精神病 210

精神病 210

2
Experience proves it – the more the signifier signifies nothing, the more
indestructible it is.

经验证明它,能指越是什么都不意指,它越是无法被毁灭。

They go off in a foolish direction, those who make fun of what one may
call the power of words, by demonstrating, which is always easy, the contra
dictions into which one falls with the play of a given concept, those who mock
nominalism, as it’s called, in a given philosophy.

它们朝着愚蠢的方向爆发,有些人嘲弄我们所谓的文字的力量,总是轻率地证明,我们掉入的悖论,玩弄一个特定的观念。有些人嘲弄唯名论,顾名思义,那是在特定的哲学里。

It’s of course easy to criticize what may be arbitrary or fleeting in the use
of a notion like that of society, for instance. It’s not so very long ago that this
word was invented, and it’s amusing to see what dead ends result in the real
from the notion that the society is responsible for what happens to the individual
– a notion the requirement for which was ultimately expressed in socialist
constructions. There is in effect something radically arbitrary in the emergence
of the notion of society – I’m not saying of the city. Recall that for our
friend Cicero in the above work the nation is, as it were, only the goddess of
the population – it presides over births. As a matter of fact the modern idea
of the nation is not even on the horizon of classical thought, and it is not
merely the fortunes of a word that demonstrate this to us.

当然,要批评是很容易,批评那些任意或瞬间的东西,当我们使用一个观念,譬如像是社会的观念。不久以前,这个字被杜撰。耐人寻味的是看见怎样的僵局造成真实界,根据这个观念:社会要替个人身上发生的事情负责—对于这样的观念的要求,最后在社会主义的建造里被表达。实际上,社会的这个观念的出现,具有某件任意性的东西。我并不是谈论城市。请你们回忆一下:对于我们的朋友西塞录,在以上的著作,所谓的国家仅是众多的人口的女神—它主持诞生的事情。实际上,现代对于国家的观念甚至并不是在古典思想的视阔。这不光光是文字的戏弄就能跟我们证明这些。

None of these things is self-evident. One is free to conclude from this that
doubt can be cast on the notion of society. But it’s precisely insofar as we are
able to cast doubt upon it that it’s a signifier. It’s also for this reason that it
has entered our social reality like the prow of a ship, like a ploughshare.

那些事情没有一样是自明的。我们可根据这个自由地作结论:对于社会的观念投以怀疑。但是这确实是因为我们能够对社会的观念投以怀疑。也因为这个理由,它已经进入我们的社会的现实界,像是的船之舵,像是耕犁。

When one speaks of the subjective, and even when here we call it into
question, the illusion always remains in our minds that the subjective is the
opposite of the objective, that it’s on the side of the speaker, and finds itself,
by virtue of this very fact, on the side of illusions – it either distorts or
restricts the objective. The dimension elided until now in the understanding
of Freudianism is that the subjective isn’t on the side of the speaker. It’s
something we encounter in the real.

当我们谈论到主体性,甚至当我们质疑它,在我们的心里,这个幻觉总是存在,主观性总是客体性的相反。主体性就是言说者的这一边,并且找到它自己。凭借这个事实,在幻觉的这一边。它要就是扭曲,要不就是限制客体性。这个向度闪烁不定,直到现在,在弗洛依德学派的理解是,主体性并不是在言说的这一边。主体性是我们在真实界邂逅的某件东西。

精神病 211
The real in question is no doubt not to be taken in the sense in which we
normally understand it, which implies objectivity, a confusion constantly being
made in analytic writings. The subjective appears in the real insofar as it
implies that we have opposite us a subject capable of using the signifier, the
play of signifiers. And capable of using it like us – not to signify something
but precisely to deceive us over what there is to signify. This is to use the
fact that the signifier is something other than meaning in order to present a
deceptive signifier. This is so essential that it is strictly speaking the first step
of modern physics. The Cartesian discussion of the deceptive god is a step
that is impossible to avoid for any foundation of physics in the sense in which
we understand the term

受到质疑的真实界,无可置疑地,不应该认为是这个意义,我们正常理解它的意义。暗示客体性的意义。在精神分析的著作里,这一种混淆不断地产生。主体性出现在实在界,因为暗示着:在我们的对立面,我们拥有一个能够使用能指的主体,使用能指遊戏的主体。能够像我们这样使用它—不是意指某件东西,而是确实地欺骗我们,对于所要意指的东西。那就是要使用这个事实:能指是某件绝非是意义的东西,为了要呈现一个欺骗性的能指。这是如此的重要,以致于严格地说,它是现代物理学的第一步。笛卡尔对于欺骗的神的讨论,是不可能避免的一步,为了要建立物理学的基础,根据我们理解这个术语的意义。

The subjective is for us that which distinguishes the field of science in
which psychoanalysis is grounded from the entire field of physics. It’s the
instance of subjectivity as present in the real that is the essential source of the
fact that we are saying something new when we single out, for example, these
series of apparently natural phenomena that we call neuroses or psychoses.
Do the psychoses form a series of natural phenomena? Do they fall within
a field of natural explanation? What I’m calling natural is the field of science
in which there is no one who uses the signifier to signify.

对于我们而言,主体性是区别科学的领域跟物理学的整个领域不同的地方。而精神分析学的基础却是在科学的领域。存在于真实界的主体性例子,是这个事实的重要来源。我们正在言是某件新东西的这个事实,譬如,当我们挑选出这一系列的显见的自然的现象。我们称之为神经症或精神病的现象。他们会掉落到自然解释的领域里面吗?我所谓的自然的解释,指的是科学的领域,在那里,没有人使用能指来意涵。

Please remember these definitions, because I’m only giving them to you
after having carefully decanted them.

请你们记住这些定义,因为我仅是给予你们这些定义,当我们已经仔细地让它们流露出来。

I think they are suited, in particular, to contributing the greatest clarity on
the subject of final causes. The idea of final cause is repugnant to science in
its present form, but science constantly makes use of it in a camouflaged way,
in the notion of a return to a state of equilibrium, for instance. If by final
cause one simply understands a cause that acts in advance, which tends towards
something out ahead, it’s absolutely ineliminable from scientific thought, and
there is just as much final cause in Einstein’s equations as in Aristotle. The
difference is precisely this – there is no one who uses this signifier to signify
anything – unless it’s this, which is that there is a universe.

我认为这些定义是合适的,特别是对于作为最后的原因的主体,具有豁然澄清。最后的原因的这个观念令目前这种状态的科学感到厌恶。但是科学不断地使用它,以轮廓的方式。譬如,用回转到平衡状态的观念。假如凭借最后的原因,我们仅是理解一个预先行动的原因。它倾向于朝向前头的东西。它绝对无法从科学的思想减少出来。在爱因斯坦的方程式,跟在亚里斯多德一样,最后的原因的同样地多。差异确实这个:没有人用这个能指来意指任何东西—除非是这个,有一个宇宙存在。

I was reading in Mr. [. . .] how amazed he was at the existence of the
element water – how well this shows the care that the Creator has taken with
order and, with our pleasure, for if water were not this element that is so
wonderfully fluid, heavy, and solid, we wouldn’t see little boats sailing so
beautifully on the sea. This is written and it would be a mistake to think that
the author is an idiot. It’s just that he was still a captive of the atmosphere of
a time when nature was made for speaking. We overlook this because of a
kind of purification that has taken place in our causal requirements. But this
alleged naivety was natural for people for whom everything that presents
itself with a signifying nature is made for signifying something.

我正在阅读某先生的著作,他对于作为元素的水非常惊奇。这显示创造主是多么的细心来处理这个秩序,及我们的欢乐。因为假如水不是如此奇妙地流动,沉重,而成为具体的这个元素,我们无法明白小船隻如何在海上航行得如此漂亮。这些东西被写出,假如我们认为,这位作者是痴人说梦话,那我们就错误了。那仅是因为他依旧是他所处的时代的气氛的俘奴。在那个时代,自然的形成是作为言说之用。我们忽略这个,因为我们对于因果律的要求,曾经发生某种的肃清作用。但是这种宣称的天真,对于那些人是很自然的。对于那些人,每样东西都呈现它自身,用意指的特性。每样东西都是为了意指某件东西而形成。

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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: