Archive for December, 2011

Death 02

December 31, 2011

Death 02
拉康第二研讨班
The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954-1955
弗洛伊德理论的自我与精神分析技术

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XVIII
Desire, life and death
This famous object relation, which we are gargling with these days. has a
tendency to be employed as a model. a pattern of the adaptation of the subject to its normal objects.

这个著们的客体关系,我们这些日子正在表达,具有一种倾向被使用,作为主体适应正常客体的一种模式,一种样板。

However. this term. in so far as it can be of use in the experience of analysis. can only acquire a meaning from ideas concerning the evolution of the libido. the pregenital stage. the genital stage. Can one say that the structure. the maturity. the fully-fledged realisation of the object depends on the libido?•.At the genital stage. the libido is thought to bring a new object. another structuration. another sort of existence for the object into the world.
bringing its fullness. its maturity to completion. And this has nothing to do with
traditional aspects of the theory of man’ s relations to the world – the opposition
of being to appearance.

可是,因为这个术语对于精神分析经验有些同途,它仅能从有关力比多,到前性器官阶段,到性器官阶的的进化的观念,获得一种意义。我们能够说,这个客体的结构,成熟,及充分地实现,是依靠力比多吗?在性器官的阶段,力比多被认为会带来一个新的客体,另外一种结构,另外一种存在,让这个客体进入世界,带来它的充实,它的成熟的完成。这跟传统的人与世界的关系的理论,丝毫没有关系—也就是存在与表象的对立关系。

Within the classical. theoretical perspective. between subject and object
there is coaptation. co-naissancez – a play on words retaining all its force. for the theory of knowledge lies at the heart of any discussion of the relation of man to the world. The subject has to place himself in adequation with the thing. in a relation of-being to being – the relation of a subjective being. but one that is
truly real. Or a being aware of being to a being one knows to be.

在古典的理论的观点,在主体与客体之间,有一种互相适应,互相了解—这是保留所有它的力量的文字遊戏。因为知识的理论在于人与世界的关系的任何讨论的核心。主体必须放置他自己在跟事物的充分适应,在生命实存与生命实存的关系。一个主观性的生命实存的关系。但又是实在真实的关系。或是一个知道生命实存的生命,对于一个我们知道具有实存的生命。

The domain of the Freudian experience is established within a very different
register of relations. Desire is a relation of being to lack. This lack is the lack of
being properly speaking. It isn’t the lack of this or that. but lack of being
whereby the being exists.

弗洛伊德精神分析经验的领域被建立在一个非常不同的关系的铭记里。欲望是生命实存对欠缺的关系。适当来说,这个欠缺是生命实存的欠缺。它并不是这个或那个的欠缺,而是生命存在所在地生命实存的欠缺。

This lack is beyond anything which can represent it. It is only ever
represented as a reflection on a veil. The libido. but now no longer as used
theoretically as a quantitative quantity. is the name of what animates the deepseated conflict at the heart of human action.

这个欠缺超越任何能够代表它的东西。这个欠缺从来仅能作为一个遮蔽的一种反思,而被代表。力比多就是这个名称,它激发人的行动的核心的根深蒂固的冲突,虽然现在它在理论上被使用作为一种可量化的数量。

We necessarily believe that. at the centre. things are really there. solid.
established, waiting to be recognised. and that the conflict is marginal. But
what does the Freudian experience teach us? If not that what happens in the domain of so-called consciousness. that is on the level of the recognition of objects. is equally misleading in relation to what the being is looking for?

我们必须要相信,在核心,东西确实在那里,具体而稳固,等待受人承认,并且冲突是在边缘。但是弗洛伊德的精神分析经验教导我们什么?难道不就是:在所谓的意识的领域所发生的事情,在客体受到承认的层次,跟这个生命实存正在寻找的东西的关系,同样是一种误导?

In so far as the libido creates the different stages of the object, the objects are never it- except from the moment when that would be entirely it, thanks to a genital maturation of the libido, the experience of which in analysis retains a character which is, there is no denying it, Ineffable ,since as soon as one wants to spell it out, one ends up in all sorts of contradictions, including the impasse of narcissism.

虽然力比多创造了这个客体的不同阶段,这些客体从来就不是力比多。除了从完全是力比多的那个时刻开始,由于力比多的性器官的成熟。在精神分析,这个力比多的经验保留一种特性。无可否认的,这个特性是难以表达的,因为当我们想要说明它,我们结果陷入各种的矛盾,包括自恋的这个僵局。

Desire. a function central to all human experience. is the desire for nothing
nameable. And at the same time this desire lies at the origin of every variety of
animation. If being were only what it is. there wouldn’t even be room to talk
about it.

欲望是对于人类经验很重要的一种功用,对于无以名状的东西的欲望。同时,这种欲望在于各种动物性的变化的起源。假如生命实存仅是它本来的样子,我们连讨论它的空间都没有。

Being comes into existence as an exact function of this lack. Being
attains a sense of self in relation to being as a function of this lack. In the experience of desire. In the pursuit of this beyond, which is nothing, it harks
back to the feeling of a being with self-consciousness, which is nothing but its
own reflection in the world of things. For it is the companion of beings there before it, who do not in fact know themselves.

生命实存存在作为这种欠缺的确实的功用。生命实存获得一种自我的感觉,相关于生命实存作为这个欠缺的功用,在欲望的经验里。在这种对于这种超越的追求,也就是对于空无的追求,它回溯到一种生命实存具有自我意识的感觉。这种自我意识仅是它自己在事物的世界里的反思。因为在这个自我意识之前的相聚的生命主体,他们事实上并不认识他们自己。

The self-conscious being, transparent to itself, which classical theory places
at the centre of human experience, appears, from this perspective, as a manner of locating, in the world of objects, this being of desire who cannot perceive itself as such, except in its lack. If this lack of being, it perceived that it is lacking being, and that the being is there, in all the things which do not know
themselves to be. And it imagines itself, for its part, as one more object, for it sees no other difference. It says – I’m the one who knows that I am.

这个自我意识的主体,对于自己是透明的。古典的理论将它摆放在人类经验的核心。从这个观点,这个自我意识的主体,出现作为一种在客体的世界里,定位欲望的生命实存。它感觉到,它欠缺生命实存。这个生命实存在那里,在不知的他们自己的所有主体当中。它想像它自己,就它自己而言,作为仅仅是多了一个客体。因为它并没有看到什么别的不同。它说:我就是知道我是谁的这个人。

Unfortunately, If it does perhaps know that it is, it knows nothing at all about what it is. That is what is lacking in every being.

不幸地,或许他即使确实知道它是存在,可是对它存在的本质,它却根本就不了解。这就是每一位主体欠缺的地方。

In short, there is a confusion between the capacity to erect a fundamental
distress whereby being arises as presence from a background of absence, and
what we commonly call the capacity for consciousness, for becoming aware,
which is only a neutral and abstract, and even abstracted, form of the totality of
the possible mirages.

总之,有一种混淆处于这个能力跟我们所谓的意识到能力之间。前者的能力竖立起一种基本的困境,在这个困境那里,生命实存产生,作为从欠缺的背景里出现的存在。后者是意识的能力,知道的能力。这种能力仅是一种中立而且抽象,甚至是整体的可能的幻觉的精炼形态。

Relations between human beings are really established before one gets to the
domain of consciousness. It is desire which achieves the primitive structuration
of the human world, desire as unconscious. In this respect, we must appraise
Freud’s advance.

人类之间的关系,确实在我们到达意识的领域之前就被建立。欲望获得人类世界的原始的结构,欲望作为无意识。在这一方面,我们必须赞赏弗洛伊德的作为开先锋。

Copernican revolution, when it comes down to it, is, as you can see, a crass
metaphor. It goes without saying that Copernicus produced a revolution, but in
the world of determined and determinable things.

哥白尼的革命,如你们所看到,总结来说,就是一种粗略的比喻。哥白尼产生一种革命是自不待言。但是这种革命发生在被命定及可命定的世界。

Freud’s advance constitutes, I would say, a revolution in an opposite direction, because before Copernicus, the world owed its structure precisely to the fact that so much of man was already in it. And to tell the truth, we’ve never really decanted it completely, although we’ve done enough.

我将会说,弗洛伊德的开先锋朝著相反的方向,创造一种革命。因为在哥白尼之前,这个世界将它的结构确实归属于这个事实:人的大部分都已经是在这个世界里。坦白说,我们从来没有真正完全走出这个世界,虽然我们足够努力。

Freud’s advance isn’t to be explained by the basic and precarious experience
of the fact of having to care for someone, it really is the correlate of a revolution
carried through over the entire domain constituted by man’s thinking concerning himself and his experience; over the entire domain of philosophy since after all we must give it its name.

弗洛伊德的开先锋,不应该根据这种基本而不稳定的事实的经验来解释。这种事实必须要讨好每个人。这个事实实际上跟一种革命有关系。这种革命被贯彻在人类思想所组成的整个领域,关于他自己跟他的经验。也被贯彻在哲学的整个领域,因为毕竟我们必须给予它哲学的名称。

This revolution brings man back into the world as creator. But the latter risks
being entirely dispossessed of his creation by the simple trick, always put on one side in classical theory, which consists in saying – God is no deceiver.

这种革命将人类带回到这个世界,作为创造者。但是这个创造者冒的危险是:他会被他的创造物剥夺。因为在古典的理论里,这种简单的诡计总是被放置在一边。这个古典的理论在于说:上帝并不是欺骗者。

That is so essential that, when it came to it, Einstein got stuck at the same
point as Descartes. The Lord, he used to say, is certainly a crafty fellow, but he
isn’t dishonest. It was essential to his organisation of the world that God not be
a deceiver. But this, precisely, is what we don’t know.

这个古典的理论上如此重要,当提到它时,爱因斯坦跟笛卡尔一样动弹不得。他过去时常说,上帝确实是一位很灵巧的人,但是他并不是不诚实。这对他建构这个世界是非常重要的:上帝不应该是一个欺骗者。但这确实是我们并不知道的事情。

The decisive element of the Freudian experience could be summed up as follows – don’t forget that consciousness isn’t universal. Modern experience
awoke from a long fascination with the property of consciousness)” and
considers man’s experience within its own structure, which is the structure of
desire. That is the only starting-point for explaining the fact that there are men.

弗洛伊德的精神分析经验的关键因素,可以总结如下:不要忘记意识并非是普遍性的。现代的精神分析经验从长期对意识的特性的著迷觉醒过来,并且从它自己的结构里面,也就是欲望的结构,来考虑人的经验。这是仅有的开始点,用来解释这个事实:人存在世界上。

Not men as a herd, but men who speak, with this speech through which
something is introduced into the world which weighs as heavily as the whole of the real.

人存在世界上,不是作为一群动物,而是作为会具有言说能力而言说的人。通过这种言说,某件东西被介绍到这个世界。这个世界跟整个真实界份量一样地重要。

There is a fundamental ambiguity in the use we make of the word ‘desire’.
Sometimes we objectify it – and we have to do so, if only to talk about it. On the
contrary, sometimes we locate it as the primitive term in relation to any
objectification.”

当我们使用到「欲望」这个字词时,有一个基本的模糊暧昧。有时,我们让它客观化。我们必须如此做,假如我们想要谈论它。相反地,有时,我们定位它作为原始的术语,跟任何的客体化相关。

In fact, sexual desire in our experience has nothing objectified about it. It is
neither an abstraction, nor a purified x, as the notion of force in physics has
become.

事实上,在精神分析经验里,性的欲望并没有丝毫被客体化。它既不是一个抽象的东西,也不是一个被纯净化的未知物,如同物理学的力量的观念那样。

Doubtless we make use of it, and it’s very handy, for describing a
certain biologieal cycle, or more precisely a certain number of cycles which are
more or less tied up with biological systems.

无可置疑地,我们使用欲望这个字词,它很方便,作为描述某种生物的循环,或更确实地说,某种数量的循环是跟生物的系统息息相关。

But what we have to deal with is a subject which}s here, who truly is desiring, and the desire in question is prior to any kind of conceptualisation – every conceptualisation stems from it.

但是我们必须处理的是,一个主体在这里,他确实是在欲望。而这个受到置疑的欲望,早先存在于任何的观念化之前,每一个观念化都是起源于欲望。

The proof that analysis does indeed lead to our approaching things this way is that the largest part of what the subject takes to be a certainty after due reflection is for us only the superficial, rationalised, subsequently justified ordering of what his desire foments, which gives his world and his action its essential curvature.

精神分析确实以这种方式引导我们接近事情。证据是:主体经过适当的沉思之后,认为是千真万确的绝大部分,对于我们而言,仅是他的欲望蕴酿的东西的这个肤浅的理性化,随后再自圆其说。这种情况让他的世界及他的行动,产生它根本上扭曲观照。

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

Death instinct 01

December 31, 2011

Death 01
拉康第二研讨班
The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954-1955
弗洛伊德理论的自我与精神分析技术

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XVIII
Desire, life and death
TH E L I B IDO
力比多
DESIRE. S E X U A L DESIRE. I N S T I N C T
欲望,性的欲望,本能
R E S I S T A N C E O F T H E A N ALYST
分析家的抗拒
THE B EYOND O F O E D I P U S
伊底普斯的超越
L I F E D R E A M S O N L Y OF DYING
生命仅是梦想死亡

Today we are going to make some headway with the question of the relations
between the Freudian notion of the death instinct and what I have called
significant insistence.

今天我们将要朝着弗洛伊德对于死亡本能的观念,及我曾经称为的重要的坚持之间的关系这个问题,勇往直前。

The questi9ns you asked me last time don’t seem to me to have been
misguided – they all bore on very sensitive issues. The remainder of our path
will take us to some answers to a number of them. and I will try not to forget to
point that out, to you as we go along.

你们上一次询问我的问题,我觉得并没有被误导—这些问题跟非常敏感的问题有关。我们剩余的途径将会引导我们来提供它们的一些回答。我将会尝试不要忘记跟你们指出那一点,随着我们前进。

We have reached a radical crossroads in the Freudian position. At this point,
one can almost say anything. But this anything isn’t just anything, in the sense
that whatever one may say, it will always be rigorous to those who know how
to listen.

我们已经到达弗洛伊德的立场的一个重要的十字路口。在这一点,我们几乎什么都能够说。但是这个任何东西,并不仅是任何东西。它的意义是,无论我们说什么,对于知道如何倾听的人,总是非常严峻。

Indeed the point we’re getting to is none other than desire and whatever can
be said about it on the basis of our experience – an anthropology? a cosmology? There’s no Lord for it.

的确,我们将要到达的这一点,实实在在就是欲望。无论根据我们精神分析如何解释欲望—那是一种人类学?一种宇宙论? 在这个宇宙论,上帝并不存在。

Even though this is the central point Freud is asking us to understand in the
phenomenon of mental illness, it is something which in itself is so subversive
that all one cares about is to distance oneself from it.

即使这是弗洛伊德在精神疾病的现象学,要求我们了解的中心要点,这个东西的本身是如此的具有颠覆性,以致于我们所关心的一切,就是把我们自己跟它拉开距离。

1
In order to talk about desire. one notion in particular came to the fore, the
libido. Is what this notion implies adequate to the level on which your action
takes place, namely that of speech?

为了谈论欲望,一个特别的观念来到这个核心,那就是力比多。这个观念所暗示的足够到你的行动发生的层次吗?换句话说,言说的层次?

Libido allows one to speak of desire in terms which involve a relative
objectification. It is, if you wish, a unit of quantitative measurement. A quantity
which you don’t know how to measure, whose nature you don’t know, but
which you always assume to be there. This quantitative notion allows you to
Unify the variation in qualitative effects, and gives some coherence to the
manner in which they succeed one another.

力比多容我们谈论欲望,使用一个相对的客观化的术语。你们不妨将它看作是一种数量测量的单位。你们不知道如何去测量的数量,它的特性,你们并不知道,但是你们总是假定它在那里。这个数量的观念容许诺们统一品质效果的这个变数,并且给予某种的一致性,给它们互相接续的方式。

Let us be clear as to what is meant by qualitative effects. There are states,
changes of state. To explain the order in which they occur and their
transformations, you more or less implicitly have recourse to the notion of a
threshold, and by the same token to that of a level and of invariability.

让我们把品质的效果是什么意思搞清楚。为了解释这个秩序, 品质的效果发生及它们的转变,你们相当含蓄地诉诸于一个门槛的观念。同样地,也诉诸于层次及变数的观念。

You assume an undifferentiated quantitative unit susceptible of entering into
relations of equivalence. If it can’t be discharged, can’t expand as normal. can’t
spread out, overflows occur from which other states ensue. Hence one would
talk of transformations, regressions, fixations, sublimations of the libido, a
single term which is conceived of quantitatively.

你们假设一个没有差异的容易受到影响的数量单位,当它进入相等的关系。假如力比多无法被发泄,它就无法扩大成为正常,它无法扩散,泛滥就会发生。其他的状态就因此随之而来。因此,我们会谈论到力比多的转移,倒退,固执,与昇华。这是一个从数量来构想到的一个术语。

The notion of libido emerged only gradually out of the Freudian experience,
and it didn’t have this extended use at the beginning. But as soon as it makes its appearance, that is in the Three Essays, it already has the function of unifying the different structures of the phases of sexuality.

力比多的观念从弗洛伊德的精神分析经验,仅是慢慢地出现。刚开始时,它并没有这种延伸的用法。但是当它出现时,那是在弗洛伊德的「性学三论文」。它已经具有统一性的各个部分的不同结构的功用。

Do note that, although this work dates from 1 905, the part which concerns the libido dates from 1915, that is to say the period, more or less, when the theory of phases was becoming extremely complicated, with the introduction of narcissistic investments.

请注意一下,虽然这本著作写于1905年,跟力比多有关的部分则在1915年才开始。换句话说,这是随着自恋的投注的介绍,各个部分的理论渐渐变得极端的复杂的日期。

So the notion of libido is a form of unification for the domain of psychoanalytical effects. I would now like to draw your attention to the fact
that its use falls within the traditional scope of any and every theory, tending to
end up with a world, the terminus ad quem of classical physics, or a unitary
domain, the ideal of Einsteinian physics.

所以力比多的观念是一种统一的形式,对于精神分析的影响的领域。我现在想要提醒你们注意这个事实:力比多这个术语的使用是在每个理论的传统观念里,倾向于随着一个世界的来临而结束,古典物理或的终结者,这是爱因斯坦的物理学的理想,一个统一的领域。

We aren’t in a position to align our poor little domain with the universal domain of physics, but the libido partakes of the same ideal. ,

我们并不是处于这个立场:可以将我们小小的领域 跟物理的普遍性的领域等同一致。但是力比多参与这个相同的理想。

It’s not for nothing that this unitary domain is called theoretical–it is the ideal and unique subject of a theoria, an intuition, indeed contemplation, the exhaustive knowledge of which we assume would allow us to give an account of its entire past no less than its entire future.

这并非毫无意义,这个统一的领域被称为是理论的领域。这是一种理论的理想而且是独特的主体,一种直觉,确实是沉思,无所不包的知识,我们假设这种知识会容许我们描述它的整个的过去,以及它的整个的未来。

It is clear that none of this affords any place to what would be the realisation of anything new, a Wirken, an action. properly speaking.

显而易见地,这种知识没有一样供应任何的空间,给任何新的东西的实现,适当地说,给予一种行动的空间。

Nothing could be further removed from the Freudian experience.

弗洛伊德的精神分析经验绝非是这个样子。

The Freudian experience starts from an exactly contrary notion of the
theoretical perspective. It starts by postulating a world of desire. It postulates it
prior to any kind of experience, prior to any considerations concerning the
world of appearances and the world of essences.

弗洛伊德的精神分析经验,从这种理论的观点恰恰相反的观念开始。它开始提出一个欲望的世界。它假设欲望是早先于任何其他种类的经验,早先于任何考虑,关于表象的世界与本质的世界。

Desire is instituted within the Freudian world in which our experience unfolds. it constitutes it. and at no point in time, not even in the most insignificant of our manoeuvres in this experience of ours, can it be erased.

在弗洛伊德的世界里,欲望被形成。我们的精神分析经验就在这个世界里展开。欲望组成这个世界。欲望无法被抹除,无论在历史的任何时刻,即使在我们精神分析最微不足道的时刻。

The Freudian world isn’t a world of things, it isn’t a world of being, it is a
world of desire as such.

弗洛伊德的世界并不是一个事物的世界。它并不是一个生抽象存的世界。它是欲望本身的世界。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 07

December 31, 2011

Seminar IX :Identification 07
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

1
Seminar 2: Wednesday 22 November 1961

It is a very conceivable formula, and one which can be applied just as much to the effect that I have just mentioned, for example, as to that of the formation of an image, even a virtual one, in nature through the mediation of a plane surface, whether
it be that of a mirror or of the one that I have for a long time evoked, of the surface of the lake which reflects the mountain.

这是一个非常可构想的公式,这个公式能够同样被应用到我刚刚提到的效应。譬如,同样应用到一个意象的形成的效应,甚至是一个虚拟的效应,在自然界,通过一种平面的仲介,是否它是镜象的仲介,或是我长期以来召唤的仲介,山影倒映的湖的表面的仲介。

Does that mean that, as is the tendency and a tendency which is expanding under the influence of a kind, I would say, of intoxication, which recently took hold of scientific thinking from the fact of the irruption of what is only at bottom the (5) discovery of the dimension of the signifying chain as such but which, in all sorts of ways, is going to be reduced by this thinking to more simple terms – and very precisely this is what
is expressed in what are called information theories – does this mean that it is correct, without any other connotation, for us to resolve to characterize the liaison between the two systems, one of which is an image with respect to the other, by this idea of
information, which is very general, implying certain paths taken by this something which carries the bi-univocal concordance?

那难道是意味著,在某种的影响之下,渐渐扩大的一种倾向,我不妨说,兴奋的倾向,它最近掌控科学的思想,根据这个事实:基本上,是能指锁链本身的维度的发现造成的爆发。但是这興奋的倾向,根据从各种方式来看,将会被这种思想减少到成为更简单的术语—非常确实地,这就是在所谓的资讯理论被表达的东西。这难道不是意味着,即使没有任何其他的暗示,我们仍然是正确的,尝试表现这两个系统之间的联系。其中一个是一种关于另外一个的意象,凭借资讯的这个观念。这种资讯是非常一般性的,暗示某件东西採取的某种的途径,而这个东西具有这双重的单一的和谐?

This indeed is where there exists a very great ambiguity, I mean the one which can only end up by making us forget the proper levels of what information should involve if we want to give it a value other than the vague one which would only end up when all
is said and done by giving a sort of re-interpretation, a false consistency to what had up to then been subsumed, and this from Antiquity up to our own day, under the notion of the form, something which captures, envelopes, determines the elements,
gives them a certain type of finality which is the one that in the whole ascension from the elementary towards the complex, from the inanimate towards the animate, is something which has no doubt its enigma and its own value, its order of reality, but
which is distinct.

这确实是一种强烈的模糊暧昧存在的地方。我指的是这种模糊暧昧,它结果仅是让我们忘记资讯应该牵涉到什么的层次,假如我们想要给予它一种价值,除了这个模糊的价值,它的结果,仅是当一切都说都做了,给予一直重新的解释,一种虚假的一致性,给予直到当时所被包括的东西。这个从古代一直到我们自己的时代,这形态的这个观念之下,某件东西捕捉,涵盖,决定这些因素,给予它们某种的最终性。这个最终性是,从基本朝向复杂的整个提升,从无生物朝向生物,这是某件无可置疑,具有它的谜团及它自己的价值,它的现实的秩序,但是这个东西是不同的。

If this is what I intend to articulate here with all the force of the new things that are brought to us, in the new scientific perspective, by the highlighting, the separating out of what is contributed by the experience of language and of what the signifier relationship allows us to introduce as an original dimension that it is a matter of radically distinguishing from the real in the form of the symbolic dimension, it is not, as you see, in this way that I am tackling the problem of what is going (6) to allow us to split up this ambiguity.

假如这是我在此打算要表达,使用我们所获得到新的东西的所有力量,在新的科学的观点,凭借这个强调,这种分开,对于语言的经验所促成的东西,以及能指的关系容许我们介绍,作为一种原创性的维度。问题是要强烈地区别它跟实在界,以符号象征的维度。如你们所见,我并不是以这种方式,来处理容许我们分裂这个模糊暧昧的这个问题。

Already all the same I have said enough about it for you to know, for you to have sensed, apprehended, in these elements of signifying information, the originality that is contributed by the trait, let us say, of seriality, that they involve, the trait also of discreteness, I mean of cutting, something which Saussure in no way better articulated than by saying that what characterizes them with regard to one another, is to be what the others are not.

关于这个模糊暧昧,我仍然已经充分说过,为了让你们以能指化资讯的这些因素,感觉到并且理解到,它们所牵涉到连续性的这个特征给予原创性。这个特征也是属于差异性,我的意思是切割,某件索绪尔表达得最为贴切地说: 关于互相之间,表现它们特色的是,成为其余的人所不存在的东西。

Diachrony and synchrony are the terms to which I pointed out you should refer, even though all of this is not fully articulated ,the distinction having to be drawn with this de facto diachrony: too often it is simply what is aimed at in the articulation of the laws of the signifier.

历时性与同时性是我跟你指出你们应该参照的这些术语,即使所有这一切并没有充分地被表达。关于这个实际上存在的历时性,我们必须给予一个区别。往往它仅是能指的法则的表达,所要到达的目标。

There is a rightful diachrony through which we rejoin the structure; in the same way for synchrony, one is not saying everything about it, far from it, by implying in it
the virtual simultaneity of the code in each supposed subject, because that is to rediscover here something which I showed you the last time is for us an entity which is untenable.

有一个合理的历时性,通过这个历时性,我们以跟同时性的同样方式,重新加入这个结构。我们并没有说尽有关它的一切,根本就没有。我们在它里面,暗示在每一位被假设的主体身上,都有这个密码的虚拟的同时性。因为那就是在此要重新发现某件我上一次我显示给你们的东西。对于我们而言,这个东西是无法自圆其说的实体。

I mean that we cannot be satisfied in any way with having recourse to it, because it is only one of the forms of what I denounced at the end of my discourse the last time under the name of the subject who is supposed to know. Here is why this year I am beginning my introduction to the question of identification in this way, the fact is that it is a question of starting from the very difficulty, from the one which is proposed to us by the very fact of our experience, from what it begins with, from that which as a starting point we must articulate it, theorise it; the fact is that we cannot, even in terms of our aims, of a future promise, in any way refer ourselves, as Hegel did, to any (7) possible termination, precisely because we have no right to pose it as possible for the subject in some sort of absolute knowledge or other.

我的意思是,我们根本就无法满足于仅是曾经诉诸于它,因为这是上一次我凭借应该知道的主体的名义,在我的论述结束时,我所抨击的内容的形式之一。这就是为什么今年我正在开始以这种方式介绍认同的问题。事实上,这个问题要从这个困难开始,从我们精神分析经验的这个事实,跟我们建议的这个困难开始,从它用来开始的东西开始,从我们必须表达它,将它理论化的东西开始。事实上,甚至使用我们的目标,未来的许诺的目标,我们也无法如黑格尔的所为,将我们自己提到可能的终结。确实是因为我们没有权力提出终结,作为主体的可能,以某种的绝对知识。

We must learn at every moment to dispense with this subject who is supposed to know. We cannot at any moment have recourse to it, this is excluded: through an experience which we already have since the seminar on desire and on interpretation (the first trimester which was published) it is very precisely what seemed to me in any case could not be omitted from this publication, because this is the term of a whole phase of this teaching that we gave: the fact is that this subject of ours, this subject
which I would like today to interrogate for you in connection with the Cartesian way forward, is the same one that in this first trimester I told you we could not approach any closer than is done in this exemplary dream which is entirely articulated around the sentence: “he did not know that he had died”.

我们必须随时学习,为了免除不要这个应该知道的主体。我们无法随时都诉诸于它。这是被排除在外的:通过一种我们已经拥有的经验,自从探讨欲望及其解释的研讨班以来。(第一季的部分已经被出版)这确实就是我觉得这个出版无论如何不能被忽略的东西。因为这是我们给予的这个教学,完整部分的这个术语。事实上,我们的这个主体,今天我想要跟你们质疑的这个主体,从笛卡尔的主体开始,它跟在第一季我告诉你们的这个相同主体,除了从这个典范的梦,我们无法更加靠近。这个梦完全地被表达,环绕着这个句子:「他并不知道他已经死亡。」

To be absolutely rigorous, it is indeed there, contrary to the opinion of Politzer that we can designate the subject of enunciating, but in the third person.

为了淋漓尽致地表达,确实就是在那里,跟泼力兹尔的意见相反,他认为我们能够指明表述的这个主题,但是用第三人称的方式。

This is not to say, of course, that we could not approach it in the first person, but this would be precisely to know that in doing so, and in the most pathetically accessible experience, it slips away, because by translating it into this first person, it is precisely at this sentence that we will end up: by saying what we can say precisely, in the practical measure that we can confront ourselves with time’s chariot, as John Donne [sic] says “hurrying near”: it is at our heels, and in this pause in which we can foresee the ultimate moment, the one precisely at which already (8) everything will leave us, to say to ourselves: “I did not know that I was living as a mortal being, (je ne savais pas que je vivais d’etre mortel) “.

当然,这并不是要说,我们无法接用第三人称的方式接近主体。但是这确实是要知的,当我们这样做时,在即使是最令人哀怜的可接近的精神分析经验里,它仍然是闪烁不定,因为当我们将主体翻译成为第一人称时,确实就是在这个句子,我们将会结束。凭借我们能够确实地说,实际上我们自己面对着时间的战车,如同邓约翰所说的「时间的战场匆匆接近」。就在我们的脚跟,就在这个停顿,我们在里面预先看到这个最后的时刻,确实就是这个时刻,每一样东西离开我们,我们跟自己说:「我不知道我是作为一个有限生命的人这样生活著。」

雄伯说:
「时间的战车匆匆接近」Chariot of time hurrying hear,典出于安德鲁、马维尔Andrew Marvell的「给羞怯小情人」To His Coy Mistress,而不是邓约翰John Donne。拉康显然是张冠李戴。
To His Coy Mistress
By Andrew Marvell
Written in 1651-1652 and Published in 1681
Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness,1 Lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk2 and pass our long love’s day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges’3 side…………………..5
Shouldst rubies4 find: I by the tide
Of Humber5 would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood,
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.6……………………10
My vegetable love7 should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow;
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,…………………15
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, Lady, you deserve this state,8
Nor would I love at lower rate…………………………20
But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot9 hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,…………………25
Nor, in thy marble vault,10 shall sound
My echoing song: then worms11 shall try
That long preserved virginity,
And your quaint12 honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust:……………………………30
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,13
And while thy willing soul transpires14………………35
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapt15 power…………….40
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough16 the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun……………….45
Stand still, yet we will make him run.

致羞怯的情人

如果我們的世界夠大,時間夠多,
小姐,這樣的羞怯就算不上罪過。
我們會坐下來,想想該上哪邊
去散步,度過我們漫漫的愛情天。
你會在印度的恒河河畔
尋得紅寶石:我則咕噥抱怨,
傍著洪泊灣的潮汐。我會在
諾亞洪水前十年就將你愛,
你如果高興,可以一直說不要,
直到猶太人改信別的宗教。
我植物般的愛情會不斷生長,
比帝國還要遼闊,還要緩慢;
我會用一百年的時間讚美
你的眼睛,凝視你的額眉;
花兩百年愛慕你的每個乳房,
三萬年才讚賞完其它的地方;
每個部位至少花上一個世代,
在最後一世代才把你的心秀出來。
因為,小姐,你值得這樣的禮遇,
我也不願用更低的格調愛你。

可是在我背後我總聽見
時間帶翼的馬車急急追趕;
而橫陳在我們眼前的
卻是無垠永恆的荒漠。
你的美絕不會再現芳蹤,
你大理石墓穴裏,我的歌聲
也不會迴蕩:那時蛆蟲將品嚐
你那珍藏已久的貞操,
你的矜持會化成灰塵,
我的情慾會變成灰燼:
墳墓是個隱密的好地方,
但沒人會在那裏擁抱,我想。
因此,現在趁青春色澤
還像朝露在你的肌膚停坐,
趁你的靈魂自每個毛孔欣然
散發出即時的火焰,
此刻讓我們能玩就玩個盡興;
此刻,像發情的猛禽
寧可一口把我們的時光吞掉
也不要在慢嚼的嘴裏虛耗。
讓我們把所有力氣,所有
甜蜜,滾成一個圓球,
粗魯狂猛地奪取我們的快感
衝破一扇扇人生的鐵柵欄:
這樣,我們雖無法叫太陽
駐足,卻可使他奔跑向前。

Seminar IX :Identification 07

December 30, 2011

Seminar IX :Identification 07
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

1
Seminar 2: Wednesday 22 November 1961
You have been able to see, to your satisfaction, that I was able to introduce you the last time to the remarks we are going to make this year by means of a reflection which, in appearance, might have seemed to be a rather philosophical one because it
dealt precisely with a philosophical reflection, that of Descartes, without it giving rise on your part, it seems to me, to too many negative reactions.

你们已经能够看得出来,令你们心满意足地。上一次,我能够跟你们介绍我们今年将发表达这些谈话,凭借着一种反思。在外表上,这种反思很有可能是一种相当哲学式的反思,因为它确实处理一种哲学的反思,笛卡尔的哲学反思,而没有让它在你们身上,产生太多我觉得的负面的反应。

Far from it, it seems that I have been trusted as regards the legitimacy of what might follow from it. I am delighted at this feeling of confidence which I would like to be able to translate as saying that you at least sensed where I wanted to lead you by that.

根本就不是这样。似乎,我已经被信任,关于可能跟随它而来的这个合理性。我对这种信任的这种感觉,非常喜悦。我想要将这种信任解释成为是说:你们至少感觉到,我凭借这个论述想要引导你们去哪里。

Nevertheless, so that you may not develop, from the fact that I am going to continue today on the same theme, the feeling that I am delaying, I would like to pose that such indeed is our goal, in this mode that we are tackling, to engage ourselves on this
path.

可是,为了不要让你们产生我正在拖延的感觉,根据这个事实:今天我将用继续探讨相同的主题。我想要提出,这确实是我们的目标,以我正在处理的模式,为了让我们从事这条途径。

Let us say it right away, in a formula which all our future development will subsequently clarify: what I mean is that, for us analysts what we understand by identification – because this is what we encounter in identification, in what is
concrete in our experience concerning identification – is a signifier-identification (une identification de signifiant).

让我们立刻说出它,用我们所有未来的发展随后将会澄清的公式:我的意思是,就我们分析家而言,我们所了解的认同—因为这就是我们在认同时所遭遇的,关于认同,在我们精神分析具体的东西—这是一个对于能指的认同。

Reread in the Course in Linguistics one of the numerous passages where de Saussure tries to get closer to, as he continuously (2) tries to do by circumscribing it, the function of the signifier, and you will see (I am saying this in parenthesis) that all his efforts did not finally avoid leaving the door open to what I would call less differences of interpretation than veritable divergences in the possible exploitation of what he opened up with this distinction which is so essential of signifier and signified.

请重新阅读语言学教程,索绪尔尝试要探讨的无数的段落之一。他尝试不断地以限定能指的功用范围的方式这样做。你们将会看出( 我用括弧来表达这一点),所有他的努力,最后并没有避免让这道门敞开,不是给我所谓的解释的差异,而是可验证的分歧,当他尽可能利用他所敞开的东西,用对于能指与所指如此重要的这个区别。

Perhaps I could touch on it in passing for you so that you can at least note the existence, the difference there is between one school and another: that of
Prague, to which Jakobson, to whom I so often refer, belongs and that of Copenhagen to which Hjemslev gave its orientation under a title which I have never yet evoked before you, that of Glossematics.

或许我能够有缘跟你们探讨这个区别,这样你们至少会注意到某个学派与另外一个学派之间的这个存在,这个差异:布拉格学派,我时常提到的雅克森就属于这个学派,以及哥本哈根学派,黑姆斯列夫就认同这个学派,以一个标题。我在你们面前还没有引用过的标题,那就是结构语言学派。

You will see: it is almost bound to happen that I will be led to come back to it because we cannot take a step without trying to deepen this function of the signifier, and consequently its relationship to the sign

你们将会看出:几乎会发生的事情是,我将会被引导回到这个结构语言学派,因为我们无法採取一个步骤,而没有尝试深化能指的功用。结果,会深化能指跟符号的关系。

You ought all the same to know already – I think that even those among you who might have believed, even to the extent of reproaching me for it, that I was repeating Jakobson – that in fact, the position which I take up here is in advance of, ahead
of that of Jakobson as regards the primacy which I give to the function of the signifier the subject.

你们仍然应该已经知道—我认为,甚至你们当中那些可能会相信的人,甚至到因为这样而谴责我重复雅克森—事实上,我在此从事的这个立场,比雅克森的立场还早,关于这个优秀顺序,我给于主体这个能指的功用。

The passage of de Saussure, to which I alluded earlier – I am only privileging it here because of its value as an image – is the one in which he tries to show what sort of identity that of the signifier is by taking the example of the(3) 10.15 express.

索绪尔的这个段落,我早先提到的—我在此仅是给予它特权,因为它作为一个意象的的价值—他尝试以这个意象显示,这个能指点认同是什么种类的认同.他以10点15分的特快车作为例子。

The 10.15 express, he says, is something perfectly defined in its identity: it is the express despite the fact that obviously the different 10.15 expresses,
which succeed one another in an always identical way every day, have absolutely nothing either in their material, indeed even in the composition of the train, but indeed a different real structure and components.

他说,10点15分的特快车,是某件本身的认同非常清楚的定义。就是这个特快车,尽管这个事实:显而易见的,这些不同的10点115分的特快车,每天以总是相同的方式,接续开车。特快车在它们的材料方面,也绝对没有什从差别。的确,甚至在火车的组成,但是它们确实一种真实的结构及成分。

Of course, what is true in such an affirmation supposes precisely, in the constitution of a being like the express, a fantastic interlinking of signifying organisation entering into
the real through the mediation of spoken beings. It remains that this has in a way an exemplary value, in order to well define what I mean when I put forward first what I am going to try to articulate for you: these are the laws of identification qua signifier identification.

当然,在这样的一种肯定,真实的东西确实会预先假设,在像特快车这样的物体的形成,会有能指化的组织,通过口语生命实体,进入真实界,有一种想像的交会连接。问题是,在某方面,这已经是具有一种典范的价值,为了清楚定义我的意思,我首先提出我正要尝试跟你们表达的:这些都是认同的法则,作为能指的认同。

Let us even highlight, as a reminder, that to remain with an opposition which is a sufficient support for you, what is opposed to it, what it is distinguished from,
what makes it necessary that we should elaborate its function, is that the identification that it thus distances itself from is that of the imaginary, the one whose extreme form I tried to show you a long time ago in the background of the mirror stage in what
I would call the organic effect of the image of our fellows, the effect of assimilation that we grasp at one or other point of natural history, and the example which I was happy to show in vitro under the form of this little animal, which is called the migratory locust, and of whom you know that the evolution, the growth, the apparition of what is called the totality of the (4) phaneres, of the way in which we can see it – depends in its
form in some way on an encounter which happens at one or other moment of its development, of the stages, of the phases of the larval transformation or according to whether there have appeared to it or not a certain number of traits of the image of its
fellow, it will evolve or not, in different cases, according to the form which is called solitary or the form which is called gregarious.

让我们甚至强调,作为一种提醒,为了保持具有对你而言,具有充分支持的反对,所跟它相对立的东西,跟它作为区别的东西,让它成为需要,我们应该构型它的功用,它因此而拉开距离的认同,是想象界的认同。这种认同的极端形式,很久以前我曾经尝试跟你们显示,以镜像阶段的背景,在我所谓的我们的同胞的这个意象的有机效应。在自然的历史的某个时刻,我们所理解的同化的效应。我很乐意以人为方式来显示,在所谓的迁移到蝗虫的这个小动物的形态下。你们知道,所谓的整体的蝗虫的进化,成长与魅影,我们看到它的方式—依靠在它身上,是否出现它的同类的意象的某些的特征,是否它将会进化与否,在不同的情况,依照所谓的孤独的形态或是所谓群聚的形态。

We do not know everything, we even know rather little about the stages of this organic circuit which bring with them such effects. What we do know is that it is experimentally certain.

我们并没有完全知道,我甚至知道得甚少,关于这个有机体的循环的阶段。这些阶段随之带来这些的效应。我们知道的是,经过试验证明是确定的。

Let us classify it under the general rubric of the effects of the image of which we will find all sorts of forms at very different levels of the physical and even the inanimate world, as you know, if we define the image as any physical arrangement which has as a result the constitution between two systems of a bi-univocal concordance, at whatever level it may be。

让我们分类它,根据这个意象的效应的一般组织。我们将会找到各种的形态,在不同层次的生理的,甚至是没有生命的世界。你们知道,假如我们定义这个意象,作为任何生理的安排,结果,这个生理的安排拥有这个组成结构,处于两个一种两极的单一和谐,无论它处于怎样的层次。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 06

December 30, 2011

Seminar IX :Identification 06
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.11.61 I 2
Seminar 1: Wednesday 15 November 1961

The fact is that there has never been, in the philosophical lineage which has developed from what are called the Cartesian investigations into the cogito, that there has never been but a single subject which I would pinpoint, to terminate, under this
form: the subject who is supposed to know (le sujet suppose savoir).

事实上,从所谓的笛卡尔对于我思故我在的研究,发展而来的哲学的脉络,从来就没有别的,实在就是主体。我将强调这个主体,总之,在这种形态之下:应该知道的主体。

You should here provide this formula with the special resonance which, in a way, carries with it its irony, its question, and notice that by referring it to phenomenology and specifically to Hegelian phenomenology, the function of the subject who is supposed to know takes on its value by being appreciated in terms of the synchronic function which is deployed in this connection: its presence always there, from the beginning of phenomenological questioning, at a certain point, at a certain knot of the structure, will allow us to extricate ourselves from the diachronic unfolding which is suppose to lead us to absolute knowledge.

你们在此应该供应这个具有特别共鸣的公式。在某方面,这种特别的共鸣由于本身的反讽,具有它的问题。你们在此应该注意到,当我们将这个公式跟现象学相提并论时,特别是跟黑格尔的现象学相提并论,应该知道的主体的功用,形成它的价值,由于受到赏识,以被运用的有关这一点的同时性功用。它的存在总是在那里,从现象学的询问的开始,在某个点,在结构的某个点,它将容许我们从这个历时性的展开中挣脱出来。这个历时性被认为要引导我们到达绝对的知识。

This absolute knowledge itself – as we will see in the light of this question – takes on a singularly refutable value, but today only in this: let us stop ourselves from posing the motion of (20) distrust at attributing this supposed knowledge to anyone whatsoever, or of supposing (subjicere) any subject of the knowledge.

这个绝对的知识本身形成一种非常受到反驳的价值—我们从这个问题的观点将会看出。但是今天仅是在这一点受到反驳:让我们停止不要提出厌恶的这个动作,对于这个应该被知道的知识,对于任何人,或是停止提出假设拥有这个知识的任何主体的动作。

Knowledge is intersubjective, which does not mean that it is the knowledge of all, nor that it is the knowledge of the Other – with a capital 0 – and the Other we have posed. It is essential to maintain it as such: the Other is not a subject, it is a locus to which one strives, says Aristotle, to transfer the knowledge of the subject.

知识是互为主体性的,那并不意味着:它就是一切的知识,也不是它就是大他者的知识,拥有一个大写字母O,我们曾经提出的大它者。重要的是要维持它本身的样子:大他者并不是一个主体。大他者是一个我们努力要将主体的知识转移到他身上的轨迹,亚里斯多德如此说。

Naturally, of these efforts there remains what Hegel unfolded as the history of the subject; but this does absolutely not mean that the subject knows a whit more about what he is returning from. He is only stirred, as I might say, in function of an unfounded supposition, namely that the Other knows that there is an absolute knowledge, but the Other knows even less about it than he, for the good reason precisely that it is not a subject.

当然,在这些努力当中,始终存在着黑格尔展开的主体的历史。但是这绝对不是意味着:对于主体从什么回转过来,他稍微知道得更多。他仅是被激动,我不妨这样说,在一种没有基础的假设的功用当中。换句话说,大他者知道,有一个绝对的知识,但是大他者知道得甚至比主体还要少。理由很充分:他确实并不是一个主体。

The Other is the refuse dump of the representative representations of this supposition of knowledge, and this is what we call the unconscious in so far as the subject has lost
himself in this supposition of knowledge. He drags it (ca) along without his being aware of it, it is the debris that comes back to him from what his reality undergoes in this thing, a more or less unrecognisible debris. He sees it coming back, he can say
or not say: it is indeed that or indeed it is not at all that: all the same it is altogether it.

大他者是知识的这个假设的代表的再现符号的垃圾堆。这就是我们所谓的无意识,因为主体已经丧失他自己在这个知识点假设里。

The function of the subject in Descartes, it is here that we will take up our discourse the next time, with the resonances of it that we find in analysis. We will try, the next time, to map out the references to the phenomenology of obsessional neurosis in a
signifying scansion in which the subject finds himself immanent in every articulation.

在笛卡尔的主体的功用,就是在这里,下一次我们将从事我们的论述,以我们在精神分析找到这些共鸣。下一次,我们将会尝试以一种能指化的审查,描绘出妄想的神经症的现象学。在这个能指化的审查里,主体发现他自己内在于每个表达里。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 05

December 30, 2011

Seminar IX :Identification 05
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.11.61 I 2
Seminar 1: Wednesday 15 November 1961

That it should be Aristotle who takes the trouble to reveal that Socrates is mortal should all the same inspire some interest in us, which means offer an opening for
what we can call among ourselves an interpretation, in the sense that this term claims to go a little further than the function which is found precisely in the very title of one of the books of Aristotle’s Logic.

应该是亚里斯多德,他很费心地显示,苏格拉底是有限生命的人,这仍然启发我们的一些興趣。那意味着,提供一个机会给予我们自己能够称为的解释。这个术语的意义宣称比确实是在亚里斯多德的逻辑的其中一本书的标题,所找到的功用,更加深入。

Because if obviously it is qua human animal that he whom Athens names Socrates is assured of death, it is all (16) the same well and truly in so far as he is named Socrates that he escapes from it, and this obviously not alone because his renown still endures for as long as there lives the fabulous transference operation operated by Plato, but again more specifically because it is only as having succeeded in
constituting himself, beginning from his social identity, as this atopical being which characterises him, that the person called Socrates, the one so named in Athens – and that is why he could not go into exile – was able to sustain himself in the desire of
his own death even to the extent of making of his life an acting out of it.

因为假如很明显地,人作为动物的本身,这位被雅典人称为苏格拉底,被控诉死刑,这仍然是实实在在,因为他被称为苏格拉底,他因此逃避死亡。这种不朽是显而易见的,不仅因为他的名声依旧存活下来,只要柏拉图运作的这个令人喜悦的移情关系存在,而且更加明确地,因为他的名声仅是作为构成他的内涵,从他在社会获的认同开始,作为这个表现他的特色的这位敏锐的人。这个人被称为苏格拉底,这位在雅典如此被称呼的人—那就是为什么他不能够去放逐。他以他自己的死亡的欲望维持他自己,甚至到达用来解释他的生命,用来扮演他的生命。

There is also to be added this final touch of settling up for Asclepios1 famous cock of which there would be question if the recommendation had to be made of not doing any harm to the chestnut-seller at the corner.

There is therefore here, in Aristotle, something which we can interpret as some sort of attempt precisely to exorcise a transference which he believed to be an obstacle to the development of knowledge. It was moreover an error on his part since its failure is obvious. It would have been surely necessary to go a bit further than Plato in the denaturing of desire for things to have ended up otherwise.

因此,在亚里斯多德,某件东西,我们能够解释,作为某种的企图,确实是要驱除一种移情。他相信这种移情是一种阻碍对于知识的发展。而且,这是他自己本身的一种错误,因为这个企图的失败是显而易见的。我们本来确实会有需要比柏拉图更加深入,来除掉这种死亡欲望的本质,为了让事情会有不同的结束方式。

Modern science is born in a hyper-Platonism and not at all in the Aristotelian
return to, in short, of the function of knowledge according to the status of the concept. It required, in fact, something which we can call the second death of the Gods, namely their ghostly re-emergence at the time of the Renaissance, for the word to show
us its real truth, the one which dissipates, not the illusions, but the obscurities of meaning from which modern science emerged. (17)

现的科学诞生于超越柏拉图主义,而根本不是诞生于这个亚里斯多德的回转,总之,知识功用的回转,依照它所要求的观念的地位。事实上,这是我们能够称为众神的第二次死亡的事情。换句话说,在文艺复兴时代,众神魅影一般地重新再出现,为了让话语跟我们显示它的真实的真理,这个扩散的真实的真理。现代科学的出现,不是从这些幻觉,而是产品卖给意义的这些模糊暧昧。

Therefore – as we have said – this sentence of: “I think” has the interest of showing us – it is the least that we can deduce from it – the voluntary dimension of judgement. We have no need to say that much about it: the two lines that we distinguish as enunciating and enunciation are sufficient to allow us to affirm that it is in the measure that these two lines are mixed up and confused that we find ourselves before paradox which culminates in this impasse of the “I am lying” on which I made you pause for an instant; and the proof that this is really what is in question, is the fact that I can at the same time lie and say in the same voice that I am lying; if I distinguish these voices it is quite admissable. If I say: he says I am lying, that is easily admitted, there is no objection to it, any more than if I said: he is lying, but I can even say I say I am lying.

因此,如我们所说的,「我思」这个句子拥有这种興趣跟我们显示,这是至少我们能够从那里推理出来:判断具有自动自发的维度。我们没有需要对它大费口舌。我们区别的这两行,作为表述及表述的内容,就足够让我们肯定说,随着这两行被混合及混淆,我们发现我们自己处于「我正在说谎」的这个僵局的巅峰的悖论。我让你们对于这个僵局的再三沉思一下。这确实就受到质疑的东西的证明。事实上,我能够同时地说谎,又能以同样的声音说,我正在说谎。假如我区别这两个声音,它就完全可以受到承认。假如我说:他说我正在说谎,那很容易受到承认,我们对它并没有什么反对,如同假如我说,他正在说谎,但是我甚至能够说:我说我正在说谎。

There is all the same something here which ought to retain us, it is that if I say “I know that I am lying”, this has again something quite convincing which ought to retain our attention as analysts since, precisely as analysts, we know that what is original, living and gripping in our intervention is the fact that we can say that we are there to speak, to displace ourselves in the exactly opposite but strictly correlative dimension which
is to say: “but no, you do not know that you are telling the truth”, which immediately goes much further. What is more: “you only tell it so well in the measure that you think you are lying and when you do not want to lie it is to protect yourself from that truth”.

在此仍然有某件东西,应该会吸引我们注意。那就是,假如我说「我知道我正在说谎」,这再一次具有某件令人信服的东西,应该吸引我们作为分析家的注意。因为确实是作为分析家,我们知道,原创性的东西,精神分析的介入所坚持信守的是这个事实:我们能够说,我们在那里言说,是为了以确实完全相反但是又相关维度的东西,来取代我们自己。那就是说:「但是不,你们并不知道,你们正在说出真理」。这句话马上还可再深入探讨。而且:「你们仅是随着你们正在说谎,你们将真理说得更清楚。当你们不想要说谎时,那是为了保护你们自己,免于受到那个真理。」

(18) It seems that one cannot reach this truth except through these glimmers, the truth is a girl in this – you recall our terms – that like any other girl it can be nothing but a stray, well, it is the same for the “I think”. It appears indeed that if it has such an easy run among those who spell it out or who re-broadcast its message, namely the professors, that can only be by not dwelling too much on it.

似乎,我们无法到达这个真理,除了通过这些朦胧微光。真理在这里是位女孩—请你们回忆一下我们的术语—就像任何其他女孩,它仅是一种迷失的真理。对于「我思」而言,这仍然一样。的确,似乎假如真理拥有如此容易的运作,在那些说出真理的人当中,或是广播真理的讯息的人,也就是教授们当中,只有当他们不要过分详述真理的时候,真理才存在。

If we have for the “I think” the same exigencies as for the “I am lying”, either indeed this means: “I think that I am thinking”, which is then absolutely to speak of nothing other than the “I think” of opinion or imagination, the “I think” in the way you say it when you say “I think she loves me” which means that trouble is on the way.

假如我们拥有相同的迫切性,对于这个「我思」,如同我们对于这个「我正在说谎」,任何一个确实都是意味着:「我认为我正在思考」,这确实提到的,不是别的,实在就是属于意见或是想象的「我思」。按照你说出它的这个方式的这个「我思」,当你们说:「我认为她爱我」,这句话的意思是,麻烦正在途中。

Following Descartes, even in the text of the Meditations, one is surprised at the number of incidences in which this “I think” is nothing other than this properly imaginary dimension on which no so-called radical proof can be founded.

跟随着笛卡尔,甚至在沉思录的文本,我们对于诸多的意外事情,感到大吃一惊。在那些意外事情里,这个「我思」实实在在就是这个适当的想象的维度。我们所谓的积极的证据,没有一样能够以它作为基础。

Or indeed then this means: “I am a thinking being” – which is, of course, to upset in advance the whole process for what is aiming precisely at making emerge from the “I think” an unprejudiced status, not infatuated as it were by my own existence. If I begin by saying: “I am a being”, that means: I am of course a being essential to being, there is no need to throw out anything else, one can preserve one’s thinking for one’s personal use.

或是的确,这意味着:「我是一个会思想的生命」—当然,这是要预先颠覆整个的过程,对于我们确实的目标是要让一个没有偏见的地位,从这个「我思」里面出现。这个没有偏见的地位,并没有受到所谓我自己的经验所迷惑。假如我开始说:「我是一个生命实存」,那意味着:我当然是一个对生命实存具重要地位的生命实存,没有必要抛弃掉任何其他东西。我们能够保存我们的思想,留给我们个人使用。

This having been highlighted, we find ourselves encountering something which is important: we find ourselves encountering this level, this third term that we raised in connection with the I am lying, namely that one could say: “I know that I am lying”, and
this is something which should retain you.

这一点被强调之后,我们发现我们自己遭遇某件非常重要的东西。我们发现我们自己遭遇这个层次,我们提出的这个第三术语,关于这个「我正在说谎」。换句话说,我们能够说:「我知道我正在说谎。」这是某件应该吸引你们注意的东西。

In effect, this indeed is the support of everything that a certain phenomenology has developed concerning the subject, and here I putting forward a formula which is one on which we will be led to begin again on the next occasions, which is the following: what we are dealing with, and how this is given us since we are psychoanalysts, is to radically subvert, to render impossible this most radical prejudice, and therefore it is the prejudice which is the true support of this whole development of philosophy, which one can say is the limit beyond which our experience has gone, the limit beyond which there commences the possibility of the unconscious.

实际上,这确实是关于主体,某种的现象学所发展的每一件事情的支持。在此,我提出一个公式,在下一次的场合,我们将会被引的从这个公式开始。这个公式如下:我们正在处理的东西,这个东西如何给予我们,因为我们是精神分析家,那就是要强烈地颠覆,要让这个最强烈的偏见成为不可能。因此,就是这个偏见,成为哲学的整体发展的真实的支持。我们能够说,我们精神分析经验已经超越这个限制。无意识的可能性就是从超越那个限制开始。

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

Identification 04

December 29, 2011

Seminar IX :Identification 04
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.11.61 I 2
Seminar 1: Wednesday 15 November 1961

If we hold onto it for a moment, and try to polish up its sign function, if we try to reanimate its function for our purposes, I would like to remark the following: the fact is that this formula, which I repeat is only found in its concentrated form in Descartes at certain points of the Discours de la Methode, it is not at all in this way in this dense form that it is expressed.

假如我们坚持它一阵子,并且尝试修饰它的符号象征功用,假如我们尝试重新激发它的功用,作为我们的目标,我想要做以下评论:事实上,我重复的这个公式,仅有在笛卡尔的「真理论述方法论」的某些要点,以精炼的形态被找到。它被表达时,根本不是以这种精炼的形态的方式。

This “I think therefore I am”, encounters this objection – and I believe that it has never been made – which is that “I think” is not a thought. Descartes, of course, proposes
these formulae at the end of a long process of thinking, and it is quite certain that the thinking involved is the thinking of a thinker. I would go even further: this characteristic, it is a thinking of a thinker, is not required for us to talk about thought. A thought, in a word, in no way requires that one thinks about the thought.

这个「我思故我在」遭遇这个反对—我相信这个反对从来没有表达过—那就是「我思」并不是一个思想。当然,笛卡尔建议这些公式,是在一段漫长的思维的过程之后。这是千真万确的,被牵涉到的思想,是一位思想家的思想。我甚至更深入探讨:这个特性,它是一位思想家的思想,我们并没有被要求具有这个特性,才来谈论有关思想。总之,思想根本就没有要求:我们思维这个思想。

For us in particular, thinking begins with the unconscious. One cannot but be astonished at the timidity which makes us have recourse to the formula of psychologists when we are trying to say something about thinking, the formula of saying that it is an action at the state of being outlined, at a reduced state, the
small economic model of action.

特别对于我们,思想开始于无意识。我们忍不住地大为惊奇,对于让我们诉诸于心理学家的这种胆小,当我们正在尝试说关于思想的某件东西,我们诉诸于这个公式说:这是一个处于被描绘轮廓状态的行动,处于被化简的状态,行动的小精简规模。

You will tell me that you can find that somewhere in Freud, but of course, one can find(13) everything in Freud: in some paragraph or other he may have made use of this psychological definition of thinking. But after all, it is extremely difficult to eliminate the fact that it is in Freud that we also discover that thinking is a perfectly efficacious mode, and in a way one that is sufficient to itself, of masturbatory satisfaction?

你们将会告诉我,你们能够找到,在弗洛伊德的某个地方,但是当然,我们能够在弗洛伊德找到一切。在某个段落,他可能曾经使用这个心理学对于思想的定义。但是毕竟,这是极端地困难,要减少这个事实:在弗洛伊德,我们也发现,思想是一个非常有效用的模式。在某方面,本身就自给自足的思想,是一种手淫式的满足吗?

This to say that, as regards what is in question concerning the meaning of thinking, we have perhaps a slightly broader span than other workers. This does not exclude that in questioning the formula we are dealing with: “I think therefore I am”, we could say that, as regards the use that is made of it, it cannot but pose us a problem: because we have to question this word “I think”, however large may be the field that we have reserved for thinking, to see the characteristics of thinking being satisfied, to see being satisfied the characteristics of what we can call a thinking.

这就是说,关于受到质疑的东西,关于思想的意义,我们或许比其他的工作者,拥有稍微更宽广的空间。这并没有排除,当我们询问这个公式,我们正在处理:「我思故我在」,我们能够说,关于对这个公式的使用,它忍不住会跟我们提出一个问题:因为我们必须询问「我思」这个字词,无论我们保留给思想的领域是多么的宽广,为了看出思想被满足的这些特性,为了看出我们所谓的思想的特性被满足。

It could be that this word proved itself quite insufficient to sustain in any way, anything whatsoever that we may at the end discover of this presence: “I am”.

很有可能,这个字词证明它本身并不足够以任何方式维持任何东西,为了我们最后会发现「我在」的这个存在。

This is precisely what I am claiming. To clarify my account, would point out the fact that “I think” taken simply in this form, is logically no more sustainable, no more supportable than the “I am lying”, which has already created problems for a
certain number of logicians, this “I am lying” which can only be sustained because of the no doubt empty but sustainable logical vacillation which this apparent meaning unfolds, quite sufficient moreover to find its place in formal logic. “I am lying”, if I
say it, it is true, therefore I am not lying, but nevertheless I am indeed lying because in saying “I am lying” I affirm the contrary.

这确实是我正在宣称的。澄清我的描述,将会指出这个事实:以这种方式接受的「我思」,在逻辑上并不见得会比「我正在说谎」更好维持,更好支持。「我正在说谎」这个陈述曾经引起逻辑专家某些的难题。这个「我正在说谎」仅能够被维持,因为这个无可置疑的空洞,但是这个明显的意义展开的可维持的逻辑的摇摆。而且,它完全足够在正式的逻辑里找到它的位置。「我正在说谎」,假如我说它,它就是真实的,因此我并没有正在说谎。可是我确实是在说谎,因为当我说「我正在说谎时」,我肯定了相反的东西。

(14) It is very easy to dismantle this so-called logical difficulty and to show that the so-called difficulty on which this judgment reposes depends on the following: the judgement that it involves cannot refer to its own enunciation, it is a collapsing: it is on the absence of distinction between two planes, because of the fact that the accent is put on the “I am lying” itself without making a distinction in it, that this pseudo-difficulty comes about; this in order to tell you, that without this distinction, we are not dealing with a real proposition.

我们很容易拆解这个所谓的逻辑的困难,并且显示所谓的困难,这个判断本质上具有的所谓的困难依靠著以下:它牵涉到的判断,无法提到它自己的表述,这个判断是一种崩塌:就是在这两个层次之间的区别的欠缺,因为这个事实:「我正在说谎」本身的这个强调点,并没有在里面做一种区别。这个虚假的困难发生,这是为了告诉你们,假如没有这个区别,我们并不是在处理一个真正的命题。

These little paradoxes, of which the logicians make a great deal, in order moreover to reduce them immediately to their proper measure, may seem to be simple amusements: they have all the same their interest: they should be retained in order to pinpoint in short the true position of all formal logic, up to and including this famous logical-positivism of which I spoke earlier.

这些小矛盾,逻辑专家非常重视,为了将它们立刻化简成为它们适当的程度。这两个小矛盾看起来仅是有趣。它们仍然拥有它们的興趣。他们应该被保留,总之为了强调所有正式逻辑的这个真实的立场。一直到包括我早先谈论到的这个著名的逻辑实证论。

By that I mean that in my opinion not enough use precisely has been made of the famous aporia of Epimenides – which is only a more developed form of what I have just presented to you in connection with the “I am lying” – that “All Cretans are liars”.

我说这句话的意思是,依我之见,对于阿披敏尼地思的这个著名的谜团,确实并没有受到充分地利用。这个谜团仅是我刚刚呈现给予你们关于「我正在说谎」的更加复杂的形态。那就是:「所有的科瑞滕人都是说谎者。」

Thus speaks Epimenides the Cretan, and you immediately see the little whirligig that is engendered. Not enough use has been made of it to demonstrate the vanity of what is called the famous universal affirmative proposition A.

阿披敏尼地思如此谈论这个科瑞滕人。你们立刻会看出这个小小的旋转玩物被产生。我们并没有充分地利用它来证明这个白费力气,对于所谓的著名的普遍性的肯定命题A

Because in effect, one notices it in this connection, it is indeed here, as we will see, the most interesting form for resolving the difficulty.

因为事实上,我们在这方面注意到它,它确实在这里,如我们所看见,用来解决这个困难的最有趣的形态。

Because, observe carefully what happens, if one poses the following which is possible, which has been posed in the criticism of the famous universal affirmative A of which some people have claimed, not without foundation, that its substance has never been other than that of a universal negative proposition “there is no Cretan who (15) is not capable of lying”, from then on there is no longer any problem.

因为,当你仔细地观察所发生的事情,假如我们提出以下可能的问题,这个问题曾经被提出,在这个著名的普遍性的肯定A的批评。有些人曾经宣称,并不是完全没有根据,它的材料道道地地就是一个普遍性的否定的命题:「没有一位科瑞滕人不具有说谎的能力。」从那时开始,问题就不再存在。

Epimenides can say it, for the reason that expressed in this way he does not say at all that there is someone, even a Cretan who is able to lie in a continuous stream, especially when one notices that tenaciously lying implies a sustained memory which ensures that it ends up by orienting the discourse in the sense of being the equivalent of an admission, so that, even if “all Cretans are liars” means that there is no Cretan who does not wish to lie in a continuous stream, the truth indeed will finish up by escaping him and, in the precise measure of the rigour of this will; the most plausible meaning of the avowal by the Cretan Epimenides that all Cretans are liars, this meaning can only be the following, which is that:

阿披敏尼地思能够说这句话,因为以这种方式被表达的理由。他根本没有说:有某个人,甚至一位能干说谎话的科瑞滕人,以连续的方式,特别是当我们注意到,顽强地说谎话,暗示着一个随之而来的持久的记忆,以致它结果会定位这个论述,以承认作为相等语的意义。所以,即使「所有的科瑞滕人都是说谎话者」,意味着,没有一位科瑞滕人不希望以连续的方式说谎话。这个真理确实将会以不适用于他而告结束,从这个意愿的严谨的意义来说。这位科瑞滕人阿披敏尼地思所宣称的最合理的意义是:所有的科瑞滕人都是说谎话者,这个意义仅是以下的推理:

1) he glories in it
2) he wants by that to unsettle you by really warning you about his method; but this has no other intention, this has the same success as this other procedure which consists in announcing that one is oneself a plain blunt man, that one is absolutely
frank. This is the type who suggests to you that you should endorse all his bluffing.

1. 他以这句话沾沾自喜。
2. 他想要凭借这句话让你不安,作为真正的警告你关于他的方法。但是这句话并没有其他意图。这句话获得相同的成功,如同这个其它的程序在于宣称:我们自己是一个坦诚的人,我们绝对地坦白。这种人跟你建议:你应该替他所有的吹牛背书。

What I mean, is that every universal affirmative, in the formal sense of the category, has the same oblique goals, and it is very interesting to see these goals manifesting themselves in the classical examples.

我的意思是,每一个普遍性的肯定,在范畴的正式意义而言,都拥有相同的扭曲的目标。这是耐人寻味的,看到这些目标在这些古典的例子里,证明它们自己。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 03

December 29, 2011

Seminar IX :Identification 03
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.11.61 I 2
Seminar 1: Wednesday 15 November 1961

It is therefore arbitrary to some extent, and nevertheless there are reasons enough for it, the fact is that this formula which has a meaning for you and has a weight which certainly goes beyond the attention that you may have granted it up to now, I am
going today to dwell on it in order to show a kind of introduction that we can rediscover in it. It is a question for us, at the point of the elaboration that we have arrived at, of
(9) trying to articulate in a more precise fashion something that we have already advanced more than once as a thesis: that nothing supports the traditional philosophical idea of a subject, except the existence of the signifier and its effects.

因此,到某个程度,它是任意性的。可是有充分的理由形成这样。事实上,这个公式对你拥有意义,而且具有份量,这个份量确实超越你迄今给予它的注意力。我今天将要详述它,为了显示我们能够在里面重新发现的一种介绍。对于我们而言,这是一个问题,在我们已经获得的这个建构点,尝试以更明确的方式表达某件我们不仅一次,已经提出作为命题的东西。没有一样东西支持主体的这个传统的哲学的观念,除了就是能指的存在及其影响。

Such a thesis, which as you will see will be essential for every incarnation that we will subsequently be able to give to the effects of identification, requires that we should try to articulate in a more precise fashion how effectively we conceive of this dependence of the formation of the subject on the existence of the effects of the signifier as such.

这样一个命题,你们将会看出,对于我们随后将能够给予的每个具体表现,给予认同的影响,都是非常重要。这样一个命题要求,我们应该尝试以更明确的方式表达,我们如何有效地构想,主体的形成是如何依靠能指的本身的影响的存在。

We will even go further by saying that if we give to the word thinking a technical meaning: the thinking of those whose trade is thinking, one can, by looking closely at it, and in a way retrospectively, perceive that nothing of what is called thinking ever did anything other than to position itself somewhere within this problem.

我们甚至更进一步地说,假如我们给予思想这个字词,一个技术性的意义:那些以思想为本业的那些人,我们能够凭借更仔细地观看它,及用某种回顾的方式感觉到,所谓的思想,每一样所做的事情,就是定位它自己,在这个问题之内。

From this, we will state that we cannot say that, at the very least, we contemplate thinking only, in a certain fashion, whether we wish it or not, whether you knew it or not, every research into, every experience of the unconscious, which we have
on this occasion about what this experience is, is something which is placed at this level of thinking where, in so far as we are no doubt going there together, but not all the same without me leading you there, the tangible relationship which is the most
present, the most immediate, the most incarnated of this effort, is the question that you can pose yourselves in this effort about the “who am 1?”.

从这里,我们将会陈述,我们无法说,至少,我们仅是沉思思想,以某种的方式,无论我们喜欢与否,无论你们知道它与否,在这个场合,我们拥有的每个对于无意识的研究,每个无意识的这个经验,关于这个经验是什么。这是某件被摆放在思想的这个层次。在这里,我们无可置疑地一块去那里,但是跟假如我没有引导你们去那里,情况并不完全一样。这种努力最在现场,最为当下,最具体表现的实质关系,就是你们在这场努力当中,跟自己提出的问题:「我是谁?」

What we have here is not an abstract philosophical game: for, on the subject of “who am I?” what I am trying to initiate you into, you doubtless know – at least some of you – that I mean it in (10) every possible sense. Those who know it may be, naturally,
those from whom I hear it, and I am not going to embarrass anyone by publishing here what I hear of it.

我们在这里所拥有的,并不是抽象的哲学的遊戏。因为对于「我是谁」的这个主体,我正在尝试引导你们开始进入的,你们无可置疑地知道—至少,你们有一些人知道,我的态度实实在在是认真的。那些知道它的人,当然可能是我从他们那里听说的人。我将不会将我所听到的内容公布在这里,而让任何人感到尴尬。

Moreover, why would I do it since I am going to grant you that the question is a
legitimate one? I can lead very far along this track without there being guaranteed for you for a single instant the truth of what I am telling you, even though in what I am telling you there is never a question of anything but of the truth and, in what I hear of it, why not say after all that this carries over into the dreams of those who address themselves to me. I remember one of the them – one can quote a dream -: “Why?”, dreamt one of my analysands, “does he not tell the truth about the truth?”.

而且,既然我将要跟你们承认,这个问题是合情合理,为什么我要做它?我能够沿着这条途径引导很远,而我所正在告诉你们的真理,却没有丝毫获得保证,即使在我告诉你们的内容里,道道地地就是真理,没有别的。而且,在我所听到的内容,毕竟这样说,有何不可?所有这一切都延伸到那些跟我谈话的那些人的梦里。我记得其中一位—我们能够引述一个梦—我的一位分析者梦到:「为什么他没有告诉有关真理的真理?」

I was the one in question in this dream. This dream ended up nevertheless with my subject in a fully awake state complaining to me about this discourse in which, according to him, the last word was always missing.

我是这个梦里受到质疑的这个人。可是,这个梦结束时,我的主体处于充分清醒的状态。他跟我抱怨关于这个真理论述,依照他的说法,在这个真理论述里,最后的论断总是欠缺。

It does not resolve the question to say: you are children who are always wanting to believe that I am telling you the real truth (la vraie verite*): because this term, the real truth, has a meaning, and I would further say: it is on this meaning that the whole credit of psychoanalyis has been built.

这样说并没有解决问题:你们像小孩,总是想要相信,我正在告诉你们的是真实的真理。因为这个术语,这个真实的真理,拥有意义。我将更深入地说:整个精神分析让人推崇的地方,就是被建立在这个意义上。

Psychoanalyis presented itself at first to the world as being that which brought the real truth. Naturally, one falls quickly into all sorts of metaphors which allow the thing to escape. This real truth is what is concealed.

精神分析首先对这个世界,呈现它自己,作为带来真实真理的东西。当然,我们很快地掉入各种的比喻。这些比喻容许事情逃避。这个真实的真理就是被隐藏的东西。

There will always be one, even in the most rigorous philosophical discourse: it is
on this that there is founded our credit in the world and the stupefying thing is that this credit still persists even though, for a good while now, not the least effort has been made to give even the slightest start to something which would respond to it.
(11) Under these circumstances I feel myself quite honoured to be questioned on this theme: “where is the real truth of your discourse?”.

总是会有一个真实的真理,甚至在最严谨的哲学的真理论述:我们精神分析在世界受到推崇就是以这个真理论述为基础。令人叹为观止的事是,这种推崇依旧持续下来,即使有一段长时间,对于回应它的某件事情,即使是最轻微的动作,都要给予最大的努力。在这些情况之下,我感觉我自己能够在这个主题被人询问,感到受宠若惊:「你的论述的真实的真理在哪里?」

And I can even, after all, find that it is precisely indeed in so far as I am not taken for a philosopher, but for a psychoanalyst, that I am posed this question. Because one of the most remarkable things in philosophical literature, is the degree to which among philosophers, I mean in so far as they are philosophising, when all is said and done the same question is never posed to philosophers, unless it is to admit with a
disconcerting facility that the greatest of them have never thought a word of what they have communicated to us in black and white and allowed themselves to think in connection with Descartes, for example, that he had only the most uncertain faith
in God because this suits one or other of his commentators unless it is the opposite that suits him.

毕竟,我甚至能够发现,因为我并不是被认为是一位哲学家,而是被认为是一位精神分析家,我才被提出这个问题。因为在哲学文献里,最引人注意到事情之一是,在哲学家当中,我的意思是,因为他们从事哲学推理,当一切都说都做了,相同的问题从来没有哲学家询问过,除非这个问题是要方便避开困扰地承认,即使是最伟大的哲学家,也从来没有想到他们用白纸黑字跟我们沟通的东西,并且容许他们自己去思考关于笛卡尔,譬如,他对上帝仅拥有最不确定的信仰,因为这适合于他的某些评论者,除非适合于他的恰恰相反。

There is one thing, in any case, which has never seemed to shake for anyone the credit of philosophers, which is that it has been possible to speak, with respect to each of them, and even the greatest, about a double truth.

无论如何,有一件事情,对于任何人,从来没有动摇对于哲学家的推崇。关于他们每一个人,甚至是最伟大的人,谈论到双重的真理是可能的。

That then I who, entering into psychoanalysis, put my feet in the platter by posing this question about truth, should suddenly feel the aforesaid platter getting warm under the soles of my feet, is something about which after all I can rejoice, since, if you reflect on it, I am all the same the one who turned on the gas. But, let us leave this now, let us enter into the identity-relationships of the subject, and let us enter into it through the Cartesian formula and you are going to see how I intend to tackle it today.

因此,当我从事精神分析时,我提出关于真理的问题,让我的立场像素站在盘子上地不稳定,我竟然突然感觉到,前述的盘子在我的脚尖下,越来越温暖。这是某件我毕竟能够感觉喜悦的事情。因为,假如你们反思真理,我仍然是跟转开瓦斯的这个人,没有什么两样。但是,让我们将这个问题告一段落。让我们从事主体的认同的关系,并且让我们通过笛卡尔的公式来从事它。你们将会看出,我今天打算如何来处理它。

It is quite clear that there is absolutely no question of pretending to go beyond Descartes, but rather indeed to draw the (12) maximum effect from the utilization of the impasses whose foundation he connotes for us.

相当显而易见的,绝对没有一个问题假装超越笛卡尔。代替的,要假装获的最大量的影响,笛卡尔跟我们指明的这些僵局的基础的利益。

If you follow me then in a critique which is not at all a textual commentary, you should clearly remember what I intend to take from it for the good of my own discourse. “I think therefore I am” appears to me under this form to go against common usages to the point of becoming this worn down money without a figure that Mallarmé makes an allusion to somewhere.

假如你们在一篇根本就不是一个文本的评论的批判,跟随着我,你们应该清楚地记得,为了我自己的论述的利益,我打算从它那里所获得的。我觉在这种形态之下,「我思故我在」违反了共同的用法,以致于变成这个诗人马拉美在某个地方所提到:钱币上的人像因辗转经手而磨损。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 02

December 29, 2011

Seminar IX :Identification 02
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.11.61 I 2
Seminar 1: Wednesday 15 November 1961

It is not however from this angle that I intend to begin. I will put the accent rather on that which, in identification, poses (5) itself immediately as identical, as founded on the notion of the same, and even of the same to the same, with all the difficulties that this gives rise to.

可是,我并没有打算从这个角度开始。我将强调放置在认同时,立刻提出自己作为认同的东西。如同被建立在相同的基础上,甚至相同针对相同,以及这会产生的各种困难。

You surely know and can even rather quickly spot what difficulties have always been presented for thinking by the following: A = A. Why separate it from itself in order to
replace it there so quickly? What we have here is not purely and simply a jeu d’esprit.

你们确实知道,并且甚至很快就觉察出,对于思想会呈现怎样的困难,有关以下的:A等于A. 为什么要将它分开,为了要这么快就取代它?我们这里所拥有的,不单纯是一种「机智隽语」。

You can be sure, for example, that, along the line of a movement of conceptual elaboration, which is called logical-positivism, where one or other person strives to aim at a certain goal which would be, for example, that of not posing a logical problem unless it has a meaning that can be located as such in some crucial experiment, it would be decided to reject any logical problem whatsoever which could not in some way offer this final guarantee by saying that it is as such a meaningless problem.

譬如,你们能够确定,沿着观念建构的动作脉络,所谓的逻辑实证论,在那里,有某个人要到达某个目标,譬如,那个目标将是不提出一个逻辑的问题,除非在某个重要的试验里,它具有本身能够被定位的意义。假如逻辑的问题无法以某种方式,提供这种最后的保证,因为它的本身是一个没有意义的问题,那它将会被决定排除掉。

It nevertheless remains that if Russell can give a value to these mathematical principles, to the equation, to the equivalence of A = A, someone else, Wittgenstein, opposes it because precisely of the impasses which seem to him to result from it in the name of the principles he starts with and that this refusal will even be set forth algebraically, such an equality requiring then a change of notation in order to find what can serve as an equivalent of the recognition of the identity A is A.

可是,问题仍然是,假如罗素能够赋予价值,给予这些数学的原理,给予平等方程式,给予这个A等于A的相等,某位其他的人,维根斯坦,反对这种相等,因为确实地,他觉得这西僵局是由于它而形成,以他开始使用的原理的名义。这种拒绝甚至会用代数来表达。这样一种相同要求一致符号标记的改变,为了找到什么能够充当A就是A的认同的体认的相等。

For our part, we are going, having posed the fact that it is not at all the path of logical-positivism which appears to us, in logical matters, to be in any way the one which is justified, to (6) question ourselves, I mean at the level of an experience of
words, the one in which we put our trust despite its equivocations, even its ambiguities, about what we can tackle under this term of identification.

就我们而言,我们正要,我们已经提出这个事实:我们觉得,这根本不是逻辑实证论的途径。在逻辑事物上,要成为能够自圆其说的东西,为了询问我们自己,我的意思是,处于文字的经验的层次,我们信任文字的这个经验,尽管它的模糊暧昧,关于我们能够克服的东西,在这个认同的术语下。

You are not unaware of the fact that one observes, in all tongues, certain rather general, even universal historical turning points so that one can speak about modern syntaxes opposing to them in a global way syntaxes which are not archaic, but simply ancient, by which I mean the tongues of what one can call Antiquity.

你们并不知道这个事实:在所有的语言里,我们观察到某些相当一般性,甚至普及性的历史的转捩点。这样,我们才能够谈了关于现代的句法。这些现代的句法以并非是过时,而仅是古代的句法,以全球性的方式,跟它们相提并论。关于这些句法,我指的是我们所谓的古代的语言。

These sorts of general turning points, as I told you, are those of syntax. It is not the same with the lexicon where things are much more changeable; in a way each tongue
contributes, as compared to the general history of language, vacillations which are proper to its own genius and which render one or other of them more propitious for highlighting the history of a meaning.

我告诉你们,这些一般性的转捩点,就是句法的转捩点。这跟事情更加多变的词汇并不相同。跟语言的一般历史比较起来,每个语言都以某种方式造成摇摆,这些摇摆就语言自己的天才而言,是适当的,并且让他们的语言更加吉利,因为强调意义的历史。

Thus it is that we can pause at what is the term, or the substantival notion of the term, of identity (in identity, identification, there is the Latin term idem), and this will go
to show you that some significant experience is supported in the common French term, which is the support of the same signifying function, that of the meme.

因此,我们能够在认同的这个术语的内涵部分稍作停留,或是对于这个术语的实质的观念,(认同一词,是拉丁文的词源)。这将有助于跟你们显示:某个重要的经验,在通用的法文术语里,找到支持。那就是相同的能指化的功用,模拟的功用。

It seems, in effect, that it is the em, the suffix of i in idem, in which we find operating the function, I would say of the radical in the evolution of Indo- European at the level of a certain number of italic tongues; this em is here redoubled, an ancient consonant which is rediscovered then as the residue, the remainder, the return to a primitive
thematic, but not without having collected in passing the intermediate phase of etymology, positively of the birth of this theme which is a commonplace Latin met ipsum, and even a (7) metipsissimum from the expressive low Latin, pushes us then
to recognise in what direction here experience suggests we should search for the meaning of all identity, at the heart of what is designated by a sort of redoubling of moi-meme, this myself being, as you see, already this metipsissimum, a sort of au jour of aujourd’hui which we do not notice and which is indeed there in the moi-meme.

实际上,似乎就是这个「em」,认同这个词的字尾。在这个字尾,我们发现,在印欧语系的进化,除掉字首字尾的本体字根的功用的运作。在某些「斜体字语言」的层次,这个「em」在此被双重重复,一个古代的子音因此被重新发现作为残余物,剩余物,回转到一个原始的主题。但是并非每有偶尔收集的字源的中间部分,正面来说,就是这个主题的诞生的中间部分,这个主题数通用的拉丁字met ipsum, 甚至是一个从表态的通俗拉丁字metipsissimum 认同。这个字逼使我们去体认,精神分析经验跟我们暗示应该从怎样的方向寻找一切认同的意义,在「成为我自己」的一种双重重复所指明的核心。你们看出,这个「属于我的生命实存」已经就是这个metipsissimum认同, 这是一种 au jour of aujourd’hui 自动出现,确我们没有注意到,它确实就是在「成为我自己」那里。

It is then in an metipsissimum that there are afterwards engulfed the me, the thou, the he, the she, the them, the we, the you and even oneself, which happens then in French to be a soi-meme.

因此,就在一个认同,随后的这个「我」,这个「你」,这个「他」,这个「她」,这个「他们」,这个「我们」,这个「你们」,甚至这个「自己」,都被吞没在里面。在法文,那恰好成为一个「自我」。

Thus we see there, in short in our tongue a sort of identification through the operation of a special significant tendency, that you will allow me to qualify as “mihilisme” in so
far as to this act, this experience of the ego is referred.

因此,我们在那里看出一直认同,总之用我们的语言,通过一种特别的重要的倾向。请你们容许我将这个倾向的特质称为「mihilisme」,因为自我的这个经验被提到这个行动。

Naturally, this would only have an incidental interest if we were not to rediscover in it another feature in which there is revealed this fact, this difference which is clear and easy to locate if we think that in Greek, the auton of the self is the one which serves to designate also the same, just as in German and in English the selbst or the self will come into play to designate identity. Therefore I do not believe that it is for nothing that we pick up here and that we interrogate this kind of permanent metaphor in the French expression.

当然,假如我们并没有想要在题那里重新发现另外一个特征,这仅是会引起我们偶然的興趣。在这个特征里,这个事实被显示,这个差异很清楚而且容易找出位置,假如我们认为,在希腊文,自我的这个「自动」就是用来指明也是相同,就像在德文及在英文,「自我」这个词语将会运作,来指明「认同」。因此,我并不相信,我们在此挑选,我们质疑在法文的表达这种永远的比喻,是白费力气。

We will allow it to be glimpsed that it is perhaps not unrelated to what happened at
a quite different level: that it should have been in French, I mean in Descartes, that being was able to be thought of as inherent in the subject, in a mode in short which we will describe as captivating enough to ensure that ever since the formula was proposed to thought, one might say that a good share (8) of the efforts of philosophy consists in trying to extricate oneself from it, and in our own day in a more and more open fashion, there being, as I might say, no thematic of philosophy which does not begin, with some rare exceptions, by trying to master this famous: “I think therefore I am”.

我们将容许它被瞥见,它或许跟完全不同层次所发生的事情,并非不相关。它本来应该存在于法文里,我的意思是存在于笛卡尔里。生命的实存能够被认为是主体的本质,总之,这种模式,我们将描述为足够迷人地确定:自从这个公式被建议给思想,我们可以说,哲学的一大部分的努力,在于尝试将自己从那里挣脱出来。在我们的时代,方式越来越开放。我不妨说,除了少数例外,没有一个哲学的主题,不是从这里先开始。哲学的主题总是尝试驾驭这个「我思故我在」。

I believe that for us it is not a bad point of entry for this “I think therefore I am” to mark the first step of our research. It is understood that this “I think therefore I am” is on the path taken by Descartes. I thought of indicating it to you in passing, but I will tell you right away: it is not a commentary on Descartes that I can try to tackle today in anyway whatsoever, and I have no intention of doing it.

我相信,对于我们而言,这并不是一个不好的进入点,对于这个「我思故我在」,用来标示我们研究的第一步。它被了解为,这个「我思故我在」是笛卡尔採取的途径。我想到要顺便跟你们指明它,但是我将立刻告诉你们:我今天尝试各种方法要克服的,并不是对于笛卡尔的评论,我并没有这样做的意图。

The “I think therefore I am”, naturally if you referred to Descartes’ text is, both in the Discourse and in the Meditations, infinitely more fluid, more slippery, more vacillating than this kind of lapidary expression with which it is marked, both in your memory and in the passive or surely inadequate idea that you may have of the Cartesian process. (How would it not be inadequate because moreover there is not a single commentator who agrees with another one as regards its exact sinuosity).

当然,假如你们提的是笛卡尔的文本,在「真理论述方法论」及「沉思录」,这个「我思故我在」,比起它被用来标示这种珠光宝气的表达,会更加流动,更加闪烁,更加摇摆不定,无论是在你们的记忆,或在笛卡尔的思维过程,你们可能拥有的这个被动,或确定是不足够的观念里。( 这种观念怎么可能会足够呢?因为没有一位评论者会同意另外一位评论者,关于这个观念的曲折变化。)

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

第九研讨班 :认同

December 28, 2011

第九研讨班 :认同
Seminar IX :Identification
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.11.61 I 2
Seminar 1: Wednesday 15 November 1961

Identification – this is my title and my subject for this year. It is a good title but not an easy subject. I am sure you do not think that it is an operation or a process that is very easy to conceptualize.

认同:这是我今年的题目及我的主题。这是一个很好的题目,但是不是一个很容易的主题。我确定你们并不认为,这是一种容易构想的运作或过程。

If it is easy to recognise, it would perhaps nevertheless be preferable, in order to recognise it correctly, for us to make a little effort in order to conceptualize it. It is certain that we have encountered enough of its effects even if we remain at something rather summary, I mean at things which are tangible, even to our internal experience, for you to have a certain feeling about what it is.

假如体认出来很容易,或许它仍然是较受喜爱,为了正确地体认它,为了让我们稍微努力一下,为了构想它。的确,我们曾经遭遇认同的充分影响,即使我们保留在相当总结的东西,我的意思是指那些具体的东西,甚至对于我们内在的经验,为了让你们拥有某种的感觉,关于认同的本质。

This effort of conceptualization will appear to you, at least this year, namely
a year which is not the first of our teaching, to be without any doubt justified retrospectively because of the places, the problems to which this effort will lead us.

这种观念化的影响将会呈现给予你们,至少是今年。换句话说,这一年并非是我的教学的第一年。它将呈现给予你们无可置疑地,从反弹回来的角的能够自圆其说。因为这种努力会引导你们到达这些地方,这些问题。

Today we are going to take a very first little step in this direction. I apologise to you, this is perhaps going to lead us to make efforts which are properly speaking called efforts of thinking: this will not often happen to us, to us any more than to others.

If we take identification as the title, as the theme of our remarks, it would be well for us to speak about it otherwise than in what could be called the mythical form on which I left it last year.

今天我们将要朝这个方向,採取最先的一步。我跟你们道歉,或许这将会引导我们的努力,适当来说,是思想的努力。我们跟别人一样,并没有时常发生这样的事。

There was something of this order, of the order of (2) identification in particular, involved, you remember, in this point at which I left my remarks last year, namely where – as I might say – the humid layer with which you represent for
yourselves the narcisstic effects which circumscribe this rock, what was left emerging from the water in my schema, this autoerotic rock whose emergence the phallus symbolises: an island in short battered by the waves of Aphrodite, a false island since moreover like the one in which Claudel’s Proteus figures, it is an island without moorings, an island that is drifting away.

属于这个秩序,特别是认同的秩序,有某件事情,你们记得,会牵涉到我去年留下我的谈论的这一点。也就是说,你们用来替你们自己代表这个自恋的效应的潮湿的表层,而自恋的效应围绕着这块岩石。在我的基模,从水里出现所留下的东西,这块自动性欲的岩石,它的出现,可用这个阳具来象征:总之,一个被爱神的波涛冲击的岛屿,一个虚假的岛屿。而且,就像克劳岱尔的普罗特斯黄昏之恋岛,一个没有停泊港的岛,一个漂流的岛。

You know what Claudel’s Protee is. It is the attempt to complete The Orestia by the ridiculous farce which in Greek tragedy is obliged to complete it and of which there remains in the whole of literature only two pieces of jetsam by Sophocles and a Hercules by Euripedes, if I remember correctly.

你们知道克劳岱尔的黄昏之恋岛是什么样子。这个岛是一种企图想要以荒谬的闹剧来完全奥瑞斯修的悲剧。在希腊神话里,这个闹剧被迫完成它。在那个岛的整个文学里,仅有索福克利斯的两部残剧及尤力披地斯的赫丘力士,假如我记得没错的话。

It is not unintentionally that I am evoking this reference in connection with the fashion in which last year my discourse on transference ended on this image of identification.

去年我对于移情的论述,以对于认同的意象作为结束。这种表达方式,我我现在正在引用,并非没有刻意。

Try as I might I could not find a beautiful way to mark the barrier at which transference finds its limit and its pivoting point. No doubt, this was not the beauty which I told you was the limit of the tragic, the point at which the ungraspable thing pours its euthanasia over us. I am embellishing nothing, whatever may be imagined from the rumours one sometimes hears about what I am teaching: I am not overdoing things for you.

无论我如何尽力,我无法找到更漂亮的方法来标示,移情发现它的限制的这个阻碍及它的枢纽点。无可置疑的,我告诉你们,悲剧的限制并不是美。这个无法掌握的事情倾注它的安乐死在我们身上。我并没有增添任何东西的美丽,无论从我们偶尔听到有关我的教学的传闻,充满想象的空间。我并没有替你们过分誇张某些东西。

This is known to those who formerly listened to my seminar on Ethics, the one in which I exactly approached the function of this barrier of beauty under the form of the agony which the thing (la chose) requires of us for us to join it.

以前曾经听过我的精神分析伦理学的研讨班的那些人,都知道这一点。在这个研讨班,我确实探讨到,真实的事物要求我们,以痛苦的形态去从事它,而获得美的这个阻碍的功用。

(3) Here then is where transference ended last year. I indicated to you, to all of those who attended the Journees provinciales in October, I highlighted for you, without being able to say any more, that what we had here was a reference hidden in something comic which is the point beyond which I could not push any further what I was aiming at in a certain experience, an indication as I may say which is to be rediscovered in the hidden meaning of what one could call the crypto grammes of this seminar, and after all I do not give up hope that a commentary will one day separate it out and highlight it, because moreover I happen to have heard a certain testimony which, in this regard is a sign of hope:

去年,移情的探讨就这样结束。我跟你们指示,对于所有参加十月份的Journees provincials 研讨班的人,由于当时时间的限制,我跟你们强调,我们当时拥有的东西,是被隐藏某件喜剧里的东西。喜剧的东西是我无法超越的那个点,关于我在某种经验里的目标。这是一个指示,我不妨说,这一个指示应该被重新发现,在这个研讨班的我们所谓的「密码记载」的隐藏意义里。毕竟,我并没有放弃这个希望,有一天,会有一个评论替它澄清,并且强调它。因为,我恰好曾经听过某种的证词,关于这一点,这是个希望的迹象。

it is that the seminar of the year before last, the one on ethics had effectively been taken up again – and according to those who have been able to read the work in a completely successful way – by someone who went to the trouble of rereading it in order to summarise the elements of it, I am talking about M. Safouan, and I hope that perhaps these things may be able to be put at your disposal fairly rapidly so that there can be linked onto them what I am going to bring you this year.

在前年的那个研讨班,讨论精神分析伦理学的研讨班已经有效地再一次从事。依照那些能够以非常成功的方式阅读这本著作的人,有某个人曾经很费心地重新阅读它,为了替里面的要点做个总结。我现在谈到萨福安先生,我希望或许这些总结的资料可以很快地让你们获得。这样,对于今年我将带给你们的内容,才衔接得上来。

Jumping from one year onto the second next one after it may seem to give rise to a question for you, or even to constitute a regrettable delay; this however is not altogether justified, as you will see if you take up this sequence of my seminars since 1953: the first on the technical writings, the one which followed on the ego:

从一年跳跃进入下下年,对于你们,在它可能似乎产生一个问题之后,甚至形成一种令人遗憾的拖延。可是,这并不完全无法自圆其说。你们将会看出,假如你们从事我的研讨班自从1953年来的这个顺序,第一年是探讨精神分析技术文章,跟随而来就是探讨自我的问题。

technique and Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the third on the Freudian structures of psychosis, the fourth on object relations, the fifth on the formations of the unconscious, the sixth on desire and its interpretation, then ethics, transference, identification at which we are arriving:

精神分析的技术与弗洛伊德的精神分析理论,第三年探讨弗洛伊德对于精神病患的结构,第四年探讨客体关系。第五年探讨无意识的形成,第六年,探讨欲望及其解释,然后探讨精神分析伦理学,论移情,以及我们目前正在进行的论认同。

that is nine, you can easily find in them an alternation, a pulsation, you will see that in every second one there dominates the thematic of the subject and that of the signifier, which, given that it was with the signifier, with the elaboration of the function of the symbolic that we began, makes us land this year also on the signifier because we are at an odd number, even though what is in question in identification ought to be properly the relationship of the subject to the signifier.

总共是九个研讨班。你们能够很容易地在里面找到一种轮换,一种悸动。你们将会看出,每隔一个研讨班,就有主体的主题与能指的主题彰显出来。假如考虑到,我们就是从这个能指,从符号象征的功用的建构开始。这个能指让我们今年也探讨这个能指,因为我们从事的是一个奇数的数目。即使在认同所被质疑的东西,适当来说,应该是主体跟能指的这个关系。

This identification then, which we propose to attempt to give an adequate notion of this year, has no doubt been rendered rather trivial for us by analysis; as someone who is rather close to me and understands me very well said to me, “so this year you are doing identification”, and this with a pout: “the all-purpose explanation”, allowing there to pierce through at the same time some disappointment about the fact in short that something rather different was expected from me. Let this person be under no
illusions.

因此,我们建议的这个认同,为了企图给予今年这个适当的观念。这个认同无可置疑地,由于精神分析,会被我们弄得很琐碎。有一位跟我很亲密而且很了解我的人,对我说:「所以今年,你将从事认同。」而且带着揶揄地说:「这个全方位的解释」,同时让对于这个事实的某种的失望显露出来。总之,我被期望要给予相当不同的东西。请这位朋友不要怀抱过高的幻想。

His expectation, in effect, of seeing me avoid the topic, as I might say, will be disappointed, because I hope indeed to treat it and I hope also that the fatigue which this topic suggests to him in advance will be dissolved. I will indeed speak about identification itself.

实际上,他预期会看到我避免这个题目,我不妨这样说,他的期望将会落空。因为我确实希望处理这个题目。我也希望,这个题目事先会让他感觉到底乏味疲惫,将会消散。我确实将会谈论认同的本身。

In order to specify what I understand by that, I would say that when one speaks about identification what one thinks about first is the other to whom one is identified, and that the door is easily opened for me to put the accent, to insist on this difference between the other and the Other, between the small other and the big Other, which is a theme with which I may indeed say that you are already familiar.

为了指明我对于认同的了解,我将会说,当我们谈论到关于认同,我们首先思考到的是,我们认同的大他者,这个门很容易被打开,让我强调,让我坚持小他者与大他者之间的差异。这是一个主题,我可以确实地说,我们已经耳熟能详的主题。

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