Archive for February, 2012

Seminar final 12

February 29, 2012

Seminar final 12
拉康研讨班25:结论的时刻

Jacques Lacan

雅克、拉康

Seminar 5: Wednesday 18 January 1977

This is rather laboured, so there you are, in truth, here, it is more or less the testimony, the testimony of a failure, namely, that I have exhausted myself for 48 hours, in making what I would call, contrary to what is involved in a plait (tresse), I exhausted myself for 48 hours, in making what I would call a ‘four-stranded plait’ (‘quatresse’). There you are [ Fig. V-2]

这是相的费力的。所以你们在这里,事实上,它相当是这个证词,一种失败的证词。换句话说,我曾经让自己费尽力气两天两夜,来制作我所谓的「四个环圈的编织」。你们瞧这个图形。

The plait is at the principle of the Borromean knot. That is to say that after six times, one finds, provided one crosses these three threads in an appropriate fashion – good, so then, this means that at the end of six manoeuvres of the plait, you find an order, at the sixth manoeuvre, the 1, the 2 and the 3. This is what constitutes
这个是博罗米恩环结的原则。换句说,经过六次以后,我们发现,只要我们以一个适当的方式,越过这三条线,呵呵,这意味着,在这个编织的六次操弄结束之后,你们发现一种秩序,在第六次的操弄,第一,第二,及第三。这就是所组成的东西。

the Borromean knot [fig. V-3]. If you have, if you try it twelve times, you have likewise another Borromean knot, which Borromean knot is curiously not visualised immediately [Fig. V-4]. It has nevertheless this character that contrary to the first Borromean knot which, as you have seen just now, passes above the one that is underneath, since as you see, the red is above the green, underneath the one that is underneath: that is the principle from which the Borromean knot derives. It is in function of this operation that the Borromean knot holds up. Likewise, in a fourfold operation, you will put one above, the other underneath, and in the same way you will operate with underneath the one that is underneath, you will therefore have a new Borromean knot which represents the one with 12 crossovers.
What is to be thought of this plait?

博罗米恩环结(图形V-3), 假如你们尝试它十二次,你们同样拥有另外一个博罗米恩环结。耐人寻味地,这个博罗米恩环结并没有立即被构想(图xingV-4),可是它具有跟第一个博罗米恩环结相反的这个特性。如你们刚才看到的,它由底下的这个博罗米恩环结的上方通过。你们看到,红色这条在绿色这条的上方,在底下的这条的下方。那就是博罗米恩环结从那里获得的这个原则。以这个运作的功用,博罗米恩环结维持下来。同样地,以一种四个折叠的运作,你们将上方的这条,底下的另外一条。以同样的方式,你们将会运作,用底下的这个条,因此你们将会拥有一条新的博罗米恩环结。它代表拥有十二次跨越的这一条。这种编织应该如何被看待?

This plait can be in space. There is no reason, in any case at the level of the ‘fourfold’ (‘quatres-se’) that we cannot suppose it to be entirely suspended. The plait nevertheless can be visualised insofar as it is flattened out. I spent another period, one that was supposedly reserved for holidays, exhausting myself in the same way, in trying to make function another type of Borromean knot, namely, one that would be obligatorily made in space, since what I started from was not the circle as you
这种编织能够被放置在空间。无论如何,没有理由处于这「四个折叠」的层次。我们无法认为它完全地被悬置。可是,这种编织仅有处于被平面化时,始能够被构想。我花费另外一个时期,应该被保留给渡假的时期,同样让自己身心俱疲,尝试让另外一种博罗米恩环结运作。换句话说,这个环结将强制地在空间被形成。因为我开始地方,并不是跟你们一样的这个圆圈。

A tetrahedron is drawn like that. Thanks to that, there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 edges (arêtes). I should say that the prejudices that I had – because it is a matter of nothing less – pushed me to operate with the four faces, and not with the six edges, and with the four faces it is quite difficult, it is impossible to make a plait. There must be six edges there to make a correct plaiting and I would like to see these balls carrying the outline of the schema, coming back [balls thrown into the audience].

一个拥有四个层面的多边形像那样被画。由于那样,有1,2,3,4,5,5 ,6 个边缘。我因该说,我曾经拥有的这些偏见逼迫我—确实是如此—使用这四个面相运作。不是用六个边缘,而是用四个面相。要制作一个编织,是相当困难,是不可能的。一定要有六个边缘在那里,才能制作一个正确的编织。我想要看到这些球具有这个基模的轮廓,回转过来(球被丢进听众那里)。

The fact is that you will note there that the plaiting, not six-fold but twelve-fold, is altogether fundamental. I mean that, what happens is that one cannot bring into play this knotting of tetrahedrons without starting, since there are only three tetrahedrons, without starting from the plait. It was a fact that was unveiled to me rather late, and which you will see here provided I pass you these balls which, I repeat, I would like to see coming back, because I have not, far from it, fully elucidated them,. I am going therefore, as I usually do, to throw them to you so that you can examine them.

事实上,你们将会注意到,这种编织不是六个折叠,而是十二个折叠。它完全是基本的,我的意思是,所发生的是,每当我们运作这个四层面的多边形,我们就会从这个编织开始,因此仅有三个四层面的多边形。我很迟才恍然大悟这一个事实,你们在此将会看出,只要我传递这些球给予你们。我重复一下,我想要看到这些球回来。因为我还没有充分地阐明它们,根本就没有。因此,像平常那样,我将把它们投掷给你们,让你们能够检视它们

I would like all four of them to be sent back. In effect, they are not similar. There are four of them, and there is a reason for that. It is a reason that I still have not mastered. It is preferable, even though of course that would take too much time, it would be preferable, that these balls should be compared one to the other, for they are effectively different. I would like that, from this threefold plait which is basic in the operation of these tetrahedric Borromean knots to which, I repeat, I applied myself without really completely managing them, I would like you to draw a conclusion.

我想要它们四个图形都被送回来。实际上,它们并不相同。有四个图形,是有一番道理。只是这个道理,我依旧没有参透。我宁可,即使当然那将会耗费许多时间,我宁可将这些球形互相作比较。因为它们实际上是有差异的。我想要,从这三个环结编织,在四层面的多边形的博罗米恩环结的运作,是基本的。我重复一遍,我并没有真正完全处理,就运用到我自己身上。我想要你们获得结论。

The fact is that, even for the tetrahedrons in question, one proceeds also to what I would call a flattening out for this to be clear. The flattening out which on this occasion is spherical is necessary for one to put one’s finger on the fact, as I might say, that the crossovers in question, the tetrahedric crossovers, are indeed of the same order, namely, that the tetrahedron which is underneath, the third tetrahedron, passes underneath, and that the tetrahedron which is above, the third tetrahedron passes above. It is indeed because of that that we are still here dealing with the Borromean knot.

事实上,甚至对于这个受到置疑的四层们多边形,我们也继续到我所谓的平面化,为了澄清这个。在这个场合,是球形的这个平面化是需要的,为了让我们理解这个事实。我不妨说,受到质疑的这个跨越,这个四层面的多边形的跨越,确实是属于相同的秩序。换句话说,在底下的这个四层面多边形,第三个四层面多边形,从底下经过。上方的这个四层面多边形,这第三个四层面多边形从上方经过。这确实是因为我们依旧在这里处理博罗米恩环结。

What is annoying nevertheless, is that even in space, even starting from a presupposed spatial, we should also be constrained in this case here to support – since when all is said and done, it is we who support it – to support the flattening out. Even starting from a spatial presupposition, we are forced to support this flattening out, very precisely in the form of something which presents itself as a sphere (Fig. V-5b).

可是,令人懊恼的是,即使在空间,甚至从一个被假设的空间,在这种情况,我们在此也应该受到约束,为了支持—当一切都说都做了,那是我们在支持它—为了支持这个平面化。甚至从一个空间的假设开始,我们就被迫支持这个平面化,所用的形式呈现它自己,作为一个图形(图形V-5b)

But what does that mean, if not, that even when we manipulate space, we have never seen anything but surfaces, surfaces no doubt which are not banal surfaces because we articulate them as flattened out. From that moment on, it is manifest on the balls that the fundamental plait, the one that crisscrosses itself 12 times, it is manifest that this fundamental plait forms part of a torus. Exactly this torus that we can materialise by the following, namely, the twelve-fold plait, and that we can also moreover materialise in terms of the following namely, the six-fold plait [Fig. V-3 and Fig. V-4].

但是那时什么意思,难道不就是,甚至当我们操控空间时,我们除了表面以为,从来没有看见别的东西。无可置疑地,这些表面并不是陈腐的表面,因为我们表达它们,作为平面化。从那个时刻开始,显而易见地,在这个球形上,这个基本的编织,交互跨越自己十二次的这个基本编织,显而易见地,这个基本的编织形成一个圆环面的部分。确实就是这个圆环面,我们能够根据以下具体化。换句话说,这十二折叠的编织,而且我们也能够让它具体化,使用以下的所谓的六个折叠的编织。( 图形V-3 及图形v-4)

In truth this function of torus is clearly manifest in the balls that I have just given you, because it is no less true that between the two little triangles, if we make – I would ask you to consider these balls – if we make a polar thread pass through, we will have exactly in the same way a torus; for it is enough to make one hole at the level of these two little triangles to constitute at the same time a torus. This indeed is why the situation is homogenous, in the case of the Borromean knot, as I have drawn it here, is homogenous between the Borromean knot and the tetrahedron.

事实上,圆环面的这个功用,在我刚刚给予你们的这些球形清楚地显而易见。因为这是同样地真实,在这两个小岛三角形之间,假如我们制作—我将要求你们考虑这些球形—假如我们制作一极端的线通过,我们将会同样地拥有一个圆环面,因为在这两个三角形的这个层次,制作一个空洞就足够了,同时也形成一个圆环面。这确实是为什么这个情况是同质性,在博罗米恩环结的这个情况。如同我在此所曾经画的。它在博罗米恩环结与这个四层面的多边形之间,是同质性的。

There is therefore something which ensures that it is no less true for a tetrahedron that the function of the torus governs here whatever is nodal in the Borromean knot. It is a fact, and it is a fact that has strictly never been glimpsed namely, that everything that concerns the Borromean knot is only articulated by being toric.

因此,有某件东西保证,对于一个四层面的多边形,这是同样地真实。圆环面的这个功用在此统辖博罗米恩环结的属于节点的东西。这一个事实,严格来说,从来没有被瞥见过。也就是说,跟博罗米恩环结有关的一切,仅是在成为圆环面时被表达。

A torus is characterised quite specifically as being one hole. What is annoying, is that this hole is difficult to define. The fact is that the knot of the hole with its flattening out is essential, it is the only principle of their counting – and that there is only one way, up to the present, in mathematics, of counting the holes: it is by going through, namely, by taking a path such that the holes are counted. This is what is called the fundamental group. This indeed is why mathematics does not fully master what is at stake.

圆环面的特性相当明确是作为一个空洞。令人懊恼的是,这个空洞很难定义。事实上,成为平面化的这个空洞的环结是基本的,这是它们计算的唯一原理。在数学方面,一直到现在,仅有一种方法计算这些空洞。以通过的方式,换句话说,以採取一条途径,这些空洞被计算。这就是所谓的基本的团体。这确实是为什么数学并没有充分地操控这岌岌可危的东西。

How many holes are there in a Borromean knot? This indeed is what is problematic since, as you see, flattened out, there are four of them [Fig. V-6]. There are four of them, namely, that there are not fewer than in the tetrahedron which has four faces in each of the faces of which one can make a hole. Except for the fact that one can make two holes, even three, even four, by making a hole in each of these faces and that, in this case, each face being combined with all the others and even repassing through itself, it is hard to see how to count these paths which would be constitutive of what is called the fundamental group. We are therefore reduced to the constancy of each of these holes which, by this very fact, vanishes in a quite tangible way, since a hole is no great thing.

在博罗米恩环结,有多少的空洞? 这确实是问题重重。从平面来看,你们看出,有四个空洞。换句话说,并没有少于四层面的多边形。后者有四个层面,每个层面,我们都能够制作一个空洞。除了我们能够制作两个空洞,甚至三个,甚至四个空洞的这个事实之外,我们在这些层面的每一个制作一个空洞。在这种情况,每个层面都跟其他的层面连接,甚至重新通过它们自己。我们很难看出,要如何计算这些途径。它们将会形成所谓的基本的团体。我们因此被沦为每一个这些空洞的常数,由于这个事实,以相当具体的方式消失,因为空洞让人无可奈何。

How then distinguish what makes a hole and what does not make a hole? Perhaps the quatresse can help us to grasp it.

因此,如何区别是什么形成一个空洞,跟什么没有形成空洞?或许这个「quatresse」能个帮助我们理解它。

What is here in this first drawing [Fig. V-1], these three circles form a Borromean knot. They form a Borromean knot, not that the first three form a Borromean knot since, as is implicated in the fact that the freed fourth, as I might say, the fourth element freed should leave each of the three free.

在这第一个图形(图形v-1) , 这三个圆圈形成一个博罗米恩环结。它们形成一个博罗米恩环结,并不是前面三个形成一个博罗米恩环结,如同这个事实所暗示的,这个被解放的第四个要素,我不妨说,这第四个被解放的要素,应该让这三个圆圈的每一个解放。

The quatresse binds nevertheless, starting from the one which is the highest (black), on condition of passing above the one that is highest, it will find itself by passing over the one which in the flattening out is intermediary (green), by passing beneath, it will find itself binding the three. This indeed in effect is what we see happening [Fig. V-7], namely, that, on condition that you see that as equivalent to the following, I think that you see here that it is a matter of a representation of the Real insofar as it is here that we have the apprehension of the Imaginary, of the Symptom and of the Symbolic, the Symbolic on this particular occasion being very precisely what we must think about as being the signifier. What does that mean?

可是,这个Quatresse 连接,从最高的这个黑色圆圈开始,只要它从最高点这个圆圈的上方通过,它将会发现它自己,由于通过处于平面化的这个圆圈,它是绿色圆圈的中介,由于从底下经过,它发现它自己连接这三个圆圈。实际上,这确实是我们看到发生的事情(图形V-7)。换句话说,只要你们看到,作为以下的相等物,我认为,你们看到,这是实在界的再现符号。因为在这里,我们理解到,想像界,病征,及符号界,在这个特别的场合。那确实是我们必须思考到,作为这个能知。那是什么意思?

The fact is that the signifier on this particular occasion is a symptom, a body, namely, the Imaginary being distinct from the signified. This way of making the chain questions us about the following: the fact is that the Real, namely, what on this particular occasion is marked here, the fact is that the Real would be very specially suspended on the body.

事实上,在这个特别的场合,这个能指是一个病征,一个身体。换句话说,跟所指不同的这个想像界。这种形成锁链的这个方式,质疑我们,关于以下:事实上,实在界,也就是在这个特别的场合被标示的东西,事实上,实在界将会被身体特别地悬置。

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

雄伯手记101225

February 25, 2012

雄伯手记101225
2012-02-22 08:38:14 merleau
• 2012-02-21 18:24:33 merleau 无意识中有所指吗?雄伯说严格来说,拉康的能指与所指… springhero
拉康确实曾经将人比喻为具有能指的意识,与所指的无意识的主体。

能找到出处吗?因为我一直看到的是Lionel Bailly的观点:there are no signifieds in the unconscious, only signifiers. If there were signifieds as well, then the meaning of any particular signifier for a Subject would be quite rigid: a signifer would remain immovable, attached forever to one particular thing and not be transferable to another.
雄伯说
Merleau 质疑得很在理。但是拉康确实是将人比喻为一个「能指」the signifier。那么问题是:所指the signified会在哪里呢?更具体地说,Merleau 你作为一个「能指」,你的「所指」在哪里呢?

拉康有很长一段时间,曾将被比喻为能指的他自己的「所指」,寄望在实在界the Real的无意识the unconscious,谓之为「在弗洛伊德的无意识里,主体的颠覆及欲望的辩证法」(The Subversion of the Subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious)及「无意识中文字的代理,或自弗洛伊德以来的理性」( The agency of the letter in the unconscious or reason since Freud). 所谓的「主体的颠覆」指的是,原先被认为是理性的意识的主体受到颠覆,作为人的真正的主体应该是在无意识。所谓「文字的代理」,就是人作为文字的「能指」,仅是无意识的「所指」的代理。「所指」不就是在实在界的无意识那里?

不过晚期的拉康,渐渐体悟到,若是将「所指」摆放在实在界的无意识,会形成生命实存的幻灭空的状态。这种主张推到极端,不仅会被符号界的大他者的关键字划槓删除,对于自恋我执的主体,其实也是情可以堪!试想想,Merleuo或拉康一生勤勤奋奋,苦励心志,最后的「所指」竟是无意识的空洞the hole或空无the void。那Merleau在符号界的生命意义在哪里?Merleau 的一生,难道就是无意义的存在吗?

晚期的拉康研讨班,开始将无意识的「所指」,从「实在界」the Real 搬出来,放置在实在界,符号界,想像界的交会地区,通过对于真理的启蒙enlightenment of Truth与从空无种创造ex-nihilo,将病征symptom,昇华成为圣征sinthome,创造一个新「真实界」the true。拉康的无意识的「所指」,重新回到符号界the symbolic。不过,这时的「所指」跟「能指」之间的关系,显然跟原先的「能指」作为「所指」的代理,境界完全不同。

禅宗对于这种境界的转折,也有类似的辩证:青源惟信禅师讲到自己修佛悟道的历程时说:“老僧三十年前来参禅时,见山是山,见水是水;及至后来亲见知识,有个入处,见山不是山,见水不是水;而今得个体歇处,依然见山还是山,见水还是水。”或者,如老子的「愚—智—大智若愚」的辩证转折。「大智若愚」绝不等于符号界原先的「愚」seminar final 103

雄伯说
美国小说家爱伦坡在「被偷窃的信」The Purloined Letter的小说里,提到的letter就是信件。但是拉康在借用「偷窃的信」来诠释精神分析时,这个letter除了原有的信件的意义外,兼含有「死亡」「无意识」「空无」或「真相」的双关语,亦即信件内容的揭露,将意味著「死亡」「无意识」「空无」或「真相」的揭露。
拉康在Ecrit 的The Agency of the letter in the Unconscious,对letter的定义是:By ‘letter’ I designate the material medium that concrete discourse borrows from language ( lacan:E 495)
( 我所说的「letter」,指明是具体的论述从语言介用过来到这个物质媒介,、。)
作为物质媒介的letter,褚小泉翻译为「文字」,我曾翻译为「字母」,均不甚妥,我很想改翻为「信息」,信件兼讯息双关。不知众人意见如何。

至于Bruce Fink在Lacan to the letter一书中所言:
the definition of the letter thus provided in this paper seems to lie somewhere between the signifier and its microstructure, somewhere between the signifiers and the position within a word that remains that the same despite the variability of phoneme that occupies that place at any particular moment in time. (p79)
因此在在这篇论文被提供的Letter的定义,似乎在一能指及其微小结构之间的某个地方,处于能指能指于其微小结构之间。处于能指与文字之内的位置之间的某个地方。这个地方始终是相同的,尽管在时间的任何特别时刻,佔据那个位置的语素的变化。

Bruce Fink 这里所谓的「微小的结构」,就是拉康在S11研讨班「精神分析四个基本观念」的结语所说的「绝对的差异」:
The Analyst’s desire is not a pure desire. It is a desire to obtain absolute difference , a desire which intervenes when , confronted with the primary signifier, the subject, for the first time, in a position to subject himself to it. There only may the signification of a limitless love emerge, because it is outside the limits of the law, where alone it may live.

「精神分析家的欲望并不是纯粹的欲望。这一个想要获得「绝对差异」的欲望,一个介入的欲望。当它面对原初的能指,主体第一次处于这个立场,想要屈服于它。仅有在那里,无限的爱的意义才会出现,因为这是外在于法则的限制之外,仅有在那里,无限的爱才可能存活。」

拉康所说的这个「绝对的差异」将它指明是分析家的欲望,一个介入的欲望,而不是纯粹的欲望。那纯粹的欲望是原先的无意识的欲望吗?主体第一次处于想要屈服于这个原初的能指的立场,那没有屈服于原初的能指以前的部分,也就是无意识部分,是「能指」?还是「所指」?

拉康对此语焉不详。一方面,拉康虽然说过「无意识是一种语言的结构」,也仍然将主体比喻为一个「能指」,但是后来觉得用语言学的结构,实在不足以描绘无意识的状态变化,而改用各种拓扑图形,如博罗米恩环结Boreumean rings及圆环面torus来显示。另一方面,毕竟在拉康还能言说的时候,他自己并没有进入到那个无意识里获得验证。后来进入以后,有否获得验证不得而知,因为就算获得验证,拉康也无法回来跟我们用语言言说。我们所能知道的是根据各种「信息」letter 推测。

雄伯的推测是:
拉康早先描绘主体时,将它区分为三界:实在界the real,想像界the imaginary,符号界the symbolic. 那时候的无意识the unconscious ,应该是被放置在实在界那里,有时又称它为「不可能界」the impossible。想是,拉康自己当时并未进入那里,是啥世界,他自己也不甚了然,他所能做的,仅是根据各种各样「信息」letter去推测。

但是拉康晚期的研讨班,特别是S23,特别将「病征」symptom贯穿三界的交会,而将「病征」提升为「圣征」sinthome,而形成第四界,就是「真实界」the true。无意识此时,应该是转移到这个真实界。「绝对的差异」在这里被认为是「原初的能指」the primary signifier。但是这种「原初的能指」,拉康自己承认是精神分析家的欲望,是欲望介入的产物。至于,客观的无意识在哪里,拉康自己现在无法回来言说,我们也仅能说,信不信由你了!

毕竟,在科学昌明的现代世界,宗教的教堂与庙宇,仍然到处林立。对于信徒而言,那是愚昧的迷信?还是真诚的信样?耶稣或苏格拉底,是被动地处死?还是主动地殉道?要看大家从什么立场介入。

还是要感谢Merleau的自我抗拒resistance,触发雄伯的自我抗拒,从而让雄伯能够突破自我的抗拒,更深入地探讨真相。

雄伯
请问Merleau,拉康在哪里说过这句话:there are no signifieds in the unconscious, only signif…
Merleau
这不是拉康的话,是一个拉康派学者,UCL精神分析教授Lionel Bailly所写的”lacan”一书中的观点,p.48
雄伯说
拉康从来没有,也不见有其他学者明确这样说:「无意识里没有所指,仅有能指」。Lionel Bailly 的这个观点,应该他自己的过分解读。

然而,这个问题确实令人困惑:拉康将主体比喻为「能指」,那么「所指」若是不在无意识,又是在哪里?或是说,人作为「能指」,根本就没有「所指」吗?

最近翻译第25研讨班,有这么一段:

Psychoanalysis, I would say, is no more of a fraud than poetry itself, and poetry is founded precisely on this ambiguity of which I speak and which I qualify as double sense. Poetry appears to me all the same to depend on the relation of the signifier to the signified.

我将会说,精神分析并不是骗局,如同诗的本身并不是骗局。诗的基础确实就是根据我谈论的这种模棱暧昧,我给予它的特质是双重意义。我觉得,诗仍然是依靠能指与所指的关系。

One could say in a certain way that poetry is imaginarily symbolic, I mean that, since Madame Kress-Rosen yesterday evoked Saussure and his distinction between the tongue and speech, not moreover without noting that as regards this distinction, Saussure had wavered; it remains all the same that his starting point, namely, that the tongue is the fruit of a maturation, of the ripening of something that is crystallised in usage, it remains that poetry depends on a violence done to this usage and that, – we have proofs of this – , if I evoked, the last time, Dante and love poetry, it is indeed to mark this violence, that philosophy does everything to efface, this indeed is why philosophy is the testing ground for swindling and why one cannot say that poetry does not play, in its own way, innocently, at what I called just now, what I connoted as imaginarily symbolic, that is called the Truth.

(我们能够以某种方式说:诗是「想象的符号象征」。我的意思是,因为罗森夫人昨天引用索绪尔及其从事语言tongue与言说speech的区别,并非没有注意到,关于这个区别,索绪尔曾经犹豫不定。问题始终是: 他的开始点,也就是,语言是成熟化的结果,在使用中具体成形的成熟的东西。问题始终是,诗依靠著对于这种使用行使的暴力—我们拥有许多证据证明这一点—假如我上一次引用但丁及情诗,那确实是要标示这个暴力。而哲学则是尽其一切,从事抹除,这确实是为什么哲学是欺骗的测试场所,为什么我们无法说:诗没有发挥运作,以它自己的方式,纯真地,对于我刚才所谓的,我指明的「想象的符号象征」,那就是所谓的「真理」。)

这里,拉康在是在澄清他在先前说过的这段话:

仍然必须记住,在当时,我所说的,关于主体。也就是说,这个第一主体跟这个第二主体的这个关系。有一次,我说过,一个能指的意义,就是它对于另外一个能指,代表主体的东西。因此,从那句话,什么能够被推论出来?我仍然会给予你们一个指示,即使仅是为了启明我的探索途径,因为它并不是自明的。

精神分析或许是一种欺骗,但是不仅是任何欺骗。关于一个「能指」是什么,它是一种相当正确的一种欺骗。我们认然清楚注意到的是,这个能指是某件非常特别的东西。它具有人们所谓的「意义及其各种影响」。我只要指明「第二主体」,作为并不是时间上的「第二主体」,而是作为拥有一个双重意义,对于这「第一主体」,为了代替它的位置,正确地代替他的位置。我们仍然应该说:意义的双重性的份量,是每个能指所普遍拥有的。( It must all the same be remembered at that moment what I said concerning the subject, namely, the relationship of this S1 with this S2. I said, at one time, that a signifier was what represented the subject for another signifier. So then what can be deduced from that? I will all the same give you an indication, even if only to throw some light on my route because it is not self-evident. Psychoanalysis is perhaps a fraud, but it is not just any one whatsoever. It is a fraud that is quite correct with respect to what a signifier is. And the signifier, it should all the same be clearly noted is somethingvery special; it has what people call sense- effects, and it would be enough for me to connote S2, as not being the second in time, but as having a double direction (sens) for the S1 to take its place, and its place correctly. It should all the same be said that the weight of this duplicity of sense is common to every signifier)

雄伯说

精神分析是否是一种欺骗?拉康先是说「或许」是,然后又将精神分析比喻为诗的能指与所指关系的双重意义说:精神分析并不是骗局,如同诗的本身并不是骗局。

这里令人困惑的问题是:人作为主体,仅是一种能指,或是一种能指与所指之间的双重意义的关系,或是一种所指?「能指」若是在符号界the symbolic,那「所指」是在哪里?是在实在界the real ?想象界the imaginary ?无意识the unconscious?或是在实在界,符号界,与想象界交集地带intersection,通过圣征sinthome形成的「真实界」the true。

依雄伯的理解,早期拉康是想将主体的所指,应该是放置在实在界,或无意识,也就是欲望和冲动 desire and drive 起源的地方。但是后来拉康渐渐发现到,这种「能指与所指」的语言学的比喻,用来解释主体的无意识,会有模糊暧昧的地方。因为「第一主体S1」与「第二主体S2」之间的双种意义的关系,并不是时间(time)的关系,而是位置(place)的关系,要用拓扑图形来观看,会较为清楚。

从拓扑图形的三个圆圈的交集,产生的第四个圆圈来观看,「真实界the True」与「实在界the Real」的区别,是「集合set」的关系。也就是,真实界是处于实在界,符号界,与想象界的交集地带intersection,并没有完全脱离于实在界之外。放置在这里的无意识,仍然是具有实在界的某个部分。精神分析,或主体的欲望,在这里是符号界的能指?还是实在界的所指?或是想象界的能指兼所指?

还要更进一步釐清的是:精神分析,或主体的欲望,是指分析者analyser的欲望?还是分析家analyst 的欲望?分析者与分析家的互动,是二元关系,还是四元关系?拉康在第11研讨班「精神分析的四个基本观念」的结语指出:分析家的欲望,并不是(分析者在无意识的)纯粹的欲望。它是一种想要获得绝对差异的欲望,是介入的欲望,是面对原初的能指时,主体第一次将自己屈服于它的立场。仅有在那里,无限的爱的意义,才可能出现,因为在法则的限制外面,在那里,它才可能存活。(The
Analyst’s desire is not a pure desire. It is a desire to obtain absolute difference, a desire which intervenes when, confronted with the primary signifier, the subject is, for the first time, in a position to subject himself to it. There only may the signification of a limitless love emerge, because it is outside the limits of the law, where alone it may live.)

这个处在法则的限制外面的无限的爱的意义,是能指?还是所指?

雄伯手记101222

February 22, 2012

雄伯手记101222
2012-02-22 08:38:14 merleau
• 2012-02-21 18:24:33 merleau 无意识中有所指吗?雄伯说严格来说,拉康的能指与所指… springhero
拉康确实曾经将人比喻为具有能指的意识,与所指的无意识的主体。

能找到出处吗?因为我一直看到的是Lionel Bailly的观点:there are no signifieds in the unconscious, only signifiers. If there were signifieds as well, then the meaning of any particular signifier for a Subject would be quite rigid: a signifer would remain immovable, attached forever to one particular thing and not be transferable to another.
雄伯说
Merleau 质疑得很在理。但是拉康确实是将人比喻为一个「能指」the signifier。那么问题是:所指the signified会在哪里呢?更具体地说,Merleau 你作为一个「能指」,你的「所指」在哪里呢?

拉康有很长一段时间,曾将被比喻为能指的他自己的「所指」,寄望在实在界the Real的无意识the unconscious,谓之为「在弗洛伊德的无意识里,主体的颠覆及欲望的辩证法」(The Subversion of the Subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious)及「无意识中文字的代理,或自弗洛伊德以来的理性」( The agency of the letter in the unconscious or reason since Freud). 所谓的「主体的颠覆」指的是,原先被认为是理性的意识的主体受到颠覆,作为人的真正的主体应该是在无意识。所谓「文字的代理」,就是人作为文字的「能指」,仅是无意识的「所指」的代理。「所指」不就是在实在界的无意识那里?

不过晚期的拉康,渐渐体悟到,若是将「所指」摆放在实在界的无意识,会形成生命实存的幻灭空的状态。这种主张推到极端,不仅会被符号界的大他者的关键字划槓删除,对于自恋我执的主体,其实也是情可以堪!试想想,Merleuo或拉康一生勤勤奋奋,苦励心志,最后的「所指」竟是无意识的空洞the hole或空无the void。那Merleau在符号界的生命意义在哪里?Merleau 的一生,难道就是无意义的存在吗?

晚期的拉康研讨班,开始将无意识的「所指」,从「实在界」the Real 搬出来,放置在实在界,符号界,想像界的交会地区,通过对于真理的启蒙enlightenment of Truth与从空无种创造ex-nihilo,将病征symptom,昇华成为圣征sinthome,创造一个新「真实界」the true。拉康的无意识的「所指」,重新回到符号界the symbolic。不过,这时的「所指」跟「能指」之间的关系,显然跟原先的「能指」作为「所指」的代理,境界完全不同。

禅宗对于这种境界的转折,也有类似的辩证:青源惟信禅师讲到自己修佛悟道的历程时说:“老僧三十年前来参禅时,见山是山,见水是水;及至后来亲见知识,有个入处,见山不是山,见水不是水;而今得个体歇处,依然见山还是山,见水还是水。”或者,如老子的「愚—智—大智若愚」的辩证转折。「大智若愚」绝不等于符号界原先的「愚」。

Seminar final 10

February 20, 2012

Seminar final 10
拉康研讨班25:结论的时刻

Jacques Lacan

雅克、拉康

41 Seminar 4: Wednesday 11 January 1977

What determines the contagious nature of certain formulae? I do not think that it is the conviction with which they are pronounced, because one cannot say that that is the basis on which I propagated my teaching. Anyway in that regard, it is rather J.A. Miller who can contribute a testimony on this: does he consider that what I have been chatting about throughout my 25 years of seminar carries that brand?

是什么决定某些公式具有传染的特性? 我不认为,这是它们被宣布时具有的信念。因为我们无法说,那就是这个基础,我传播我的教导。如论如何,关于那一点,那是米勒先生能个贡献一个证词: 他认为,我二十五年来的研讨班喋喋不休的,具有那种品味吗?

Good. This all the more so in that what I strove for was to say what is true, but I did not say it with all that much conviction, it seems to me. I was all the same sufficiently sidelined to be well-behaved. To say what is true about what?

呵呵,对于我努力追寻的东西,这更加是如此,要说出真实的东西。但是我并没有说它,带着那种信念。我觉得我仍然是充分地站在边线,循规蹈矩。要说出有关什么的真实的事情。

About knowledge. It was from this that I believed I could found psychoanalysis, because when all is said and done everything that I said holds together. To say what is true about knowledge, is not necessarily to ascribe knowledge to the psychoanalyst. As you know, I defined the transference in these terms, but that does not mean that it is not an illusion.

关于知识,就从知识,我相信我能够创办精神分析,因为当一切都说,都做了,每一件我说的事情,汇集在一块。要说出关于知识的真实的事情,未必是要将知识归功于精神分析家。你们知道,我用这些术语定义移情,但是那并不意味着,那不是一种幻觉。

It remains that, as I said somewhere in this yoke that I re-read myself with some astonishment – what I recounted in the good old days always strikes me, I never imagine that it is I who could have said it – that Knowledge and Truth do not have with one another, as I say in this Radiophonie in No 2-3 of Scilicet, that Knowledge and Truth have no relation with one another. I now must produce a preface for the Italian translation of these four first numbers of Scilicet.

始终不变的是,如我所说,在这个压制的某个地方,我重新惊奇地阅读到我自己—我在美好的往日里所描述的总是让我印象深刻。我从来没有想象,这是我本来能个说出—知识与真理互相没有关系,如我在Scillicet的第二及第三期「无线广播」所说的。我现在必须产生一个序言,让Scillicet 的前面四位成员,翻译成义大利文。

That naturally is not all that easy for me, given the age of these texts. I am certainly weakish in my way of taking on the responsibility of what I myself wrote. That is not because it always appears to me to be the most uninspired stuff, but it is always a little backhanded and that is what astonishes me.

对我而言,那自然并不是那么容易,假如考虑到这些文本的年代。我确实是很软弱的,对于我自己写作的担负的责任。那倒不是因为我总是觉得我的写作没有什么启发性,而是它总是有点力道反挫。那是我自己大吃一惊的地方。

The Knowledge in question therefore, is the unconscious. Some time ago, invited to something that was nothing less than what we are trying to do at Vincennes under the name of Psychoanalytic clinic, I remarked that the Knowledge in question was neither more nor less than the unconscious and that in short it was very difficult to know clearly the idea Freud had of it. Everything he says, it seems to me, it seemed to me, prescribed that it should be a Knowledge.

因此,受到置疑的知识就是无意识。不久以前,我应邀在维西尼斯,以精神分析临床的名义,谈论某件实实在在就是我们正在尝试要做的东西。我谈论说,受到置疑的知识,实实在在就是无意识。总之,我们很难清楚地知道弗洛伊德对于它的观念。我觉得,他说的每一件事,都指明无意识应该是一种知识。

Let us try to define what this can mean to us, a Knowledge. What is at stake, in Knowledge, is what we can call signifier-effects (effets de signifiant).

让我们尝试定义,一种知识对于我们,会有什么意义。在知识里,岌岌可危的是我们所谓的能指及其效应。

I have here a yoke that I must say terrorised me. It is a collection which has come out under the title of La philosophie en effet. Philosophy in effect, in signifier- effects, it is precisely what I am trying to get out of unscathed, I mean that I do not believe that I am doing philosophy, but one always does more of it than one believes, there is nothing more slippery than this domain; you also do it, you too have your moments, and it is certainly not what you have most to rejoice about.

我在此遭遇一直桎捁,使我感到恐惧。那是一部出版的文集,标题是「应用的哲学」或能指的效应。那确实是我正在设法避免受到伤害的东西。我的意思是,我并不相信,我正在搞弄哲学。但是我们总是不知不觉会弄出一点哲学。没有一样东西比这个领域更令人捉摸不定。你们也在搞弄哲学,你们也有你们的时刻。这确实并不是你们所必须要欢欣鼓舞的东西。

Freud therefore had only a few ideas about what the unconscious was. But it seems to me, in reading him, that one can deduce that he thought it was signifier- effects. Man – we have to call a certain generality by that name, a generality in which one cannot say that some stand out; Freud had nothing transcendent about him: he was a little doctor who did, good God, what he could in terms of what we call curing, which does not take us very far – man therefore, since I spoke about man, man can scarcely escape this business of Knowledge.

弗洛伊德因此仅是拥有一些观念,关于无意识是什么。但是我觉得,当我在阅读他时,我们能够推论,他认为无意识是能指的效应。那就是人—我们必须将人作为一种通称,在这种通称里,我们无法说,某些人凸显出来。弗洛伊德自己并没有什么超越世俗的地方。我的天,他是一位医生,以我们所谓的治疗的术语,从事他的所为。但是这样理解并没有多大意义。人,因此,因为我谈论到人,人几乎无法逃避知识这件事情。

This is dictated to him by what I called the signifier-effects, and he is not at ease: he does not know how to ‘deal with’ (‘faire avec’) Knowledge. This is what is called his mental debility from which, I must say, I do not except myself. I do not except myself simply because I have to deal with the same material, with the same material as everyone else and that this material, is what dwells in us.

他受到我所谓的能指及其效应的支配。他并没有很自在安逸。他并不知道如何「处理」知识。这就是我所谓的他的精神的软弱之处。从这种精神的软弱,我必须说,我自己也没有免除例外。正是因为我必须处理相同的材料,如同每一位其他人一样,使用相同的材料。这个材料就是驻居在我们身上的东西。

With this material, he does not know how ‘to deal’ (‘y faire’). It is the same thing as this ‘dealing with’ that I spoke about just now, but these nuances of the tongue are very important. This y faire cannot be said in every language. Knowing how to deal with is something different to know-how. It means to get on with it. But this ‘y faire’indicates that one does not really capture the thing, in short, in a concept.

这个材料,他并不知道要如何「处理」。这是跟我刚才谈论到的这个「处理」相同的东西。但是语言的这些细微差异是非常重要的。这个「处理」,并不是每种语言都能说。知道如何处理跟知道如何做,两样不同的事情。它意味着要跟它和谐相处。但是这个「如何处理」指示著,我们并没有真的捕捉到它,总之,在理念里捕捉到它。

This leads us to pushing the door of certain philosophies. You must not push this door too quickly, because you must remain at the level where I placed what in short I called the discourses; the saids, it is the ‘saying which succours’ (‘dire qui secourt’). We must all the same take advantage of what the tongue in which we speak offers us in terms of equivocation.

这引导我们推开某些哲学的这道门。你们一定不要太过迅速推开这道门。因为你们必须保持在我放置,总之,我所谓的真理论述的层次。所被说出的内容,那就是「勉为其难的言说」。我们仍然必须利用我们言说的语言所给予我们的东西,以模棱两可的术语。

What succours, is it the saying or is it the said? In the analytic hypothesis, it is the saying; it is the saying, namely the enunciating, the enunciating of what I called earlier the Truth. And in these ‘dire-secours’, I had, the year when I spoke about L’envers de la psychoanalyse – you certainly do not remember it – I had, like that, distinguished in genera l 4of them, because I was amusing myself precisely at making a sequence of 4 revolve, and in this sequence of 4, the Truth, the Truth of the saying, the Truth was only in short implied, since as perhaps you remember…yes, as you perhaps remember, it was presented like that, I mean that it was the discourse of the master that was the least true discourse.

勉为其难的言说,这是正在说的动作?还是已经被说出的内容?在精神分析的假设,这是正在言说,正在言说,也就是正在表述的动作,我早先所谓的「真理」的正在表述的动作。在这些「勉为其难的言说内容」,在我谈论「精神分析的反面」的那年—你们确实并不记得—我曾经像那样区别它们四个的大概,因为我正在娱乐我自己,确实是在让「四」的这个系列运作,真理,正在说出的这个真理,总之,这个真理仅是被暗示,因为或许你们记得、、、是的,你们或许记得,它像这个样子被呈现。我的意思是,主人论述是最不真实的论述。

[impossibility] 不可能性

The least true, that means the most impossible. I noted in effect the impossibility of this discourse, at least this was the way in which I reproduced it in what was published of Radiophonie.

主人论述最不真实,意味着它最不可能。实际上,我注意到这种论述的不可能性,至少,那是我复制的这个方式,在「无线广播」所被出版的内容。

This discourse is lying and it is precisely by that that it reaches the Real. Verdrängung, was what Freud called that; and nevertheless, it is indeed a said which succours him. Everything that is said is a swindle. It is not simply about what is said starting from the unconscious. What is said starting from the unconscious, participates in equivocation, in equivocation which is the principle of the witticism: the equivalence of sound and sense, it was in the name of that that I believed I could advance that the unconscious was structured like a language.

这种论述是正在说谎。确实是凭借正在说谎,它抵达实在界。「潜抑」是弗洛伊德给予的称呼。可是,这确实一种被说出的内容让他勉为其难。每一样被说出的内容都是一种欺骗。这不仅是关于从无意识开始,所被说出的内容。从无意识开始,所被说出的内容,参与模棱两可。模棱两可就是机智语的原则:声音与意义的相提并论。就是以那个的名义,我相信,我能够提出,无意识是像一种语言的结构。

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

Seminar final 09

February 20, 2012

Seminar final 09
拉康研讨班25:结论的时刻

Jacques Lacan

雅克、拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 21 December 1976

So then what is this lack?

那么,这个欠缺是什么呢?

How map it out with respect to transference love? Well then, when we listen to music that moves us, the first impression is hearing all the time that this music has always something to do with love; one might say that music sings with love. But if one takes this little schema seriously and if even one tries to comprehend how love functions, from this movement of torsion in music, you will sense it is not so much the subject, the subject who speaks of his love for the Other, but much more rather that he answers the Other, that his message is this answer where he is assigned by this subject supposed to hear and that his music of impossible love is in fact an answer that he makes to the Other and that it is to the Other that he supposes the fact of loving him and of loving him with an impossible love. The problem, if you wish, one could in a summary way draw a parallel with certain mystical positions, where the mystic is the one who does not tell you that he loves the Other, but that he only answers the Other who loves him, that he is put into this position, that he has no choice, that he only answers it.

关于移情的爱,如何描绘出来?呵呵,当我们倾听感动我们的音乐,第一个印象是始终听到,这个音乐总是有某件东西跟爱有关系。我们不妨说,音乐跟爱一起歌唱。但是假如我们认真看待这个小基模,假如我们甚至尝试理解爱是如何发挥功能,从音乐的迂迴的这个动作开始,能们将会感觉到,与其说是主体在谈论对于大他者的爱,不如说是他在回应大他者,他的讯息是这个回答,在那里,他被应该听到的主体指定,他的不可能的爱的音乐事实上,是他对于大他者所做的回答。针对大他者,他假设爱他,及用不可能的爱来爱他这个事实。我们不妨说,对于这个问题,我们能够用总结的方式,将它跟某些神秘的立场获得一种对比。在神秘的立场,神秘主义者并没有告诉你们,他爱大他者,而是他仅是回答爱他的大他者,他被放进这个立场,他没有选择,他只有回应它。

In this second moment of the music, one can draw this parallel in the measure that the subject effectively solicits the love of the Other for him, but the love of the Other qua radically impossible. That is why I put this arrow, the fact is that the subject has, through this second point of view, has a perspective on the lack that inhabits the Other, namely, that as you see, after these two moments, one could say that there is confirmed by this second moment that the evaporated object, in the second position, remains just as evaporated as in the first position.

在音乐的这个时刻,我们能够获得这个对比,随着主体有效地召唤大他者对他的爱,但是大他者的爱作为强烈的不可能。那就是为什么我放置这个箭头,事实上,通过这第二个观点,主体对于驻居在大他者的这个欠缺,有一种观点。换句话说,你们看出,经过这两个时刻之后,我们能够说,这个被蒸发的客体在这个第二个时刻被证实,如同在第一个立场一样,始终保持被蒸发。

We are getting closer, as you see, we are getting closer to the end of the loop. Transference, one may remark, corresponds very precisely to the way in which Lacan introduced transference love in the seminar on Transference, namely, that there is there: the subject postulates that it is the Other who loves him; he poses therefore a beloved and a lover. There is therefore a passage, in this transference love, from the beloved to the lover.

你们看出,我们渐渐靠近,我们渐渐靠近这个圈套的末端。我们可以评论说,移情确实地对应拉康介绍移情的这种方式,在论「移情」的那个研讨班。换句说,就在那里,主体提出,大他者爱他。他因此提出一个被爱者与一位爱者。因此在这个移情的爱,从被爱者到爱者,有一个过程。

What I have told you there, in any case is not correct, because the second moment cannot be articulated as such, it is synchronically articulated with a third moment which exists, I would say, synchronically with it in the following way: the subject, this time, if you wish, being himself a musician, being therefore a producer of the music, addresses himself to a new other, which I called the subject supposed to hear who is no longer altogether the Other at the starting point, it is a new other. This new other, precisely, is no longer the ‘vel’ it is no longer ‘either one or the other’. To this new other, he is also going to identify himself, namely, that there is starting from the top of the loop, a double arrangement where the subject is both the one who is speaking and the one who is hearing.

我在那里曾经告诉你们的,无论如何,并不正确。因为这第二个时刻无法作为原来样子被表达。它跟存在的第三个时刻同时性被表达。我不妨说,以下面这个方式,跟它同时性地被表达:我们不妨说,这一次,主体由于本身是一位音乐家,他因此是音乐的创作者,他自己跟一位新的他者交流。我称这位他者是应该听到的主体,他不再完全是开始点的大他者。这是一位新的他者。这位新的他者,确实不再是这个「实存与意义的交会区vel」,它不再是「选择这或选择那」。对于这位新的他者,他也将认同他自己。换句话说,从圈套的顶端开始,一个双重的安排。在那里,主体既是言说者,也是倾听者。

Something may perhaps illustrate this division for you: this is what is highlighted, in my opinion, by the myth of Ulysses and the Sirens. You know that Ulysses, in order to hear the song of the Sirens, had stuffed with wax the ears of his sailors. How ought we understand that?

或许,某件东西可以跟你们说明这种区分。依我之见,这是根据尤力西斯跟妖女们的神话所强调的东西。你们知道尤力西斯,为了要听见妖女们的歌声,用腊填塞他的水手的耳朵。我们应该如何了解那件事情?

Ulysses exposes himself to hearing, to hearing the invocatory drive, in fact to hearing the song of the Sirens; but what he is exposed to, since, when he hears the song of the Sirens, you know that history tells us that he shouts to the sailors, that he says to them: ‘Stop, let us stay here’.

尤力西斯暴露他自己于倾听这个召唤的冲动驱力,事实上,暴露于倾听妖女们的歌声。但是他所暴露于的,当他听见妖女们的歌声,你们知道,历史告诉我们,他大声跟水手们喊叫,他对他们说:「停下来,让我们停在这里。」

But he has taken his precautions: he knows that he will not be heard. Namely, that this myth in my opinion illustrates, this is my second moment, namely, that Ulysses is put in the position of being able to hear in the measure that he had assured himself that he could not speak, namely when he had assured himself that there would not be this reversal of the drive, namely, the second and the third moments, namely, when he had assured himself that there would not be a subject supposed to hear, because of these wax stoppers.

但是他採取他的预防,他知道水手们听不见他。换句话说,依我之见,这个神话说明,这是我的第二个时刻。换句话说,尤力西斯被摆置于能够听见的立场,因为他曾经告诉他自己,他不能说话。换句话说,他曾经告诉他自己,将不会有冲动驱力的倒转。也就是说,第二及第三个时刻。换句话说,他曾经告诉他自己,将不会有一位应该听到的主体,因为这些腊的阻塞物。

You see that the first moment, ‘to hear’ is one thing, but that even poses for us the problem of the ethics of the analyst. Is the analyst precisely not someone from whom one can hear that he hears certain things, is he not, at a given moment, necessarily, by the very structure of the instinctual circuit, in a position of having to make himself a speaker? Not to behave like Ulysses, let us say, who had already taken a first risk of hearing certain things. 38

你们看出,第一个时刻,「听见」是一回事,但是对于我们,那甚至会形成精神分析家的伦理学的问题。分析家难道不确实就是某位我们从他那里听见,他听见某件事情的人?他难道不是在某个时刻,由于本能迴圈的这个结构,必然会处于必须让自己成为言说者的立场?我们不妨说,他并不是要行为像尤力西斯,他已经冒了第一个危险,去听到某些事情。

I imagine that after this second and third moment where the subject and the Other continue their paths side by side always separated by the separating small o, what is the position with respect to our starting point, where have we got to?

我想象,在这个第二及第三个时刻,主体跟大他者并肩继续他们的途径,却总是被这个分开的小客体分开。关于我们的开始点,这个立场是什么?我们已经到达哪里?

Well then, the point, one could say, on to which the subject emerges, is that after this second and third moment, he has found the assurance that this little separating o, he has found the assurance that it was effectively impossible to encounter it, since he only managed to go around it, but he had needed to make several dialectical movements in order to have, I would say, like – I don’t know if this is the right word – to have as it were a kind of certainty that is going perhaps to allow him to make a new leap, which will be my fourth moment, a new leap that is going to allow him at that moment to pass to a new kind of enjoyment, to risk himself in it. I said ‘s’y risquer’ because it is not obvious that one will arrive at what I am calling this fourth moment that I will all the same mark.

呵呵,我们能够说,这个点,主体出现到那里,就是在这个第二及第三的时刻,他已经找到这种确信:这个小小的分开的小客体,他已经发现这个确信: 要遭遇它,实际上是不可能,因为他仅是成功地绕过它,但是他曾经需要做好几个辩证的动作,为了拥有,我不妨说—我不知道这个字词是否正确—为了拥有所谓的确定性。这种确定性或许将会容许他有新的跳跃。这个新的跳跃将是我的第四个时刻,一种新的跳跃将会容许他在那个时刻,通往一种新的享乐,在里面冒着自己的危险。我说「s’y risquer」,因为这并没有显而易见,我们将会到达我所谓的我仍然会标示的这个第四个时刻。

I am telling you that one can imagine a last moment which would be the terminal point, the point not of return, since the drive does not come back to the starting point, but the ultimate, possible point of the drive, I marked the enjoyment of the Other, and the little schema, the new schema of separation, the third that I am inscribing, represents the schema of separation, no longer with the little o-object in the lunula, but with the signifier S(Ø), and the signifier S2, a signifier that Lacan teaches us to situate as being that of the Urverdrängung.

我正在告诉你们,我们能够想象一个最后的时刻,那将是这个终点,那是不归点。因为冲动驱力并没有回到这个开始点,但是冲动驱力的最后的可能点,我标示着大他者的这个享乐。这个小基模,分开的这个新的基模,我正在描述的第三时刻,代表分离的这个基模。它不再是在新月形状lunula 那里,具有这个小客体,而是拥有这个大他者被划槓的主体S(Ø)的能指,第二个主体的能指,拉康教导我们应该定位为「被潜抑的Urverdrängung的能指」的这个能指。

Why am I marking that? I would say that, the whole journey having been made, that it is from the point of view of the subject, of the Other and of second other, it is confirmed that the object is really volatilised; one may imagine that at this moment the subject is going to make a leap, is no longer going to be content to be separated from the Other by the little o-object but is going to veritably proceed to an attempt to go through the phantasy; there is a passage in seminar II, well before Lacan speaks about the problem of the enjoyment of the Other, where Lacan on the subject of the drive and of sublimation, asks the question, he asks himself how the drive is experienced after the phantasy has been gone through.

为什么我正在标示那个?我不妨说,整个旅程已经被完成。从主体,大他者,及第二个大者的观点,已经证实:这个客体确实被蒸发。我们可以想象,在这个时刻,主体将会从事一个跳跃,它不再满足于被这个小客体,跟大他者分开。而是将要可验证地继续企图经历这个幻见。在第二研讨班,有一个段落,在拉康谈论到大他者的享乐的这个问题。在那里,拉康讨论到冲动驱力与昇华东主体,问到这个问题,他询问他自己:在经历幻见之后,冲动驱力如何被经验?

And Lacan adds: ‘It is no longer of the domain of analysis, but is the beyond of analysis’. Now if we recall that the little o-object is not uniquely, as one so often hears it said, essentially characterised by the fact that it is the missing object, it is certainly the missing object, but its function of being the missing object is specified very particularly, let us say, in the phenomenon of anxiety but besides this function, one could say that its fundamental function is much more rather to fill in this radical gap which renders so imperious the necessity of demand. If there is really something lacking in this speaking being, it is not the little o-object, it is this gap in the Other which is articulated with the S of Ø.

拉康补充说:「那不再说精神分析的领域,而是精神分析的超越。」现在,假如我们回想一下,那个小客体并不是如我时常听到所说的样子,它基本上的特色并不是独特地是这个事实: 这是一个失落的客体,它确实是这个失落的客体,但是成为这个失落的客体的这个功能,非常特别地被标明,让我们说,在焦虑的这个现象,而是除了这个功能之外,我们能够说,它的基本的功能,应该是要填进这个巨大的空隙。这个巨大的空隙使要求的必要性变成优先考量。假如在这个言说的主体,确实有某件东西欠缺,那并不是这个小客体,而是大他者的这个空隙,用大他者被划槓的主体来表达S(Ø)的大他者。

That is why at the end of this instinctual circuit, to account for the experience of the listener, I am putting forward the idea the nature of the enjoyment to which one can accede at the end of the journey is not at all on the side of a ‘surplus enjoying’, but precisely on the side of this experience of this enjoyment, that perhaps one might call ‘ecstatic’, enjoyment of existence itself – moreover as regards the term ‘ecstatic enjoyment’ I was struck at finding Levi-Strauss writing on the one hand, in a number of Musique en jeu where Levi-Strauss puts very precisely in perspective the nature, not of the enjoyment, in fact the experience of music and that which appears to him to be that of mystical experience.

那就是为什么在这个本能的迴圈的结束,要说明倾听者的这个经验,我正在提出享乐的特性的这个观念。在旅途结束时,我们能够认从于的享乐,根本不是「剩余享乐」的这一面,而确实是在这个享乐的这个经验的这一面。或许我们可以称为「狂喜」生命实存本身的享乐。而且,关于「狂喜的享乐」这个术语,我的印象非常深刻,当我发现列文、史特劳斯一方面用许多的「音乐的狂喜Musique en jeu」写到。在那里,史特劳斯确实观察到的并不是享乐的特性,事实上是音乐的经验,他觉得是神秘经验的享乐的特性。

Freud himself, in a letter to Romain Rolland, finds himself answering, spontaneously articulating that he refused himself musical enjoyment and that this musical enjoyment appeared to him as strange as what Romain Rolland was saying to him about enjoyments of a mystical order; anyway it is he himself who articulated the two, who had the idea of introducing music into it.

弗洛伊德本人,曾写一封信给罗曼罗兰。他发现他自己回答,自动地表达:他拒绝给予他自己音乐的享乐。他觉得这种音类的享乐是奇怪的,如同罗曼罗兰正在跟他说到一种神秘层次的享乐。无论如何,是他自己本人表达这两种享乐,他拥有这个想法,要将音乐介绍到享乐里面。

Final moment then, where the subject will make the leap, I don’t know whether one can say ‘beyond’ or ‘behind’ the little o-object, but will manage to break through and arrive at this locus, one might say of the commemoration of the unconscious being as such, namely, the joining up of the most radical lacks which are those which constitute the gap of the subject of the conscious and that of the unconscious, namely, to put the experience of this…, one might say that in the final moment, if you wish, one might say that the real as impossible is a white heat, is raised to incandescence; at that very moment, I mean, I would indicate, for my part, that the drive stops in the sense that musicians, listeners to music know that in certain moments of being overwhelmed by music, as one says, time stops. Effectively there is a suspension of time at that level.

因此在最后的时刻,主体将会从事这个跳跃,我不知道我们是否能够是「超越」或是「掉落」这个小客体。但是主体将会成功地突破并且到达这个轨迹。我们不妨说是无意识实存的本身的获得承认。换句话说,这个巨大的欠缺的接合,这些巨大的欠缺形成意识的主体与无意识的主体之间的空隙。将这个经验,我们不妨说,在这个最后的时刻,我们不妨说,作为不可能的实在界呈白热状态,就在那个时刻,实在界被提升到焕发光明的状态。我的意思,就我而言,我将指示: 冲动驱力停止,因为音乐家,倾听音乐的人知道,如有人说过,在被音乐笼罩的某些时刻,时间停止。在那个层次,时间实际上被悬置。

And in this suspension of time, one can make the hypothesis that what is happening, is a sort of commemoration of the founding act of the unconscious in the most primordial separation, the most primordial gap that has been torn from the real and which has been introduced into the subject, which is that of the S of Ø of the signifier. I believe that the last point that one can put forward, is to remark that this point of enjoyment which appears to me to be what Lacan articulates as being the enjoyment of the Other, is precisely the point of maximum desexualisation, I would say total, superior, sublime, sublime in the sense of sublimation; and it is indeed at this point that sublimation is connected with desexualisation and enjoyment.

在时间被悬置的状态,我们能个作这个假设: 所正在发生的事情,是无意识以最原初的分离,作为创造基础的行动的仪式。这个最原初的空隙曾经跟实在界撕裂开来,它曾经被介绍进入主体,那就是大他者被划槓的主体,作为能指的原初的空隙。我相信,我们最不能够提出的时刻,是谈论说,我觉得这个享乐的这个时刻,是拉康表明作为大他者的享乐的时刻。这确实是除掉性化的最高潮的时刻。从昇华的意义来说,我不妨说是圆全,崇高,昇华。确实就是在这个时刻,昇华跟除掉性化与享乐结合在一块。

So then, two torsions or three torsions therefore, of which I spoke to you at the start, it is therefore these which can be mapped out between the passage from the first to the second moment, from the second to the third, and I do not know whether one can really speak about torsion for the topology of what I would call the fourth moment. This remains to be thought through.

因此,两此次的迂迴或三次的迂迴,我从开始跟你们谈论的。因此,就是从第一个时刻通往第二个时刻,从第二个时刻通往第三个时刻之间,能够被描绘的这些迂迴。我并不知道,我们是否确实能够谈论到迂迴,作为我所谓的第四个时刻的拓扑图形。这有待我们日后的彻底思维。

– J Lacan: Thank you very much.

拉康:谢谢你了!

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

超越主体间性 05

February 18, 2012

超越主体间性 05

拉康第二研讨班
The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis
弗洛伊德理论的自我与精神分析的技巧

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Xv Odd or even? Beyond intersubjectivity
第十四章: 奇数或偶数?超越互为主体间性

T H E M A C H I N E W H I C H PLAYS
运作的机器

M E M O R Y A N D R E MI N I S C E N C E
记忆与回忆

I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E PURLO I N E D L E T T E R
被偷窃的信导论

2

1 + –
2 + –
3 + –
4 + +
Having lost three gos. the machine. then. begins to react. What am I to do? I
say to myself – perhaps it will persevere, so I’ll change my tune. Let us assume
that I win’ ?

由于输掉三次尝试后,这台机器就开始反应。我应该怎么办?我对自己说—或许它将会坚持下去,所以我将改变方式。让我们假定我赢。

5 – +

I’m not forced to reason like this. but I want to show you its limits. I can tell
myself that, now that it has won, the machine will wait until after the third go
to change. So I think that it will play plus one more time and I play minus. But
suppose that the second section comes into play when there has been minus
three times. So now my machine plays minus, and wins yet again.

我并没有被迫像这样推理,但是我想要跟你们显示它的极限。我能够告诉我自己,既然它已经赢了,机器将会等到第三次尝试的改变。所以我认为它将会再一次玩加的遊戏,我就玩减。但是假设第二个部分运作,当第三次玩减时。所以,我的机器玩减,又再一次赢。

6 – –
I want to draw your attention to the fact that the machine has won twice
using rather similar means. This isn’t to show you that this is the way in which
the machine will win.

我想要提醒你们注意这个事实:这台机器使用相当类似的方法,已经赢得两次。这并不是要告诉你们,这就是这台机器将会赢的方法。

But depending on the complexity of the elaborated mechanism. and the successive sections which can furnish a certain amount of information as to the pluses or minuses. Transformations,which in their turn may be coordinated amongst themselves. will end up yielding a temporal modulation analogous to what takes place in the confrontation of two players.

但是依靠这个复杂机械结构的复杂性及连续性的部分,它们能够供应某些数量的资讯,关于加跟减。轮到转变可能在其中被协调,结果产生时间性的调解,类同两个棋逢对手时,发生的情况。

All one needs to posit is a machine complex enough to have a sufficient number of superimposed sections bringing together a large enough count of previous goes – instead of grouping three of them. it could group eight or ten – and its range will be beyond my understanding.

我们所需要提出的是,一台机器足够复杂拥有足够多的监控部门,将许多先前的充分次数的尝试汇集一块。不仅是汇集三次,它能够汇集八或十次。它的范围之大将不是我所能了解。

Nevertheless it cannot go beyond its reproduction on paper. that is to say I myself can also examine it on condition that I go over the entire combinatory myself before I risk my hand at it. So there I am entering into some sort of rivalry with it.

可是,它无法超越它在纸上的复制。换句话说,我自己也能够检视它,只要我在冒险尝试之前,我自己检视完整的组合。所以,我正在进入跟他具有某种的敌意。

I want to draw your attention to the fact that. under these conditions. there’s
no reason why the machine should win rather than me. except for my
exhaustion. To reconstruct the number of sections in this machine. the sets
sampled by it at every moment whereby it determines its play. I would be faced
with problems of such mathematical complexity that I would have to have
recourse to – note the irony – an adding machine.

我想要提醒你们注意这个事实:在这些情况之下,没有理由为什么机器应该赢,而不是我赢。除了我精疲力尽。为了重新建构在这台机器的部门的数目,它决定要玩的每个时刻的给予的集合,我将会面对如此数学的复杂性的问题,我将必须诉诸于一台计算机—你们瞧,那是多么反讽!

But then. I’m not playing at even and odd. I am playing at predicting the play
of the machine. Now. I will start playing ,to find out what will happen.
One could suppose the machine to be capable of drawing up a psychological
profile of its adversary. But earlier on I drew your attention to the fact that the
latter only functions within the framework of intersubjectivity.

然后,我并不是在玩偶数与奇数。我是在玩预测机器的遊戏。现在,我将开始玩,为了发现会发生什么事。我们能够假设机器能够拟想它的对手的心理轮廓。但是早先,我提醒你们注意这个事实:后者只有在主体间性的架构之内,才能运作。

The whole question is summed up as the problem of knowing whether the other is cunning enough to know that. I too. am an other for him. If he is capable of going beyond this second period [temps].

整个的问题被总结为这个难题:要如何知道对手是否足够狡猾地知道。对于他而言,我也是一个对手他者。假如他能够超越这第二个时期。

If I suppose him to be identical to myself. by the same token I suppose him capable of thinking with respect to me what I am in the process of thinking concerning him. and to think that I am going to think that he will do the opposite of what he thinks I am in the process of thinking.

假如我假设他认同我,同样地,我假设关于我,他能够思想我是什么样子,在思想有关他,然后思想我正在思想,他将会相反于他所认为,我正在思想的过程。

A simple oscillation which always comes back. From this fact alone. everything
pertaining to the order of the psychological profile is completely eliminated.
What happens if. on the other hand. I play at random? You know the chapter in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life which deals with the production of a random number.l

一个简单的摇摆将总是会回来。仅是根据这个事实,每一样属于心理轮廓的秩序的东西,会完整地被减少。万一在另一方面,我胡乱玩,那会发生什么事?你们知道在「日常生活的心理病理学」,有一章处理随机数目的产生。

That’s an experiment which certainly does escape the well known metaphor of the rabbit which one is always advised to remember was previously put in the hat.

有一个试验,确实逃避众所周知的兔子的比喻。我们总是被劝告要记住先前被放在帽子里的兔子。

Freud – with the assistance .of his subject. but it is clearly because the subject is speaking to Freud that it works – Freud is the first to notice that a number drawn from the hat will quickly bring out things which will lead the subject to that moment when he slept with his little sister. even to the year he failed his baccalaureat because that morning he had masturbated. If we acknowledge such experiences. we will be obliged to postulate that chance doesn’t exist.

弗洛伊德,由于他的主体的帮忙,但是显而易见地,因为主体正在与弗洛伊德说话时,它才有效运作。弗洛伊德是第一位注意到,从帽子拿出的一个数字,很快就会显示一些东西,引导主体到达那个时刻,当他跟他的小妹睡觉,甚至到达那一年他没有通过大学毕业考试,因为那天早上他曾经手淫。假如我们承认这些经验,我们将不得不提出,机率并不存在。

While the subject doesn’t think about it, the symbols continue to mount one another, to copulate, to proliferate, to fertilise each other, to jump on each other, to tear each other apart. And when you take one out, you can project on to it the speech of this unconscious subject we’ve been talking about.

虽然主体并没有思考它,符号象征继续互相增加,交媾,繁殖,互相物化,互相跳跃,互相撕裂。当你们拿出一个,你们能够在它身上投射,我们正在谈论的无意识主体的言说。

In other words, even if the word of my life had to be sought in something as
long as an entire recital of the Aeneid, it isn’t unthinkable that a machine would
in time succeed in reconstituting it. Now, any machine can be reduced to a series of relays which are simply pluses and minuses. Everything, in the symbolic order, can be represented with the aid of such a series.

换句话说,只要我完整地背诵《埃涅阿斯紀》,甚至我一生的话语必须在某件事情里被寻找,这是匪夷所思的,机器到时会成功地重新建构我的一生的话语。现在,任何机器都能够被还原成为一系列加与减的转接运作。从符号秩序来说,每一样东西都能够用这样的一种系列来代表。

One mustn’t confuse the history, in which the unconscious subject inscribes
himself, with his-memory – a word I wouldn’t be the first one to tell you is used in a confusing way. On the contrary, at the point we have reached, it is important to draw a ‘ very sharp distinction between memory and remembering
[rememoration}. which pertains to the order of history.

我们一定不要混淆历史。在历史里,无意识的主体用他的记忆铭记他自己。我并不是第一位告诉你们,记忆这个字词被使用得相当混乱。相反地,在我们到达的这点,清楚地区别记忆跟回忆是很重要的。回忆是属于历史的秩序。

Memory has been spoken of as a means of characterising the living organism
as such. One then says that a living substance, following a given experience,
undergoes a transformation such that it will no longer react to the same
experience in the same way as before.

记忆曾经被提到,作为一种表现生命有机体本身的方法。我们因此说,一个具有生命的物质,跟随着某个特定的经验,经历一种转变,以致于他不再以相同的方式,像先前那样反应相同的经验。

This is all rather ambiguous – to react differently, what does that mean? within what limits? No longer reacting at all, isn’t that an effect of memory? Is the experience of death, definitively recorded, a memory?

这是相当暧昧的—以不同方式重新反应,那是什么意思?在什么限制之内?根本就不再反应,那难道不是记忆的影响?死亡的经验,当明确地被记录时,是一种记忆吗?

In any case, there is no reason to identify this memory, a definable property of living substance, with remembering, the grouping and the succession of symbolically defined events, the pure symbol engendering in its turn a succession.

无论如何,没有理由将这种记忆,一个可定义的具有生命的物质的特性,认同于回忆,也就是认同于用符号象征定义的事件的汇集与连续,纯粹的符号象征轮到自己产生一种连续性。

What goes on in the machine at this level. to confine ourselves just to that, is
analogous lo the remembering we deal with in analysis. Indeed, memory is
here the result of integrations. The first section added on to the basic memory is made up of a section which groups results by threes.

在这个层次,机器所进行的,我们仅限制在那里,是类比于我们在精神分析处理的回忆。的确,记忆在此是综合的结果。被增加到基本记忆的第一个部门,是用三倍的结果汇集的部门所组成。

This result, memorised, is available to be brought in at any moment. But the next moment, it may well no longer be at all the same. It is possible that it has changed content, changed sign, changed structure.

被记忆的这个结果,在任何时刻,都可使用。但是下一个时刻,它很有可能根本就不相同。很有可能,它已经改变内容,改变符号,改变结构。

If an error occurs in the course of the experience, what happens? It’s not what happens afterwards which is modified, but everything which went before. We have a retroactive effect – nachtriiglich, as Freud calls it specific to the structure of symbolic memory, in other words to the function of remembering.

假如一个错误发生在经验的过程,什么事会发生?这并是被修正的后来发生的情况,但是以前进行的一切事情。我们拥有一支反作用的影响,Nachtriiglich,如同弗洛伊德所称呼的,明确属于符号记忆的结构。换句话说,属于回忆的功用。

I think that this little apologue, with its problematic character, has
introduced you to the following, that for there to be a subject who asks a
question, all that is needed is a quod upon which the interrogation bears. Do we even have to concern ourselves with what this subject is and with respect to which other it is to be located?

我认为,这篇小小的辩解,具有它的棘手的特性,已经跟你们介绍以下:为了成为一位询问问题的主体,我们所需要的是,成为质问跟他有关的一位无意识的主体。我们甚至必须关心到,这个主体是什么,关心这位主体应该被定位为怎样的他者。

That is totally useless. The most important thing is the symbolic quod. For the subject it is like an image in the mirror, but of a different order – it isn’t for nothing that Odysseus pierces the eye of the Cyclop.

这是完全无用的。最重要的事情是,符号界的无意识主体。对于这位主体,它就像是镜中的一个影像,但是属于不同的秩序。奥德赛戮穿赛克洛普巨人的眼睛,并不是毫无意义。

In so far as he speaks, the subject can perfectly well find his answer, his return, his secret, his mystery, in the constructed symbol which modern machines
represent for us, namely something far more acephalic still than what we
encountered in the dream, of Irma’s injection.

当他言说,主体能够清楚地找到他的回答,他的回转,他的秘密,他的神秘,在这台机器跟我们代表的这个被建构的符号象征。换句话说,某件比我们在艾玛的注射的梦里,所遭遇的更加是没有头的东西。

It raises the question Of the relation of signification to the living man.

它引起这个问题:作为活生生的人,有什么意义?

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

Seminar final 08

February 18, 2012

Seminar final 08
拉康研讨班25:结论的时刻

Jacques Lacan

雅克、拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 21 December 1976

The other point is to consider that qua Other, I do not know what this lack which dwells in me is, but that the subject itself tells me nothing about this lack since this lack does not mean anything directly. The subject itself of this lack knows nothing and says nothing about it because he is said by this lack, but qua Other I would say that I am in a topological perspective where there appears to me the point where the subject is divided since he is said by this lack, namely, that this lack which dwells in me, I discover that it is its very own, it itself knows nothing about what it is saying, but I know that it knows without knowing it. I am going therefore…You see that what I have said to you there could be written a little bit like what Lacan articulates about the process of separation. I am therefore going to articulate the different moments of the drive with the different articulations of separation. Good.

另外一点是要考虑到,作为大他者,我并不知道驻居在我身上的这个欠缺是什么。但是主体本身并没有告诉我任何关于这个欠缺,因为这个欠缺并没直接意味着任何事情。这个欠缺的主体本身什么都不知道,并且对于它什么都没有说,因为他由这个欠缺来说他。但是作为大他者,我要说,我处于一个拓扑图形的观点。在那里,对我而言,似乎出现主体被分裂的点,因为他是由这个欠缺所说。换句话说,驻居在我身上的这个欠缺,我发现,它就是它自己。对于它正在说什么,它自己什么都不知道。但是我知道它并不知道,却是知道。因此,我将、、、你们看出,我曾经跟你们所说的,能够被写成,有点像是拉康所表达的,关于分离的过程。我因此将要表达冲动的不同时刻,用分离的不同表达。不错。

On the bottom left, I put the process of separation with an arrow which goes from the Ø (O with this lack put together between the capital O and the subject, the little o-object, and this arrow is meant to signify that, I know nothing about this lack qua Other, but something of it comes back to me from the subject who for its part says something about it.

在左边的底端,我将分离的过程,用一个箭头,从这个Ø( 大他者O带有这个欠缺,将这个小客体放置在大写的大他者O与主体之间。这个箭头被用来意指着,对于作为大他者的这个欠缺,我一无所知。但是它的某件东西从主体回到我这里。主体就它而言,说了某件事情。

That is why I articulate it with a drive, because it is just as if I wanted to manage to articulate this lack, this nothing, hang something on it, know something about it, let us say I trust the subject: I allow myself to be pushed by it – it is moreover the drive. I allow myself to be pushed by it and I expect that it will give me this little o-object.

那就是为什么我用冲动驱力表达它,因为正好像我想要成功地表达这个欠缺,这个空无,我想要悬挂某件东西在上面,我想要知道关于它的某件事,容我说,我信任这个主体。我容许我自己被它所逼迫。而且,它就是这个冲动驱力。我容许我自己被它所逼迫,而且我期待,它将会给我这个小客体。

But according as I advance, as I wait for this subject, as I might say, what I discover is that in following the subject, the little o, all the two of us are doing is going around it. It is effectively inside the loop and I assure myself that effectively this little o is unattainable.
I could say here that this is a first circuit and that, I have assured myself qua Other that he has effectively this character of lost objects, the idea that I propose, is that one can comprehend at that moment the instinctual reversal of which Freud speaks and Lacan takes up again, the instinctual reversal that I am going to put on the top of the graph, as the passage to a second mode of separation and this instinctual reversal, as one might say, as a second attempt at approaching the lost object but this time from a different perspective: from the perspective of the subject.

但是随着我前进,随着我等待这个主体,我不妨说,我所发现的是,当我跟随这个主体,这个小客体,我们两个人所正在做的,就是环绕它。有效地在这个圈套之内,并且我告诉我自己,有效地,这个小客体并无法被获得。我在此能够说,这是一个最初的迴圈,而且,我曾经告诉我自己,作为大他者,他有效地拥有失落的客体的这个特性。我建议的观念是,在那个时刻,我们能够理解弗洛伊德提到的这个本能的倒转,而且拉康再次从事的这个本能的倒转,我将要将它摆放在这个图形的顶端,作为通过到分离与这个本能的倒转的第二个模式,我们可以说,作为一种第二次的尝试,要接近那个失落的客体。但是这一次,从不同的观点,从主体的观点。

Let me explain: if you wish, in the first moment that I postulate, I would say that while I recognise myself as listener, the switching point that comes, which means that now I am going to pass to the other side, can be articulated as follows, namely, to advance that when I recognise myself as listener, one could say that this time it is me, I am recognised as listener by the music which comes to me, namely, that the music, what was an answer and which gave rise to a question in me, things are inverted, namely, that the music becomes a question which assigns me, as subject, to respond myself to this question, namely, that you see that the music is constituted as listening to me, as subject finally – let us call it by its name – as subject supposed to hear and the music, the production, that which was the inaugural answer becomes the question, the production therefore of the musician subject being constituted as subject supposed to hear, assigns me in this position of subject and I am going to answer it by a transference love. In this way one cannot fail to articulate the fact that music produces all the time effectively love-effects, as one might say.

请让我解释,在我提出的第一个时刻,我将会说,当我体认出我自己,作为倾听者,这个转捩点来临,那意味着,现在我正要凭借我感受到音乐,通过到另外一边。事情被倒转过来,换句话说,音乐变成问题,指定我作为主体,回应这个问题。换句话说,你们看到,音乐被构成作为倾听我,最后作为主体。让我们就称它为主体,作为应该倾听的主体。而音乐,这个产物,原先作为开始的回答,现在变成这个问题,因此是音乐家主体被形成,作为应该倾听主体的产物,它指定我在主体的这个位置。我将要以移情的爱回答它。以这种方式,我们一定能够表达这个事实: 音乐始终有效地产生爱的效应,我们可以这么说。

I come back again to this notion of lost object from the following angle: the fact is that you have not failed to remark that what is proper to the effect of music on you, is that it has this power, as one might say, of metamorphosis, of transmutation, that one could summarise rapidly as follows, by saying for example that it transmutes the sadness that is in you into nostalgia, I mean by that that if you are sad, the fact is that you can designate, whether you are sad or depressed, you can designate the object that you lack, whose lack you are missing, makes you suffer, and it is said to be sad, I mean, it is not the source of any enjoyment.

我再一次回到失落的客体这个观念,从以下的角度:事实上,你们曾经成功地谈论到,音乐对你们影响合宜的地方是,它拥有蜕变及转变的这个力量,我们不妨说,我们能够迅速总结如下,譬如,当我们说,音乐转变你内心的悲伤成为一种怀旧,我那样说的意思是,假如你悲伤,事实上,你能够指明,无论你悲伤或沮丧,你能够指明你欠缺的客体,你正在失落的客体的欠缺。它让你痛苦,它被认为是悲伤,我的意思是,它不再说任何享乐的来源。

The paradox of nostalgia – as Victor Hugo said, nostalgia is the happiness of being sad – the paradox of nostalgia is that precisely in nostalgia what happens, is that what you are lacking is of a nature that you cannot designate and that you love this lack. You see that in this transmutation, everything happens as if the object which was lacking really evaporated, has evaporated, and that what I propose to you, is to comprehend effectively the enjoyment, one of the articulations of musical enjoyment, as having the power to evaporate the object.

怀旧的矛盾—如同维克、雨果所说的,怀旧是感到悲伤的快乐—怀旧的矛盾是,确实在怀旧当中所发生的事情是,你当时的欠缺是属于你无法指明的东西,而你爱这个欠缺。你们看出,在这种转变当中,每一件事情发生,好像以前欠缺的客体真的蒸发,已经蒸发。我所跟你们建议的是,要有效地理解这种享乐,音乐般享乐的一种表达,因为它拥有力量将客体蒸发。

I see that the word ‘evaporate’, we can almost take it in the physical sense of the term, in which physics has located sublimation: sublimation, is effectively a matter of making a solid pass into the state of vapour, of gas; and sublimation, is this paradoxical path by which Freud teaches us – and Lacan has articulated in a much more sustained way – it is precisely the path along which we can have access, precisely along the path of desexualisation, to enjoyment.

我看出,「蒸发」这个字词,我们几乎能够从这个术语的物理意义来理解。在这个意义里,物理已经定位昇华的位置:昇华有效地让一种固体转变成为蒸发及气体的状态。昇华就是弗洛伊德教导我们的这条矛盾的途径—拉康曾经以更加持续的方式来表达—确实就是沿着这条途径,我们能够接近享乐,确实就是沿着除掉性化的这条途径。

Therefore, you see, in this second moment – what I am marking, at the top of the circuit: the reversal of the drive – a first torsion – it is perhaps starting from this notion of torsion that Dr Lacan thought of inserting this little topo at the point that he is in his progress – a second moment therefore, a first torsion appears where there is the apparition of a new subject and of a new object.

因此,你们看出,在这个第二个时刻—我正在标示的东西,在迴圈的顶端,冲动驱力的倒转—一个最初的迂迴—或许就是从迂迴的这个观念,拉康博士想到插入这个小小的拓扑图形,在他正在进展的时刻—因此这是第二个时刻,首次的迂迴出现在新的主体与新的客体的理想魅影所在地方。

The new subject precisely, is me who from auditor becomes, I would say, I cannot say speaker, speaking, musicing, one would have to say that it is the point in music where, the notes that go through you, everything happens as if paradoxically, it is not so much that you hear them, it is as if everything happens as if – I insist on the ‘if’ – everything happens as if you were producing them yourself: you are the author of this music. I put here an arrow which goes there from the subject to the separating little o, wanting to indicate by that that in this second perspective of separation, this time, it is from the point of view of the subject that I have a perspective of a lack in the Other.

这个新的主体,确实就是从专注倾听者转变过来的我。我不妨说,我不能够是转变成为言说者。假如我们言说音乐,我们将必须是,这是音乐的对位,乐符在那里通过你,每一件事情发生好像是矛盾。与其说是你听到这些乐符,不如说是好像每一件事情发生,好像—我坚持用好像这个字词—好像每一件事情发生,好像你自己在创作它们,你是这个音乐的作曲家。我在此放一个箭头,它从主体朝向这个分开的小客体,它想要凭借它跟你们指示,在分开的这第二个观点,这一次,从主体的观点开始,我拥有在大他者那里欠缺的观点。

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

超越主体间性 04

February 17, 2012

超越主体间性 04

拉康第二研讨班
The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis
弗洛伊德理论的自我与精神分析的技巧

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Xv Odd or even? Beyond intersubjectivity
第十四章: 奇数或偶数?超越主体间性

T H E M A C H I N E W H I C H PLAYS
运作的机器

M E M O R Y A N D R E MI N I S C E N C E
记忆与回忆

I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E PURLO I N E D L E T T E R
被偷窃的信导论

2
That the subject should think the other to be similar [semblable] to himself,
and that he, reasons as he thinks the other must reason – in the first period
[temps] like !his, in the second period like that – is a fundamental point of
departure failing which nothing can be thought, yet is nonetheless totally
inadequate in helping us penetrate in any degree to where the key to success
might be found.

主体应该思维他者跟他自己类似。因为他推理,如同他认为他者必须推理的方式,(在像这样的第一时期,及像那样的第二时期),他是一个基本的离开点。若没有这个离开点,没有一样东西能够被思考。可是,这是完全不够充分来帮助我们,有任何程度的贯彻到成功的关键可能被找到的地方。

I don’t consider the interpsychological experience to be excluded in this case, but it insinuates itself within the fragile framework of the imaginary relation to the other, and it hangs on that very uncertainty. Within this framework, the experience is one which fades away. It cannot be made logical.

我不认为这个互为主体间性的经验,在这个情况被排除。但是它揶揄它自己,在跟他者的想象的关系的脆弱的架构里面。它依靠着那种不确定。在这个架构里面,这个经验是消隐的经验。它无法被弄成逻辑化。

Take another look at the dialectic of the game of black and white discs placed on the backs of the three characters who have to work out what their own sign is on the basis of what they see on the two others. You will be in a position to discover something of the same order.

再看一次黑与白盘子被放在三个人物背后的遊戏的辩证法。他们必须根据他们在其他两位身上所看到的,来解决他们自己的讯息是什么(他自己背上盘子是黑色或是白色)。你们将会处于这么一个立场,发现相同秩序的东西

We will take the other path, the one which can be made logical. the one
which can be upheld in discourse. Obviously it imposes itself as soon as your
partner is the machine.

我们将会採驱另外一条图径,能够被弄成逻辑化的这条途径。这条途径在论述能够受到支持。显而易见地,当你的伴侣是机器时,它赋加在它自己身上。

It is clear that you don’t have to ask yourself whether the machine is stupid or
intelligent, whether it will play in accordance with its first or its second go.
Inversely, the machine has no means of placing itself in a reflexive position in
relation to its human partner.

显而易见地,你们不需要询问你们自己,这个机器是愚笨或是聪明,它是否会依照它的第一或它的第二步骤运作。相反地,机器没有方法放置它自己处于一个反身的立场,相关于它的人类的伴侣。

What is it to play with a machine? The physiognomy of the machine,
however prepossessing it may be, can be of no help whatsoever in this instance.

跟机器下棋是怎样一回事?机器的外貌,无论它是多么的千娇万媚,在这种情况,根本就没有帮助。

No means of getting out of it by way of identification. One is thus from the start
forced to take the path of language [langage], of the possible combinatory of the machine.

机器没有方法凭借认同来避开它。因此从一开始,我们就被迫要採取语言的途径,机器的可能的组合的途径。

One knows one can expect from the machine a series of relations, operating with an excessive rapidity thanks to those amazing relays, the electronic phases, and, according to the latest news, these transistors the
papers can’t stop talking about, with a commercial aim in mind no doubt, but
one which doesn’t put in question the quality of these objects.

我们知道,我们无法从机器,期待会有一系列的关系,迅速敏捷地运作,因为会有那些令人惊奇的转接,电子的部分。依照最近的新闻,这些文件谈论不休的转接器,无可置疑地,心里构想著商业的目标,但是这种机器并没有置疑这些东西的品质。

But before we ask ourselves that the machine is going to do, let us ask
ourselves what it means to win • and lose at the game of even and odd.
On the basis of one single go, it has no meaning whatsoever. Whether your
answer coincides with what’s in your partner’s hand is no more surprising
than the converse. For one go, it makes no sense, except purely conventionally, to win or to lose. Odd, even, it has no importance whatsoever.

但是在我们询问我们自己这台机器将做什么之前,让我们询问我们自己,在偶数与奇数的遊戏,赢跟输送什么意思。根据单一的尝试,它根本没有意义。你的回答是否符合你的对方手中所拥有的,跟没有符合,并没有令人惊奇的地方。就一次的尝试而言,它根本没有意义,除了纯粹是传统观念上的赢或输。奇数,偶数,它根本就不具有重要性。

Do remember that the best translation of the odd number is the number two, which rejoices in being odd, and with reason, for if it didn’t have a reason for rejoicing in being odd, it wouldn’t be even either. So, all you have to do is invert this game into the game who loses wins [qui perd gagne], for it to be quite evident that these things are equivalent.

请记住,奇数的最佳翻译是二这个数字,它很欣喜于成为奇数,而且理由充分,因为即使它并没有理由欣喜成为奇数,它也不会是偶数。所以,你们必须做到,就是倒转这个遊戏成为谁输或赢的遊戏,为了让它成为显而易见:这些东西都是相等的。

What is more surprising is losing or winning twice in a row. For if on one go
you have a 50% chance each way, you have only a 2 5% chance of repeating it the second time.

更加令人惊奇的是,在一回合理,输或赢两次。因为假如在一次的尝试,你拥有各百分之五十的机率。第二次,你拥有第二次重复它的百分之二十五的机率。

+ +
– –
+ –
– +

And on the third go, there is only a 12.5% chance of continuing to win or
lose,

在第三次尝试时,仅有12.5 %的机率,继续赢或输。

Moreover, this is purely theoretical. for from then on, I’d like you to see that
we are no longer at all in the domain of the real, but in that of the symbolic
signification which we’ve defined by these plus-minuses and these minus-pluses.

而且,这纯粹是理论,因为从那时开始,我想要你们看出,我们根本不再处于实在界的领域,而是处于符号象征的意义的领域。我们根据这些加减,及这些减加,来定义符号象征的意义。

From the point of view of the real. on each occasion there are as many chances of winning as of losing. The very notion of probability and chance presupposes the introduction of a symbol into the real. It’s a symbol you’re addressing, and your chances bear only on the symbol In the real. At each go, you have as many chances of winning or of losing as on the preceding go. There is no reason why, by a pure fluke, you might not win ten times in a row.

从实在界的观点,在每个场合,赢的机率跟输的机率同样的多。机率与机会的这个观念,预先假设符号象征被介绍到实在界。这是你们正在处理的一个符号象征,你们的机会仅是跟实在界的符号象征有关系。在每次的尝试,跟前一次的尝试,你们拥有同样多的赢跟输的机会。没有理由为什么你不可能纯粹靠运气连续赢十次。

This only begins to have meaning when you write a sign, and as long as you’re not there to write it, there is nothing that can be called a win. The pact of the game is essential to the reality of the experience sought after.

只有当你们书写一个符号时,这才开始拥有意义。只有当你们不在那里书写它,没有一样东西能够被称为是赢。遊戏的规定是很重要的,对于被寻求的经验的现实界。

Now let us see what is going to happen with the machine.

现在,让我们看看对于这个机器,将会发生什么事情。

What’s interesting is that you end up going through the same motions as you
would with a partner. By pushing a button, you ask it a question about a quod
which you have there in your hand, and all this is about knowing what it is.
That already tells you that this quod may perhaps not be reality but a symbol.

有趣的是,你们结果经历这个相同的动作,如同你们跟伴侣经历的动作。你们按一个按钮,问它一个关于无意识主体的问题,你们在手中拥有它。所有这一切都是关于要知道那是什么。那已经告诉你们,这个无意识主体或许并不是现实界,而是一个符号象征。

You are asking the machine a question about a symbol. a machine whose
structure must in fact bear some family resemblance to the symbolic order, and that is precisely why it is a machine for playing, a strategic machine. But let us not go into details.

你们询问机器一个关于符号的问题,事实上,这一台机器的结构,必须类似符号象征的秩序。那确实是为什么这是一台遊戏,一个策略的机器。但是让我们不要去探究细节。

The machine is constructed in such a way that it gives a response. You had
plus in your hand. It gives the answer minus. It lost. The fact that it lost consists
solely in the dissimilarity [dissemblance] of plus and minus.

这台机器以这种方式被建构,它给予一种回应。你们用手按加的按钮,它给予减的回答,它就输了。它输了的这个事实仅是在于加与减的不相类似。

You are obliged to inform the machine that it has lost by inscribing a minus. I
really don’t know whether that is how the machine works. but it’s all the same
to me-there’s no other’ way it can work. and if it does work some other way, it is
equivalent to that.

你们不得不告诉机器,它由于铭记一个减号,它输了。我确实并不知道,是否那就是机器运作的方式。但是对我而言,这仍然一样。它没有别的运作方式。假如它确实用某个其他方式运作,它会跟那个相等。

How on earth can this machine. which in principle should beat me. be put together? Will it play at random? That makes no sense at all. It may well be that for its first three answers it always says the same thing. but that isn’t the point. It is in the succession of its answers that we find the beginnings of the phenomenon。

原则上应该打败我的这种机器,究竟如何能够被装配起来?它将随意运作吗?那根本就没有意义。很有可能的是,对于它的前三次的回答,它总是说相同的事情,但是那并不是重点。就在它的回答的连续当中,我们找到这个现象的开始。

Let us suppose that at the start the machine is really stupid – it really doesn’t
matter in the least whether it is stupid or intelligent, since being stupid is the
height of intelligence. Let us say that, to begin with, it always answers the same thing.

让我们假设,在开始时,机器确实很愚笨—机器上愚笨或是聪明,确实根本就不重要,因为愚笨是智慧的最高点。让我们说,起初,机器总是回答相同的事情。

It so happens that I, who am intelligent, say plus. As it still answers me
minus. it puts me on the right track. I say to myself – the machine must be a bit
slow – I could just as well tell myself the contrary – and in actual fact let us
suppose that it loses again.

恰巧的是,我,作为聪明者,说加。当它回答我减时,它让我们处于正确的轨道。 我对我自己说,这台机器一定有点缓慢。我同样有理由告诉我自己相反的话—实际上,让我们假定,它再一次输。

This is where the fact that we have had several gos must necessarily come
into the construction of my machine. Here another section of the machine
starts coming into play. recording the fact that it has lost three times – I’m not
sure of that. but I can assume it. Besides. as I am very intelligent. but
nonetheles,not as intelligent as all that, I can suppose that the machine quite
stupidly changes and that it’s me that is a bit slow on this occasion. This time
the machine wins.

这就是我们曾经有好几次的尝试,这个事实必须放进我的机器的结构里。在此,这台机器的另外一个部分开始运作,记录这个事实: 它已经输了三次。我并不确定那件事情,但是我能够假设它。除外,因为我非常聪慧,可是又没有聪慧到那个程度。我能够假设,这台机器非常愚笨地改变。在这个场合,是我比较缓慢。这一次,机器赢了。

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

超越互为主体间性 03

February 17, 2012

超越互为主体间性 03

拉康第二研讨班
The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis
弗洛伊德理论的自我与精神分析的技巧

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Xv Odd or even? Beyond intersubjectivity
第十四章: 奇数或偶数?超越互为主体间性

T H E M A C H I N E W H I C H PLAYS
运作的机器

M E M O R Y A N D R E MI N I S C E N C E
记忆与回忆

I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E PURLO I N E D L E T T E R
被偷窃的信导论

2
You know that a great fuss is made of adding machines in cybernetics. They
have even been called thinking machines. in so far as some of them certainly
are capable of solving logical problems, conceived, it is true, in a quite artificial
manner. so as to confuse the mind for a moment. in such a way that we don’t do as well at them as they do.

你们知道,电脑的计算机引起强烈的讨论。它们甚至还没有被称为思想的机器,虽然它们有有一些确实能够解决逻辑的问题。它们确实被构型,以一种完全是人为的方式,为了暂时混淆心灵,以表现得比我们还高明的这样一种方式。

Today we won’t go into these arcana. You can bring a horse to water. but
you can’t make him drink. and so as not to instill too great an aversion in you to
this exercise. I am going to try to lead you into this domain in a more
entertaining manner. We have never despised the entertainments of physics
and mathematical recreations – you can get a lot out of it.

今天,我们将不探讨这些专业的领域。你能够带马到水边,但是你无法强迫它喝水。为了不要灌输给你们,对于这种运用,太强烈的恶感,我将尝试引导你们到这个领域,以更加娱人的方式。我们从来没有轻视物理的娱乐及数学的消遣。你们从它那里能够获得许多。

Amongst these adding or thinking machines there are others which have
been dreamt up, which have endearing peculiarities – these are machines
which play. inscribed within the functioning and, quite singularly, within the
limit of a certain strategy.

在这些计算及思想的机器当中,还有一些曾经被梦想,会有可爱的特性。诸如遊戏的机器,被铭记在这个功用里。相当独特地,被铭记在某种策略的极限里。

Just this fact. that a machine can have a strategy, already leads us to the
heart of the problem. For in the end, what is a strategy? How can a machine
partake in it? Today I will try to bring home to you the elementary truths which
are swept away by that.

就是这个事实,机器能够拥有策略,已经引导我们到达问题的核心。因为追根究底,策略是什么?机器如何参与它?今天,我将让你们明白由它们所涵盖的这些基本的真理。

A machine has been constructed. so I hear. which plays the game of even and
odd. I won’t vouch for this. as I haven’t seen it. but I can promise you that before the end of these seminars I will – our good friend Riguet told me that he would confront me with it. One must have experience of these things. one can’t talk about a machine without having had a shot at it. seen what it can do. made some discoveries. even some sentimental ones.

我听说,有一种机器曾经被建造,它会玩偶数,还是奇数的遊戏。我不确实保证,因为我没有看见过它,但是我能跟你们承诺,在这些研讨班结束之前,我将会看见,因为我们的好朋友瑞古特告诉我,他将带我去见识它。我们一定会有这些事情的经验,我们无法谈论一种机器,而不去尝试它,瞧瞧它能做些什么,做些发现,甚至某些是带有情感的机器。

The real eye-opener is that the machine I’m talking about ends up winning. You know the game. you must still have some memories of school. You put two or three marbles in your hand. and you put out your closed fist to the opponent. saying – Odd or even? I have. Two marbles say. and if he says odd, he must hand one over to me. And so on.

真正让人开眼界的东西是,我正在谈论的这种机器,结果会赢。你们知道这个遊戏,你们一定还有学校的某些记忆。你们将两三粒玻璃珠拿在手里,然后你伸出你紧握的手掌给对方说,「我手里,是奇数?还是偶数?」譬如,两粒玻璃珠。假如他说是奇数,他必须交一粒给我。等等。

Let us try to consider for a moment what it means for a machine to play the
game of even and odd. We couldn’t work it all out by ourselves. because it
would look a bit heavy-handed in the circumstances. A short text comes to our
aid. from Edgar Poe. which the cyberneticists, I noticed. make something of.
This text is in The Purloined Letter. an absolutely sensational short story, which could even be considered as essential for a psychoanalyst.

让我们尝试考虑一下,让一台机器玩偶数与奇数的遊戏,意味著什么。我们自己无法完全解决它,因为在这些情况,它看起来有点棘手。爱伦坡有一短篇小说可帮助我们,我注意的,电脑界很重视这篇小说。这篇小说名称是「被偷窃的信」,是一篇非常精彩的短篇小说。对于一位精神分析家,它甚至被认为是很重要的。

The characters concerned to recover the purloined letter, which I will tell you
more about later. are two policemen. One is the prefect of police. that is to say, in accordance with literary conventions. an idiot. The other is a nobody, an
amateur policeman with dazzling intelligence. called Dupin. who foreshadows
Sherlock Holmes and those other heroes of the novels you devour in your free
time.

相关的这些人物是两位警探,想要找回这封被偷窃的信。信的内容,我稍后将告诉你们。有一位是警察局长,换句话说,用符合文学传统的形象,是庸碌之徒。另一位是无名小卒,一位业余侦探,聪慧过人,名叫杜屏。他比福尔摩斯及小说中的其人角色更加杰出。你们有空时读一读。

The latter comes out with ‘the following – I knew one about eight years of age, whose success at guessing in the game of ‘even and odd’ attracted universal admiration. This game is simple, and is played with marbles. One player holds in his hand a number of these toys. and demands of another whether that number is even or odd.

后者说出以下的经过—「我认识一位大约八岁的小孩,他成功地猜测超「偶数与奇数」的遊戏,举世崇拜。这种遊戏简单,用玻璃珠就能玩。一个人手里拿着许多这些玻璃珠,然后要求另外一个人,那是数目是偶数或是奇数?

If the guess is right. the guesser wins one; if wrong, he loses one. The boy to whom I allude won all the marbles of the school. Of course he had some principle of guessing; and this lay in mere observation and admeasurement of the astuteness of his opponents. For example. an arrant simpleton is his opponent. and. holding up his closed hand. asks, “Are they even or odd?”

假如猜测正确,猜测者赢得一粒,假如猜错,他输掉一粒。我提到的这个男孩,赢得全校的所有玻璃珠。当然,他有某种猜测的原则,这在有仅是观察及估算他的对手的高明度。譬如,一位道地的傻瓜是他的对手,然后举起他的紧握的手,问说:「它们是偶数?还是奇数?」

Our schoolboy replies. “Odd, ” and loses; but upon the second trial he wins,for he then says to himself, “The simpleton had them even upon the first trial. and his amount of cunning is just sufficient to make him have them odd upon the second; I will therefore guess odd;” – he guesses odd, and wins.

我们的学童回答:「奇数」,然后输了。但是在第二次尝试时,他赢,因为他因此对自己说,「这个傻瓜在第一次尝试时,拥有偶数,他的狡猾的数量仅足够让他在第二次尝试时,拥有奇数。我因此猜奇数。」他猜奇数就赢了。

Now, with a simpleton a degree above the first, he would have reasoned thus: ” This fellow finds that in the first instance I guessed odd, and. in the second, he will propose to himself upon the first impulse. a simple variation from even to odd. as did the first simpleton; but then a second thought will suggest that
this is too simple a variation, and finally he will decide upon putting it even as before I will therefore guess even; ” – he guesses even, and wins.

现在,对于比第一位高一等的傻瓜,他会这样推理: 「这个人发现,在第一个情况,我猜奇数,在第二次,他将根据第一次尝试跟他自己建议,一个简单的变化,从偶数成为奇数,如同第一位傻瓜。但是再次思考将会建议,这是太过简单的变化,最后他将会决定像以前一样放进偶数,我因此猜偶数。」他猜偶数,他就赢了。

Now this mode of reasoning in the schoolboy, whom his fellows termed “lucky, ” – what, in its last analysis, is it?’ ‘It is merely, ‘ I said, ‘an identification of the reasoner’s intellect with that of his opponent. ‘

现在,在这个学童的推理模式,他的同伴称之为「幸运」,「追根究底,那是什么?」我说,「那仅是一种对推理者的智慧的辨认,用他的对手的辨认。」

‘It is, , said Dupin and, upon inquiring of the boy by what means he effected the
thorough identification in which his success consisted, I received answer as follows:

「确实如此」,杜屏说,当他询问那位男孩,用什么方法造成全面的辨认,让他获得他的成功。我收到的回答如下:

“When I wish to find out how wise, or how stupid, or how good, or how wicked is any one, or what are his thoughts at the moment, I fashion the expression of my face, as accurately as possible, in accordance with the expression of his, and then wait to see what thoughts or sentiments arise in my mind or heart, as if to match or correspond with the expression. ”

「当我想要发现一个人有多聪明,或多愚笨,或多善良,或多邪恶,或是他当下的思想是什么,我塑造我的脸上的表情,尽可能正确地,符合他的脸上的表情,然后等着瞧在我的脑海或心里浮现的思想或情感是什么,好像为了跟那个表情相配或一致。」

This response of the schoolboy lies at the bottom of all the spurious profundity which has been attributed to Rochefoucault, to La Bougive, to Machiavelli, and to. Campanella. ‘

这位学童的这个回应,就是所有欺敌奥秘能力的根源,这种奥秘能力可归属于罗奇福科,拉玻及弗,马奇维利,及坎潘内拉所具有。

‘And the identification, ‘ I said, ‘of the reasoner’s intellect with that of his opponent, depends, if I understand you aright, upon the accuracy with which the opponent’s intellect is admeasured. ‘

我说,「推理者的智力,用来辨认他的对手的智力,假如我了解得正确,那是依靠对手的智力被估算的正确性而定。」

We are here faced with reasoning which raises a certain number of problems.
At first glance, it is a matter of simple psychological penetration, a kind of
ego miming. The subject adopts a mirror position, enabling him to guess the
behaviour of his adversary.

我们在此面对的这种推理,引起某些的问题。乍然一看,问题是简单地看透对方心里,一种自我的模拟。主体採用一种镜子的立场,使他能够猜测他的对手的行为。

Nonetheless, even this method already presupposes the dimension of intersubjectivity, in that the subject has to know that he is faced with another subject, in principle homogeneous with him. The variations to which he may be subject have far less importance than the possible scansions of the position of the other. There is no other ground for psychological reasoning.

可是,甚至这个方法已经预先假设互相主体间性的维度,因为主体必须知道,他面对着另外一位主体,原则上是跟他同质性的。他可能承受的这些变化,重要性远不如对手立场的可能的审查。没有其他的理由来从事心理的推理。

What are these scansions? There is a first period [temps] in which I suppose
the other subject to be in exactly the same position as me, thinking what I am
thinking at the very moment I am thinking it.

这些审查是什么呢? 有一个最初的时期,在这个时期,我假设另一个主体是跟我处于确实相同的立场,思想我正在思想,就在我思想它的这个时刻。

Let us suppose that it seems to me, for my part, that it would be more natural for the other to change theme, for him to switch from even to odd, for instance. In the first period [temps], I believe that this is what he will do.

让我们假设,就我而言,我觉得,更加自然的做法,是让对方改变主题,让他从偶数转变成为奇数,譬如,在第一个时期。我相信,这是他将会做的。

The important thing is that there may be a second period [temps], in which a less partial subjectivity is manifested. The subject is in fact capable of making himself other, and to end up thinking that the other, being himself an other, thinks like him, and that he has to place himself in the position of a third party, to get out of being this other who is his pure reflection.

重要的事情是,可能有第二个时期,在这个时期,一个比较不偏移的主体性被证明出来。事实上,主体能够让他成为对手,结果的思想是:对手,成为他自己的一个对手,像他一样地思考,他必须将他自己放置在第三者的立场,避开成为这个作为他的纯粹的投影的这个他者。

As third party, I realise that if that other doesn’t play the game, he fools his
opponent. And from then on I’m ahead of him, by opting for the position
opposite to the one which seemed to me, in the first period [temps], to be the
most natural.

作为第三者,我体会到,假如那个他者并没有玩这个遊戏,他愚弄他的对手。从那时开始,我领先他,因为我选择的立场,相反于第一个时期我觉得最自然的立场。

But after this second period [temps], you can suppose a third, which makes it
extremely difficult to pursue the same analogical reasoning. After all, someone
of superior intelligence can in fact understand that the trick is, notwithstanding the fact that one seems to be very intelligent, to play like an idiot, that is to
return to the first formula.

但是在第二个时期之后,你能够假设第三者,这第三者让追寻相同的类比的推理变得极端困难。毕竟,某位智力高超的人事实上能够了解,这个诡计是要扮演像一位白痴,也就是回到第一个公式,尽管事实上我们似乎很聪明。

What does that mean? This -if the game of even and odd is played on the level of the dual relation, of the equivalence of one and the other, of the alter ego and the ego, you will very quickly realise that you haven’t reached any kind of second order, since as soon as you think of the third, an oscillation returns you to the first. 、

那是什么意思?假如偶数与奇数的遊戏,是在玩弄双重关系的层次,某人跟他者,超我与自我的相等,你们很快地会体会到,你们还没有到达第二个秩序,因为当年们一想到第三者,一种摇摆会将你们回转到第一时期、、、

This doesn’t preclude something in the technique of the game from partaking as a matter of fact in the mythical identification with the opponent. But that’s a fundamental bifurcation.

事实上,在遊戏的技巧,这并没有预先排除某件东西,不能参与跟对手神秘地认同。但是那时一个基本的两种的分叉。

It may be that something like a divination, which, however, is problematic, is
put into effect, a divination by the subject who has a certain sympathetic
rapport with the opponent. It’ s not out of the question that there may have been such a young child who won more frequently than his turn should allow – .. which is the only definition one can give in this instance of the word win. But
the heart of the matter lies in a completely different register from that of
imaginary inter-subjectivity.

可能的是,某件像是猜测的东西,问题重重,在此被实行。这是主体的猜测,他跟对手具有某种同情的支撑关系。这并非不可能,有某位小孩,赢的次数更加超过他应赢的次数。就「赢」这个字词的例子而已,这是我们能够给予的唯一定义。但是问题的核心在于一种完全不同的铭记,跟想象的相互主体间性的铭记。

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

超越互为主体间性 02

February 16, 2012

超越互为主体间性 02

拉康第二研讨班
The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis
弗洛伊德理论的自我与精神分析的技巧

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Xv Odd or even? Beyond intersubjectivity
第十四章: 奇数或偶数?超越互为主体间性

A N ULT I M A TE QUOD
一个最后的「无意识的我」

T H E M A C H I N E W H I C H PLAYS
运作的机器

M E M O R Y A N D R E MI N I S C E N C E
记忆与回忆

I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E PURLO I N E D L E T T E R
被偷窃的信导论
In the two dreams in question, we find ourselves confronted by a sort of
ultimate experience, confronted by the apprehension of an ultimate real. What
is most anxiety-provoking in Freud’s life. his relations with women, his
relations with death, are telescoped in the central vision of his dream and could
certainly be extracted from it by an associative analysis.

受到质疑的这两个梦,我们发现我们自己面临着一种最后的经验。这个最后的经验面对着一个最后的实在界的焦虑。在弗洛伊德的一生里,最引起焦虑的,就是他跟女人的关系,他跟死亡的关系,这些都在他的梦的中央的景象当中被遥望,并且能够用自由联想的精神分析,将它抽离出来。

Enigmatic image apropos of which Freud evokes the navel of the dream, this abyssal relation to that which is most unknown. which is the hallmark of an exceptional, privileged experience. in which the real is apprehended beyond all mediation, be it imaginary or symbolic. In short. one could say that such privileged experiences. and especially it would seem in a dream. are characterised by the relation which is estabijshed with an absolute other, I mean an other beyond all intersubjectivity.

谜团一般的意象,关于这个意象,弗洛伊德召唤梦的中央点,这个跟未知之物的悬崖般的关系,是一种特殊而特权的经验的标志。在这个经验里,实在界被理解,超越各种的仲介,无论是想象的,或是符号的仲介。总之,我们能够说,这些特权的经验,特别是似乎在梦里,它们的特色是跟一位绝对的他者建立关系。我的意思是,跟超越所有主体间性的一位他者。

This beyond of the intersubjective relation is attained most especially on the
imaginary level.. What’s at issue is an essential alien [dissemblable], who is
neither the supplement. nor the complement of the fellow being [semblable],
who is the very image of dislocation. of the essential tearing apart of the subject.

主体间性关系的这个超越,特别是在想象的层次被获得。受到争议的是一种基本的异形,它既不是人类同胞的补充,也不是互补。它是替代的这个意象,主体的基本撕裂。

The subject passes beyond this glass in which he always sees, entangled. his
own image. All interposition between the subject and the world ceases. One
gets the feeling that a passage into a kind of a-logic occurs. and that’s where the problem in fact hegins. for we see that we are not in it. And yet the logos doesn’t forego all its rights here. since that’s where the essential meaning of the dream.

主体通过超越这个镜子之外,在里面他总是看到,他自己的意象被纠缠。主体与世界之间的所有的相互立场全都终止。我们获得这种感觉:进入某种非逻辑的通道发生,那就是事实上问题开始的所在。因为我们看到,我们并不在里面。可是,这个标志并没有免除在此的所有它的权利。因为那时梦的基本的意义。

its liberating meaning. begins. since that’s where Freud found an escape from
his latent guilt. In the same way. the subject will find the key to his problems
beyond the terrifying experience of the Wolfman’s dream.

它的解放的意义开始,因为那时弗洛伊德找到的逃避他潜在的罪恶感的地方。同样地,主体将会找到他的问体的关键,超越狼人的梦那种可怕的经验。

It’s also the question we encountered in the little scientific meeting yesterday
evening – to what extent does the symbolic relation. the relation of language,
retain its value beyond the subject. in as much as it may be characterised as
centred in an ego – by an ego, for an alter-ego?

它也是在昨天晚上的这场科学的小会议,我们遭遇的这个问题。这个符号的关系,语言的关系,保留它的价值超越主体性到达什么程度?因为表现它的特色,是作为一个自我的中心—对于超我而言,它作为一个自我。

Human knowledge. and by the same token the sphere of relations of
consciousness. consists in a certain relation to this structure that we call the
ego. around which the imaginary relation is centred. The latter has taught us
that the ego is never just the subject, that it is essentially a relation to the other,
that it finds its point of departure and its fulcrum in the other. All the objects are
considered from the standpoint of the ego.

人类的知识,同样地,意识到各种关系的领域,都存在于跟我们称为自我的这个结构的某种关系。想象的关系就集中在环绕这个自我。后者曾经教导我们:自我从来不仅是主体,它基本上是跟这个他者的关系。它找到它的出发点及它在他者的枢纽。所有的客体都是从自我的标准来考虑。

But all the objects are in fact desired from the standpoint of a primitively
discordant subject. a subject fundamentally fragmented by this ego. The subject cannot desire without itself dissolving. and without seeing, because of this very fact, the object escaping it, in a series of infinite displacements – I am here alluding to what I call. in a short-hand way, the fundamental disorder of the instinctual life of man.

但是所有的客体被欲望时,事实上都从原初就不协调的主体的观点。这一个主体基本上因为这个自我而变得破碎。因为这个事实,这个主体无法欲望而本身不瓦解,不看见这个客体逃避它,处于一系列的无限的替代当中。我在此提到,我以简略的方式所谓人的本能的生命的基本混乱,

And the tension between the subject – which cannot desire without being fundamentally separated from the object – and the ego, where the gaze towards the object starts, is the starting point for the dialectic of
consciousness.

主体与自我之间的这种紧张,就是意识的辩证法的开始点。主体无法欲望而不跟客体基本上地分离,而在自我,朝向客体的凝视却开始。

I have tried to fashion before you the myth of a consciousness without ego,
which could be defined as the reflection of the mountain in a lake. The ego
appears, for its part. in the world of objects. as an object, though a privileged one to be sure.

我曾经在你们面前铸造一个没有自我的意识的神话。它能够被定义为湖里的山的倒影。就自我本身而言,它出现在客体的世界里,作为一个客体,虽然确实是一个特权的客体。

Consciousness in man is by essence a polar tension between an ego alienated from the subject and a perception which fundamentally escapes it, a pure percipi.

在人身上的意识,基本上是一个两极的紧张,处于跟主体疏离的的自我,跟基本上是逃避它的一种感觉之间,一种纯粹的感觉。

The subject would be strictly identical to this perception if there weren’t this ego which. if one may put it like this. makes it emerge from out of its very perception in a relationship of tension.

若非这个自我,主体将会完全认同这个感觉。容我像这样表达,这个自我以一种紧张的关系,让主体从它的感觉里出现。

Under certain conditions,this imaginary relation itself reaches its own limit. and the ego fades away, dissipates. becomes disorganised,dissolves. The subject is precipitated into a confrontation with something which under no circumstances can be confused with the everyday experience of perception. something which we could call an id. and which we will simply call. so as not to lead to confusion. a quod. a what-is-it?

在某些情况下,这个想象的关系本身到达它自己的极限,然后这个自我隐退,消散,混乱,瓦解。主体猛然被陷于跟某件东西的面对,而无论在任何情况下,这个东西会跟感觉的日常经验混淆,这个东西,我们能够称为「本我」。我们将仅是这样称呼它,为了不要导致混乱,一种「quod」,一种那是啥东西?

The question we’re going to raise today concerns this confrontation of the
subject beyond the ego with the quod which seeks to come into being in analysis.

今天我们将要提出的问题,关系到超越自我的主体,跟尝试存在于精神分析这个「无意识的我quod」的面对。

Can an interrogation be sustained concerning this ultimate quod. which is
the experience of the unconscious subject as such. concerning which we no
longer know who or what it is?

关于这个最后的无意识的我quod, 一种质疑能够成立吗?这个无意识的我quod 就是无意识主体本身的经验。关于它,我们不再知道那是谁,或那是什么?

The evolution of analysis itself in this respect puts us in a peculiarly strange position. in so far as it takes as an irreducible given these tendencies of the subject which on the other hand it shows us to be permeable, traversed and structured like signifiers. playing, beyond the real, in the register of meaning. playing on the equivalence of the signified and the signifier in its most material aspect, plays on words. puns. witticisms – which in the end leads to the abolition of the human sciences. in that the last word of the witticism demonstrates the supreme mastery of the subject in relation to the
signified itself, since it puts it to all kinds of use. since it plays with it essentially
in order to annihilate it.
精神分析本身在这方面的进步,让我们处于一个特别奇怪的立场,因为它将主体的这些倾向,当著是无法还原的指称。在另一方面,它跟我们显示是流动,跨越,而又像能指一样,具有结构性,在意义的铭记里,玩弄,超越实在界,玩弄所指与能指在它最具体的层面会相等,玩弄文字,双关语,机智语。最后,它导致人类的各种科学的废除,因为这个机智语的最后论断证明:主体具有至上的操控,对于跟所指的本身的关系。因为主体将它运用到各个方面。因为主体基本上是玩弄它,为了消灭它。

I’d now like to draw your attention to an exemplary experience. which will
constitute a first step for us towards the elucidation of what a quis we are
ignorant of ponders. in this beyond of the imaginary relation in which the other
is absent and in which all intersubjectivity apparently dissolves.

我现在想要提醒你们注意一个典范的经验,这个经验将会形成一个最初的步骤,让我们朝向诠释,我们对于沉思者的无知,会处于怎样的一种景象介面,在想象关系的这个超越。在这种关系里,大他者缺席,所有的互为主体间性显而易见都会瓦解。

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