拉康:RSI 16

拉康:RSI 16
真实界,象征界,与想象界


Seminar of February 11, 1975


As for the symbolic, it is not to be taken in the everyday sense of the word, as everything in analytic technique indicates. It is not only bla-bla-bla. The real is that there is something common to the three in consistency. Now, this consistency resides only in the fact of being able to make a knot. Is a mental knot real? That is the question.


至于象征界,它不应该按照字词的意义去理解,按照精神分析技术所指示的一切去理解。它不但是无聊话。真实界是,对于一致性的三个有某件共同的东西。现在,这个一致性,仅是在于这个事实:能够形成一个环结。一个精神的环结会是真实的吗?那就是问题。


The mental knot has the real of the ex-sistence, as I write it, of these equivalences which I just told you that it was my aim to produce today. I have spoken prudently of correspondences.


如我所书写,精神的环结拥有相等物的这个「先前实存」的真实界。我刚刚告诉过你们,这是我今天要研讨的目标。 我已经谨慎地谈论到一致性。


I speak now of functions, and this is how I advance the word “equivalence.”
We are forced not to put the real in consistency. Consistency, to designate it by its name, I mean by its correspondence, if of the imaginary order.


我现在谈论到功用,这就是我如何提出「相等物」这个字。我们被迫不将真实界处于一致性。一致性,为了顾名思义,我意指它在想象层次的一致性。


What is demonstrated at length in human history and should inspire in us a singular prudence, is that all the consistency that has proved itself is pure imagination. I make the imaginary return here in its accent of sense.


在人类历史上详细被证明,而且应该在我们身上啟发一种独特的谨慎,就是:所有证实它自己的一致性,都是纯粹的想象。 我以强调想象界的意义,让想象界回到这里。


Consistency, for the speaking being, is what is fabricated and invented. In this occasion, it is the knot, inasmuch as one has woven it. But precisely—”woven” is just the word we’re looking for in this business—it is not because one has woven it that it ex-sists.


一致性,对于这个言说的生命而言,是被建构及杜撰出来的东西。在这个场合, 就是这个环结,我们已经编织它的环结。但是确实地说—「编织」就是我们寻找适用于这件事的字词—但并不是因为我们已经编织它,它才「先前实存」。


Even if I do not draw the figure of my Borromean knot on the board, it ex-sists, for as soon as it is drawn, anyone can clearly see that it is impossible that it does not remain what it is in the real: a knot.


即使我并没有将我的波罗米恩结的图形,画在黑板上,它是「先前实存」。因为当它一被画出,任何人都清楚地看出,它不可能不维持它在真实界的样子:一个环结。


And this is why what I advance can be useful in their practice to analysts who listen to me–if they know that what they weave of the imaginary doesn’t any less ex-sist. This existence is what responds to the real.


这就是为什么我提出的内容,对于分析师在他们的实践中,有时不无帮助。他们倾听我—假如他们知道,他们使用想象界编织的东西,道道地地就是「先前实存」。这个「先前实存」是回应真实界的东西。
What we have introduced to the notion of ex-sistence is the inscription, ! x. f (x)— there exists an x that can be carried into a function, whether this be a function in the general sense of the term, or simply an equation. In the case of an equation, it happens that there is no root.


我们曾经介绍到「先前实存」的观念,是这个铭记 ㊣x.f (x). —这里存在一个x数,能够被带进一个函数,无论它是这个术语通俗意义的函数,或仅是一个方程式。在方程式的情况,它恰巧是没有根数。


This leaves us neither hot nor cold—we make it exist; we invent, for example, the imaginary root, and that gives us some results.


这让我们觉得既不热也不冷—我们让它存在,譬如,我们杜撰这个想象界的根数,那样会给予我们一些结果。


One sees here that the term imaginary is not a synonym for pure imagination. If we can make the imaginary exist, it is because it is a matter of another real. I say that the effect of sense exists, and that in this, it is real.


我们在此看到,想象界这个术语并不是纯粹想象的一个同义字。假如我们能够让想象界先前存在,那是因为这是另外一个真实界的事情。 我说,意义的效果存在,而且在这个存在中,那就是真实。


This is not an apologetic; it is a consistency, an imaginary consistency, no doubt, but there is indeed, it seems, a wholly everyday domain of the imaginary function that endures and holds.


这并不是强词夺理。这是一个一致性,无可置疑地,一个想象的一致性。但是,似乎持续而且成立的想象界的功用,确实有一个完全是日常的领域。


I can only enter into dialogue with someone whom I have fabricated to understand me at the level where I speak. It is indeed because of this that I am astonished that you are so numerous. I cannot believe that I have fabricated each of you to understand me. In analysis, it is not a question of that.


我仅能够进入跟某个人的对话。我曾经构想他从我言说的层次了解我。 这确实是因为这个, 我感到大吃一惊,当你们的人数是如此众多。我无法相信,我曾经构想你们每个人都了解我。在精神分析,问题不是那个。


It is a question only of accounting for what ex-sists as interpretation. The astonishing thing is that in working on the three functions of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real, I have at a distance fabricated enough people who have had only to open my books—there is not an Englishman who has done more than that—to find something which allows them to respond to me.


问题仅是要说明「先前实存」的东西,作为解释。 令人惊奇的是, 当我们研究象征界,想象界,及真实界的这三个功用,我曾经遥远地构想,会有足够的人们只需要打开我的书—没有一个英国人曾经做的更进一步—那就是找出某件东西,让他们能够回应我。


How can a construction be made to ex-sist of which the consistence is indeed not imaginary? For that, there has to be a hole. And this is what leads us to the topology of the torus. I do not see why a theory of knots needs to pass through the function of filter, for example, or requires consideration of open and closed sets, when these terms open and closed take on an imaginary consistency always different from that required by the practice of knots.


确实并非想象界的一致性的这个建构如何被建立,让它「先前实存」?为了那个目标,必须要有一个空洞。 而是,这是导致我们为什么会获得这个「突出形状」的拓扑图形。我不明白为什么环结的一个理论,譬如,需要通过过滤的这个功用,或是要求开放集合与封闭集合的考虑。 当这些术语开放与封闭具有想象界的一致性,总是不同于环结实践所要求的一致性。


The hole of which I speak detaches itself from the thought that makes a circle, from the thought that flattens out, and which on this basis distinguishes inside and outside.


我谈论的这个空洞,将自己跟形成环圈的这个思想隔离,跟这个摆平的思想。根据这个基础,它区别里面跟外面。


It suffices to imagine the circle as a consistent cord to see that the inside and outside are exactly the same thing. There is only one inside, which the one that we imagine at the interior of the torus. But the introduction of the figuration of the torus consists precisely in not taking that into account.


让我们想象这个圆圈作为一条一致性的绳线,就足够明白,里面跟外面确实是相同的事情。 只有一个里面,我们想象在这个「突出形状」的内部的这个里面。 但是这个「突出形状」的图形的介绍,确实就在于不要考虑到那件事情。


I showed you last time how to make a four-looped Borromean knot. One begins with three independent torii, and knots them with a fourth (Figure 3).


上一次我跟你们显示如何形成一个四个圈套的波罗米恩环结。我们从三个独立的「突出形状」开始,然后用一个第四环结结合它们( 图形三)。


I figured for you last time how, by a figure of a fourth torus, these three figured here as independent can be knotted. Freud, I said, elides my reduction to the imaginary, symbolic, and real knotted together.


上一次我跟你们描绘,如何使用一个第四「突出形状」,这三个被描绘在这里,作为独立,它们能够被结合。 我说过,我并无法将佛洛伊德还原成为想象界,象征界,与真实界被结合在一起。


It is by his Name-of-the-Father, identical to what he calls psychic reality, and which is nothing other than the religious reality–it is by this function of the dream that Freud installs the tie between the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real. Well then, let us transform figure 2 so that the third circle does not knot anything (Figure 4). The three rounds are disjoined.


由于他的「以父亲之名」,认同与他所谓的精神现实界。那道道地地就是宗教的现实界—那是根据这个梦的功用,佛洛伊德安置想象界,象征界,与真实界之间的关系。 呵呵,让我们转换图形二,这样第三个环圈并没有结合任何东西 ( 图形四)。 这三个环圈都是分离的。


How can we draw the fourth that would knot them?


我们如何画出将会结合它们的第四环圈呢?


You will easily conceive of the figure that I am going to sketch if you think of the form of the astrolabe, materialized dozens of times (trente-six fois) in the course of the ages—it must be said that we are only capable of doing geometry with solids.


你们将很容易构想我正在跟你们描绘的这个图形,假如你们想到星盘的形状,在几世纪的过程中,好几十次被具体呈现出来—我们必须说, 我们仅能够用固体的形状来从事几何学。


Here is a circle seen from the front. The equatorial circle that I am drawing now is seen flat, and it is for this that I feign drawing it in perspective. Let us now make a third, sagittal circle.


在此有一个圆圈从前面被看见。 我现在跟你们画的这个赤道附近的圆圈,被看见是平坦的。因为这样,我构想用透视法画它。让我们现在形成一个第三种的箭头形状的圆圈。


Let us sketch the little dotted line to give the notion of how you should see it in perspective. It suffices to sketch this fourth line for the three disjoined rounds of the symbolic, imaginary, and real to be found knotted (Figure 5).


让我们描绘这个小小的点点的线,为了给予你们应该如何用透视法看它的方式。 为了让象征界,想象界,与真实界,这三个分开的环圈,被发现结合在一块,我们只需要描绘这第四条线就足够了。


For these three to be knotted must there necessarily be one more, of which the consistency would be referred to the function of the father? The Borromean knot demonstrates the contrary.


为了让这三个环结被结合,必须还有多增添一个环圈。这第四环圈的一致性将会被提到父亲的功用吗? 波罗米恩结证明是恰恰相反。


It is indeed this question that made me begin my seminar on The Names of the Father. I had not yet found the figuration I introduce here, but there is not just one fashion to illustrate how Freud makes the conjunction of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real hold for me, by the Names-of-the-Father—as is patent in his text.


确实是这个问题,让我开始我的研讨班,探讨「以父亲之名」。我还没有找到我在这里介绍的这个图形。但是不仅只有一个方法来说明,佛洛伊德如何使用「以父亲之名」,跟我形成象征界,想象界,与真实界的结合。这是他的文本里的特征。


Is this supplementary function of the Father indispensable? I show you that this could be disputed. It is not because it is indispensable in theory that it always is in fact.


以「父亲之名」的这个补充的功用一定不可免除吗? 我跟你们显示: 这是具有争议性。 倒不是因为它在理论是可以免除,它事实上就总是会存在。


If I titled this seminar the Names and not the Name of the Father, it was because I already had certain ideas about the filling-in-for (suppléance) the Name-of-the-Father. But it is not because this filling-in for is not indispensable that it does not take place.


假如我将这次的研讨班标题为「名称」,而不是「以父亲之名」,那是因为我已经拥有某些的观念,关于这个「以父亲之名」的「填塞作用」。但是这并不是因为这种「填塞作用」并不是不可免除,它就不会发生。


Perhaps it is because our imaginary, our symbolic, and our real, for each of us, are still disassociated that there has to be the Name-of-the-Father to knot them.


或许,这是因为我们的想象界,我们的象征界,及我们的真实界,对于我们每一个人,都依旧是分离的。所以必须要有「以父亲之名」,来结合它们。


But do not imagine—this would not be my style (dans mon ton)—that I prophecy that, in analysis and elsewhere, we could dispense with the Name-of-the-Father without each of the three would going its own way.


但是不要想象—这将不是我的风格—-我在预言,在精神分析及其它地方,我们能够免除这个「以父亲之名」,而不会导致这三个环结的每一个各行其事。


Besides, how would the reduction of a knot to its minimum constitute a progress?


除外,一个环结还原成为它的最小量时,它如何形成一种进展?


It would be a progress in the imaginary, which is to say, in consistency. In the current state of things, you are as inconsistent as your fathers, and it is precisely from being entirely suspended in them that you are in your present state.


这将是想象界的一种进展。换句话说,在一致性的进展。在目前的事情的状态,你们跟你们的父亲一样的不一致。你们处于你们目前的状态,确实是因为你们完全被悬置在他们身上。


雄伯译
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: