拉康:RSI 15

拉康:RSI 15
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of February 11, 1975

Let’s leave that aside, because it is a subject where, finally, like Freud himself, I lose my Latin. I will say again that this Queen Victoria is a reading that no one should miss, if it has a little touch, a little vibration of what I am saying—and I will move on to another subject.

讓我們擱置那個問題,因為這是一個主體,在那裡,最後,像佛洛伊德一樣,我拉丁文想不起來。我再說一遍: 這本「維多利亞皇后」是一本不可錯過的讀物。它跟我正在演說的內容,稍有碰觸,稍有悸動。—讓我轉換到另一個主題。

The art itself that has dealt with subjects called geometrical because an interdiction of a religious nature is placed on human representation, Arab art to call it by its name, produces freizes and braids, but not a Borromean knot, although the Borromean knot offers itself to an abundant wealth of figurations.

藝術的的本身曾經從事所謂幾何學的各項主題。因為一個宗教性質的禁制被施用在人類的再現符號上。 阿拉伯的藝術就直稱其名,產生壁畫及鑲邊,但是沒有產生波羅米恩結,雖然波羅米恩結提供它自己,給豐富數量的比喻。

There is no trace of it in any art. This is a very surprising thing, which is not easy to explain. Why hasn’t anyone felt the importance of this knot? Perhaps it is because it needed the emergence of certain consistencies, which are precisely those I give to the symbolic, to the imaginary, and to the real.

在任何藝術裡,並沒有任何它的痕跡。 這是一件非常令人驚訝的事情,這並不容易解釋。 為什麼沒有任何人感覺這個結的重要性?或許,它是因為它需要某些一致性的出現。這些一致性確實是我給予象徵界,想像界,然後進入真實界的東西。

If I give them this consistency, it is to homogenize them. To homogenize them is to bring them back to the value of what is commonly–one asks oneself in the name of what—considered the most low: it is to give them the consistency of the imaginary. And because there is something that needs to be put right.

假如我給予他們這個一致性,那是要讓它們類同。 讓它們類同,就是將它們帶回共認識最低物到價值—我們詢問自己,以它的名義。 那是要給予它們這個想像界的一致性。因為有某件東西需要被修正。

The consistency of the imaginary is strictly equivalent to that of the symbolic and that of the real. Each is in the same relation with the two others. And it is indeed there that it is a matter of making an effort that is of the order of the effect of sense.

想像界的一致性,嚴格相等於象徵界的一致性,及真實界的一致性。每一個都跟其它兩個有相同的關係。 確實就是在那裡,問題是要做屬於具有意義的影響的層次的努力。

Analytic interpretation in fact implies a see-sawing in the bearing (portée) of this effect of sense. It carries (porte) in a way that goes a lot farther than speech. Speech is an object of elaboration for the analysand, but what are some of the effects of what the analyst says?—for he does say.

事實上,精神分析的解釋暗示一種「上下互動」,在意義的這個影響到關聯。它向前推進的方式,遠超過言說。 對於分析者,言說是一種建構的客體。但是分析師所說的內容的影響是什麼呢?因他確實是在說。

It is not nothing to formulate that the transference plays a role there, but it doesn’t clarify anything. It would be a matter of explaining how the interpretation carries, and that it does not necessarily imply an enunciation.

這並非徒勞無益,說明移情在那裡扮演的角色。但是它並沒有澄清任何事情。問題是要如何解釋,詮釋進行的方式。這未必意味著表達。

Too many analysts are in the habit of not opening it —I am speaking of the mouth. I dare believe that their silence is not just out of bad habit, but out of a sufficient apprehension of the bearing of a silent dire. I dare believe it, but I’m not sure of it.

太多的分析師習慣於並不打開它—我正在談論到這個嘴巴。我敢相信,他們的沉默不僅是由於不良習慣,而是由於一種充分的理解一個「言說」的關係。我敢相信它,但是我並不確定它。

Beginning when we enter this field, there is no proof, if not in this: that an opportune silence does not always succeed. What I am trying to do here—alas, I babble a lot—is destined to change the perspective on what there is of the effect of sense.

當我們進入這個領域時,它就開始。證據難道不就是這個: 一個合宜的沉默未必總是接連而來。我在這裡嘗試正在做的事情—啊,我閒話太多—註定會改正整個觀點,對於意義的影響具有的觀點。

It is a matter of gripping this effect of sense, and with a knot that is the right one for it.

問題是要理解意義的這個影響,並且以一個適合於它的結。

I am myself very astonished at succeeding in substituting this effect of sense inasmuch as it makes a knot, and in the right way, for what I will call the effect of fascination, which is produced at a point designatable in this knot itself.

我自己非常驚奇,對於接續用來取代意義的這個影響,因為它成為一個結,而且以合適的方式, 替我所謂的著迷的影響。這個著迷的影響被產生,在這個結的本身能夠被指明的這個點。

It is on this cord that are borne most of the effects of art, and this is the only criterion that one might find to separate art from what science comes to coordinate. A man of letters, like Valéry, for example, remains in effects of fascination, although there is room for analyzing them.

在這個繩線上,大部分的影響被產生。這是唯一的標準,我們可能找到的,為了區分藝術跟科學所漸漸協調的東西。一位文學家,譬如,像梵樂希,始終保持在著迷的影響裡,雖然這些影響可以讓我們有分析的餘地。

The effect of sense required by analytic discourse is not imaginary. Nor is it symbolic. It has to be real. What I am occupying myself with this year, is a thinking of what might be the real of an effect of sense. One is habituated to the effect of sense being carried by words, and not being without reflection, without an imaginary undulation.

精神分析論述要求的意義的影響,並不是想像界。它也不是象徵界。 它必須是真實界。 今年我自己正在專注的東西,是思索意義的影響的真實界會是什麼?我們都習慣于意義被文字所扱帶的影響,而不是毫無沉思,沒有經過想像衝擊的意義的影響。

On my little schema (Figure 1), the effect of sense is at the joint of the symbolic and the imaginary. With the consistent circle of the real, it has, in principle, only a relation of exteriority. I say in principle, because this exteriority
supposes the knot flattened out. It is flattened out because we only think flat—but one can also figure it otherwise (figure 2).

在我小小的基模(圖形一),意義的影響處於象徵界與想像界的會合處。 由於真實界的一致的迴圈,它在原則上, 僅擁有一種外在的關係。 我說「原則上」,因為這個外在性, 假定這個結被擺平。 這個結被擺平,因為我們僅是擺平地思考—但是我們也能夠以不同方式描繪它。( 圖形二)。

What we pose with the Borromean knot already goes against the image of a
concatenation. The discourse in question does not make a chain. There is no reciprocity in the passage of one of these consistencies into the hole offered it by the other, which is to say that no one of these consistencies links itself to another, so as to make a chain with it.

我們用這個波羅米恩結所提出的,已經是違背連鎖性的意象。 受到質疑的論述並沒有成為一種連鎖性。在這些一致性的其中一個,通過進入由大它者提供的這個空洞,並沒有互相作用存在。 也就是說, 這些一致性並沒有任何一個跟另外一個互相連繫。為了跟它連接成為一個鎖鏈。

And this is how the relation of the symbolic, the real, and the imaginary is specified.

這就是象徵界,真實界,與想像界的關係被指明的關係。

From then on the question is posed of knowing whether the effect of sense in the real is owed to the usage of words or to their ejaculation.

從那時開始,這個問題被提出,要如何知道,在真實界的意義的影響,是歸功於文字的用法?或歸功於文字的噴射?

A lot of things have always been given to be thought, but one does not make the distinction between this usage and this ejaculation. One believed that it was words that carried.

為了要成為思想,許多東西總是被給予。但是我們並沒有區別這個用法與這個噴射。 我們相信,是文字在扱帶。

While if we give ourselves the trouble to isolate the category of the signifier, we see clearly that ejaculation retains an isolable sense.

假如我們願意費心去將這個能指的範疇孤立出來,我們會清楚地看出, 噴射保留一種可被孤立的意義。

Is this to say that we must trust in that for the dire to make a knot? Speech (La parole) very often slips, lets slip. It is asked of the analysand to furnish all that passes through his head, which does not at all imply that there is nothing there but bla-bla-bla, for there is an unconscious.

這難道是說, 我們必須信任那個意義,為了讓這個「言說」成為一個結? 「言說」往往會有漏失,說漏的部分。分析者會被要求供應所有經過他的腦海的東西, 這根本並不意味著: 除了一大堆無聊話語外,什麼都沒有。因為無意識在那裡。

Based on the fact that there is an unconscious, there are in his speech already things that make a knot; there is already the dire, if we specify the dire as being what makes a knot.

根據無意識在那裡的這個事實作為基礎,在他的言說裡,已經會有一些東西形成一個結。 已經有著這個「言說」,假如我們明確指出這個「言說」,就是形成一個結點東西。

It does not suffice to call this knot real. The imaginary is not an imaginary round. If the knot holds, it is because the imaginary is taken in its consistency proper.

光是稱這個結為真實,是不足夠的。想像界並不是一個想像的圓圈。這是因為想像界在它的一致性本土裡被接納。

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: