拉康:RSI 20

拉康:RSI 20

Seminar of March 11, 1975

There must be a tie between that and sense, whereby the1 is applied so well to the 0. It was Frege who made the discovery, and I have blathered on occasion about the difference between Sinn and Bedeutung, where the difference between 0 and 1 is seen, all in suggesting to you that this is not a difference, for there is nothing better than the empty set to suggest the 1.


There it is. How then does the symbolic, ordinarily called the bla-bla, or the word—how does it cause sense?

就在那裡。 這個象徵,普通被稱為無聊話,或是字詞—它是如何產生意義的?

That is a question I do not ask you without having the answer. Is it in the idea of the unconscious? Is it what I have said since the first Rome discourse?

每當我詢問你們那個問題,我自己就有解答。答案就在無意識的這個觀念嗎? 答案是我從第一次的羅馬論述以來,我曾經說過度話嗎?

Question mark. No, it is not in the idea of the unconscious; it is in the idea that the unconscious ex-sists, which is to say, it conditions the real, the real of this being I designate the speakingbeing.


It names things, as I have just evoked apropos of the first flirtation of the Bible with an earthly paradise. It names things for the speakingbeing, a being that, although a species of animal, differs singularly. What does this mean, “animal”? An animal is what reproduces.

它命名事情,如同我剛剛召喚,關於基督教聖經媚弄世間的天堂。 它替言說的主體命名事情。這個主體,雖然是動物的一種,卻有顯著地差異。這是什麼意思,「動物」?動物就是會繁殖的東西。

Only, how is this animal parasited by the symbolic, the bla-bla? There, it seems to me—it seems to me, but it is not very probable–I am distinguished from people of my species of animal, who since time immemorial, it must be said, know that they speak, but do not explicitly make much of it.

只是,這個動物如何受到象徵界的寄生,那些無聊話的寄生?在那裡,我覺得—我覺得,但是並不是很有可能—我是跟我同種的動物的人們顯著不同。自從遠古以來, 我們必須說,他們言說,但是沒有明確地重視它。

And what shows that they do not explicitly make much of it is not that they haven’t said it, since everything is said in the bla-bla, but that they dream of not being the only ones (les seuls). This has them by the guts. Let us write laisseuls to evoke let them alone, in this parlance.

是什麼顯示,他們並沒有明確地重視它?這並不是因為他們沒有說過它,因為在這些無聊話裡,每一件事情都被說。 但是他們夢想他們並是唯一的言說者。這讓他們鼓起勇氣。 讓我們書寫「任憑自由」,以這種語調「隨他們自己」吧。

These days, this is manifested in the frenetic need to discover the language of the dolphins and of the bees. Why not? This has always been a dream.

這些日子,這樣的事情被展示出來,在對於海豚與蜜蜂的語言,大家狂熱地需要去發現。有何不可呢? 這始終是一個夢想。

Formerly, this dream had other forms: one dreamed that there was at-least-one God who spoke, and who, above all, did not speak without it
having some effects. What you don’t hear about is the tangled feet with which the sub-speakers, the angels–the commentators?–approach him.

以前,這個夢想擁有其它的形式: 我們夢想,至少有一個言說的上帝。特別重要的是,上帝每次說話,總有某些效果。 你們沒有聽到的是那些交叉前進的腳,次要的言說者,天使,評論者,他們用腳走路去接近上帝。

Finally something more serious comes, a very small advance– not a progress, to be sure, for there is no reason for us not to continue tangling up our feet. In linguistics we have nonetheless distinguished naming,10giving a name, consecrating a thing with a speaking name.


Naming (nomination) is not communication. It is in naming that the parlotte is knotted to something of the real.


What is the relation of this naming, as the title of a book says, with necessity? Long ago, the person named Plato accounted for having to have the idea, the , s as a third. The s is a very good translation for what I call the imaginary, since it means the image.


Plato saw very well that without the s there was no chance that words would stick to a thing. That did not bring him to the point of speaking of the Boromean knot ,but only because chance had not furnished him with it. The idea was for him the consistency of the real. Nonetheless, the idea being in his time nothing without something namable, one deduced with university discourse the realism of the name.

柏拉圖看得很清楚,假如沒有這個「想像」,文字就沒有機會跟一件東西緊連在一塊。那並沒有帶他來到這一點,談論波羅米恩結。但是那僅是因為他沒有機會接觸到這個結。對於他而言,這個觀念就是實在界的一致性。 可是,由於在他的時代,假如沒有可命名的東西,這個觀念就沒有價值。我們可用大學的論述方式推論出這個命名的現實主義。

It must be said, the realism of the name is better than the nominalism of the
real–believing that one can use just any name to designate the real. Not that I am marking a preference, I am simply underscoring that nominalism is an enigma paying homage to the effect of the name on the real, to what is added to it when one names it. In the realism of the name, itself founded on the imaginary, a dire is missing–one is interdicted from admitting this homage.

我們必須說,命名的現實主義比實在界的正授權較好—相信我們能夠僅是使用任何名字來指明實在界。 倒不是因為我正在標示某種偏好。我僅是在強調,這個授權是一種謎團,對於實在界的命名的影響表示致敬,對於當我們命名它時,所被增添的東西表示致敬。 在命名的現實主義,它本身的基礎上想像界,有一種「災難」正在漏失—我們被禁止不能承認這種致敬。

This is found again in the prestige of the university. But it does not appear to us, us other analysts, to constitute an advantage. We remain in thought.

在大學的威望那裡,這種狀況再一次被發現到。但是對於我們,我們其它的精神分析師而言,這並沒有形成一種優勢。 我們始終是在思想裡面。


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: