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

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: