拉康：RSI 17

真實界，象徵界，與想像界

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.

上一次，我因為感到失望，對於馬蒂、格拉斯沒有對這個講壇的過多人數過濾，我讓自己不知不覺的告訴你們我的想法。今天，如果有人想要問我問題，我會很樂意回答。

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.

有某一位名叫史賓諾莎的人嘗試編織，推論，依照古代人給予的模式。他的「幾何人生哲學」這本書，描繪適當來說，是一種並非是自動自發的數學的直覺的模式。

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.

這個點，這條線，都是由一種幻想激起，而且表面也是，表明僅是由分裂所引起，一種被指明為兩個維度的生命實存標明的分裂—但是因為這條線，適當來說，是一個沒有一致性的維度。給它增加一個謂度，並沒有多大幫助。

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?

第三個維度，從垂直被建造到表面，也是非常奇怪的。這僅是一種抽取過程，建立的基礎上鋸形狀的切割。假如沒有再一次找到在條線索，我們如何能夠讓這個抽取維繫下去？

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.

在另一方面，事情以這種方式被產生，並不是偶然。無可置疑的，在此有一個必要性，起源于有關作為肉身的生命的弱點，如他們所說。

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?

但是為什麼這個肉身的生命，會操弄，會勞苦運作，被傳遞到這一點，被傳遞到表明，而沒有停在這個結點？或許，這跟潛抑有點關係。這個被潛抑的東西，就是原始的潛抑嗎？佛羅伊德指明這個原始的潛抑，作為無意識不可接近的東西？

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).

波羅米恩結，我曾經告訴過你嗎，始終是一個結，假如我們打開其中一個圈套，並且將它轉移成為一條直線。但是我們必須將它延伸到無限（圖形一）。

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.

無論情況是什麼，你們上一次看到我，延伸波羅米恩結從三個到四個的幾何圖形。這是要讓你們經驗到這個困難，我所謂的精神的結的困難。

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.

讓我們談論一下。為了這個精神的結，必須要有一種不僅是任何種類的延伸，而是兩個維度的延伸。這種延伸能夠被塗寫在表面上。因此，這並非是不合適，將我剛剛用幾何學跟你們顯示的表面下個定義。所被想像的東西，基本上是由想像界支持的東西—這個表面就是讓我們可以在上面塗寫的東西。

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.

至於我，我發現我自己擺平我必須跟你們溝通的，關於黑板的表面的這個結。

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.

為什麼會有這個失敗的行動在此運作？—它難道不是要顯現：沒有一個精神分析，會避免某件在環結理論裡抗拒的東西。我曾經讓你們感覺到它，而且以相對試驗性的方式。

. . . 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?

我並不滿意說，這個空洞是這個圓環最重要的東西。事實上，空洞若是沒有東西環繞它，這個空洞算是什麼？

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

difficulty.

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。

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

## Leave a Reply