拉康:RSI 17

拉康:RSI 17

Seminar of February 18, 1975
Last time, disappointed that Mardi Gras had not rarefied the plenitude of this room, I let myself slip into telling you what I think. Today, I would like it a lot if someone would ask me a question.


A certain Spinoza endeavored to spin, to deduce, according to the model given by the Ancients. This more geometrico defined a mode of properly mathematical intuition that does not at all go by itself.


The point, the line, are fomented by a fiction; and also the surface, which is only supported by the split, a break specified as being of two dimensions–but since the line, properly speaking, is a dimension without consistency, it isn’t saying much to add a dimension to it.


And the third dimension, built from a perpendicular to the surface, is also very strange. It is nothing but an abstraction, founded on the cut of a saw. How, without finding the cord again, can we make this abstraction hold?


On the other hand, it is no doubt not by chance that things are produced in this way. No doubt there is a necessity here arising from the weakness of a manual being, homo faber, as they say.


But why has this homo faber who manipulates, who toils (tisse) and spins, passed to the point, to the surface, without stopping at the knot? Perhaps this has some relation with a repression. Is this repressed the primordial one, the Urverdrängt, which Freud designates as what is inaccessible in the unconscious?


The Borromean knot, I have told you, remains a knot if we open one of its loops and transform it into a straight line. But we must extend it to infinity (Figure 1).


This is why I say that the straight line is hardly consistent. We have glossed over this from the moment that a geometry called spherical made of this infinite straight line a new round, without grasping that this round is implied beginning with the position of the Borromean knot. We perhaps didn’t have to make this detour.

這是為什麼我說,直線幾乎是一致的。我們曾經掩飾這個,從所謂的圓形幾何學,用一個新的圓圈解釋這條無限的直線開始, 而沒有瞭解到,這個圓圈被暗示,從波羅米恩結的立場。我們或許並不需要從事這個迂迴。

Whatever the case, you saw me, last time, extend the geometry of the Borromean knot from three to four. This was to make you experience the difficulty of what I have called the mental knot.


Flattening it out, as I have attempted, is to submit it to so-called thought, to which in fact extension is stuck. Far from being distinct, as Descartes supposes, thought is nothing but extension.

擺平它,如我曾經嘗試的,是將它屈服於所謂的思想。事實上,延伸就是受限於這個思想。 思想根本不是如同笛卡爾所假定的那麼清楚。思想僅是延伸。

Let us remark that for this there has to be an extension that is not just any, but an extension of two dimensions, which can be daubed on a surface. Thus, it would not be out of place to define the surface I just showed you in geometry, that which is imagined, that which is essentially supported by the imaginary– the surface is what gives us something to daub on.


It is singular that the only way anyone has succeeded in reproducing this ideal surface is precisely the one from which everybody recoils: the braiding of a canvas. The painter daubs on a canvas, since it is all he has found for taming the gaze (dompter le regard).

奇特的是, 任何人曾經成功地複製這個理想表面的唯一方法,確實就是每個人為之望而卻步的方法。 帆布的鑲邊。畫家在帆布上塗畫, 因為它是他找到的一切,作為馴服「凝視」。

As for me, I find myself flattening out what I have to communicate to you of the knot on the surface of a blackboard.


How can we draw the fourth round so that three independent rounds of thread make a knot with it? I have figured it by a flattening out that brings in perspective, and which I give you again here in a little different form (Figure 2).

我們如何畫這第四個圓圈,這樣三個獨立的繩線的環圈,才能跟它形成一個環結呢? 我曾經用一種擺平顯現它的方式描繪它。我在此再給予你們,以一個稍微不同的形式。(圖形二)。

I then wanted to flatten the figure out in a way that reproduces it while modifying it, and there I have found that I have made an error. More exactly, I have slipped up (raté), explicitly, out of laziness, and also to give you an example of the unnaturalness of representing the knot.
Here is the correct figure (Figure 3).

我曾經要擺平這個圖形,以複製它的方式,一方面修飾它。 在那裡我發現,我曾經發現,我犯了一個錯誤。更確實地說,我曾經犯了粗心之過,確實是由於自己的懶惰,而且也是為了給予你們一個例子,對於代表這個結的人為造作。這裡才是正確的圖形 (圖形三)。

Why has the failed act (acte manqué) functioned here?–if not to show that no analysis avoids something that resists in this theory of the knot. I have made you feel it, and in a somewhat experimental fashion.


. . . What is the essential thing about the round of thread? If one responds that it is the hole in the middle, one is induced to make consistency, ex-sistence, and the hole correspond to the imaginary, to the real, and to the symbolic respectively. Is this right? (Figure 4).

關於這個繩線的環結,最重要的的事情是什麼? 假如我們回應,是中間的這個空洞, 我們被引誘將這個「先前實存」,及個別對應於想像界,實在界,與象徵界的這個空洞,使成一致性。 這個圖不是才正確嗎?( 圖形四)

Saying that the hole is the essential thing about the round does not entirely satisfy me. In fact, what is a hole if nothing surrounds it?


Consistency nonetheless indeed seems to be of the order of the imaginary, since the cord goes off toward the vanishing point of the mathematical line. Ex-sistence, in regard to the opening of the round and in regard to the hole, indeed belongs to the field supposed, if I may say so, by the rupture itself.

可是,一致性確實是在想像界的層次,因為這個條繩線離開朝向這條數學的線的消失點。「先前實存」,關於圓形的展開,及關於這個空洞, 確實屬於被斷裂本身假定的領域,我不妨這樣說。

It is within, in-there, that the fate of the knot plays itself out. If the knot has an ex-sistence, it is by belonging to this field. Whence my formulation that, in regard to this correspondence, ex-sistence is of the order of the real. The ex-sistence of the knot is real, to the point that I could have thought that the mental knot, it (ça) ex-sists,whether or not the mens figures it. It has still to explore the ex-sistence of the knot, and it does not mentalize it without

就在那裡面,這個環結的命運扮演它自己。假如這個環結擁有一個「先前實存」,那是屬於這個領域。關於這個一致性, 「先前實存」屬於真實界的層次,我的說明來自那裡。環結的「先前實存」屬於真實界的程度,我本來能夠構想,這個精神的環結,它「先前實存」,無論是否是這個「善良心靈」描繪它。它依舊必須探究環結的這個「先前實存」,並且沒有困難地擬想它。


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: