Archive for March, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 32

March 30, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 32
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 6: Wednesday 20 December 1961

What we always see every time that one can bring into play this label of ideogram, is something which presents itself as being in effect very close to an image, but which becomes an ideogram in the measure that it loses, that it effaces more and more this
character of image. Such is the birth of cuneiform writing: it is for example a bouquet in s limb or head, in so far as after a certain moment this takes on an aspect for example like the following for the arm: namely nothing about its origin is recognisable anymore.

每一次我们能够运作这个象形文字的标签,我们总是看到的是,某件呈现它自己,作为实际上靠近一个意象。这个东西变成一种象形文字,随着它丧失,它越来越抹除意象的这个特性。契形文字书写的诞生就是这样:譬如,它的头及肢是一种花束。过了某个时间之后,它形成,譬如像是以下手臂的西。换具话说,关于它的起源已经无法辨认。

That transitions exist here, has no importance other than to strengthen us in our position, namely that what is created, at some level where we see writing emerging, is a baggage, a battery of something which one has no right to call abstract, in the sense that we employ it in our own day when we speak about abstract painting.

转移存在这里,这并无关紧要,除了强化我们的立场。换句话是,所被创造的东西,在某个层次,我们看到书写出现。这是一个行李,一组没有权利称为是抽象的东西,在我们的时代,当我们谈论到抽象图画的意义。

For they are in effect traits which emerge from something which in its essence is figurative; and that is the reason why it is believed that it is an ideogram. But it is
something figurative that is effaced, let us say the word which necessarily comes here to our minds: repressed, even rejected. (21) What remains is something of the order of this unary trait in so far as it functions as distinctive, that it can on occasions play the role of brand. You are not unaware – or you are unaware, it does not matter – that at the Mas d’Azil, another site dug by Piette of whom I spoke to you the other day, pebbles and stones were found on which you see things like the following
for example:

因为它们实际上是从某件东西出现的特征,在它的本质,这个东西是比喻。那就是为什么有人相信,这是一个象形文字。但是这是某件被抹除的比喻。我们不妨说,这个字词必然是来到我们的心里,被潜抑,甚至被拒绝。剩余的是属于这个单一特征的秩序的东西,当它发挥功用作为区别性。它有时扮演品牌的角色。你们并不是不知道—或是你们不知道,这无关紧要。在Mas dAzil,另外一个皮阿忒挖掘的地点,我前天跟你们谈论到,有石砺及石头被发现,在那里,你们看到譬如像是以下的东西。

This would be in red, for example, on rather polished type of stones which have taken on a greenish colour. On another one you will even plainly see this £ which is all the more polished in that this sign,£ is what is used in set theory to designate the belonging of an element; and there is another one of them: when you look at it from a distance it is a dice; one sees five points, from the other you see two points, when you look from the other side it is again two points, it is not a dice like the ones we have and if you ask the curator, if you have the glass case (22) opened for you, you see that on the other side of the five there is a bar, a 1. It is therefore not altogether a dice, but
it has an impressive appearance at first sight so that you might have thought that it was a dice.

譬如,这个将是用红色,在这些光滑的石头上,这些石头已经形成绿色的颜色。在另外一组石头上,你们甚至清楚地看出这个£ 形状。它更加的光滑,因为这个£形状,在集合理论里,被指明是一个要素的所有物。还有它们的另外一组:当你从某个距离观看它,它是一个骰子,我们看到五点。这并不是一个像我们拥有的骰子。假如你们询问馆长,假如你们有这个玻璃柜子,在你们面前展开,你们看到,在这个五的另外一边,是这条划槓,一个「一」。因此,这不完全是一个骰子,但是乍然一看,它拥有一个令人印象深刻的外表,让你们本来以为那是一个骰子。

And when all is said and done you would not be wrong, because it is clear that a collection of moveable characters – as we can describe them – of this kind is
something which in any case has a signifying function. You will never know what that was used for, if it was for drawing lots, if they were objects of exchange, tesserae properly speaking, objects of recognition or whether that was used for anything
whatsoever that you can lucubrate on in terms of mystical themes.

当一切都说都做了,你们将不会是错误。因为显而易见,一组可移动的特征—如同我们能够描述它们—属于这一种,是某件无论如何具有能指化的功用。你们将永远不会知道那是做什么之用。它是做抽签之用。假如它们是可交换的东西,譬如瓷砖,适当地说,是辨认的东西,无论它被用在任何东西,你们能够以神秘的主题润饰它。

That changes nothing in the fact that what you have here are signifiers.
That the aforesaid Piette should have subsequently drawn Salomon Reinach into deliberating the tiniest little bit about the extremely archaic and primordial character of occidental civilisation because supposedly this is already an alphabet, is another affair: but this is to be judged as a symptom, but also to be criticized for its real import.

那并没有改变什么,对于你拥有的东西是能指的这个事实。以上提到的这位皮阿忒本来应该随后就将萨洛门、瑞那奇吸引来描绘这个微小的碎片,关于西方文明的这个极端过时而原始的特征,因为这被认为已经是一种字母,那是另外一回事。但是这应该被判断作为一个病征,而且因为它的真实意义被批评。

That nothing of course allows us to speak about an extremely archaic writing in the
sense that these moveable characters would have been used to make a sort of cave printing press, this is not what is in question.

当然,没有一样东西让我们能够谈论一个极端过时的书写,从这些可移动的特征本来会被使用的意义,为了形成某种的洞穴的印刷机。这并不是受到质疑的地方。

What is in question is the following in so far as one or other ideogram means something: to take the little cuneiform character that I drew for you earlier, this at the level of a very primitive stage of Accadian writing designates the heavens, there
results from this that it is articulated “an”; the subject who looks at this ideogram names it “an” in so far as it represents the heavens.

受到质疑的是以下,因为某个象形文字意味着某件事情,将我早先跟你们所绘的这个小小契形文字。这是处于阿卡地点原始阶段,书写指明这些天上,从这里它被表达,作为「一」,主体观看这个象形文字,命名它为「一」,因为它代表天上。

But what is going to result from it is that the (23) position is reversed, that from a certain moment on this ideogram of the heavens is going to be used in a writing of a syllabic type, to support the syllable “an” which will at that time no longer have any relationship with the heavens.

但是从这个「一」所造成的结果是,这个立场被颠倒,从某个时刻开始,天上的这个象形文字将会被使用在音节的书写上,为了支持「一」的这个音节,在当时,它不再跟天上拥有任何的关系。

All ideographic or so-called ideographic writings without exception, carry the trace of the simultaneity of this use which is called ideographic with what is called the phonetic usage of the same material.

所有的象形文字,或所谓的象形书写,毫无例外地,都带着所谓的象形文字的这个用途的同时性痕迹,都具有所谓的相同材料的语音的用途的东西。

But what is not articulated, what is not highlighted, what it seems nobody has dwelt on up to now is the following: it is that everything happens as if the signifiers of writing having first of all been produced as distinctive marks, and we have historical
attestations of this, because someone called Sir Flanders Petrie showed that well before the birth of these hieroglyphic characters, on the pottery which remains to us from what is called predynastic industry, we find as a brand on the pottery more or less all the forms which are found to be used subsequently, namely after a long historical evolution in the Greek, Etruscan, Latin, Phoenician alphabets everything that interests us to the highest degree as being characteristics of writing.

但是所没有被表达的东西,所被强调的东西,迄今似乎没有人曾经详述的东西如下: 每一件事情发生,好像书写的这些能指首先曾经被产生,作为区别的标记。对于这一点,我们拥有历史的证明,因为某位名叫弗朗德、培瑞爵士显示: 就在这些象形文字的诞生之前,在从遗留给我们的所谓的朝代之前的工艺品的陶器上,在作为陶器的品牌上,我们发现各式各样的形式,被发现随后被使用。换句话说,经过一段漫长的进化,在希腊,亚鲁斯肯,拉丁,菲尼西恩的字母,我们感到興趣的每一样东西,有很大程度是作为书写的特征。

You see what I am trying to get to. Even though in the final analysis what the Phoenicians at first, then the Greeks did most admirably, namely this something which allows a notation apparently as strict as possible of the functions of the phoneme with the help of writing, it is from a completely contrary perspective that we should see what is in question.

你们看出我正在尝试到达的东西。即使终归到底,起初是菲尼西恩人,然后是希腊人,令人崇拜地从事,也就是这个某件东西,凭借着书写的帮助,将音素的这些功用,尽可能严谨地让它成为显著的标记。从一个完全是相反的观点,我们应该看出,是什么受到质疑。

Writing as material, as baggage, was waiting there – following on a certain process to which I will return: that of the formation, let us say (24) of the brand, which today incarnates the signifier that I am speaking to you about: writing was waiting to be phoneticised and it is in the measure that it is vocalised, phoneticised like other objects, that writing learns, as I might say, to function as writing.

书写作为材料,作为行李,在那里等待着—遵照我将回头谈论的某种的程序:这种形成的程序,我们不妨说说品牌的程序。今天,它具体表现我正在跟你们谈论的这个能指。书写正在等待被发出声音,随着它被发出声音,像其他客体一样发出声音,书写学习发挥作为书写的功用,我不妨这样说。

If you read this work on the history of writing you will find at every instant the confirmation of what I am giving you here as a schema. Because every time there is a progress in writing it is in so far as a population tried to symbolise its own language, its own phonematic articulation with the help of a writing material borrowed from another population, and which was only in appearance well adapted to another language – because it was not better adapted, it is never well adapted of course, because what relationship is there between this modulated and complex thing and a spoken articulation – but which was adapted by the very fact of the interaction that there is between a certain material and the usage that is given to it in another form of language, of phonematic, of syntax, whatever you wish, namely that it was in appearance the least appropriate instrument at the beginning for what one had to make of it.

假如你们阅读对于书写历史的这个研究,你们随时将会发现,我在此给予你们作为一个基模的证实。因为每一次,在书写有一个进展,当某个地区的人们尝试将它自己的语言,它自己的语音的表述符号化,凭借从另外一个地区的人们的书写的帮助。仅有在外表上,它跟另外一种语言密切配合。因为它并没有配合得更好,当然它从来没有完全的配合,因为在这个被调节而复杂的东西,与口说的表述之间,具有一种关系。但是它根据互动的这个事实是配合了。在某个材料与被给予它的用途之间,有另外一种形式的语言,语音的语言,句法的语言,随便你怎么说。换句话说,在外表上,在开始时,这是最不适合的工具,作为我们必须解释它的东西。

In this way there takes place the transmission of what is first of all forged by the Sumerians, namely before it arrives at the point that we are at here; and when it is picked up by the Accadians all the difficulties come from the fact that this
material fits in very badly with the phonematics that it has to enter into, but on the contrary once it has entered into it, it influences it as far as we can see and I will have to come back on this.

以这种方式,首先有萨马利亚人所铸造的这个东西的转移就发生了。换句话说,在它到达我们在此的这个点。当它被阿卡狄安人所接收,所有的困难就跟随这个事实而下。这个事实跟它必须进入的这个语音配合得并不融洽。但是相反地,一旦它进入这个语音,它影响到它。据我们所能看见的,我将必须回头谈论它。

In other words, what the advent of writing represents is the following: that something which is already writing if we consider that the characteristic is the isolation of the
(25) signifying trait, when it is named, manages to be able to serve as a support for this famous sound on which Mr Gardiner puts the whole accent concerning proper names.

换句话说,书写的来临所代表的如下:某件东西已经是书写,假如我们考虑到,这个特性是能指化特征的这个孤立。当它被命名,它成功地能够充当是著名的声音的支持。那是噶帝那有关专有名字,全部的强调点。

What results from this?

从这里获得的结果是什么?

There results from it that we should find, if my hypothesis is correct, something which proves its validity. It has been thought of more than once, there are swarms of them; but the most accessible, the most obvious, is the one that I am going to give you right away, namely that one of the characteristics of the proper name – I will of course have to come back on it and in a thousand forms, you will see a thousand demonstrations of it – is that the characteristic of the proper name is always more or less linked to this trait of its liaison not to the sound, but to the writing; and one of the proofs, the one that today I want to put in the forefront before you, is the following: it is that when we
have writings which are undeciphered because we do not know the language that they incarnate, we are very embarrassed, because we have to wait to have a bilingual inscription, and this does still not take us very far if we know nothing at all about the nature of its language, namely about its phonetics.

从它获得的结果是,我们应该发现,假如我的假设是正确的话,某件东西证明它的正确性。曾经不仅一次,有人想到,会有成群的专有名字,但是最可靠近,最显而易见的是我马上要给予你们的这个。换句话说,专有名字的其中一个特征。当然,我将必须回头谈论它。用上千的形式,你们将会看出它的上千的证明。这个专有名字的特征总是多少有点关系,不是它跟声音的关系,而是跟书写的关系。其中一个证据,今天我想要将这个证据放置在你们的面前。那就是底下: 当我们拥有无法被解释的书写,因为我们并不知道它们具体代表的语言,我们非常尴尬,因我们必须等待拥有双语的铭记。我们这样做依旧没有多大进展,假如我们什么都不知道,关于它的语言的特性,也就是它的语音结构。

What are we waiting for when we are cryptographers and linguists; it is to discern in this undeciphered text something which could indeed be a proper name because there is this dimension to which I am astonished Mr Gardiner did not have recourse, he who all the same has Champollion as the chief, the inaugural leader of his (26) science, and that he does not remember that it is in connection with Cleopatra and Ptolemy that the whole deciphering of the Egyptian hieroglyphs began because in every language, Cleopatra is Cleopatra, and Ptolemy is Ptolemy.

我们正在等待的东西,当我们解密码专家及语言学家,那是要在没有被解码的文本里,觉察出某件确实会是专有名词的东西。因为我很惊奇,噶帝那没有诉诸于的这个维度。他仍然拥有张伯伦作为领导,这门科学的开创领袖。他并不记得,关于克丽奥佩特拉及托勒密,埃及象形文字的整个解码开始,因为在每个语言里,克丽奥佩特拉就是克丽奥佩特拉,而托勒密就是特勒密。

What distinguishes a proper name despite little appearances of borrowings – Cologne is called Koln – is that from one tongue to another its structure is preserved, its sonant structure no doubt; but this sonant structure is distinguished by the fact that precisely we should respect it above all others, and this by reason precisely of the affinity of the proper name with the brand, with the direct designation of the signifier as object,
and here apparently we fall again and even in the most brutal fashion on the “word for particular”. Does that mean that for all that I think Mr Bertrand Russell is correct here?

尽管各种借用的些微外表,区别一个专有名词的东西—科伦尼被称为科恩—从一种语言到另外一种语言,它的结构被保存,无可置疑的,那是它的声音结构,但是这个声音结构是根据这个事实来区别:我们确实应该尊敬它,超过于其他。确实是凭借专有名词跟这个品牌的亲和力,这个能指的直接被指明作为客体,在此显而易见地,我们再一次掉落,甚至以最残酷的方式,掉落在「特殊性」的这个字词。那难道不是意味着,尽管那样,我认为布兰、罗素在此是正确的。

Certainly not as you know. Because in the interval is the whole question precisely of the birth of the signifier starting from that of which it is the sign. What does that mean? It is here that there is inserted as such a function which is that of the subject, not of the subject in the psychological sense but of the subject in the structural sense.

的确并不是如你们所认为,因为从它就是能指的符号开始,这个能指的诞生的整个的问题,就在这个间隔地带。那是什么意思?就在此,一个主体的功用本身被插入,不是心理学意义的主体,而是结构意义的主体。

How can we, under what algorithms can we, because it is a question of formalisation, place this subject? Is it in the order of the signifier that we have the means to represent that which concerns the genesis, the birth, the emergence of the signifier itself? It is towards this that my discourse is directed and I will take it up next year.

我们如何能够,在怎样的轨迹,我们能够放置这个主体,因为这是形式化的问题?它难道处于这个能指的秩序,我们拥有方法代表跟这个能指点开始,诞生,与出现有关的事情?我的论述的方向,就是朝向这里。明年,我将探讨它。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 31

March 30, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 31
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 6: Wednesday 20 December 1961

It is in so far as it carries a certain sonant difference that it is taken as a proper name, remarking that on the contrary in common discourse, what I am in the process of communicating for example to you at the moment, I am paying absolutely no attention to the sonant material of what I am telling you. If I paid too much attention to it I would
soon see my discourse being killed off and drying up, I am trying (17) first of all to communicate something to you. It is because I believe that I know how to speak French that the material which is effectively distinctive in its essence, comes to me; it is there as a vehicle to which I pay no attention; I am thinking of the goal that I am going to, which is to get across to you certain qualities of thinking that I am communicating to you.

因为它带着某种声音的差异,它被认为是一个专有名词,谈论说,在共同的论述,相反地,譬如,我目前正在跟你们沟通的东西,我完全没有注意到我正在跟你们谈论的声音的材料。假如我太过于注意它,我不久会看到我的论述被消灭及乾涸。首先,我正在尝试跟你们沟通某件东西。这是因为我相信,我知道如何讲法语,在它的本质非常清楚的材料,来到我这里,作为一种我并没有注意到媒介。我正在思考我正要去的目标。那是要让你们明白思想的某些特征,我正在跟你们沟通。

Is it as true as all that that each time that we pronounce a proper name we are psychologically aware of the accent put on the sonant material as such? It is absolutely not true. I no longer think about the sonant material, Sir Allan Gardiner, when I am speaking to you about it any more than when I am speaking to you
about verwurtzeln or anything else whatsoever.

这难道不是真实的吗?每一次我们讲出一个专有名字,我们在心理上知道在这个声音材料的本身被给予的强调?这绝对不是真实的。我不再想到声音的材料,艾伦、噶帝尔爵士,当我正在跟你们谈论,正如当我正在跟你们谈论有关 verwurtzein,或是其他任何东西。

Already my examples here are badly chosen because these are already words
which I highlight as words by writing them on the blackboard. It is certain that whatever may be the value of the claim of the linguist here, it fails very specifically, in so far as it believes it has no other reference to bring into play except the
psychological one.

我在此的例子,已经是选择得很不好,因为这些例子已经是我强调作为在黑板上书写它们的文字。的确,无论在此的这位语言学家的宣称的价值是什么,它明确地失败。因为它相信它没有其他的指称来运作,除了就是心理学的指称。

And it comes to grief on what? Precisely in articulating something which is perhaps indeed the function of the subject, but of the subject defined completely differently than by anything whatsoever which is of the order of concrete psychology, of the subject in so far as we could, as we must, as we will define it properly speaking by its reference to the signifier.

结果遭受到什么?确实是在表达某将或许确实是主体的功能,但是这个主体被定义完全不同于任何其他属于具体心理学的东西,属于这个主体我们能够,如同我们必须,定义它,适当来说,是根据它提到能指。

There is a subject which is not confused with the signifier as such, but which is unfolded in this reference to the signifier with traits, characters which are perfectly
articulatable and formalisable and which ought to permit us to (18) grasp, to discern as such the idiotic character – if I take up the Greek reference, it is because I am far from confusing it with the use of the word “particular” in Russell’s definition – the idiotic character as such of the proper name.

有一个跟能指的本身并没有混淆的主体,但是这个主体被展开是根据具有各种特征的这个能指,这些特征清楚地可表达及可说明。它们应该让我们能够理解,觉察白痴般的特征本身—假如我从事这个希腊的文本,那是因为我根本没有将它跟罗素定义的「特殊性」这个字词,混淆一谈—专有名词的白痴般的特征本身。

Let us try now to indicate in what sense I intend to make you grasp it. In the sense in which for a long time I have been bringing into play at the level of the definition of the unconscious, the function of the letter. I brought this function of the letter into play for you first of all in a sort of poetic fashion; the seminar on the “purloined letter”, in our very first years of elaboration, was there to indicate for you that something was to
be taken well and truly in the literal sense of the term letter because it involved a missive, something that we could consider as being determining right into the psychical structure of the subject: a fable no doubt but one which rejoined the most
profound truth in its structure as fiction.

让我们现在指示,以为打算让你们理解它的意义。在这个意义,长久以来,我一直运作无意识的定义的这个层次,信息的功用。我跟你们运作信息的这个功用,首先一种诗的方式。在建构的前几年,有关「被偷窃的信息」的研讨班,那是用来跟你们指示,某件东西应该实实在在要按「信」这个术语实质上的意义看待,因为它牵涉到一种使命的某件东西,我们能够认为是具有决定性,进入到主体的心灵的结构。无可置疑的,这是一个寓言,但是这个寓言重新加入最深奥的真理,在它作为幻想的结构。

When I spoke about “The agency of the letter in the unconscious” a few years later,
I gave by means of metaphors and metonymies a more precise accent to it. We are arriving now, with this beginning we have made about the function of the unary trait, at something which is going to allow us to go further: I am posing that there cannot be
a definition of the proper name except in the measure that we are aware of the relationship between the naming utterance and something which in its radical nature is of the order of the letter.

几年以后,当我谈论到「信息在无意识界的代理」,我凭借比喻与换喻,给予它一个更加明确的强调。我们现在到达,从我们曾经从事的这个开始,有关这个单一特征的功用。我们现在到达某件将使我们能够更深入探索的东西。我正在提出,这个专有名字的定义不可能存在,除了随着我们知道这个关系:这个命名的表述,与某件极端特征是属于信息的秩序之间的关系。

You are going to say to me: here then there is a great difficulty, because there are many people who do not know how to read and who make use of proper names; and then proper names (19) with the identification they determine existed before the
appearance of writing. It is under this heading, under this register, “man before writing” that there has appeared a very good book which gives us the very last word on what is currently known about human evolution before history.

你们将会跟我说:在此,有巨大的困难,因为有许多人并不知道如何阅读,他们使用专有名字。因此,专有名字具有他们决定的这个认同,存在于书写的出现之前。就在这个标题之下,这个铭记之下,「在书写之前的人」,有一本好书出现,给予我们这个最后的字词,谈论到目前众所周知的史前人类的进化。

And then how will we define ethnography about which certain people thought it
plausible to advance that it was a matter properly speaking of everything that in the order of culture and of tradition is unfolded outside any possibility of documentation using the tool of writing.

然后,我们将如何定义少数种族?关于他们,某些人认为这是合理的,提出这是一件事情,适当来说,在文化与传统的秩序,这一切被展开,外在于使用书写的工具的文件之外。

Is it as true as all that?

这是跟那一切同样地真实吗?

There is a book which I can ask all of those who are interested by this – and already some people have anticipated my indication – to consult: it is the book by James Février on the history of writing. If you have the time during the holidays, I would ask
you to refer to it.

有一本书,我们要求所有对这个感到興趣的人—已经有某些人预期到我的指示—去参照一下。这是詹姆斯、费瑞尔写的书。假如你们在假日时有时间,我要去你们去参照看看。

You will see there clearly being laid out there something whose general principle I indicate to you because in a way it is not fully separated out and it is everywhere present: it is that prehistorically speaking, if I can express myself in this way, I mean in the whole measure that the stratographic layers of what we find bear witness to a technical and material evolution of human accessories, prehistorically everything that we can see about what happens in the advent of writing and therefore in the relationship of writing to language, everything happens in the following fashion whose result is here posed, articulated very precisely before you, everything happens
in the following fashion: without any doubt we can admit that man, ever since he has been man, as a speaker has had vocal (20) utterance.

你们将会清楚地看出,有某件东西被展示开来。这个东西的一般性原则,我跟你们指示,因为在某方面,它并没有充分地被分开,它存在于每个地方。从史前史而言,假如我能够以这种方式表达我自己,我的意思是,就整体而言,我们所发现的地层分佈,见证到人类的使用工具的一种技术及材料的发展。在史前史,我们能够看见的一切东西,关于书写的前来所发生的东西,因此,在书写与语言的关系,每一件事情发生,以下面的方式,它的结构在此被提出,在你们面前,明确地被表达。每一件事情发生,以下面的方式:无可置疑地,我们能够承认,自从他是人类以来,作为一位言说者,他曾经用声音表达。

On the other hand, there is something which is of the order of these traits in connection with which I told you of the emotion of admiration that I experienced in rediscovering them marked in a little row on what seemed to be the rib of an antelope.

在另一方面,有某件东西是属于这些特征的秩序。关于这些特征,我告诉你们有关我经验到底崇拜的情感,当我重新发现它们被标示成为一小排,在看起来似乎是一隻羚羊的勒骨。

There is in the prehistorical material an infinity of manifestations of traces which have no other character than that of being, like this trait, signifiers and nothing more. People speak about ideograms or about idéographies, what does that mean?

在这个史前的材料,有一个无限的痕迹的展示。它么没有别的特征,除了就是生命实存的特征,像这个特征一样,它们是能指,不是别的。人们谈论到象形文字或是象形图形。 那是什么意思?

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

Seminar IX :Identification 30

March 28, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 30
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 6: Wednesday 20 December 1961

What is remarkable, is that a linguist who does not lack merit or experience or skill, because of an experience of the signifier that is all the more profound in that it is not for nothing that I pointed out to you that he is someone whose work in part unfolded in an especially suggestive and rich angle of experience which is that of hieroglyphics since he is an Egyptologist, is going, for his part, to be led to counter-formulate for us what appears to him to be characteristic of the function of the proper name.

耐人寻味的是,一位并不欠缺天赋,经验或技术的语言学家,因为更加深奥的能指的经验,因为这并非毫无意义,我跟你们指出,语言学家的研究工作,部分是在一个特别暗示性及丰富的角度的经验里展开。那就是象形文字的角度。因为他是一位研究古埃及学者,就他而言,他将会被引导跟我们反说明他觉得是什么表现专有名称的功用。

He is going to elaborate this characteristic of the function of the proper name for us by referring himself to John Stuart Mill and to a Greek grammarian of the second century before Christ, called Dionysius Thrax.

他将要跟我们建构这个专有名称的功用的这个特征。他自己提到史督、米勒,也提到纪元前第二世纪的希腊文法家,名字叫戴奥尼斯、司拉克。

Curiously, he is going to encounter in them something which, without ending up in the same paradox as Bertrand Russell, takes into account formulae which at first sight could appear as homonymie as one might say. The proper name, “idion choluon”,
moreover is only the translation of what the Greeks and specifically this Dionysius contributed on this point, idion as opposed to choluon. Is idion here to be confused with the particular, in Russell’s sense of the term? Certainly not, because this is not what Mr Gardiner would have taken as a support, if what he were to find there was an agreement with his adversary.

耐人寻味地,他将会在他们那里遭遇某件东西,他并没有以跟罗素相同的悖论作为结束,他考虑到一些公式。乍然一看,这些公式出现作为同音异义,我们不妨说。而且,”idion choluon”,这个专有名称,仅是希腊人,明确地说,就是戴奥尼斯在这一点的贡献,idion 跟choluon对立。从罗素对于这个术语的意义来说,Idion 在这里难道不是会跟这个特别物混淆吗?确实不会,因为这并不是噶帝那本来会用来当作支持的东西,假如他想要找到,跟这个敌意词有一致性的话。

Unfortunately, he does not manage to specify^ the difference here between the term of ownership (propriété*) as implied in what distinguishes the original Greek point of view, (14) and the paradoxical consequences that a certain formalism arrives at. But under the shelter of the progress that the reference to the Greeks, then to Mill who is closer to him, fundamentally allows him, he highlights the following which is what is involved, namely what it is that functions in the proper name which allows us immediately to distinguish it, to spot it as such, as a proper name.

不幸地,他并没有成功地指明在此的这个差异,处于「拥有」这个术语暗含的意义,在区别原先希腊的观点,以及某个形式主义所获得的矛盾的结果之间。但是在进步的掩饰下,提到希腊人,然后提到跟他很相近的米勒,基本上让他能够,他强调以下所牵涉的东西。换句话说,在专有名称发挥功用的东西,它让我们立即区别它,觉察它的本身,作为一个专有名称。

With a good deal of pertinence. Mill, in approaching the problem puts the accent on the following: the fact is that the way a proper name is distinguished from a common
noun, is from the angle of something which is at the level of meaning; the common noun appears to concern the object in so far as it brings a meaning with it.

多么地中肯! 米尔,当他探讨这个问题时,他强调以下:事实上,用来区别一个专有名字跟普通的名词的方式,是从某件属于意义层次的东西的角度。普通名词似乎是跟客体有关,因为它随身带着一个意义。

If something is a proper name, it is in so far as it is not the meaning of the object that it
brings with it, but something which is of the order of a brand applied in a way to the object, superimposed on it, and which by this fact will be all the more in close solidarity if it is less open, because of the absence of meaning, to any participation
in a dimension by which this object goes beyond itself, communicates with other objects.

假如某件东西是一个专有名字,因为它并不是它随身带着的这个客体的意义。而是某件属于以某种方式运用到客体的品牌的秩序的东西,它在客体上受到监控。根据这个事实,它会更加地团结,假如它比较不那么公开。因为意义的欠缺,对于任何对于维度的参与。凭借这个维度,这个客体超越它自己,跟其他的客体沟通。

Mill here makes intervene moreover, brings into play a sort of little apologue linked to a story: the coming into play of an fantasy-image. It is the story of the role of the fairy Morgiana who wants to preserve some of her protege’s from some plague or other that is destined for them because of the fact that in the town a chalk mark had been put on their doors. Morgiana helps them avoid succumbing to the effect of the exterminating plague by putting the same mark on all the other houses of the same town.

而且,米尔让一种跟故事有关的小寓言介入运作:一种幻见意象的运作。这是仙女莫吉安娜的角色,她想要保存有些她的受眷护者,免于某种他们注定的瘟疫,因为这个事实:在城镇里,一个粉笔的记号曾经被放置在他们各家的门口。莫吉安娜帮忙他们避免屈服于毁灭一切的瘟疫的影响,将相同的记号放置在相同城镇的所有其他房屋门口。

Here Sir Allan Gardiner has no trouble in demonstrating the miscognition that is implied in this apologue itself; it is that (15) if Mill had had a more complete notion of what was involved in the incidence of the proper name, he should not only have
taken into account the identificatory character of the mark when it was being forged, but also its distinctive character, and as such the apologue would be more suitable if one were to say that the fairy Morgiana had also to mark the other houses with a sign
in chalk, but one different from the first so that the person who comes into the town to fulfill his mission, searching for the house where he must bring to bear his fatal incidence, no longer knows how to find the sign that is in question, for want of
knowing in advance precisely what sign among others is to be searched for.

在此,艾伦、噶帝尔轻而易举地证明在这个寓言故事本身,这种被暗示的误认。假如米尔曾经有一个更完整的观念,对于这个专有名字的意外所牵涉的。他本来不应该考虑到它具有这个记号可辨认的特色。这个寓言故事的本身本来会更加适合,假如我们想要说,仙女莫吉安娜也必须标示其他的房屋,用一个粉笔的记号。但是这是一个不同于第一种记号,这样,第一位进入城镇实现他的使命的人,寻找那栋房屋,他必须给予他承受的致命的意外,他不再知道如何找到受到质疑的这个记号而己,因为事先缺乏确实地知道,在其他的记号当中,是什么记号被追寻。

This leads Gardiner to an articulation which is the following: in an obvious reference to this distinction of the signifier and the signified, which is fundamental for every linguist even if he does not put it forward as such in his discourse, Gardiner remarks – not unjustifiably – that it is not so much the absence of meaning that is involved in the usage of the proper name.

这导致噶帝尔有个如下的表述:当他显而易见地提到能指与所指的区别时,这是每位语言学家的基本,即使他并没有在他的论述的本身提出它。噶帝尔谈论到–并非没有道理地—这个专有名字的使用所牵涉到的,并不是意义的欠缺。

Because moreover everything tells us that the opposite is the case: very often proper names have a meaning. Even M Durand, that has a meaning; Mr Smith means a smith and it is quite clear that it is not because Mr Smith may be perchance a smith that his name will be any the less a proper name. What constitutes the usage of the proper name, on this occasion of the word smith, Mr Gardiner tells us, is that the accent in its usage is put, not on the meaning, but on the sound qua distinctive. There is here obviously a very great advance of dimensions, which in most cases will allow us to perceive in practice that something functions (16) more especially as a proper name.

而且,因为每件事情都告诉我们,通常是相反的情况。往往专有名字具有一个意义。甚至,杜兰夫人,那具有一个意义,史密斯先生,意味着某位铁匠的字源。相当显而易的,并不是因为史密斯先生恰好是一位铁匠,他的名字仍然是一个专有名词。噶帝尔先生告诉我们,在铁匠smith这个字词的这个情况,构成专有名字的用途的东西是,在它的用途里,强调点并不是放置在意义,而是放置在作为区别的声音。在此,显而易见地,有许多的维度被提出,在大部分的情况,它们将容许我们在实践时感受到,某件东西发挥功用,更加特别是作为专有名词。

Nevertheless, it is all the same rather paradoxical precisely to see a linguist whose
first definition of his material, the phonemes, is that they are precisely sounds which are distinguished from one another, giving as a particular trait to the function of the proper name that it is precisely because of the fact that the proper name is composed
of distinctive sounds that we can characterise it as a proper name.

可是,这仍然是相当矛盾的,当我们确实看到一位语言学家,他对于他的材料,这些音素的第一个定义是,它们确实是互相区别的声音,给予作为一个特别的特征,给予专有名词的这个功用。这确实是因为这个事实: 专有名词由不同的声音组成,我们能够表现它的特色,作为一个专有名字。

Because of course, from a certain angle it is obvious that every use of language is precisely based on this: the fact is that a language is composed of a material which is that of distinctive sounds.

当然,因此,从某个角度开始,显而易见地,语言的每个使用,确实是根据这个:事实上,语言是由某种材料组成,这个材料是不同声音的材料。

Naturally this objection does not fail to appear to the author himself of this elaboration. It is here that he introduces the subjective notion – in the psychological sense of the term – of the attention accorded to the signifying dimension which is here the sonant material.

当然,这种反对一定会出现在对于这种建构的作者本人身上。就在这里,他介绍这种主体性的观念—从这个术语的心理学的意义来说—注意力给予能指化的维度,在此时声音的材料。

Observe carefully that what I am highlighting here, is that the linguist who ought
to strive to put to one side – I am not saying to totally eliminate from his field – anything which is a properly psychological reference, is all the same led here as such to take
into account a psychological dimension as such, I mean that because of the fact that the subject, as he says, invests, pays special attention to what is the body of his interest when it is a question of a proper name.

仔细观察,我在此正在强调的是,语言学家应该尝试将任何东西放置一边—我并不是正在说,要从他的领域将它完全减除掉—这个任何东西适当来说,是一个心理的指称。它在此仍然本身被引导要考虑到,心理的维度本身。我的意思是,因为这个事实: 如同他所说的,主体投注,特别专注于,当问题是一个专有名字时,他的興趣的本体是什么?

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

Seminar IX :Identification 29

March 28, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 29
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 6: Wednesday 20 December 1961

What end are we going to start with, with Gardiner or with Russell? Let us begin with Russell.

我们将要从什么目标开始,从噶帝那?或是从罗素?就让我们从罗素开始。

Russell finds himself in the position of the logician; the logician has a position which does not date from yesterday. He brings into operation a certain apparatus to which he gives different titles: reasoning, thinking.

罗素发现他自己处于逻辑专家的立场,逻辑专家拥有一个立场,这并不是从昨天开始的。他运用某种的工具,他给工具不同的名称:推理,思考。

He discovers in it a certain number of implicit laws. In a first phase he separates
out these laws: they are the ones without which nothing which belongs to the order of reason would be possible.

他在里面发现某些的暗含法则。在第一部分,他分开这些法则。假如没有这些法则,于推理秩序的东西,没有一样是可能。

It is in the course of this quite original research into the thinking which governs us, by reflection, that we grasp for example the importance of the principle of contradiction. This principle of contradiction having been discovered, it is around the principle of contradiction that something unfolds and is organised, which undoubtedly shows that if contradiction and its principle were not something tautological, tautology would be singularly fruitful; because Aristotelian logic cannot be unfolded in a few(10) pages.

在这个相当原创性的探索思考的研究过程,这种统辖我们的思考,凭借着反思,譬如,我们悖论原理的重要性?这个悖论原理已经被发现,那就是环绕着悖论原理,有某个东西展开,并且被组织。无可置疑地,它个显示,假如悖论及其原则并不是某件同义反复的东西,那将会是成果辉煌,因为亚里斯多德的逻辑无法在几页里就展开。

With time, nevertheless, the historical fact is that even though the development of logic is directed towards an ontology, a radical reference to being which is supposed to be aimed at in these most general laws of the mode of understanding necessary
for truth, it orients itself towards a formalism, namely that that to which the leader of a school of thought as important, as decisive in the orientation that it has given to a whole mode of thinking in our epoch as Bertrand Russell, should have managed to
put everything that concerns the critique of the operations brought into play in the field of logic and of mathematics, into a general formalisation that is as strict, as economical as possible.

可是,随着时间过去,这个历史的事实是,即使逻辑的发展被引导朝向本体论,强烈地提到目标所在的生命实存,在真理所需的了解模式的这些最通俗的法则里。它定向它自己,朝向一种形式主义。换句话说,一个思想学派的领导者同样重要,同样具有决定性,在它已经给予整个思想模式的一种定向。在我们的时代,如同布兰、罗素,他本来应该成功地将有关运算的批判的一切,运用在逻辑及数学的领域,运用到普通的形式主义,尽可能地严谨,尽可能精炼。

In short, the correlative effort of Russell, the thrust of Russell’s effort in the same direction, in mathematics, culminates at the formation of what is called set theory, whose general import one can characterise in the fact that an effort is made in it to reduce the whole field of mathematical experience accumulated throughout centuries of development, and I believe that a better definition of it cannot be given than to reduce it to an interplay of letters (jeu de lettres). We should take this into account then as a given in the progress of thinking; let us say, at our epoch, this epoch being defined as a certain moment of the discourse of science.

总之,罗素的相关的努力,罗素朝相同方向的努力,在数学方面,形式所谓的集合理论达到颠峰。集合理论的一般意义,我们能够以这个事实表现特征:我们在里面努力还原几世纪的发展累积的整个的数学的经验。我相信,我们无法给予它更好的定义,除了将它还原成为字母的互动运作。因此,我们应该考虑这个当作是思考过程的一个指称。我们不妨说,在我们的时代,这个时代被定义为科学论述的某个时刻。

What is it then that Bertrand Russell finds himself led to give in these conditions, when he comes to interest himself in it, as a definition of a proper name?

那么,在这些情况,布兰、罗素发现他自己被引导要给予什么?当他自己对它渐渐感到興趣,作为一个专有名称的定义。

(11) It is something which in itself is worthwhile dwelling on, because it is what is going to allow us to grasp – it could be grasped elsewhere, and you will see that I will show you that it is grasped elsewhere – let us say the degree of miscognition
(méconnaissance) implied in a certain position which is found to be effectively the corner into which there is pushed the whole age-old effort of the elaboration of logic.

这是某件东西,它自己本身是值得详加叙述,因为这是它容许我们理解的东西—它在别的地方能够被理解。你们将会看出,我将跟你们显示,它在别的地方被理解—让我们说,在某个立场被暗含的这个误认的程度,它被发现有效地在这个角落。整个世代的逻辑建构的努力,就被逼进那个角落。

This miscognition is properly speaking something which no doubt I put before you in a
way from the beginning of what I have to pose here because of the requirements of my exposition: this is precisely the miscognition of the thinking subject’s most radical relationship to the letter.

适当来说,这个误认是某件东西,无可置疑地,我放置在你们面前,从我必须在此提出的这个东西的开始这个方式,因为我的陈述的这些要求: 这确实是这个思想主体,跟这个信息的最强烈的关系的误认。

Bertrand Russell sees everything, except this: the function of the letter. This is what I hope to be able to make you sense and to show you. Have confidence and follow me. You are going to see now how we are going to advance. What does he give as a definition of the proper name? A proper name is, he says, “word for particular” a word to designate particular things as such. Now, in every description there are two ways of
approaching things: to describe them by their quality, their reference-points, their co-ordinates from the point of view of the mathematician, I mean to designate them as such.

布兰、罗素看到一切,除了这个:这个信息的功用。这是我希望能够让你们理解及跟你们显示的。请你们信任我,跟随我。你们现在将会看出,我们将会如何前进。他会给予什么作为这个专有名称的定义?一个专有名称,他说,是「一个特别的字词」,一个字词用以指明特别事物的本身。现在,在每有描述里,有两种接近事物的方式:根据它们的特质,它们的指称点,它们跟数学家的观点的座标描述它们。我的意思是,根据它们的本身指明它们。

This point, for example, let us say that here I can tell you: it is on the right of the blackboard, at such a height more or less, it is white and so on and so on. That is a description, Mr Russell tells us. These are the ways of designating it, outside of any
description, as particular: that is what I am going to call proper name.

让我们在此说,我能够告诉你们,譬如,这一点,它在黑板的右边,处于某种的高度,它是白色,等等。那是一个描述,罗素先生告诉我们。这些都是描述它的方法,外在于任何的描述,作为特别性。那就是我将要称它为专有名称。

(12) The first proper name for Mr Russell – I already alluded to it in my preceding seminars – is the “this”, celui-ci (this is the question). Here the demonstrative has passed to the rank of proper name. It is no less paradoxical that Mr Russell cooly
envisages the possibility of calling this same point John. It must be recognised that we have all the same here a sign that perhaps there is something which goes beyond experience; because the fact is that it is rare for one to call a geometrical point
John.

给罗素先生的第一个专有名称—在我的前几个研讨班,我已经提到它—就是「这个」(这个就是问题)。在此,这个指示词已经转换到专有名称。这是同样地矛盾,罗素先生冷静地构想这个可能性: 将这个相同点,称为是约翰。我们必须承认,我们在此同样有一个符号。或许有某件超越经验的东西存在。因为事实上,我们很少称一个几何学的点为约翰。

Nevertheless Russell has never retreated from the most extreme expressions of his thought. It is all the same here that the linguist becomes alarmed, becomes all the more alarmed because between these two extremes of Russell1 s definition “word
for particular”, there is this altogether paradoxical consequence that, being logical with himself, Russell tells us that Socrates has no right to be considered by us as a proper name, it being given that for a long time now Socrates is no longer a particular. I am abbreviating what Russell says, I am even adding a touch of humour to it, but it is indeed the spirit of what he tells us, namely that Socrates was for us Plato’s master,
the man who drank the hemlock, etc…

可是,罗素从来没有从他的思想的最极端的那些表达撤退。仍然是在这里,语言学家感到惊骇,而且更加变得惊骇,因为在罗素的「特别的字词」的定义的两个极端之间,有着这个完全的矛盾的结果。由于跟他自己前后一贯,罗素告诉我们,苏格拉底没有权利被我们认为是一个专有名称。因为考虑到,长久以来,苏格拉底不再是一个具有特别性。我正在简约表达罗素的说法,我甚至替它增加一点幽默的趣味。但是这确实是他告诉我们的内容的精神,换句话说,对于我们而言,苏格拉底是柏拉图的老师,喝饮毒酒殉道的这个人、、、

It is an abbreviated description; it is therefore no longer as such what he calls a
word to designate the particular in its particularity. It is quite certain that we see here that we are completely losing any of the advantages that a linguistic consciousness
gives us, namely that, if we have to eliminate everything that in proper names is inserted into a community of the notion, we arrive at a sort of impasse which is indeed that against which Gardiner tries to oppose properly linguistic perspectives as
(13) such.

这是一种被简约表达的描述。它的本质因此不再是他所谓的在它的特别性里,指明的这个特别物。千真万确地,我们在此看到,我们渐渐完全丧失一种语言意识给予我们的,任何的这个利益。换句话说,假如我们必须减少在专有名称里,每一样被插入这个观念的社团里,我们会到达某种的僵局。这个僵局确实是:噶帝那尝试提出完全是语言的观点本身,跟这个僵局对立而论。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 28

March 27, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 28
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 6: Wednesday 20 December 1961

I am not going to go over again for you on this occasion the articulation of what was involved, of what was at stake in the case of little Hans. These things have been published enough and well enough for you to be able to refer to them.

在这个场合,我将要再一次跟你们温习一下,在小汉斯的这个个案,会牵涉到的,会岌岌可危的这个表达。这些事情曾经充分地被出版,足够充分让你们能够提到它们。

But the function as such at this critical moment – the one determined by his radical suspension on the desire of the mother, in a fashion which, as one might say, has nothing to off-set it, is irretrievable, inescapable – is the function of artifice which I
showed you to be that of the phobia in so far as it introduces a key signifying mainspring which allows the subject to preserve what is in question for him, namely the minimal anchoring, centering of his being, which allows him not to sense himself as a being who is completely adrift at the whim of his mother.

但是在这个关键时刻的本身的功用—对于母亲的欲望,他的强烈的悬置所决定,使用的方式,我们不妨说,根本就没有东西来触发它。它是无法被恢复的,无法被逃避的—这是巧计的功用,我跟你们显示它为恐惧的功用,因为它介绍一个关键的能指化的原动力。这种原动力让主体能够保存对于他是受到质疑的东西。换句话说,最小量的锚定点,集中在他的生命实存。这个生命实存让他能够不将他自己理解为一个生命主体,完全听任他的母亲的幻想而飘荡。

This is what is at stake, but what I want to highlight at this level is the following: it is that in a production which can scarcely be considered unreliable on this occasion – I say it all the more because everything towards which little Hans had previously been
directed (because God knows he was directed as I showed you – (6) nothing of all of this is of a nature to put him into the field of this type of elaboration; little Hans shows us here in a figure which is certainly obscure, but exemplary, the leap, the passage, the tension between what I defined first of all as the two extremes of the subject: the animal subject which represents the mother, but also with its long neck, no one has any doubt about it, the mother in so far as she is this immense phallus of desire ending again in the browsing mouth of this voracious animal, and then on the other something on a paper surface.

这就是岌岌可危的地方,但是我在这个层次想要强调的是以下: 在这个场合,一种很少会被认为是不可靠的产品—我更加要说它,因为小汉斯先前曾经被引导朝向的一切,(因为天晓得,他被引导,如同我跟你们显示的—没有一样是属于将他放置于这种构想的性质),小汉斯在此跟我们显示,以一种确实是模糊的人物,但是作为典范,这种跳跃,这个经过,这种紧张,处于我首先定义为主体的两个极端: 一是动物性的主体,代表母亲,而且用它的长脖子,没有人对它有任何的怀疑。就母亲是欲望的这个阳具而言,再一次的结果是这个贪婪的动物的吸食的嘴巴。然后,在另一方面,某件东西出现在纸的表面上。

We will return to this dimension of surface, something which is not without a subjective accent; because one sees well the whole import of what is involved: the big giraffe, when she sees him playing with the small crumpled one, cries out very loudly until finally she grows weary, her cries are exhausted, and little Hans, sanctioning in a way the taking possession, the Besitzung of what is involved, the mysterious import of the affair, by sitting on top of it (darauf gesetzt).

我们将回到表面的这个维度,某件东西并非没有主体性的意义,因为我们清楚地看到所牵涉到的整个意义:大的长颈鹿,当她看到他玩搞这个被崩塌的小长颈鹿,大声地喊叫,直到最后她变得疲倦,她的喊叫身心俱疲。小汉斯,以某种方式认可这种佔有,所牵涉之物的「拥有」,事情的神秘的意义,以端坐在它的顶端。

This lovely mechanism ought to make us sense what is involved, since indeed it concerns his fundamental identification, the defence of himself against this original capture within the world of the mother, as no one of course doubts, at the point that we are at in elucidating phobia. Here already we see exemplified this function of signifier. It is indeed here that I want to pause again today on the point of departure of what we have to say about identification.

这个可爱的机械结构应该让我们理解,所牵涉的是什么,因为的确,这关系到他的基本的认同,他自己的防卫,对抗在母亲的世界里的原先的捕获,作为是天经地义,在我们处于理解的惊怖。在此我们已经看到能指的这个功能所作的典范。确实是在这里,今天我想要再一次停止,当我们即将开始我们必须说的关于认同。

The function of the signifier in so far as it is the mooring point of something from which the subject constitutes himself, here is something which is going to (7) make me dwell for a moment today on something which, it seems to me, should come quite naturally to mind, not just for reasons of general logic, but also because of something that you should touch on in your experience: I mean the function of the name (nom), not the noun (nom), the noun defined grammatically, what we call the substantive in our schools, but the name in the way that in English – and what is more, in German – the two functions are distinguished. I would like to say a little more about it here, but you well understand the difference: the name, is the proper name.

能指的功能作为主体从那里形成他自己的某件东西的锚定点。在此有某件东西,今天将让我暂时详述某件我觉得应该很自然会想到的东西,不仅因为一般逻辑,而且是因为某件东西在你们的经验里,你们应该触及的。我的意思是「名称」的功用,不是「名词」的功用,文法上被定义的名词,在我们学校我们所谓的「实质名词」,而是这个「名称」在英文里,尤有甚者,在德文里,这两个功用被区别出来。在此,我想要稍微谈论它一下。但是你们清楚地了解这个差异:名称就是这个专有名称。

You know as analysts, the importance that the proper name of the subject has in every analysis. You should always pay attention to what your patient is called. It is never indifferent. And if you ask for names in analysis, it is indeed something much more important than the excuse that you may give for it to the patient, namely that all sorts of things may hide themselves behind this sort of dissimulation or effacing of a
name, concerning the relations that it may bring into play with some other subject.

你们知道,作为精神分析家,主体的专有名称在每个精神分析里具有的重要性。你们应该总是注意你们的病人所被称呼的。那是举足轻重。假如你们在精神分析要求名称,那确实是某件东西,比你们可能给病人的这个藉口更加重要。换句话说,各种的事情可能隐藏它们自己,在名称的这种欺骗或抹除背后,关于它跟某个其他的主体可能运作的各种关系。

It goes much further than that; you should sense it even if you do not know it.
What is a proper name?

名称比那个更加深入。你们应该理解它,即使你们不知道它。专有名称是什么?

Here we should have a lot to say. The fact is that in effect we could bring a lot of material to the name. This material, we analysts, even in supervision, we would have a thousand opportunities to illustrate its importance. I do not believe (8) that we could here precisely give it all its import – this is a further occasion to put your finger on a methodological necessity – without referring to what the linguist has to say in
this respect, not necessarily to submit ourselves to it, but because as regards the function, the definition of this signifier which has its own originality, we should at least find in it a control, if not a complement to what we can say.

在此,我们应该有许多可说。事实是,我们实际上能够给名称带来许多材料。这个材料,我们精神分析家即使在监控时,我们将有上千个机会,说明它的重要性。我并不相信,我们在此确实能够给予它各种它的意义—这是一种更进一步的场合探索方法论的必要性—我们必然要提到语言学家在这方面所必需说的。未必是要我们屈服于它,而是关于这个功用,这个能指的定义具有它的原初性。我们至少应该在它里面找到一种控制,即使不是一种辅助,对于我们能够说的。

In fact, this indeed is what is going to happen. In 1954 there appeared a little factum by Sir Allan H. Gardiner. There are all sorts of works by him and in particular a very good Egyptian grammar – I mean one of antique Egypt – he is therefore an
Egyptologist, but he is also and above all a linguist. Gardiner produced – it was at that time that I acquired it during a short trip to London – a very small little book called The theory of proper names. He produced it in a rather contingent fashion.

事实上,这的确实所正要发生的事情。在1954年,出现一个噶帝那爵士提出的作法。他出版各种的著作,特别是一本优秀的埃及文法书—我指的是原古埃及的文法书—他因此是一位埃及学专家,但是他也是,尤其是一位语言学家。噶帝那出版一本小书,书名是「专有名称的理论」–当我们到伦敦短期旅行时,我获得这本书。

He calls it himself a “controversial essay”, un essai controversiel. One could even say that this is a litotes: a polemical essay. He wrote it because of the extreme exasperation he had felt at a certain number of enunciatings of a philosopher whom I am not indicating to you for the first time: Bertrand Russell whose enormous role in the elaboration of what one could call in our days mathematicised logic or logicised mathematics you know about.

他自己称这本书是一部「具有争议性的论文」。我们甚至能够说,这是一部反讽文,一篇争辩的论文。他写这本书,是因为他曾经感觉到极端的愤怒,对于一位哲学家的某些的表述。这位哲学家,我并不是第一次跟你们提到,布兰、罗素。在我们当代,我们能够所谓的数学逻辑,或众所周知的逻辑化的数学的建构,他具有举足轻重的地位。

In the Principia mathematica with Whitehead, he gave us a general symbolism of logical and mathematical operations which one cannot fail to take into account, once one enters into this field. Russell then, in one of his works, gives (9) a certain definition which is quite paradoxical – the paradox moreover is a dimension in which he is far from reluctant to move about in, on the contrary: he makes use of it more often than it deserves – Mr Russell put forward then certain remarks about the proper name which literally put Mr Gardiner beside himself.

在论「怀德黑的数学原理」时,他给予我们有关逻辑与数学运作的普通象征。我们一定会考虑到这些运作,一旦我们进入这个领域。因此,罗素在他的一本著作里,给予某种相当悖论的的定义—而且,这种悖论是一个维度,他并不会不愿意在这个维度里探索。相反地,他利用这个维度,远超过它的所值。罗素先生因此提出某些的谈论,关于这个专有名称,让噶帝那实质上愤怒不已。

The quarrel is in itself significant enough for me to think that today I should introduce you to it and in this connection hook onto it remarks that I think are important.

这个争吵本身异常重要,足够让我认为,今天我应该跟你们介绍它。在这方面,它牵涉到我认为是很重要的谈论。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 27

March 27, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 27
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 6: Wednesday 20 December 1961

The last time I left you on a remark designed to give you the sense that my discourse is not losing its moorings, namely that the importance, for us, of this research this year depends on the fact that the paradox of the automatism of repetition is that you
see arising a cycle of behaviour inscribable as such in terms of a resolution of tension, therefore of the need-satisfaction couple, and that nevertheless whatever may be the function involved in this cycle, however carnal you may suppose it to be, it nevertheless remains that what it means qua automatism of repetition is that it is there in order to make emerge, to recall, to make insist something which is nothing other in its essence than a signifier which can be designated by its function, and especially under this aspect that it introduces into the cycle of its repetitions – always the same in their essence and therefore concerning something which is always the same thing –
difference, distinctiveness, unicity, and that it is because something happened at the origin which is the whole system of the trauma, namely that at one time there was produced something which took on from that time the form A, that in the repetition
the behaviour however complex, engaged you may suppose it to be in the animal individuality, is only there in order to make (2) re-emerge this sign A.

上一次我留给你们一个评论,被设计要让你们理解,我的论述并没有失去它的停锚点。换句话说,对于我们而言,今年这个研究的重要性,依靠这个事实: 重复的自动机制的矛盾是,你们看到行为的循环出现,本身无法用张力的舒解的术语来铭记。因此,需要与满足的术语,也无法铭记。可是,不管牵涉到这个循环的功能是什么,你们可能认为它是肉体的激情,问题仍然是,作为重复的自动机制所意味的是,它存在那里,为了让某件东西出现,为了提醒某件东西,让它持续下去。这个东西,在它的本质而言,实实在在就是一个能够被它的功能指明的能指。特别是在这个层面,它介绍这个在它们的本质仍然是相同的东西,进入它的重复的循环。因此关于这个某件东西,它总是相同的—差异,区别,独特性。这是因为某件东西发生在起源,那是创伤的整个系统。换句话说,有一次,某件东西被产生,从那时开始,它具有A的这个形式。在重复里,这个行为,无论如何复杂,你可能认为它从事于动物的个别性。它在那里,仅是为了让A这个符号重新出现。

Let us say that the behaviour from then on is expressible as behaviour number such and such; it is this behaviour number such and such, let us say it, the hysterical access for example: one of the forms in the case of a particular subject are his hysterical accesses, and it is this which emerges as behaviour number such and such.

让我们说,从那时起,这个行为能够被表达,作为行为的数字等等。就是这个行为数字等等,让我们说它,譬如,这个歇斯底里的接近,在特别主体的情况,这些形式之一是他的歇斯底里的接近。就是这种形式的出现,作为行为的数字,等等。

Only the number is lost for the subject. It is precisely in so far as the number is lost that there emerges this behaviour masked in this function of giving rise to the number behind what will be called the psychology of his access, behind the apparent motivations; and you know that in this regard no one will find it difficult to find an apparent reason for it: it is proper to psychology always to make a shadow of motivation appear.

对于主体,仅有这个数字丧失。确实是因为这个数字丧失,这个行为才出现。这个行为被遮蔽在这个功用里,它产生这个数字,在所谓的他接近的心理学背后,在明显的动机背后。你们知道,关于这一点,没有人将会发现,替它找到一个明显的理由是非常困难。心理学总是让动机的一个阴影出现,是理所当然。

It is therefore with this structural sticking together of something radically inserted into this vital individuality with this signifying function, that we are in analytic experience
(Vorstellungsrepr’asentanz): this is what is repressed, it is the lost number of behaviour such and such.

因此,用这个结构性的凝聚某件东西,强烈地插入这个具有这种能指化的功能的重要的个别性,我们处于精神分析的经验当中。这是所被潜抑的东西,这是某某行为的丧失的数字。

Where is the subject in all of that? It is in the radical, real individuality, in the pure sufferer of this capture, in the organism which henceforward is sucked in by
the effects of the “it speaks” (9a parle) by the fact that one living being among the others was summoned to become what Mr Heidegger calls the shepherd of being, having been caught up in the mechanisms of the signifier. Is it at the other extreme
identifiable to the very operation of the signifier?

在这一切中,主体在哪里?主体在这个强烈的,真实的个别性里,在这个捕捉的这个纯粹的痛苦者身上,在从此以后,被这个「它言说」的这些影响所吸收的有机体里。根据这个事实: 除了其余的生命实存外,这个生命实存被召唤来成为海德格所谓的生命实存的牧羊人。因为它已经被套陷在能指的机械结构里。它难道不是在另外一个极端被认同是能指的这个运作?

And is not the subject only the subject of discourse who is in some way torn away from his vital immanence, condemned to fly on high, to live (3) in this sort of mirage which flows from this redoubling which ensures that he not only speaks everything he lives, but that he experiences living being by speaking it and that already what he
is living is inscribed in an epos, a Saga woven right throughout his very act.

这个主体难道不仅就是论述的主体,他在某方面被从他的生命的永恒性撕裂开,被注定要高高翱翔,要生活在某种的幻觉里?这种幻觉从这种双重张力流露出来,这种双重张力保证,他不但言说他生活的一切,而且他凭借言说它,来经验生命的实存。他正在生活的东西已经被铭记在史诗里,通过他的行为编织而成冒险故事。

Our effort this year if it has a meaning, is precisely to show how the function of the subject is articulated elsewhere than in one or other of these poles, that it operates between the two. It is after all – I for my part imagine – what your cogitation – at least I like to think so – after these few years of seminars may give you, even if only implicitly, as a reference point at every instant. Is it enough to know that the function of the
subject is in the between-the-two, between the idealising effects of the signifying function and this vital immanence which you may too readily confuse, I still think, despite all my warnings, with the function of the drive? It is precisely what we are engaged in and what we are trying to push further, and the reason why also I thought I should begin with the Cartesian cogito in order to make tangible the field in which we are going to try to give more precise articulations about identification.

今年,我们的努力具有一种意义,确实就是要显示,主体的功用在别的地方被表达,除了就是它运作于这两个极端之间的这些极端。毕竟—就我而言,我想象—你们的深思熟虑—至少我喜欢这样认为—在这几年的研讨班给予你们的教导,即使仅是间接暗示,作为每个时刻的一个指称点。这难道不足以知道,主体的功能是处于这两者之间?处于能指化的功能的理型上的影响,与你们可能很容易将生命的永恒性与冲动驱力的功能混淆之间? 我依旧认为,尽管我的各种警告。这确实是我们正在从事的,以及我们正在尝试更深入探索的,以及为什么我也认为,我应该从笛卡尔的「我思故我在」开始,为了让这个领域具体显现。在这个领域,我们正在尝试要给予更加确实的表达,关于认同。

I spoke to you, a few years ago, about little Hans; there is in the story of little Hans – I think that you have kept the memory of it somewhere – the story of the dream which one can pinpoint with title of the crumpled (verwurzelte) giraffe. This verb verwurzeln which has been translated by to crumple, is not a very (4) common verb in the usual German lexicon.

几年前,我跟你们言说,关于小汉斯。在小汉斯的故事里—我认为你们在某个地方还保留对它的记忆—这个梦的故事,我们能够固定给个标题:被崩塌的长颈鹿。「被崩塌」的这个动词,曾经被翻译为「崩塌」,在通俗的德文的词汇,并不是一个通用的动词。

Though wurzeln is found there, verwurzeln is not. Verwurzeln means: to make a
ball. It is indicated in the text of the dream of the crumpled giraffe that it is a giraffe which is there next to the big living giraffe, a paper giraffe and that as such one can make a ball of it.

虽然「崩塌」在那里被发现,「被崩塌」并没有。「被崩塌」意思是要制作成为一个球团。它在被崩塌的长颈鹿的梦里被指明,它是放置于这隻大的活生生的长颈鹿的旁边,它是纸制的长颈鹿,因为这样,我们能够将它揉成一个球团。

You know the whole symbolism which is unfolded right through this observation, of the relationship between the big giraffe and the little giraffe, the crumpled giraffe under one of its aspects, conceivable under the other as the reduced giraffe,
as the second giraffe, as the giraffe which can symbolise many things. If the big giraffe symbolises the mother, the other giraffe symbolises the daughter; and the relationship of little Hans to the giraffe, at the point that we are at at that moment
of his analysis, will tend to be incarnated rather readily in the living interplay of family rivalries.

你们知道整个的象征系统,通过这样的观察立即被展开,关于大的长颈鹿与小的长颈鹿之间的关系,被崩塌的长颈鹿,在它的其中的一个层面之下,能够被构想,在另外一个层面之下,作为是被还原的长颈鹿,作为是第二个长颈鹿,作为能够象征许多东西的长颈鹿。假如这隻大的长颈鹿象征着母亲,另外一隻长颈鹿象征女儿,那么小汉斯跟长颈鹿的关系,在对他精神分析的时刻,我们处于的这个点,这个关系将会倾向于很快地被具体化身,在家庭敌意的活生生的互相作用里。

I remember the astonishment – it would no longer be appropriate today – that I provoked at that time by designating at that very moment in the case of little Hans as such, the dimension of the symbolic in act in the psychical productions of the young subject in connection with this crumpled giraffe. What could be more indicative of the radical difference of the symbolic as such, than to see appearing in the production, certainly not suggested on this point – because there is no trace at that moment of any
such articulation concerning the indirect function of the symbol – than to see in the observation something which really incarnates for us and images the advent of the symbolic as such in the psychical dialectic. “Really, where did you find it” one
of you kindly said to me after that session?

我记得那个惊奇—今天这种惊奇将不再是合适—在当时我被激怒,在小汉斯的个案本身的那个时刻,我指明行动在符号界的维度,在年轻的主体跟这个被崩塌的长颈鹿产生的心理上的影响。还有什么更能指示符号界本身的这个强烈的差异?除了就是看出有某件东西出现在这个产生里,的确,在这一点,它并没有被暗示—因为在当时,并没有任何如此表述的痕迹,关于这个符号象征的间接的功用—除了就是在观察里,看出某件东西,确实跟我们具体显现,并且构想符号象征界本身的来临,在心灵的辩证法。「的确,你们在哪里找到它?」有一次在演讲结束后,你们有一位善意地询问我..

(5) The surprising thing is not that I saw it because it would be difficult to have it indicated more crudely in the material itself, it is that at that place one could say that Freud himself does not dwell on it, I mean does not give at all the stress that
would be appropriate to this phenomenon, to what materialises it, as one might say, to our eyes. This indeed is what proves the essential character of these structural delineations, it is by not making them, by not highlighting them, by not articulating
them with all the energy of which we are capable, it is a certain aspect, a certain dimension of the phenomena themselves that we condemn ourselves in a way to overlook.

令人惊奇的事情,并不是我看出它,因为要在材料的本身,让它更加粗略地被指明将是有困难的。令人惊奇的事情是,在那个位置,我们能够说,弗洛伊德自己并没有对它详加说明。我的意思是,他根本就没有给予这个现象合适的强调,对于在我们眼前让它具体化的东西,我们不妨说。这确实是这些结构性的描绘的基本特性被证明的原因。凭借着不去描绘,凭借着不去强调它们,凭借着不去表述它们,尽管我们能够有各种的能源力量。这是各种现象本身的某个层面,某个维度,我们以某种方式注定会忽略的。

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

雄伯手记12426

March 27, 2012

• 2012-03-26 14:23:11 Herr.Nos (Amantes-Amentes!)
的确,我之所以说翻译是一个精神分析意义上的问题,首先是因为翻译处理的是语言的根本相异性!在两种语言之间穿梭,转换,或者随便你用别的什么词,总之这个过程造就了语言的陌生人!陌生,我们熟悉的语言突然对我们变得陌生,何以如此?回想起弗洛伊德的怪怖者,unheimilich,因为un的压抑。

什么是欲望?或者再换一个问题,谁的欲望?

如果说翻译首先要求着译者对于原作的忠实,那么翻译的行为本身首先就涉及到的是一个伦理学的维度,你如何承认他者之为他者?这就是欲望!

再者,不可避免的是弗洛伊德著名的“翻译即背叛”,Traduttor = Tradittore!

我们为什么要把自己不断地推向这个伦理学的困境,去享受那些语言的强暴,去折磨读者和我们自己!因为这是欲望!

何不去听听拉康自己的声音,那些在研讨班中发出的声音,那才是他真正栖居的语言!无论是经过了米勒的编辑还是某人的翻译,那些声音都是从根本上无法抹去的,是存在于拉康文本中的幽灵,是欲望的对象a!鬼知道他死过几次!这就好像译本是文本的来生!我不是说作者死了,而是说声音死了!

我们忠实于谁,又背叛了谁呢?这究竟是谁的欲望?想象的认同比比皆是!何不发出自己的声音呢?翻译之产生的虚构,还是无意识的怪怖,亦或是欲望的真理?

雄伯说
Herr.Noss的这篇文字弥足珍贵。他从翻译时对于语言的熟悉与陌生,联想到弗洛伊德的怪怖uncanny。再从弗洛伊德的「翻译者即背叛者」说,联想到主体的忠实与欲望的问题?结论是一大堆他自己都迷惑的问句。

这让我想起李安导演的「色戒」。抗日时期一位充当女间谍以色诱拐汪政权的情报头子,结果自己反为情欲与爱情所迷惑。上级联络人勉励她说:「忠诚,我们都要忠诚于国家!」她惨然一笑,回说,「我现在连身体与心灵的最内层,都被掏空了,你还跟我谈忠诚?」

Herr.Noss的这些问题:「我们忠实于谁,又背叛了谁呢?这究竟是谁的欲望?想象的认同比比皆是!何不发出自己的声音呢?翻译之产生的虚构,还是无意识的怪怖,亦或是欲望的真理? 」确实是不好回答。雄伯翻译时,会有这些问题,Herr.Noss 自己困顿于谋生• 2012-03-26 12:25:11 Herr.Nos (Amantes-Amentes!) 我的问题是,雄伯能否对自己的翻译给出一个精神分析的解释?或者是理论的解释? 雄伯 理论的解释,Herr.Noss 自己的学问扎实,谈起来就头头是道,令人佩服。所以这些问题:「我们忠实于谁,又背叛了谁呢?这究竟是谁的欲望?想象的认同比比皆是!何不发出自己的声音呢?翻译之产生的虚构,还是无意识的怪怖,亦或是欲望的真理?」Herr.Noss 想要问的,我想不是理论的解释,而是想听听我自己的声音,也就是我自己对翻译持怎样的态度?或我翻译的动机及信念?如果是,那么我的回答是:我曾写过六年的雄伯手记,与骑单车,摩托车,及搭乘大巴的自助旅行遊记,自己的声音发得差不多了。现在深居简出,翻译拉康,用另外一种方式净化洗涤自己,过去与现在被语言蹂躏的污秽与不堪,免于忧郁症发作的危机。从而学习拉康发挥无限的爱endless love,以听众读者作为沟通交流的大他者,提升自己。 拉康将认同 identification 分为三类:A=A ,A=B, A=C。第一种认同A=A并非是无意义的同义反复tautology,而是符号界的拉康认同实在界the real的拉康。第二种认同A=B是主体作一个具有独特特征unary strait的单子monas,对于另外一个单子的认同,也就是对于他者的认同。第三种认同A=C是通过拉康的精神分析论述的启蒙enlighten与创造发明create and invent,所认同的大他者。只是这个大他者不同于第二种认同在符号界的大他者,而是符号界的客体跟真实界the true 的大他者的认同,这个真实界的大他者虽名为C,也具有A=A的认同在内。 头像的这段论述: 「你认同了雄伯,故而把大师当做了“他者”。故而没有看到其实“雄伯”才是他者。这正好对应了没有大他者的大他者。哈哈,我不是分析家,也不是“大师”。我也是“他者”」头像的这段论述完全是A=B的认同论述。头像完全忽略了A=A及A=C的另外两种认同的层次,而犹哈哈地洋洋自得,岂不哀乎? 之际,难道又何能独免于这些问题的困扰?Herr.Noss 能不能尝试发出自己的声音,说说看?

Seminar IX :Identification 26

March 26, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 26
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 5: Wednesday 13 December 1961

(14) This is what distinguishes the field of the unconscious, as it is revealed to us by Freud. It is itself impossible to formalise, to formulate if we do not see that at every instant it is only conceivable by seeing in it, and in the most obvious and tangible fashion, this autonomy of the subject preserved, I mean that by which the subject cannot in any circumstances be reduced to a dream of the world. I show you the reference and not the presence of this permanence of the subject.

这是无意识的这个领域被区别的原因,因为弗洛伊的跟我们显示它。无意识本身是无法说明的,假如我们没有看出,在每个瞬间,无意识仅能凭借在里面看到被保存的主体的自主权而构想它,以最明显而具体的方式。我的意思是,无论在任何情况下,主体无法被还原成为世界的一个梦。我跟你们显示这个指称,而不是主体的这个不朽性的存在。

Because this presence cannot be circumscribed except in function of this reference: I demonstrated, designated it for you the last time in this unary trait, in this function of the stroke as figure of the one in so far as it is only the distinctive trait, the trait precisely all the more distinctive in so far as there is effaced from it almost everything which distinguishes it, except the fact of being a trait by accentuating this fact that the more alike it is, the more it functions, I am not saying as a sign, but as a support for difference, and this only being an introduction to the throwing into relief of this dimension that I am trying to punctuate before you. Because in truth there is no longer any folds (“plis”): there is no ideal of similitude, of the ideal of the effacing of traits.

因为这种不朽性的存在无法被画定范围,除了以这个指称的功用:我上次用单一特征,跟你们证明及指明它,在这个笔划的功用,作为这个「一」的人物。因为它仅是这个清楚的特征,这个特征确实更加清楚,因为几乎每一样区别它的东西都从它那里被抹除掉。除了这个事实:它成为一个特征,是凭借强调这个事实:它越是相像,它发挥的功用越多。我并不是说,作为一个符号,而是作为一个对差异的支持。这个唯一是让这个维度凸显出来的导引,我正在你们面前尝试要强调的维度。因为事实上,不再有任何的折叠,没有类似的理型,这些特征被抹除的理型。

This effacing of qualitative distinctions is only there to allow us to grasp the paradox of radical otherness designated by the trait, and it is after all of little importance that each of these traits resembles one another. It is elsewhere that there resides what I called just now this function of otherness. In ending my discourse the last time I highlighted what its function was, the one which assures to repetition precisely the following that by this function, by it alone, this repetition escapes from the identity of its eternal return under the figure of the hunter notching the number (15) of what?

品质的差异的这个抹除在那里,仅是为了让我们能够理解这个特征指明的极端他者。毕竟,这些特征的每一个互相类似,并不是很重要的事情。我刚才所谓的他者的这个功用,位置在别的地方。上一次当我结束我的论述时,我强调它的功用是什么。这个功用确定重复确实会有以下的功用: 凭借这个功用,仅是凭借它,这个重复从它的永恒的回归的认同逃避出来,就像猎人雕刻什么的这个数字的形象。

Of traits that he wounded his prey, or of the divine Marquis who shows us, that even at the summit of his desire, he takes good care to count these ejaculations, and that
this is an essential dimension, in so far as it never abandons the necessity that it implies in almost any of our functions.In counting these events, the trait which counts, what is it? Are you still following me properly here?

关于他伤害他的猎物的这些特征,或是关于圣马奎斯跟你们显示的,甚至在他的欲望的顶峰,他非常细心地计算这些射精的次数。这是一个基本的维度,因为它从来没有放弃这个必要性。它用几乎是我们的任何一种功用,当他计算这些事件时,它暗示被计算的这个特征。那是什么?在这里,你们还依旧听得懂我说些什么吗?

Grasp carefully what I intend to designate, it is the following whose source is easily forgotten: it is that what we are dealing with in the automatism of repetition is the following: a cycle in however amputated, deformed, abraded way we may define it: once it is a cycle and once it involves a return to a terminal point, we can conceive of it on the model of need, of satisfaction.

请仔细理解我打算要指明的,底下的来源很容易被遗忘。在重复的这个自动机制,我们正在处理的东西如下: 我们可以定义它为一个圆圈,以无论是多么残缺,畸形,磨损的方式。一旦它是一个圆圈,一旦它牵涉到回转到一个终端,我们能够构想它,根据需要,根据满足的模式。

This cycle is repeated; it does not matter whether it is altogether the same or whether it presents tiny differences, these tiny differences will manifestly only be constructed in
order to conserve it in its function of cycle as referring to something definable as a certain type through which precisely all the cycles which preceded it are identified in the very instant as being, in so far as they are reproduced, properly speaking the
same.

这个圆圈被重复。它是否完全相同,或是否它呈现细微的差异,并无关紧要。这些细微的差异将会被建构,仅是为了保存它,在它的圆圈的功用,作为提到某件可被定义的东西,作为某种类型。通过这种类型,确实在它前面的所有的圆圈,都在那个瞬间被认同作为生命实存。因为它们被复制,适当来说,都是相同的。

Let us take to depict what I am in the process of telling you the cycle of digestion: every time we go through one, we repeat digestion. Is this what we are referring to when we speak, in analysis, of the automatism of repetition? Is it in virtue of an automatism of repetition that we go through (16) digestions which are tangibly always the same digestion?

让我们从事描述我正在告诉你们消化的这个循环,每一次我们经历一个循环,我们重复消化。这难道不是我们正在提到的东西吗?当我们在精神分析言说,关于重复的这个自动机制?难道不是凭借着重复的自动机制,我们经历各种消化,这些消化具体地说,总是相同的消化?

I will not leave you the opening of saying that up to this it is a sophism. There can be naturally incidents in this digestion which are due to the reminders of old digestions which were disturbed: effects of disgust, of nausea, linked to one another contingent linking of such a food with such a circumstance.

我将不会留下这个把柄,让你们说,直到现在,这一切都是诡辩。在这种理解,当然会有一些意外,这些意外是由于早先的理解的残留物。它们受到扰乱,厌恶的影响,呕吐,互相有关联,这样一种食物跟这样一种情境偶然的关联。

This will not for all that help us to make a step further in the distance to be covered between this return of the cycle and the function of the automatism of repetition.

尽管那样,这将不会帮助我们更深入探讨,在这个循环的这个回转,与重复的这个自动机制之间,应该被经历的距离。

Because what the automatism of repetition means in so far as we have to deal with
it, is the following: the fact is that if a determined cycle which was only that very one – it is here that there is outlined the shadow of the “trauma” which I am putting here only in inverted commas, because it is not its traumatic effect that I hold onto but only its uniquity – this one therefore which is designated by a certain signifier which can only be supported by what we will subsequently learn to define as a letter, the agency
of the letter in the unconscious this big A, the initial A in so far as it is numberable, that this cycle here, and not another is equivalent to a certain signifier, it is in this sense that the behaviour repeats itself in order to make re-emerge this signifier that it is as such, this number that it grounds.

因为重复的这个自动机制的意思是以下,因为我们必须处理它:事实上,假如一个被决定的循环仅是那个循环—就在这里,我在此正在提出的这个「创伤」的阴影被描绘轮廓,仅是以颠倒的逗号,因为我坚持的并不是它的创伤的效应,而仅是它的独特性—因此,被某种能指指明的这个循环,它仅能够被支持,被我们随后学习定义为一个「信息」,这个信息在无意识里的代理,这个大写的A,这个开始的A, 因为它是可数的。这个循环就在这里,没有另外一个能指相等于某个能指。就是这种意义,这个行为重复它自己,为了让这个能指重新出现。这就是它的本身,能指作为基础的这个数字。

If for us symptomatic repetition has a meaning towards which I am redirecting you, reflect on the import of your own thinking. When you speak about repetitive incidence in symptomatic formation, it is in so far as that which is repeated is there, not even just to fulfil the natural function of the sign which is (17) to represent something which is supposed to be actualized here, but to presentify as such the signifier that this action
has become.

假如对于我们,病征的重复拥有一种意义,我正在重新引导你们朝向这个意义,反思你们自己的思想的意义。当你们言说关于重复的意外,在病征的形成。所被重复的东西就在那里,甚至不是为了实现符号的这个自然的功用,这个符号是要代表某件被认为在此被实现的东西,但是为了代表这个行动已经成为的这个能指的本身。

I am saying that it is in so far as what is repressed is a signifier that this cycle of real behaviour is presented in its place. It is here, since I have imposed on myself to give a
precise and convenient time limit for a certain number of you to what I should present before you, that I will stop. As for the confirmation and the commentaries that all of this requires, you can count on me to give them to you in what follows in the most
appropriately articulated fashion, however astonishing their abruptness may have appeared to you, when I exposed them to you just now.

我正在说,所被潜抑的,就是真实行为的这个循环,被呈现代替它的一个能指。就在这里,因为我指定我自己,要给予一个明确而方便的时间限制,对于我应该在你们面前呈现的,为了你们有些人,我将停止。至于这一切所要求的验证与评论,你们能够信任我会给予你们,随后会以最合适的表述方式,无论你们感觉起来,它的突兀会很令人惊奇,如同我刚才跟你们显示的。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 25

March 26, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 25
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 5: Wednesday 13 December 1961

It is a tradition which is very well known under the name of alchemy or of gnosis, but which was linked precisely to a very ancient confusion and which was the one that the field of human thought remained entangled in for centuries. (10) It might seem that I am marking myself off from or that I am putting you on your guard against a mode of understanding our reference points which is that of Gestalt. Its not quite that.

这是一个众所周知的传统,以炼金术或诺斯神秘教派的名义。但是这个传统跟一种古代的混淆确实息息相关。在这个传统,人类思想的领域始终纠缠好几世纪。似乎,我正在让我自己逃避,或是我正在要求你们防卫,一种了解我们的指称点的模式,格式塔行为学派的模式。并不完全是那样。

I am far from underestimating what was contributed, at a moment in the history of thought, by the function of the Gestalt; but in order to express myself quickly and because here I am carrying out this kind of clearance of our horizon that I have to carry out again from time to time in order to avoid precisely the same confusions always re-emerging, I would introduce in order to make myself understood this distinction: what constitutes the core of some of the productions of this mode of exploring the field of the Gestalt, what I would call crystallographic Gestalt, the one
which puts the stress on these points of junction, of kinship, between natural formations and structural organisations, in so far as they arise and are definable only from the signifying combinatory, is what gives the subjective force, the efficacy of
this point which, for its part, is ontological in which there is delivered to us something of which we in effect have a real need which is to know whether there is a relationship which justifies this introduction as a sort of ploughshare of the effect of the signifier in the real.

我根本并不了解,格式塔行为学派的功能,在思想的历史的某个时刻,所贡献的是什么。但是为了很快表达我自己,因为在此我正在实现我们的视野的廓清,那是我必须再一次有时去实现的,为了避免确实就是相同的混淆总是重复出现。我将会介绍这种廓清,为了让我自己被人了解: 探索格式塔行为学派的领域的这种模式,组成它们的一些产物的核心是什么?它们是我想要称之为「水晶图形」式的格式塔学派。这个学派强调连接关系,亲属关系的这些要点,处于自然的形成与结构的组织之间。因为它们的产生与定义,仅是是根据能指化的结合。那就是给予主体化的力量的东西,这个要点的有效性,就它本身而言,是本体论。在这个本体论里,有某件我们实际上确实需要的东西,被递交给我们。那就是要知道是否有一种关系证明这个介绍是正确的,作为一种在实在界的能指的效应的耕犁。

But this does not concern us. Because it is not the field that we have to deal with; we are not here to judge the degree of naturalness in modern physics, even though it may interest us -this is what I do from time to time before you sometimes – to
show that historically it is precisely in the measure that it completely neglected the naturalness of things that physics began to enter into the real.

但是这跟我们没有关系。因为我们必须要处理的,并不是这个领域。我们在此并不是要判断现代物理属于的自然的程度,即使我们对它感到興趣。这是我有时在你们面前所做的—我跟你们显示:在历史上,它确实完全忽略事物的自然性,当物理开始探讨到实在界时。

(11) The Gestalt against which I put you on your guard, is a Gestalt which, you will observe, in opposition to what the initiators of the Gestalt theory were attached to, gives a purely confusing reference to the function of the Gestalt which is the one that I am calling the anthropomorphic Gestalt, the one which in any way whatsoever confuses what our experience contributes with the old analogical reference of the macrocosm and the microcosm, of the universal man, rather abbreviated registers
when all is said and done and which analysis in so far as it believed it could be at home in them only shows once again its relative infecundity.

我提醒你们提防格式塔行为学派,你们将会观察到,那是一种格式塔行为学派,跟格式塔行为学派的理论的创始者念兹在兹的恰好相反。它给予一种完全令人混淆的指称到格式塔行为学派的功用。那就是我称之为以人类为中心的格式塔行为学派。这种格式塔行为学派用尽一切方法,用大宇宙与小宇宙,用环球人类的古老的比喻指称,混淆我们精神分析经验的贡献。当一切都说都做了,这些比喻指称仅是缩写的铭记。它相信它能够在这些铭记里怡然自得,再一次显示,它比较不具有创造能力。

That does not mean that the images, which I humorously evoked above, do not carry a certain weight, nor that they are not there for us still to make use of them. For
ourselves the fashion in which for some time we have preferred to leave them hidden, in the shade, ought to be indicative; they are scarcely spoken about any more, except from a certain distance; they are there, to use a Freudian metaphor like one of these
shades which are ready to rise up from hell. We have not really known how to reanimate them, we have no doubt not given them enough blood to drink. But after all so much the better, we are not necromancers.

这并不意味着,我以上滑稽地引用的这些意象,并没有某种的价值。也不意味着,它们的存在,我们依旧无法运用它们。就我们自己而言,有段时间,我们宁可让它们隐藏在阴影里的方式,应该是具有指标性。它们几乎很少再被谈论,除了从某个距离。它们在那里,让我们使用一个弗洛伊德学派的隐喻,像其中的一个阴影。这些阴影准备从地狱起来。我们并没有真实地知道如何来重新激发它们。无可置疑地,我们并没有给予它们足够的血液来喝。但是毕竟,这样反而更好,因为我们并不是召魂师。

It is precisely here that there is inserted this reminder which is characteristic of what I am teaching you, which is there to completely change the appearance of things, namely to show that the living core of what the Freudian discovery contributed did
not consist in this return of old ghosts, but in another (12) relationship.

确实就是在这里,我正在教导你们的内容的特性的这个提醒被插入。这个提醒在此是要完全改变事情的外观。换句话说,要显示,弗洛伊德对无意识的发现所贡献的具体的核心,并不是在于古老鬼魂的这个回来,而是在另外一种关系。

Suddenly this morning, I rediscovered, from the year 1946, one of these little “Propos sur la causalite psychique” with which I made my re-entry into the psychiatric circle immediately after the war and there appears in this little text here (a text which appeared in connection with the Bonneval conversations), as a sort of apposition or incidence at the beginning of the same concluding paragraph, five lines before
finishing what I had to say about the imago: “More inaccessible to our eyes made for the signs of the changer” which leads to what follows: “than that of which the hunter in the desert”, I say – which I only evoke because we came across him the last
time, if I remember correctly – “knows how to see the imperceptible trace: the footprint of the gazelle on the rock, one day the aspects of the imago will be revealed”.

今天早上突然地,我重新发现,从1946年开始,有一篇文章「Propos sur la causalite psychique」。我曾以那篇文章重新进入精神分裂学的圈子,就在战争结束以后。在这篇简短的文本里出现,(这一文本内容是有关在班内瓦的对话),作为一种同位语或是相同。 这五行出现在结束我必须说到这个意象之前:「更加无法让我们的眼睛看见的,是为了这个改变者的符号象征而制作,」然后导致以下:「除了就是在沙漠中的猎人的改变者的符号象征。」我说过,我仅是引用它,因为上一次我偶然遇到他,假如我记得没错的话–「他知道如何看出这种无法感觉的痕迹:在岩石上的羚羊的足迹,有一天,这个意象的某些方面将会被显示。」

The accent is to be put for the moment on the beginning of the paragraph “more inaccessible to our eyes…” What are these signs of the changer? What signs and what change or what changer?

这个强调点暂时被放置在这个段落的开始,「更加无法让我们的眼睛看见、、、」这些改变者的这些符号象征是什么呢?是什么符号象征?什么改变?或是什么改变者?

These signs, are precisely what I have summoned you to articulate as signifiers, namely these signs in so far as they operate properly in virtue of their associativeness in the chain, of their commutativity, of the function of permutation taken as such.

这些符号象征,确实我曾经要求你们表达作为能指。换句话说,这些符号象征适当地运作,凭借它们在能指锁链里的联想,在能指的独立秩序里,在本身的换置的功能里。

And here is where the function of the changer is: the introduction into the real of a change which is not at all one of movement nor of birth nor of corruption and of all the categories of change which a tradition which we call Aristotelian sketches out, that of knowledge as such, but of another dimension where the change that is in question is defined as such in the topological combinatory which it allows us to define as the
(13) emergence of this fact, of the fact of structure, as degradation on occasion, namely the collapse in this field of the structure and the return to the capture of the natural image.

在此,这个改变者的功用是: 一个改变被介绍进入这个实在界。这个改变根本就不是诞生的运动的改变,也不是腐败及改变的所有范畴的运动的改变。我们所谓的亚里斯多德的一种传统所描绘的,知识本身的改变,而是属于另外一种维度。在那个维度,受到值疑的改变,本身被定义,以拓扑图形的结合。它让我们能够定义,作为这个事实的出现,作为结构的事实的出现,有时作为堕落,也就是说,结构领域的崩塌,回转到自然的意象的捕捉。

In short, there is sketched out as such something which is only after all the functional framework of thinking, you are going to say. And why not? Let us not forget that this word thinking is present, accentuated from the beginning by Freud, as no doubt not
being able to be other than it is, to designate what is happening in the unconscious.

总之,有某件东西的本身被描绘,毕竟,这仅是思想的功能性的架构,你们将会这样说。有何不可呢? 让我们不要忘记,「思想」这个字词出现,从一开始就被弗洛伊德强调。因为无可置疑地,思想就是思想,不是别的,为了指们在无意识所正在发生的东西。

Because it was certainly not the need to preserve the privilege of thinking as such, of some primacy or other of the spirit which could have guided Freud here. Far from
it: if he had been able to avoid this term, he would have done it. And what does that mean at this level? And why is it that this year I thought I should start, not even from Plato without mentioning the others, but moreover not from Kant, not from Hegel, but from Descartes?

因为这确实并不是这个需要,保留思想本身的这个特权,精神的原初性的特权,那本来能够引导弗洛伊德。根本不是那样,假如弗洛伊德当时能够避免这个术语,他本来会避免它。 在这个层次,那意味着什么? 为什么今年我认为我应该开始,甚至不是从柏拉图开始,而不提到其余的哲学家,而且甚至不是从康德开始,也不是从黑格尔开始,而是从笛卡尔开始。

It is precisely to designate what is in question, where the problem of the unconscious is for us, it is about the autonomy of the subject in so far as it is not alone preserved, as it is accentuated as it never was in our field and precisely about this paradox that these pathways that we discover in it are in no way conceivable if properly speaking it is not the subject who is their guide and that in a fashion which is all the more sure because it is without knowing it, without being an accomplice to it, as I might say: “conscius”, because he cannot progress towards anything nor in any way except only by locating it retrospectively, because there is nothing that is not engendered by him except precisely in the measure that he fails to recognise it at first.

这确实是要指明受到质疑的东西。对于我们而言,无意识的问题,是关于主体的解剖,因为它不仅被保存,因为它被强调,在我们的领域,那是前所未有的。确实是关于这个悖论,我们在里面所发现的这些途径,根本就无法被构想。假如适当地说,并不是主体作为他们的引导,以一个更加确定的方式,因为并不知道它,并没有成为它的共犯,我不妨这样说,「意识」,因为他无法朝向任何东西进展,也无法用任何方法,除了就是凭借反溯地找出它的位置。因为没有一样东西不是由他产生,除了确实就是主体起初无法体认出它。

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

Seminar IX :Identification 24

March 25, 2012

Seminar IX :Identification 24
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 5: Wednesday 13 December 1961

It may appear strange to you that someone who accentuates for you the pregnancy, in our articulation of the phenomena with which we have to deal, of the function of language, marks himself off here from a mode of relationship which is really fundamental in the field of logic. How can one indicate, speak, about a logic which
ought, at the very moment it begins, to mark the completely original distrust that I intend to pose about the notion of class?

你们似乎觉得奇怪,某个人跟你们强调这个孕育,我们必须处理的这些现象的表达,语言功用的表达,在此标示他的本身,从逻辑领域确实是基本的关系模式。我们如何能够指示,言说,关于应该标示这个完全是原创性的不信任的逻辑,在它开始的时刻?因为我打算提出这种完全原创性的不信任,关于分类的观念。

It is indeed precisely what makes original, distinguishes the field that we are trying to articulate here, it is not any prejudice in principle which leads me here; it is the very
necessity of our own object which pushes us so that there is developed in the course of the years, segment by segment, a logical articulation which does more than suggest, which gets closer and closer, specifically this year, I hope, to disengaging
the algorithms which allow me to describe as logical this chapter which we will have to add on to the functions exercised by language in a certain field of the real, the one of which we, as speaking beings, are the conductors.

确实是为什么我们正在尝试在此表达的这个领域,会形成是原创性及杰出的原因。这并不是原则上的任何偏见引导我们这样。而是我们自己的客体的必要性,逼使我们,在这些年的过程,一种逻辑的表达,每个段落逐步地被发展。这种逻辑的表达不仅建议,明确地就在今年,我希望它越来越跟这些轨迹分开。因为这些轨迹让我能够将这个章节描述为逻辑。我们将必须将这个章节增加到被语言发挥的这些功能,在某种的实在界的领域。其中一个领域,我们作为言说的生命实存者,就是主导者。

(6) Let us distrust therefore in the most extreme way any “Koinonia” to use a Platonic term, everything that marks a community in any genus (genre) and especially in those which are most original for us.

因此,让我们以最极端的方式,不信任任何的「灵修」,使用一个柏拉图的术语,不信任任何标示为心灵交流的社团,特别是那些对于我们是最原创性的灵修。

The three identifications probably do not form a class, even though they may nevertheless bear the same name which brings a shadow of the concept to it; it will be also no doubt up to us to account for it; if we work correctly, this does not seem to be beyond our strength.

这三种认同可能并没有形成一种分类,即使它们具有相同的名称,带给它观念的阴影。无可置疑地,那要由我们来解释它。假如我们正确的解释,这似梦并非我们的能力所不能及。

In fact, we know already that it is at the level of the particular that there always arises what is for us a universal function, and we have no reason to be too astonished by this in the field in which we move about because, as regards the function of identification, we know already – we have worked enough together to know it – the meaning of this formula: what happens, happens essentially at the level of structure; and structure, do I need to remind you, and precisely I believe that today, before taking another step I must recall it – is what we have introduced specifically as a specification in the register of the symbolic.

事实上,我们已经知道,在特殊性的这个层次,总是产生对于我们而言,属于普遍性的功用的东西。我们没有理由,太过于惊奇,对于这个领域的这个情况。我们在这个领域到处走动,因为,关于认同的这个功用,我们已经知道—我们曾经共同努力,足够来获知它—这个公式的意义: 所发生的事情,基本上发生在结构的层次的事情,我不需要提醒你们,确实我相信,今天,在採取我必须提醒它的另外一个步骤之前—结构是我们曾经明确地介绍,作为符号界的铭记的一个明确性。

If we distinguish this register of the symbolic from the imaginary and the real – I believe I should also highlight all the hesitations that there may have arisen from this neglect of something that I have never seen anyone worry himself about openly, another reason for dissipating any ambiguity on it – it is not a matter of an ontological definition, it is not fields of being that I am separating out here.

假如我区别符号界的这个铭记,跟想象界与实在界不同,我相信我也应该强调可能曾经产生的各种的犹豫,由于忽略了某件我从来没有看见过任何日公开担心的东西。另外一个理由是,我驱散了它上面的的任何模糊暧昧。问题并不是一个本体论的定义,我在此正在分开的,并不是生命实存的那些领域。

If from a certain moment on, and precisely that of the birth of these seminars, I believed I had to bring into play this triad of the symbolic, the imaginary and the real (7) it is in so far as this third element which was not at all up to then sufficiently discerned as such in our experience, is exactly to my eyes what is exactly constituted by this fact of the revelation of a field of experience.

假如从某个时刻开始,确实就是这些研讨班的诞生的时刻开始,我相信我必须运作符号界,想象界与实在界的这个三角关系。因为这第三个要素直到那时,在我们精神分析的本身,根本就没有充分地觉察。在我的眼光里,这确实是由精神分析的一个领域的启示的这个事实组成。

And, to remove any ambiguity from this term, it is a matter of the Freudian experience, I would say of a field of experimentation. I mean that we are not dealing with Erlebnis, we are dealing with a field constituted in a certain fashion up to a certain degree by
some artifice, the one inaugurated by the analytic technique as such, the complementary aspect of the Freudian discovery, complementary as the front is to the back, really stuck together.

为了从这个术语移除任何的模糊暧昧,这是弗洛伊德的精神分析经验的事情,我不妨说那是一个试验性的领域。我的意思是,我们并不是在处理「经历」,我们正在处理一个由某种方式形成的领域,有几分程度是有某种的技艺组成,这种技艺由精神分析的技术本身所开始,是弗洛伊德的发现的辅助的一面,以前面作为后面的辅助,确实连接在一块。

What is first of all revealed in this field, as you of course know is the function of the symbol and at the same time of the symbolic. From the beginning these terms had the fascinating, seductive, captivating effect which you know about, in the whole
field of culture, this shock effect from which as you know scarcely any thinker, and even the most hostile, could stand aside from.

在这个领域首先被显示的,如同你们当然知道,这是符号象征的功用,同时也是符号界的功用。从一开始,这些术语就具有你们知道的迷人,诱拐,迷惑的效应,在文化的整个领域里。这种惊吓的效应,如同你们知道的,几乎没有任何的思想家,甚至是最敌意的思想家,都无法不受影响。

It must also be said that it is a fact of experience that we have lost from this time of revelation, and of its correlation with the function of the symbol, we have lost its freshness, as one might say, this freshness which is correlative to what I called the effect of shock, of surprise, properly defined by Freud himself as characteristic of this emergence of the relationships of the unconscious, these sorts of flashes lighting up the image which were characteristic of this epoch by means of which, as one might say, there appeared to us to be included in a new way, imaginary beings, by means of which suddenly something guided their meaning properly speaking, became clear by means of a grasp which we cannot better qualify than by (8) designating them by the term Begriff, a clinging grasp, where planes stick together, the function of fixation, of some Haftung or other which is so characteristic of our relationship in this imaginary field, at the same time evoking a dimension of genesis where things are drawn out rather than evolving: a certain ambiguity which allowed the evolutionary schema to be left present, naturally implicated I would say in the field of our discoveries.

我们也必须说,从这个启示的时刻,我们已经丧失的经验, 这是个事实。从这个跟符号象征的功用的相互关系的时刻,我们已经丧失它的新鲜之感,我们不妨说,跟我所谓的惊吓,惊奇,弗洛伊德本人适当地定义为无意识的关系的出现的特性。这些种类的效应的闪现,照亮了作为这个时代的特性的意象。凭借着这个意象,我们不妨说,一些非真实的事物出现在我们面前,以新的方式被包括。凭借着这个意象,突然地,有某件东西引导它们的意义。适当地说,这个东西变得清楚,凭借着一种理解,我们最好将它的特质,根据这个「意念」的术语指明它们。这是一种持续的理解,在那里各种层面凝聚在一块,固住的功能,某种的「固念 Hatfung」,它如此地表现我们在想象界的关系的特性,同时它召唤一种开始的维度,在那里,事物被吸引出来,而不是旋转:某种的模糊暧昧让这个旋转的基模能够被听任存在,我不妨说,它当然会被牵涉到我们的发现物的领域。

How in all this can we say that when all is said and done what characterises this dead time, highlighted by all sorts of theoreticians and practitioners in the evolution of the doctrine under different headings and titles, could have happened? How did there come about this kind of slow burn which imposes on us, what is properly speaking our object here, the one in which I am attempting to guide you, of taking up again our whole dialectic on surer principles?

在这一切当中,我们如何能够说,当一切都说都做了,表现这个死的时刻的特性的,受到各种的理论学派及实践者的强调,以各色各样的名称及标题,从事信念的革命。当时这是如何发生的?赋加在我们身上的这种缓慢的燃烧,当时是如何发生的? 适当来说,就是我们在此的客体,我正在企图引导你们的这个客体,再次根据更确定的原则从事我们整个的辩证法的客体是什么?

It would be well for us to be able to designate somewhere the source of the going astray which means that in short we can say that after a certain time these glimpses only remain alive for us if we refer back to the time of their emergence, and this all the more so on the plane of the efficacity of our technique, in the effect of our interpretations, in what makes them efficacious. Why have the imagos discovered by us been in a way banalized?

我们最后能够在某个地方指明这种迷途的来源。那意味着,总之,我们能够说,经过某个时间之后,这些瞥见仅是生动地保留给予我们,假如我们回溯它们出现的时刻;这更加是如此,在我们精神分析技术的有效性层面,在我们解释的效应,在让它们成为有实际效应的东西。为什么我们所发现的这些意象曾经被陈腐化?

Is it only through a sort of effect of familiarity? We have learned to live with these ghosts, we are shoulder to shoulder with the vampire, the octopus, we live and breathe in the space of the maternal womb at least metaphorically. The comics for
(9) their part also with a certain style, the funny drawing, make these images live for us in a way that was never seen in other ages, carrying with them even the most primordial images of analytic revelation and making of them a day-to-day object of
amusement: on the horizon the spineless display and the function of the Great Masturbator preserved in the images of Dali.

那仅是凭借一种熟悉的效应吗?我们曾经学习跟这些鬼魂一起生活,我们跟吸血鬼, 八爪怪物并肩同在,我们生活并且呼吸在母亲的子宫里,至少隐喻地说。这些漫画就它们而言,也是带有某种的风格,这个滑稽的图画,它让这些意象生动地出现在我们面前,这时其他的时代从来没有被见过,它以它们表现精神分析启示的最原初的意象,并且以娱乐的日常客体来解释它们:在视野里,被保存在达利画家的意象里,「人面石身」这种没有脊柱的展示怪物及功能。

Is it because of that alone that our mastery seems to weaken in the instrumental use of these images as revelatory? It is surely not that alone, for projected – as I might say – here into the creations of art, they still preserve what I would call not only their striking but their critical force, they preserve something of their character of derision or alarm but this is not what is in question in our relationship to the person who designates them for us in the actuality of the treatment.

难道不是仅是因为这样,对于这些意象的工具性的用途,我们精神分析的理解似乎减弱作为是启示性?确实不仅是那样,我不妨说,作为被投射—在此进入艺术的创作,它们依旧保存我所谓的不但是它们强烈而且是它们重要的力量。它们保存某件它们的藐视的特性或是惊吓。但是这并不是受到质疑的东西,在我们跟这个人的关系,在精神分析治疗的实践,这个人跟我们指明它们。

Here the only plan of action that remains to us is the duty of doing good, making people laugh being a very occasional and limited way of using it. And here what we have seen happening, is nothing other than an effect of what one could call a collapse
or a degradation, the fact is that we have seen these images returning quite simply to what has been designated very well as a type of archetype, namely old rope from the store of accessories in use.

在此,保留给我们的行动的唯一计划,是行好事的责任,偶尔及有限的方式来使用它,让人们欢笑。在此,我们曾经看见所发生的事情,实实在在就是我们能够所谓的堕落的崩塌的效应。事实上,我们曾经看见这些意象仅是回转到曾经被指明作为是一种原型,换句话说,从使用中的附件的储存里的旧绳子。

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