Archive for November, 2011

Encore 19

November 21, 2011

Encore 10
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

V
Aristotle and Freud:
the other satisfaction

亞力斯多德與佛洛德:另一種滿足

4
It’s on the basis of this step-by-step approach, which made me “scand”30 something essential today, that we must consider the light Aristotle and Freud can be seen to shed on each other. We must investigate how what they say (dires) can intersect and cross over into each other’s work.

就是根據這個按部就班接近的基礎,讓我今天「透視」到某件重要的東西,我們必須考慮到亞裡斯多德與佛洛德彼此互相啟明的觀點。我們必須研究他們所說的東西,如何能夠交會及穿插到彼此的著作裡。

In book seven of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle raises the question of pleasure. What seems most certain to him, in referring to jouissance, is no more nor less than the idea that pleasure can but be distinguished from needs, from those needs with which I began in my first sentence, and with
which he frames what is at stake in generation. Needs are related to movement.

在「尼可馬奇倫理學」,亞裡斯多德提出歡樂的問題。當他提到歡樂時,他覺得最確定的事是,實實在在就是這個觀念: 歡樂有時就僅是跟需要區別,跟我在我的第一個句子開始的那些需要區別。使用那個區別,他建構在生產過程岌岌可危的東西。需要是跟動作有關係。

Indeed, Aristotle places at the center of his world – a world that has now definitively disappeared with the tide – the unmoved mover, immediately after which comes the movement it causes, and, a bit further away, what is born and dies, what is engendered and corrupted. That is where needs are situated. Needs are satisfied by movement.

的確,亞裡斯多德將這個紋風不動的移動著,放置在他的世界的中央—隨著時代潮流,這樣一個世界現在很明確是消失了。在這個紋風不動的移動者之後,它引起的動作隨之來臨。稍微遠一點,就是誕生及死亡的東西,被產生及腐敗的東西。 那就是需要被定位的地方。需要是靠著動作來滿足。

Oddly enough, we find the same thing in Freud’s work, but there it concerns the articulation of the pleasure principle. What equivocation makes it such that, according to Freud, the pleasure principle is brought on only by excitation, this excitation provoking movement in order to get away from
it? It is strange that that is what Freud enunciates as the pleasure principle, whereas in Aristotle’s work, that can only be considered as an attenuation of pain, surely not as a pleasure.

古怪的是,我們在佛洛德的著作裡發現相同的東西,但是在那裡,它關心的是快樂原則的表達。 是怎樣的模棱兩可讓快樂原則成為這樣?佛洛德說,快樂原則僅是憑藉興奮來促成。這種引起動作的興奮,為了要逃離它?耐人尋味的是,那就是佛洛德表達作為快樂原則的東西。而在亞裡斯多德的著作裡,那僅能被認為是痛苦的減少,確實並不是作為一種快樂。

If Aristotle connects the status of pleasure with something, it can only be with what he calls evepyeia, an activity.

假如亞裡斯多德將快樂原則跟某件東西連接,那僅會是跟他所謂的「活動」連接。

Even more oddly, the first example he provides of this, not without coherence, is seeing – it is there that, in his view, resides the supreme pleasure, the one he distinguishes from the level of yeveai^ the generation of something, the one that is produced at the heart or center of pure pleasure. No pain has to precede the fact that we see in order for seeing to be a pleasure.

更加耐人尋味的是,他從這裡引用的第一個例子,並不是沒有一致性,就是「看見」—就是在那裡,從他的觀點,這個崇高的快樂就在那裡,他從「某件東西的產生」的層次,區別出來的這個崇高的快樂,在純粹快樂的核心或中央產生的東西。沒有痛苦需要在我們看見的這個事實之前存在,為了讓「看見」成為一種快樂。

雄伯曰:這種「看見」應該是類似宗教的「啟明」,「啟蒙」,或「開悟」之樂吧?

It is amusing that having thus posed the question, he has to put forward what? What French cannot translate otherwise, lacking a word that is not equivocal, than by Vodorer (smelling). Aristotle here places smell and sight at the same level. As opposed as the second sense seems to be to the first, he tells us that pleasure turns out to be borne thereby. Thirdly, he adds hearing.

有趣的是,提出這個問題之後,它必須提出什麼? 法文無法用別的方式翻譯的東西,欠缺一個不要模棱兩可的字詞,除了就是翻譯成「嗅聞」。亞斯斯多德在此將「嗅覺」與「視覺」相提並論。就第二個感覺似乎跟第一個感覺相反而言,他告訴我們,快樂結果因此被誕生。 第三點,它增加「聽覺」。

It is just about 1:45 p.m. To orient yourselves on the path along which we are proceeding, recall the step we made earlier by formulating that jouissance is centrally related to the one (celle-là) that shouldn’t be/never fails, that shouldn’t be/could never fail in order for there to be a sexual relationshipand remains wholly attached to it. Hence, what emerges with the term by which Aristotle designates it is quite precisely what analytic experience allows us to situate as being the object – from at least one pole of sexual identification, the male pole – the object that puts itself in the place of what cannot be glimpsed of the Other.

現在時間大約是下午一點四十五分。為了定位你們自己在我們正在沿著前進的這條途徑,請回想一下我們所採取得這一步驟。我們闡述:歡爽根本上是跟這個「不應該存在及永遠不會失敗」相關。那個「不應該存在及永遠不會失敗」,為了讓性的關係存在,並且始終完整地跟它聯繫在一塊。因此, 這個術語所呈現的東西,亞裡斯多德指明它,作為確實是精神分析容許我們定位作為客體的東西—從至少是性別認同的一個極端,男性的這個極端—這個客體放置它自己代替關於大他者無法被瞥見的東西。

It is inasmuch as object a plays the role somewhere – from a point of departure, a single one, the male one – of that which takes the place of the missing partner, that what we are also used to
seeing emerge in the place of the real, namely, fantasy, is constituted.

如同小客體在某個地方扮演這個角色,從離境的觀點,一個單一的觀點,男性的觀點—那個代替這個失落的伴侶的東西,我們也習慣於看到某件代替實在界的東西的出現,換句話說,就是幻見的東西出現的地方被形成。

I almost regret having, in this way, said enough, which always means too much. For one must see the radical difference of what is produced at the other pole, on the basis of woman.

我幾乎後悔以這種方式曾經說得過於充分,那總是意味著說得太多。因為我們必須看出在性別的另外一個極端,以女人為基礎所產生的東西,它會有強烈的差異。

Next time, I will try to enunciate in a way that stands up – and that is complete enough for you to bear the time before we meet again, in other words, half a month – that, for woman – but write woman with the slanted line with which I designate what must be barred – for Woman, something other than object a is at stake in what comes to make up for (suppléer) the sexual relationship that does not exist.
February 13, 1973

下一次,我將會嘗試以持續的方式表達—那是足夠完整,讓你們可以忍受我們再一次會面對時間。換句話說,半個月—就女人而言—但是用這條傾斜的線來書寫女人,我指明這條傾斜的線代表所被禁忌的東西。對於Woman 上面被畫一條斜線,某件小客體以外的東西岌岌可危,在前來作為彌補並不存在的性的關係。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Encore 18

November 21, 2011

Encore 18
继续再来
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

V
Aristotle and Freud:
the other satisfaction

亚力斯多德与弗洛伊德:另一种满足

3
That brings me back to what I myself earlier raised by way of objections to
myself, all by myself, namely, that there was a male way of botching (rater)
the sexual relationship, and then another. This botching (ratage) is the only
way of realizing that relationship if, as I posit, there’s no such thing as a
sexual relationship.

那让我回到我自己早先所提出的,凭借反对我自己。换句话说,有一种男性的方式,拙劣地处理性的关系,然后还有另外一种。这种拙劣处理是唯一的方法实现这个关系,假如,当我提出时,并没有性的关系这样的事情存在。

To say, thus, that everything succeeds does not stop us from saying “not-everything succeeds” (pas-tout réussit), for it is in the same manner – it fails (ça rate). It’s not a matter of analyzing how it succeeds.

因此,假如是一切顺利,那并没有阻止我们不能说:「并非一切顺利」。因为那时同样的事情。它功败垂成。问题并不是要分析它如何顺利。

It’s a matter of repeating until you’re blue in the face why it fails.

问题是要重复直到你情绪激动起来,为什么它会功败垂成。

It fails. That is objective. I have already stressed that. Indeed, it is so plain that it is objective that one must center the question of the object in analytic discourse thereupon. The failure is the object.

它功败垂成。那是客体。我曾经强调过那件事。的确,它是如此明白,以致于这是客体,我们必须因此在精神分析论述,专注于这个客体的问题。这个功败垂成是客体部分。

I already said long ago in what respect the good and the bad object differ.

长久以前,我曾经说过,善与恶的客体在哪一方面有差异。

There is the good, there is the bad, oh la la! Today I am trying to begin with that, with what is related to what’s good (le bon), the good (le bien), and to what Freud enunciates. The object is a failure (un raté). The essence of the object is failure.

有善的客体,也有恶的客体,呵呵! 等等。我正在尝试从那里开始,拥有跟善有关的事情,这个善的事情,以及跟弗洛伊德表达的东西有关系。这个客体是一种失败。客体的本质就是失败。

You will notice that I spoke of essence, just like Aristotle. So? That means that such old words are entirely usable. At a time when I dragged my feet less than today, that is what I turned to right after Aristotle. I said that, if something freshened the air a bit after all this Greek foot-dragging around Eudemonism, it was certainly the discovery of utilitarianism.

你们将会注意到,我谈论到本质,就像亚里斯多德。那又怎样?那意味着,诸如其乐的古老的字词,完全没有用途。

That didn’t faze my audience at the time because they’d never heard of utilitarianism – the result being that they couldn’t make the mistake of believing that it meant resorting to the useful (utilitaire). I explained to them what utilitarianism was in Bentham’s work, which is not at all what people think it is. In order to understand it one must read The Theory of Fictions.

当时那并不会让我的听众感到忧虑,因为他们从来没有听过功利主义。结果是,他们坚持无误地相信:功利主义就是诉诸于有用的东西。 我跟他们解释,在边沁的著作里,功利主义是什么。那根本就不是人们以为它的样子。为了了解它,我们必须阅读「小说的理论」。

Utilitarianism means nothing but the following – we must think about the purpose served by the old words, those that already serve us. Nothing more. We must not be surprised by what results when we use them.

功利主义意味着仅是以下—我们必须思考到这些旧的字眼充当的这个功用,已经跟我们充当的功用。仅此而已。我们一定不要惊奇,对于使用它带来的结果。

We know what they are used for – they are used so that there may be the jouissance that should be (qu’il faut). With the caveat that, given the equivocation between faillir and falloir, the jouissance that should be must be translated as the jouissance that shouldn’t be/never fails (qu’il ne faut pas),20

我们知道这些字眼被充当什么之用—它们被使用,这样才可能会有应该有的欢爽。用这样的警告,假如考虑到「faillir」与「falloir」之间的模棱两可,「jouissance」这个字应该被翻译为「不应该有及永不失败的欢爽」。

Yes, I am teaching something positive here. Except that it is expressed by a negation. But why shouldn’t it be as positive as anything else?

是的,我在此正在教导某件正面的东西。除了它是用负面来表达。但是为什么它没有用任何正面的东西来表达?

The necessary – what I propose to accentuate for you with this mode – is that which doesn’t stop (ne cesse pas) what? – being written (de s’écrire).21

这个需要—我建议要跟你们用这个模式强调—并没有阻挡什么?—那就是被书写?

That is a very fine way in which to divide up at least four modal categories.

那就是一份非常美好的方式,至少用来区别四个模式的范畴。

I will explain that to you another time, but I will give you a bit more of a taste this time anyway. “What doesn’t stop not being written” is a modal category, and it’s not the one you might have expected to be opposed to the necessary, which would have been the contingent. Can you imagine?

下一次我将会跟你们解释,但是这一次,无论如何,我将给予你们稍微多一点的品味,「什么东西没有停止被书写」是一个模式的范畴,并不是这个模式,你可能会预期跟这个需要的东西相反。那本来会是这个迫切性的东西。那本来会是这个迫切性的东西。

The necessary is linked (conjugué) to the impossible, and this “doesn’t stop not
being written” is the articulation thereof. What is produced is the jouissance that shouldn’t be/could never fail (qu’il ne faudrait pas) ,22

这个需要东西跟这个不可能的东联接,这个「没有停止被书写的东西」是它的表达。所被产生的东西,就是这个不应该存在及永不能失败的欢爽。

That is the correlate of the fact that there’s no such thing as a sexual relationship, and
it is the substantial aspect (le substantiel) of the phallic function.

那就是这个事实的相对,没有像性的关系这样的东西。这就是阳具功用的这个实质的一面。

Let me now return to the textual level. It is the jouissance that shouldn’t be/could never fail (qu’il ne faudrait pas) – in the conditional tense. That suggests to me that to use it we could employ protasis and apodosis.23

让我们现在回到这个文本的层次。就是这个「不应该存在及永不能够失败的欢爽」—在这个条件句里,那跟我建议著:为了使用它,我们能够使用「条件子句」及「结果子句。」

If it weren’t for that, things would go better (ça irait mieux) – that’s a conditional tense in the second part. That is the material implication, the implication the Stoics realized was perhaps what was most solid in logic.

假如不是因为那样,事情本来会变得更好些—那是在第二部分的条件句时态。那是具体的暗示,禁欲学派体会到的暗示,或许就是在逻辑最正确的东西。

How are we thus going to express what shouldn’t be/could never fail with respect to jouissance, if not by the following? Were there another jouissance than phallic jouissance, it shouldn’t be/could never fail to be that one.

关于欢爽,我们因此将要如何表达「不应该存在及永不能给失败」的东西?那难道不是以下的东西?假如没有除了阳具以外地另外一种欢爽,它不应该存在及永不失败就是那个欢爽。

That’s very nice. One must use things like that, old words, as stupid as anything, but really use them, work them to the bone. That’s utilitarianism.

那是非常美好。我们必须使用像那样的事情,古老的字眼,非常地愚蠢,但是真正地使用它们,彻底地使用它们。那就是功利主义。

And that allowed a giant step to be taken away from the old tales about universals that had preoccupied people since Plato and Aristotle, had dragged along throughout the Middle Ages, and were still suffocating Leibniz, to so great an extent that one wonders how he still managed to be so intelligent.

那容许我们跨出巨大的一步,脱离有关普遍性的古老传说。这些普遍性自从柏拉图及亚里斯多德以来,就让人们全神贯注,曾经引导人们经历中世纪,并且依旧让莱布尼斯窒碍难解,甚至我们大为惊奇,他依旧成功地豁然开朗。

Were there another one, it shouldn’t be/could never fail to be that one. What does “that one” designate? Does it designate the other in the sentence, or the one on the basis of which we designated that other as other?

假如有另外一种欢爽,它不应该存在及永不能够是那种欢爽。「那种欢爽」指明什么?它是指明著句子里的另外一种欢爽吗? 或是以它为基础,我们指明那个另外一种欢爽,为他者的欢爽?

What I am saying here is sustained at the level of material implication, because the first part designates something false – “Were there another one,” but there is no other than phallic jouissance – except the one concerning which woman doesn’t breathe a word, perhaps because she doesn’t
know (connaît)24 it, the one that makes her not-whole. It is false that there is another one, but that doesn’t stop what follows from being true, namely, that it shouldn’t be/could never fail to be that one.

我在此正在说的,在具体的意涵上能够成立,因为第一部分指明著某件其它东西—「假如有另外一件欢爽,」但是除了阳具的欢爽外,并没有其它欢爽,除了女人丝毫没有透露一个字词的那个欢爽,或许因为她不知道这个欢爽,让她成为「并非全部」的欢爽。另外一种欢爽存在,是不实的说法。但是那并没有阻止其余的东西不成真实。换句话说,它不应该存在及永不能够失败就是那个欢爽。

You see that this is entirely correct. When the true is deduced from the false, it is valid. The implication works. The only thing we cannot abide is that from the true should follow the false. Not half bad, this logic stuff!

你们看出,这就是完全正确。当真实的东西,从虚假的东西被推论出来,那是正确的。这种暗示行得通。唯一我们无法忍受的事是,从真实的东西,推论出来的竟然会虚假。这还不是顶糟糕的,这种逻辑的东西!

The fact that the Stoics managed to figure that out all by themselves is quite impressive. One mustn’t believe that such things bore no relation to jouissance. We have but to rehabilitate the terms to see that.
It is false that there is another. That won’t stop me from playing once more on the equivocation based on faux (false), by saying that it shouldn’t (faux-drait) be/could never fail to be/couldn’t be false that it is that one.25

禁欲学派成功地凭借自己,构想出那件事情,这个事实是相当令人印象深刻。我们一定不要相信,这样的事情跟欢爽没有关系。 我们仅有恢复这些术语的真相,才能明白它。还有另外一种欢爽,这是虚假的。

Suppose that there is another – but there isn’t. And, simultaneously, it is not because there isn’t – and because it is on this that the “it shouldn’t be/ could never fail” depends – that the cleaver falls any the less on the jouissance with which we began. That one has (faut) to be, failing (faute de) – you should understand that as guilt – failing the other that is not.26

假设还有另外一种欢爽—但是事实上没有。同时地,并不是因为事实上没有—因为「它不应该存在及永远不能够失败」依靠这一点。这个切割并不再依靠我们开始的这个欢爽。我必须要有欢爽,却没有欢爽—你们了解那样作为罪恶感—失败于并没有实存的他者欢爽。

That opens up for us, tangentially, and I am saying this in passing, a little glimpse that has considerable weight in a metaphysics. There may be cases in which, instead of it being us who go in search of something to reassure ourselves in the manger of metaphysics, we can even give something back to metaphysics.

离题来说,那跟我们敞开,我是说偶尔敞开一点的瞥见,这个瞥见在形上学具有相当的份量。可能有些情况,非但不是我们在形上学的食槽里,追求某件可以让我们安身立命的东西,而是我们甚至能够给予某件东西,会馈形上学。

To wit, one must not forget that the fact that nonbeing is not is blamed by speech on being, whose fault it is. It’s true that it is its fault, because if being did not exist, we would be far less uneasy with the 57 question of nonbeing, and thus it is deservedly that we reproach being for it, and consider it to be at fault.

简言之,我们一定不要忘记,「空无存有」并不存在的这个事实,是受到探讨「存有」语言所责备。这个它的探讨「存有」的语言的错误,因为假如「存有」并不存在,我们对于「空无存有」的问题,比较不会那么不安。因此,我们应该恰如其分地谴责「存有」,因为它,并且认为它是错误的。

That is also why – and this occasionally angers me, it is what I began with, moreover, and I assume you don’t remember – when I forget myself (m’oublie) to the point of publishing (pyoublier),21 in other words, of forgetting everything (tout-blier) – the whole (tout) has something to do with it –

那也是为什么—这偶尔会令我愤怒,而且,那是我开始的东西。我假定你们不记得—当我得意忘形到甚至出版它,换句话说,我得意忘掉一切,「全部」跟它有点关系。

I deserve to have to put up with people talking about me and not at all about my book. Which is just like what happened in Milan. Perhaps it wasn’t entirely about me that people were speaking when they said that, according to me, ladies don’t exist, but it certainly wasn’t what I had just said.

我应该必须忍耐人们谈论到关于我,而根本不是谈论到关于我的书。这就像在米兰发生的事情。或许,人们谈论的并不完全是关于我,当他们说, 拉康博士说,女人不存在。但是那确实并不是我刚刚说过的话。

In the end, if this jouissance comes to someone (celui) who speaks, and not by accident, it is because it is a bit premature. It has something to do with the renowned (fameux) sexual relationship, concerning which he will have only too many occasions to realize that it doesn’t exist. It is thus second rather than first. There are traces of it in Freud’s work.

最后,假如这个欢爽来到某个言说的人,而且并非是偶然地,那是因为这个欢爽有点来得过早。 它跟这个著名的性的关系有点关系。关于这个性的关系,他拥有很多的几会体会到:性的关系并不存在。因此,重要的是第二个陈述,而不是第一个陈述。在弗洛伊德的著作,有一些它的痕迹。

If Freud spoke of Urverdràngung, primal repression, it was precisely because the true, good, everyday repression is not first – it is second.

假如弗洛伊德谈论到这个原初的压抑,那确实是因为这个真实及善的日常压抑,并不是第一个陈述,而是第二个陈述。

People repress the said jouissance because it is not fitting for it to be spoken, and that is true precisely because the speaking (dire) thereof can be no other than the following: qua jouissance, it is inappropriate (elle ne convient pas). I already sustained as much earlier by saying that it is not the
one that should be (faut), but the one that shouldn’t be/never fails.

人们压抑所被说的欢爽,因为让它畅欲所言是不适当的。那确实是真实的,因为言说的实存实实在在就是以下,作为欢爽的东西。 它是不合宜的。我早先同样这样持续说过:这个欢爽并不是应该存在,而是这个不应该存在及永远不失败的欢爽。

Repression is produced only to attest, in all statements (dires) and in the slightest statement, to what is implied by the statement that I just enunciated, that jouissance is inappropriate – non decet29 – to the sexual relationship.

压抑被产生,仅是为了在各种陈述里测试,即使在最轻微的陈述里,测试我刚刚表达过的陈述所暗涵的东西。对于性的关系,欢爽是不合宜的。

It is precisely because the said jouissance speaks that the sexual relationship is not.

确实是因为所被说出来的欢爽言说:性的关系不存在。

雄伯曰:这句话暗含奥秘的弔诡。所被说出来的欢爽言说:性的关系不存在。是否暗含着:没有被说出来的欢爽言说:性的关系存在。这变成我们应该从哪个立场来理解真理?从可言说的立场?还是从不可言说的立场?类似佛说不可说,不可说,及桃花源不足为外人道也的说法。不是没有性的关系,而是在符号界不可道也。

Which is why that jouissance would do better to hush up, but when it does, that makes the very absence of the sexual relationship a bit harder yet to bear. Which is why, in the final analysis, it doesn’t hush up, and why the first effect of repression is that it speaks of something else. That is what constitutes the mainspring of metaphor.

那就是为什么欢爽最好噤声不语,当是当它一旦言说,它让性的关系的这个欠缺,变的越加难以忍受。那就是为什么,追根究底,它并没有噤声不语。以及为什么压抑的第一个效应是:它顾左右而言他。那就是构成比喻的原动力的原因。

There you have it. You see the relationship between all that and utility. It’s utilitarian. It makes you capable of serving some purpose, since you don’t know (faute de savoir) how to enjoy otherwise than to be enjoyed (être joui) or duped (joué), because it is precisely the jouissance that shouldn’t
be/could never fail.

你们现在拥有它。你们明白,这一切跟功利性的关系。那就是功利主义。它让你们能够充当什么之用途。因为你们不知道,如何享乐无法被享乐的东西,或是无知之乐。因为确实是这种不应该存在即永远不会失败的欢爽。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Encore 17

November 20, 2011

Encore 17
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

V
Aristotle and Freud:
the other satisfaction

亞力斯多德與佛洛德:另一種滿足

2
“Reality is approached with apparatuses of jouissance.”13

「現實界可用歡爽的各種工具接近。」

That is another formulation I am proposing to you, as long as we focus, of course, on the fact that there’s no other apparatus than language. That is how jouissance is fitted out (appareillée) in speaking beings.

那是我正在跟你們建議的另外一種闡述,當然,只要我們專注這個事實:除了語言之外,沒有其它工具。那就是歡爽如何在言說主體身上被供應的方式。

That is what Freud says, assuming we correct the statement of the pleasure principle. He said it the way he did because there were others who had spoken before him, and that seemed to him the way it could most easily be heard. It is very easy to isolate, and the conjunction of Aristotle with Freud helps us isolate it.

那就是佛洛德所說的,假定我們改正快樂原則的陳述。他以他的方式說出來,因為還有別人在他之前曾經說。他覺得那是最容易讓人聽見的方式。要孤立出來非常容易。亞裡斯多德跟佛洛德的聯合有助於我們孤立它。

I push further ahead, at the point at which it can now be done, by saying that the unconscious is structured like a language. On that basis, language is clarified, no doubt, by being posited as the apparatus of jouissance.

我更加向前探討,在它能夠被做到這一點,我說:無意識的結構像個語言。根據那個基礎,無可置疑地,語言被澄清,被提出作為歡爽的工具。

But inversely, perhaps jouissance shows that in itself it is deficient (en défaut) –
for, in order for it to be that way, something about it mustn’t be working.

但是反過來說,或許歡爽顯示:它本身是欠缺。因為關於歡爽的某件東西,一定沒有在運作,為了它成為那種方式。

Reality is approached with apparatuses of jouissance. That doesn’t mean that jouissance is prior to reality. Freud left the door open to misunderstanding
on that score – you can find his discussion in what is known in French as the Essais de Psychanalyse.14

我們使用歡爽的工具靠近現實界。那個並不意味著,歡爽早先于現實界。因為那個原因,佛洛德敞開讓人誤解的大門—你們能夠發現他的討論,在眾所周知的法文版的「精神分析論文」。

There is, says Freud, a Lust-Ich before a Real-Ich. That is tantamount to slipping back into the rut, the rut I call “development,” which is merely a hypothesis of mastery. It suggests that a baby has nothing to do with the Real-Ich, poor tot, and is incapable of having the slightest notion of the real.

佛洛德說,有一個「快樂的我」在「真實的我」之前。這相當等於溜回到常規,我所謂的「發展」的常規。這個發展僅是一種掌控的假設。它建議:嬰兒跟這個「真實的我」沒有任何關係,可憐的小孩,它對實在界不能夠有任何絲毫的觀念。

That is reserved for people we know, adults concerning whom, moreover, it is expressly stated that they never manage to wake up – when something happens in their dreams that threatens to cross over into the real, it distresses them so much that they immediately awaken, in other words, they go on dreaming. It suffices to read, be with them a little bit, see them live, and listen to them in analysis to realize what “development” means.

那個問題保留給我們知道的人們,也就是成年人。而且,關於成年人,我們生動地陳述:他們從未成功地喚醒—當某件事情發生在他們的夢裡,威脅要跨越進入實在界。這個實在界讓他們如此痛苦,以致於他們立刻覺醒過來。換句話說,他們繼續做夢。去閱讀,稍微去跟夢在一塊,看到夢鮮明存在,然後傾聽夢,就足夠讓人體會到,「發展」意味著什麼。

When we say “primary” and “secondary” for the processes, that may well be a manner of speaking that fosters an illusion. Let’s say, in any case, that it is not because a process is said to be primary – we can call them whatever we want, after all – that it is the first to appear. Personally, I have never looked at a baby and had the sense that there was no outside world for him.

當我們對這種發展過程,說「原初」及「次級」,那很可能是一種培養幻覺的言說方式。無論如何,讓我們說,這並不是因為一個過程據說是「原初」—畢竟,我們能夠稱呼任何名稱。它是第一個出現的過程。就我個人而言,我從來沒有觀看一個嬰兒而擁有這種感覺:對於他,外在世界並不存在。

It is plain to see that a baby looks at nothing but that, that it excites him, and that that is the case precisely to the extent that he does not yet speak.

我們很明白可以看到,一個嬰孩觀看的就是外在世界,他對它感到興奮。那確實是那個情況,直到他不再說話。

From the moment he begins to speak, from that exact moment onward and not before, I can understand that there is [such a thing as] repression. The process of the Lust-Ich may be primary – why not? it’s obviously primary once we begin to think – but it’s certainly not the first.

從他開始說話的那個時刻開始,從那確實的時刻開始,估且不說以前,我能夠瞭解,沒有像壓抑這樣的事情。這個「快樂的我」可能是原初的我—為什麼不呢?一旦我們開始思想,它顯而易見是原初的我—但是它確實不是最初的我。

Development is confused with the development of mastery. It is here that one must have a good ear, like in music – I am the master (m’être), I progress along the path of mastery (m’êtrise), I am the master (m’être) of myself (moi) as I am of the universe.

發展跟主人掌控的發展會混淆。就在這裡,我們必須仔細聆聽,就像在音樂—我是主人,我沿著主人掌控的途徑前進,我是我自己的主人,如同我是宇宙的主人。

That is what I was talking about earlier, the vanquished idiot (con-vaincu). The universe is a flower of rhetoric. This literary echo may perhaps help us understand that the ego (moi) can also be a flower of rhetoric, which grows in the pot of the pleasure principle that Freud calls “Lustprinzip” and that I define as that which is satisfied by blahblah.

這就是我早先談論的東西,被征服的白癡。宇宙是文辭美妙的花朵。這個文學的共鳴或許幫助我們瞭解,自我也會是一個文辭美妙的花朵。它盛開在佛洛德所謂的「快樂原則」的花瓶裡。我用一大堆無聊話講它定義為「自我滿足。」

That is what I am saying when I say that the unconscious is structured like a language. But I must dot the i’s and cross the t’s. The universe – you might realize it by now, all the same, given the way in which I have accentuated the use of certain words, the “whole” and the “not-whole,” and their differential application to the two sexes – the universe is the place where, due to the fact of speaking, everything succeeds (de dire, tout réussit).

那就是我正在說的,當我說,無意識的結構像個語言。但是我必須替這個「i」打個所有格標點,替這個「t」劃一橫杠。假如考慮到,我曾經強調某些字的用法,你們現在都體會到—這個宇宙仍然是「全部」與「並非全部」。它們被差異地被應用到兩性—宇宙就是樣樣順利的這個地方,由於言說的事實。

Am I going to do a little William James here? Succeeds in what? I can tell you the answer, now that I have, I hope, finally managed to bring you to this point: succeeds in making the sexual relationship fail (faire rater) in the male manner.

我在此說話的方式有點像是威廉、詹姆斯嗎?什麼事情順利?我希望,我能夠告訴你們這個答案,既然我最後成功於引導你們到達這一點。順利地使這個性的關係,以男性的方式功敗垂成。

Normally I would expect to hear some snickering now – alas, I don’t hear any. Snickering would mean “ So, you’ve admitted it, there are two ways to make the sexual relationship fail.” That is how the music of the epithalamion16 is modulated. The epithalamion, the duet (duo) – one must distinguish the two of them – the alternation, the love letter, they’re not the sexual relationship. They revolve around the fact that there’s no such thing as a sexual relationship.

正常情況,我常常會在此聽到某些的竊笑—呵呵,我沒有聽到。竊笑將會意味著「所以,你已經承認它,有兩種方法使性的關係功敗垂成。」那就是新婚喜歌被歌詠的方式。這個新婚喜歌,這個二重奏—我們必須區別其中兩種—互相對唱,情書,它們並不是性的關係。它們是環繞這個事實旋轉:像性的關係這樣的事情並不存在。

There is thus the male way of revolving around it, and then the other one, that I will not designate otherwise because it’s what I’m in the process of elaborating this year – how that is elaborated in the female way. It is 54 elaborated on the basis of the not-whole. But as, up until now, the notwhole
has not been amply explored, it’s obviously giving me a hard time.

因此,有男性的方式環繞著它旋轉,然後又另外一種方式,我將不會用另外一種方式指明,因為這是我今年正在跟你們建構的東西。—那就是以女性的方式建構的方式。

On that note, I am going to tell you a good one to distract you a bit. In the middle of my winter sports, I felt that I had to go to Milan by rail in order to keep my word. It took up a whole day just to get there. In short, I went to Milan, and as I cannot but talk about what I’m working on at the moment, that’s the way I am – I said that I would rework

因為那個原因,我將會告訴你們一個好的方法來稍微擾亂你們。在我的冬季運動期間,我感覺到我必須搭乘貨車到米蘭,為了遵守約定。我耗了一整天才到達那裡。總之,我去米蘭。因為我忍不住談論到我那時正在研究的東西,那就是我生命實存的方式—我說我將會重新建構。

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, but that’s because I’m drawing it out anew17 – I picked an absolutely ridiculous title for my lecture to the Milanese, who had never heard anyone talk about such things before, “Psychoanalysis in Reference to the Sexual Relationship.” They are very intelligent. They understood it so well that immediately, that very evening, the following was printed in the
newspaper, “According to Dr. Lacan, Ladies” – le donne – “Do Not Exist!”

精神分析倫理學,但是那是因為我正在重新描繪它—我挑選一個荒謬絕倫的標題,作為我對於米蘭人的演講。他們以前從未聽過任何人談論有關這樣的事情。「關於性的關係的精神分析學」。他們是非常聰明的。他們如此清楚地瞭解它,立刻,那天晚上,以下的內容就被出現在報紙上:「拉康博士說:女人並不存在!」

It’s true – what do you expect? – if the sexual relationship doesn’t exist, there aren’t any ladies. There was someone who was furious, a lady from the women’s liberation movement down there. She was truly. . . . I said to her, “Come tomorrow morning, and I’ll explain to you what it’s all about.”

真是的–你們期待什麼?—假如性的關係並不存在,也不會有任何的女人存在。有人暴跳如雷,一位從女性解放運動過來的女士。 她真的是….我告訴他說,「明天早上過來,我會跟你解釋是怎麼一回事。」

If there is some angle from which this business of the sexual relationship could be clarified, it’s precisely from the ladies’ side (côté), insofar as it is on the basis of the elaboration of the not-whole that one must break new ground. That is my true subject this year, behind Encore, and it is one of
the meanings of my title. Perhaps I will manage, in this way, to bring out something new regarding feminine sexuality.

假如有某個角度,讓性的關係這樣的事情能夠被澄清,那確實就是從女性的這一邊。因為正是以「並非全部」的建構為基礎,我們才能開創新的天地。那就是我今年的真正主題,在「繼續再來」的背後,這是我的標題的意義之一。或許,我將以這種方式處理,為了顯示某件新的東西,關於女性的性。

There is one thing that provides dazzling evidence of this not-whole.

有一件事情提供彰彰明甚的證據,關於這個「並非全部」。

Consider how, with one of these nuances or oscillations of signification that are produced in language (langue), the not-whole changes meaning when I say to you, “Regarding feminine sexuality, our colleagues, the lady analysts, do not tell us . . . the whole story!” (pas tout!). It’s quite striking.18 They
haven’t contributed one iota to the question of feminine sexuality. There must be an internal reason for that, related to the structure of the apparatus of jouissance.

考慮一下,用在語言裡,被產生的意義的模棱兩可的一個細微差異,這個「並非全部」改變意義,當我跟你們說,「關於女性的性」,我們的同事,女性分析家,並沒有告訴我們…全部的真相!那是耐人尋味的。對於女性的性,她們根本就沒有絲毫貢獻。 這其中必定有一個內部的理由,跟歡爽的工具的結構有關係。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:RSI 37

November 19, 2011

拉康:RSI 37
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of May 13, 1975

The question begins for us there. It does not seem that Desargues ever interrogated himself on the point of knowing if the form in which he supposed these infinite straight lines implied that they were knotted or not. Riemann decided the question in a not very satisfying way by making of all the points at infinity, whatever straight line they belong to, a single and unique point.

對於我們而言,這個問題從那裡開始。德薩古斯似乎沒有置疑他自己,關於是否知道他假定的這些無限的直線的這個形式,暗示著,它們是否被連接成結。瑞曼決定這個問題,以一個非常令人滿意度方式,解釋所有的無限點,不管它們屬於怎樣的直線,一個單一的獨特點。

If we now study this knot (Figure 9)–which, curiously, presents a sort of analogy with this form (Figure 2)–if we study it as do mathematicians, we will define its structure, beginning with the notion of the fundamental group, by a certain number of trajectories that will be made from any point whichever. But contrary to what one might imagine, it is not the number that is characteristic of the fundamental group, it is the relation between a certain number of trajectories.

假如我現在研究這個環結(圖形九)—耐人尋味地,它用這個形式呈現一種的類比(圖形二)—假如我們研究它,如同數學家一樣,我們將會定義它的結構,從基本的團體的觀念開始,用某些的投射方向,那可以從任何的點形成。但是跟我們所想像的相反,並不是這個數位是基本團體的特徵,而是某些投射方向之間的關係。

We support there in its pure state the notion of rapport. And it leads us back to the knot, to the Borromean knot, since this rapport itself makes a knot, except that this knot lacks number.

我們在此以它的純粹的狀態,支援親密關係的觀念。它引導我們回到這個環結,回到博羅米恩結,因為這個親密關係本身形成一個環結,除了這個環結欠缺數字。

In taking the step (étape) of the Borromean knot, we support by the number itself trajectories of which it is a question in no matter what knot; even when the knot (Figure 9) only has one consistency. We take the number as an intermediary, as an element, to introduce us into the dialectic of the knot.

在採取博羅米恩結的這個步驟時,我們用數位的本身來支援投射方向。不論是什麼結,都是投射方向的問題,甚至當這個環結(圖形九),僅有一個一致性。我們將這個數字當著是一種仲介,作為一種元素,為了要介紹我們進入這個環結的辯證法。

Nothing is less natural than to think this knot.

沒有一樣東西比想這個結,更加的不自然。

That there is something of the One, which I advanced in its time in supporting it by the circle, is what the movement of thought limits itself to–it makes a circle. Besides, this is why there is nothing more natural than to reproach its circle as vicious.

有這個「一」的某件東西,我在它的時間內提出它,以支持它作為圓圈。這是思想的動作限制它的本身的東西—-它形成一個環圈。 除外,這是為什麼譴責它的圓圈,作為惡性循環,是最自然不過的事情。

To figure the rapport of the sexes, I have therefore found the figure of two 1’s in the form of two circles knotted by a third because they are not knotted by themselves.

為了描繪兩性的這個親密關係,我因此發現這兩個「一」的圖形,以兩個圓圈的形式,它被第三個圓圈連接成結,因為它們本身並沒有被連接成結。

It is a matter not only, in the bo knot, of the three being freed when the third is broken, but of the third knotting them explicitly because they are not knotted. I would have not made this function pass through your minds if I thought that today I spoke in vain: it is because they are not knotted that they are knotted. I want to conclude with this: without the fourth, nothing is, properly speaking, put in evidence of what is truly the Borromean knot.

在這個博羅米恩結,這不但是這三個圓圈被解放,當第三個圓圈被打破時。而且第三個圓圈明確地連接它們,因為它們並沒有被連接成結。我本來不想要讓這個功用通過你們的心靈,假如我認為,今天我白費力氣地談論它。那是因為它們並沒用連接成結。我想要用這個下個結論:假如沒有這個第四個環結,適當來說,沒有一樣東西能夠被證明,這個博羅米恩結確實是什麼。

In every Borromean chain, there is a 1, then a 2, after which there is a third that makes a buckle (Figure 10).

在每個博羅米恩結鎖鏈,有一個「一」,然後有一個「二」,在此之後,有一個三,形成一個環扣(圖形十)。

In any chain whichever–let us limit ourselves to the chain 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 — if we put whichever of the first two in the third rung, the 1 will from then on be knotted to the 2 and through the 3 and through the 4.

在任何鎖鏈裡—讓我們限制我們自己於這個鎖鏈: 1-2-3-4 —假如我們將在第四的臺階的前兩個中的任何一個,這個「1」將會從那個地方開始,被連接成這個「2」,然後穿透到「3」,然後穿透到「4」.

1 2 3 4
3
1 2
4

Try it, for there is nothing better for thinking this knot than manipulating rounds of thread.

你們嘗試一下,因為要思考這個環結,最好的辦法,莫過於操弄線的這些圓圈。

It is clear that the 1 and the 2 are interchangeable; that is, at the beginning of a chain, the first and the second are indefinitely interchangeable. Now, if we place one of these two at the level of the 3, we see not only the 3 involved and passing to the place of the 2, but with the 3, the 4.

顯而易見地,「1」與「2」是互相可以交換的。換句話說,一個鎖鏈的所有的開始,第一與第二部分無窮盡地可交換。現在,假如我們將這兩個的其中一個放在這個「3」的層次,我們看到不但是這個「3」被牽涉到,而且經過到這個「2」,但是帶有這個「3」與「4」.

That is how my interest in the four-looped knot is justified, which I will develop next year.

那就是我對於這四個圈套的環結的興趣自圓其說的地方,明年我將探討這個命題。

With what should we couple the naming that here makes the fourth term? Are we going to couple it with the imaginary, inasmuch as, coming from the symbolic, it makes a certain effect in the imaginary?

我們應該使用什麼連接這個命名,在此組成第四個術語的命名?我們將要將它跟想像界連接嗎?雖然它來自符號界,它在想像界形成某種的影響?

This is what it would seem to be a question of for the logicians when they speak of the referent. In fact, the Rusellian description, which emerges when one is interrogated on the identification of Walter Scott as author of the Waverly, concerns, it seems, what is individualized from the support thought of bodies.

這是對於邏輯專家會出現問題的地方,當他們談論到這個指稱。事實上,當我們被置疑有關瓦特、司考特作為「威伯利系列小說」的作者的身份時,似乎這個羅素的描述,牽涉到從身體的支持思想,被個體化的東西。

Now, it is in fact nothing like that.

現在,事實上它根本就不是那樣。

The notion of reference aims for the real. It as real that what the logicians imagine as real gives its support to the referent, to the imaginary naming. Between R and S, we have a naming index i, and then the I. This is what constitutes the tie between the real and the symbolic.

指稱的觀念目標朝著實在界。邏輯專家想像作為實在界的東西,給予這個指稱它的支持,將命名給予想像界。在實在界與符號界之間,我們擁有一個命名的指數 i,然後就是I 這個想像界。這就是形成實在界與符號界之間的關係。
Ni
R S
I

I will propose that this imaginary naming is what I am supporting today with the infinite straight line.

我將建議,這個想像界的命名,就是今天我用這條無限的直線,正在支援的東西。

This straight line is not what would name anything whatsoever of the imaginary, but what inhibits the management of anything demonstrative. It is a bar, at the level itself of the imagination, to all that is articulated as symbolic. The body only enters into the analytic perspective inasmuch as it makes an orifice, and it is knotted to some symbolic or real. And it is precisely by a circle, an orifice, that the imaginary is constituted.

這條直線並不是會替想像界命名一切的東西,而是壓抑任何可證明的東西的處理。這是一條橫杠,本身處於想像的層次,阻擋一切被表達為符號的東西。身體僅是被連接成結,跟某個符號界或實在界。 確實是憑藉一個圓圈,一個洞口,這個想像界被組成。

The infinite straight line, which here completes the hole in question–a false hole, since an orifice does not suffice to make a hole–is quite precisely the inhibition that thought has in respect to the knot.

這個無限的直線,在此它完成這個受到置疑的空洞—一個虛假的空洞,因為一個洞口並不足以形成一個空洞—相當確實地,這條無限的直線就是思想擁有的這個壓抑,關於這個環結。

From then on, we can interrogate in the same way, what, between the real and the imaginary, naming, index of the symbolic, is.

從那時開始,我們能夠以相同的方式置疑,在實在界與想像界之間,符號界的命名指數是什麼?

Ns
R I
S
In the symbolic emerges something that names–one sees this, one believes, at the beginning of the Bible. But one does not notice that the creationist idea of the inaugural Fiat lux is not a naming. The emergence of the symbolic from the real–that’s what the idea of creation is–has nothing to do with the fact that, in a second time, a name is given to each of the animals who live in Paradise. Of what naming is it a question in what I indicate by Ns?

某件命名的東西出現在符號界—我們看出這個,我們相信,在聖經的開始。。但是我們並沒有注意到,創造主義的觀念,對於開端的「Fiat lux」,並不是一個命名。符號界從實在界出現—那是創造的觀念的內涵—它跟這個事實根本沒有關係。在第二次,一個名字被給予生活在天堂的每一個動物。關於命名,這是我用這個「符號界的命名」所指示的東西嗎?

The naming of each of the species, with a common noun, and not, in Russell’s sense, a proper noun–what does it represent? An assuredly symbolic naming, but limited to the symbolic.

每一個品種的命名,擁有一個普通名詞,從羅素的意義來說,是一個專有名詞—它代表了什麼?它代表一個確定是符號的命名,但是限制與符號界。

Does that suffice to support the Name-of-the-Father for us? Is the Father he who has given things their names, or must he be interrogated at the level of the real? Must we not knot the term naming at the level of the circle with which we support the real?

對於我們而言,那足夠支持這個「以父親之名」嗎?這個「父親」就是給予萬物它們的名稱的父親嗎? 或是他必須被置疑,在實在界的層次? 我們一定不能將「命名」這個術語,在我們用來支援這個實在界的這個圓圈的層次,連接成結嗎?

It is between these three namings, the naming of the imaginary as inhibition, the naming of the real as anxiety, the naming of the symbolic, flower of the symbolic even, as symptom–it is between these three terms that I will try next year to interrogate myself concerning what is suitable to give as substance to the Name-of-the-Father

就在這三個命名之間,想像界的命名作為壓抑,實在界的命名作為焦慮,符號界的命名,甚至是符號界的精華,作為病徵—就在這三個術語之間,明年我將會嘗試質疑我自己,關於什麼是適當的東西,為了給予「父親之名」,作為實體。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:RSI 36

November 19, 2011

拉康:RSI 36
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of May 13, 1975

You knot two circles in a way that leaves them unknotted (Figure 4). If a consistency passes here, whether of a circle or of an infinite straight line, that suffices to make a Borromean knot.

你們將兩個圓圈連接成結,用的方式卻是讓它們解開。(圖像四)。假如一個一致性經過這裡,無論它是一個圓圈,或一條無限的線,那就足夠形成一個博羅米恩結。

If you make another pass here (Figure 5), you have a figure that has the air of being a Borromean knot, but which is not, because it does not suffice to cut one of these consistencies for each of the other three to be freed.

假如你們在此從事另外一次通過(圖形五),你們擁有一個圖形,它擁有成為一個博羅米恩結的神態,但事實上,它並不是博羅米恩結。因為光是切割其中一個一致性,並不足以讓其它三個環結的每一個被解放。

For that to happen, things must be disposed otherwise (Figure 6). This has the air of being similar, but here, one whichever of the elements being broken, the others are free.

為了讓每一個環結被解放,事情必須以不同方式來處理。這擁有成為類似的神態,但是在此,三個元素中不管哪一個元素被打破,其餘的都會被解放。

And, to begin with, what do the straight line as infinite and the circle have in common? It is this: the rupture of the circle is equivalent to the rupture of the infinite straight line in its effects on the knot–it frees the other elements of the knot. But these two ruptures do not have the same effects of remainder on the element.

首先,這條直線作為無限,以及圓圈有什麼相同的地方?就是這個: 圓圈的斷裂相當等於的無限的線的斷裂,在它對於環結的影響—它解放這個環結的其它三個環結。但是這兩個斷裂並沒有相同的剩餘物的影響,在元素上。

In fact, what remains of the circle after its rupture? A finite straight line as such, which is as much as to say something to throw out, a scrap, a bit of a cord of nothing at all.

事實上,在它的斷裂後,這個圓圈剩餘什麼?一條有限的直線本身,它好像是說某件拋出的東西,一個碎片,根本什麼都不是的一點線。

Allow me to figure the circle by this zero, cut by what separates, which is to say the two, that is: 0/2 = 1, this little 1 of nothing at all. On the other hand, the sectioning of the infinite straight line, with a big 1, gives us two half-lines which begin at a point, and go off to infinity: 1/2 = 2.

請容許我用這個零來描繪這個圓圈,它被分開的東西切斷。這等於是說,這個二。換句話說,就是二分之零等於一。這個小小的根本就是空無的一。在另一方面,無線的直線的區分,擁有一個大「一」,給予我們兩條半線。這兩條半線開始於一個點,然後分開到無限: 二分之一等於二。

This makes it felt for you how I understand that there is no sexual rapport. I no doubt give to the word rapport the sense of proportion, but the mos geometricum of Euclid, which has appeared for such a long time the paragon of logic, is completely insufficient.

這讓你們感覺到,我如何瞭解:性的親密關係不存在。我無可置疑地給予「親密關係」這個字,具有「均衡」的意義。但是歐幾裡德的「幾何學」是完全不勝任的,雖然它如此長久的時間來似乎是邏輯的典範。

Also, in entering into the figure of the knot, there is a wholly other fashion to figure the non-rapport of the sexes– two circles not knotted. Each is in its fashion of turning in a circle as a sex is not knotted to the other. That is what my non-rapport means.

而且,當我們進入這個環結的圖形,有一個完整的其它方式要描繪兩性的非親密關係—兩個圓圈並沒有連接成結。每一個都以它的圓圈的旋轉方式作為性,彼此並沒有被連接成結。這就是我所謂非親密關係的意思。

雄伯曰:
拉康所謂的「性的親密關係不存在」There is no sexual rapport. 儘管反復陳述,還是令人覺得匪夷所思。倒不如最近有一位網友金枝條,用通俗的話跟我說,還比較言簡意賅:

關於:the man in the woman

竊以為“女人心中的男人”不妨翻譯成“女人裡面的男人”,這跟“岩石上羚羊的腳步“才可類比。:)其實就是從情感記憶上並不作數的男人,肯定不曾進入女人心裡,也許只是進入女人體內。

這個觀點,雄伯只有首肯。僅能補充地說,反過來說,情感記憶上並不作數的女人,擁有男人進入她的體內,,也肯定不曾擁有男人心裡。兩造都是身體的小客體在互動,作為兩造的無意識的大他者,彼此並沒有發生性的親密關係。

It is striking that language has for a long time anticipated the figure of the knot—with which mathematicians have not begun to busy themselves until our day–by calling what unites the man and the woman a knot. These knots imply as necessary the elementary 3 with which I support them: the three indications of sense, of sense materialized, posed in the namings of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real.

引人注意的是,長久以來,語言曾經期盼這個環結的圖形—使用它,數學家還沒有開始忙碌從事,直到我們的時代—我們稱呼聯接男人與女人的東西為結。這些環結暗示這個基本的「三」是需要的。用這個「三」,我支持他們。這個三大意義指標,意義的具體化,以符號界,想像界,及實在界的命名方式被提出。

I am introducing the word naming (nomination). I have had to respond with it recently apropos of the theory of reference, as logicians understand it. My knot brought me down to earth.

我正在介紹「命名」這個字。最近我曾經必須回應它,關於指稱的這個理論,依照邏輯家所瞭解它。我的環結讓我變的比較實際。

The whole question is of knowing if naming again arises, as it seems, from the symbolic.

整個問題是要知道,是否命名會再一次出現,似乎是從符號界出現。

The least one can say is that, for my knot, naming is a fourth element. I have already drawn this figure for you (Figure 7). A fourth circle knots the three at first posed as unknotted.

我們至少能夠說的是,對於我的環結,命名是第四個元素。我已經跟你們描繪出這個圖形(圖形七)。一個第四個圓圈,將起初被提出作為未被連接成結的這三個圓圈,連接成結。

In engaging in this four, one finds a particular path (voie) that only goes to six. What engages you in this path is what the three imposes, not of a distinction, but, quite to the contrary, of an identity between the three terms symbolic, imaginary, and real.

當我們從事這第四圓圈,我們發現一個特別的途徑,這條途徑僅是通往「六」。在這條途徑讓你從事的是,這個三所賦加,不是作為一種區別,而是,相反地,作為這符號界,想像界,及實在界三個術語之間的認同。

This is true (Cela va) to the point that it seems to us necessary (exigible) to find again in each this trinity. I have had to foment to account for it the terms ex-sistence, consistency, and hole.

這個陳述真實的程度,我覺得有需要重新在這「三位一體」的每一個裡去找到。為了解釋它,我曾經必須鼓吹「外部存在」「一致性」「空洞」等這些術語。

I make of ex-sistence, of what is in play up to a certain limit in the knot, the support of the real. What makes consistency is of the order of the imaginary, since if the rupture involves something, it is indeed consistency, to give it its most reduced sense.

我解釋「外部存在」,解釋是什麼在運作,直到環結的某個限度,實在界的支持。構成一致性的東西,是屬於想像界的秩序,因為假如這個斷裂牽涉到某件東西,那確實就是這個一致性,為了給予它,它最被還原的意義。

There remains then—but does it remain?–for the symbolic the affectation of the term hole. Topology gives us a figure of it in the form of the torus. But is this figure suitable, since the torus has two holes, an internal hole with its gyrie, and an external hole, thanks to which the torus is demonstrated to participate in the figure of the cylinder?

那麼,還剩下什麼呢?—但是它始終是什麼呢?– 對於這個符號界,「空洞」這個術語的裝模作樣。拓撲圖型給予我們一個它的圖形,以凸起的形式。但是這個圖形上適合的嗎?因為這個凸起圖形有兩個空洞,一個內部的空洞,擁有它的環結,還有一個外部的空洞。由於它們,這個凸起圖形被證明參與圓柱狀物的圖形?

The cylinder is for us one of the best ways of materializing the straight line to infinity, of which everyone knows its rapport with what I call the round of consistency.

對於我們而言,這個圓柱狀物是最好的方法,具體表現這條直線到達永恆。眾所周知,它跟我所謂的一致性的這個圓圈的親密關係。

Desargues was aware for a long time that the infinite straight line is in every way homologous to the circle, whereby he anticipated Riemann. Nonetheless, a question remains open, to which I give an answer by the attention I bring to the Borromean knot.

長久以來,德薩古斯知道,無限的直線從各方面來看,都跟這個圓圈具有一致性。在那裡,他預期會有瑞曼的複雜球形。可是,一個問題始終未被回答,我提醒你們注意博羅米恩結,來作為回答。

Let us only consider this drawing (Figure 8). Let us say that this circle is the symbolic, and that the two straight lines figure the real and the imaginary. What is needed for it to make a knot? The point at infinity must be such that the two straight lines do not make a chain, whatever they may be and from wherever one might see them (les voie).

讓我們僅是考慮到這個圖形(圖形八)。讓我們說,這個圓圈就是符合界,這兩條直線描繪實在界與想像界。需要什麼,才能讓它形成一個環結? 在無限的這個點必須是這樣,這兩條直線並沒有形成一個鎖鏈,無論它們是什麼,及無論我們從哪裡看見它們。

I remind you in passing that this from wherever one might see them supports this reality I enounce of the gaze. The gaze is only definable by a from wherever one might see them.

If you think of a straight line as making a round from a unique point at infinity, how can you not see that this has the sense that not only are they are not knotted, but that in not being knotted they are effectively knotted at infinity. Desargues, to my knowledge, neglected this question.

假如你認為一條直線,作為從一個無限的獨特點,形成一個圓圈,你們如何能夠看不出,這具有這個意義,它們不但被連接成結,而是由於沒有被連結成結,它們實際上在永恆處有效地連接成結。據我所知,德薩古斯忽略這個問題。

I made use of Desargues at the time when I gave my seminar on Las Meninas at the Normale Supérieure, focusing on situating this famous gaze that is quite obviously the subject of the painting. I situated it in the same interval that I establish here on the board in another form; that is, what I define by the fact that the infinite straight lines, in their supposed point of infinity, are not knotted in a chain.

我利用德薩古斯的問題,當我在「the Normale Supérieure」發表我對於「宮女畫」的研討班。我專注於定位那個著名的眼神,那顯而易見地,是那幅圖畫的主題。 我定位這個眼神,當我以另外一種形式在黑板上這裡建立相同的間隔。換句話說,我根據這個事實定義:這些無限的直線,在它們被假定的永恆點,它們並沒有在一個鎖鏈裡,被連接成結。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Encore 16

November 18, 2011

Encore 16
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

V
Aristotle and Freud:
the other satisfaction

亞力斯多德與佛洛德:另一種滿足

ARISTOTLE’S HEADACHE (TRACAS).
亞力斯多德的頭疼

THE DEFICIENCY OF JOUISSANCE AND THE SATISFACTION OF BLAH-BLAH.
歡爽的欠缺與瞎說的滿足

DEVELOPMENT, 發展
THE HYPOTHESIS OF MASTERY.掌控的假設

JOUISSANCE IS INAPPROPRIATE TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP.
對於性的關係,歡爽是不適當

“All the needs of speaking beings are contaminated by the fact of being involved in an other satisfaction” – underline the last three words – “that those needs may not live up to.”1

「言說主體的所有的需要受到這個事實的污染:生命實存牽涉到一種另一個主體的滿足」—我們強調「另一個主體的滿足」最後幾個字—「那些需要可能無法滿足的另一個主體的滿足。」

This first sentence, which I wrote down this morning when I woke up so that you would write it down, sweeps away the opposition between an other satisfaction and needs – assuming this term [“needs”], which people so often resort to, can be so easily grasped, since, after all, it can only be grasped by not living up to (faire défaut à) that other satisfaction.

這第一個句子,我今天早上醒來是寫下。這樣你們將會抄寫下,將另外一個主題的滿足與需要之間的對立橫掃掉—假定人們經常訴求的「需要」這個術語,能夠如此容易地被理解,因為畢竟,只有當你沒有滿足另一個主體的滿足時,它才能夠被理解。

The other satisfaction is, as you must realize,2 what is satisfied at the level of the unconscious – insofar as something is said there and is not said there, if it is true that it is structured like a language.

如你們必須體會到,另一個主體的滿足,在無意識界的層次所被滿足的東西—在那裡某件事情被說,而且沒有被說,即使它的結構確實是像語言。

Here I am coming back to something I have been referring to for some time, namely, the jouissance on which that other satisfaction depends, the one that is based on language.

在此,我回到某件我有某段時間一直提到的事情。換句話說,另外一個主體依賴的歡爽,以語言為基礎的歡爽。

1
In dealing, a long time ago, a very long time ago indeed, with the ethics of psychoanalysis, I began with nothing less than Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics,

很久以前,確實很久以前,當我在處理精神分析倫理學時,我實實在在就是空亞裡斯多德的「尼可馬赫倫理學」開始。

That can be read. There is only one problem for a certain number of you here, and that is that it cannot be read in French. It is manifestly untranslatable. A long time ago, the Gamier publishing company came out with something that might have made me believe there was a translation, by someone named Voilquin.

那個倫理學能夠被閱讀。對於在此的你們某些人,僅有一個問題,那就是,它無法用法文來閱讀。它顯而易見是無法翻譯的。很久以前,佳米爾出版公司出版某件東西,本來會讓我相信,會有一個翻譯本,作者名字是博爾昆。

He was an academic, obviously. It’s not his fault if Greek cannot be translated into French. Things have gotten condensed in such a way that Gamier, which, moreover, has since merged with Flammarion, no longer gives you anything but the French text – I must say that publishers infuriate me. You all notice then, when you read it without the Greek on opposite pages, that you can’t make head nor tail of it. It is, strictly speaking, unintelligible.

顯而易見,他是一位學者。 假如希臘文無法被翻譯成為法文,那不是他的過錯。事情已經有了改善,所以佳米爾出版公司,從此跟弗拉馬里安出版公司合併,它們就是給你們這個法文的版本。我必須說,這些出版家讓我生氣。你們都會注意到,當你們閱讀它時,沒有希臘文本作為對照,你們根本無法理解它。嚴格來說,它是無法翻譯的。

“All art and all research, like all action and all reflected deliberation” – what relation could there possibly be among those four things? – “tend, it seems, toward some good. Thus people have sometimes had good reason to define the good as that towards which one tends in all circumstances. Nevertheless” – and this comes out of the blue, not having yet been discussed- “it seems that there is a difference between ends.”4

「所有的藝術與所有的研究,就像所有的行動及所有被沉思的考量」,在這四件事情裡,可能會有什麼關聯?—「似乎,它們都傾向於某種的善。因此人們有時會有充分的理由定義這個善,作為朝向在各種情況下我們傾向的東西。可是」—突然冒出這一句,還沒有被討論的東西—「似乎在藝術與善之間的目標有個差異。」

I challenge anyone to be able to clear away this thick morass without abundant commentary referring to the Greek text. It seems quite impossible that the text could sound like this simply because we have but badly taken notes.

我挑戰任何人能夠清理這個厚厚的混亂,假如沒有豐富的評注,提到希臘文本。這似乎是不可能的,這個文本聽起來像這樣,僅是因為我們筆記注釋不足。

After a while, a light bulb flashes on in the heads of certain commentators – it dawns on them that, if they are obliged to work so hard, maybe there’s a reason for it. Aristotle need not be unthinkable at all – I’ll come back to this point.

過了一段時間,某些的評注學者的頭腦靈光一閃—他們突然明白: 假如他們不得不努力用功,很可能就是這種混亂的原因。亞裡斯多德確實是需要費心來思索—我回頭再來談論這一點。

In my own case, what wound up being written – that is, typed up on the basis of the stenography5 – concerning what I had said about ethics seemed more than utilizable by the people who were, nevertheless, simultaneously engaged in pointing me out to the attention of the Internationale de psychanalyse6 with the result that is well known.

在我自己的情況,結果被書寫出來的東西—換句話說,根據速記的基礎被打字出來的東西—關於我曾經說過關於倫理學,對於那些人似乎是更加可利用。他們仍然同時地從事跟我指出,要注意這個「國際精神分析」,具有眾所周知的結果。

They would have liked to see preserved, all the same, my reflections on what psychoanalysis brings with it by way of ethics. It would have been sheer profit [for them] – I would have sunk to the bottom while The Ethics of Psychoanalysis would have stayed afloat. That’s an example of the fact that calculation is not enough –

他們本來會想要看到我的沉思被保存,仍然是根據精神分析憑藉倫理學所帶來的東西。對於他們而言,那本來是皆大歡喜—當「精神分析的倫理學」本來會高高在上,而我則沉淪到底端。流通得並不足夠,這是一個事實的例子。

I stopped my Ethics from being published. I refused to allow it to come out because I’m not going to try to convince people who want nothing to do with me. One must not convince (convaincre). What is proper to psychoanalysis is not to vanquish (vaincre), regardless of whether people are assholes (con) or not.7

我阻擋我的「精神分析倫理學」不要出版。我拒絕讓它出版,因為我並不想要說服一些並不想要跟我打交道的人。我們一定不要想說服別人。精神分析的本體,並不是想要征服,儘管有些人是混蛋與否。

It wasn’t at all a bad seminar, in the end. At the time, someone who did not in any way participate in the calculation I just mentioned, wrote it up as he could, making an honest, wholehearted effort. He made it into a written text, a written text by him. He hadn’t even thought of stealing it from me, and he would have published it like that if I had been willing. But I wasn’t. Today, of all the seminars that someone else is going to bring out, it is perhaps the only one I will rewrite myself and make into a written text. I really should do one, all the same. Why not pick that one?

追根究底,那個研討班並非沒有可取之處。在當時,某個人並沒有以任何方式參與我剛剛提到的流通,盡其能力地書寫它,從事全心全意的努力。他成功地讓它成為一個書寫的文本,他所寫的書寫文本。他甚至沒有想到要從我這裡剽竊。假如我當時願意,他本來會出版它。 但是,我並不願意。今天,某個人將會跟我出版所有研討班,或許是這個研討班,我自己將會重新改寫,讓它成為書寫的的文本。 我真的仍然應該從事一個這樣的文本。為什麼我要挑選哪一本呢?

There’s no reason not to put oneself to the test, not to see how others before Freud saw the terrain in which he constituted his field. It is another way of experiencing what is involved, namely, that this terrain is unthinkable except with the help of the instruments with which we operate, and that the only instruments by which accounts are conveyed are writings.

沒有理由不將自己付之考驗,不去看出,在佛洛德之前的其他人,如何看待他組成他的領域的平臺。這是另外一種方式經驗到所牽涉的東西,換句話說,這個平臺是不可思議的,除了憑藉我們運作的這些工具的幫助。解釋賴於被表達的僅有的一些工具是被書寫的東西。

A very simple test makes this clear – reading the Nicomachean Ethics in the French translation, you understand nothing in it, of course, but no less than in what I tell you, and thus it suffices all the same.

一個簡單的考驗可澄清這一點—閱讀法文版的「尼可馬赫倫理學」,你們當然將會什麼也不瞭解。但是在我告訴你們的東西,你們同樣也不瞭解,因此,它仍然保持這樣就足夠了。

Aristotle is no more comprehensible than what I talk to you about. It is even less comprehensible because he stirs up more things and things that are further from us. But it is clear that the other satisfaction I was talking about earlier is exactly the satisfaction that can be seen to emerge from what? Well, my good friends, there’s no escaping it if you force yourself to look at it closely (au pied du truc)8 – from the universals: the Good, Truth, and Beauty.

亞裡斯多德是無法理解,如同我跟你們談論的那樣。它甚至更加無法被理解,因為他激發起比我們更為深刻的事情。但是顯而易見的,我早先談論的另一個主體的滿足,確實就是能夠被看見從哪裡出現的這個滿足? 呵呵!我的好朋友,你不可能逃避這個滿足,即使你們強迫自己仔細地觀看它—從普遍性的角度:真善美的角度。

But the fact that there are these three specifications gives an air of pathos to the approach adopted by certain texts, those that are “authorized,” with the meaning I give that term when placed in quotes, namely, those that are bequeathed to us under an author’s name. That is what happens with certain texts that come to us from what I think twice about calling a very ancient culture – it’s not culture.

但是真善美的這三個明確存在的事實,給予一種情懷,讓某些的文本採用作為追求的情懷。那些被「授權」的文本,具有我給予那個術語的意義,處於引用語的地位。換句話說,那些在一個作者的名字底下,被傳遞給我們的文本。那就是所發生的情況,由於有某些的文本來到我這裡,從我認為是再三思量才稱為一種非常古老的文化—那並不是文化。

Culture, insofar as it is distinct from society, doesn’t exist. Culture is the fact that it has a hold on us (ça nous tient). We no longer have it on our backs, except in the form of vermin, because we don’t know what to do with it, except to get ourselves deloused. I recommend that you keep it, because it tickles and wakes you up.

文化並不存在,就它跟社會的區別而言。文化是它影響著我們的這個事實。我們不再擁有文化作為我們的支持,除了以令人懊惱的蝨子般形態,因為我們並不知道要怎樣處理它,除了就是讓我們自己除掉這個蝨子般的懊惱。我推薦,你們應該擁有文化,因為文化像蝨子般咬齧你們,讓你們清醒。

That will awaken your feelings that tend rather to become a bit deadened9 under the influence of ambient conditions, in other words, due to what others who come afterward will call your culture. It will have become culture for them because you will have already been six feet under for a long time and, with you, everything that you sustain qua social link.

文化會喚醒你們的感覺,這些感覺相當傾向於變得有點僵化,在周遭環境的影響下。換句話說,由於隨後有人過來稱呼你們的文化。對於他們而言,這將成為文化,因為你們長久以來將會已經是陷溺在文化之中。對於你們而言,文化是你們支持作為社會聯繫的一切。

In the final analysis, there’s nothing but that, the social link. I designate it with the term “discourse” because there’s no other way to designate it once we realize that the social link is instated only by anchoring itself in the way in which language is situated over and etched into what the place is crawling with, namely, speaking beings.

追根究底,沒有別的,就是文化,這個社會的聯繫。我用「真理論述」這個術語指明它,因為沒有其它方法指明它,一旦我們體會到,僅是憑藉語言的定位安穩下來,銘記進入言說的主體走動的地方,這個社會聯繫才能被安置。

We shouldn’t be astonished by the fact that former discourses – and there will be others to follow – are no longer thinkable to us or thinkable only with great difficulty.

我們不應該對這個事實感到驚訝:對於我們而言,以前的真理論述不再是可思議的,或是勉為其難才能思議—還會有別的真理論述跟隨而來。

Just as the discourse I am trying to bring to light is not immediately accessible to your understanding, similarly, from where we stand, it is not very easy to understand Aristotle’s discourse. But is that a reason why it should no longer be thinkable? It is quite clear that it is thinkable.

正如我正在嘗試啟明的這個真理論述,並無法馬上獲得你們的理解。同樣地,從我們站立的地方,要理解亞裡斯多德的真理論述,並不是很容易。但是,這難道就是它不再能夠被思維的原因嗎?顯而易見地,它是可以思維的。

It is only when we imagine that Aristotle means something that we worry about what he is encompassing. What is he catching in his net, in his network? What is he drawing out of it? What is he handling? What is he dealing with? What is he struggling with? What is he maintaining? What is he working on? What is he pursuing?

只有當我們想像,亞裡斯多德意味著我們憂慮他所涵蓋的內容。他在他的網裡,他的思想網路裡,他捕捉到什麼?他從裡面獲得什麼?他正在處理什麼?他正在搬弄什麼?他正在奮鬥什麼?他正在主張什麼?他正在研究什麼?他正在追求什麼?

Obviously, in the first four lines [of Aristotle’s Ethics] that I read to you, you hear words, and you assume they mean something, but naturally you don’t know what. “All art, all research, all action” – what does all of that mean? It’s because Aristotle threw in a lot of stuff after that, and because it comes down to us in printed form after having been copied and recopied for a long time, that we assume there must be something there that grabs one (fait prise).

顯而易見地,在亞裡斯多德的倫理學的第四行,我閱讀跟你們聽,你們聽到文字,你們假定它們意味著某件事情。但是當然,你們並不知道那是什麼。「所有的藝術,所有的研究,所有的行動」— 這一切意味著什麼?那是因為亞裡斯多德拋進許多東西在背後。因為它以印刷的形式傳遞到我們這裡,當它被抄寫及重新抄寫很長久的時間。我們假定會有某件東西吸引我們。

That is when we raise the question, the only question – at what level did such things satisfy them?

那是當我們提出問題,唯一的問題—諸如其類的事情在什麼層次滿足他們?

It makes little difference what use was made of them at the time. We know that they were passed down and that there were volumes of Aristotle’s work. That disconcerts us, and it does so precisely because the question “At what level did such things satisfy them?” is translatable only as follows:

在當時我們如何使用它們,這並不重要。我們知道,它們被傳遞下來,亞裡斯多德的著作有好幾冊。那讓我們感到困窘,它確實會,因為這個問題:「諸如其類的事情在什麼層次滿足他們?」僅能被翻譯如下:

“At what level might a certain jouissance have been to blame?”10 In other
words, why – why did he get so worked up (se tracassait)?

「某些的歡爽在什麼層次,本來可能會受到責備?」換句話說,為什麼—為什麼他變得如此激動起來?

You heard me right – failing, deficiency (faute, défaut),11 something that isn’t working out (qui ne va pas). Something skids off track in what is manifestly aimed at, and then it immediately starts up with the good and happiness. The good, the bad, and the oafish! (Du hi, du bien, du benêt!)12

你們都聽到我說—有某種失敗,某種欠缺,某件沒有運作的東西。某件滑離軌道的東西,在顯而易見被視為目標的東西,然後它立刻出現「善」與「快樂」的結論。又是善,又是惡,真是愚癡!

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:RSI 35

November 18, 2011

拉康:RSI 35
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of May 13, 1975
There are no states of the soul. There is a dire to demonstrate. And to promote the title under which this dire will be pursued next year if I survive, I will announce it: 4, 5, 6.

沒有靈魂的狀態。有一個「言說」要證明。為了要提升這個標題,在這個標題之下,這個「言說」明年將會被探討,假如我還活著的話,我將會宣佈它:4,5,6.

This year, I have said RSI. Why not 1, 2, 3? . . . . we will go to the woods. You know what follows: 4, 5, 6, gathering cherries–7, 8, 9, in my new basket.19
I will stop at 4, 5, 6. Why? And why are RSI given as letters?

今年,我已經演說過實在界,符號界,想像界。為什麼不說是1,2,3 ,等等。我們將會迷失其中。你們知道後面跟隨的是什麼:4,5,6,像採取櫻桃似的,7,8,9,放在我的新籃子裡。我在面臨4,5,6 的地方停住。為什麼?為什麼實在界,象徵界,想像界,被給予作為字母,而非數位?

That they are three can be said secondly. It is only because they are three that there is one that is the real.

它們是三個能夠從另一個角度說。僅是因為它們是三個,有一個「一」是實在界。

Which of the three merits the title of real? At this level of logic, it little matters. The sense cedes to the number, to the point that it is the number that . . . am I going to say dominates this sense? No–determines it.

這三個哪一個獲得真實界的頭銜?在邏輯的這個層次,這個問題幾乎沒什麼重要。意義讓與數位,到達意義就是數位的程度,,,我將要是數字操控這個意義嗎?不—-是數字決定意義。

The number three has to be demonstrated as what it is if it is the real, that is, the impossible. What one wants to demonstrate at the point of saying it (en passe du dire) must be impossible, a required (exigible) condition for the real. It exists as impossible.

三這個數字必須被證明,作為它的本質,假如它就是實在界。換句話說,這個不可能界。在說出它的時候,我們想要證明的東西,必須是不可能,這是一個對於實在界被要求的情況。它存在作為不可能。

Still, it must be demonstrated, and not only shown. Demonstrating is a matter for the symbolic. The symbolic is thus a step ahead of the imaginary. But this does not suffice, because it only sets the tone. One must not trust in the tone, but in the number.

可是,我們必須證明,而不單是顯示而已。證明是符號界的問題。符號界因此超前想像界前面一步。但是這並不足夠。因為它僅是豎立這個基調。我們一定不要信任那個基調,而要信任這個數字。

And this is what I try to put to the test. But is a number knotted still a number?
That’s where we are. I have retained you throughout the year around a certain number of flashes. I am not there for much, being determined as a subject by the unconscious, or else by my practice.

這就是我嘗試付諸考驗的地方。但是一個數字被連接成結,還依舊是一個數字嗎?那就是我們所在的地方。這一整年當中,我曾經以某些的靈光一閃,讓你們留連在此。我在那裡所求不多,我僅是決心以無意識,要不然就是以我的精神分析實踐,作為一位主體。

This implies the unconscious as supposed–is this to say that, as wholly supposed it is imaginary? This is the sense itself of the word subject: supposed as imaginary.

這暗示著,無意識作為被假定的東西—-這難道是說,作為被假定的東西,它是想像?這就是「主體」這個字的意義本身:被假定作為想像界.

What is there in the symbolic that is not imagined? There is the hole. Someone who saw me in the grip of the knot said to me that I contradicted myself by having at one time appropriated for my purposes a Picassoian formula: “I do not seek, I find.” To seek (Chercher) is a term that derives from circare. I find nonetheless, since I have found the hole (trouvé le trou), a mouse hole through which I am reduced to passing. Does it have something to do with
what one imagines to determine it, that is, the circle? A circle can be a hole, but it is not always.

在符號界有什麼不是被想像的呢?有這個空洞存在。某個人看到我被這個環結掌控,對我說,我反駁我自己,因為有一次我篡改畢卡索的公式,充當我的用途:「我沒有尋求,我是找到。」「尋求」是一個從「旅遊」獲得的術語。可是,我「找到」,因為我已經找到這個空洞,一個老鼠的空洞。穿過這個空洞,我被還原成為是「經過」。它跟我們想像要訣定它的東西,有些關係。也就是說,這個圓圈?一個圓圈有時會說一個空洞,但是未必總是如此。

It is only the consequence of the hole.

那僅是這個空洞的結果。

While I am there, I will remind you of the Arab proverb which is found already in the last lines of my Propos sur la causalité psychique, and which states that there are three things that leave no mark: the man in the woman, the step of the gazelle on the rock, and, more inaccessible to our eyes made for signs of change, the mark on the touched coin, the mark that is not there– there is only wear. It is here that is sold cut-rate (se solder), it is the case to say, this something knotted in question.

當我在那裡,我將會提醒你們這個阿拉伯的諺語。這個諺語在我的「心理的因果關係」的最後幾行,已經被找到。裡面陳述:有三個東西沒有留下標記。女人心中的男人,岩石上羚羊的腳步,(令我們為了探尋改變的訊息的眼睛無法窺測的),被碰過的錢幣上的記號。這個並不在那裡的記號—只有磨損。就在這裡,這個切割的速率被賣掉。這是要說的情況,這個某件受到質疑的某件東西。

雄伯曰
拉康將「女人心中的男人」列為「三個沒有留下標記的東西」之一,說得令人發噱。女性同胞大概也不會服氣。不過有一天我在一位女性同胞的網頁,看到她替自己立下的精神指標,才有點恍然大悟。

「“每個人都很孤獨。在我們的一生中,遇到愛,遇到性,都不稀罕,稀罕的是遇到瞭解。”

對於感情的態度:
你來了,我當你不會走
你走了,我當你不曾來 」

在「你來了」跟「你走了」的矛盾論述裡,拉康的話語隱然在焉。

I find enough, enough for having to circulate. Hegel poses quite well that all that is political is rooted in the Police. There is nothing political that is not finally, in the final term of reduction, the police pure and simple. Now, the police have only one thing to say: Circulez!

我找到足夠的東西,因為我必須將它們流通。黑格爾清楚地提出:所有政治的一切都根源于員警。沒有一樣政治的東西,最後追根究底,不是實實在在的員警。現在,員警只有一件事情可說:「往前行吧!」

[Move on!]. The gyrie little matters.

「往前行吧!」環結幾乎沒有什麼重要。

All of this only becomes serious if one begins with the hole, through which it is necessary to pass. What is remarkable about the bo knot is that it makes a knot without circling in a fashion that utilizes the hole as such.

只有我們從這個空洞開始,這一切才會是成為嚴肅。通過這個空洞,經過是必須的。關於這個博羅米恩結,引人注意的地方是,它形成一個環結,迴圈的方式,卻沒有利用到這個空洞的本身。

There is a difference between the knot and this (Figure 1), which utilizes the hole. This makes a chain. The knot makes a chain without using the hole (Figure 2).

在那個環結跟這個環結之間的差異(圖形一),前者利用這個空洞。這形成一個鎖鏈。這個環結形成一個鎖鏈,但是沒有利用這個空洞。( 圖形二)

Despite its appearance, in this form here, a form that is pure appearance, we again find the bo knot (Figure 3). In the measure that these two rounds, the two larger ones, are not knotted, the third, smaller one knots them. It first modifies (infléchit) one of them, then, having arrived at the other end, it modifies the other in its turn, and thus turns in a circle.

儘管它的外表,在這裡的這個形式,一個純粹是外表的形式,我們再一次找到這個博羅米恩結(圖形三)。隨著這兩個圓圈沒有被連接成結,這兩個較大的圓圈,這個第三個較小的圓圈將它們連接成結。它起初修正其中之一,然後,到達另外一端之後,它修正輪換過來的另一端,然後以迴圈方式旋轉。

If we suppose it symbolic, let us say that it will indefinitely turn around the false chain of the imaginary and the symbolic, unless this fourth round is interposed. How are we to recognize ourselves in this double circle, and precisely as not being knotted?

假如我們認為它是符合,讓我們說,它將無窮盡地環繞想像界與符號界的虛假鎖鏈旋轉,除非這第四個環圈被介入。在這個雙重的迴圈裡,確實是並沒有形成環結,我們應個如何體認出我們自己?

Boromean, it does not suffice that it be a knot; each of the knotted elements must be freed by the rupture of one among them.

我們就是博羅米恩結,它應該成為一個環結,這並不足夠。每一個被連接成結的元素,必須被它們其中一個環結的斷裂而解開。

Let us remark that one does not give to this expression, “it must and it suffices,” its full sense, save in referring to the knot. “It suffices” implies –something that one always forgets because one does not make the hole, the only hole worth anything (le seul trou qui vaille), the discovery (la trouvaille)–that if the condition is lacking, nothing works anymore, which is the inverse of “it must” (il faut). This inverse is always eluded; I am going to demonstrate how right away.

讓我們評論說,我們並沒有給予這個表達「它必須,而且它足夠」。它的充分意義,除了提到這個環結。「它足夠」暗示著—某件我們總是忘記的東西,因為我們沒有形成這個空洞,這個值得一切的唯一的空洞,這個發現—假如這個情況欠缺,再沒有東西運作。這就是「它必須」的倒轉。這個倒轉總是被躲避。我將要立刻證明如何躲避

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Encore 15

November 17, 2011

Encore 15
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
IV

Love and the signifier
愛與能指
4
We have seen changes in writing (l’écrit) since language has existed. What is written are letters, and letters have not always been fabricated in the same way. On that subject, people do history, the history of writing, and people rack their brains imagining what purpose the Mayan and Aztec pictographs might have served and, a bit further back in time, the pebbles of the Mas d’Azil– – what could those funny sort of dice have been, and what kind of games did they play with them?

我們曾經看過書寫的改變,自從語言存在以來。所被書寫的東西是「字母」,而字母被構想的方式未必都是相同。對於那個題目,人們從事歷史研究,書寫的歷史。人們費盡腦筋想像,馬雅人與阿茲特克人的象形文字當時可能充當什麼用途。在更遠古的時代,法國馬斯、阿西爾地區的小石頭,那些滑稽的骰子當時會是什麼東西,他們用那些骰子在玩什麼種類的遊戲。

To raise such questions is the habitual function of History. One should say – above all, don’t touch that H,the initial of History. That would be a fine way of bringing people back to the first of the letters, the one to which I confine my attention, the letter A. The Bible begins, by the way, only with the letter B – it left behind the letter A so that I could take charge of it.

提出這些問題是「歷史」研究的慣常功用。我們應該說—尤其是,不要碰觸到那個「H」,「歷史」的第一個字母。那將是一個好的方法,將人們帶回那些字母的第一個字母,我將我的注意力限制於那個字母,「A」的這個字母。順便說一句,聖經是用「B」這個字母開始—它避開「A」這個字母,這樣,我才能個負責處理它。

There is a lot to learn here, not by studying the pebbles of the Mas d’Azil, nor even, as I formerly did for my receptive audience (bon public)/8 my receptive audience of analysts, by seeking out the notch on the stone to explain the unary trait29 – that was within their ken – but by looking more closely at what mathematicians have been doing with letters since, scorning a number of things, they began, in the most well grounded of fashions, under the name of set theory, to notice that one could approach the One in a way other than the intuitive, fusional, amorous way.

在此有許多要學習的地方,不是根據研究馬斯、阿西爾的那些小石頭,甚至也不是,如同我先前替接納我的聽眾所做的,接納我的精神分析的聽眾,我找出石頭上的這個記號,為了解釋「獨特的特徵」,那是在他們的視野範圍內—而是要更加仔細地觀看數學家對於字母曾經處理的方式。因為,雖然他們藐視許多東西,他們以最有根據的方式,在集合理論的名義下,開始注意到,我們能個接近這個「一」,以並非是直覺,附會,爛情的方式。

“We are but one.” Everyone knows, of course, that two have never become but one, but nevertheless “we are but one.” The idea of love begins with that. It is truly the crudest way of providing the sexual relationship, that term that manifestly slips away, with its signified.

「我們僅是一」。當然,眾所周知,「二」從來沒有變成僅是「一」。但是仍然是「我們僅是一」。
愛的觀念從那裡開始。確實就是這個粗糙的方式,提供了性的關係。那個術語顯而易見地閃爍不定,由於它的「能指」的存在。

The beginning of wisdom should involve beginning to realize that it is in that respect that old father Freud broke new ground. I myself began with that because it affected me quite a bit myself. It could affect anyone,moreover,couldn’t it, to realize that love, while it is true that it has a relationship with the One, never makes anyone leave himself behind.30 If that, all of that and nothing but that, is what Freud said by introducing the function of narcissistic love, everyone senses and sensed that the problem is how there can be love for an other.
「」
智慧的開始應該牽涉到開始體會:在那方面,老父親佛洛德開展了新的場域。我自己則是以那個場域開始,因為它相當程度地影響我自己。而且,它會影響到任何人,假如他們體會到,愛永遠不會讓任何人講自己避開,雖然愛確實跟這個「一」有關係。 假如是那樣,所有那一切,而且僅僅就那一切,就是佛洛德所說的。他介紹自戀的愛的功用,每個人都感覺到,而且以前就感覺到,問題是如何會有對於一個他人的愛。

The One everyone talks about all the time is, first of all, a kind of mirage of the One you believe yourself to be. Not to say that that is the whole horizon. There are as many Ones as you like – they are characterized by the fact that none of them resemble any of the others in any way – see t he first hypothesis in the Parmenides.

每個人一直在談論的這個「一」,首先,它是這個「一」的一種幻想的景象。你相信你自己是那個「一」。這並不是說,那就是整個視野。世界上,這個「一」多得不勝枚舉—他們的特徵是這個事實:他們沒有一個人在任何方面,酷似任何其他的人。你們不妨看看在「巴門尼底斯」的第一個假設。

Set theory bursts onto the scene by positing the following: let us speak of things as One that are strictly unrelated to each other. Let us put together objects of thought, as they are called, objects of the world, each of which counts as one. Let us assemble these absolutely heterogeneous things, and let us grant ourselves the right to designate the resulting assemblage by a letter.

集合理論突然進入這個場域,提出以下命題: 讓我們談論事情,當著是彼此絕對互不相關的「一」。讓我們將思想的客體擺在一塊,如它們所被稱呼的,世界的客體。它們每一個都被認為是一個「一」。讓我們將這些絕對是異樣性的東西裝配在一塊,然後讓我們給予我們自己這個權利,用一個字母,指明這個結果的裝配。

That is how set theory expresses itself at the outset, that theory, for example, that I mentioned last time in relation to Nicolas Bourbaki.

那就是集合理論一開始如何表達它自己的方式。譬如,那個理論,我上一次提到,跟尼古拉、鮑巴基有關。

You let slip by the fact that I said that the letter designates an assemblage.That is what is printed in the text of the definitive edition to which the authors – as you know, there are several of them – ended up consenting.

你們忽略了這個事實:我說字母指明一種裝配。那就是那個明確的版本的文本被出版的東西。眾所周知,那些作者們—他們有好幾位—結果都同意。

They are very careful to say that letters designate assemblages. Therein lies their timidity and their error – letters constitute (font)31 assemblages. They don’t designate assemblages, they are assemblages. They are taken as (comme) functioning like (comme) these assemblages themselves.

他們非常小心地說,字母指明是裝配。他們的膽怯及他們的錯誤就在那裡—字母組成各種裝配。它們並沒有指明裝配,它們就是裝配。字母被認為是就像是這些裝配本身的功用。

You see that by still preserving this “like” (comme), I am staying within the bounds of what I put forward when I say that the unconscious is structured like a language. I say like so as not to say – and I come back to this all the time – that the unconscious is structured by a language. The unconscious
is structured like the assemblages in question in set theory, which are like letters.32

你們看出,憑藉著依舊保存這個「像是」,我保持在我所提出的範圍之內,當我說,無意識的結構像是一種語言。我說「像是」,為了不要說—我始終會回到這一點—無意識的結構像是一種語言。無意識的結構像是在集合理論受到置疑的裝配,這些裝配像是這些字母。

Since what is at stake for us is to take language as (comme) that which functions in order to make up for the absence of the sole part of the real that cannot manage to be formed from being (se former de Vëtre) – namely, the sexual relationship – what basis can we find in merely reading letters?

因為對於我們而言,岌岌可危的是,把語言當著發揮功用的東西,為彌補實在界的這個唯一的部分的缺席。這個實在界無法成功地根據生命實存被形成—換句話說,根據性的關係—當我們僅僅閱讀字母,我們找到怎樣的基礎?

It is in the very play of mathematical writing (l’écrit) that we must find the compass reading toward which to head in order to draw from this practice – from this new social link, analytic discourse, that emerges and spreads in such a singular fashion – what can be drawn from it regarding the function
of language, that language in which we put our faith in order for this discourse to have effects – middling, no doubt, but tolerable enough – so that this discourse can prop up and complete the other discourses.

就在數學的書寫的遊戲裡,我們必須找到這個指標性的閱讀。我們必須朝向這個指標的閱讀前進,為了從這個實踐中獲得精神分析論述—從這個新的社會聯繫-。精神分析論述出現,而且以如此獨特的方式—從它那裡,關於語言的這個功用,我們給予信任的語言,為了讓這個論述擁有影響—無可置疑,它是介於中間,但是足夠讓人容忍—所以,這個論述能夠支持而且完成其它的論述。

For some time now, it has been clear that university discourse must be written “uni-vers-Cythera,”33 since it must teach sex education. We shall see what that will lead to. We certainly shouldn’t try to block it. The idea that something may be imparted regarding this bit (point) of knowledge – which is placed (se pose) exactly in the authoritarian situation of semblance – that can improve relations between the sexes is certainly destined to bring a smile to an analyst’s face. But after all, who knows?

現在有一段時間來,已經澄清的是,大學倫述必須被書寫為「愛與歡樂之地」,因為它必須教導性的教育。我們將會看出,那導致的結果會是什麼。我們確實不應該嘗試阻擋它。關於這一部分的知識,某件東西可能會被教導這個觀念,它確實被擺放在類似物的權威情境。

As I already said, the angel’s smile is the stupidest of smiles, and one must thus never brag about it. But it is clear that the very idea of demonstrating something related to sex education on the blackboard does not seem, from the vantage point of the analyst’s discourse, to promise much in the way of fortunate encounters or happiness.

如同我已經說過,天使的微笑是所有微笑中最愚蠢的,關於這一點,我們因此一定不要自誇。但是顯而易見的,在這個黑板上,證明某件跟性教育有關的這個觀念,從精神分析論述的宏觀來看,似乎並沒有承諾許多展望,朝向幸福的遭遇。

If there is something in my Écrits that shows that my fine orientation, since it is of that fine orientation that I try to convince you, is not such a recent development, it is the fact that right after a war, where nothing obviously seemed to promise a pretty future, I wrote “Logical Time and the Assertion of Anticipated Certainty.”34 One can quite easily read therein – if one writes and not only if one has a good ear – that it is already little a that thetisizes the function of haste. In that article, I highlighted the fact that something like intersubjectivity can lead to a salutary solution (issue).

假如在我的「精神分析論文集」,有某件東西顯示我的美好的定向,因為我嘗試說服你們相信的那個美好的定向,並不是最近的發展,那是就在二次大戰後的事實,在戰爭期間,顯而易見地,似乎沒有東西給我們許諾一個美好的未來。我書寫「邏輯的時間與期望的確定性的主張」。我們很容易在那裡閱讀到—假如我們書寫,不但假如我們願意細心傾聽—這個「小客體」已經武斷地呈現匆促的功用。在那篇文章裡,我強調這個事實:某件像是互為主體性的東西,會導致一種有益的解決。

But what warrants a closer look is what each of the subjects sustains (supporte), not insofar as he is one among others, but insofar as he is, in relation to the two others, what is at stake in their thinking. Each intervenes in this ternary only as the object a that he is in the gaze of the others.

但是讓我們仔細觀看的理由是,每一個主體所支持的東西,不是他是他們其中之一,而是跟兩位其他人的關係,岌岌可危的是他們的思想。在這個第三個裡,每一個介入,在其餘的人的眼光裡,他僅是這個小客體。

In other words, there are three of them, but in reality, there are two plus a. This two plus a> from the standpoint of a, can be reduced, not to the two others, but to a One plus a. You know, moreover, that I have already used these functions to try to represent to you the inadequacy of the relationship between the One and the Other, and that I have already provided as a basis for this little a the irrational number known as the golden number.35

換句話說,他們有三個,但是事實上是有兩個,再加一個小客體。這個加小客體的兩個,從小客體的觀點,能夠被化減,不是化減到兩個其他,而是化減到一個「一」加小客體。 而且,你們知道,我已經使用這些功用,嘗試跟你們呈現這個「一」與「大他者」之間的關係的不夠充分。我已經提供眾所周知的黃金數目這個無理數,充當這個小客體的基礎。

It is insofar as, starting from little a, the two others are taken as One plus a, that what can lead to an exit in haste functions.

從這個小客體開始,這兩個他者被認為是「一」加小客體,匆促通往出口的東西,發揮功用。

This identification, which is produced in a ternary articulation, is grounded in the fact that in no case can two as such serve as a basis.

這種認同,它在一個第三者的表達裡被產生。它的基礎是這個事實: 二的本身無論如何都無法充當一個基礎。

Between two, whatever they may be, there is always the One and the Other, the One and the a, and the Other cannot in any way be taken as a One.

在這兩個之間,無論它們是什麼,總是有這個「一」跟「大他者」,這個「一」跟這個小客體。大他者無論如何都不能被認為一個「一」。

It is insofar as something brutal is played out in writing (l’écrit) – namely, the taking as ones of as many ones as we like – that the impasses that are revealed thereby are, by themselves, a possible means of access to being for us and a possible reduction of the function of that being in love.

在書寫裡,有某件殘酷的東西被演出—換句話說,隨我們高興地接納許多的「一」當著是「一」—因此而被顯示的這些僵局,對於我們而言,本身就是一個可能的方法接近生命實存,以及在愛中的那個生命實存的功用,可能地被還原。

I want to end by showing in what respect the sign can be distinguished from the signifier.

結束時,我想要顯示:這個訊息在哪一方面能夠跟這個能指區別出來。

The signifier, as I have said, is characterized by the fact that it represents a subject to another signifier. What is involved in the sign? The cosmic theory of knowledge or world view has always made a big deal of the famous example of smoke that cannot exist without fire.37

如同我曾經說過,這個能指的特徵是這個事實:它代表一個主體,對於另外一個能指。是什麼牽涉到這個訊息呢? 知識的宇宙論,或世界觀總是非常重視這個著名的例子: 假如沒有火,煙不可能存在。

So why shouldn’t I put forward what I think about it? Smoke can just as easily be the sign of a
smoker. And, in essence, it always is. There is no smoke that is not a sign of a smoker. Everyone knows that, if you see smoke when you approach a deserted island, you immediately say to yourself that there is a good chance there is someone there who knows how to make fire. Until things change
considerably, it will be another man. Thus, a sign is not the sign of some thing, but of an effect that is what is presumed as such by a functioning of the signifier.

所以為什麼我提出我對於它的看法?煙很容易成為一位元吸煙者的訊息。而且,在本質上,它總是吸煙者的訊息。沒有一個煙不是一個吸煙者的訊息。每個人都知道,假如你們看到煙,當你們接近一個荒涼的島嶼,你們立刻跟你自己說:有一個好機會,那裡有某個人知道如何創造火。直到事情相當地改變,那將是另外一個人。因此,一個訊息並不是某件東西的訊息,而是由這個能指的功用化所假定的本身的影響。

That effect is what Freud teaches us about, and it is the starting point of analytic discourse, namely, the subject.

那個影響是佛洛德教導我們的東西,這是精神分析論述的出發點。換句話說,主體。

The subject is nothing other than what slides in a chain of signifiers, whether he knows which signifier he is the effect of or not. That effect – the subject – is the intermediary effect between what characterizes a signifier and another signifier, namely, the fact that each of them, each of them is an element. We know of no other basis by which the One may have been introduced into the world if not by the signifier as such, that is, the signifier insofar as we learn to separate it from its meaning effects.

主體實實在在就是能指的鎖鏈裡閃爍不定的東西,無論他是否知道,他是哪一個能指的影響。那個影響—主體—是表現一個能指及另外一個能指的特徵的東西之間的仲介影響。換句話說,他們每一個能指,都是一個元素的這個事實。我們並不知道有任何其它的基礎,憑藉這個基礎,這個「一」有可能已經被介紹進入這個世界。這個世界並不由能指的本身形成的世界,換句話說,這個能指,當我們學習如何將它跟它的意義的影響分開。

In love what is aimed at is the subject, the subject as such, insofar as he is presumed in an articulated sentence, in something that is organized or can be organized on the basis of a whole life.

在愛當中,所被瞄準的目標是主體,這個主體的本身,因為他用一個被表達的句子被假定,在某件被組織或能夠被組織,根據一個完整生活的基礎。

A subject, as such, doesn’t have much to do with jouissance. But, on the other hand, his sign is capable of arousing desire. Therein lies the mainspring of love. The course I will try to continue to steer in our next classes will show you where love and sexual jouissance meet up.

一個主體本身,跟歡爽沒有多大的關係。但是,在另一方面,他的訊息能夠召喚起欲望。愛的原動力就在那裡。在我以後的幾堂課,我將嘗試繼續引導的方向,將是跟你們顯示:愛跟性的關係會在哪裡會合。
January 16, 1973
1973年1月16日

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:RSI 34

November 17, 2011

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

Encore 14

November 16, 2011

Encore 14
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
IV

Love and the signifier
愛與能指

3
Following the thread of analytic discourse goes in the direction of nothing less than breaking up anew (rebriser), inflecting, marking with its own camber – a camber that could not even be sustained as that of lines of force – that which produces the break (faille) or discontinuity.

追蹤精神分析論述的線索,朝向實實在在就是重新的中斷,內射,標記它自己的弧度—一種甚至無法被維持作為力量的弧度—產生這個中斷或不連續的東西。

Our recourse, in llanguage (lalangue),15 is to that which shatters it (la brise).16 Hence nothing seems to better constitute the horizon of analytic discourse than the use made of the letter by mathematics. The letter reveals in discourse what is called – not by chance or without necessity – grammar. Grammar is that aspect of language that is revealed only in writing (à Vécrit).

在「虛擬語言」裡,我們的辦法就是朝向粉碎它的東西。因此,數學所使用的字母,似乎最能組成精神分析論述的視野。這個字母在精神分析論述裡顯示所謂的文法—-這不是偶然,或是沒有必要。文法是僅有在書寫中,語言被顯示的那一面。

Beyond language, this effect, which is produced by being based only on writing, is certainly the ideal of mathematics. Now to refuse to refer to writing (l’écrit) is to forbid oneself what can actually be articulated using (de) all the effects of language. This articulation occurs in what results from
language regardless of what we do – namely, a presumed shy of and beyond (en deçà et au-delà).

朝越語言之外,這個影響,是由僅是以書寫為基礎的生命實存所產生,它確實是數學的理想。現在,拒絕提到書寫,等於就是禁止自己使用語言的所有影響,獲得真實可以表達的東西。這種表達發生在從語言或獲得的結果,無論我們怎麼做—換句話說,一種被假定的投擲及超越。

We certainly sense that this shy of is no more than an intuitive reference. And yet this presupposition cannot be eliminated because language, in its meaning effect, is never but beside the referent.17 Isn’t it thus true that language imposes being upon us and obliges us, as such, to admit that we
never have anything by way of being (de l’être)?

我們確實感覺到,這種投擲僅僅是一種直覺的指稱。可是,這個預先假設無法被減少,因為語言,在它的意義影響裡,永遠不會僅是在這個指稱物的旁邊。因此,這難道是真實的? 語言賦加生命實存在我們身上,並且強迫我們,作為自身,承認,我們憑藉生命實存,永遠不會擁有任何東西。

What we must get used to is substituting the “para-being” (par-être) -the being “para,” being beside – for the being that would take flight.18 I say the “para-being” (par-être), and not the “appearing” (paraître),19 as the phenomenon has always been called – that beyond which there is supposedly that thing, the noumenon. The latter has, in effect, led us, led us to all sorts of opacifications20 that can be referred to precisely as obscurantism.

我們所必需習慣於的東西,是以這個「虛擬實存」替代—這種「虛擬」的實存是旁邊的實存—因為這種生命實存將會飛走。我說「虛擬實存」,而是「表面實存」,如同現象總是被稱呼—在現象之外所被認為的那個東西,這個實體。實際上,後者引導我們到各種的不透明實體,明確地被提到作為蒙昧主義。

It is at the very point at which paradoxes spring up regarding everything that manages to be formulated as the effect of writing (effet d’écrit) that being presents itself, always presents itself, by para-being.21

就在這一點,各種矛盾蜂湧出來,關於一切成功地被闡述,作為書寫的影響。生命實存呈現它自己,總是呈現它自己,根據「虛擬實存」。

We should learn to conjugate that appropriately: I par-am, you par-are, he paris, we par-are, and so on and so forth.

我們應該學習適當地結合那個:我是一個虛擬實存,你是一個虛擬實存,我們都是虛擬實存,等等。

It is in relation to the para-being that we must articulate what makes up for (supplée au)22 the sexual relationship qua nonexistent. It is clear that, in everything that approaches it, language merely manifests its inadequacy.

在跟這個虛擬實存的關係,我們必須表達是什麼東西正在彌補這個性的關係,作為非存在物。顯而易見的,在每一件接近它的東西,語言僅是證明它自己的不能勝任。

What makes up for the sexual relationship is, quite precisely, love.

所彌補這個性的關係的,相當明確地,就是愛。

The Other, the Other as the locus of truth, is the only place, albeit an irreducible place, that we can give to the term “divine being,” God, to call him by his name. God (Dieu) is the locus where, if you will allow me this wordplay, the dieu – the dieur – the dire, is produced. With a trifling change, the dire constitutes Dieu23 And as long as things are said, the God hypothesis will persist.

大他者,大他者作為真理的軌跡,是唯一的地方,雖然是一個無法化減的地方,我們能夠給予「神聖的實存」這個術語,直呼其名就是上帝。上帝就是這個軌跡,在此,請容許我玩弄一下文字遊戲,「言說」被產生。 帶有些微的變化,這個「言說」組成「上帝的創造」。只要事情被說出,這個上帝的假設就會持續下去。

That is why, in the end, only theologians can be truly atheistic, namely, those who speak of God.
There is no other way to be an atheist, except to hide one’s head in one’s arms in the name of I know not what fear, as if this God had ever manifested any kind of presence whatsoever. Nevertheless, it is impossible to say anything without immediately making Him subsist in the form of the Other.

那就是為什麼,最後,僅有神學家會是真正的無神論者。換句話說,那些談論上帝的人。沒有別的辦法成為無神論者,除了就是隱藏我們的頭於我們的手臂裡,以我知道並不是恐懼的名義,好像這個上帝曾經證明任何種類的存在。可是,我們不可能說任何事情,而不讓上帝以大他者的形態存在。

That is quite evident in even the slightest movement of something I can’t stand, for the best of reasons, that is, History.

那是相當明顯的,甚至因為充分理由,我無法忍耐的某件東西的輕微動作裡,換句話說,就是歷史。

People do History precisely in order to make us believe that it has sort of meaning. On the contrary, the first thing we must do is begin from the following: we are confronted with a saying ( dire),the saying (dire) of another person who recounts his stupidities, embarrassments, inhibitions, and emotions ( emois). What is it that we must read therein?

人們從事歷史,確實是為了讓我們相信,它具有某種的意義。相反地,我們必須做的第一件事情,就是從以下開始:我們面臨一個言說,另外一個人的這個言說,他敘述他的愚蠢,尷尬,壓抑與情感。我們在那裡必須閱讀到什麼?

Nothing but the effects of those instances of saying (dires). We see in what sense these effects agitate, stir things up, and bother speaking beings. Of course, for that to lead to something, it must serve them, and it does serve them, by God, in working things out, accommodating themselves, and managing all the same – in a bumbling, stumbling sort of way – to give a shadow of life to the feeling known as love.

那僅僅就是言說的那些例子的影響。我們看到這些影響在怎樣的意義,會激動,會煽動事情,然後令言說的主體感到懊惱。當然,為了讓那個導致某件東西,它必須服務他們,它確實根據上帝名義服務他們,解決事情,接納他們自己,並且照常地處理—以邊范錯,邊踉蹌地方式,給予一個生命的陰影,給予眾所周知的愛的感覺。

It must, it really must, it must last longer (encore). It must, with the help of this feeling, lead, in the end – as people have seen who, with respect to all of this, have taken their precautions under the aegis of the Church – to the reproduction of bodies.

它必須,它真的必須,它必須延續得久一點。最後,它必須引導,憑藉這個感覺的幫助—如同人們曾經看見,關於所有這一切,是誰曾經負起他們的警戒,在教會的庇護之下—-對於身體的繁殖。

But isn’t it possible that language may have other effects than to lead people by the nose to reproduce yet again (encore), in the body to body (en corps à corps),25 and in incarnated bodies (en corps incarné)? There is another effect of language, which is writing (l’écrit).

但是這是可能的嗎?語言可能有其它的影響,除了就是引導人們,牽引他們一再地繁殖,(繼續再來),身體產生身體,及具體化身的身體?語言還有另外一個影響,那就是書寫。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com