拉康:RSI 34

拉康:RSI 34
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of April 15, 1975

There are people who have succeeded in making the interdiction of incest emerge in myths. The Hindus are even the only ones to have said that one must, if one has slept with one’s mother, go off–I no longer know whether it is into the Sunrise (Orient) or into the Sunset (Couchant)–with one’s own penis (queue) between one’s teeth–after having cut it off, of course.

有些人曾經成功地讓亂倫的禁忌在神話裡出現。僅有印度人這樣說:假如我們曾經跟自己的母親睡過覺,我們必須離開—我不再知道是否進入太陽界,或進入日落界—把陽具咬在牙齒之間—當然,要先將它切下。

But we do not have to consider the fact of the interdiction of incest as historical: it is, of course.

但是我們並不必須把亂倫禁忌這個事實,認為是屬於歷史。當然,現在它是屬於歷史。

For us, the interdiction of incest is not historical, but structural–why? Because there is the symbolic. This interdiction consists in the hole of the symbolic, so that appears, individualized in the knot, something that I do not call the Oedipus complex–it is not as complicated as all that–but the Name-of-the-Father, which means the father as name—which doesn’t mean anything at first–and not only the father as name, but the father as naming.

對於我們,亂倫的禁忌並不是屬於歷史—而是屬於結構性。為什麼?因為符號界存在。 這個禁忌在於符號界的空洞,所以我並不稱為伊底普斯情結的某件東西出現,在環結裡被個體化—它並不像那個情結那麼複雜—-而是稱它為「父親之名」,這意味著父親作為名字—起初,那並沒有任何意義—-不但父親作為名字,而且父親作為命名。

One cannot say that concerning this the Jews are not Gentiles. They have indeed explained what they have called the Father. They cram him (le foutent) in a point of the hole that one cannot even imagine–I am what I am; that’s a hole, no? A hole, if you believe my little schema’s, swallows up, and there are moments when it spits out again. Spits out what again?

我們無法說,關於這一點,猶太人並不是「非猶太人」。他們確實曾經解釋他們所稱為的父親。他們將他塞進我們甚至無法想像的這個空洞點—「我就是我的本質」。那是一個空洞,不是嗎?一個空洞,假如你們相信我的小小基模,接受它,那麼就有有它再次分裂的時刻。再次分裂什麼?

The name, the Father as name.

再次分裂這個名字,父親作為名字。

That brings with it the interdiction of incest, and this is propagated on the side of castration, as indeed the Greek Gentiles have shown us in a certain number of myths.

那隨之帶來亂倫的禁忌,並且在閹割這一邊被傳播,如同希臘的非猶太人曾經跟我們顯示,在某些的神話裡。

They raised a geneology founded exclusively on the father, Uranus, and so on, and so forth, up to the moment when Zeus, after having made love a lot, disappears into thin air (s’évanoit devant un souffle). But there is an additional step to take to understand the tie of castration with the interdiction of incest.

他們提出一種專門以父親作為基礎的系譜學。優拉納斯神,等等,一直到這個時刻,當宙斯天神,經常作愛之後,消失在空中。 但是有一個額外的步驟要採取,為了要瞭解閹割跟亂倫禁忌的關係。

The tie is what I call my sexual rapport. The Name-of-the-Father means
that there can be, in the Borromean knot, an indefinite number of rounds. The vital point (point vif ) is that all repose on one, on one inasmuch as it is a hole, which communicates its consistency to all of the others.

這個關係就是我所謂的性的關係。「以父親之名」意味著,可能會有性的關係,在波羅米恩結,無窮數目的環結。重要的一點是,一切都依靠著「一」,依靠「一」,因為這個「一」是一個空洞,它跟所有其它的「一」,溝通它的一致性。

The year when I wanted to speak of the Names-of-the-Father, I would have spoken a little more of two or three. What a jumble that would have made for the analysts if they had a whole series of Names-of-the-Father. I am quite content to leave them dry, and to have never again taken up these Names-of-the-Father except in the form of the non-dupes who err.

當我想要談論「父親之名」的那一年,我本來想要稍微更加詳細談論「二」或「三」。對於精神分析而言,那會變成多麼的混亂,假如他們擁有一整個系列的「父親之名」。我相當滿足不對它們感到興趣,從來沒有再探討這些「父親之名」,除了以犯錯的「非易受騙之人」的形式。

Obviously, they can only err, because the more there are, the more they will be entangled, and I congratulate myself for not having brought forth a single one.

明顯地,他們僅是會犯錯,因為他們越是會犯錯,他們越是會本額糾纏不清。我慶倖我自己,因為我從來沒有導致這樣的一種犯錯。

This is why I found myself at the end of these Journées having to answer the question of how we know what constitutes a cartel in the School. A cartel, why?

那就是為什麼我發現我自己處於這些「學派」的結束,他們必須回答這個問題:我們如何知道是什麼組成學派的聯盟。一種聯盟,為什麼?

I obtained some revealing answers, some pseudopodia, some things that made a very small knot. Why have I posed that a cartel begins with a three, plus one person, which, in principle, makes four; and why have I given
as a maximum this five thanks to which that makes six? Is this to say that there is a three that must incarnate the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real?

我獲得某些啟發性的回答,有些回答是錯誤的觀念,有些是打成一個小環結的東西。 為什麼我曾經提出,一個聯盟開始於一個「三」,加上一個人。原則上,它就成為「四」。為什麼我曾經給予這個「五」,作為最大量。由於這個「五」,那個形成「六」?這難道是說,有一個「三」,它必須具體表現這個符號界,想像界,及實在界?

The question could be posed; I could be crazy. But have you never heard identification spoken of? What is it that I wish for? The identification with a group.

這個問題能夠被提出,我可能是瘋了。但是你們從來沒有聽過「認同」被談論到嗎?我願望的是什麼?認同於一個團體。

It is certain that human beings identify with a group. When they don’t, they’re screwed, they have to be locked up. But I do not say by this at what point of the group they are to be identified.

確實地,人類認同於一個團體。當他們沒有這樣認同時,他們會感覺緊張,他們必須被封閉起來。但是我並沒有根據這個就說:他們應該認同於團體的哪個點?

The beginning of any social knot is constituted from the sexual non-rapport as a hole, not two, at least three. Even if you are only three, that always makes four. The plus-one is there as this schema shows, giving the example of what a Borromean knot would make if one began with the idea of the cycle as it is made (last seminar, Figure 6) by two knotted rounds.

任何社會環結的開始被形成,從性的沒有關係,作為一個空洞,不是兩個空洞,指少是三個。即使你僅是三個,那總是形成四個。這個「加一」在那裡,如同這個基模所顯示,給予這個例子,假如我們以迴圈的這個觀念開始,因為它由兩個連接成結的圓圈形成,(上個研討班,圖形六),波羅米恩結將會形成怎樣的一個結?

Even if you are only three, that will make four, whence my expression “plus one.” And it is in withdrawing one, a real, that the group will be unknotted, which proves that the knot is Borromean, and that it is indeed constituted of three minimal consistencies.

即使你們僅是三個環結,那將成為四個環結,我的「加一」的表達出於何處?那就是在於撤銷一個,一個實在界,團體就會被解開環結。這證明,這個環結束波羅米恩結。它確實是由三個最小量的一致性所組成。

Of three consistencies, one never knows which is real. Which is why they have to be four. The four is what (last seminar, Figure 6), by this double-buckle, supports the symbolic by what it is made for, the Name-of-the-Father. Naming (nomination) is the only thing that we can be sure makes a hole. And this is why I give the figure (chiffre) four as the minimum for the cartel, not without considering that one can have a little play in what ex-sists . . .

在這三個一致性當中,我們永遠不會知道,哪一個是實在界。那就是為什麼它們必須是四個一致性。這四個一致性(上個研討班,圖形六),用這個雙重環扣,支援這個符號界,根據它被形成的目標,「父親之名」。命名是唯一我們確定會形成一個空洞的東西。這就是為什麼我給於這個圖形四,作為聯盟的最小量,並不是沒有考慮到,我們能夠稍微玩弄一下「外在存在」的東西。

But perhaps we can make clear that, after all, it is not only the symbolic that has the privilege of the Names-of-the-Father. It is not obligatory that naming be conjoined to the hole of the symbolic. I will point this out next year.

但是或許我們澄清,畢竟,不但是這個符號界擁有「父親之名」的特權。命名並沒有被強迫應該跟符號界的空洞共同連接。 我明年將會指出這一點。

To return to Freud, isn’t it strange that he only gives (énonce) three identifications? In these three, there is already everything we need to read my Borromean knot. With these three, Freud properly designates consistency as such. Certainly, this is not yet the knot, but do not forget that consistency, in the knot, is throughout, that it is the base.

為了回到佛洛德,這難道不是奇怪的嗎?他僅是給予三個認同?在這三個認同裡,已經有每一樣我們需要的東西,來閱讀我的博羅米恩結。用這三個認同,佛洛德適當地指明一致性,作為本質。的確,這尚不是這個環結,但是不要忘記,這個環結的一致性,是無所不在的,它是基礎。

Three that consist without making a knot are the triskele (Figure 6).

沒有形成一個環結的一致的三個環結,是這個「三個套結」(圖形六)

The triskele is not a knot. They are only inscribed from consistency. Freud called this the trait unaire. He could not better say the components (composants) of the knot. And he put it in our heads that there is no love except from what, of the Name-of-the-Father, buckles together the three of the triskele (Figure 7).

這三個套結並不是一個環結。它們僅是因為一致性而被銘記。佛洛德稱這個為「單一特徵」。對於這個環結的組成成分,他說的再貼切不過了。他用我們的頭來表達它,頭腦這裡沒有愛,除了以「父親之名」將這三個套結環扣在一起的東西。

Let us note that of this triskele, three rifles that make a stack, the ones supported as a three by the others, the Bretons have made the coat of arms of modern Brittany. This takes us out of the cross; it is already that. While one can say that the cross of Lorraine, if one draws it in the right fashion, also makes a triskele.

讓我們注意到,這三個套圈當中,三隻來福槍搭成三角架,被其它來福槍支撐的這隻來福槍,是其中三分之一。「圓盤形」曾經形成現代不列塔尼城邦的邦徽。這讓我們避開十字,已經是那樣。雖然我們能夠說,羅蘭尼的十字架,假如我們用正確的方式畫它,也能個形成一個「三個套圈」。

It is therefore inasmuch as the triskele ex-sists that there can be identification there. Identification with what? With what is the heart, the center, of the knot, where I have already situated for you the place of the object a. This object dominates what Freud makes the third possibility of identification, that of the hysteric, with the desire the Other.

因此,就這個三個套圈是「外在存在」而言,那裡能夠有認同。認同於什麼呢?認同於屬於環結的「心」的東西,環結的中心。在那裡,我曾經跟你們定位小客體的位置。這個小客體支配佛洛德所形成的認同的第三個可能性,歇斯底里症的認同的可能性,認同於大他者的欲望。

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: