes not near the ground, but walks upon the heads of men.”, this is the way Ate passes, rapid, indifferent, and forever striking and dominating and bending heads, driving them mad; that is what Ate is.

「不幸」,這個曾經被折磨的東西,永遠無法耗盡。在每個悲劇冒險的背後的災難,如同詩人告訴我們的—因為對於荷馬而言,在這個場合,指稱被提到:「她的玉足是多麼溫柔!她不是靠近地面行走,而是走在男人的頭上。」這就是不幸經過的方式,快速,冷漠,而且永遠惹人注目,威風凜凜,而且低頭垂眉,讓男人著迷若狂,那就是「不幸」所在。

It is a singular thing, that in this discourse it should be under the reference of telling us that, like Ate, Love must have very tender feet, for it also not to be able to move except upon the heads of men! And on this point, once again, to confirm the phantastical character of this
discourse, some jokes are made about the fact that after all not all the skulls are as tender as all that! (195e)

這是一件奇特的事情。在這個論述裏,這個指稱應該告訴我們,就像「不幸」,愛一定會有溫柔的腳,因為它也不能夠移動,除了就是騎在男人頭上!在這一點,再一次,證實了這個論述的幻見的特性。有些笑話關於這個事實:畢竟,並不是所有頭蓋骨都是像那樣溫柔!(195頁)

Let us come back one more time to the confirmation of the style
of this discourse. All our experience of tragedy and you will
see it more especially in the measure that, because of the Christian context, the vacuum (which is produced in the fundamental fatalism of antiquity, in the inscrutability, the incomprehensibility of the fatal oracle, the inexpressibility of the commandment at the level of the second death) can no longer be sustained because we find ourselves before a god who is not capable of giving senseless or cruel orders; you will see that
love comes to fill this vacuum.

讓我們再一次回到這個論述的風格的證實。閱讀所有我們的悲劇的經驗,你們將會更加特別明白它,因為這個基督教的內文,這個真空,(古代的基本宿命論所產生,第二次死亡的層次的命令的無可表達,)這個真空無法再被維持。因為我們發現我們自己處於一個神祗面前。她無法下達無意義或殘酷的命令。你們將會看出,愛前來填補這個真空。

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

拉康论移情 0111h

August 27, 2011

拉康論移情 0111h

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 7: ____ Wednesday 11 January 1961

But I believe, I am sure and you will be sure of it once you have also read it, that we would be quite wrong not to understand that it is not we, nor Plato alone who are amusing ourselves here about this discourse.

但是我相信,我確定你們將會確定它,一旦你們也閱讀它。我們將是完全錯誤,假如我們不瞭解,並不是我,也不僅是柏拉圖,在此關有這個論述,都僅是在自得其樂。

It is quite clear… (contrary to what the commentators have said) it is completely out of the question that the one who is speaking, namely Agathon, does not himself know very well what he is doing.

顯而易見的、、、(跟一般的評論恰恰相反)。這完全是不可能的,談論的這個人,也就是阿加封,他自己不是很清楚,他正在做什麼。

Things are taken so far, things are so extreme, that you are simply going to see that at the high point of this discourse Agathon is going to tell us: “And I am moved to speak something of him in verse myself”, and he expresses himself eirenen men en anthrophois _______ peleagei de qalenen (197c) … “eirenen men en anthropois, peace among men,” says M. Leon
Robin; which means: love brings troubles to an end; a singular notion it must be said because we really had not the slightest suspicion of it until this idyllic modulation; but in order to dot the i’s, he adds to it, pelagei de qalenen, which means absolutely: “Nothing is working, dead calm on the deep”.

事情發展得太遠,事情太過於極端。你們將會看出,在這個論述的高潮,阿加封將會告訴我們:「我深受感動,所以用詩歌讚賞他。」他表達他自己「處於人際之間的安詳,」李昂、羅賓說。那句話的意思是:愛最終帶來麻煩。這是一個奇特的觀念。它必須被說出來,因為我們真正沒有絲毫的懷疑它,直到這個詩意的調適。但是為了給這個「我」標點,他跟它補充說「pelagei de qalenen」。這句話的意思是:「沒有一樣東西在運行,海洋深處靜悄悄。」

In other words, you must remember what calm weather on the sea meant
for the ancients, that meant: nothing is working any more, the
vessels remain blocked at Aulis and, when that happens to you in
mid- ocean, it is very embarrassing, just as embarrassing as when
that happens to you in bed. So that when one evokes pelagei de qalenen in connection with love, it is quite clear that one is having a little giggle. Love is what makes you break down, it is what causes you to make a fiasco of things.

換句話說,你必須記住,對於古代人,海上的平靜天氣是什麼意思。那意味著:沒有一樣東西在運行,船隻始終被阻礙在奧利斯港。當你發生這樣的事,在海洋中間,那是非常令人尷尬。就像當那件事情在床上發生在你身上。所以,關於愛,我們召喚「沒有一樣東西在運行,海洋深處靜悄悄。」顯而易見,我們正在遭遇好笑的事。愛就是會使你崩潰的東西,它會讓你把事情弄得一塌糊塗。

And then that is not all. Afterwards he says, “respite from winds”…. love is put aside…. there is no more love nenemian anemon, this sounds moreover like what are always comic verses in a certain tradition. It is like two verses by Paul-Jean Toulet: (11) “Sous le double ornement d’un nom mol ou sonore, Non, il n’est rien que Nanine et Nonore.”

這還不是全部。後來他說:「避開狂風,獲得休息」、、、愛被放置一旁、、、不再有愛的煩惱。而且,這聽起來像是某種傳統裏的滑稽打油詩。它就像是保羅真 透列的兩首詩:”Sous le double ornement d’un nom mol ou sonore, Non, il n’est rien que Nanine et Nonore.”

We are in that register. And in addition koiten, which means in
bed, “coucouche panier”, nothing in the bed, “no more wind in the
winds, all the winds have gone asleep” [and then] hupnon t’eni
kedei a singular thing,—love brings us “in trouble rest and
sleep”, one might translate at first glance.

我們在那個銘記裏。除外,koiten 的意思是「床」,「在床上沒有別的東西」「在風裏不再有風,風已經沉沉入睡」—「愛帶陷於麻煩裏的我們,休息及安眠」。我們不妨望文生義地翻譯。

But if you look at the sense of the occurrences of this kedos, the Greek term, always rich in underpinnings (which would allow us to revalorise
in a particular way what one day – with no doubt a lot of benevolence towards us, but perhaps lacking despite everything by not following Freud in something essential – M. Benveniste, for our first number, articulated about the ambivalences of signifiers), kedos is not simply trouble, it is always kinship.

但是假如你們觀看這個「平靜」的發生的意義,這是希臘文的術語,總是基礎穩定(這容許我們重新穩定,以特別的方式,無可置疑的,會有許多的善意朝向我們,但是儘管一切,它可能是欠缺,因為在某個重要的事情上,沒有遵照佛洛伊德—邊文尼斯特,作為我們的第一個能指,表達能指導愛恨交加,)平靜不僅是麻煩,它總是類似。

The hupnon t’enikedei gives us an outline of kedos as “a relation
by marriage of an elephant’s thigh” somewhere in Lévi-Strauss and
thus hupnos, “peaceful sleep”, t’eni kedei “in relationships with
the family-in-law”, seems to me to be something worthy of
crowning these verses which are undoubtedly constructed to shake
us up, if we have not yet understood that Agathon is making fun.

這個「平靜的睡眠」,讓我們描繪出「平靜」的輪廓,作為「大象大腿的結合的關係」,在列文、史特勞斯的某個文本,「平靜的睡眠」跟姻親的關係,我覺得是某件值得推崇這些詩篇。無可置疑的,詩篇被寫作,為了要震憾我們,假如我們還沒有瞭解,阿加封是在開玩笑。

Moreover from that moment on literally he cuts loose and tells us
that love, is that which literally frees us, “empties us of
estrangement, and fills us with friendliness” (197d).

而且,從那個時候開始,實質上,他失控地告訴我們:「愛是實質上解放我們的東西,替我們掏空疏離,使我們充滿友善。」(197頁)

“Naturally when you are possessed by love, you realise that we
all form part of a big family, it is really from that moment on
that one feels warm and comfortable.” And so on…. It continues for lines…. I will leave you the pleasure of licking your chops over it some evening.

「當然,當你們被愛所佔有,你們體會到:我們都形成一個大家庭的部分。真的是從那個時刻開始,我們感覺溫暖及疏適。」等等、、、它繼續好幾行、、、我將留給你們這個歡樂,某個晚上邊吃飯邊品賞它。

(12) In any case, if you agree that love “provides gentleness and
banishes savagery; ….loves to give goodwill, hates to give
illwill”; – there is here an enumeration on which I would like to
spend a long time with you – the fact is that it is said to be
the father of what?

無論如何,假如你們同意,愛「供應溫和,驅除野蠻;、、、愛發出善意,恨發出惡意。」在此有一個列舉,我想要跟你們多耗一些時間—事實上,愛據說是什麼之父?

The father of Truphe, Habrotes. Chiide, Charites, Himeros and of Pothos. we would need more time than we have at our disposal here to draw the parallel of those terms which one could initially translate as “Luxury, Daintiness, Delicacy, Grace, Longing, Desire”, and to do the double work that would consist in confronting them with the register of blessings,
of honesty in courtly love as I recalled it for you last year.

「Truphe, Habrotes. Chiide, Charites, Himeros and of Pothos」之父。在此,我們將需要我們所能處理的更多時間,為了獲得這些術語的這個對比。我們最初可翻譯為「奢侈,優雅,精緻,高雅,渴望,欲望」。為了要做這個雙重的工作,那就是在於要面對它們,用幸福,誠實,騎士之愛的銘記,如同我去年跟你們提醒的。

It would be easy for you then to see the distance, and to see
that it is quite impossible to satisfy oneself with the
rapprochement which M. Leon Robin makes in a note with the Carte
du Tendre or with the knightly virtues in La Minne: moreover he
does not evoke it, he only speaks about the Carte du tendre.

你們很容易看出這個距離,看出我們不可能滿足我們自己,使用李昂、羅賓使用的友善關係,或是使用在拉 憫尼小說的騎士的美德。而且,他並沒有召喚它,他僅是談論到這個「愛的桃花源」。

Because what I would show you text in hand, is that there is not
one of these terms (Truphe for example, which people are happy to
connote as Wellbeing) which has not been used by the majority of
authors, not simply comic authors, with most disagreeable
connotations.

因為我將給你們觀看的手邊的文本,裏面並沒有一個這些術語(譬如,奢侈,人們很高興將它解釋為「幸福」)這個術語從來沒有被大多數的作者使用,不僅是喜劇的作者,因為它帶有大多數令人不愉快的意涵。

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

拉康論移情 0111g

August 27, 2011

拉康論移情 0111g

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 7: ____ Wednesday 11 January 1961

(9) And if it is a question of situating it, I believe that it is
neither by referring oneself to the articulations of the situation for the therapist or observer [nor] to any of the notions about situation as a phenomenology elaborates them for us, that we can find our proper reference points.

假如問題是要定位它,相信它既沒有憑藉提到這種情境的表達,對於治療師或觀察者,也沒有提到有關情境的這些觀念,如同現象學跟我們建構它們。這樣我們才能找到我們適當的指稱點。

The desire of the analyst is not something that can content itself, be
satisfied with a dyadic reference. It is not the relationship with one’s patient through a series of eliminations, of exclusions, which can give us the key to it. It is a question of something more intrapersonal.

精神分析師的欲望,並不是某件滿足它自己,滿足於兩價指稱的東西。它並不是跟我們病人的關係,透過一系列的減少,一系列的排除。它們能夠給予我們問題的解答。這個問題是屬於某件個人內部的問題。

And, of course, I am not telling you either that the analyst must be a Socrates, or a diehard, or a saint. No doubt these explorers, like Socrates or the die-hards or the saints, can give us some indications about
the field that is in question, and not just some indications, but
precisely this is the reason that on reflection we refer to it, for our part, all our science, I mean experimental science, in the field in question.

當然,我也不是在告訴你們,精神分析師一定是蘇格拉底,或是一位擇善固執者,或是一位聖人。無可置疑的,這些探險家,像蘇格拉底,或擇善固執者,或聖人一樣,他們能夠給予我們一些指示。但是確實地,這就是這個原因,在反思時,我們會提到它,就我們而言,我們所有的科學,我是指試驗性的科學,在受到質疑的領域。

But it is precisely starting from the fact that the exploration is carried on by them, that we can perhaps articulate, define in terms of longitude and of latitude the coordinates that the analyst should be capable of attaining simply to occupy the place which is his own – which is defined as the place that he must offer as vacant to the desire of the patient in order that he may realise himself as desire of the Other.

確實是從這個事實開始,他們從事探險。我們可能使用經度與緯度的術語來表達,及定義,精神分析師能夠獲得的座標,僅是為了佔據屬於他自己的這個地方—這個地方被定義為他必須提供作為空缺的地方,對於病人的欲望。這樣他才能實現他自就,作為大它者的欲望。

This is why the Symposium interests us, it is because by this altogether privileged place that it occupies concerning the testimonies about Socrates (in so far as it is considered to place before us Socrates tackling the problem of love), the Symposium is for us a useful text to explore. I believe I have said enough about it to justify our tackling the problem of transference, by beginning with the commentary on the
Symposium.

這就是為什麼我們對「饗宴」感到興趣。這是因為它佔據的這個完全具有特權的位置,關於蘇格拉底的這些證詞,(它被認為將蘇格拉底克服愛的問題,放置在我們面前),對於我們而言,「饗宴」是一個有用的文本來探索。我相信我已經說得很充分關於它,為了要證明我們很有理由處理移情的難題。我們先從對於「饗宴」的評論開始。

I believe also that it was necessary for me to recall these coordinates at the moment that we are going to enter into what occupies the central or quasi-central place of these celebrated dialogues, namely the discourse of Agathon.

我也相信,我有需要提醒這些座標,在我們即將探討是什麼佔據這些著名的對話錄的中央或類似中央的位置。換句話說,阿加封的論述。

Is it Aristophanes, or is it Agathon who occupies the central place? It is not important to decide. Between the two of them, in any case, they undoubtedly occupy the central place, because everything that had previously been according to all appearances demonstrated is considered by them as right away rejected, devaluated, because what it going to follow will be nothing other than the discourse of Socrates.

是亞力斯多芬,或是阿加封,佔據這個中央的位置?決定是誰,並沒有那麼重要。無論如何,在他們兩人之間,他們無可置疑的都佔據中央的位置,因為先前曾經存在的一切東西,依照外表所被展示的,都被他們認為立刻被拒絕,被貶值,因為它所要遵照的,將道道地地就是蘇格拉底的論述。

On this discourse of Agathon, namely the tragic poet, there would
be a world of things to be said which are not simply erudite, but
which would draw us into a detail, indeed into a history of tragedy which you have seen that I highlighted for you a little while ago, this is not the important thing.

對於阿加封的這個論述,換句話說,這位悲劇的詩人,將會有許多事情能夠被說。這些事情不僅是淵博,而且會吸引我們進入細節,的確,會進入你們曾經見過的悲劇的歷史。不久以前,我跟你們強調過,這並不是重要多事情。

The important thing is to make you perceive the place of Agathon’s discourse in the economy of the Symposium You have read it. There are five or six pages in the French translation by Robin published by Guillaume Bude.

重要的事情是要讓你們感覺到阿加封的論述的這個位置,在「饗宴」的活動裏。你們曾經看見過它。在羅賓的法文的翻譯本,有五六頁,有蓋勞美、巴得出版社發行。

I am going to take it near its high point, you will see why: I am here not so much to give you a more or less elegant commentary on the Symposium as to lead you to the way in which it can or must be of use to us.

我將帶它到它的高點,你們將會明白為什麼:我在此不是要給予你們一個更加優雅的評論,對於「饗宴」。而是要引導你們到,對於我們而言,它能夠或必須有用的地方。

After having given a discourse of which the least one can say is
that it has always struck every reader by its extraordinary “sophistry”, in the most modern, the most common, pejorative sense of the word.

在發表一個論述之後,至少我們能夠說的是:它的特別的「詭辯法」,以那個字詞具有現代,最現代的貶抑的用法,令每一位讀者感到印象深刻。

The very type for example of what you can call this sophistry, is to say that: “Love wrongs not and is not wronged, wrongs no god and is wronged by none, wrongs no man (10) and is wronged by none.”

你們能夠稱為的這個「詭辯法」的典型例子,這樣說;「愛不冤枉,也不被冤枉,它沒有冤枉神,也不被任何神冤枉。它不冤枉任何人,也不被任何人冤枉。」

Why? Because – “nothing that happens to him comes by violence for violence touches not love;” – therefore – “nothing he does is violent, for everyone willingly serves Love in everything,” Agathon tells us – “and what a willing person grants to a willing is just – so say the city’s king, the laws'” (196c)

為什麼?—「因為發生在他身上事情,沒有一樣是用暴力強加。因為暴力碰觸不到愛。」—因此—「他所做的事情,沒有一樣是暴力。因為每個人願意以一切服侍愛。」阿加封告訴我們—「一位願意的人給予一個願意的人是公平。」城邦的國王,也就是法律,如此說。(196頁)

The moral: love is then what is at the principle of the laws of- the city, and so on. . . since love is the strongest of all desires, irresistible voluptuousness, it will become confused with temperance, because temperance being what regulates desires and pleasures by right, love ought then to be confused with this position of temperance.

寓意:愛因此是處於城邦的法律的原則,等等、、、愛是所有欲望的最強烈的欲望,無法抗拒的縱欲滿足。愛將會變成跟自我節制混淆,因為自我節制有權利規範欲望及歡樂。愛因此應該會跟自我節制的這個立場混淆。

Obviously we are having fun. Who is having fun? Is it just we, the readers? I think that we would be quite wrong to believe that we are the only ones.

顯而易見的,我們是在玩遊戲。誰在玩遊戲?僅僅是我,是讀者嗎?我認為,假如我們相信我們是唯一在玩遊戲的人,那就大錯特錯。

Agathon is here in a posture which is certainly not secondary if only by the fact that, because, at least in principle, in the terms, in the position of the situation, he is the beloved of Socrates.

阿加封在此處於的立場,確實並非次要,即使是根據這個事實:因為至少在原則上,在這些術語裏,在情境的立場,他都是蘇格拉底的最愛的人。

[I believe] that Plato – we will give him this much credit – is also having fun with what I would call already – and you will see that I am going
to justify it still more – the macaronic discourse of the tragedian on love.

我相信,柏拉圖—我們將會如此地推崇他—他也正在玩遊戲悲劇作家,對於愛的雅俗混淆論述的遊戲—你們將會明白,我將要更進一步證明它的理由。

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

拉康论移情 0111f

August 27, 2011

拉康論移情 0111f

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 7: ____ Wednesday 11 January 1961

If Socrates introduces this position regarding which I would ask
you to open after all any passage, any dialogue whatever of Plato
(which refers directly to the person of Socrates) in order to
verify the cogency, namely the decisive, paradoxical position of
his affirmation of immortality and that on which there is founded
this idea he has about science, in so far as I deduce it as this
pure and simple promotion to absolute value of the function of
the signifier in consciousness to what does this respond…. to
what atopie, I would say – the word, as you know, regarding Socrates is not mine – to what atopia of desire?

假如蘇格拉底介紹這個立場,關於這個立場,我要求你們打開任何一段,任何一段柏拉圖的對話,(直接提到蘇格拉底這個人),為了驗證這個具有說服力,也就是關鍵性,矛盾的立場,對於他肯定永恆不朽的立場。作為他擁有關於智慧的這個觀念的基礎。我推論這一點,作為這個純粹而簡單的提升到能指在意識界的功用的絕對價值。這回應著什麼?回應著什麼「烏托邦」?我不妨3說—這個字詞,你們知道,關於蘇格拉底的字詞,並不是我的字詞,它提到欲望的什麼「烏托邦」?

(8) The term atopia, atopos, to designate it, atopos, an
unclassifiable, unsituatable case…. we do not know where to
shove this atopia, boys! This is what is in question, this is
what the discourse of his contemporaries muttered about Socrates.

「烏托邦」這個術語,為了指明它,烏托邦是一種無法分類,無法定位的情況、、、我們並不知道要將這個烏托邦推到哪里,我的天啊!這就是受到質疑的地方,這就是他的當代人的論述,對於蘇格拉底的抱怨。

For me, for us, this atopie of desire which I am questioning,
does it not in a certain fashion coincide with what I could call
a certain topographical purity, precisely in the fact that it
designates the central point where, in our topology, this space
of the entre-deux-morts is as such in its pure and empty state
the place of desire as such, desire being there nothing more than its place – in so far as it is no longer for Socrates anything but the desire for discourse, for the revealed discourse, forever revealing?

對於我,對於我們而言,我正在詢問的這個欲望的烏托邦,它難道不是以某種的方式巧合於我所謂的某種拓樸圖像的純淨,確實是在這個事實:它指明中央的點。在那裏,在我們的拓樸圖形,這個「兩次死亡之間」的空間,本身就是處於它的純淨而簡單的狀態,那就是欲望本身的位置。在那裏的欲望道道地地是它的位置—因為對於蘇格拉底而言,它不再是別的東西,而是對於論述的欲望,對於被啟示的欲望,永遠地在啟示?

From which there results of course the atopia of the Socratic subject himself, if it is the case that never before him had there been occupied by any man, in such a purified way, this place of desire.

從那裏,當然會有蘇格拉底的生命主體本身的烏托邦的結果。假如情況是這樣,在他之前,從來沒有任何從事這種烏托邦的情況,以如此純淨的方式,這個欲望的位置。

I am not answering this question. I am posing it, because it is likely, that it at least gives us a first reference point to situate what our question is, which is a question that we cannot eliminate from the moment that we have once introduced it.

我並不是正在回答這個問題。我正在提出它,因為這是可能的,它至少給予我們一個最初的指稱點,定位我們的問題在哪里。這是一個問題,我們無法從這個時刻減少的問題,我們曾經介紹過它。

And after all I am not the one who introduced it. It is, already,
introduced from the moment that we perceived that the complexity
of transference could in no way be limited to what is happening
in the subject who is called the patient, namely the analysand.

畢竟,我並不介紹它的人。它已經被介紹,從我們感覺到的這個時刻。移情的複雜性根本就不能僅是限制在生命主體所正在發生的事情,這個生命主體被稱為病人,也就是受分析者。

And in consequence the question is posed of articulating in a
slightly more advanced way than has ever been done up to now what
the desire of the analyst should be.

結果,這個問題被提出,如何表達精神分析師的欲望應該是什麼,以迄今曾經從事過的更加深入的方式。

It is not sufficient now to speak about catharsis, the didactic
purification, as I might say, of the greater part of the
analyst’s unconscious, all of this remains very vague. We must
give credit to analysts that for some time they have not been
satisfied with it.

現在談論渲泄療法,是不足夠的,我不妨說,那是精神分析師無意識的較大部分,,被給予教導的純淨化。所有這一切始終是模糊不清。我們必須推崇那些精神分析師,有段時間來,他們並不滿意這種渲泄療法。

We must also notice, not to criticise them, but to understand the sort of obstacle that we have to deal with, that we have not even made the slightest beginning in what one could articulate so easily in the form of questions concerning what must be acquired by someone for him to be an analyst: he is now supposed to know a little bit more about the dialectic of his unconscious?

我們也必須注意到,不是為了批評他們,而是為了瞭解我們必須處理的這種的阻礙。我們甚至沒有從事絲毫的開始,對於我們能夠輕易表達的東西,以問題的形是,關於某個人必須獲得的東西,為了讓他成為一位精神分析師:他現在應該稍微更加知道,關於他的無意識的辯證法?

When all is said and done what exactly does he know about it? And above all how far must what he knows have gone concerning the effects of knowledge? And simply I pose you this question: what must remain of his phantasies?

當一切被說被做了,對於他的無意識,他確實知道什麼?尤有甚者,關於知識的效果,他所知道的,當時一定已經進行有多遠?我僅是提出這個問題:他的這些幻見尚剩餘有多少?

You know that I am capable of going further, of saying “his” phantasy, if indeed there is a fundamental phantasy. If castration is what must be accepted at the final term of analysis, what ought to be the role of his scar to castration in the eros of the analyst?

你們知道,我能夠更加深入探討,關於說「他的」幻見,假如他的確有一個基本的幻見。假如閹割是必須被接受的東西,在精神分析這個最後的術語,什麼應該是他的閹割的疤痕的角色,在精神分析師的性愛方面?

These are questions of which I would say it is easier to pose
them than to resolve them. That indeed is the reason why they
are not posed. And, believe me, I would not pose them either
like that in a vacuum, like that as a way simply of tickling your
imagination, if I did not think that there must be a method, an
indirect, even oblique, even roundabout method, of throwing some
light on these questions to which it is obviously impossible for
us for the moment to respond all at once.

關於這些問題,我不妨說,提出它們比回答它們更加容易。那確實是這個理由,為什麼它們沒有被提出。請相信我,我也本來不會提出它們,就像在真空裏的問題。我喜歡那個樣子,作為僅是搔弄你們的想像力。假如我不認為,必須要有一種方法,一種間接,甚至是拐彎抹角的方法,讓這些問題真相大白。對於這些問題,顯而易見的,目前我們不可能突然就能回答。

All that I can tell you is that it does not seem to me that what one calls the doctor-patient relationship (with what it involves in terms of
presuppositions, of prejudices, of a swarming syrup, which looks
like cheese worms), is something which allows us to advance very
far in this sense.

我所能夠告訴你們的是,我不覺得,我們所謂的醫生與病人的關係(它所牽涉到的關係,用預先假定,用偏見,用群集情感的術語,它們看起來就像乳酪的小蟲,)這是某件容許我們朝著這個意義更深入探討。

It is a question then of trying to articulate, in accordance with
reference points which are, which may be designated for us starting with a topology that had already been sketched out as the coordinates of desire, what must be, what is fundamentally the desire of the analyst.

因此這個問題是要嘗試表達,依照這些指稱點。從一個拓樸圖形開始,可能跟我們指明。這個拓樸圖形已經被描繪出來,作為欲望的協調,精神分析師的欲望,一定是什麼?基本上是什麼?

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

拉康論移情 0111e

August 26, 2011

拉康論移情 0111e

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 7: ____ Wednesday 11 January 1961

I will allow myself almost in the margin to sketch as a sort of parody – provided of course you do not give it more weight than what I am going to say – the picture of Cotard’s syndrome: this tireless questioner seems to me to overlook the fact that his mouth is flesh.

我將容許我自己處於邊緣,為了要描述作為一種模擬—-當然,只要你們對於我正要說的東西,不要過分高估—那就是科達德綜合症候:我覺得這位樂此不疲的詢問者似乎忽略這個事實,他的嘴巴的肉身。

And that is why this affirmation, one could not say this certitude, is coherent.

那就是為什麼這個肯定,我們不能夠說這個確定性,是前後一致。

We are here almost before a sort of apparition which is foreign to us, when Socrates (do not have any doubt about it, in a very exceptional fashion, in a fashion which to employ our language and to make myself understood and to go quickly – I would call in a fashion which is of the order of a psychotic core) implacably unfolds his arguments which are not really arguments, but also this affirmation, more affirming perhaps than any that one has ever heard, to his disciples the very day of his death concerning the fact that he, Socrates, serenely leaves this life for a truer life, for an immortal life.

我們在此,幾乎是處於一種魅影之前。這個魅影對於我們是外來的,當蘇格拉底(請不要懷疑它,以一種特別的方式,以使用我們的語言及使我自己讓人瞭解的方式,快速描述,—我以所謂屬於精神病核心的層次,)我毫不容情展開他的論點。他的論點不但真的是論點,而且這個肯定,超過一切我們曾經聽過的肯定,在他死亡的那一天,對於他的門徒們,關於這個事實:他,蘇格拉底,嚴肅地離開他的生命,追求一個更真實的生命,追求不朽的生命

He does not doubt that he will rejoin those who, let us not forget, still exist for him, the Immortals.

他並不懷疑,他會跟那些依舊為他而存在的人,我們不要忘記,那就不朽的神祗。

Because the notion of Immortals cannot be eliminated, reduced for his thinking; it is in function of the antimony (the Immortals and the mortals) which is absolutely fundamental in ancient thought – and no less, believe me, in our own – that his living, experienced testimony takes its value.

因為不朽神祗的觀念無法被減少,減化成為充當他的思想。這確實是「正反對立」(不朽神祗與有限生命的人),在古代思想絕對是基本的—請相信我,在我們的時代,同樣是基本的—他的活生生的經驗的證詞,具有它的價值。

I summarise then: this tireless questioner, who is not a speaker,
who rejects rhetoric, the metrical, the poetic, who reduces metaphor and who lives entirely in the game not of the forced card but of the forced question and who sees in it his whole subsistence, engenders before you, develops throughout the whole time of his life what I would call a formidable metonomy whose result as is also attested – we are beginning from historical attestation – is this desire which is incarnated I would say in this set, sad, affirmation of immortality “black and wreathed
immortality” Valery writes somewhere, this desire for infinite (7) discourse.

我總結如下:這位樂此不疲的詢問者,他並不是一位演說者,他拒絕修飾誇言,鏗鏘節奏,詩詞浮華,他精簡比喻,他全神投入,不是強迫的牌戲,而是強迫的問題的遊戲,而且他在遊戲裏看出,他整個的生命實存在他面前產生,在他全部的一生時光,發展我所謂的一種可怕的「換喻」,換喻的結果也被驗證—我們漸漸從歷史的驗證開始—這個欲望被具體表現,我將會說,在這個固執的悲哀的對於不朽的肯定,「黑色而且花圈覆蓋的不朽」。詩人梵樂希在某個地方這樣描述,這個追求不朽的論述的欲望。

Because in the beyond, if he is sure of rejoining the Immortals, he is also more or less sure he says of being able to continue throughout eternity with interlocutors who are worthy of him (those who have preceded him and all the others who will come to rejoin him), his little exercises, which, you have to admit is a conception which, however satisfying it may be for people who love allegory or an allegorical picture is all the
same a conception which has a singular odour of delusion.

因為在超越那一邊,假如他確定跟不朽神祗重新會合,他也相當確定能夠繼續在整個永恆裏,跟他景仰的詢問者(那些他的前驅者,以及以後前來會合的其他的人)。他的小小的運作,你們必須承認,這是一種觀念,無論如何令人滿意,對於那些喜愛象徵寓言的人,或是喜愛寓言畫面的人,那仍然是一種觀念,這種觀你具有迷惑的奇特風味。

Arguing about odd and even, of justice and injustice, of mortality and immortality, of the hot and the cold and of the fact that the hot cannot admit the cold into itself without weakening it, without withdrawing to one side in its essence as hot (as is explained to us at length in the Phaedo as principle for the reasons of the immortality of the soul), to argue about this throughout eternity is truly a very singular conception of happiness!

爭論到奇數與偶數,正義與不公,有限生命與永恆不朽,熱與冷。熱無法承認冷進入它的本身,而不減弱它,而不退縮到它本質作為熱的這一邊,這個事實,(在費得篇,這個原理詳細地跟我們解釋,作為靈魂不朽的原因),在整個的永恆裏辯論這個,確實是一個非常奇特的幸福的觀念!

We have to set things off against their background: a man experienced in that way the question of the immortality of the soul, I would say further, of the soul as we are still manipulating it and I would say as we are still encumbered with it.

我們必須在它們的背景裏開展事情:以那種方式,一個人經驗到靈魂的永恆不朽的問題,容我更深入地說,關於靈魂,如同我們依舊在操控它,我不妨說,我們依舊受到它的拖累。

The notion of the soul, the figure of the soul that we have, which is not the one which has developed throughout all the generations of traditional heritage (I mean the soul that we have to deal with in the Christian tradition), the soul has as apparatus, as framework, as metallic rod in its interior, the side-product of Socrates’ delusion of immortality.
We are still living off it. And what I want simply to put before you, is the highlighting, the energy of this Socratic affirmation concerning the soul as immortal.

靈魂的觀念,我們擁有靈魂的身形。這個觀念,跟幾個世代的傳統遺產裏發展的觀念,並不相同。(我的意思是,我們在基督教傳統必須處理的靈魂,)這個靈魂擁有蘇格拉底的永恆不朽的迷惑的副產品,充當工具,充當架構,充當它內部的金屬版。我們依舊依靠它在生活。我僅要擺放在你們面前的東西,就是這個強調,這個蘇格拉底肯定的這個精力,關於靈魂作為永恆不朽。

Why? It is obviously not for the import that we habitually accord it. Because if we refer to this import, it is quite obvious that after some centuries of exercises, and even of spiritual exercises, the rate as I might say, what can be called the level of belief in the immortality of
the soul among all of those whom I have before me – I would dare say – believers or unbelievers – is very tempered in the way one says a scale is tempered.

為什麼?顯而易見的,並不是這個意義,我們習慣地同意它。因為假如我們提到這個意義,相的顯而易見的,經過幾個世紀的運用,甚至精神方面的運用,我不妨說,這個程度,我們能夠稱為對於靈魂不朽的信仰的層次,在我面前擁有的那些人當中—-我膽敢說—-信仰者與非信仰者—是相當微溫的。我們可以說,信仰的程度是微溫的。

This is not what is in question, this is not the interesting thing, to refer you to the energy, to the affirmation, to the highlighting, to the promotion of this affirmation of the immortality of the soul at a date and on certain foundations (by a man, who in his wake, stupefies in
short his contemporaries by his discourse), it is so that you may
interrogate yourselves, that you may refer yourselves to something which is very important: in order that this phenomenon could have been produced in order that a man should have been able to say…. as we say: “Thus spake…”

這並不是受到質疑的東西,這並是有趣的事情,跟你們提到這個精力,提到這個肯定,提到這個強調,提到這個靈魂永恆不朽的肯定的提升,在這樣一個日期,在某個這樣的基礎(由這麼一個人,他隨後以他的論述,總之,讓他的當代人目瞪口呆。)情況就是這樣,你們可以詢問你們自己,你們可以跟你們自己提到某件非常重要的事情:為了讓這個現象當時能夠產生,為了讓一個人當時應該這樣說、、、如我們所說:「某某如是說、、、」

(This personage has the advantage over Zarathoustra of having existed) ……… what must have been, to Socrates, his desire?

(這個人物擁有這個優勢,勝過曾經存在的查拉特拉如是說)、、、對於蘇格拉底,他的欲望是什麼呢?

Here is the crucial point that I believe I can highlight for you, and all the more easily, in specifying all the better its meaning because I described at length before you the topology which gives its meaning to this question.

在此是關鍵的時刻,我相信我能夠跟你們強調,更加容易地,當我更加清楚地指明它的意義,因為我詳細地在你們面前描述,賦予這個問題意義的拓樸學。

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