拉康:RSI 18

拉康:RSI 18
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of February 18, 1975

It is the order explored beginning with my experience, I remind you, that has led me to this infernal trinity. I am not thinking here of bringing a cord into play that is not Freudian.

我提醒你們,就是從我的精神分析經驗開始的被探索的秩序,曾經引導我到這個內部隊三位一體。我在此想到的,並不是要運作一個不是屬於佛洛伊德的秩序/

Flectere si nequeo superos Archerontes movebo–here is illustrated what I have called the truth of a certain religion. It is not completely by chance that it arrives at a divine trinity, and this, contrarily to the tradition to which it is connected. I will confide in you in saying that the desire of man is Hell, because Hell is what he lacks.

「Flectere si nequeo superos Archerontes movebo」—在此被說明的,是我所謂的某種宗教的真理。這個真理到達一種神聖的三位一體,完全不是偶然。而且這個結論與它所相關的傳統,恰恰相反。我將會跟你們坦白承認,人的欲望是地獄,因為地獄是人的欠缺。

Thenceforth, it is what he aspires to. We have the testimony for this in neurosis. The neurotic is someone who has not attained to what for him is the mirage where he would find himself satisfied, to wit, a perversion. A neurosis is a failed (ratée) perversion.

因此,地獄就是人所渴望的東西。 我們在神經症患者身上,擁有這個地獄的證詞。 神經症患者是某個還沒有獲得對他而言是幻境的人。在幻境那裡,他將會發現他自己的滿足,更確實地說,他是一位倒錯狂。神經症患者是一位失敗的倒錯狂。

It is because you are a lot more interested than you suppose in this nodalization of the imaginary, of the symbolic, and of the real that you are there, it seems to me; why else would you take this strange satisfaction in hearing these stammerings? For me, I can no more than clear the way for the consequences of what I say.

因為對於想像界,象徵界,及實在界的這個環結化,你們比你們實際的狀況更加感到興趣。我覺得,要不然你們為什麼聽到這些結結巴巴的話語,你們會有這種奇怪的滿足?對我而言,我僅能對於我言談的內容的結果,先清理途徑。

We have established that the ex-sistence of the knot was supported by this field, and that it was of the order of the real. On the other hand, what supports a body? The body only has an appearance for you by being what resists, what consists before dissolving.

我們曾經證明: 這個環結的「先前實存」是由這個領域支持。那是屬於實在界的秩序。 在另一方面, 是什麼在支持身體?對於你們而言, 身體僅是根據它所抗拒的東西,在瓦解之前組成的東西,擁有一種外表。

There is a consistency of the body, just as there is a consistency of the line, and consistency is of the order of the imaginary. As a consequence, by elimination, we are led to pose that the hole is of the order of the symbolic, which I have founded by the signifier.

身體有一種一致性,正如這條線有一種一致性。一致性是屬於想像界的秩序。 結果,由於化減,我們被引導提出: 這個空洞是屬於象徵界的秩序。根據我的生命作為能指,我創建這個象徵界的秩序。。

This is what we have to now interrogate. Is the symbolic the hole? The real, existence? The imaginary, consistency?

這就是我們現在必須要質疑的東西。 象徵界是這個空洞嗎?實在界是生命實存嗎?想像界是一致性嗎?

These categories are not easily manageable. They have, however, left some traces in history. It was by a traditional philosophical extenuation, of which Hegel gave the summit, that something sprang forth under the name of someone named Kierkegaard.

這些範疇並被很容易管理。可是,它們在歷史上曾經留下一些痕跡。憑藉傳統哲學的偏袒的辯護,黑格爾讓它們登峰造極。 在某位名叫齊克果的這個人的名義之下,某件東西開花結果。

You know that I have exposed his promotion of existence as such as convergent with an experience appearing much later in Freud. Think of his stressing of repetition as more fundamental in experience than the
resolution called thesis-antithesis-synthesis on which a Hegel threaded history.

你們知道,我曾經揭露他對於生命實存本身的提升,作為跟稍晚出現在佛洛伊德的精神分析經驗的彙集。想想看,他對於重複的強調,作為精神分析更加基本的東西, 遠超過黑格爾貫穿歷史的「正反合」的解決方式。

The standard unit (étalon) of this function is found in jouissance. The relations lived by the Kierkegaard in question are those of a knot never avowed, which is that of a faulty father (pére à la faute).

這個功用的這個標準的單位,在「歡爽」裡面被找到。 受到質疑的齊克果體驗過的那些關係, 是一個從來沒有承認的一個環結的關係。 那就是一個「有過失的父親」的關係。

It is not a matter of his own experience, but of that of he who in relation to him is found to occupy the place of the father. At the same time, this place of the father is found problematic . . .

問題並不是齊克果自己的經驗,而是跟他的關係,被發現到佔有父親這個位置的他的關係。同時,父親的這個位置被發現是問題重重。

It is only on this date that existence is promoted as such. No doubt it does not have the same accent as I give it by fragmenting it with a dash. If it is in this époque that existence emerges, emerges for me, and that I write it otherwise, and that it becomes tangible in the knot, I do not believe that this puts me in continuity with a philosophical interrogation. Rather, there is a rupture.

生命實存本身被提升,僅是根據這個時代。無可質疑的,它並沒有擁有相同的強調,如同我給予它,用一個破折斜槓,將它們切成碎片。生命實存就出現在這樣的情境裡,為了我而出現。 我用不同方式書寫它。它在這個環結變得很具體。我不相信,這會讓我處於跟一個哲學的質疑處於連續性的關係。相反地,這是一個斷裂。

The emergence of the unconscious as a knowledge, a knowledge proper to each particular person, is of a nature to change completely the notion of knowledge that has dominated since Antiquity. In fact, if knowledge depends on relations of the sequence of generations with the symbolic, with this hole of which I have just spoken, how can we not interrogate its status?

無意識的出現,作為一種知識,作為每個特別的人的本體知識。它屬於的特質會完全改變從古以來盛行的知識的觀念。事實上,假如知識依靠對於這個象徵界的好幾代的系列的關係, 以我剛剛談論的這個空洞,我們如何能夠把質疑它的狀態呢?

Is there a knowledge in the real? The supposition always made, a supposition not avowed, is that by all appearances there is, since the real walked (ça marchait), turned in a circle.

有一種在實在界的知識嗎?這個假定總是被提出,這是一個沒有被承認的知識。從各種外表看起來,既然實在界在運作, 會有一種迴圈的知識。

We, in the real, we touch on a knowledge in a wholly other form . . .

在實在界,我們觸及的一種完全不一樣的另類知識。

When one poses knowledge as immanent to the real, one puts it in the form of the s, thanks to which the real knows what it has to do. And when it is not the s, it is the All- Power, the wisdom, of God. The Newtonian world is not thinkable without God, for how would each of these masses know its distance from all of the others?

當我們提出知識,作為實在界的內在本質,我們將它以這個「道」表達。由於這個表達,實在界知道它必須做些什麼。當它不是這種「道」時,它是上帝的萬能,上帝的智慧。牛頓的世界,假如沒有上帝,是不可思議的。因為每一個這些品質如何會知道它跟其它品質的距離。

Voltaire believed in the Supreme Being: I have not received his confidences; I do not know what idea he had of it. That could hardly be far from the idea of the All-Science, the idea that it is He who makes the machine work. It’s the old story of the knowledge in the real that has sustained all the old metaphors of the potter. Aristotle was a populist–it was the artisan who gave him the model for his causes.

伏爾泰相信最崇高的存在: 我還有獲得他那樣的信心,我不知道他對於這個最崇高的存在,有什麼看法。 那個看法大約就是全知全能的觀點。這個觀念是:上帝讓這台機器運轉。實在界的知識的古老觀念,曾經維持陶壺的古老比喻。亞力斯多德是一位民粹主義者—這位藝匠給予他,作為目標的模式。

Everything superb about the s reduces itself to that, which makes it so his theory has been welcomed with open arms wherever the metaphor of the potter is primary. A divine hand made the pot. But is God always busy making it turn? Does he let it turn by itself? Refinements of knowledge.

關於這個「道」,每一樣優秀的東西都化減自己到那樣。它非常成功,所以他的理論廣受大眾的張臂歡迎,在陶壺的比喻作為基本的地方。 神祗的手製作這個陶壺。但是上帝總是忙著讓它運轉嗎? 上帝讓陶壺自行運轉嗎? 這是知識精鍊的部分。

The question is to be taken up again beginning with this: knowledge is only supposed from a relation to the symbolic, which is incarnated by a material as signifier. But what is a signifying material? We only have the tip of its nose in Aristotle, when he speaks of the . It is certain that the idea itself of matter is only thinkable as an issue of the signifying material, where this idea finds its first examples.

這個問題應該再一次被探討,從這裡開始: 知識僅是從跟象徵界的關係被假定。這個象徵界由作為能指的材料具體表現。但是一個能指化的材料是什麼? 我們在亞力斯多德著作對於它,僅是略知一二,當他談論這個「能指化材料」。物質的這個觀念的本身確實是僅是可思議,只有作為能指化材料的問題。在那裡,這個觀念找到它最初的例子。

Our own experience is that of the symptom. The symptom reflects in the real the fact that there is something that does not work (marche) where?–not in the real to be sure, but in the field of the real. This is owed to what?

我們自己的經驗是病徵的經驗。 病徵在實在界反映出這個事實: 有某件東西沒有在哪裡運作?確實是沒有在實在界運作,但是在實在界的這個領域運作。 這要歸功於什麼?

To what I support in my language by the speaking being–if it did not speak, there would not be the word being . . . There is a coherence, a consistency,
between the symptom and the unconscious. I define the symptom by the fashion in which each jouit from the unconscious insofar as the unconscious determines him.

要歸功於在我的語言,根據作為言說的生命實存,所支持的東西—生命實存若是不言說,將不會有「生命實存」這個字…有一個一貫性,一致性,在病徵與無意識之間。我根據這個方式定義這個病徵。在這個方式裡, 每一個「歡爽」來自無意識,因為無意識決定他。

The origin of the notion of the symptom is not to be sought in Hippocrates, but in Marx, in the liaison that he makes the first between capitalism and what?–the good old days, what one calls the feudal time.

病徵的觀念的起源,不應該從希坡克瑞提斯,而應該從馬克思那裡尋找。他在資本主義與什麼之間,從事最早的溝通。那是美好的過往時代,我們所謂的封建時代。

Capitalism is considered to have some quite beneficial effects, since it has the advantage of reducing to nothing the proletarian man, thanks to which he realizes the essence of the man, of being stripped of everything, and of being the Messiah of the future.

資本主義被認為擁有某些相當有利的影響,因為它擁有這個利益,將普羅階級貶低到一文不值。由於這樣,他體會到,作為人被剝除掉一切後的本質,以及成為未來救世主的本質。

This is how Marx analyzes the notion of the symptom. He gives lots of other symptoms, to be sure, but the relation of this one with a faith in man is incontestable.

這就是馬克思如何分析病徵的觀念。的確,他給予許多其它的病徵,但是對於人的一種信仰的這個病徵的關係,是無可爭議。

If we do not make of man anything whatsoever carrying an ideal future, if we determine him by the particularity in every case of his unconscious and of the fashion in which he jouit from it, the symptom remains at the same place Marx put it, but it takes another sense.

假如我們將人解釋為帶有理想未來的任何東西, 假如我們根據人的無意識,及他形成的方式的個案的特殊性,來決定人,病徵會始終保留在馬克思說明他的相同的地方。但是意義將不會一樣。

Not a social symptom, but a particular symptom. No doubt particular symptoms have types: the symptom of the obsessional is not the symptom of the hysteric.
For the obsessional, there is a very particular symptom, which I’m going to tell you about.

這並不是一個社會的病徵,而是一個特別的病徵。無可置疑的,特別的病徵擁有這些類型: 妄想症的病徵並不是歇斯底里症的病徵。對於強迫症患者,有一個特別的病徵,我將要告訴你們的。

No one has the least apprehension of death; if this were not so, you would not be so tranquil there. For the obsessional, death is a failed act. This is not so stupid, for death is only approachable by an act. Still, for it to succeed, someone must commit suicide knowing that it is an act, which only happens very rarely.

對於死亡,沒有人有絲毫的理解。假如不是這樣,你本來不會那麼安詳在那裡。 對於強迫症患者,死亡是一個失敗的演出。這並不是那麼愚蠢,因為僅有靠著演出,我們才能接近死亡。可是, 為了讓這個演出成功,某個人必須自殺,他才能知道,這是一場演出。這種情況倒是罕見。

This was however very widespread when philosophy had a certain aim–an aim other than to sustain the social edifice. There were then persons who came to group themselves in schools in a way that had some consequences.

可是,這是非常普遍的,當哲學有某個目標—除了維持社會的大架構以外的目標。因此會有一些人前來聚集在學校裡,採用的方式具有某些的結果。

But what is of the nature to make you suspect the authenticity of the engagement in these schools, is that there is no need to have attained to any wisdom whatsoever, that it suffices to be a good obsessional, to know from a sure source that death is a failed act.

但是讓你們懷疑到在這些學校,他們參與的真誠性的這些特質是,根本沒有需要去獲得任何的智慧。只要成為一位完全的強迫症患者,就足夠讓他們根據某個確定來源知道: 死亡是一個失敗的演出。

I will stop there today. I have not even been able to get to the bone of what I wanted to say to you. Someone has objected to me that by dint of saying that the woman does not exist, I have made her (la) exist. Don’t you believe any of it.

今天我就講到這裡。對於我想要跟你們說的東西,我還沒有能夠講到要點。某個人曾經跟我提出異議說,憑藉著說那個女人不存在,我已經使她(不)存在。你們相信任何這樣的話嗎?

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: