sinthome 36

sinthome 36

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

18.11.75 VII-153
I must tell you that, in the interval, anyway, I went to listen to Jacques Aubert
somewhere that you were not invited and that there I made a few reflections on the
ego. What the English call the ego. And the Germans the Ich.

我必须告诉你们,如何如何,在这个中间,我想要倾听雅克、奥伯,你们并没有被邀请去那里。在那里,我对于自我,作了一些反省。英文所谓的自我,在德文是这个Ich。

The ego is, it’s a device. It’s a device about which I have cogitated. I have cogitated
in terms of a knot, of a knot that has been cogitated by a mathematician who has no
other name than Milnor. He invented something, namely, the idea of chain – he
called that, in English, link (IX-2).

这个自我,这是一个策略。这是一个我曾经深思熟虑的策略。我曾经用一个环结深思熟虑,这个环结曾经被一位数学家深思熟虑。他的名字就是米诺。他发明某件东西,也就是说,锁链的观念—他用英文称它为「连接」link。

I must draw this differently because this is what is at stake. This is a knot (IX-3).
(139) I am making it again, because, of course, like every time that I draw a knot, I
get into a mess, it is not the first time that this has happened to me in front of you.
There you are, correct at the bottom. You ought to see that that, that is knotted.。

我必须用不同方式画它,因为这是岌岌可危的地方。这是一个环结。我再一次画它。因为,当然,就像每一次我画一个环结,我就陷入混乱。这并不是第一次,我在你们面前发生这样的事。你们瞧,在底端改正。你们应该看出,那个被连接成环结。

But suppose, says Milnor, that you give yourself this permission that, that in some chain or other, this being a chain with two elements, that in some chain or other the same element can cross over itself. So then, you get this of which, which shows you
immediately that from the fact that an element may cross over itself, there results that
what was above here, and here, is underneath there, there is no longer a knot. There
are, of course, a lot of other examples of it; there is no longer a link.

但是米诺说,假如你们容许你们自己,以某种的锁链,这个成为具有两个要素的锁链,以某种锁链的方式,相同的要素会跨越过它自己。因此,你们从那里获得,这立刻会跟你们显示:根据一个要素会跨越自己的这个事实,结果会是:在这个上面的东西,就是在那底下的东西。一个环结不再存在。当然,还会有许多其它例子。连接不再存在。

What I am proposing to your astuteness is the following. To note that if in the first
knot, you double each of the elements of the aforesaid chain, namely, that instead of
having one here, you have two travelling in the same direction and that, in the same
way, you do the same for here, it will no longer be true, however unlikely this may
seem to you – and you will check it, I hope, I did not bring my drawings so that since
I only had a piece of white paper put up here, I will not risk showing you how it is
twisted – it is enough that there should be two of them, which nevertheless does not
seem to create an objection, since one, a loop in the form of eight, if it crosses itself, is
easily freed – from the circular or from the oval, as I drew it – is easily freed when
this eight in question crosses over itself; why would it not be just as true when there
are two of them? I am saying two eights and two ovals (IX-4).

对于你们的精明算计,我的建议如下。为了要注意,假如在第一个环结,你们怀疑前述的锁链的其中一个要素。换句话说,非但不是一个环结在这里,你们拥有两个环结以相同的方向旅行,你们在此做相同的事情。它不再是真实的。无论你们觉得这是多么的不可能。我希望你们将会检视它。我并没有带我的图画,因为我仅有一张白纸被张贴在这里。我将不会冒险跟你显示,它如何的被扭曲—它们应该有两个就足够了。可是,它似乎没有创造一个目标。因为一个目标,以八个的形状的一个圈套。假如它跨越过它自己,它很容易被解放—从这个循环,从这个椭圆形,依照我所画的。它很容易被解放,当这八个受到质疑的环结跨越个它自己,为什么它并不是同样地真实,当它们两个存在时?我是说这两个八环圈的锁链及两个椭圆形的锁链。

(140) It nevertheless remains that – you will check this, I hope, I will come back to it
the next time – not simply is there an obstacle, but it is radically impossible to
separate the four elements.

可是,问题始终是,我希望你们将会检视一下,下一次我将会回头谈论。不仅因为有一个阻碍,而且要分开这四个要素几乎是不可能。

On this point, I must say that I cannot trace out all the algorithms that I have stated of
the type: S(Ø). What is meant by the fact that I protest, in my seminar Encore, it
appears – because of course I never read it – it appears according to some, I had
totally forgotten S(Ø) together with the function. I am saying, not small but
capital which is a function, as is implicated by what I have indicated, namely: there
exists an x for which this function is negative, .

在这一点,我必须说,我无法追踪所有我曾经陈述过的这些轨迹:主体(被画槓的大他者)。根据我抗议的这个事实,它的意思是,似乎是在我的「继续再来」研讨班,因为当然我没有再读它,依照某些人的说法,我完全忘记这个主体(大他者),以及它的功用。我是说,发挥功用的并不是小写,而是大写的大他者。根据我曾经指示的暗示,换句话说:这里存在着一个未知数,这个功用对于它是负面的。

Naturally, the ideal of the matheme is that everything corresponds. This indeed is
why the matheme adds to the Real. Because, contrary to what is imagined, we do not
know why, it is not the end of the Real. As I said just now, we can only reach bits of
Real. The Real, the one that is at stake, in what is called my thinking, the Real is
always a bit, a stump. A stump certainly around which thinking embroiders, but the
stigmata of this Real as such, is to be bound to nothing.

当然,这个数学公式的理想是,每一样东西要对应。这确实是为什么这个数学公式增加到这个实在界。因为跟被想象的东西相反,我们并不知道为什么,这并不是实在界的末日。如我刚才所说的,我们仅能到达些微的实在界。实在界是岌岌可危的东西。在所谓的我们的思想里。实在界总是些微,基本的东西。思想就环绕这个基本的东西装饰。但是这个实在界的创伤标志本身,跟空无相关。

This at least is how I conceive of the Real. And these little historical emergences –
one day there was someone called Newton who found a bit of Real, that gave the
heebie-jeebies to all of those who, to all of those who thought, specifically a certain
Kant, of whom one can say that Newton made him ill.

这至少是我如何构想实在界的方式。这些小小的历史的出现,有一天,某位名叫牛顿的人,发现了些微实在界,引起那些人的惊悚骚动。对你那些思想的人,明确地说,就是康德,我们能够说,牛顿会让他局促不安。

And moreover everyone, all the thinking beings of the epoch all succumbed, each in their own way. It rained down not only on men but also on women. Madame du Châtelet wrote a whole book on the Newtonian System, which pours out stupidities a go-go.

而且,每个人,这个时代的所有思想的人物都表示认同,各以不同的方式。它不仅牵涉到男人,而且也牵涉到女人。杜查特列夫人写了一整本的书,论牛顿的系统。内容可是胡说八道。

It is all the same extraordinary that when one reaches a bit of Real, it has this effect. But this is where one must start. It is the very sign that one has, that one has reached the stump. I am trying to give you a bit of Real, in connection with, in the skin of which we are, namely, the skin of this unbelievable business, in short, of the human spirit, of the human species.

这仍然是特别的,当我们到达些微的实在界,它具有这个效果。但是这并不是我们必须开始的地方。我们拥有的这个迹象,我们已经到达这个基本的地方。我正在尝试给予你们些微的实在界。关于这个实在界,我们可说是最这件难以令人相信的事情的外围。总之,人类的精神,人类的种族的外围。

And I tell you that there is no sexual relationship, but that is embroidery. It is embroidery because that is a matter of yes or no. From the moment that I say there is no, it is already very suspect. It is suspect by not truly being a bit of Real. The stigmata of the Real, is to be bound to nothing, as I already said earlier.

我告诉你们,性的关系并不存在。那是装饰的说法。那是装饰,因为那时肯定与否定。从我说性关系不存在开始,它已经很可疑。它之所以可疑,是因为它并没有丝毫属于实在界。实在界的标志应该是空无连接,如同我早先已经说过的。

(141) One only recognises oneself in what one has. One never recognises oneself –
this is implied by what I am putting forward, it is implied by the fact recognised by
Freud that there is the Unconscious – one never recognises oneself in what one is.
This is the first step of psychoanalysis. Because what one is, is of the order, when one
is man, is of the order of copulation. Namely, of what diverts the aforesaid copulation
into the no less said and, significantly, into the no less said copula constituted by the
verb to be.

一个人仅在他所拥有的东西里,体认出他自己。他从来没有体认出他自己—这是由我所提出的东西所暗示,由弗洛伊德所体认的这个事实所暗示—一个人从来没有在他的生命本质体认他自己。这是精神分析的第一步。因为一个人的生命本质,属于这个层次,当一个人属于交媾的层次。换句话说。将前述的交媾转移成为这个同样被说的东。然后,更重要地,转移成为同样所说由「成为」这个动词所形成的的交媾。

雄伯译
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: