雄伯通俗化拉康 142b

雄伯通俗化拉康 142b
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉冈

The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
精神分析学四个基本概念

Partial Object and its Circuit
部份的客体及其流通
2
Freud now introduces us to the drive by one of the most traditional ways, using at every moment the resources of the language, and not hesitating to base himself on something that belongs only to certain linguistic systems., the three voices, active, passive and reflexive. But this is merely an envelope. We must see that this signifying reversion is something other, something other than what it dresses in. What is fundamental at the level of each drive is the movement outwards and back in which it is structured.

弗洛伊德现在以传统的方式，为我们介绍驱力。他不时使用语言的资源，毫不迟疑地，他将基础建立于只属于某些语言系统的东西上，如主动、被动、反身及物、三个语态。但这只是外表包装。我们必须看出，能指的翻转是某件其它不同于它所包装的东西。驱力层次最基本的东西，是它由自己的结构，向外冲撞，而又回来的动作。

雄伯注：
弗洛伊德对于驱力，用三种语态来解释。网络有较明确的解释；
Lacan maintains Freud’s distinction between drive (Trieb) and instinct (Instinkt). Drives differ from biological needs because they can never be satisfied and do not aim at an object but rather circle perpetually around it. The true source of jouissance is the repetition of the movement of this closed circuit. Lacan posits the drives as both cultural and symbolic constructs—to him, “the drive is not a given, something archaic, primordial.” He incorporates the four elements of the drives as defined by Freud (the pressure, the end, the object and the source) to his theory of the drive’s circuit: the drive originates in the erogenous zone, circles round the object, and returns to the erogenous zone. The three grammatical voices structure this circuit:
拉康主张，弗洛伊德区别驱力与本能的差异。驱力不同于生物上的需要，因为它们永远无法被满足，并且目标并不是朝向客体，代替的，驱力永远地环绕客体旋转。欢爽的真实的来源，就是这个封闭迴圈的动作的重复。拉康提出这个驱力，作为既是文化，又是符号的建构—对于拉康，「驱力并不是一个理所当然的假定，某件过时，原始的东西。」他将弗洛伊德定义的驱力的四个元素（ 压力、目标、客体及来源），合并到他的驱力迴圈的的理论：驱力起源于性的敏感地带，环绕客体旋转，然后再回到性的敏感地带。有三个文法的语态，作为这个迴圈的结构。
1. the active voice (to see) 主动语态（ 看见）
2. the reflexive voice (to see oneself) 反身语态 （看见自己）
3. the passive voice (to be seen) 被动语态 （让自己被看见）
The active and reflexive voices are autoerotic—they lack a subject. It is only when the drive completes its circuit with the passive voice that a new subject appears. Despite being the “passive” voice, the drive is essentially active: “to make oneself be seen” rather than “to be seen.” The circuit of the drive is the only way for the subject to transgress the pleasure principle.

主动及反身语态都是自动性欲—它们欠缺一个主体。仅有当驱力以被动语态完成它的迴圈，新的主体才会出现。仅管驱力成为「被动语态」，它基本上还是主动语态：「让自己被看见」，而不是「被看见」。驱力的迴圈是最好的方法，让主体逾越快乐原则。

Lacan identifies four partial drives: the oral drive (the erogenous zones are the lips, the partial object the breast), the anal drive (the anus and the feces), the scopic drive (the eyes and the gaze) and the invocatory drive (the ears and the voice). The first two relate to demand and the last two to desire. If the drives are closely related to desire, they are the partial aspects in which desire is realized—desire is one and undivided, whereas the drives are its partial manifestations
拉康辨认出四个部分驱力：口腔驱力（性感地带是嘴唇，部分客体是乳房），肛门驱力（ 肛门及粪便），视觉驱力（眼睛及凝视），以及召唤驱力（ 耳朵及声音）。前面两样跟要求有关，后两者跟欲望有关。假如这些驱力跟欲望息息相关，它们是欲望被满足时的两个部分。—欲望是一个整体，而且无法分裂；而驱力则是部分的展现。
***********

It is remarkable that Freud can designate these two poles simply by using something that is the verb. Beschauen und beschaut werden, to see and to be seen, qualen and gequalt werden, to torment and to be tormented. This is because, from the outset, Freud takes it as understood that no part of this distance
covered can be separated from its outwards-and-back movement, from its fundamental reversion, from the circular character of the path of the drive.

耐人寻味的是，佛洛伊德仅仅使用动词的主被动，如看见与被看见，折磨与被折磨，来指明这两个极端。这是因为从一开始，佛洛伊德认为他所研究发现的东西，大家都已经心知肚明，不外乎是：向外冲撞而又回来的动作，驱力的根本的翻转，以及驱力的途径具有循环的特性。

Similarly, it is remarkable that, in order to illustrate the dimension of this Verkehrung, he should choose Schaulust, the pleasure of seeing, and what he cannot designate other than by the combination of two terms in sado-masochism. When he speaks of these two drives, and especially of masochism, he is careful to observe that there are not two stages in these drives, but three. One must distinguish the return into the circuit of the drive of that which appears—but also does not appear—in a third stage. Namely, the appearance of em neues Subjekt, to be understood as follows—not in the sense that there is already one, namely the subject of the drive, but in that what is new is the appearance of a subject. This subject, which is properly the other, appears in so far as the drive has been able to show its
circular course. It is only with its appearance at the level of the other that what there is of the function of the drive may be realized.

同样耐人寻味的是，为了解释这个来回的疏离，他竟然选择窥视的快乐一词，以及不得不使用虐待狂与受虐狂两个术语来说明。当他提到这两个驱力，特别是受虐狂，他仔细地观察到，这两个驱力并不是两个阶段，而是三个阶段。我们必须区别驱力的循环回来时，若有若失的东西隐隐若现，那就是第三阶段。换言之，这个第三阶段的出现，可以被理解如下：不是驱力的主体事先存在，新奇的妙事是，主体现在才出现。这个主体，不妨说是大他者的主体，出现在驱力能够展现它循环的过程时。只有随着这个大他者的出现，驱力的功用才可能被实现。

雄伯曰：
驱力既然具有主动与被动的特性，用虐待狂与受虐狂来说明，倒也清楚。问题是怎么变成三个阶段呢？拉康强调，并不是原先就有一个主体，（如果原先就有，主体就会很清楚。）而是由于驱力的主动向外观看，到令自己被看，再回头观看自己，才蓦然发现，作为大他者的主体就在自己的欲望那里。就像大乘佛教谓人人有佛性，可是大家往往不自觉，只有经由自己向外寻求，被寻求，然后回归自己欲望本身时，才蓦然发现自己就是佛，自己就有大悲心。

It is to this that I would now like to draw your attention. You see here, on the blackboard, a circuit formed by the curve of this rising and redescending arrow that crosses, Drang as it is in its origin, the surface constituted by what I defined last time as the rim, which is regarded in the theory as the source, the Quelle, that is to say, the so-called erogenous zone in the drive. The tension is always loop-shaped and cannot be separated from its return to the erogenous zone.

我现在要提醒你们注意的就是这个。你们在此看到，在黑板上，有一条上升及重新下降的箭头的曲线，形成一道循环。这条起源于欲望的曲线，越过我上次定义为边缘所组成的表面。这个边缘在精神分析理论，被认为是来源所在。换言之，就是所谓驱力的性感地带。这个敏感的地带是个回旋的形状，无法跟它的的回转地带区隔开来。

雄伯：
这个驱力的迴旋形状图，书本上有。可是我画不出来，也无法贴上影象档，不晓的Fullmetal 能不能帮忙找一下贴上来。否则光靠文字叙述，大家看得懂否？

Here we can clear up the mystery of the zielgelzemmt, of that form that the drive may assume, in attaining its satisfaction without attaining its aim—in so far as it would be defined by a biological function, by the realization of reproductive coupling. For the partial drive does not lie there. What is it?

在此，我们能够弄清楚，驱力所形成的状态的神秘，就在于不必到达目标，就得到它的满足，因为它被定义为一种生物的功能，实现繁殖交配的功用。可是，部份的驱力并不是在那里。那部份的驱力是什么？

雄伯曰：
驱力所形成的状态，是一种神秘，而且不必到达目标，就得到它的满足，但是这是繁殖交配功用的生物的本能。跟性作为部分驱力的功用不一样。

Let us still suspend the answer, but let us concentrate on this term but, and on the two meanings it may present. In order to differentiate them, I have chosen to notate them here in a language in which they are particularly expressive, English. When you entrust someone with a mission, the aim is not what
he brings back, but the itinerary he must take. The aim is the way taken. The French word but may be translated by another word in English, goal. In archery, the goal is not the but either, it is not the bird you shoot, it is having scored a hit and thereby attained your but.

让我们暂时不回答这个问题。我们先专注于这个术语，专注于它可能呈现的两个意义。为了要区别它们，我选择用特别能使它们表现生动的语言，我用英文来描绘它们的回转。当你们信任某个人可以从事某个任务，他所带回的，不是这个任务的目标，而是他所从事的途径。「目标」就是所从事的途径。法文的「但是」在英文可以用另一个字翻译为「目的」。在拉弓射箭时，目的也不是这个「但是」。目的不是你要射中的鸟，而是你已经达成目的，因此你获得你的「但是」。

雄伯：
「当你们信任某个人可以从事某个任务，他所带回的，不是这个任务的目标，而是他所从事的途径。「目标」就是所从事的途径。」这句话有点费解，仔细想一想，我们的生活中有没有这种情景？有了，我记得以前看过一个影片，几位聪明绝顶的人才，筹划盗取机关重重的银行地下金库。盗取出来后，运上轮船，铸成轮船的锚，放入海中，躲过警探追查。逃离途中，黄金却因为暴风雨而掉落大海，等于是功亏一篑。电影的重点不在强调黄金的目标获得与否，而在于强调盗取过分的智慧算计，及行动的天衣无缝，所带给观众的紧张刺激。

If the drive may be satisfied without attaining what, from the point of view of a biological totalization of function, would be the satisfaction of its end of reproduction, it is because it is a partial drive, and its aim is simply this return into circuit. This theory is present in Freud. He tells us somewhere that
the ideal model for auto-eroticism would be a single mouth kissing itself—a brilliant, even dazzling metaphor, in this respect so typical of everything he writes, and which requires only to be completed by a question. In the drive, is not this mouth what might be called a mouth in the form of an arrow?—a
mouth sewn up, in which, in analysis, we see indicating as clearly as possible, in certain silences, the pure agency of the oral drive, closing upon its own satisfaction.

假如驱力的得到满足，不必从生物的整体的功用而言，经由它的繁殖交配的目的来得到，那是因为部份的驱力的存在，而它的目的仅仅就是回转到它的循环。这个理论，佛洛伊德已经提出。他在某个地方曾告诉我们：性冲动的自动机能，理想的模式将是一张嘴巴的自吻。这个比喻生猛鲜活，形容佛洛伊德的著作等身，再贴切不过。还有待回答的只剩一个问题。在驱力的循环，嘴巴难道不就是箭头形状的那个开口处的嘴巴？那个被缝合的嘴巴？在精神分析经验，我们很清楚看到，在某些沉默的时刻，口腔的驱力欲语还休，一经满足就封闭。

雄伯曰：
「性冲动的自动机能，理想的模式将是一张嘴巴的自吻。」这个比喻确实是生猛鲜活。拉康用来形容弗洛伊德的丰功伟业，我们亦心有戚戚焉，也真想用来聊慰自己平凡的一生。不过，拉康提醒我们：在某些沉默的时刻，口腔的驱力欲语还休，一经满足就封闭。

In any case, what makes us distinguish this satisfaction from the mere auto-eroticism of the erogenous zone is the object that we confuse all too often with that upon which the drive closes —this object, which is in fact simply the presence of a hollow, a void, which can be occupied, Freud tells us, by any object, and whose agency we know only in the form of the lost object, the petit a. The objet petit a is not the origin of the oral drive. It is not introduced as the original food, it is introduced from the fact that no food will ever satisfy the oral drive, except by circumventing the eternally lacking object.

无论如何，区别这个满足，跟性感地带的性冲动的自动机能的满足，有何不同的地方，就是我们时常将驱力的封闭，混淆成为它的客体。事实上，这个客体仅仅是一个空洞的存在，一个无法被任何客体占据的空无，佛洛伊德如此告诉我们，我们只是知道，这个客体的代理是失落的客体，小客体。这个小客体不是口腔驱力的起源。它不是被介绍作为原初的食物。它之所以被介绍，是因为食物永远满足不了口腔的驱力，食物只是权充对于这个永远失落的客体的代理。

雄伯：
拉康提醒我们：食物永远满足不了口腔的驱力，食物只是权充对于这个永远失落的客体的代理。那怎么办呢？我的一些迷恋于食物小客体的朋友，经常这样问？全市的精致餐厅，都已经被他们光顾遍了。

The question now confronting us is this—where is this circuit plugged in and, to begin with, is it spiral in form, that is to say, is the circuit of the oral drive continued by the anal drive, which would then be the following stage? Is it a case of dialectical progress being produced out of opposition? Even for
people who are used to us, it is already to carry the question rather far, in the name of some kind of mystery of development, to regard the thing as already acquired, inscribed in the organism.

我们现在面临的问题是：这个循环的衔接点在哪理？循环起初是回旋形状吗？换言之，口腔驱力的循环，会以下一阶段的肛门驱力继续吗？这是个阴阳两性所产生的辩证历程吗？你若是将这个问题，当着是你已经在自身的有机体生命获得验证，获得解答，你未免过于自信。即使你对于精神分析经验甚为熟稔，你要知道，天机奥秘，知之不祥。

雄伯曰：
四种驱力彼此之间或许会关联，但是欲望的驱力问题，不可能仅在「自身的有机体生命获得验证，获得解答」。而是要从实在界的无意识的源头去寻找。

This conception seems to be sustained by the fact that as far as the emergence of sexuality in a so-called completed form is concerned, we are certainly dealing with an organic process. But there is no reason to extend this fact to the relation between the other partial drives. There is no relation of production between one of the partial drives and the next.

这个观念似乎由下面这个事实得到左证：就性总要达到高潮才会爽快而言，我们确实是在处理有机体的生命过程。但是，我们仍然没有理由，将这个事实，扩大到其它部份驱力之间的关系。某一部份驱力产生的结果，未必跟下一个部份驱力产生的结果，有任何关系。

The passage from the oral drive to the anal drive can be produced not by a process of maturation, but by the intervention of something that does not belong to the field of the drive—by the intervention, the overthrow, of the demand of the Other. If we introduce the other drives with which the series may be formed, and the number of which is fairly short, it is quite clear that you would find it very difficult indeed to situate in relation to the drives that I have just named, in a historical succession, the Schaulust, or scopic drive, or even what I will later distinguish as the invocatory drive (la pulsion invocante),
and to establish between them the slightest relation of deduction or genesis.

从口腔驱力到肛门驱力的历程，不一定要经过长大成年的过程，而是要经过驱力以外的某件东西的介入，换言之，经过大它者所要求的介入跟翻转。即使我介绍过其它数目不多的驱力，例如，我刚刚提到的视觉驱力 或我后来又揭露的召唤驱力，因为它们跟这一系列的形成有关，显而易见，你们将会发现，要从它们衍生的过程，找到彼此关系的位置，或在彼此之间，建立演变或起源的丝毫关系，确实都不是一件很容易的事情。

雄伯曰
拉康强调：从口腔驱力到肛门驱力的历程，不一定要经过长大成年的过程，而是要经过驱力以外的某件东西的介入，换言之，经过大它者所要求的介入跟翻转。实在界的无意识是介入驱力的主要因素，也是我们念兹在兹的东西。

There is no natural metamorphosis of the oral drive into the anal drive. Whatever appearances may emerge to the contrary from the play of the symbol constituted, in other contexts, by the supposed anal object, namely, the faeces, in relation to the phallus in its negative effect, we can in no sense— experience shows us — consider that there is a continuity between the anal phase and the phallic phase, that there is a relation of natural metamorphosis.

从口腔驱力到肛门躯力的蜕变，并不是很自然的过程。就组成的符号的运作而言，出现的表象符号，在其它的情境，可能会是完全相反的表象符号。例如，口腔驱力的食物，蜕变成为所谓肛门驱力的客体，换言之，粪便，或阳具驱力的附作用，尿尿。精神分析经验告诉我们，我们完全没有办法认为，肛门的部份驱力，跟阳具的部份驱力，有任何的连续性，或彼此的蜕变有任何关系。

We must consider the drive under the heading of the kon- stante Kcraft that sustains it as a stationary tension. Let us take a look at the metaphors that Freud gives us to express these outlets. Take Schub, for example, which he immediately translates by the image that it bears in his mind, that of a spindle of
lava, a material emission from the deflagration of energy that has occurred there in various successive stages, which complete, one after another, that form of return journey. Do we not see in the Freudian metaphor the embodiment of this fundamental structure—something that emerges from a rim, which redoubles its enclosed structure, following a course that returns, and of which nothing else ensures the consistency except the object, as something that must be circumvented.

我们考虑驱力，不妨先给它一个大标题：「蓄势待发」，意思是，驱力被维持作为一种蠢蠢欲动的紧张力量。让我们先看一下，佛洛伊德为了表达这些发泄，所给予的比喻。以精液为例，他立即以脑海浮现的岩浆的爆发的意象，将它翻译成为一种能源的逬发，所产生出来的物资。这个物质以各种连续的阶段发生在那里，然后陆续地，绕一圈回转到原来的地方。从佛洛伊德的这个比喻，我们难道不是看到驱力这个基本结构的具体形象？从边缘出现的某件东西，以封闭的形状重迭增加，遵循回转的途径前进。除了这个客体作为某件必须被包围的东西，没有其它一样东西可以保证它的持续性，。

雄伯曰：
欲望驱力的一个特征是边缘，封闭，与回转：从边缘出现的某件东西，以封闭的形状重迭增加，遵循回转的途径前进。 客体并不是它的目标，而是被环绕的东西。

This articulation leads us to make of the manifestation of the drive the mode of a headless subject, for everything is articulated in it in terms of tension, and has no relation to the subject other than one of topological community. I have been able to articulate the unconscious for you as being situated in
the gaps that the distribution of the signifying investments sets up in the subject, and which figure in the algorithm in the form of a losange [], which I place at the centre of any relation of the unconscious between reality and the subject. Well! It is in so far as something in the apparatus of the body is structured in the same way, it is because of the topological unity of the gaps in play, that the drive assumes its role in the functioning of the unconscious.

佛洛伊德的表述引导我们将驱力的展现，解释为无头主体的乱闯，因为驱力的每一样东西，都是用紧张力量的术语来表述，而且这些东西，必需是主体处于拓扑图形的社会之内，才会发生关联。我之所以能够表述无意识，因为它的位置，就在意符的投注散布在主体身上形成的裂口，形状像是邮戳的四角方块。我将这个裂口，放置在无意识处于现实界与主体之间的关系中心。驱力扮演它在无意识的功用的角色，如同身体装置的某件零件的功用，因为这个裂口的运作，在社会环境里有其脉络可循。

雄伯曰
拉康将欲望驱力解释为一种向往冲撞，然后回转。他运用「无头主体」headless subject的意象。这个欲望驱力的无头主体acephalic subject 跟主体没有关系，除了作为拓扑图形的社会一份子。因为驱力仅牵涉到主体的某一面或某一边。将「欲望驱力的主体」当著是实际的一个主体，并不是很恰当。拉康说，在这个层次，我们并不需要去考虑到主体的主体化。我们正在考虑的是一个非主体化的主体。它的特征主要是欠缺，某件东西失落，头不见了。拉康在此提到这个主体为一个欠缺的工具。这个东西形成一个空洞，或是让东西出现作为欠缺。「工具」这个术语意味着主体的这一边，欲望驱力的这一边，最好被构想成为客体。主体在此失落自己，成为仅是一个小客体。

「」这个邮戳般的四角方块，是拉康用来作驱力的辩证法，无意识处于感觉的主体与被妥协的现实界之间的关系。左边尖端代表被划杠的主体，通过欲望驱力，从逆时钟方向，到底下尖端的无意识，到右边尖端的小客体，再逆时钟方向，到上方尖端的无意识，再回转到被划杠的主体。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

雄伯通俗化拉康 14a

雄伯通俗化拉康 14a

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉冈

The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis （chapter 14a）
精神分析学四个基本概念

THE PARTIAL DRIVE AND ITS CIRCUIT
部分驱力及其迴圈

雄伯曰
在齐泽克的「神经质主体」The Ticklish Subject, 读到引述拉康「精神分析学四个基本概念」对于「部分驱力及其迴圈」的描述。

「拉康对驱力所持的意见是相当清楚的，如我们先前所见：驱力涉及了一种自我反身性的转折，而不是有主动模式，到被动模式的简单翻转。比如说，在视觉驱力中，「看到全部」的欲望，并不是简单地翻转为一种希望被大他者看见的倾向，而是一种更加暧昧之道，即「使自己被看见」

When I read in the Psychoanalytic Quarterly an article like the one by Mr Edward Glover, entitled Freudian or Neo-Freudian, directed entirely against the constructions of Mr Alexander, I sense a sordid smell of stuffiness, at the sight of a construction like that of Mr Alexander being counter-attacked in the name of obsolete criteria. Good Heavens, I did not hesitate to attack it myself in the most categorical way fourteen years ago, at the 1950 Congress of Psychiatry, but, it is the construction of a man of great talent and when I see at what level this construction is discussed, I can pay myself the complement that through all the misadventures that my discourse encounters, here and certainly elsewhere, one can say that this discourse provides an obstacle to the experience of analysis being served up to you in a completely cretinous way.

当我在精神分析学季刊看到一篇文章，作者是格洛波先生，标题是「新佛洛伊德学派」。内容完全指向反对亚力山大先生的学说。我看像亚力山大先生这样的学说，遭遇到过时的批判标准的抨击，我觉察到复辟者的故步自封。上天有眼，我自己在十四年前，在1959年的精神分析会议上，我自己也是毫不犹豫地抨击。不过，我后来目睹他的学说所讨论的层次，发现其学说才华横溢，我开始表示敬意。我自己的论述，也曾经在此地及别地，遭遇过许多阻扰及反对。我们可以说，这个论述对于精神分析学的阻碍，在于窄化应用的范围。

At this point, I will resume my discourse on the drive. I was led to approach it after positing that the transference is what manifests in experience the enacting of the reality of the unconscious, in so far as that reality is sexuality. I find that I must pause here and ask myself what this very affirmation involves. If we are sure that sexuality is present in action in the transference, it is in so far as at certain moments it is manifested in the open in the form of love. That is what it is about. Does love represent the summit, the culminating point, the indisputable factor, that makes sexuality present for us in the here and now
of the transference?

此时，我将再开始我对于驱力的论述。当我提出，在精神分析经验，移情显示无意识的真实界的扮演。因为那个真实界是性，我不得不谈到驱力。我发现，我必须在此暂停一下，问问自己，这个肯定牵涉到些什么？假如我们确定性存在于移情的行动，那是因为某个时刻，爱情的表现方式是性的缠绵。就是这么一回事。问题是，在移情的当下或当时，让性出现的无可争辩的因素，爱就是代表那个最高点，或那个性的高潮吗？

雄伯曰
「移情显示无意识的真实界，在精神分析经验时的扮演。」因为那个真实界是性，分析者跟分析家之间必然会有性的欲望产生。若是那个无意识的真实界是爱，那分析者与分析家之间，必然会有爱的欲望的移情产生。问题是，性必然会以爱作为高潮吗？或是爱以性作为高潮？

Freud’s text, not, certainly, any specific text, but the central import of those writings that deal with the drives and their vicissitudes, rejects such a view in the clearest possible way. It was this text that I began to approach last time, when I was trying to make you feel in what a problematic form, bristling
with questions, the introduction of the drive presents. I hope that many of you will have been able to refer to this text in the meantime, whether you are able to read it in German, which seems to me eminently desirable, or whether, as second best, you will be able to read it, always more or less improperly translated, in the two other languages of culture, English or French—I certainly give the worst marks to the French translation, but I will not waste time pointing out the veritable
falsifications with which it swarms.

佛洛伊德的本文，确实地，不限于任何明确的本文，在有关处理驱力及其变迁的那些著作的中心思想，都斩钉截铁地排斥这样的观点。上一次，我开始要谈论到的就是这个本文。我设法让你们了解到，介绍驱力会呈现怎样的困难重重的问题。我希望，你们许多人已经读过这篇文章。最好是德文版，我认是最直截了当。其次是其它两种语言，法文版或英文版，虽然翻译得不尽人意。对于法文版的翻译，我的批评最不佳。不过，我将不浪费时间挑剔它的错误连篇。

Even on a first reading, you would have been able to see that this article falls entirely into two parts—first, the deconstruction of the drive; secondly, the examination of das Lieben, the act of love. We shall now approach this second point.

即使乍看一遍，你都能够看出，这篇文章全部分成两个部份：第一、驱力的解构；第二、爱的行为的省察。我们现在从这二点谈起。

I
Freud says quite specifically that love can in no way be regarded as the representative of what he puts in question in the terms die ganze Sexualstrebung, that, is to say, the tendency, the forms, the convergence of the striving of the sexual, in so far as it culminates in an apprehensible whole, that would sum up its essence and function.

佛洛伊德相当明确地说，爱丝毫不能被认为是代表die ganze Sexualstrebung，换言之，他质疑的性的追求的倾向、形式、跟汇聚，因为爱的高潮要从整体来理解，这才能概括爱的本质与功能。

ICommt aber auf damit nicht zulier, that’s not at all how it happens, he cries, when answering this far-reaching suggestion. We analysts have rendered it by all sorts of misleading formulae. The whole point of the article is to show us that with regard to the biological finality of sexuality, namely, reproduction, the drives, as they present themselves in the process of psychical reality, are partial drives.

「完全不是那么一回事！」他声嘶力竭地说，当他回答这个影响深远的问题。我们精神分析师诠释的公式，很多都是误导。这篇文章的整个重点是要告诉我们，关于性作为生物的最终目标，换言之，性的繁殖或性的驱力，只是部份的驱力，因为它们是出现在心理真实界的过程。

In their structure, in the tension they establish, the drives are linked to an economic factor. This economic factor depends on the conditions in which the function of the pleasure principle is exercised at a level that I will take up again, at the right time, in the term Real-Ich. Let me say at once that we can conceptualize the Real-Ich as the central nervous system in so far as it functions, not as a system of relations, but as a system intended to ensure a certain homeostasis of the internal tensions.

在性冲动的结构，在性冲动造成的紧张，驱力与经济的因素有关。这个经济的因素，依靠快乐原理的功能所运作的状况而定，我曾在适当时刻，以「真实的自我」这个术语名之。容我立即说，这个真实的自我，我们能够构想为中央的神经系统，因为它的功能不是作为器官彼此关联的系统，而是一个用来保持内部紧张得到体内平衡的系统。

雄伯曰：
「在性冲动的结构，在性冲动造成的紧张，驱力与经济的因素有关。」这个economic 当然不是一般的经济学，而是有效率地使用资源，快乐原则的运用。而且还跟「真实的自我」有关。这个「真实自我」的定义是「它的功能不是作为器官彼此关联的系统，而是一个用来保持内部紧张，以获得体内平衡的系统。」如此推论，性的冲动驱力，跟体内的平衡的系统就息息相关啦。

It is because of the reality of the homeostatic system that sexuality comes into play only in the form of partial drives. The drive is precisely that montage by which sexuality participates in the psychical life, in a way that must conform to the gap-like structure that is the structure of the unconscious.

因为在这个体内平衡的真实界，性只是以部份驱力的形式运作。驱力确实就是那个蒙太奇画面：性介入主体的精神生活，其形式必须是，跟无意识像是个缺口的结构相一致。

雄伯曰
无意识的结构的特征是「像缺口的结构」，生理上的性參与到心理的精神生命的方式，也就是參与的到爱的演出，一方面被比喻为性作为部分驱力的蒙太奇画面的演出，另一方面，又是类似无意识的结构的缺口的结构。

Let us place ourselves at the two extremes of the analytic experience. The primal repressed is a signifier, and we can always regard what is built on this as constituting the symptom qua a scaffolding of signifiers. Repressed and symptom are homogeneous, and reducible to the functions of signifiers. Although their structure is built up step by step like any edifice, it is nevertheless, in the end, inscribable in synchronic terms.

让我们将自己放置在精神分析经验的两个极端。一是、主体的最初的能指，就是已经是被压抑。我们总是将建造在这个能指之上的东西，当着是病征的内容，当着是各种能指的鹰架。被压抑跟病征是同质性结构型的，最终能还原成为能指的功用。他们的结构像是建筑物一样逐层建造，可是，到最后，这个结构还是可以当下同时性完成。

雄伯曰
这个极端指明：原初被压抑的能指，跟病征是同质性结构。这个能指的病征结构，一方面是历史性，另一方面，又是同时性。人作为能指的病征，一方面具有原初压抑到成长累积下来的病征，另一方面，又随时因为无意识的重复出现，而会有同时性的显现。

At the other extreme, there is interpretation. Interpretation concerns the factor of a special temporal structure that I have tried to define in the term metonymy. As it draws to its end, interpretation is directed towards desire, with which, in a certain sense, it is identical. Desire, in fact, is interpretation itself. In between, there is sexuality. If sexuality, in the form of the partial drives, had not manifested itself as dominating the whole economy of this interval, our experience would be reduced to a mantic, to which the neutral term psychical energy would then have been appropriate, but in which it would miss what constitutes in it the presence, the Dasein, of sexuality.

另一个极端是，我们有解释的空间。解释牵涉到特别时间结构的因素，我曾经用转喻这个术语，定义它的内容。当解释完毕后，它被导向欲望。在某个意义上，解释是跟欲望一模一样。事实上，欲望就是解释本身。性爱就存在它们两者之间。假如性爱没有以部份驱力的方式显现自己，作为支配这个内部紧张的整个经济力量，我们精神分析经验将会沦为江湖术士的算命。我们不如用精神能源这个中性的术语，还贴切些。问题是，算命东拉西扯，就是没有明言，性欲望的存在蠢蠢欲动。

雄伯曰：
对于人作为能指的病征，会有如何「解释」的问题。而从梦里的无意识，要「解释」成为意识可以理解的内容，要用「换喻」的方法。又是朝向「欲望」。性便以部分驱力的形态，存在于「欲望」与「解释」之间，但是并没有具备支配全局的能力。而是分析家，作为解释者，成为一种预言家mantic。可是并无法置身事外地中立，因为欲望的解释本身，会形成性的实存的内涵。

The legibility of sex in the interpretation of the unconscious mechanisms is always retroactive. It would merely be of the nature of interpretation if, each moment of the history, we could be certain only that the partial drives intervened effectively in time and place. And not, as one tended to believe at the beginning of the analytic experience, in an erratic form. That infantile sexuality is not a wandering block of ice snatched from the great ice-bank of adult sexuality, intervening as an attraction over an immature subject—this was proved at once in analysis and with what, later, might seem a surprising significance.

在解释无意识机械构造时，性的明显存在，总是会有逆转作用。假如在过程的每一个时刻，我们确定的只是，性作为部份客体，随时随地介入，都会有效用，那会变成，每次提到性，就可以解释无意识，而不再是，无意识是扑朔迷离的问题，如精神分析经验初创时，我们所相信的。例如，
婴儿的性，并不是从成人的性的大冰库，捉取出来的几块零散冰块，被用来解释对于不成熟的主体的吸引。这在精神分析经验，马上就可以证实的，婴儿的性有它令人惊奇的意义。

雄伯:
「性的明显存在，总是会有逆转作用」,也就是性是实在界的无意识，在身体上被原初压抑的部分客体，若从时间的逆转作用来看，婴儿的性的重要性，未必稍逊于成年的性。

In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Freud was able to posit sexuality as essentially polymorphous aberrant. The spell of a supposed infantile innocence was broken. Because it was
imposed so early, I would almost say too early, this sexuality made us pass too quickly over an examination of what it essentially represents. That is to say that, with regard to the agency of sexuality, all subjects are equal, from the child to the adult —that they deal only with that part of sexuality that passes into the networks of the constitution of the subject, into the networks of the signifier—that sexuality is realized only through the operation of the drives in so far as they are partial drives, partial
with regard to the biological finality of sexuality.

在「有关性的理论的三篇论文」，佛洛伊德假设，性具有多样形式的变态。他破除我们一般认为婴儿是纯真无邪的偏见。他很早就下这样的定论，我几乎要说，是过早下定论，结果使我们忽略去审察，婴儿的性所代表的重要意义。换句话说，关于性的代理，所有的人都一样，从小孩到成年。他们都仅是在他们形成主体的能指的网络，处理他们遭遇到部份的性。只有透过驱力的运作，性才会当着是部份驱力被实现。就生物的整体而言，性的驱力只是部份。

The integration of sexuality into the dialectic of desire passes through the bringing into play of what, in the body, deserves to be designated by the term apparatus—if you understand by this that with which the body, with regard to sexuality, may fit itself up (s’appareiller) as opposed to that with which bodies may be paired off (s’apparier).

性被合并到欲望的辩证法，是透过在我们的身体，仪器这个术语所应该指明的内容的运作。
假如你了解这个术语的意思是，性是各自的身体，像仪器般，互相跟对方的身体适应，相对于两个身体的互相交媾。

雄伯曰
性跟欲望的辩证法息息相关。因此性的交媾时，若仅是两个身体的性器官的磨擦与互动，没有牵动到欲望的辩证法，那必然是性的交媾的失败，因为爱的高潮没有随之出现。

If all is confusion in the discussion of the sexual drives it is because one does not see that the drive represents no doubt, but merely represents, and partially at that, the curve of fulfillment of sexuality in the living being. Is it surprising that its final term should be death, when the presence of sex in the living being is bound up with death?

有关性的驱力的讨论会如此混乱，是因为我们没有看出，无可置疑地，性代表，仅是代表，而且仅是部份代表，人作为生物主体，性的满足的部份曲线。若我说，性的最后术语是死亡，性在生物界跟死亡息息相关，你会大吃一惊吗？

雄伯曰：
性不仅跟爱息息相关，还跟死亡息息相关。如同日本电影「失乐园」，性爱到最高潮，竟是寻求死亡作为了结。

Today I have copied out on the blackboard a fragment of Heracitus, which I found in the monumental work in which Diels has gathered together for us the scattered remains of the pre-Socratic period. To the bow (Bids), he writes, and this emerges for us as one of his lessons in wisdom which, before all
the circuit of scientific elaboration, went straight to the target, to the bow is given the name of life and its work is death.

今天，我在黑板上抄写几句赫拉西达思的片断。这是从帝尔思为我们编辑的那本伟大巨着，前苏格拉底时代，保存下来的断简残篇，我挑选出来的片断。在科学研究昌明之前，他这句智慧的教导启人深省。他写到，「拉弓射箭，要直接到达目标，它的目标是生命，但是结果却是死亡。」

雄伯曰
赫拉西达思的片断，值的让人深思：
to the bow is given the name of life and its work is death.
「拉弓射箭，要直接到达目标，它的目标是生命，但是结果却是死亡。」
性作为部分驱力，原先是要获得爱的高潮的满足，以回归实在界的无意识，结果却是死亡。对于符号界the symbolic而言，实在界的无意识，意味着「生命」？还是「死亡」？人作为欠缺的能指，该何去何从？

What the drive integrates at the outset in its very existence is a dialectic of the bow, I would even say of archery. In this way we can situate its place in the psychical economy.

从一开始，驱力存在的整体，就是这个拉弓射箭的辩证法。我不妨称之为弓箭术的辩证法。以这种方式，我们能够将驱力的位置，定位在心理活动的位置。

雄伯曰：
如果照这个公式，性的部分驱力是要获得爱的满足，结果所获得却是爱的失落。通过性来获得爱，这是很多的男女的期盼，看来大部分人都必然落空，不是没有道理. 性绝非单纯身体或生理的活动，而且牵涉到心理及心灵的问题。譬如，手淫不仅是欠缺性伴侣时的一种方便，而是对于自我心灵的认同，远胜过对于性的对象的期盼的认同。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Daffodils

Daffodils (1804)
By William Wordsworth
水仙花
威廉、华滋尔斯
I wander´d lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
我孤独地漫游，像朵云
高高地飘过溪谷与山峦
突然地，我瞧见一大簇
一整簇的黄金般的水仙花

Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.
Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the Milky Way,
在湖边，在各种树下，
在微风中摆动与舞蹈，
像闪亮的群星般绵延开来
有如闪烁在天上银河间

They stretch’d in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.
她们展开，像永无止尽的行列，
沿着海湾的边缘。
成千上万，我一眼就瞥见
轻盈曼舞，搔头弄姿

The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
她们旁边的波浪也舞蹈，但是她们
欢欣鼓舞地远胜过灿烂的波浪，
连诗人也不禁随之欢喜起来，
跟如此兴高采烈的伴侣

I gazed — and gazed — but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:
For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
我凝视—又凝视—但是几乎没有想到
这样的展示曾经带给我多么大的财富
因为往往，我躺卧在我的长椅上，
带着空虚或忧郁的心情，
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.
她们闪亮在我的内在的灵眼里，
那是孤独时享有的幸福
那时，我的心灵充满了欢乐，
随着水仙花，与她们共舞。

雄伯译

DANDELIONS
蒲公英花

(with apologies to William Wordsworth)
by Harry Hennessey Buerkett
布凯特根据威廉、华滋尔斯改写。

I wondered, my brain in a cloud
Of green and yellow ganglions,
How came my yard to have this shroud,
This horde, of horrid dandelions;

我狐疑，我的脑处于一层的
绿色与黄色的神经瘤之间
我的庭院怎会有这样苍白，
这一大簇的可怕的蒲公英

Perhaps from taproots deep as trees’,
Or parachuted on a breeze.
Insidious are their fecund needs
(They know no God to curb their sin),

或许来自像树一般的深根，
或乘着微风慢慢飘落。
她们繁殖的需要蠢蠢欲动
（它们不知道上帝在遏止它们的罪）

Ejaculating endless seeds,
Which all sprout, much to my chagrin:
Ten-thousand saw I at a glance,
Which doubtless fueled my fearsome dance!

喷射出无尽的种子，
它们到处滋长，令我困窘不堪，
成千上万，我一眼瞥见，
它们无疑地助长我可怕的飞舞

But waves of nausea overcame
My urge to dig them, one by one;
I’d sprayed the yard, but just the same,
They’d mocked me, as they mock the sun.

但是一阵又一阵的呕吐压制了
我挖掘它们的渴望，一簇又一簇地，
我喷洒除草剂，但是情况依然
它们嘲笑我，如同它们嘲笑太阳。

I gaze—I’m dazed—my eyelids droop
To what new low must I now stoop
To rid my yard of this disease?
Could I sod yet another layer?

我凝视—我晕眩—我的眼皮垂落
我现在必须屈服到怎样的新的卑微，
才能将我的庭院的这些疾病消除？
我如何才能滋生另外的一层表皮？

Or should I get down on my knees
And offer penitential prayer
To honor fathers and the scions—
And wallow in the dandelions?

或者，我应该双膝跪下
从事深深悔罪的祈祷，
为了尊荣祖先及那些后裔
然后沉迷于这些蒲公英花?

Dandelion
蒲公英花
by Evaleen Stein
艾凡琳、史坦恩
Hey-a-day-a-day, my dear!
Dandelion time!
Come, and let us make for them
a pretty little rhyme!
嗨，一天又一天，我的亲亲！
蒲公英花时刻！
前来吧！让我们前往她们那里，
一首美丽的小诗！

See the meadows twinkling now,
beautiful and bright
As the sky when through
the blue shine the stars at night!
看见草地的闪烁着
现在是美丽而璨烂
如同天空，当经由
蓝天间，群星在夜晚闪耀

Once upon a time, folks say,
mighty kings of old
Met upon a splendid field
called “The Cloth of Gold.”

从前从前，有人说，
古老的伟大国王们
他们的会面的场地，被称为
「是由黄金所铺造」

But, we wonder, could it be
there was ever seen
Brighter gold than glitters
now in our meadows green?

但是我们狐疑，这怎么可能，
我们何曾看见过
比现在更为耀眼闪亮的黄金
在我们的绿油油的草地上？

Dandelions, dandelions,
shining through the dew,
Let the kings have Cloth of Gold,
but let us have you!

蒲公英，蒲公英，闪亮
在露水之间。
让国王们拥有黄金服，
但是我们仅要拥有你！

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Dandelion
蒲公英花
by Evaleen Stein
艾凡琳、史坦恩
Hey-a-day-a-day, my dear! Dandelion time!
Come, and let us make for them a pretty little rhyme!
嗨，一天又一天，我的亲亲！
蒲公英花时刻！
前来吧！让我们前往她们那里，
一首美丽的小诗！

See the meadows twinkling now, beautiful and bright
As the sky when through the blue shine the stars at night!
看见草地的闪烁着
现在是美丽而璨烂
如同天空，当经由
蓝天间，群星在夜晚闪耀

Once upon a time, folks say, mighty kings of old
Met upon a splendid field called “The Cloth of Gold.”

从前从前，有人说，
古老的伟大国王们
他们的会面的场地，被称为
「是由黄金所铺造」

But, we wonder, could it be there was ever seen
Brighter gold than glitters now in our meadows green?

但是我们狐疑，这怎么可能，
我们何曾看见过
比现在更为耀眼闪亮的黄金
在我们的绿油油的草地上？

Dandelions, dandelions, shining through the dew,
Let the kings have Cloth of Gold, but let us have you!

蒲公英，蒲公英，闪亮
在露水之间。
让国王们拥有黄金服，
但是我们仅要拥有你！

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

雄伯手記1001126

雄伯手記1001126

前些日子，一位素有「山癡」之名的銀行總經理，在跟原住民攀爬深山時，跌落深谷而亡。今天又有一位國立大學的博士教授，退休後在自己樓房墜樓而死。這些訊息在告訴我們什麼？人生岌岌可危的，絕非就是求診于諮商室的神經症及憂鬱症分析者，而是外表上光鮮亮麗的每個眾生，包括你和我。

下載到傑克、倫敦」Jack London 的「馬丁、伊頓」Martin Eden的英文版。其中有一段，我以前閱讀時耳熟能想詳。描述馬丁貧窮落魄時，女友Lizzi因家庭反對離他而去。等到他獲得國家文學獎後，功成名就時，Lizzi 回來相會的那段對白：

“ I could die for you! I could die for you!’ Lizzie’s words were ringing in his ears.

“ Why didn’t you dare it before? “ he asked harshly. “ When I hadn’t a job? When I was starving? When I was just as I am now, as a man, as artist, the same Martin Eden?” That’s the question I’ve been propounding to myself for many a day—not concerning you merely, but concerning everybody. You see I have not changed, though my sudden apparent appreciation in value compels me constantly to reassure myself on that point! I’ve got the same flesh on my bones, the same ten fingers and toes. I am the same. I have not developed any new strength nor virtue. My brain is the same brain. I haven’t made even one new generalization on literature or philosophy. I am personally of the same value that I was when nobody wanted me. And what is puzzling me is why they want me now. Surely they don’t want me for myself, for myself is the same old self they did not want. Then they must want me for something else, for something that is outside of me, for something that is not I! Shall I tell you what that something is? It is for the recognition I have received. That recognition is not I. It resides in the minds of others. Then again for the money I have earned and am earning. But that money is not I. It resides in banks and in the pockets of Tom, Dick and Harry. And is it for that, for the recognition and the money, that you now want me?

「我能夠為你而死！我能夠為你而死！」麗莎的話語迴響在他的耳際。
「你以前為什麼不敢那樣說？」他厲聲地問道。「我當時沒有工作的時候？當我一文莫名的時候？當我僅是我目前這個樣子的時候？作為一個人，作為一位藝術家，相同的馬丁伊頓？那個每一天我一直跟自己詢問的問題—不僅是關於你，而且關於每一個人。你明白我並沒有改變，雖然我的文學價值突然獲得重視，讓我在那一點上不斷地確認我自己。在我的骨頭，我還是相同的肉身，相同的十個手指頭及腳趾頭。我還是同樣的人。我並沒有發展新的力量或新的價值。我的腦還是相同的腦。我對於文學或哲學甚至沒有什麼新的觀念。我個人還是跟以前沒有人要我的時候，是同樣的價值。目前讓我感到困惑的是，為什麼他們現在要我了？的確，他們要的並不是我自己本身，因為我自己本身跟他們不要我時的自我沒有什麼兩樣。那麼他們一定是要我的別的東西，屬於我生命外在的東西，屬於我生命本質以外的東西。要我告訴你，那個東西是什麼嗎？那就是因為獲得的承認。 那個承認並不是我。那是駐紮在別人心裡的東西。而且是因為我所獲得的金錢，以及我正在獲得的金錢。但是那個金錢並不是我，金錢駐紮在銀行裡，在湯姆，笛克，及哈瑞的口袋裡。你現在要我的，不就是那樣？我獲得的承認及金錢？」

你們瞧！這時的馬丁、伊頓並非一無所有。他屢次獲得國家文學獎後，所有的舊作全部暢銷，可說是名利雙收，連以前拋棄他的情人也主動回來。在這樣的情況下，他竟然選擇孤獨地游向冰冷的海底，餵鯊魚去了！

分析家呀！分析家呀！你們要怎樣跟他做分析?

Encore 24

Encore 24
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

VI
God and Woman’s jouissance
上帝及女人的歡爽

3
Be careful with this “more” – beware of taking it too far too quickly. I cannot designate it any better or otherwise because I have to rough it out (trancher)?3 and I have to go quickly.

請小心這個「尚欠缺」–小心不要一下子就過分引申。我無法用更恰當或別的方式表達，因為我必須當下立斷。我必須快刀斬亂麻。

There is a jouissance, since I am confining myself here to jouissance,34 a jouissance of the body that is, if I may express myself thus – why not makea book title out of it? it’ll be the next book in the Galilee collection – “beyond the phallus.” That would be cute, huh? And it would give another consistency to the women’s liberation movement. A jouissance beyond the phallus. . . .

尚欠缺一種歡爽。因為我目前限制自己先談歡爽，身體的歡爽—假如我容許我自己這樣表達—為什麼不用它來當書名？那會上伽利立文集的下一本書名：「超越陽具」。那個書名很酷，不是嗎？ 那會讓女性解放運動，具有另一種一致性。超越陽具的歡爽…

You may have noticed – I am naturally speaking here to the few semblances of men I see here and there, fortunately I don’t know them for the most part, and that way I don’t presume anything about the others – that now and then, there is something that, for a brief moment, shakes (secoue) women up or rescues them (secourt).

你們可能已經注意到—我在此言說，當然是針對我在此及在那兒看到少數類似的人。幸運地，他們大部分，我並不認識。因此我對於其餘的人，並沒有預先有成見。你們可能已經注意到，有時，會有某件東西，短暫時間顛覆女人，或拯救她們。

When you look up the etymology of those two words in the Bloch et Von Wartburg that is so delectable to me, and that I am sure you don’t even all have on your bookshelves, you’ll see the relationship between them.35 Such things don’t happen by chance, all the same.

當你們在我覺得很有趣的「範瓦布格」詞典，查閱這兩個字的字源，我確定並不是你們所有人在書架上都有這本書。你們將會看出它們之間的關係。可是，這些事情並不是偶然發生。

There is a jouissance that is hers (à elle), that belongs to that “she” (elle) that doesn’t exist and doesn’t signify anything.36 There is a jouissance that is hers about which she herself perhaps knows nothing if not that she experiences it – that much she knows. She knows it, of course, when it comes (arrive). It doesn’t happen (arrive) to all of them.

有一種屬於女人的歡爽，屬於並不存在，也並不意味著任何東西的「女人」的歡爽。有一種屬於女人的歡爽，關於這個女人的歡爽，女人自己或許根本就不知道這種歡爽，假如她沒有經驗到它—她知道得很清楚。當然，她知道這種歡爽，當歡爽來臨時。並不是所有的女人都會有這種歡爽。

I don’t want to end up talking about putative frigidity, but one must isolate that aspect of relationships between men and women that is related to current trends (la mode). It’s very important. Of course in Freud’s discourse, alas, as in courtly love, all of that is covered over by minute considerations that have led to all kinds of problems {ravages). Minute considerations concerning clitoral jouissance and the jouissance that people call by whatever name they can find, the other one, precisely, the one that
I am trying to get you to approach by a logical pathway, because, as things currently stand, there is no other.

我並不想要結語時跟你們談論想像中的人際的冷漠。但是我們必須將跟目前時代潮流相關的男女之間的關係，突顯出來。這是非常重要的。當然，在佛洛德的論述，呵呵，如同在騎士之愛，所有這一切都被一些微細的問題所掩蓋。它們導致各種的問題。關於陰蒂及人們各以其名稱呼的歡爽的微細的考量，有另外一種歡爽，確實地說，就是我正在嘗試以邏輯的途徑引導你們接近的歡爽，因為如同事情的目前狀態，並沒有其它的歡爽。

The plausibility of what I am claiming here – namely, that woman knows nothing of this jouissance – is underscored by the fact that in all the time people have been begging them, begging them on their hands and knees – I spoke last time of women psychoanalysts – to try to tell us, not a word!

我在這裡宣稱的東西的合理性—換句話說，女人對於這個歡爽一無所知—根據這個事實作為強調：有始以來，人們一直在乞求她們，在地上跪爬著乞求她們。上一次我談論到女人的精神分析嘗試要告訴我們的，但不是用文字！

We’ve never been able to get anything out of them. So we call this jouissance by whatever name we can come up with, “vaginal,” and speak of the posterior pole of the uterine orifice and other such “cunt-torsions” {conneries) – 70 that’s the word for it! If she simply experienced it and knew nothing about it, that would allow us to cast myriad doubts on this notorious {fameuse) frigidity.

我們永遠沒有辦法從她們那裡獲得任何東西。所以，我們稱呼這個歡爽，以我們所能夠想到的名稱，「陰道歡爽」，然後談論到尿道口的後面部分，以及其它諸如「陰戶扭轉」–那就是表達歡爽的字詞。假如她僅是經驗到它，卻什麼都不知道。那會讓我們給予無數的懷疑，對於這種惡名昭彰的冷漠無感。

That too is a theme, a literary theme. And it’s worth dwelling on for a moment. I’ve been doing nothing but that since I was twenty, exploring the philosophers on the subject of love. Naturally, I didn’t immediately focus on the question of love, but that did dawn on me at one point, with the
abbot Rousselot, actually, whom I mentioned earlier, and the whole quarrel about physical love and ecstatic love, as they are called.37

那也是一個主題，一個文學的主題。它值得我們詳述一下子。我什麼事情都沒做，但是我自從二十歲以來，就一直探索哲學家對於愛的討論。當然，我並沒有立刻集中在愛的問題。但是在某個時刻，實際上是由於我早先提到的羅色洛特修道院長的啟發，我恍然大悟。如同它們所被稱呼的，關於生理上的愛與精神狂喜的愛。

I understand why Gilson didn’t find that opposition to be a very good one.38 He thought that Rousselot had made a discovery that wasn’t really one, because that opposition was part of the problem, and love is just as ecstatic in Aristotle’s work as in Saint Bernard’s,39 assuming one knows how to read the chapters regarding çikia, friendship.

我瞭解到為什麼紀爾森並不認為那種對立是很好的對立。他認為羅色洛特所做的發現並不真的是愛。因為那種對立，是問題的一部分。在亞裡斯多德的著作，如同在聖伯納德著作，愛僅是精神狂喜，假如我們知道如何閱讀有關「友誼」的章節。

Some of you must surely know what literary debauchery occurred around that: Denis de Rougemont – have a look at Love in the Western World,40 it gets red hot! – and then another no stupider than anyone else, named Nygren, a Protestant, [the author of] Agape and Eros.41 Christianity naturally ended up inventing a God such that he is the one who gets off (jouii)\

你們有一些人確實知道環繞那個主題，文學的放縱情色是如何發生。勞紀曼觀看「西方世界之愛」，那本書變得很熱門！還有另外一位，也是同樣的癡迷，名字叫做乃格寧，一位基督教徒，是「驚奇與愛神」的作者。基督教結束時，當然都會發明一位元上帝，上帝是發生性的關係的人。

There is, nevertheless, a little connection when you read certain serious authors, like women, as if by chance. I will give you a reference here to an author, a reference I owe to a very nice person who had read the author’s work and brought it to me. I read it immediately. I’d better write her name on the board, otherwise you won’t buy it. It is Hadewijch d’Anvers, a Beguine – she is what we so quaintly refer to as a mystic.42

可是，有一個小小的關聯，當你們閱讀某些嚴肅的作者，譬如女性的作者，好奇偶然地。我在此將給予你們一種指稱，給一位作者，一個指稱，我歸功於某個好人，他曾經閱讀這位作者的著作然後帶來給我。我立刻閱讀它。我最好寫下她的名字在黑板上，否則你們不會去買它。她的名字是Hadewijch d’Anvers 一位貝居安修會修女—我們很奇特地提到她，作為一位神秘主義者。

I don’t use the word “mystic” as Peguy did.43 Mysticism isn’t everything that isn’t politics. It is something serious, about which several people inform us – most often women, or bright people like Saint John of the Cross, because one is not obliged, when one is male, to situate oneself on
the side of VxΦx.

不像皮蓋，我沒有使用「神秘主義者」這個字詞。神秘主義並非跟政治完全沒有關係。那是某件嚴肅的事情。關於神秘主義，有幾個人告訴我們，大部分是女人，或是一些聰明的人，像十字架會的聖約翰，因為我們的立場是男性，我們不得不定位我們自己在「陽具就是全部」的這一邊。

One can also situate oneself on the side of the not-whole. There are men who are just as good as women. It happens. And who also feel just fine about it. Despite – I won’t say their phallus – despite what encumbers them that goes by that name, they get the idea or sense that there must be a jouissance that is beyond. Those are the ones we call mystics.

我們也能夠定位我們自己在這個「並非全部」的那一邊。有些男人跟女人同樣的美好。偶爾是這樣。他們對於這個「並非全部」也感覺很自在。儘管—我將不說是他們的陽具—儘管使用那個名字會他們受到阻礙，他們有這個觀念，或感覺到，一定會有一個超越的歡爽存在。那些就是我們所謂的神秘主義者。

I have already spoken about other people who were not too bad in terms of mysticism, but who were situated instead on the side of the phallic function, Angelus Silesius, for example.44 Confusing his contemplative eye with the eye with which God looks at him, must, if kept up, partake of perverse
jouissance.

我已經談論過其它的人，用神秘主義的術語來說，他們並不太差勁。但是他們被定位，並不是在陽具的功用這一邊。譬如，希列西斯。他混淆他的沉思的眼神跟上帝觀看他的眼神，持之以恆，會讓他分享到倒錯的歡爽。

For the Hadewijch in question, it’s like for Saint Teresa – you need but go to Rome and see the statue by Bernini45 to immediately understand that she’s coming. There’s no doubt about it. What is she getting off on? It is clear that the essential testimony of the mystics consists in saying that they experience it, but know nothing about it.

對於受到質疑的海得維奇，就像聖德瑞莎—你們僅是需要到羅馬，去看看波敏尼雕塑的「聖德瑞莎的狂喜」雕像，你們就會立刻瞭解，她的歡爽高潮快要來了。這是無可置疑的事情。她正在跟誰從事性的關係？顯而易見地，神秘主義的重要證詞在於說：他們經驗到這種歡爽，但是卻不知道它。

These mystical jaculations are neither idle chatter nor empty verbiage; they provide, all in all, some of the best reading one can find – at the bottom of the page, drop a footnote, “Add to that list Jacques Lacan’s Écrits” because it’s of the same order. Thanks to which, naturally, you are all going to be convinced that I believe in God. I believe in the jouissance of woman insofar as it is extra (en plus), as long as you put a screen in front of this “extra” until I have been able to properly explain it.

這些神秘主義的射精，既非無聊的閒談，也非空洞的冗詞。終而言之，他們供應某種我們能夠找到的最好的讀物—在書頁的末尾，你們留下一個註腳：「將雅克拉康的精神分析論文集，列入那個名單」，因為彼此屬於相同的層次。當然，由於這個相同層次，你們將會相信，我信仰上帝。我相信女人的歡爽，因為上帝是額外存在的，只有你們在這個「額外存在」之前，你們擺放一層簾幕，直到我能夠適當地解釋它。

What was attempted at the end of the last century, in Freud’s time, what all sorts of decent souls around Charcot and others were trying to do, was to reduce mysticism to questions of cum (affaires de foutre). If you look closely, that’s not it at all. Doesn’t this jouissance one experiences and yet knows nothing about put us on the path of ex-sistence? And why not interpret one face of the Other, the God face, as based on feminine jouissance?

在佛洛德的時代，上個世紀的結束所做的企圖，環繞著查可特及其他人，各種名門正派嘗試所做的，就是要將神秘主義還原成為「射精」的問題。假如你仔細觀看，那根本就不是那麼一回事。我們經驗到，可是又一無所知的的這個歡爽，難道不是讓我們從事探討「外部存在」的途徑嗎？
為什麼我們不將大他者的一個面貌，上帝的面貌，解釋為以女性的歡爽作為基礎呢？

As all of that is produced thanks to the being of signifierness, and as that being has no other locus than the locus of the Other (Autre) that I designate with capital A, one sees the “cross-sightedness”46 that results. And as that is also where the father function is inscribed, insofar as castration is related
to the father function, we see that that doesn’t make two Gods (deux Dieu), but that it doesn’t make just one either.

由於人作為「能指」的生命實存，所被產生的一切，那個生命實存並沒有其它軌跡，除了就是大他者的軌跡。我用大寫字母「A」來表示，我們看到結果形成這個「散光視覺」。因為這就是父親的功用被銘記的地方，我們看到，那並沒有形成兩個上帝，而是它也沒有形成僅僅是一個上帝。

In other words, it’s no accident that Kierkegaard discovered existence in a seducer’s little love affair. It’s by castrating himself, by giving up love, that he thinks he will accede to it.47 But perhaps, after all – why not? – Regine too existed. This desire for a good at one remove (au second degré), a good
that is not caused by a little a – perhaps it was through Regine that he attained that dimension.
February 20, 1973

換句話說，齊克果在一位誘惑者的小小戀愛裡，發現上帝的存在，並非是偶然的。他閹割他自己，他放棄戀愛，他認為他將屈服於上帝的這個存在。但是，或許，畢竟—有何不可呢？他的戀人雷吉娜也存在呀。追求善待欲望就差那麼一步，追求並非由於一個小客體引起的善—或許，通過雷吉娜，他才獲得那個維度。

雄伯注：
「性的關係不存在」There is no sexual relationship 及「女人不存在」women don’t exist，「女人並非全部」women are not-whole or not-all 是拉康最令人困惑的幾個陳述，在這一篇裡，獲得比較請楚的一個解釋。

拉康所謂的「性關係不存在」，指的並非是一般男女的「性關係」，而是借用修道的神秘主義者的證詞：跟上帝的性靈互相的溝通，會獲得無限的永恆「狂喜」ecstasy。拉康把這種「狂喜」，用男女作愛的射精的歡爽來做換喻，變成人作為「陽具」的能指signierness，是跟作為「所指」signifiedness的上帝這個「女人」在做愛。所謂「女性的歡爽」，也就是上帝的歡爽，大他者the Other 的歡爽。

至於說「性關係不存在」，「女人不存在」，「女人並非全部」，是因為晚期拉康認為並非是上帝創造這個世界，而是人作為陽具的「能指」的想像界the imaginary 創造上帝，而「所指」也不再是被比喻為女人的「上帝」，或「大他者」，他們僅是實在界the Real的無意識the unconscious的空洞the role或空界 the void 的一部分，故非「全部」not-whole or not-all。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Encore 23

Encore 23
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

VI
God and Woman’s jouissance
上帝及女人的歡爽

3
Let us approach things first from the pole at which every x is a function of $x, that is, from the pole where man is situated.

讓我們首先從這個極端接近事情。在這個極端，每一個未知數X的功用，換句話說，從人被定位的極端。

One ultimately situates oneself there by choice – women are free to situate themselves there if it gives them pleasure to do so. Everyone knows there are phallic women, and that the phallic function doesn’t stop men from being homosexuals.

我們最後選擇性地定位我們自己—女人自由地定位她們自己在那裡，假如她們很樂意這樣做的話。眾所周知，有些女人具有陽具，而且陽具的功用並沒有阻止男人不成為同性戀。

It is, nevertheless, the phallic function that helps them situate themselves as men and approach woman. I shall discuss man quickly, because what I have to talk about today is woman and because I assume that I have already sufficiently hammered it home to you22 that you still recall the following – there is no chance for a man to have jouissance of a woman’s body, otherwise stated, for him to make love, without castration (à moins de castration),23 in other words, without something that says no to
the phallic function.

可是，陽具的功用幫助他們定位他們自己，作為男人，然後接近女人。我將很快討論男人，因為我今天必須談論的事情是女人，因為我假定，我已經充分地釘牢住你們。你們將會回憶以下—男人沒有機會獲得女人身體的歡爽，用另一種方式來陳述，假如沒有閹割，男人沒有機會作愛。換句話說，假如沒有東西拒絕陽具的功用。

That is the result of analytic experience. That doesn’t stop him from desiring woman in every way, even when that condition does not obtain. He not only desires her, but does all kinds of things to her that bear an astonishing resemblance to love.

這就是精神分析經驗的結果。那並沒有阻止他不以各種方式欲望女人，甚至當那個條件並不具備。他不但欲望她，而且對她做各種令人驚奇的類似愛的事情。

As opposed to what Freud maintains, it is man – 1 mean he who happens to be male without knowing what to do with it, all the while being a speaking being – who approaches woman, or who can believe that he approaches her, because on that score there is no dearth of convictions, the con-victions
I spoke about last time.24 But what he approaches is the cause of his desire 68 (that I have designated as object a. That is the act of love.25

跟佛洛德所主張的相反，男人接近女人—我的意思是，男人恰好是男性，卻不知道如何處理這個男性，男人始終是言說的主體—或者說，男人相信是他在接近女人，因為那個原因，他們並不欠缺這個信仰，我上一次談論的這個「堅定信仰」。但是他所接近的是他的欲望的原因（ 我曾經指明是小客體。那就是愛的行動。

To make love (faire l’amour), as the very expression indicates, is poetry.26 But there is a world between poetry and the act. The act of love is the male’s polymorphous perversion, in the case of speaking beings. There is nothing more certain, coherent, and rigorous as far as Freudian discourse is concerned.
I still have a half hour to try to thrust you, if I dare express myself thus,27 into how things stand at woman’s pole.

作愛是詩，如同這個表達所指示。但是處於詩與行動之間，有一個世界。就言說的主體的情況而言，愛的行動就是男性的多樣態度倒錯。就佛洛德的論述而言，愛的行動是最確定，最一貫，最嚴峻的事情。我依舊還有半個小時可以跟你傾吐，假如我像這樣表達我自己，成為在女人的那個極端事情的樣子。

One of the following two things is true: either what I write has no meaning at all – which is, by the way, the conclusion of the short book [discussed earlier], and that is why I beg you to have a look at it – or when I write VxOx, a never-before-seen function in which the negation is placed on the quantifier, which should be read “notwhole,” it means that when any speaking being whatsoever situates itself under the banner “women,” it is on the basis of the following – that it grounds itself as being not-whole in situating itself in the phallic function.28

這兩件事情當中，有一件是真實的：要就是，我所書寫的內容沒有絲毫意義—順便說一下，這就是早先談論的那本小冊子的結論，那就是為什麼我請求你們觀看一下—要不然就是當我書寫VxoZ 時，這是一個從未曾被見過的功用，在裡面，否定詞被放置在量詞方面。它應該被閱讀為「並非全部」。它意味著，當有任何言說的主體定位它自己在「女人」這個旗幟之下，它是根據以下的基礎—它奠基它自己，作為「並非全部」，當它定位它自己，在陽具的功用。

That is what defines what? Woman precisely, except that Woman can only be written with a bar through it.29 There’s no such thing as Woman, Woman because, in her essence – I’ve already risked using that term, so why should I think twice about using it again? – she is not-whole.

那就是什麼在定義什麼？確實就是女人，除了：女人能夠被書寫成身上被劃一斜杠。女人這樣的東西並不存在。因為在她的本質，女人—我已經冒險採用那個術語，為什麼再次使用時，我會躊躇再三呢？—女人「並非全部」。

I see my students far less attached to reading my work than the slightest underling when he is motivated by the desire to obtain a Master’s; not one of them has avoided producing an utter and complete muddle regarding the lack of a signifier, the signifier of the lack of a signifier, and other gibberish regarding the phallus, whereas with “woman” (la) I am designating for you
the signifier that is, nevertheless, common and even indispensable.

我看到我的學生，閱讀我的著作，專注的程度，頂多是由於渴望獲得碩士學位而引發的動機。關於一個能指點欠缺，能指的欠缺的能指，以及關於陽具的各種胡言亂語，他們沒有一個曾經避免弄得迷迷糊糊。使用「女人」這個術語，我正在跟你們指明這個能指，可是這是普遍而且甚至是無可免除的能指。

The proof is that, earlier, I already spoke of man and “woman” (la femme). That “woman” (la) is a signifier. With it I symbolize the signifier whose place it is indispensable to mark – that place cannot be left empty. “Woman” (la) is a signifier, the crucial property (propre) of which is that it is the only one
that cannot signify anything, and this is simply because it grounds woman’s status in the fact that she is not-whole. That means we can’t talk about Woman (La femme).

證據是，早先我已經談論到男人與「女人」。「女人」是一個能指。使用這個能指，我象徵著這個能指，我們無法免除要標示它的位置—那個位置無法被留置為空白。「女人」是個能指，它的這個重要屬性是，它是唯一無法指明任何東西的能指。這就是因為它將女人的地位，以這個事實作為基礎：她「並非全部」。那意味著，我們無法談論有關「女人」。

A woman can but be excluded30 by the nature of things, which is the nature of words, and it must be said that if there is something that women themselves complain about enough for the time being, that’s it. It’s just that they don’t know what they’re saying – that’s the whole difference between them and me.

The fact remains that if she is excluded by the nature of things, it is precisely in the following respect: being not-whole, she has a supplementary jouissance compared to what the phallic function designates by way of jouissance.

女人僅能夠被事情的本質排除，那就是文字的本質。我們必須說，假如有某件東西，女人目前自己反復地抱怨，那就是文字的本質。那僅是因為他們並不知道她們正在說些什麼—那就是她們與我之間的全部差異。事實始終是，假如她被事情的本質排除，確實是以底下這一方面: 跟陽具的功用，憑藉歡爽所指明的，由於並非全部，女人擁有一個補充性質的歡爽。

You will notice that I said “supplementary.” If I had said “complementary” what a mess we’d be in! We would fall back into the whole.

你將會注意到，我說是「補充性質」。假如我曾經說過「互補性質」，那我們將會陷於混亂當中。我將會掉回這個「全部」。

Women content themselves (s’en tiennent)?1 any woman contents herself (aucune s’en tient), being not-whole, with the jouissance in question and, well, generally speaking, we would be wrong not to see that, contrary to what people say, it is nevertheless they who possess men.

女人滿足于她們自己的歡爽。任何女人都可滿足於自己的歡爽，因為她「並非全部」，對於這個受到質疑的歡爽。呵呵，一般說起來，假如我們沒有看出這一點，我們將會是錯誤。跟人們所說的相反，是女人擁有男人。

Commoners – I know some of them, they’re not necessarily here, but I know quite a few – commoners call their wife “la bourgeoise.” That’s what that means. He is the one who obeys orders (à la botte), not her. Since Rabelais, we have known that the phallus, her man, as she says, is not indifferent to her. But, and this is the whole point, she has different ways of approaching that phallus and of keeping it for herself. It’s not because she is not-whlly in the phallic function that she is not there at all. She is notnot at all there.32 She is there in full (à plein). But there is something more (en plus).

並非是貴族的平民—我認識有一些人，他們未必是在這裡，但是我認識他們一些人—他們稱呼他們的妻子為「布爾喬亞階級」。那就是那個意思。他才是服從命令的人，而不是她。自從拉斐爾以來，我們就知道，這個陽具，她的男人，如她所說的，並沒有對她漠不關心。但是，這是整個重點，她擁有不同的方式接近那個陽具及保有那個陽具給自己。這並不全部都是在她「根本就不在那裡」的陽具的功用。她並不是「完全不在那裡」。她是充分地在那裡。但是還欠缺某樣東西。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Encore 22

Encore 22
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

VI
God and Woman’s jouissance
上帝及女人的歡爽

2b

It seems clear to me that the Other – put forward at the time of “The Instance of the Letter” as the locus of speech – was a way, I can’t say of laicizing, but of exorcising the good old God. After all, there are even people10 who complimented me for having been able to posit in one of my last seminars that God doesn’t exist. Obviously, they hear (entendent)11 – they hear, but alas, they understand, and what they understand is a bit precipitate.

對於我而言，這是顯而易見，大他者—在「訊息在無意識的代理」裡被提出的，作為言談的軌跡—那是一種將善良的古老上帝的驅魔，我無法說是開除他的會籍。畢竟，甚至有些人恭維我，因為在我上一次的研討班，曾經提出：上帝並不存在。顯而易見地，他們聽到—他們聽到，但是，唉，他們瞭解，他們所瞭解的是有點倉促。

So today, I am instead going to show you in what sense the good old God exists. The way in which he exists will not necessarily please everyone, especially not the theologians, who are, as I have been saying for a long time, far more capable than I am of doing without his existence. I, unfortunately,
am not entirely in the same position, because I deal with the Other.

所以今天，我並不是要跟你們顯示，這個善良的古老上帝存在有什麼意義。他存在的方式未必讓每個人皆大歡喜，特別是並不討好神學家。如同我長久以來一直在說的，他們比起我，更加能夠免除上帝的存在。不幸地，我跟他們並不處於相同的立場，因為我處理的是大他者。

This Other – assuming there is but one all alone – must have some relationship with what appears of the other sex. On that score, I didn’t stop myself, the year I mentioned last time, that of The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, from referring to courtly love. What is courtly love?

大他者—假定僅僅只有一位大他者—跟出現在異性身上的東西，會有某些的關係。因為那個原因，我並沒有停止我自己不去提到騎士之愛，上一次我提到的那一年，「精神分析的倫理學」的那一年，什麼是騎士之愛？

It is a highly refined way of making up for (suppléer à) the absence of the sexual relationship, by feigning that we are the ones who erect an obstacle thereto. It is truly the most amazing thing that has even been attempted. But how can one denounce the fake?

這是一個非常高雅的方式來彌補性關係的欠缺，由於假裝我們額外豎立阻礙的那些人。這確實是曾經被嘗試過的最令人驚奇的事情。但是我們如何能夠抨擊這種虛假?

Rather than dwelling on the paradox of why courtly love appeared during the feudal era, materialists should see therein a magnificent occasion to show, on the contrary, how it is rooted in the discourse of loyalty (féalité), of fidelity to the person. In the final analysis, the “person” always has to do with the master’s discourse. Courtly love is, for man – in relation to whom the lady is entirely, and in the most servile sense of the word, a subject – the only way to elegantly pull off the absence of the sexual relationship.

非但沒有詳述這個矛盾：為什麼騎士之愛出現在封建時期，相反地，唯物論者在那裡應該看到一個重要的場合，顯示它如何根源于忠誠度的論述，忠誠於某個人的論述。追根究底，這個「人」總是必須跟主人論述有關係。騎士之愛，對於男人而言—相關于他們，女人完全是服從於他們，就服從這個字眼的順服意義而言。唯一的方法用來高雅地驅除性關係的欠缺。

It is along this pathway that I shall deal – later though, for today I must break new ground – with the notion of the obstacle, with what in Aristotle’s work – whatever else may be said, I prefer Aristotle to Jaufre Rudel12 – is precisely called the obstacle, evaraat^13

我將沿著這條途徑處理—雖然稍後，因為今天我必須打破我的原則—使用阻礙的觀念，使用亞裡斯多德著作裡確實所謂的阻礙。不管別人怎麼說，我偏愛亞裡斯多德，勝過魯德爾。

My readers – whose book you must, I repeat, all go out and buy later – even found that. They investigate the instance so thoroughly, so carefully – as I said, I have never seen a single one of my students do such work, alas, no one will ever take seriously what I write, except of course those about
whom I said earlier that they hate me in the guise of desupposing my knowledge – that they even discover the evaraai^ the Aristotelian logical obstacle that I had reserved for the end. It is true that they do not see where it fits in.

我的讀者甚至會發現到—我重複一下，你們必須出去購買他的書。他們如此徹底，如此仔細地研究這個例子—如同我說的，我從來沒有看見過我的一位學生，從事這樣的研究。唉！沒有願意認真看待我所書寫的東西，當然，除了那些早先我說過，他們偽裝並非否認我的知識來痛恨我。他們甚至發現亞裡斯多德的邏輯的阻礙，那是我保留作為這個目標。他們確實沒有看出它在哪裡適合。

But they are so used to working, especially when something motivates them – the desire, for example, to obtain their Master’s,14 a truly serendipitous term here – that they even mention that in the footnote on pages 28 and 29.15

但是他們如此習慣於研究，特別是當某件東西引起他們的動機—譬如，想要獲得他們的碩士學位，在此這確實是一個意外的東西—他們甚至提到，第28頁及29頁的注釋。

Consult Aristotle and you will know everything when I at last come to this business of the evaracriç. You can read, one after the other, the passage in the Rhetoric and the two sections of the Topics16 that will allow you to truly know what I mean when I try to integrate my four formulas, 3x<I
and the rest, into Aristotle’s work.

假如你們參照亞裡斯多德，你們將會知道，當我最後談論「阻礙」這件事的一切。你們能夠閱讀，一段又一段地，在「修飾學」的這個段落及「信件集」的這兩個部分。它們容許你們真實地知道我是什麼意思，當我嘗試合併我的四個愛情公式ΣχΦχ，及其餘的東西，到亞裡斯多德的著作裡。

Lastly, to finish up on this point, why should materialists, as they are called, be indignant about the fact that I situate – and why shouldn’t I – God as the third party in this business of human love? Even materialists sometimes know a bit about the ménage à trois, don’t they?

最後，為了完成這一點的論述，唯物論者，顧名思義，對於這個事實非常憤怒：我將上帝定位在人類之愛的第三者，（有何不可呢？）唯物論者有時候甚至也稍微知道這個「擁有一妻也妾的齊人之福」，他們知道嗎？

So let us try to push ahead. Let us try to push ahead regarding what results from the following, that nothing indicates that I don’t know what

所以，讓我們嘗試勉為其難前進。讓我們嘗試勉為其難前進，不管隨後的結果會是什麼。沒有一樣東西指示著，我不知道要追求什麼。

I’m saying when I speak to you. What creates a problem right from the beginning of this book, which continues right up until the end, is that it assumes – and with that one can do anything – that I have an ontology, or, what amounts to the same thing, a system.

當我跟你們談論時，我正在言說。從這本書的一開始，造成難題的東西，一直繼續到最後，那就是，它假定我們擁有一個本體論，（本體論能夠發揮任何東西），或者相當等於是說，我們擁有一個系統。

In the circular diagram17 in which is supposedly laid out what I put forward regarding the instance of the letter, the authors are at least honest enough to use dotted lines – for good reason, since they hardly weigh anything – to situate all of my statements enveloping the names of the principal philosophers into whose general ontology I am claimed to insert my supposed system. But it cannot be ambiguous that I oppose to the concept of being – as it is sustained in the philosophical tradition, that is, as rooted in
the very thinking that is supposed to be its correlate – the notion that we are duped (joués)18 by jouissance.

在這個迴圈的圖形裡，在裡面，我所提出關於「信作為無意識的訊息代理」，所被認為被規劃出來的東西，作者們至少還有自知之明，使用一些點點的虛線—理由很充分，因為他們幾乎沒有重視任何東西—他們將我所有的陳述，涵蓋主要哲學家的名字，然後宣稱，我將我假定的系統，套進那些主要哲學家的一般本體論裡。因為我假定的系統在哲學傳統裡獲得支撐，換句話說，我的系統根源於這個被認為是相關的思想：我們被歡爽欺騙的觀念。

Thought is jouissance. What analytic discourse contributes is the following, and it is already hinted at in the philosophy of being: there is jouissance of being.

思想是歡爽。精神分析論述的貢獻如下，它在生命實存的哲學裡已經被暗示：那就是，生命實存的歡爽。

I spoke to you of the Nicomachean Ethics because the trace is there. What Aristode wanted to know, and that paved the way for everything that followed in his wake, is what the jouissance of being is. Saint Thomas had no problem after that coming up with the physical theory of love – as it was
called by the abbot Rousselot, whom I mentioned last time19 – namely, that the first being we have a sense of is clearly our being, and everything that is for the good of our being must, by dint of this very fact, be the Supreme Being’s jouissance, that is, God’s. To put it plainly, by loving God, we love
ourselves, and by first loving ourselves – “well-ordered charity,” as it is put20 – we pay the appropriate homage to God.

我跟你們談論「尼可馬周倫理學」，因為痕跡在那裡。亞裡斯多德所想要知道的東西，以及替在他之後隨之而來的一切舖路的東西，就是生命實存的歡爽是什麼。聖湯瑪士在那之後，並沒有遭遇困難就構想出愛的生理法則—如同修道院長羅沙拉特所稱呼它。我上一次提到這個人，換句話說，我們能夠理解的首要事情是，很清楚就是我們的生命實存。換句話說，上帝的生命實存。明白地說，就是憑藉對於上帝之愛，我們愛我們自己。憑藉首先愛我們自己，我們對上帝表示恰如其分的崇敬，如通俗所說，上帝泛愛他的子民。

Being – if people want me to use this term at all costs – the being that I oppose to that – and to which this little volume is forced to attest right from the very first pages of its reading, which simply involve reading – is the being of signifierness. And I fail to see in what sense I am stooping to the ideals of materialism – I say “to the ideals” because they’re beyond its scope – when I identify the reason for the being of signifierness in jouissance, jouissance of the body.

生命實存—假如人們想要我不計任何代價使用這個術語—我反對這樣的生命實存，反對這本小冊子從它的閱讀的前面幾頁，就不得不證明的生命實存。那種作為能指的生命實存，那僅是他們的閱讀。我實在看不出，我屈從於唯物論的這些理想，有什麼意義。我說我是「屈從那些理想」，因為他們逾越它們的範圍—當我辯認出這個理由：作為能指在歡爽的的生命實存，在身體的歡爽裡。

But, you see, a body hasn’t seemed materialistic enough since Democritus. One has to find atoms and the whole nine yards, not to mention sight, smell, and everything that follows there from. All that goes together.

但是，你們要明白，自從德謨克拉圖士以來，身體從來就不是完全物質化的東西。我們必須找出原子跟整個九個場域，更不用跟視覺，味覺，以及一切從那裡隨之而來的東西。這一切都聚集在一起。

It’s no accident that Aristotle occasionally quotes Democritus, even if he feigns disgust when he does so, for he relies on the latter’s work. In fact, the atom is simply an element of flying signifierness, quite simply a CTTOLX^IOV.21

亞裡斯多德引述德謨克拉圖士，並非是偶然，即使當他這樣做時，他假裝感到厭惡。因為他依靠後者的著作。事實上，原子僅是飛翔的能指點一種元素，僅僅就是一種「訊息的元素」。

Except that it is extremely difficult to make it work out right when one retains only what makes the element an element, namely, the fact that it is unique, whereas one should introduce the other a little bit, namely, difference.

除外，當我們保留僅是讓元素成為元素的東西，我們極端困難讓它運作。換句話說，它是獨特的這個事實。在另一方面，我們應該稍微介紹一下大他者，換句話說，差異性。

Now, if there’s no such thing as a sexual relationship, we must see in what respect the jouissance of the body can serve a purpose here.

現在，假如沒有性的關係這樣的東西，我們必須看出，身體的歡爽在此能夠從哪一方面充當目標。

雄伯注：

有些學者出版的研究拉康的書，引用諸如本體論的生命實存哲學，牽強比附拉康的精神分析論述，讓他火冒三丈。因為生命實存哲學的本體，是以人作為「能指」signifierness，當著主體，而拉康的精神分析論述，則是以人作為「所指」signifiedness，作為主體。前者強調身體的意識the conscious 的生命實存，而後者則是強調實在界的無意識the unconscious的生命實存。

除外，拉康結語時提到，「我們應該稍微介紹一下大他者，換句話說，差異性」One should introduce the other a little bit，namely，difference。讓我想到他在「精神分析的四個基本觀念」結語時所說的「精神分析家的欲望並不是一個純粹的欲望。它是一種想要獲得絕對差異的欲望，當面臨原初的能指時，主體第一次將它自己屈服于原初能指的立場時，分析家介入的欲望。僅有在那裡，無限的愛的意義才會出現，因為僅有處於法則的限制之外，無限的愛才能存活。」The analyst’s desire is not a pure desire. It is a desire to obtain absolute difference, a desire which intervenes when, confronted with the primary signifier, the subject is, for the first time, in a position to subject himself to it. There only may the signification of a limitless love emerge, because it is outside the limits of the law, where alone1 it may live.

再回想到拉康的「主體的顛覆及欲望的辯證法」Subversion of the subject and dialectic of desire。他使用一個大「問號」的拓撲圖形顯示Che uoi 「大他者對我的欲望是什麼?」這三段引文對照來看，我們終於可以明白：大他者對我的欲望就是絕對的差異absolute difference， 也就是介入主體首次屈服原初能指的無限的愛endless love。

每個主體都要捫心自問：為什麼我給不出無限的愛？我的原初的無限的愛，何時消失？為何消失？若是按照拉康的欲望辯證法，沒有無限的愛，就沒有實在界無意識「所指」的生命實存，我們過的一生，難道不就是無意義的空虛的一生？

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

雄伯手记1001125

雄伯手记1001125
•
2011-11-24 15:48:48 Gorgon
通俗地講，就是！

大她的隱秘的享樂，關於性的完美高潮，或者關於施虐受虐的痛苦和快樂，

都是在我的理解力和我的想像能力之外的！！！

我因此，總是被大她謎一樣的欲望，創傷性地闖入！

能指鏈就此被打斷！破裂！空白！

無法維持一個內在中心！ 我被分裂！在語言缺失之處！

抓狂！被擊中了！最最虛弱的地方！半響回不過神來！
雄伯
希臘神話裡有個普遍原則：某一位天神施與的魔咒，另外一位天神無法化解，僅能是用另外一的恩惠給予補償。

你的大她者的隱秘的享樂，只能回到大她者的欲望是什麼，What does the Other desire？及大她者到底想要你的什麼來探討。

「關於性的完美高潮，或者關於施虐受虐的痛苦和快樂」，這些其實都是初步的小狀況。萬一大她者想要的是你的「命」，或者換一個比較通俗的說法，她想要是你生死相許的愛，你給得出來嗎？

基督教舊約記載上帝這位元大他者，要求阿伯拉罕Abraham，獻祭他的獨生子。阿伯拉罕起初像你一樣，覺得上帝大他者的愛，「都是在我的理解力和我的想像能力之外的！」但是幾經掙扎之後，信仰戰勝過理性的考慮，還是將獨生子獻祭出來。回到家中，卻發現獨生子活生生地在客廳玩耍。

這段軼事被存在主義哲學家齊克果kierkegarrd，在「恐懼與顫慄」Fear and Trembling,，以及哲學家德里達Derrida在「寫作與延異」Writing and Difference，發揮成為「瘋狂守護思想，如同理性守護思想」Madness watches over thought as reason does.意思是：理性思想的直線發展，最終會讓人成為恐怖的怪物，如同白蛇傳裡的法海和尚，法國小說家雨果，在「悲慘世界」Les Miserables所描述的那位警探，因此非理性，也就是瘋狂，必須時時守護著思想，讓白素貞的愛的激情能夠「訴諸行動」passage to an act。

至於「能指鏈就此被打斷！破裂！空白！ 無法維持一個內在中心！ 我被分裂！在語言缺失之處！ 」說得通俗些，就是你快要瘋狂了！這是一個可喜，而不是可怕的跡象。請你想像看！太過於理性的愛情，跟現實條件的精打細算的感情交易，有什麼兩樣？恭喜你！你終於具備有真誠戀愛的基本條件：瘋狂！

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Encore 21

Encore 21
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

VI
God and Woman’s jouissance
上帝及女人的歡爽

2
On that note, I will continue with what I have to say to you today, namely, to further articulate the consequence of the fact that no relationship gets constituted between the sexes in the case of speaking beings, for it is on that basis alone that what makes up for that relationship can be enunciated.

根據剛才那種氣氛，我繼續來跟你們談論我今天必須跟你們說的東西，更進一步表達這個事實的結果。在言說的主體的情況，兩性之間沒有關係能夠被形成。因為僅有根據那個基礎，彌補那個關係的東西，才能夠被表達。

For a long time I have scanded what constitutes the first step in this undertaking with a certain “There’s such a thing as One” (Y a dy UUn).

長久以來，我曾經審視過是什麼形成這第一個步驟，在從事建構某種的「具有一件作為「一」這樣的東西。」

This “There’s such a thing as One” is not simple – that’s the word for it. In psychoanalysis, or more precisely in Freud’s discourse, it is announced by the fact that Eros is defined as the fusion that makes one from two, as what is supposed to gradually tend in the direction of making but one from an
immense multitude.

這個「具有一件作為「一」這樣的東西。」並不簡單—那就是表達它的字。在精神分析，或說得更確實些，在佛洛德的論述裡，它被這個事實宣佈：性愛被定義為將二變成一的融合，作為應該是慢慢地從一個無限的多數，朝向僅是成為「一」的傾向。

But, since it is clear that even all of you – as numerous as you are here, assuredly forming a multitude – not only do not make one, but have no chance of pulling that off – which is only too amply demonstrated every day, if only by communing in my speech – Freud obviously has to bring in another factor that poses an obstacle to this universal Eros in the guise of Thanatos, the reduction to dust.

但是顯而易見地，甚至是你們所有的人—如同你們在此的人數一樣地眾多，確定形成一種多數—不但沒有形成「一」，而且沒有機會成功成為「一」—這是每天都明顯可以充分驗證的事情，即使僅是用我自己的話語溝通。佛洛德很明顯必須帶進另外一個因素，對於這個普遍性的「性愛」，形成一種阻礙，那就是偽裝成「死亡之神」的樣子，性愛被還原成灰塵。

That is obviously a metaphor that Freud is able to use thanks to the fortunate discovery of the two units of the germ (germen), the ovum and the spermatozoon, about which one could roughly say that it is on the basis of their fusion that is engendered what? A new being. Except that that doesn’t happen without meiosis, a thoroughly obvious subtraction, at least for one of the two, just before the very moment at which the conjunction occurs, a subtraction of certain elements that are not superfluous in the
final operation.

那顯而易見是佛洛德能夠使用的一種比喻，由於他幸運地發現有兩個種子的來源，卵子與精子。 關於它們，我們能夠粗略地說，就是根據它們融合的基礎，什麼東西被產生？一個新的生命。除了假如沒有減數分裂細胞，一種徹底明顯的減扣，至少就在那個時刻之前，二化減為一，那種產生無法發生。就在那種連接發生的時刻，在最後的運算裡並非是多餘的某種元素的一種扣減。

But biological metaphors clearly cannot reassure us here – they reassure us here still less than elsewhere. If the unconscious is truly what I say it is, being structured like a language, it is at the level of language (langue) that we must investigate this One.

但是生物學的比喻清楚地無法讓我們在此感到安心—比起其它地方，我們在這裡更加不能安心。假如無意識確實就是我所說的那個樣子，它的結構就像一個語言，那是處於語言的層次，我們必須研究這個「一」。

The course of the centuries has provided this One with an infinite resonance. Need I mention here the Neo-Platonists? Perhaps I will have occasion to mention their adventure very quickly later, since what I need to do today is very precisely designate from whence the thing not only may but must be taken up on the basis of our discourse and of the revamping our experience brings about in the realm of Eros.

幾世紀以來，這個「一」曾經被供應一個無限定迴響。我需要在此提醒這個新柏拉圖主義嗎?或許等一下我將有機會很快提到他們的冒險，因為我今天需要做的事，確實指明這件事情可能但是必須從哪裡從事，根據我們論述的基礎，以及修正我們的經驗的基礎，在性愛的領域所導致的東西。

We must begin with the fact that this “There’s such a thing as One” is to be understood in the sense that there’s One all alone (il y a de VUn tout 64 seul). We can grasp, thereby, the crux (nerf) of what we must clearly call by the name by which the thing resounds throughout the centuries, namely,
love.

我們必須從這個事實開始： 這個「有「一」這個東西存在」應該被瞭解，根據這個意義：「僅有這個一的本身」。因此，我們能夠瞭解，我們清楚所稱呼的東西的關鍵，這個幾世紀以來迴響的東西，換言之，就是愛。

In analysis, we deal with nothing but that, and analysis doesn’t operate by any other pathway. It is a singular pathway in that it alone allowed us to isolate what I, I who am talking to you, felt I needed to base transference on, insofar as it is not distinguished from love, that is, on the formulation
“the subject supposed to know.”

在精神分析，我們處理僅僅就是那個。精神分析使用任何其它途徑運作。這是一個很奇特的途徑，因僅有愛容許我們孤立正在跟你們談話的我所感覺，需要作為移情的東西，它跟愛並無法被區別，換句話說，根據這個闡述：「應該知道的主體」。

I cannot but mention the new resonance this term “knowledge” can take on for you. I love the person I assume to have knowledge. Earlier you saw me stall, back off, and hesitate to come down on one side or the other, on the side of love or on the side of what we call hatred, when I insistently invited you to read a book whose climax is expressly designed to discredit me (déconsidérer) – which is certainly not something that can be backed away from by someone who speaks, ultimately, but on the basis of “desideration” 7 and aims at nothing else.

我忍不住地要提到，「知識」這個術語能夠跟你們形成的這個新的迴響。我愛我認為具有知識的這個人。早先，你們看到我拖延，後退，並且猶豫要要進入到某一邊，在愛的這邊，或是我們所謂的恨的那邊，當我堅持地要求你閱讀一本書，它的高潮生動地被表達，為了詆毀我。這確實並不是某件能夠從某個言說的人被撤回的東西。最後，但是根據「渴望得到」的基礎，目標朝著別的。

The fact is that this climax appears sustainable to the authors precisely where there is a “desupposition” of my knowledge. If I said that they hate me it is because they “desuppose” that I have knowledge.

事實上，這個高潮似乎能夠被維持，對於作者們，確實就是在我的知識有「被除掉假設」的部分。假如我是，他們痛恨我，那是因為他們「除掉假設」；我擁有知識。

And why not? Why not, if it turns out that that must be the condition for what I call reading? After all, what can I presume Aristotle knew? Perhaps the less I assume he has knowledge, the better I read him.
That is the condition of a strict putting to the test of reading, a condition I don’t weasel out of. What is offered to us to be read by that aspect of language that exists, namely, what is woven as an effect of its erosion8 – that is how I define what is written thereof – cannot be ignored. Thus, it would be disdainful not to at least recall to mind what has been said about love throughout the ages by a thought that has called itself- improperly, I must say – philosophical.

有何不可呢？有何不可呢？ 假如結果是，那必須是我所謂閱讀的情況？畢竟，我能夠假定亞裡斯多德知道什麼？或許我越少假定他擁有知識，我越能夠閱讀他。那就是閱讀嚴格受到考驗的情況，我沒有推諉的情況。所被提供給與我們閱讀，由於存在的語言的這一面，換句話說，所被編織，作為它的腐蝕的影響—那就是我如何定義所被書寫的東西—它無法被忽略。因此，這將是表示藐視，假如至少都不回憶一下，幾世紀以來，關於愛，曾經被思想說過的東西。這個思想曾經稱呼它自己為哲學—這是不適當的稱呼，我必須說。

I am not going to provide a general review of the question here. It seems to me that, given the type of faces I see all around the room, you must have heard that, in philosophy, the love of God (l’amour de Dieu)9 has occupied a certain place. We have here a sweeping fact that analytic discourse cannot
but take into account, if only tangentially.

在此，我將不會對這個問題，提供一般性的評論。我覺得，假如考慮到我在房屋四周看到的這種臉孔，你們一定曾經聽見，在哲學裡，上帝的愛曾經佔據某一個位置。我們在此看到一個廣泛的事實，精神分析論述忍不住地考慮到這個事實，即使僅是僅為礎及地。

I will recall to mind here something that was said after I was, as the authors express themselves in this booklet, “excluded” from Sainte-Anne [Hospital]. In fact, I was not excluded; I withdrew. That’s a horse of a different color, especially given the importance of the term “excluded” in my topology – but it’s of no import, since that’s not what we’re here to talk about. Well-intentioned people – who are far worse than ill-intentioned ones – were surprised when they heard that I situated a certain Other
between man and woman that certainly seemed like the good old God of time immemorial. It was only an echo, but they made themselves the unpaid conduits thereof.

我在此提醒一下某件被說過的事情，如同作者們在這本小冊子所表白帶，在我從聖安娜醫院被「驅趕」從來之後。那是一種完全不同的情況，特別是考慮「驅除」這個術語在我的拓撲圖形的重要性—但是這無關緊要。因為那並不是我在此要談論的東西。存心良善的人們—他們比存心不良的人們1更加糟糕。當他們聽到我將某個大他者定位在男人與女之間，那個大他者看起來就像是亙古以來善良的古老上帝，他們大吃一驚。那僅是一種迴響，但是他們因此讓他們自己免費到處替我傳播。

They were, by God, it must be admitted, from the pure philosophical tradition, and among those who claim to be materialists – that is why I say “pure,” for there is nothing more philosophical than materialism. Materialism believes that it is obliged, God only knows why – a serendipitous expression here – to be on its guard against this God who, as I said, dominated the whole debate regarding love in philosophy. Those people, to whose warm reception I owed a renewed audience, thus manifested a certain uneasiness.

我的天啊！我們必須承認，他們是來自純粹的哲學的傳統，在那些宣稱是唯物論的人當中—那就是為什麼我說是「純粹」，因為沒有一樣東西像唯物論那麼哲學化。唯物論相信，它必須小心翼翼防止這個上帝—這是一個稀有的詞語—如無所說的，上帝支配在哲學裡，整個關於愛的辯論。那些人因此顯示某種的坐立不安，雖然我將我的聽眾重新增加，歸功於他們熱烈地替我傳播。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Encore 20

Encore 20
继续再来
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

VI
God and Woman’s jouissance
上帝及女人的欢爽
READING-LOVING, 阅读爱
HATING. 恨
MATERIALISTS. 唯物论者
JOUISSANCE OF BEING. 存在的欢爽
THE MALE, POLYMORPHOUS PERVERT. 男性多形态的倒错
MYSTICS. 神秘主义者

For a long time I have wanted to speak to you while walking around a bit among you. Thus, I was hoping, I must admit, that the so-called academic vacation would have diminished the number of you attending here.

长久时间来，我曾经想要跟你们谈论，当我在你们当中行走。因此，我希望，我必须承认，所谓的学术的假期本来会减少你们一些人出席这里。

Since I have been refused this satisfaction, I will return to what I began with the last time – what I called “another satisfaction,” the satisfaction of speech.

因为我曾经被拒绝这个满足，我将回到我上一次开始的部分—我称为「另外一个满足」，言说的满足。

Another satisfaction is the one that answers to1 the jouissance that was barely (juste) required, just enough (juste) for it to happen between what I will abbreviate by calling them man and woman. In other words, the satisfaction that answers to phallic jouissance.

另外一个满足是满足这个勉强被要求的欢爽的回答，就是足够让它发生在我将缩写为男人与女人。换句话说，回答阳具欢爽的满足。

Note here the modification that is introduced by the word “barely” (juste). This “barely” is a “just barely” (tout juste), a “just barely successful” that is the flip-side of failure – it just barely succeeds.

在此请注意被「勉强」这个单字所介绍的这个修正。这个「勉强」是一个「仅为勉强」，「一个仅为勉强的成功」，那是失败的正相反—它仅是勉强成功。

This already justifies what Aristotle contributes with the notion of justice as the bare mean (le
juste milieu).2 Perhaps some of you recognized, when I introduced the whole (tout) – found in the expression “just barely” (tout juste) – that I circumvented the word “prosdiorism,”3 which designates the whole that is not lacking in any language.

这已可证明亚里斯多德以「正义」的观念，贡献作为罕见的「中庸之道」。或许你们有些人会承认，当我跟你们介绍这个「全部」—在这个「仅为勉强」的词语里—我绕过「所有」这个词语，它指明在任何语言里都不缺乏的这个「全部」。

Well, the fact that it is the prosdiorism, the whole, that allows us on this occasion to slide from Aristotle’s justice to the just barely (justesse), to the just barely successful (réussite de justesse), is what
legitimates my having brought in Aristotle’s work here. Indeed – right? – it cannot be understood immediately like that.

呵呵，它就是「所有」的这个事实，容许我们在这个场合，让亚里斯多德的「正义」滑落成为这「仅是勉强」，到仅是勉强成功。这让我以亚里斯多德的著作引证的东西能够自圆其说。的确，不是这样吗? 它无法立刻像这样就被了解。

If Aristotle cannot be understood so easily, due to the distance that separates us from him, that is what, in my view, justifies my saying to you that reading in no way obliges you to understand. You have to read first.

假如亚里斯多德无法如此轻易被了解，由于我们跟他相隔的这个拒离。依照我的观点，那就是我对你们的说法自圆其说的地方。阅读丝毫没有强迫你们了解。你们必须首先阅读。

1
That is why today, in a way that may seem paradoxical to certain of you, I will advise you to read a book regarding which the least one can say is that it concerns me. The book is entitled Le titre de la lettre* and was published by the Galilee publishing company, in the collection A la lettre. I won’t tell
you who the authors are – they seem to me to be no more than pawns in this case.

那就是为什么今天，对有你们某些人而言，可能会显得矛盾的地方。我将劝告你们阅读一本书，关于这本书，我们至少能够说的是，它跟我有关系。这本书的标题是「信的标题」，由佳利立出版公司出版，成为「信件」文集。我将不告诉你们这些作者是谁—对于我而言，他们仅是这个情况的马前卒。

That is not to diminish their work, for I will say that, personally, I read it with the greatest satisfaction. I would like you to put yourselves to the test of this book, written with the worst of intentions, as you will easily see in the last thirty pages. I cannot encourage its circulation strongly enough.

这并不是要贬抑他们的著作，因为我将会是，就个人而言，我心满意足地阅读它。我想要你们不妨以这本书作为验证，虽然它被书写的意图真是存心不良。如同你们很容易看出，在最后的三十页。对于它的流通，我无论怎么鼓励也不为过。

雄伯曰：这个句子很容易翻错。
I cannot encourage its circulation strongly enough.
=I cannot encourage its circulation strongly too much.
=The more strongly I encourage its circulation， the better
对于它的流通，我无论怎么鼓励也不为过。（不是「我不能够足够强烈鼓励它的流通」）

I can say in a certain way that, if it is a question of reading, I have never been so well read – with so much love. Of course, as is attested to by the end of the book, it is a love about which the least one can say is that its usual underside (doublure) in analytic theory need not be ruled out here.

我能够以确定的方式说，假如这是一个阅读的问题，我是是如此钜细无馀地被他们阅读，带著如此的关爱。当然，如同这本书的结语所证明的，这是一种关爱。关于这种关爱，我们至少能够说的是：它在精神分析理论里的通常的阴暗面，并不需要被排除。

But that goes too far. To even talk about subjects in this case, in any way whatsoever, may be going too far. To even mention their feelings is perhaps to recognize them too much as subjects.

但是他们弄得太过分，甚至在这种情况谈论到各个主题，无所不用其极地任意发挥。甚至提到他们的感觉，或许就是要过分承认这些感觉，当著主题。

Let us simply say that it is a model of good reading, such good reading that I can safely say that I regret never having obtained anything like it from my closest associates. The authors felt that they had to limit themselves – and, well, why not compliment them for it, since the condition of a reading
is obviously that it impose limits on itself – to an article included in my Écrits that is entitled “The Instance of the Letter.”

容我们仅是说：这个一个良好阅读的模式，如此的良好阅读，以致于我能够安全地说，我很遗憾早先我不曾从我的亲朋好友那里获得诸如其类的东西。那些作者们感觉到他们必须限制他们自己—呵呵，我们何不恭维他们的这种作风？因为一种阅读的情况，显而易见地，它赋加它自己的限制—限制仅是阅读一篇被收集在我的「精神发析论文集」的文章，标题是「讯息作为无意识的代理」。

雄伯注：
“The Instance of the Letter” 这篇文章，在Alan Sheridan 的英译本，被翻译为”The Agency of the letter in the unconscious or reason since Freud”. 褚孝泉的拉康选集翻译为「无意识中文字的动因或自弗洛伊德以来的理性」。Letter 一词具有「信件」「文字」「字母」「讯息」等歧义性。在The Purloined Letter 「被偷窃的信」那篇内容里，letter 开始明指著是爱伦坡小说的「信」，但是拉康在作精神分析的诠释时，则引申作为「无意识的讯息」或「死亡的讯息」的隐喻，因为那封信的内容一旦被揭露，很可能导致皇后的死亡。后来拉康在The Interpretation of Desire「欲望的诠释」里，又重新发挥，也是当著是「无意识的讯息」或「死亡的讯息」的隐喻。

Beginning with what distinguishes me from Saussure, and what made me, as they say, distort him, we proceed, little by little, to the impasse I designate concerning analytic discourse’s approach to truth and its paradoxes.

我刚开始时看到，他们将我跟语言学家索绪尔区分开来，及我扭曲索绪尔的部分，如他们所说的。我们慢慢继续看下去，到达我指明的僵局，关于精神分析论述探讨真理及其矛盾的方法。

That is, no doubt, something that ultimately escapes – I needn’t probe any further – those who set themselves this extraordinary task. It is as if it were precisely upon reaching the impasse to which my discourse is designed to lead them that they considered their work done, declaring themselves – or rather declaring me, which amounts to the same thing given their conclusions – confounded. It would be altogether appropriate for you yourselves to examine their conclusions, which, you will see, can be qualified as inconsiderate. Up until these conclusions, the work proceeds in a way that I can only characterize as strikingly illuminating (éclaircissement).

无可置疑地，那是某件东西—我不需要再更深入探讨下去—让那些替他们自己任命从事这项特别的工作的那些人，最后感到迷惑不解的东西。好像是当我们确实一到达这个僵局，我的精神分析论述被设计就是要引导他们到达这个僵局。他们认为他们的工作就是大功告成，他们自己宣布—更确实地说，是替我宣布。这相当等于就是给出他们的结论相同的事情，这真是要命的事情。你们自己去检视一下他们的结论，是最好不过的事。你们将会看出，那些结论能够被给予它的特质,就是专横霸道。一直到这些结论，这部著作继续下去，他们所用的方式，我仅能给予它的特征，是令人大开眼界。

雄伯注：
That is, no doubt, something that ultimately escapes – I needn’t probe any further – those who set themselves the extraordinary task。的escape在这里的意思是「无法让人理解」Be incomprehensible to; escape understanding by，不是「逃避」。

If it could, by any chance, lighten your attendance here (éclaircir),5 I would regard that as merely an added perk for me, but, after all, I’m not sure – why not have faith in you (vous faire confiance), since there are always just as many of you here? – whether anything could put you off.6

他们使用的这种方式，万一恰巧地，造成你们出席我研讨班的人数减少，我还真把它当作仅是我的额外获益。但是畢竟，我并不确定—既然你们每次出席的人数总是爆满，我对于你们为什么不可以信心满满？无论你们是否受到怎样的阻扰。

Thus, apart from the last twenty or thirty pages – to tell you the truth, those are the only ones I skimmed through – the others will be a comfort to you that, overall, I can but wish you.

因此，除了前面的二十到三十页外—坦白跟你们说实话，那十几页是唯一我大略翻阅过去的页数—其余的部分，对于你们将会是个安慰，大体上来说，我仅能这样祝福你们。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com