拉康:RSI 27

拉康:RSI 27
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of April 8, 1975
Cogitation remains glued into an imaginary rooted in the body, which is the imaginary of the body. Literature bears witness to this, philosophical as well as artistic–which besides are in no way distinguished from one another. To quickly lay down my cards, I am going to speak of the imaginary of the sphere and the cross.

仔細思考始終是根源於身體的想像界緊粘在一塊。這是身體的想像界。哲學以及藝術的文獻,見證到這件事情。除外,它們根本無法互相區別。為了很快攤開我的底牌,我將談論到球形與十字架的想像界。

I have wandered into Joyce because someone asked me to speak before a congress. Well, if Joyce is glued into the sphere and the cross, it is not owed only to his having read Saint Thomas because of his education with the Jesuits.

我曾經邂逅英國作家喬伊絲的作品,因為某個人邀請我在會議中演講。呵呵,假如喬伊絲被緊粘到球形與十字架,那並不僅是是由於曾經閱讀聖湯姆士,因為他所接受的耶穌教會的教育。

You are all as glued as he into the sphere and the cross. Moreover, this makes the plus sign. It may happen that an artist who plaques a bit of plaster on a wall will make something that by chance resembles this (Figure 2). But no one aperceives that this is already the Borromean knot.

你們大家都跟他一樣,被這個球形及十字架緊粘住。而且,這形成這個「加號」。恰巧地,有一位藝術家塗了一點灰泥在牆壁上,這個灰泥灰會形成某件東西,恰巧類似這個(圖形二)。但是沒有人感覺到,這已經是一個波羅米恩結。

When you see this, what do you make of it imaginarily? You make two things that hook together, which bends them in this fashion (Figure 3). By means of which, the round slips over what is knotted in this way. It is not natural–what does that mean, “natural”?–it is not natural to your imagination to do the contrary and distort the round in this way (Figure 4).

當你們看見這個,你們如何用想像力解釋它?你們製作兩件東西掛鉤在一塊。這使它們以這種方式彎曲它們(圖形三)。憑藉著這個圖形,這個圓圈滑過以這個方式被聯接的東西。這個並不自然—那是什麼意思?「自然」?—若是相反而為,並且以這個方式,扭曲這個圓形,那對於你們的想像並不自然。

The Borromean knot is not necessarily what I have drawn for you a hundred times. This (Figure 5) is a Borromean knot as valuable as the one I usually flatten out.

波羅米恩結未必是我曾經跟你們繪製過一百次的東西。 這個(圖形五)是一個波羅米恩結,跟我通常擺平的那個波羅米恩結同樣有價值。

If I was one day taken hold of by the Borromean knot, it was in relation to this order of event (événement), of arrival (avènement), which is called analytic discourse, a social tie emerging in our day. This discourse has an historical value, yet to be established.

假如有一天我被這個波羅米恩結掌握,那是跟這個事件的秩序有關,跟到達的秩序。它被稱為精神分析論述,這是一個社會的關聯出現在我們的時代。這個論述擁有歷史的價值,還有待被建立。

It is true that my voice is weak for sustaining it, but this is perhaps all the better, because if it were stronger, I would perhaps have fewer chances of subsisting. I mean that, based on all of history, it appears to me difficult for the social ties prevailing until now not to silence any voice that sustains another, emerging discourse.

的確,我維持它的聲音的微弱,但是這或許是更好,因為假如我的聲音較強,我可能會擁有較少的機會過我實存的生活。我的意思索,根據所有的歷史的基礎,我覺得要讓社會關係佔優勢是很困難的,直到現在,為了不要讓任何維持另外一種,新出現的論述的聲音變成沉默。

This is what one has always seen up to now, and it is not because there is no
more inquisition that we should believe that the social ties I have defined–the master discourse, the university discourse, even the hysterico-diabolic discourse–would not stifle what I might have of a voice.

這是直到現在我們總是看見,這並不是因為沒有更多的研究,我們應該相信,我曾經定義的社會關係—主人論述,大學論述,甚至歇斯底里的病態論述,它們將會悶注我發出的聲音的內容。

This said, me in there, I am a subject, I am taken in this business because I have put myself into ex-sisting as an analyst. This does not at all mean that I believe myself a mission of truth, as have believed some people who have come down on my head. No mission of truth since the truth can only be half-said (se mi-dire). So let us rejoice that my voice is low.

當說完這個之後,我在這裡,我是一個主體,我專注於這件事情,因為我曾經將我自己擺進「先前存在」,作為一位分析家。 這根本沒有意謂著,我相信我自己負有真理的使命。如同一些人相信的,他們曾經支持我的想法。我並沒有真理的使命,因為真理僅能被說一半。所以讓我們歡欣,我的聲音很微弱。

In philosophy up to the present, there has been the good philosophy, the ordinary one, and then, from time to time, there have been kooks who believe themselves a mission of truth.

在迄今的哲學,曾經有過這個善的哲學,普通的哲學,然後,有時候,會有一次狂熱份子相信他們自己具有真理的使命。

The lot (L’ensemble) are simple buffoonery. But my saying it has no importance–fortunately for me, no one believes me. All told, for the moment, the good one dominates.

這一批人僅是滑稽。但是我這樣說並沒有什麼價值—沒有人相信我,對於我而言,是幸運的。目前,總共算起來,善的哲學佔優勢。

I made a little visit over the vacation–a story of giving him a little sign before both of us dissolve–to the person named Heidegger. I like him a lot. There is something in him like a presentiment of sicanalisse, as Aragon used to say. But it is only a presentiment, because Freud doesn’t interest him at all.

我在度假時曾經去拜訪名字叫海德格的這個人,在我們分開之前,給他一個小小的訊息。在他身上有某件東西,像是是一種「sicanalisse,」的預感,如同阿拉貢過去常說的。但是那僅是一種預感,因為佛洛伊德對他根本不感興趣。
lx
However, Freud made something emerge from which I draw the consequences to give weight to its effects–which are not nothing, but this would suppose that the psychoanalyst existed a little bit more.

可是,佛洛伊德讓某件東西出現。我從這個東西獲得結果,給予它的影響賦予意義—-這並不毫無效果。但是這將會假定,精神分析師稍微有更多的存在。

He has nonetheless begun to ex-sist. How, for this knot I have come to–not, of course, without getting my paws tangled up in it as much as you–how can
we make it so it tightens, this knot, to the point where the speakingbeing, as I call it, no longer believes, no longer believes in being, outside of the being of speaking?

可是他已經開始「先前存在」。因為我已經獲得的這個環結—當然,並不是沒有讓我的爪掌跟你們一樣糾纏其中—我們如何能夠製作它,這樣它緊縮這個環結,甚至言說的主體,如我稱呼它,不再相信,不再信仰實存,言說的這個實存之外的生命實存?

He believes in being; it would be crude to say that this is exclusively because there is the verb “to be.” No, this is why I say “being of speaking.” He believes that because he speaks he is healthy.

他相信生命實存。這會很粗糙,假如我們說:這僅是因為這個「實存」的動詞。不,這就是為什麼我說:「言說的生命實存」。他相信它,因為他言說時,他是健全的。

This is an erre, and even a trait unaire. Thanks to which what I call an oriented nonsense (déconnage) has prevailed in what one calls thought, which is said to be human. I am letting myself go; I get the itch (la mouche me pique) from time to time. This erre merits being pinned to the word transhumant16– so-called humanity only owing to a naturality of transit, which postulates transcendence.

這是一個「錯誤」,甚至是一個「獨特特徵」。由於這個獨特特徵,我所謂的定向的「無意義」,在我所謂的思想佔優勢。這個思想據說是人類的思想。我讓我自己放鬆。我有時獲得這個啟示。這個「錯誤」獲得跟「超人」的這個字詞緊連在一塊。所謂的人類,僅是由於一種傳遞的自然,這個傳遞提出超越的觀念。

My succeeding has no connotation of success in my eyes. I, like Freud, only believe in the failed act, but in the failed act as revealer of the site, of the situation, of the transit in question, with transference as its key. Simply, one must bring this trans back to its proper measure. My success, therefore–my succession is what this means–will it remain in this transitory?

我的成就在我的眼裡,並沒有成功的意涵。我像佛洛伊德一樣,僅是相信這個失敗的行動。但是在這個失敗的行動,作為這個地點,這個情境,這個受到置疑的傳遞的顯示者,具有超越作為它的解答。僅僅地,我們必須將這個「超越」帶回到它適當的程度。因此,我的成功—我的成就就是這個意思—-它將會保留在這個瞬間嗎?

This is the best thing that can happen, since, in any case, there is no chance that the humant-trans will ever approach any of this. Therefore, peregrination without end is worth as much.

這是可能發生最佳情況,因為,無論在任何情況,這個「超越的人類」會有機會到達這個的任何地方。因此, 沒有目的地遊歷同樣具有價值。

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: