Archive for March, 2014

西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图 10

March 31, 2014

22. And the Curtain? Or the frame?
To see the ox we must enter into the painting. The ox is framed. The frame is in the
interior of the painting.
The painting has two doors. One in front. One in back. Let’s enter. We enter by the
front door. We’re standing in the cellar. The ox is a lamp, an enormous hanging lamp. It
is the aster of this night. It irradiates.

22、 帘幕?或框架

The ox is beautiful.
The ox shines in the darkness. Where? Back of a shop? Cellar? Tomb? The ox is a
gigantic ingot of flesh.
The ox is bound. The ox is nude.
Who are we contemplating? Samson’s truth, or Rembrandt’s. The blind, the freed, the
powerful slaughtered. The gazed upon. Who by their magnificent helplessness fill us with


The Vanquished sparkles. (Vanquished but Strong)
Nothing less ‘realistic.’ To paint this. With what admiration. What love.
The ox is hurled to the bottom. And there are no angels. The huge body is sideways.
Everything adds to the impression that someone has left it all alone.
All of a sudden I see: it’s about our captivity.

每样东西都增添这个印象: 某个人将它单独留置。


精神病 340

March 30, 2014

精神病 340

Thou art the one who will follow me presupposes, I am saying, the imaginary
assembly of those who are the supports of the discourse, the presence of
witnesses, indeed, of the tribunal before which the subject receives the warning
or the opinion that he is called upon to reply to. As a matter of fact,
unless he replies I follow you, that is, unless he complies, there is at this level
no other response open to the subject than to maintain the message in the
very state in which it was sent to him, at the very most modifying the person,
than to inscribe it as an element of his internal discourse, which whether he
likes it or not is what he has to reply to in order not to follow it. It would
strictly speaking be necessary that he precisely not follow this indication at
all onto the terrain where it calls on him to reply, that is, that he refuse to
hear. He is taken there as soon as he hears. The refusal to hear is a force that
no subject, without special gymnastic training, is really capable of. It’s in this
register that the particular force of discourse becomes apparent.


In other words, at the level we have come to the .you is the other such as I
cause him to be seen [lefais voir] by means of my discourse, such as I designate
him or denounce him, he is the other insofar as he is captured in ostension
in relation to this everybody that the universe of discourse presupposes.
But by the same token I bring the other out of this universe, I objectify him
within it, I may even designate his object relations for him, should he so
much as ask me to, as is characteristic of the neurotic. That may go quite a
long way.


Notice that it’s not entirely useless to give people what they ask for. It’s
just a question of whether it’s beneficial. In fact, if this has any incidental
effect, it’s insofar as it helps him to complete his vocabulary.

Those who
operate with object relations believe they are actually designating them, and
consequently it’s only rarely, and then by pure chance, that any beneficial
effect is produced. Completing his vocabulary may enable the subject to extract
himself from the signifying entanglement that constitutes the symptomatology
of his neurosis.


This is why things worked better whenever this addition
to the vocabulary, this Nervenanhang, to use the vocabulary of our delusional,
had still retained some of its freshness. Since then, what we have at our
disposal in our little exercise books as has greatly fallen in
value and doesn’t quite fill the function that one might hope for concerning
the resubjectification of the subject, by which I designate the operation of
extracting oneself from this signifying entanglement in which we have out-
lined the essence and very forms of the neurotic phenomenon.


To handle this
object relation correctly, one would need to understand that in this relation
it’s the neurotic who is ultimately the object. It’s even for this reason that he
got lost as subject and seeks himself as an object.



西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图 9

March 30, 2014

21. We, we have lost our heads a bit?
For we are on the road to our most violent, most foreign fellow-creature.
The Ox. The Hermit. The Turned Upside Down. The Acrobat. The Paralyzed. The
Ancient Choir. The Truth. You, as I see you when I see you as you really are: and to do
this I have to draw the curtains aside, to slaughter you, to open you up—(with my gaze
only). And then, naturally, it is me that I see, it is us, nude, it is our nuditude,8
magnificent, our power bound, our shining blindness.

21、 我们,我们已经有点迷失了我们的头脑?

Why do we adore The Slaughtered Ox? Because without our knowing it or wanting it,
it is our anonymous humanity. We are not Christ, never, Christ…no I will not speak of
Stigmata 12
We are this creature, which ‘even turned upside down and decapitated and hung
beneath the earth—when it is seen with those eyes that don’t reject the below, that don’t
prefer the above—maintains its majesty.

圣痕 12

Figure 1.3 Rembrandt, The
Slaughtered Ox, 1655. Paris, Musée du

林布兰图画1.3 「被屠宰的牛」,1966年,巴黎,罗孚宫。

Bathsheba or the interior Bible 13
Behold the portrait of our mortality. The being hung (by its shins), turned upside
down, twice decapitated.
What we become under the ax and the slicer.
There is a butcher shop on our life’s path. As children we would pass trembling before
the butcher’s window. Later on we want to forget death. We cut the dead one up into
pieces and we call it meat.

巴斯莎芭或内部的圣经 13。


精神病 339

March 29, 2014





We can’t exhaust everything proposed to us concerning the analysis of this

 verb to be by the philosophers who have centered their meditation on the

question of Dasein, and especially Mr. Heidegger, who has begun to consider

it from the grammatical and etymological angle in texts that are quite faithfully

expounded in several articles that Monsieur Jean Wahl has recently

devoted to them.




Mr. Heidegger attaches a great deal of importance to the signifier at the

level of the analysis of the word and of conjugation, as it’s usually called –

let us more accurately say declension. In German as in French this famous

verb to be is far from being a simple verb and even from being one single





It’s evident that the form suis, am, doesn’t come from the same root as

e$, art, est, is, Stes, [you] are, and as fut, [it] was, nor is there any strict equivalence

to the form iti, been. Whereas fut has an equivalent in Latin, as does

suis and the series of est, iti comes from another source, from stare. The

distribution is equally different in German where sind, [they] are, is grouped

with bist, art, whereas in French the second person is grouped with the third.


显而易见,am 的这个形式,并不是来自跟 is arewas  相同的字根。也没有任何严格的相等语,跟been 的这个形式。虽然 fut 在拉丁文有一个相等语,如同suis est 的系列,来自于另外一个来源,来自stare。在德文,这个分佈同样地不同。在德文,sind are),跟bistart 聚拢一块。虽然在法文,第二人称跟第三人称聚拢一块。


Three roots have been more or less uncovered for all the European languages,

those that correspond to sommes, [we] are, est and fut, which has been compared

with the root phusis in Greek, which is related to the idea of life and

growth. As to the others, Mr. Heidegger insists upon the two aspects, Sten

which would be closer to stare, to stand alone, and Verbahen, to last, to endure,

this sense being nevertheless attached to the source phusis. According to Mr.

Heidegger, the idea of standing erect, the idea of life and the idea of lasting,

enduring, is therefore what an etymological analysis combined with a grammatical analysis yields, and it’s out of a kind of reduction or of indeterminationcast over these senses as a whole that the notion of being emerges.


对于所有的欧洲的语言,三个字根曾经被揭露得差不多。对应于sommes, [we] are, est and fut,的那些字根,曾经被拿来跟希腊文的phusis的字根作比较。它跟生命与成长的观念息息相关。至于其他的字根,海德格坚持两个层面,比较靠近stare,单独存在的sten。而Verbahen是延续,持久。这些意义仍然跟phusis的来源息息相关。依照海德格,挺直站立的观念,生命的观念,延续,持久的观念,因此就是字源的分析跟文法的分析产生的东西。生命实存的观念的出现,就是这些时态作为整体投射的不确定的还原。


I summarize, so as to give you some idea of the thing. I must say that an

analysis of this order is rather inclined to elide, to mask, what Mr. Heidegger

is trying to initiate us into, namely that which is absolutely irreducible in the

function of the verb to be, the copulatory function pure and simple. One

would be mistaken to think that this function is disclosed through a gradual

shift in direction of these various terms.


我总结一下,为了让你们稍微理解这个物象。我必须说,这个秩序的分析相当倾向于闪躲,遮蔽。海德格尝试启发我们进入,也就是,绝对无法还原的东西,在to be这个动词的功能,纯净而简单的交媾的功能。假如我们认为,这个功能的显露,是通过缓慢的转变,朝著这些各式各样的术语的方向,那你们就错误了。


We raise this question – at what moment and by what mechanism does the

you, such as we have defined it as a form of punctuation, as an indeterminate

signifying mode of hooking on, achieve subjectivity? Well then, I believe that

it’s essentially when it’s taken in the copulatory function in pure form and in

the ostensive function. And it’s for this reason that I chose the exemplary

sentences that we started with – thou art the one who. . . .




Which element is it that, elevating the you, makes it go beyond its indeterminate

function of boredom and begins to turn it, if not into subjectivity,

then at least into something that constitutes a first step towards the Thou art

the one who wilt follow me? It is the It i$ thou who will follow me. This is

ostension, which in fact implies the presence of the assembly of all those who,

whether or not united into a community, are supposed to form its body, to

be the support of the discourse in which ostension is inscribed. This it is thou

corresponds to the second formula, namely, thou art the one who will follow







西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图 8

March 29, 2014

20. I see St Matthew and the Angel
What I love is: the proximity of the invisible.
And the hand on the shoulder. The voice’s hand. Because the mystery of the voice is
this: it is that it touches us. And also this angel so close, so flesh—who is but a head and
a hand: (The body…we imagine it.) The angel, I mean to say the voice, the body is: ‘on
tiptoe.’ It is the tension. Toward the ear we’re aiming for.

20、 我看见圣马太与天使

I approach: the truth is that the angel is a part of St Matthew. This man has an
enormous square build. He radiates force, ruggedness, the wind. He passes from the road
and the forest to the writing table. His cheeks are struck by the air. Colored by
intemperate weather. One would think an earthly sailor, a woodcutter, a giant tamed by
tenderness. A heavy handsome man touched by grace. The angel is his grace. Rembrandt
paints to the letter: that which was metaphor is made flesh. The voice comes from very
far, very near. With all his weight, with his whole forehead, his whole mane, the man
listens. The voice (of the angel) passes through his throat.


Rembrandt paints this mysterious thing that mobilizes the body: the state of creation.
Writing, thinking, is being in a state of waiting for what is yet to come, but proclaims
itself—Proclamation and imminence—a force stronger than myself comes up behind me.
And—I guess—painting is the same way, with the angel at your shoulder and eyes that
listen and do not see.


This is also the attitude of the Philosopher Meditating.7 The philosopher is ‘listening.’
He is nothing but an ear. All is audition. Slightly turned away from the light, from the
book—and from the bust. Hence pointed toward the mouth—obscure ear…
What is ‘a philosopher meditating’?
A somber conch.
Meditation takes place at the bottom of the staircase.




March 28, 2014

19. And in order to paint this, one must be dead. He paints like a dead man. Like a
poet. Like a dead man. See why Van Gogh places Rembrandt apart, elsewhere:
‘Rembrandt remains faithful to nature, even when, there too and still, he goes to the
heights, the highest heights, infinite heights, but just the same, Rembrandt could still do
otherwise when he didn’t feel the need to remain faithful, in the literal sense of the word,
like in the portrait, when he could be poet, that is to say creator.’
‘That is what he is in the Jewish Bride.’


‘– What an immensely profound, noble sentiment. One must die several times in order
to paint like this, now this is a remark one could apply to him.’
‘Rembrandt penetrates so far into the mystery that he says things no language can
express. It is just of us to say of Rembrandt: the Magician… This is not an easy craft.’6
The craft of death isn’t easy. What does that mean?



For example this: it isn’t with the appetite of desire that Rembrandt paints Bathsheba.
It is with attentive love for the creature, for the miracle of existing. The profound
amazement, joyous without splendor, almost pious before this invention: the human
being. Nothing royal. Nothing extraordinary. The sober splendor of the ordinary. What is
marvelous: the ordinary metamorphosis: these people are subject to alteration, to time.
Time is at work. And not just time. Everything that endlessly paints us from the inside.
All the blows and messages that knock at the door to the heart, and paint from the inside
the troubled nervous agitation we call soul. (The soul, our capacity to suffer, said

譬如这个:林布兰绘画巴斯莎芭,并不是带着欲望的品味。而是带着对于人作为生物的专注的热爱,对于生命实存的奇迹。这种深奥的惊奇,没有辉煌的欢愉,在这种发明之前的近乎虔诚:人类。没有皇家的东西,没有特别的东西。属于普通人的清醒的辉煌。令人叹为观止的东西是: 普通人的蜕变:这些人们隶属于轮换,隶属于时间。时间在运作。不仅是时间。每一样从内部无止境地绘画我们的东西。所有敲打到心扉之门,然后从内部绘画受到骚乱的神经的激动的打击与讯息。我们称它们为灵魂。(灵魂就是我们承受痛苦的能力,茨维塔耶娃说。)

That which wells up in Bathsheba, that which the letter has poured into her body, into
her organs, into her brain, and which is working on her body, her face, her brow, from the
She’s listening to this: this transformation in herself. Which is still new, mobile,
momentary. She doesn’t know who, shortly, she’ll be.
Traversed, St Matthew too? Transfixed. Cocked. All ears. He paints us listening to
ourselves change.
On the one hand he paints.
The heavy
of Bathsheba


On the other he paints the Voice that causes writing.
– The Voice—How to paint the Voice?
– We don’t see the voice.
Rembrandt paints the voice we do not see.
paints what we do not see.
paints what speaks inside…
the word The Angel



西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图 6

March 27, 2014

17. I’ve just seen, in the collection: The Lacemaker, The Astronomer by Vermeer. The
Erasmus by Holbein.
The Lacemaker is a sublime still life. I remained in contemplation before the light and
shadow of the lacemaker’s fingers. The sculptured aspect of the light. The Lacemaker is a
Cézanne by its ridges. The Lacemaker is perfect. In its every detail. It is a treasure chest
full of precious colors. It isn’t lacking in anything. We feel a great satisfaction. Like
before the perfection of a doll’s house: everything is there, down to the smallest cooking
pot. And into the bargain there are those yellows. Everything is in order in the house.
Erasmus hasn’t changed. It’s really him, today as three centuries ago, the same dry,
thin-lipped man. Erasmus’s appearance hasn’t changed in three centuries. It is a
photograph. There is no interior. Holbein is the master of the genial splendor of realism. I
imagine the surprise of his contemporaries. Such a resemblance!
(It seems that certain buyers would complain about the lack of resemblance in
Rembrandt’s portraits. What must resemblance resemble?)

17、 我刚刚在收集里看见:维米尔画的「蕾丝制造者」,「天文学家」。荷宾的「伊拉玛斯」。


18. Why do I place Rembrandt above, elsewhere, apart? Since forever?
No realism: what he paints is a woman hidden under the appearance of Bathsheba. He
paints the precise passing instant, the instant that is the door to eternity. In the instant is
the eternity.
Stigmata 10In Rembrandt truly no realism. To what degree it is the soul he paints, the soul in flesh
and in light, can be seen by the indifference he manifests for the ‘realistic description’ of
the body. The position is impossible. I tried. But this is of no importance. It is the soul
that presses the thighs together.

18、 为什么我将林布兰放在上面,别的地方,隔离开来。从什么时候以后?

He paints a woman struck by a letter, carried outside of herself and whom he calls—
we call—Bathsheba.
He paints the bruised heart of Bathsheba. He paints the slight and uncertain intensity.
Rembrandt paints the secret: the trace of what escapes us: he always paints what
escapes us: what has just happened, what is going to happen, and which traverses us
suddenly, pierces us, turns us upside down, escapes—beyond the painting, beyond
thought, and leaves us there panting, suspended, grazed, he paints the body that remains,
maybe the skin, maybe the cadaver.
The painting is the place of passage.



西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图 5

March 27, 2014

14. The Violence of the Letter.
At first I didn’t see it. The letter.
Little by little the letter captures the gazes.
At first I looked at the body.
This body that lets itself fall into itself.
That weighs. Weighing. For? Against?
I looked at the body’s dough. The flesh furnishes. Without muscles. (See the muscled
thighs of the Woman Bathing.)
A despondency, a prostration. Of an animal that knows itself promised. To the
‘The body lowers its head.’
(It seems there has been a pentimento3 of the head.)
(Whereas all the women rise, in one way or another. Even the modest ones, even
Hendrickje. They have muscles or a cap.)
Bathsheba is drooping. Slightly.
Chin drooping.
An indolence has seized her.
Dejection? Resignation?
How she holds the letter: Weariness. She might drop it.

14、 信息的暴力

15. (N.B. the victory of the letter: the slow rise to the surface, the insistence.)
So there is a letter.
There is always a letter.
The letter, what violence! How it seeks us out, how it aims at us!
Especially women.
And more often than joy, it is some death it brings to us.
I don’t know why I hadn’t seen it. And you?


What’s a letter, next to a big body full of buttered light? a crumpled paper, next to
these unctuous linens?
Suddenly I am letterstruck. And I see only it.4 This letter! no, it’s a hole in the body of
the painting, the rent, the tear in the night. It I see the letter, I no longer see Bathsheba.
And now that I have my eyes on the letter, I see that it’s the letter that spills this shadow
on to Bathsheba’s left leg. This letter is in opposition. To the veil. To the linen.
To the reading. It is a letter from the back. It turns its back to us. When I wanted to
read it: forever forbidden. To paint a letter seen from the back! The Door is closed. It is
David, an old tale whispers to me.


David is the outsider. The outside. The arranger.5 Invisible.
‘David and Bathsheba,’ that’s it: it is Bathsheba to the letter… The letter resounds
throughout the entire painting.

This painting is divided more or less into two triangles.
Shadow of gold and (carnal) light of flesh.
In the center, the stroke of the letter.

15、 大卫王是外人。在外面。陌生人,隐而不见。


16. The letter has just been read.
The two women are under the letter’s sway.
The letter has taken their breath away. Has dispatched them over there into the closed
time, before the closed doors to the future.
Here in the painting, in the tent, they have already past, the present already past falls in
heavy folds toward the bottom.

16、 这封信息刚刚被阅读。

How white the letter is in the middle of the painting. Of a shadowy rosy whiteness.
The letter is within the scale, so it is a part of Bathsheba’s colors.
Letter one neither holds on to nor drops. Holds the entire painting under the
indecipherable charm of its breath.
And how red the stain is at the corner of the letter.


Like a signature. The mark on the shoulder. A touch of purple on the white. Sign or
signature. Piece of red seal? A bit of wax. So is it realistic? No, it is red. It is an element.
Portrait of Sadness: presentiment of mourning.
Bathsheba’s sadness:
She becomes sad under the insistence of our gaze.
The mouth made for smiling, the mouth doesn’t droop.
The sadness is in the brow: the brow slightly rises like thought slightly rises as it
attempts to think farther.




March 26, 2014

12. The older woman further down at the bottom is a remainder. She comes back to us
from this drawing (see Figure 1.2).
Bathsheba is also then this other woman.
The woman with the cap is: Bathsheba’s strange foreignness, her exoticism, Asia.
Nude with a cap! extravagance: something aberrant in the coifed nudity.
And the coif: oriental…

12、 在底端稍远处的这位老妇人,是个剩余者。她从这幅图画回到我们。(请看图画1.2)

This nude cut in two: the body is Bathsheba’s the coif is the older woman’s… The
cap! is at work.
The ‘servant’s’ gaze moves off toward the future in the East.
Bathsheba’s gaze withdraws toward the occidental future.
The two gazes descend slowly, toward the bottom.
Cross each other, don’t see each other. Are on two parallel planes.
The two women withdraw from the scene thoughtfully.


The ‘servant’ wipes Bathsheba’s feet distractedly. She is elsewhere. They are
elsewhere. In soul they are elsewhere. The body, left, weighs more heavily.
Bathsheba or the interior Bible 7What is the ‘servant’ thinking about? These two women are day-dreaming of the end
of the year. At the end of the year, a path will have been lost,
The end of the year…


At first glance, at tenth glance, this is the face that at first I see. I should say: this
demi-face. We call this: profile. In fact it is a side, a half, a demi-star. The other side
belongs to the night. I will never know then but half of Bathsheba, the illuminated part.


Figure 1.2 Fragment of a drawing by
Rembrandt. London, Victoria & Albert

图画1.2 林布兰德图画片断,伦敦,维多利亚与阿伯特博物馆。

Stigmata 813.
Something unreadable catches my eyes. Maybe this, I tell myself, after a long
time: it is something that glides from head to toe. A motion-less movement, a
transformation. Now I see it, it is time, and even: it is time’s writing, it is age. From the
young head, the body goes forward, aging imperceptibly. Ah! so that’s what was gripping
my heart. This young woman is in the process of aging. The future is spreading through
her limbs. Her breasts are still childlike, already her pelvis, her thighs, her legs are in the
hands of age.
What? I mustn’t say this? But this is nonetheless what Rembrandt paints: the passion
(the suffering) of Bathsheba, starts here, in the body, between the knees,
where floats…the letter.

圣痕 8.13



March 26, 2014

9. With what is she painted?
Van Gogh said that Delacroix said that Veronese painted white blonde naked women
with a color which, by itself, greatly resembles street mud.
Van Gogh wants to paint with the earth. To mould.
With what mud is Bathsheba painted? With what earth?
With the flesh’s butter. With ghee. That rosy blond butter.
Bathsheba nude.
I see Rembrandt painting the veil (that doesn’t hide a thing) on her groin.
Rembrandt grazing Bathsheba’s groin with a veil.
The veil, a nothing that creates the nudity.
Without this transparent nothing we would forget she is nude.
Bathsheba is in person. In a dressing gown. In body.
It is the body that is the face.

9、 她被用什么来画成?

10. She does not look at us. She is of those who do not look at us. I mean to say: those
women, Bathsheba, Mary, Hendrickje, don’t look at us, don’t stop living, (that is to say
dreaming, that is to say leaving) in order to look at us.
Stigmata 6
They withdraw, they take their leave slowly, a thought carries them toward the
unknown, far away. We hear—barely—the call from afar—
And we, looking at them, we see thought taking its leave. We see thought. It is a
portrait of thought, according to Rembrandt. Thought is not the weighty thinker seated. It
passes, inside, distracted, traveling, it is the foreigner, the stranger.
He paints the foreigner, the stranger in me, in you.
The times when under the letter’s sway—
we suddenly become the stranger, the foreigner in ourselves. We separate ourselves
from ourselves. We lose ourselves. From sight also.

10、 她并没有观看我们。她属于没有观看我们的人之一。我意图要说的是,那些女人。巴斯莎芭,马丽亚,亨瑞杰,她们并没有观看我们,没有停止活着(换句话说,没有停止作梦,换句话说,没有停止离开)为了观看我们。

He catches, paints, the point of departure. The hour, when destiny slips from our eyes.
Everything seems domestic. And yet such a strangeness wells up in our eyes, like
tears. It’s that she is already gone, she who is called Bathsheba. But the body remains.
That much more body, that much more flesh, that much heavier here, now that she-
Bathsheba is elsewhere.
The face is traveling: a great silence reigns in the painting. ‘What are you thinking
about?’ we wonder.


11. A nude woman thinking. ‘Thoughtful body.’
On the one hand the thoughtfulness accentuates the nudity: naked nudity. Nudity unthought.
Un-attended to, un-kept. Given.
(What does a naked woman think about—her rapport to her body, always the slight
attention, like a veil, the glance or the gaze. Whenever I’m naked, I don’t look at myself,
I cast a glance my way (—the glance of the other, of you/me at me)—But no, Bathsheba
does not look at her body. She is not before herself. She is not here. She is gone, behind
her eyelids.)
On the other hand, the person who thinks in front of us, abandons us. A very slight
betrayal rouses us: we miss her a little, she who is (only a little bit here) absent.
Distracted, she is abstracted from us.
‘He doesn’t paint great Historical subjects (said a contemporary). He paints
thoughts…’ (Roger de Piles, 1699, Paris).
(He paints thoughtfulness. This absence in the body. This leave-taking by the soul that
leaves the body deserted like a living tomb. We think: we’re parting.

11、 一位裸体的女人在思想。「会思想的身体」。
「他并没有绘画伟大的历史的主体(一位当代人说)。他绘画思想、、、(1966年,巴黎,Roger de Piles,)