Encore 13

Encore 13
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
IV

Love and the signifier
愛與能指

2
I have been throwing in doubt for a long time what Freud thought he could say about the said revolution. The hysteric’s discourse taught him about that other substance, which consists entirely in the fact that there are signifiers (ily a du signifiant). Having apprehended the effect of the signifier in
the hysteric’s discourse, he managed to turn the latter by the quarter turn that made it into analytic discourse.11

長久以來,我曾經置疑佛洛德所說的,他能夠說關於所被說的革命。歇斯底里症的論述教導他,關那個其它的實體。那個實體完全在於那個事實:能指存在。由於曾經理解在歇斯底里症能指的影響,他成功地將後者,憑藉回轉四分之一,使它成為精神分析論述。

The very notion of a quarter turn evokes revolution, but certainly not in the sense in which revolution is subversion. On the contrary, what turns – that is what is called revolution – is destined, by its very statement (énoncé), to evoke a return.

回轉四分之一的這個觀念,引起革命,但是確實地,這個革命的意義並不是顛覆。相反地,所回轉的部分—這就是所謂的革命—是註定的,由於它的這個陳述,為了引起回轉。

雄伯注:revolution 有兩個意思,一是革命,另一是旋轉。

Assuredly, we have by no means reached the completion of this return, since this quarter turn is being made in a very painful way. But it would not be an exaggeration to say that if there was, indeed, a revolution somewhere, it was certainly not at the level of Copernicus.

確實地,我們絕對沒有到達這種回轉的完成,因為這個四分之一到回轉正在以一種非常痛苦的方式在進行。但是容我們算誇張地說: 假如某個地方,確實有一個革命,那確實並不是哥白尼天文學的層次。

The hypothesis had been advanced for many years that the sun was perhaps the center around which things revolved. But so what? What was of import to mathematicians was certainly the point of origin of that which turns.

太陽或許並非是萬物環繞的中心,這個假設曾經被提出好幾年了。但是那又怎樣? 對於數學家而言,重要的是確實並不是回轉的東西的起源。

According to Aristotle, the eternal circling (virée)12 of the stars in the last of the spheres presupposed
an unmoved sphere, which was the first cause of the movement of those that revolve. If the stars revolve, it is because the earth itself turns.

依照亞力斯多德,在眾多星球的最後一個星球,眾多星球的這個永恆的旋轉,預先假定一個沒有移動的星球,那就是那些旋轉的星球的旋轉動作的第一原因。假如這些星球旋轉,那是因為地球本身在旋轉。

It was already wondrous that, on the basis of this circling, revolution, or eternal 42 turning of the stellar sphere, there were men who forged other spheres, conceiving the so-called Ptolemaic system, and made the planets revolve –planets that, with respect to the earth, are in the ambiguous position of coming and going in a zigzag pattern – revolve in accordance with an oscillatory movement.

這已經是令人驚奇不已,根據這個旋轉的基礎,旋轉,或星座的永恆的旋轉的,有些人就鑄造其它的星球,構想這個所謂的「托勒密天文系統」,並且讓行星旋轉—關於地區,這些行星以一個迂回旋轉的模式,處於來跟去的曖昧地位—它們依照搖擺的動作旋轉。

Wasn’t it an extraordinary tour de force to have conceptualized the movement of the spheres?

這難道不是一個特別的創始之舉,曾經構想這些星球的動作?

Copernicus merely added the remark that perhaps the movement of the intermediary spheres could be expressed differently.

哥白尼僅僅補充這個談論: 或許介於中間的星球的動作,能夠以不同的方式表達?

Whether or not the earth lay at the center was not what was most important to him.

是否地球位於中心,對於他而言,並不是最重要的問題。

The Copernican revolution is by no means a revolution. If the center of a sphere is assumed, in a discourse that is merely analogical, to constitute the pivotal point (point-maître), the fact of changing this pivotal point, of having it be occupied by the earth or the sun, involves nothing that in itself subverts what the signifier “center” intrinsically (de lui-même) preserves.

哥白尼的地球繞日旋轉說,絕對不是革命。假如一個星球的中央被假定,以一種僅是類似的論述,為了形成這個軸心點,改變軸心點,將它由地球或太陽來佔據的這個事實,絲毫沒有牽涉到本身會顛覆這個能指「中心」本質上保存的東西。

Man – what is designated by this term, which is nothing but that which makes (things) signify – was far from ever having been shaken by the discovery that the earth is not at the center. He had no problem substituting the sun for it.

人—由這個術語指明的東西,僅是讓事情可以指明—絲毫沒有被這個發現所動搖:地球並不是中心。他讓太陽來充當中心,對他並沒有困難。

Of course it is now obvious that the sun is not a center either, and that it is strolling through a space whose status is ever more precariously established.

但是,現在顯而易見的,太陽也並不是一個中心。太陽正在穿過一個空間慢行,這個空間的地位,更加是不確定地被證明。

What remains at the center is the fine routine that is such that the signified always retains the same meaning (sens) in the final analysis. That meaning is provided by the sense each of us has of being part of his world, that is, of his little family and of everything that revolves around it. Each of you – I am speaking even for the leftists – you are more attached to it than you care to know and would do well to sound the depths of your attachment.

要保留在中心,是美好的例行習慣,以致於終歸究底,所指總是保留相同的意義。意義是由我們每一個擁有的意義提供,關於我們每一個人都是他的世界的一部分。換句話說,他的小家庭,及一切每一樣環繞家庭的東西。你們每一個人—我正在甚至是左派說話—你們跟這個小家庭關係更加密切,勝過你們願意知道的。你們最好探測一些你們跟它關聯的深度。

A certain number of biases are your daily fare and limit the import of your insurrections to the shortest term, to the term, quite precisely, that gives you no discomfort – they certainly don’t change your world view, for that remains perfectly spherical.

某些的偏見是你們日常遭遇的事情,並且將你們顛覆的意義限制於最短的期限,確實限制於這個期限,才不會引起你們的不舒服—他們確實沒有改變你們的世界觀,因為那個世界觀依舊是球形的世界觀。

The signified finds its center wherever you take it. And, unless things change radically, it is not analytic discourse – which is so difficult to sustain in its decentering and has not yet made its entrance into common consciousness – that can in any way subvert anything whatsoever.

能指找到它的中心,無論你們帶它去哪裡。而且,除非事情激烈地改變,這並不是精神分析論述—這個論述是如此難以維持,在它的除掉中心,並且還沒有從事進入共同的意識—它能夠以任何方式顛覆任何東西。

Nevertheless, if you will allow me to make use of this Copernican reference, I will stress what is effective about it. It’s not the fact of changing the center.

可是,假如你們容許我使用這個哥白尼的指稱,我將會強調關於它,有效用的部分。 那並不是改變中心的這個事實。

It turns. That fact still has a great deal of value for us, as reduced as it may be in the final analysis, motivated only by the fact that the earth turns and that it therefore seems to us that it is the celestial sphere that turns.

它會旋轉。 對於我們而言,那個事實依舊具有許多價值,雖然追根究底,它可能會被化減,被地球會旋轉這個事實引起動機。因此,我們覺得,地球就是旋轉的天空的星球。

The earth continues to turn and that has all sorts of effects, for example, the fact that you count your age in years. The subversion, if it existed somewhere, at some time, was not that of having changed the point around which it circles (point de virée) – it is that of having replaced “it turns” with “it falls.”

地球繼續旋轉,那具有各種的影響。譬如,這個事實:你計算你的歲月的年紀。這個顛覆,假如它存在於某個地方,在某個時間,這並不是曾經改變它迴圈的點的顛覆—它的顛覆是用「它掉落」,來代替「它旋轉」。

What is crucial, as some people have noticed, is not Copernicus, but more specifically Kepler, due to the fact that in his work it does not turn in the same way – it turns in an ellipse, and that already throws into question the function of the center.

重要的是並不是哥白尼,如同一些人曾經注意到,更明確地說,是凱蔔勒,根據這個事實: 在他的研究,地球並沒有以相同的方式旋轉—它是以橢圓形方式旋轉。那已經是質疑到中心的這個功用。

That toward which it falls in Kepler’s work is a point of the ellipse that is called a focus, and in the symmetrical point there is nothing. That is assuredly a corrective to the image of the center. But “it falls” only takes on the weight of subversion when it leads to what? To this and nothing more:

在凱蔔勒的研究,地球朝著它掉落的東西,是一個橢圓形的一個點,被稱為是一個軌跡,而在這個均稱點,是空無一物。 那確實是一個修正,對於這個中心的意象。但是「它掉落」僅僅具有顛覆的重量,當它導致什麼?導致這個什麼都沒有的空無:

F=g( mm
d2

It is in this writing (écrit), in what is summarized in these five little letters that can be written in the palm of your hand, and one number to boot, that consists what we unduly attribute to Copernicus. This is what rips us away from the imaginary function – nevertheless grounded in the real – of revolution.

就在這個書寫公式裡,在這五個小的字母裡,所獲得的結論,能夠被書寫著你的手的掌心,一個可利用的數字,包含我們過分歸功於哥白尼的東西。 這是把我們從想像界的功用撕開的東西—可是它以實在界作為基礎—旋轉。

What is produced in the articulation of the new discourse that emerges、as analytic discourse is that the function of the signifier is taken as the starting point, for what the signifier brings with it by way of meaning effects is far from accepted on the basis of the lived experience of the very fact.

在表達這個出現的新的論述,所被產生的東西,如同精神分析論述是,能指的功用被當作是起始點,因為能指藉由意義的影響所隨之帶來的東西,根本沒有被接受,根據這個事實的生活過的基礎。

It is on the basis of meaning effects that the structuring of which I reminded you was constructed. For quite some time it seemed natural for a world to be constituted whose correlate, beyond it, was being itself, being taken as eternal.

根據意義影響的基礎,我提醒你們的這個結構被建造。 有一段時間來,一個世界被形成似乎是很自然的,這個世界的互相關聯,是在它之外的實存本身,實存被認為是永恆的。

This world conceived of as the whole (tout), with what this word implies by way of limitation, regardless of the openness we grant it, remains a conception13 – a serendipitous term here – a view, gaze, or imaginary hold.

這個世界被構想作為這個「整體」,擁有這個字詞作為限制的意涵,儘管我們給予它的開放,它始終就是一個觀念—在此,這是一個意外發現的術語—一種觀點,凝視眼光,或是想像的掌握。

And from that results the following, which remains strange, that some-one – a part of this world – is at the outset assumed to be able to take cognizance of it. This One finds itself therein in a state that we can call existence, for how could it be the basis of the “taking cognizance” if it did not exist?

以下就是從那裡造成的東西,這個東西始終很奇怪,某一個「一」—這個世界的一部分—它一開始就被認為是能夠體悟到它。這個「一」發現它自己在那裡處於一種我們所謂的「生命實存」的狀態。因為假如它並不存在,它如何可能是「體悟到它」的基礎?

Therein has always lain the impasse, the vacillation resulting from the cosmology that consists in the belief in a world. On the contrary, isn’t there something in analytic discourse that can introduce us to the following: that every subsistence or persistence of the world as such must be abandoned?

僵局總是位在那裡,這個由於信仰一個世界的宇宙論的搖擺的結果。相反地,這難道不是精神分析論述的某件東西,能夠介紹我們到以下論述:這時界的每個生存或延續本身必須被放棄?

Language – the language (langue) forged by philosophical discourse – is such that, as you see, I cannot but constantly slip back into this world, into this presupposition of a substance that is permeated14 with the function of being.

語言—由哲學論述鑄造的語言—是如此,以致於如你們看見,我不得不經常重回這個時界,重回這個一個實體的預先假設,這個實體彌漫著生命實存的功用。

雄伯
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: