sinthome 33

sinthome 33
sinthome 33

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

18.11.75 VII-145
It is certain that I remain extremely struck by my error that I quite rightly called stupidity (connerie), that I was affected by it to a degree that is difficult to imagine. It is indeed because I want to recover that I am now going to oppose to what I believe to be, as they expressed it to me, the opinion of Soury and Thomé, who pointed out to me that it is not simply that the three circles should be the one coloured, the others oriented, or another oriented, here I am formulating, and I think I can prove, in the sense that proving is still close to showing, what is at stake.

的确,我对于我恰如其分地称为愚蠢所犯的错误,印象极端深刻。我受到它的影响,到达难于想像的程度。这确实是因为我想要恢复,我现在将要反对我相信的邵瑞于汤玫的意见,如他们所跟我表达的。他们跟我指出,这不仅是因为这三个圆圈应该是这个被染颜色的这个圆圈,其余的是被定向,或另外一个是被定向。在此,我正在建构,我认为我能够证明,什么事情岌岌可危,就证明的意义靠近显示来说。

Soury and Thomé proceeded by way of a combinatorial exhaustion of three colourings and three collocated orientations on each of the circles; they believed they should carry out this exhaustion to demonstrate that there are two different Borromean chains. I believe that I can oppose this here.

邵瑞和汤玫继续藉由三种颜色及三个分配方向,朝中每一个圆圈的无穷尽组合。他们相信他们应该执行这种组合,为了证明,有两个不同的博罗米恩锁链。我相信我能够在此反对这个。

Oppose it by something that emerges from the way, from the way in (130) which precisely I represent this chain. The way in which I represent the Borromean chain (VIII-13), to maintain the same colours which are those I have made use of, here is how I represent, here is how I usually represent what you have seen there. I represent it by this differently to the way in which I made operate there two infinite straight lines.

我藉由某件从这个方式出现的东西,反对它。根据我确实代表这个锁链的东西。我代表这个博罗米恩结的方式(VIII-13),为了维持相同的颜色,那就是我曾经使用的方式。这就是我代表的方式,这就是我通常代表你们所看见的方式。我用不同方式代表它。用这些方法,我让两条无限的直线运作。,

There, the use of these two infinite straight lines as against the circle that conjoins
them, is enough to allow us to prove that there are two different objects in the chain. That there are two different objects in the chain on this condition that a couple is coloured and a third orientated (VIII-14).

这两条无限的直线的使用,以跟它们公同连接的圆圈为背景,足够让我们证明:在锁链里,有两个不同的东西。在这个情况,在这个锁链里,有两个不同的东西,有两个被染上颜色,有一个第三个被定方向。

If I spoke about infinite straight lines, the fact is that the infinite straight line which, prudently, Soury and Thomé do not use, the infinite straight line is an equivalent of the circle. It is an equivalent of the circle, at least as regards the chain. It is an equivalent whose point, one point of which is at infinity.

假如我谈论无限的直线,事实上,这条无限的直线,邵瑞和汤玫谨慎地并没有使用。这条直线是这个圆圈的相等语。这是这个圆圈的相等语。至少关于这个锁链。这是一个相等物,它的目标是永恒。

What is required from two infinite straight lines, is that they should be concentric. I mean that between themselves, they should not make a chain. This is the point that Desargues had highlighted a long time ago, but without specifying this last point, namely, that the straight lines which are at stake, straight lines described as infinite, must not be linked together. Because nothing is specified in what Desargues formulated, and which I evoked at one time in my seminar, nothing is specified about what is involved about this point said to be at infinity.

从两条无限直线所被要求的东西是,它们应该同心圆。我的意思是,在它们之间,它们不应该成为一个锁链。这就是德萨格很久以前所强调的,但是他没有指明这个最后一点。换句话说,这些岌岌可危的直线,被描述为无限的直线,它们一定不要被连接在一块。因为没有一样东西被指明,在德萨格构想的东西。我在我的研讨班,某一次曾经引用它们。没有东西被指明,关于在这一点被牵涉的东西,据说是朝向永恒。

We see then the following point: let us orient the ring that we say has no need to be of one colour. This obviously already isolates it. And because of the fact that it is not said to be of one colour, this is already to make something different. Nevertheless, it is not indifferent to say that the three must be oriented. If you proceed starting from this orientation, this orientation which, from where we see it is dextrogyratory.

我们因此看出以下一点。让我们定位这个环圈,我们认为它并没有需要属于一种颜色。这个颜色显而易见,已经孤立它。因为这个事实,它据说是属于一种颜色,这确实是让事情不同的地方。可是,这样说并非是冷漠,这三条直线必须被定方向。假如你们继续从这个定方向出发,从我们看见它向右旋转。

It must not be believed that an orientation is something that is maintained in every case. The proof, the proof is easy to give. It is, namely, that by turning inside out, and turning inside out will imply the inversion of straight lines, by turning the ring inside out the red ring will have, after being turned inside out, an exactly inverse orientation. I said that a single one is enough to be oriented. This is all the more conceivable that by making infinite straight lines, starting from where will we give an orientation to the aforesaid straight lines?

我们一定不要相信,一个定方向在每个情况,都是某件被维持的东西。证据,要给证据很容易。换句话说,从里面向外翻转。从里面向外翻转将会暗示着这些直线的逆转,将环圈由里面向红色环圈翻转,在被翻转之后,会有一个确实逆转的方向定位。我说一条单一直线就足够被定方向。这是更加可构想到。凭借制作永恒直线,从那里开始,我们将给予定位方向,给予前述的直线吗?

It is altogether possible to display the second object starting from what I, which was at the principle of my illusion about colouring starting from here (VIII-14a), that by taking the first, while inverting the colours, by taking the first of what I drew there, namely, by putting here the green colour and here the blue colour you get an undoubtedly different object (VIII-15a) on condition of leaving the orientation of this one which is oriented, of leaving it the same.

这是完全可能的,展示这第二个客体,从我处于我的幻想的原则,关于染颜色,从这里开始(VIII-14a)。凭借拿这第一条直线,一方面倒转这些颜色,拿我在那里所画的第一条直线。换句话说,我将绿色放在这里,蓝色放在这里,你们无可置疑地会获得一个不同的东西,只要你们留下这个被定方向的定位,让它保持原样。

Why in effect would I change the orientation? The orientation has no reason to be changed if I change the couple of colours. How will I recognise non-identity, the non-identity of the total object, if I change the orientation? And even if you turn it inside out, you will notice that this object is well and truly different.

实际上我为什么要改变这个方向定位?这个方向定位没有理由被改变,假如我改变这两对颜色。我将如何体认出这个没有身份的东西,整个客体的没有身份,假如我改变这个方向定位?即使你们将它由里面向外发展,你们将会注意到,这个客体,实实在在就是不同。

Because what it is a matter of comparing, is the object constituted by this, namely,
by making it turn through here (VIII-15b). Compare it with this object which is there (VIII-14b) and, in short, we notice that here, is the orientation, the maintained orientation of this object, the maintained orientation which is opposed, which differentiates this triple from this in (132) which it could be said to have the same presentation.

因为问题是要比较,换句话说,由这个组成的这个客体,让它从这里穿过(VIII-15b)。 你们将它跟那里的的这个客体比较(VIII-14b)。总之,我们会注意到,在此,这个方向定位,这个客体的被维持方向定位,这个被维持的方向定位被对立起来,它区别这三个一组,跟这个不同。据说这个拥有相同的呈现。

This allows us to distinguish the difference between what I called earlier the Real as marked by fallacy, from what is involved in the true. Only what has a meaning is true.
What is the relation of the Real to the true?

这容许我们区别这个不同,处于我早先所谓的由错误标示的实在界,跟这个真实界牵涉的不同。只有具有意义的东西是真实的。这个实在界跟这个真实界的关系是什么呢?

The true about the Real, if I may express myself thus, is that the Real, the Real of the couple here has no sense. This plays on the equivocation of the word sense (sens). What is the relationship of sense to that which here is inscribed as orientation?

真实界是关于实在界,容我自己这样表达,这一对的实在界,在此没有意义。这是在玩弄「意义」这个词语的模棱两可。这个意义跟在此被铭记为方向定位的东西,有什么关系?

One may ask the question and one can suggest a response, namely, that it is time. The important thing is the fact that we bring into operation on this occasion the couple described as coloured, and that this has no sense. Is the appearance of colour from vision, in the sense in which I distinguished it, or from the look? Is it the look or vision that distinguishes colour? It is a question that today I will leave in suspense.

我们可以询问这个问题,我们能够建议一个回答。换句话说,那就是时间。重要的事情是,事实上,我们在这个场合,运作被描述为被染上颜色的这一对。这没有意义。颜色的这个外表看想像得到吗?以我跟它区别的方式,或是从这个观看?这种观看,或这种想像,在区别颜色?这个问题,我今天卖给关子。

The notion of couple, of coloured couple, is there to suggest that in sex, there is nothing more than, I would say, the being of colour. Which in itself suggests that there can be woman the colour of man, I will say, or man the colour of woman. The sexes on this occasion, if we support with the red ring what is involved in the Symbolic, the sexes on this occasion are opposed as Imaginary and Real, as Idea and Impossible to take up again my terms.

这一对的这个观念,被染上颜色的这一对,有东西建议,在性方面,我不妨说,那仅是颜色的实存。它本身暗示着:「女人可能是男人的颜色」,容我这样说,或是,「男人具有女人的颜色」。在这个场合,假如我用红色的环圈支持符号界牵涉的东西,在这个场合,男女两性是对立的,作为想象界,及实在界,作为「观念」与「不可能」,我再一次用我的术语。

But is it quite sure that it is always the Real that is at stake? I put forward that in the case of Joyce, it is the idea and the sinthome, rather, as I call it.

但是这是千真万确吗?总是实在界岌岌可危吗?我根据乔伊士的个案,提出那个问题?相反的,如我所说的,这个观念及这个圣征岌岌可危。

Hence the illumination that results from it about what a woman is: not-all here, by not being grasped, by remaining to Joyce, specifically, foreign, by not having a meaning (sens) for him. Besides, does a woman ever have a meaning for a man?

因此,关于女人是什么,从这里获得的启示是:女人在此并非全部。对于乔伊士而言,女人无法被理解,明确地说始终是陌生,对他而言,并没有拥有意义。除外,对于男人,女人曾经有过意义吗?

雄伯说:
给拉康的拓扑图形绕了老半天,都快要晕头转向了。终于才稍微明白他在说些什么。他在原先的实在界the Real,符号界the Symbolic, 及想象界the Imaginary 之外,现在又多加一个真实界the True。无意识不再是如早先所说的处于实在界里,而是处于想象界与实在界之间的交会,产生一个新的真实界,也就是圣征形成的真实界,环圈由内向外翻转的真实界。这真是让人豁然开朗,路终究是人创造出来的啊!

最后结语时,乔伊士的女人并非全部,女人无法被理解,女人始终是陌生,或女人没有拥有意义。这个女人并非我们通俗所称的女人。拉康从早期的「阳具的意义」The Signification of the Phallus 开始,就始终将阳具作为主体的能指the signifier,通过无意识的讯息letter,响往实在界the Real 的所指the signified。这个所指有时被换喻为大他者the Other,无意识的生命欢爽jouissance,上帝,或是女人。拉康晚年终于体悟到:这个所指,或是女人,并非全部,无法被理解,始终是陌生,或没有拥有意义。她处于实在界,想象界,及符号的交会,是圣征sinthome,拉康晚年新铸造一个新词「真实界」the True。

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: