拉康:RSI 31

拉康:RSI 31
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of April 15, 1975
I imagined this morning on waking two little drawings of nothing at all; you may have seen the trouble I had reproducing them. It is a question (Figures 1 and 2) of two triangles of the most ordinary type, which overlap each other.

今天早上醒來時,我想像兩幅根本就是空無的圖畫。你們可能見過複雜它們的煩惱。這是一個很普通的種類的兩個三角形的問題(圖形一及二),它們互相重疊。

Those of Figure 1 are knotted as a chain and, based on this fact, are in every respect comparable with two torii, one of which passes through the hole of the other. Those of Figure 2 are not knotted, and can be pulled free of one another. This is like a torus flattened so as to play –not to be knotted but to play–in the hole of the other.

圖形一的那些三角形被連接成為一個環結,以這個事實作為基礎,它們從各個角度,均可類比兩個凸出環圈,其中一個通過另外一個的空洞。圖形二的那些三角形,能夠互相被扯開。這就像一個凸出形狀被擺平,為了要玩弄—-不是為了要被連接,而是要玩弄—在另一個的空洞裡。

The case is the same for the two triangles in Figure 3, except that one of them is folded around what is presented as one of the sides of the other. I say side, because one imagines that a triangle has three sides, which is no longer the case in this geometry that is not one–topology.

這種情況跟圖形三的這兩個三角形是相同的。除了其中一個被折疊,環繞所被呈現,作為另一個的兩邊。我說「邊」,因為我們想像,一個三角形有三個邊。在不是「一」的這個幾何學不再是這種情形—-拓撲圖形。

A topology is what permits us to grasp how elements that are not knotted two by two can nonetheless make a knot. We call a Borromean knot that which is constituted in a fashion such that in subtracting, in breaking one of these elements that I have figured–this is only a figure; this is not a consistency–all the others are equally unknotted from each other.

拓撲圖形容許我們理解:並沒有二乘二連接的元素,是如何仍然形成一個環結?我們稱為的波羅米恩結,是以某個方式形成的東西,在扣除時,在突破我曾經繪畫的那些元素之一時,這僅是一個圖形,這並不是一個一致性—所有其它的圖形,同樣彼此之間都沒有連接。

This can be done for a number as large as one might enounce (énoncer), and you know that there is no limit to this enunciation. It is in this that it seems to me that the term sexual non-rapport can be supported in a sayable fashion; inasmuch as it is supported essentially by a non-rapport of the couple.

這種情況,僅能就一個數目像我們宣佈的那麼大。你們知道,這個宣佈是沒有受到限制。對於這一點,我覺得:「沒有性的親密關係」這個術語,能夠以可被說出的方式來支援。因為它基本上受到這一個配對的非關係的支持。

Is it that the knot as chain suffices to represent the rapport of a couple? In a time when most of you were not in my seminar, I illustrated with two torii the tie to be made between demand and desire.

難道不是因為這個作為鎖鏈的環結,足以代表一個配對的關係?在某個時候,當你們大部分的人,並不是在我的研討班,我用兩個凸出環圈說明,在需要與欲望之間的所形成的關係。

I drew (Figure 4) a torus that enters into the hole of another. I figured on each that turns in a round, and I thus showed that what makes an encircling on this one is traced on the other, in a series of coilings around the central hole. What does that mean?–if not that demand and desire are knotted. They are knotted in the measure that a torus represents a cycle, and therefore is orientable.

我繪畫一個凸出環圈(圖形四),這個凸出環圈進入另外一個凸出環圈的空洞。我期盼每一個凸出環圈會繞著圓圈轉。以一系列的卷圈,環繞著這個中央的空洞。那是什麼意思?—難道不是因為需要與欲望被連接嗎?

What makes the difference between the sexes, as you know, is situated at the level of the cell, and especially at the level of the cellular nucleus or in the chromosomes, which, being microscopic, appears to you to insure a definite level of the real.

眾所周知,形成兩性之間的差異,被定位在這個細胞的層次,特別是在細胞核的層次,或是在染色體。當在顯微形態時,你們覺得它們保證實在界的層次。

But why the devil want what is microscopic to be more real than what is macroscopic! Something usually differentiates sex. In one case, there is a homozygotism, which is to say, a certain gene that makes a pair with another; and in the other case, there is a heterozygotism. Now, one never knows in advance how this is distributed in each species; I mean, whether it is the male or the female that is homzygote.

但是為什麼你們需要顯微形態的東西,比顯微形態的東西更加真實?某件東西通常區別性別。在某個情況裡,有一個同型結合子,那也是說,某種的基因跟另外一個基因配成一對。在另外一種情形,有一個異型結合子。現在,我們永遠不會事先知道,在每個品種,這是如何被分配。我的意思是,無論是男性,或是女性,都是同型結合子。

It is a matter of giving all of its weight to the proverb of which André Gide makes so much in Paludes: Numero deux impare gaudit–which he translates, The number two rejoices in being odd [impair].

問題是要重視安德列、紀德在「月湖」如此重視的這個格言「Numero deux impare gaudit-」他翻譯為「二的數目歡喜于成為奇數」。

As I have said for a long time, he is quite right, for nothing would realize the two if there were no odd, the odd inasmuch as it begins at number three–which is not seen immediately, and renders the Borromean knot necessary.

如同我長久曾經說過的,他是完全正確,因為假如沒有奇數的話,沒有一樣東西體會到這個二,這個奇數當它開始作為三—它並沒有立刻被看見,並且使波羅米恩結成為必要。

The Borromean knot puts within reach something crucial for our practice: that we have no need for a microscope for there to appear the reason for this first truth, to wit, that love is hainamoration18, and not velle bonum aliculi, as Saint Augustine states (énonce).

波羅米恩結將某件對於我們精神分析實踐非常重要的東西,讓我們能夠理解。我們並不需要一台顯微鏡,為了讓這個真正的真理的理由出現,愛是「愛恨交加」而不是「愛專注於本身的幸福」,如同聖奧古斯丁所陳述。

Bonum is well-being, and no doubt, on occasion, love is preoccupies itself a little, the minimum, with the well-being of the other. But it is clear that it only does so up to a certain limit, of which I have not up to this day found anything better than the Borromean knot to represent it.

「Bonum」是幸福。無可置疑的,愛是稍微轉注於本身,最小量,擁有另一人的幸福。但是顯而易見地,它這樣做僅是到達某個程度。迄今我還找不到比用波羅米恩結,更能貼切地表達它。

Let it be understood that it is not a matter of a figure, of a representation–it is a
matter of the real. This limit is only conceivable in terms of ex-sistence, which, in its vocabulary, means the play permitted by the Borromean knot to one of the cycles, to one of the consistencies.

讓我們瞭解到,這不是一個圖形的問題,不是一個符號再現的問題—這是真實界的問題。 這個限制僅能用「外部存在」這個術語,才能想像。這個「外部存在」,在它的字彙裡,意味著,被波羅米恩結容許的這個遊戲,對於其中一個這些圓圈,其中一個一致性。

Starting from this limit, love insists (s’ obstine)–because there is something of the real in the affair–love insists on something completely the contrary of the well-being of the other.

從這個限制開始,愛堅持—因為在這個事物裡,有某件真實界的東西—愛堅持某件完全相反於他者的幸福。

What I have called hainamoration, with the vocabulary substantified by the writing with which I support it. The notion of a limit implies an oscillation, a yes or no. Here, it is to wish the good of someone, or to wish strictly the contrary. Which might suggest to you the idea of a sinusoid.

我所謂的「愛恨交加」,是憑藉我支援它的這個書寫,給予這個字彙具體化。有一個限制的觀念暗示著一種搖擺,一種肯定或否定。在此,對於某個人祝福美好的東西,或是祝福完全相反的東西。這可能跟你建議「正弦曲線」的觀念。

What is it like, this sinusoid? Like this (Figure 5). The limit is the circle. Is this sinusoid coiled? Does it make a knot in being coiled, or not? This is a question posed by the notion of consistency, more nodal, if I can say so, than that of the line, since the knot is subjacent. There is no consistency that is not supported by the knot. It is in this that the knot imposes the idea itselfof the real.

這個「正弦曲線」是什麼樣子呢?就像這個( 圖形五)。這個限制是這個圓圈。這個正弦曲線被捲曲嗎?在被捲曲的狀態,它是否會形成一個環結? 這是一個問題,被一致性的觀念所提出,容我這樣說,它比線的觀念具有更多的節點,因為這個環結是作為基礎。沒有一個一致性不是由這個環結所支持。

The real is characterized by being knotted. Yet this knot has to be made. The notion of the unconscious is supported by this: not only does one find it already made, but one finds oneself made–one is made; one is made by this act x by which the knot is already made.

這個實在界的特質在於被連接成結。可是,這個環結必須被製作。無意識的觀念由這個來支持:我們不但發現它已經被形成,而且我們發現我們自己被形成—我們被形成,我們被「未知」的這個行動形成。憑藉「未知」的這個行動,這個環結已經被形成。

There is no other possible definition for my sense of the unconscious. The unconscious is the real. I measure my terms if I say–it is the real inasmuch as it is holed. I advance a little more than I have the right to, since there is no one but I who says it, who still says it.

就無意識的意義而言,沒有其它可能的定義。無意界就是實在界。我衡量我所說的術語—實在界就是這個空洞。我提出一點我有權利提出的東西。因為除了我,沒有人說出它,依舊在說它。

Soon, everyone will repeat it, and by the force of the rain that will fall on it, it will end up making very pretty fossil. In the meanwhile, it’s something new. Up to now, there has been no one but I who said there was no sexual rapport, and this made a hole in a point of being, of the speakingbeing.

不久,每個人都會重複它,憑藉降落在它上面的雨量。它結果會成為非常漂亮的化石。同時,它是某件新的東西。迄今,除了我,沒有一個人說過,性的關係並不存在。這會形成在生命實存點,「言在」的空洞。

The speaking being is not widespread, but it is like mold: it has a tendency to spread.

「言在」的生命實存,並不普及,但是就像黴菌,它會有擴展的傾向。

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: