Archive for March, 2014

西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图

March 25, 2014

8. Of what secret lights are we made?

Of what densities?

What Rembrandt gives back to us: the dough, the depth, the tactile, that which we

lose, which we have lost, we who live flat, without density, in silhouettes on a screen: the

interior radiance.

– A scene by Rembrandt (let’s take a family scene, or a scene like this one, a scene of

‘corporation’), what gives it its force—by which it takes us, pushes us, pinches us,

caresses us, is, beyond courtly war exchanges—beyond pretenses, codes…

– that it always occurs at the same time in the cellar in the cave or in the forest, in

these great and somber prehistoric cathedrals where our colors, our drawings stir, where

attraction and repulsion shine, like lanterns in our obscurity. It is there (to the bottom)

Bathsheba or the interior Bible 5that Rembrandt leads us. Taking the red staircase, down to the bottom of ourselves, underthe earth’s crust,

This world is full of night and of golden stuff. The stuff of night is a clay. A mud. It is

still moving, imperceptibly.

 

6、  我们是由什么秘密的光组成?

林布兰还给我们的东西:肉身,深度,触觉,我们丧失的东西。我们已经丧失的东西,我们平实生活的东西,没有激情,仅是萤幕上的轮廓:内部的光辉。

—林布兰的一个场景(让我们採用一个家庭的场景,或像这样的一个场景,公司的场景),给予它力量的东西—凭借这个力量,它带领我们,逼迫我们,捏紧我们,爱抚我们,它超越宫廷的权谋交换,超越伪装,密码、、、

—它总是同时发生在地窖,在洞穴,或在森林,在这些伟大而暗淡的史前教堂。在那里,我们的颜色,我们的图画骚动着。在那里,吸引与排斥闪耀着,就像我们的朦胧里的灯光。就在那里,(到达底端),林布兰引导我们到巴斯莎芭或内部的圣经。走这道红色的楼梯,一直到我们自己的底层,在泥土的外壳底下。

这个世界充满了夜晚与黄金般的质料。夜晚的质料是泥土。泥巴。它依旧在移动,不知不觉地。

No landscape and no ‘furniture’ either. Instead of furniture, ‘shelving,’ ‘shelves’ of

color. Bands, brush strokes. What do you see, there?

A man said to me, here’s a cupboard. With linens piled up.

Another man, this one a painter: an architectural background, a pilaster.

A commentator said to me: the curtain has been drawn aside.

We have such a need of cupboards, of curtains, such a need to furnish.

 

没有风景,也没有「傢具」。没有傢具,「橱架」,颜色的「架子」。带子,刷子的笔画。你们在那里看见什么?

有个人对我说,在此是一个橱柜。堆满内衣。

另外一个人说,这个是一位画家:建筑的背景,

 

The interior world is full of night and of golden stuff, of the stuff of night. Spools of

Curtains? The curtains have been drawn aside? The stuff, the linens, the dark golds,

the white golds, border on, play in major and minor, the body’s blond gold.

The entire room is flesh. Sex.

The ‘curtains’ have raised themselves like eyelids, uncovering the clear pupil: the

luminous body of Bathsheba.

 

内部的世界充满夜晚与黄金的质料,夜晚的质料。夜晚的线轴。

帘幕?帘幕已经被拉开一边。质料,内衣,黑色的黄金。

白色的黄金,迹近于身体的棕色的黄金,主要与次要的扮演。

整个的房间是肉身。性。

这个「窗帘」已经拉起,就像眼皮,显露清楚的瞳孔:巴斯莎芭堤闪亮的身体。

 

I notice: ‘the sensation of curtains drawn aside.’ As if our naïveté were thinking: this,

this light in the cup of flesh, only exists hidden, preserved. It’s intimacy. We can never

see it, except by indiscretion.

(See the incredible Holy Family at the Curtain: it’s about magic: how to make us feel

the intimacy of intimacy, the intimitude?2 We are graced with being shown what is

hidden behind the curtain: same gesture as for gazing at a baby in its cradle: we lean over,

pull the sheet aside, the veil, the curtain, taking care not to tear it from its intimacy.

Bathsheba in the cradle, sleeps before us, very near, very far from us.)

It’s about the discrete sensation of ‘revelation.’

We see a mixture of slowness and agitation. The moment ‘just after’—not yet. It does

not yet have a name.

 

我注意到:「窗帘被拉开一边的感知」。好像我们的纯真者正在思维:在肉身的杯子的这个光,仅是隐藏地,保留地存在着。那是「亲密」。我们永远没有办法看见它,除了凭借不谨慎。

 

(请你们观看在帘幕那里的不可思议的神圣家庭。那是关于魔术:如何让我们感觉亲密的亲密,亲密者?我们被给予恩典,被显示帘幕背后隐藏的东西。相同的姿态,关于凝视在摇篮里的婴孩。我们倾靠过去,拉开被单,遮盖,帘幕,小心不要将它跟它的亲密性撕开。

巴斯莎芭在摇篮里,在我们面前睡着,非常靠近,跟我们很远。)

这是关于启示的分开的感觉。

我们是缓慢与激动的混合物。「刚刚过去」的时刻—还没有。它还没有一个名字。

 

雄伯译

 

精神病 337

March 25, 2014

精神病337

雅克、拉康

 

There would be many other things to say about this if we went into the

details. Much use would have to be made of expressions like this you’ve only

got to. . . which we use to get rid of our interlocutor. It’s something that has

so little to do with only that the lapsus quite spontaneously slides into to do

this. It’s turned into something that declines, that is inflected – the you’ve

only got to . . . does not have the value of reducing this something that allowed

some very enlightening semantic remarks.

 

假如我们进入细节,将会有许多其他东西可说。我们将必须善加利用这些表达,诸如你只要、、、做这个」。我们使用这个表达来摆脱我们的对话者。口误自动自发地变成做这个」,跟这个只要」,并没有多大关系。它转变成为某件衰退的东西,也就是字尾变化。这个你只要」并没有拥有简化这个某件东西的价值,容许某些具有启蒙的语意的谈论的东西。

 

What’s important is that you grasp that the you is a long way from having

a uni vocal value and is therefore a long way from permitting us to hypostatize

the other. The you is in the signifier what I call a way of hooking the other,

of hooking him in discourse, of fastening meaning to him. It should in no

way be confused with the allocutor, that is, he to whom one is speaking. This

is obvious, as it’s very often absent. In imperatives, where the allocutor is

implied in the most manifest of ways, and around which a certain register of

language known as the simple locutory has been defined, the you doesn’t appear.

 

重要的是,你们理解到,这个你」根本就没有一个单一声音」的价值。因此,根本不容许我们将他者构想为实体。这个你」在能指那里就是我所谓的跟他者挂钩的方式,将他者挂钩在辞说里,将意义附著于他。它根本就不应该跟对谈者混淆。换句话说,不应该跟我们正在言说的对象混淆。这是显而易见的,因为它往往是缺席。在祈使句当中,对谈者以最明显的方式暗示着。环绕这位对谈者,某个语言的铭记,被认知是单纯的对谈」被定义,这个你」并没有出现。

 

There is a sort of limit that begins at the signal – I mean the articulated

signal. Fire! is undeniably a sentence, and one only has to utter it to appreciate

that this is something that provokes a reaction. Then there is the imperative

Came here! which necessitates nothing. One stage further on and the

you is implicated, for example, in that order in the future tense I was speaking

about before, this .you which is a hooking-up [accrochage] in discourse, a way

of situating it in the curve of meaning that Saussure represents for us, parallel

to this curve of the signifier.2 Thejou is the hooking of the other in the waters

of meaning.

 

对于这个讯息,有某种的限制开始。我指的是被表达的讯息。火灾!」无可否认是一个句子。我们只需要表达它,就会欣赏到,这是某件提供反应的东西。因此,请来这里!」的这个祈使句,并没有需要任何东西。假如再更加深入一个阶段,这个你」就会被牵涉到。譬如,我以前正在谈论的未来时态的那个秩序。在辞说里挂钩的这个你」。这是一种定义它的方式,在索绪尔跟我们代表的意义的弯曲,对比于能指的这个弯曲。这个你」就是它者挂钩在意义的水域里。

 

In the final analysis, if we pursue our apprehension, or our metaphor, to

its radical end, this term that is used to identify the other at a point in these

waters is a form of punctuation.

 

追根究底,假如我们追寻我们的理解,或是我们的隐喻,一直到强烈的极端。这个术语被使用来认同他者,在这些水域的某个点,这个术语是停顿的一种形式。

 

Reflect on this fact, which is made particularly evident in unsectioned Ianguages, that punctuation is what plays the most decisive role of hooking up,

so much so that a classical text may vary in its entirety according as you place

it at one point or another. I would even say that this variability is used to

increase die richness of interpretation, the variety in the sense of a text. All

those interventions known as commentaries in relation to traditional texts

play precisely upon the way punctuation is apprehended or fixed in any given

 

请你们对这个事实反思一下。在没有被区分的各种语言里,这个事实特别地明显。停顿在挂钩扮演决定性的角色。以致于在它的完整性,古典的文本可能会有所不同。依照你们将它放置在某个点而定。我甚至说,这种各有不同被用来增加解释的丰富。从文本的意义来说,就是多样性。所有的这些介入,众所周知作为跟传统文本相关的评论。它们的扮演,确实是根据停顿被理解或被固定,在某个特定的情况。

 

 

The question is this – if the .you is a signifier, a punctuation by which the

other is secured at a point of meaning, what is required to elevate it to subjectivity?

 

问题是这个:假如你是一个能指,根据这个停顿,大者被获得,在意义的某个点。为了提升这个能指到主体性,什么被需要?

 

This you, unsecured in the substratum of discourse, in its pure

carriage – this you, which by itself isn’t so much what designates the other as

what enables us to act upon him, but which also is always present in us in a

state of suspension, comparable in every way to these otoliths I spoke about

the other day, which enable us, with a bit of guile, to conduct little crustaceans

about at will with an electromagnet3 this you which for us, insofar as

we leave it free and in suspension within our own discourse, is always liable

to exercise this conduction about which we can do nothing but oppose it and

respond to it – what is required to elevate this .you to subjectivity so that, in

its form as signifier, present in discourse, it becomes the supposed support

of something that is comparable to our ego and yet isn’t our ego, that is to

say, the myth of an other?

 

这个你」,在辞说的次级阶层,并没有被获得,在它的纯粹的马车里这个你」的本身,并不是指明他者,作为让我们能够依靠他来行为的东西。也是总是存在于我们身上,处于悬浮的东西,可以比喻为前天我谈论到底这些平衡分子。它们让我们能够带着些微狡计地用磁铁随意主导甲壳鱼类。对于我们而言,这个你」,总是容易运用这一样的主导,当我们让它在我们自己的辞说之内,自由而悬浮。关于这种主导,我们仅能反对它,并不回应它。为了提升这个你」到主体性,什么被要求?主体性作为能指的形式,出现在辞说里,它变成某件东西被假定的支持。这个东西可比喻为我们的自我,可是又不是我们的自我。换句话说,它是他者的神话。

 

This is the question that interests us, since it isn’t so astonishing to hear

people speaking their internal discourse out loud in the manner of psychotics,

a little bit more than we do ourselves. The phenomena of flight of ideas were

observed long ago. They’re comparable to the testimony we gather from a

psychotic in every way, except that the subject doesn’t believe himself to be

under the influence of a scrambling device.

 

这就是我们感到興趣的问题,因为听到人们用精神病的方式,大声谈论他们的内部的辞说,比起我们,还更加过之,这并没有好大惊小怪。很久以前,观念的逃离的现象就被观察到。它们可被比喻为我们从精神病的各方面收集到的证词。除了,主体并不相信他自己是受到模糊策略的影响。

 

We shall simply say that this you presupposes an other who, in short, is

beyond him. How does this come about? Our next step should be situated

around an analysis of the verb to be.4

 

我们仅是说,这个你」预先假设一位大者。总之,这位大者超越于他。这是如何发生的呢?我们的下一步,应该被定位,环状成为生命实存」的分析。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Http://springhero.wordpress.com

 

精神病337

雅克、拉康

 

There would be many other things to say about this if we went into the

details. Much use would have to be made of expressions like this you’ve only

got to. . . which we use to get rid of our interlocutor. It’s something that has

so little to do with only that the lapsus quite spontaneously slides into to do

this. It’s turned into something that declines, that is inflected – the you’ve

only got to . . . does not have the value of reducing this something that allowed

some very enlightening semantic remarks.

 

假如我们进入细节,将会有许多其他东西可说。我们将必须善加利用这些表达,诸如你只要、、、做这个」。我们使用这个表达来摆脱我们的对话者。口误自动自发地变成做这个」,跟这个只要」,并没有多大关系。它转变成为某件衰退的东西,也就是字尾变化。这个你只要」并没有拥有简化这个某件东西的价值,容许某些具有启蒙的语意的谈论的东西。

 

What’s important is that you grasp that the you is a long way from having

a uni vocal value and is therefore a long way from permitting us to hypostatize

the other. The you is in the signifier what I call a way of hooking the other,

of hooking him in discourse, of fastening meaning to him. It should in no

way be confused with the allocutor, that is, he to whom one is speaking. This

is obvious, as it’s very often absent. In imperatives, where the allocutor is

implied in the most manifest of ways, and around which a certain register of

language known as the simple locutory has been defined, the you doesn’t appear.

 

重要的是,你们理解到,这个你」根本就没有一个单一声音」的价值。因此,根本不容许我们将他者构想为实体。这个你」在能指那里就是我所谓的跟他者挂钩的方式,将他者挂钩在辞说里,将意义附著于他。它根本就不应该跟对谈者混淆。换句话说,不应该跟我们正在言说的对象混淆。这是显而易见的,因为它往往是缺席。在祈使句当中,对谈者以最明显的方式暗示着。环绕这位对谈者,某个语言的铭记,被认知是单纯的对谈」被定义,这个你」并没有出现。

 

There is a sort of limit that begins at the signal – I mean the articulated

signal. Fire! is undeniably a sentence, and one only has to utter it to appreciate

that this is something that provokes a reaction. Then there is the imperative

Came here! which necessitates nothing. One stage further on and the

you is implicated, for example, in that order in the future tense I was speaking

about before, this .you which is a hooking-up [accrochage] in discourse, a way

of situating it in the curve of meaning that Saussure represents for us, parallel

to this curve of the signifier.2 Thejou is the hooking of the other in the waters

of meaning.

 

对于这个讯息,有某种的限制开始。我指的是被表达的讯息。火灾!」无可否认是一个句子。我们只需要表达它,就会欣赏到,这是某件提供反应的东西。因此,请来这里!」的这个祈使句,并没有需要任何东西。假如再更加深入一个阶段,这个你」就会被牵涉到。譬如,我以前正在谈论的未来时态的那个秩序。在辞说里挂钩的这个你」。这是一种定义它的方式,在索绪尔跟我们代表的意义的弯曲,对比于能指的这个弯曲。这个你」就是它者挂钩在意义的水域里。

 

In the final analysis, if we pursue our apprehension, or our metaphor, to

its radical end, this term that is used to identify the other at a point in these

waters is a form of punctuation.

 

追根究底,假如我们追寻我们的理解,或是我们的隐喻,一直到强烈的极端。这个术语被使用来认同他者,在这些水域的某个点,这个术语是停顿的一种形式。

 

Reflect on this fact, which is made particularly evident in unsectioned Ianguages, that punctuation is what plays the most decisive role of hooking up,

so much so that a classical text may vary in its entirety according as you place

it at one point or another. I would even say that this variability is used to

increase die richness of interpretation, the variety in the sense of a text. All

those interventions known as commentaries in relation to traditional texts

play precisely upon the way punctuation is apprehended or fixed in any given

 

请你们对这个事实反思一下。在没有被区分的各种语言里,这个事实特别地明显。停顿在挂钩扮演决定性的角色。以致于在它的完整性,古典的文本可能会有所不同。依照你们将它放置在某个点而定。我甚至说,这种各有不同被用来增加解释的丰富。从文本的意义来说,就是多样性。所有的这些介入,众所周知作为跟传统文本相关的评论。它们的扮演,确实是根据停顿被理解或被固定,在某个特定的情况。

 

 

The question is this – if the .you is a signifier, a punctuation by which the

other is secured at a point of meaning, what is required to elevate it to subjectivity?

 

问题是这个:假如你是一个能指,根据这个停顿,大者被获得,在意义的某个点。为了提升这个能指到主体性,什么被需要?

 

This you, unsecured in the substratum of discourse, in its pure

carriage – this you, which by itself isn’t so much what designates the other as

what enables us to act upon him, but which also is always present in us in a

state of suspension, comparable in every way to these otoliths I spoke about

the other day, which enable us, with a bit of guile, to conduct little crustaceans

about at will with an electromagnet3 this you which for us, insofar as

we leave it free and in suspension within our own discourse, is always liable

to exercise this conduction about which we can do nothing but oppose it and

respond to it – what is required to elevate this .you to subjectivity so that, in

its form as signifier, present in discourse, it becomes the supposed support

of something that is comparable to our ego and yet isn’t our ego, that is to

say, the myth of an other?

 

这个你」,在辞说的次级阶层,并没有被获得,在它的纯粹的马车里这个你」的本身,并不是指明他者,作为让我们能够依靠他来行为的东西。也是总是存在于我们身上,处于悬浮的东西,可以比喻为前天我谈论到底这些平衡分子。它们让我们能够带着些微狡计地用磁铁随意主导甲壳鱼类。对于我们而言,这个你」,总是容易运用这一样的主导,当我们让它在我们自己的辞说之内,自由而悬浮。关于这种主导,我们仅能反对它,并不回应它。为了提升这个你」到主体性,什么被要求?主体性作为能指的形式,出现在辞说里,它变成某件东西被假定的支持。这个东西可比喻为我们的自我,可是又不是我们的自我。换句话说,它是他者的神话。

 

This is the question that interests us, since it isn’t so astonishing to hear

people speaking their internal discourse out loud in the manner of psychotics,

a little bit more than we do ourselves. The phenomena of flight of ideas were

observed long ago. They’re comparable to the testimony we gather from a

psychotic in every way, except that the subject doesn’t believe himself to be

under the influence of a scrambling device.

 

这就是我们感到興趣的问题,因为听到人们用精神病的方式,大声谈论他们的内部的辞说,比起我们,还更加过之,这并没有好大惊小怪。很久以前,观念的逃离的现象就被观察到。它们可被比喻为我们从精神病的各方面收集到的证词。除了,主体并不相信他自己是受到模糊策略的影响。

 

We shall simply say that this you presupposes an other who, in short, is

beyond him. How does this come about? Our next step should be situated

around an analysis of the verb to be.4

 

我们仅是说,这个你」预先假设一位大者。总之,这位大者超越于他。这是如何发生的呢?我们的下一步,应该被定位,环状成为生命实存」的分析。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Http://springhero.wordpress.com

 

西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图

March 24, 2014

6. One must penetrate into the country (—says Van Gogh—stay in the Midi, until, by
penetration, you become it).
Sharpen one’s eye on the land.
Cézanne being absolutely from the very land, he knows it so intimately, one must
make the same calculation internally in order to arrive at tones like this (Firm tones).1
Rembrandt’s very land? Neither the city, nor the countryside. The interior land: ‘the
landscape of the interior Bible.’ I say the Bible, that is to say, the land of the most ancient
passions, it is a land without landscape, without monuments. But not without form and
without inhabitants.
How to get there? How to get inside a star, Van Gogh wondered? The fastest method
of transportation is not the train, it’s death.
And to get inside the interior Bible? One must take the stairs, and plunge into the
flesh. Down to the farthest memory.

6、 我们必须穿透进入乡下(梵谷说:停留在米地,直到凭借穿透进入,你成为它。)
让我们的眼睛锐利地观看这块土地。
塞尚绝对来自这块土地,他如此亲密地知道它。我们必须从内部从事相同的估算,为了到达像这样的色调(坚定的色调)。
林布兰的土地呢?既不是城市,也不是乡下。内部的土地。「内部圣经的风景」。我说圣经。换句话说,最古代的激情的土地。那是一块没有风景的土地,没有纪念碑。但是并非没有形式,没有居民。
如何到达那里?如何进入一颗星?梵谷想要知道吗?最快速的运输工具并不是火车,而是死亡。
为了进入内部的圣经呢?我们必须要攀登楼梯,然后投入肉身,一直到最遥远的记忆。

7. It’s dark here. We’re down below. We’re here.
In the breast. Immediately. Such an absence of exterior!
The country is a room of palpitating folds.
What I feel: this obscurity. It is the troubled air of our secrets, those that govern us and
that we’re not really aware of. We (Bathsheba) are in the secret. The secret surrounds us.
Bathsheba is seated in our room, in our breast, like a luminous heart. She contains the
light. The light doesn’t spill out.
The Body: bread of light.
I verify: where is the light coming from? The shadow of the ribbon on Bathsheba’s
skin tells us that a strong light is coming from the left. But the pearly luster of the
triangular lining under the servant’s cap tells us that a stream of light must be rising up
from the right.
The source of the light is cut off. The light remains. The secret fire that emanates from
the flesh.

7、 在此,天暗了。我们在底下。我们在这里。
在乳房。当下。欠缺外部。
乡下是悸动的皱波的房间。
我感觉到的东西是:模糊暧昧。这是我们秘密的混乱的空气,那些统辖我们的秘密,我们并没有确实知道的秘密。我们(巴斯莎芭)处于秘密里。秘密环绕我们。
巴斯莎芭端坐在我们的房间,在我们的乳房,就像一颗发亮的心。她包含光。光并没有散发出来。
身体:光的面包。
我验证:光是从哪里出来?巴斯莎芭堤皮肤的条纹的阴影告诉我们:一道强烈的光从左边过来。但是仆人的帽子的三角形内里的珍珠般的光泽告诉我们:一道逃离的光线一定是从右边上升。
光的来源被切断。光始终存在。秘密的火从肉身散发。

西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图

March 24, 2014

4、
4. What there is not in Rembrandt: there is no da Vinci.
Not the smile. Not the look that takes or the smile that flees.
There is no smile: no exterior. No face that lets itself be looked at. That knows it is
looked at. No face. No surface. No scene. Everything is in the interior. No representation.
The passivity of Bathsheba. The despondency.
The imminence. Drooping over her somber heart.

5、 在林布兰并没有的东西,就没有达文西。
没有这个微笑。没有接收到这个眼神,或逃离的这个微笑。
没有微笑。没有内部。没有场景。每样东西都在内部。没有再现表象。
巴斯莎芭堤被动性。依赖性。
即将发生。垂下她的暗淡的心。

5. There is no Vermeer.
No walls, no painting on the walls, no window, no panes, no curtain, no nautical map
on the wall, no cupboard.
In Vermeer, light enters by the window on the left and draws. Everything is in the cell.
The outside knocks on the windowpanes. The exterior enters the interior.
Here: no objects in the foreground, no fruits. No spools of thread. Here, no exterior, no
era, no city.
Vermeer takes us to Delft. To the Lacemaker’s. Eternal Reconstitution.
Where does Rembrandt take us? To a foreign land, our own.
A foreign land, our other country.
He takes us to the Heart.
Stigmata 4(The camera obscura, the machine for seeing gives us: photographic vision, from
foreground to background.)

6、 没有弗美尔。
没有墙壁,墙壁上没有图画,没有窗户,没有窗框,没有窗帘,墙壁上没有航海图,没有纸板箱。
在弗美尔的图画,光从左边的窗户进来,然后绘画。每样东西都在地窖里。外面敲打窗框。外部进入内部。
在此,前景没有客体,没有水果。没有纺纱线轴。在此,没有外部,没有时代,没有城市。
弗美尔带我们到德弗特。到蕾丝制造商的「永恒的重建」。
林布兰带我们去哪里?去到陌生的土地,我们自己的土地。
一个陌生的土地,我们的另一个土地。
他带我们到「心」。

「圣痕图」4:(作为观看的机器给予我们「暗箱」:摄影的景像,从前景到背景。

西苏论巴斯莎芭沐浴图

March 24, 2014

2. This is Bathsheba. The dark surroundings must be what’s left of David. This sort of
blackness?… If there is a couple, a pair in the painting, indeed it would be day and night.
(I say blackness, and not: black. Blackness isn’t black. It is the last degree of reds. The
secret blood of reds. There are so many blacks… Twenty-four, they say.)
I said ‘without a man.’ I mean to say without a Visible’ man. I mean to say without an
interior man. Inside herself. Without… preparation, without rigidity. This woman is not
erect.
(And Rembrandt?—Ah! Rembrandt’s sex—
Nothing to do with Rubens’s sex of flourishes, nothing to do with da Vinci’s mirror.
Rembrandt is without ostentation.
The Rembrandt(’s) sex is matrical.)

2、 这是巴斯莎芭。黑暗的环境一定是有关大卫王留下的东西。这种的黑暗?假如有这样一个配对,图画里的配对,那确实就是白天与夜晚。(我说黑暗,而不是说黑色)。黑暗并不是黑色。黑暗是红色的最后的色度。红色的秘密的血色。黑色有好几种色度。据说有二十四种。)

我说「没有男人」。我意图要说的是「没有可看得见的男人」。我意图要说的是「没有一个具有内部的男人」。在她内部里面。没有、、、准备,没有僵化。这位女人并不是直立。
(林布兰呢?啊!林布兰的性—跟鲁宾斯的炫耀的性无关,跟达文西的镜子无关。
林布兰是没有夸张的。
林布兰的性是韵律的。)

3. Why wouldn’t Freud have anything to say about Rembrandt? Because there is no
family scene, one sees no menace, no transference, no projection, there’s no dependence,
no authority, no cruel attachment.
Look at Titus. Titus is not ‘a son,’ he’s a boy. This is a young man. This young man is.
This old woman is not maternalized. This old man is not venerabilized. The old man is
old.

The wars of appurtenance, of appropriation, that rage in families: no. No violence.
Only insistence and profundity. And to each, his or her profound destinal mission:
becoming human.

* ‘Bethsabée ou la Bible intérieure’ was first published in FMR 43, 1993 (April): 14–
18; this translation (of a different version) first appeared in New Literary History 24, 4,
1993:820–37.

Figure 1.1 Rembrandt, Bathsheba
bathing, 1654. Paris, Musée du
Louvre.

3、 为什么弗洛依德对于林布兰没有说任何事情?因为没有家庭的场景。我们看不见什么威胁,什么移情,什么投射。不存在着权威,残酷,或感情上的依附。

请看看泰特斯。泰特斯并不是儿子。他是位男孩。这是一位年轻人。这位年轻人。

老妇人并没有被物化。这位老妇人并没有可被尊敬。这位老妇人老矣。

附从与佔有的战争,在家庭里面进行。不,没有暴力。仅有坚持与深奥。对于每个人,他或她的深奥的命运的使命:成为人。

注释
1、「巴斯莎芭与圣经内部」在1993年四月首次出版。这个英译出现在1933年。
2、图画一: 林布兰的「巴斯莎芭沐浴图」,1964年,巴黎,罗浮宫

4、
4. What there is not in Rembrandt: there is no da Vinci.
Not the smile. Not the look that takes or the smile that flees.
There is no smile: no exterior. No face that lets itself be looked at. That knows it is
looked at. No face. No surface. No scene. Everything is in the interior. No representation.
The passivity of Bathsheba. The despondency.
The imminence. Drooping over her somber heart.

5、 在林布兰并没有的东西,就没有达文西。
没有这个微笑。没有接收到这个眼神,或逃离的这个微笑。
没有微笑。没有内部。没有场景。每样东西都在内部。没有再现表象。
巴斯莎芭堤被动性。依赖性。
即将发生。垂下她的暗淡的心。

BATHSHEBA OR THE INTERIOR

March 24, 2014

BATHSHEBA OR THE INTERIOR

BIBLE*

巴斯莎芭或圣经内部

Helene Cixious

赫伦娜、西苏

雄伯译

Translated by Catherine A.F.MacGillivray

 

I’ve taken twenty-four steps in the direction of Bathsheba.

1. To what degree it is not about ‘a nude’, behold why, between all the magic ones, I

first said that one.

From her, I want to receive the secret messages.

This female nude is not a nude.

She is not made—not painted—to be seen nude. Precisely her—Bathsheba. She who

was seen. Should not have been seen. She who is perceived. From afar.

She whom we see is not the mortal object.

Not the object of desire, and of murder.

It is Bathsheba in truth.

The non-nude nudity. Not denuded. Not undressed. Clean, characteristic.

Absolute Bathsheba. Without a man. Can we imagine seeing her: ‘David and

Bathsheba’? (The name Bathsheba invokes David—but not this woman, here, no.)

 

我曾经採取二十四个步骤,朝巴斯莎芭的方向。

1、  有几分程度,这并不是关于「裸体」,请你们注意,处于所有的魔术的裸体之间,我首先说那个那个裸体。

从她那里,我想要接收这个秘密的讯息。

因为女性的裸体并不是裸体。

她并非被迫被视为裸体,并不是被绘画成为裸体。确实就是她—巴斯莎芭。被看见的她。她本来不应该被看见。她被感知。从远方。

我们看见的她,并不是作为人身的客体。

并不是欲望的客体,谋杀的客体。

那是巴斯莎芭堤真相。

这位非裸体的裸身。并不是褪尽一切。并不是脱尽衣衫。乾净,具有特性。

绝对的巴斯莎芭。没有男人。我们能够想像看见她:「大卫王与巴斯莎芭」吗?(巴斯莎芭这个名字让人联想大卫王—但是并不是这里的这位女人,并不是。)

 

 

精神病 336

March 24, 2014

精神病 336
雅克、拉康

Let’s begin by pausing first at this thou, making the remark, which looks
self-evident but is rather rare, that the said thou has no literal meaning.
This isn’t merely because I address it indifferently to everyone – as a matter
of fact I address it to myself as well as to you, and virtually to all kinds of
things, I may thou something that is as foreign as is possible to me, I can say
thou to an animal, I can say thou to an inanimate object – this isn’t the point.

开始时,让我们先停在这个「你」,发表评论。这个「你」看起来不证自明,但是它相当罕见。所说的「你」并没有实质的意义。这不仅是因为我冷漠地对每个人都称「你」。事实上,我对自己也跟你一样称「你」,几乎是针对各色各样的事情都称「你」。对于对我是尽可能是外来的东西,我都称「你」。我可以对动物称「你」,我能够对没有生命的物体称「你」。这并不是重点。

Look closely at the formal, grammatical aspect of the thing. This is, moreover,
what every kind of usage of the signifier comes down to for you. You
will place meanings there despite yourselves. One may say that you believe
in grammar! Your entire schooling amounts, as intellectual gain, to your having
been made to believe in grammar. To be sure, you weren’t told as much,
since the aim would not have been achieved.

请你们仔细观看这件事的正式与文法的一面。而且,对你而言,这是能指的各种用法追根究底的东西。情不自禁地,你们将各种意义摆放那里。我们可以说,你相信文法!你们的整个学校的教导,作为知识的获得,就相等于是被迫要相信文法。的确,你们并没有同样被告诉,因为目的本来不会被完成。

Let’s therefore pause at some sentences like the following – If you poke
your nose outside you’ll get shot down. Or again – When you see the bridge you
turn right.1 Here the .you doesn’t have the subjective value of any reality of the
other whatsoever, it’s entirely equivalent to a site or a point – it introduces a
condition or temporality, it has the value of a conjunction.

让我们因此停在某些类似以下的句子:「假如你们探首自己外面,你们将会被射杀。」或者,「当你们看见桥梁,你们右转。」在此,你们根本没有拥有大者的任何现实界的主体性价值那完全相等于是一个地点,或一个点。它介绍一个情况或一个时间,它拥有连接词的价值。

This may seem rash to you, but I assure you that if you spoke a bit of
Chinese you would be convinced of it. One can have a lot of fun with Chinese
characters, with this one for example, which is the sign for a woman and the
sign for a mouth. The you is someone one addresses oneself to in giving him
an order, that is, as befits speaking to women. One may say a thousand other
things, so let’s not delay, and let’s stay with the you. The .you may be used in
this form to formulate the expression as if and in another form it’s used
unambiguously to formulate a when or an if, introducing a conditional.

对于你们,这似乎是冒犯。但是我告诉你们,假如你们会讲几句中文,你们就会相信它。对于中文字,我们可以得到许多乐趣。譬如这个例子。这是女人的记号,以及嘴巴的记号。这个「你」,是某个自言自语的人,当他给予他一个命令。也就是说,跟一位女人谈话合适的命令。我们可以说一千个其他的事情,所以让我们不要拖延,让我们跟这个「你」同在一块。这个「你」可以被使用,为了说明「好像」的这个表达。以另外一个形式,它清楚地被使用,为了说明一个「何时」或「好像」,介绍一个条件句。

If this thing is less apparent in our languages, and if we have some resistance
to understanding it and to acknowledging it in the examples I’ve just
given, this is solely a function of the prejudices of grammar, which prevent
you from hearing. The artifices of etymological and grammatical analysis force
you to insert the second person singular into this you. Of course, it is the
second person singular, but it’s a matter of knowing what it’s used for. In
other words, our you is related to elements existing in languages that are
described as having no inflection and that for us have the advantage of serving
to open up our minds a bit. They do in fact have particles at their disposal,
which are the curious signifiers whose usage, like that of our you, is singularly
multiple and sometimes so broad as to create a degree of confusion in our
descriptive grammars.

假如在我们的语言里,这件事并不那么明显,假如我们有某件的抗拒去理解它,抗拒去承认它,在我刚刚给出的例子。这仅是文法的偏见的功能。这些文法的偏见让你们无法听见。词源学与文法分析的技艺,强迫你们插入第二人称单数到这个「你」。当然,这是第二人称单数,但是问题是要知道,它被用来作什么用。换句话说,我们的「你」,跟存在于语言的各种元素息息相关。那些语言被描述为并没有字首的变化。对于我们,这些语言的优点就是让我们稍微敞开心胸。事实上,它们确实有某些分子听由使用。它们是耐人寻味的能指。这些能指的用途,就像我们的这个「你」的用途一样,独特具有多重性。有时,它们是如此广义,以致于在我们描述性文法里,会有某些的混淆。

Moreover, one would only need to write the least bit
phonetically to observe that differences in tonality or accent of the signifier
you have effects that go entirely beyond the identification of the person and
are completely different from this from the point of view of meaning.

而且,我们仅是需要稍微写下一点语音的的东西,就能够观察到,在「你」的这个
能指的语调或重音的差异,会产生一些影响,完全超越人称的认同。并且完全不同于从意义的观点的这个人称。

Attributing autonomy to the you as signified isn’t without its difficulties.
Let’s say that in general it has the value of an introduction, of a protasis as
we say, that which is placed before. This is the most general way of designating
what precedes the statement [£nonc£\ of what it is that gives the sentence
its importance.

将自主权归属于这个「你」,作为所指,并非没有困难之处。让我们说,通常,它具有作为介绍的价值,或是俗语说的「前导」。它被放置在前面。这是最通常的方式指明陈述的前面是什么,是什么给予这个句子它的重要性。

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

精神病 335

March 23, 2014

精神病 335
雅克、拉康

1
Regarding the way I have introduced these lessons on the signifier someone
said to me – You start from a long way off, no doubt, ifs tiring, one doesn’t
properly see what it is that you’re driving at, but still, retrospectively, one can see
that there was some relationship between what you started with and where you
ended up. This way of putting things proves that nothing is lost in going back
over the same ground one more time.

关于我介绍有关能指的这些课程的方式,某个人曾经对我说,「你绕很长的圈子才开始。无可置疑的,这令人疲倦。我们并无法适当地看出,你的意图何在。但是仍然,回顾起来,我们能够看出,在你开始所说的东西,跟你结束的地方,有某些的关系。表达事情的这个方式,证明并没有丧失任何东西,当我们再一次回到相同的场域。

The question is restricted. I’m not claiming to be covering the entire subject
of a thing as enormous as the case of President Schreber, or, a fortiori,
the field of paranoia in its entirety. I claim to be throwing light on only a
small field. I’m applying myself to certain phenomena without reducing them
to a mechanism foreign to them, without forcing them into the categories
currently in use, into the Psychology chapter of the philosophy program. I’m
trying to refer them to slightly more elaborate notions concerning the reality
of language. I claim that this effort is of a kind to allow the question of
origins, in the precise sense of the determinism of or of the occasion for the
onset of psychosis, to be raised otherwise, which will ultimately include entirely
etiological determinations.

这个问题受到限制。我并不是正在宣称要涵盖一件事情的整个主题,像许瑞伯庭长的个案这样巨大的主题。或者,更贴近的,像偏执狂的完整的领域。我仅是宣称要启明一个小领域。我正在专注于某些的现象,但是并没有将它们简化成为并非它们内在的机制,并没有强迫它们进入目前正在使用的范畴,进入哲学的课程的心理学章节。我正在尝试将它们参照语言的现实界,稍微更加复杂的观念。我宣称,这种努力类似要让起源的问题,用别的方式被提出,用决定论的确实意义,或精神病的开始的这个场合的意义。最后,这将包括完整的因果关系的决定。

I ask the question – what is required in order that it speak [ga parle]?
This is in effect one of the most essential phenomena of psychosis. Expressing
it thus is already of a kind to remove some false problems, namely those that
are raised when one says that in psychosis the id [fe ga] is conscious. We
increasingly dispense with this reference, about which Freud always said that,
literally, no one knew where to place it. From the economic point of view
nothing is more uncertain than its effect – it’s entirely contingent. We are
therefore placing ourselves squarely in the Freudian tradition in saying that
after all the only thing that we have to think through is that it [ga] speaks.

我询问这个问题—什么被要求,为了让它言说?这实际上是精神病最重要的现象之一。用这种方式表达就已经是类似要移除某些虚假的问题。也就是说,被提出的那些问题,当我们说,在精神病,这个「本我」是意识的。我们逐渐免除不用这个指称,关于这个指称,弗洛依德总是说,几乎没有人知道,要将这个「本我」放置在哪里。从经济的观点,没有一样东西比起它的影响更加不确定—它完全是偶发性。我们因此将我们自己就放置在弗洛依德的传统里,当我们说,毕竟,我们必须思维彻底的唯一东西就是:它言说。

It speaks. But why does it speak? Why is it that, for the subject himself, it
speaks? Why is it that it presents itself as speech, and that it, not he, is this
speech? We’ve already raised this question at the level of the thou, of the
distant thou as someone pointed out to me, which I was getting at in trying
to symbolize the signifier through the example of the highway. We shall return
to this thou point once again, since it was also upon this that the progress we
made last time, as well as certain of the objections that were made to me,
were centered.

它言说。但是为什么它言说?为什么,对于主体自身,它言说?为什么它呈现它自己作为言说?为什么这个言说是它,而不是他?我们在这个「你」的层次,这个遥远的「你」的层次,已经提出这个问题,如同某个人跟我指出了。当我正在尝试凭借公路作为例子,将能指象征化,这是我获得的东西。我们再一次将回到这个「你」的点。因为我们上次的进展,以及有人提出的反对意见,都是环绕这个点作中心。

Let’s pause at this thou, if there is any truth whatsoever in my claim that
the originary apprehension of what I am leading you towards and asking you
to give some reflection to must be located around a thorough study of its
function.

让我在这个「你」停顿一下。假如有任何的真理,在我的宣称,我正在引导你们朝向的东西,并且要求你们对它反思一下,这个原初的忧虑必须被定位在环绕对它的功能的彻底的研究。

Last time someone made the grammatical objection to me that there was
something arbitrary in bringing together Thou art the one who wilt follow me
and Thou art the one who will follow me, the elements not being homologous.
It’s not the same the one in question in the two cases, since the former could
also be elided, leaving Thou wilt follow me.

上次,某个人对我提出文法的反对意见。当我将「你是我要求跟随我的这个人」与「你是愿意跟随我的这个人」聚拢一块时,有某件任意的东西。因为这些因素并不相同的。受到质疑的「这个人」,在两种情况并不相同。因为前者也能够被省略掉,留下「我要你跟随我」。

One may make the initial observation that Thou wilt follow me is a commandment.
Thou art the one who wilt follow me, if we understand it in its full
sense, isn’t a commandment but a mandate. It implies, in the presence of the
other, something expanded that presumes presence. An entire universe instituted by discourse is presumed here, within which thou art the one who wilt follow me.

我们可以从事初期的观察,「我要你跟随我」是一种命令。「你是我要求跟随我的这个人」,假如从它的完整的意义来理解,并不是命令,而是一种义务。它暗示着,在他者的面前,某件被假设的存在的东西扩散。由辞说开启的整个的宇宙在此被假设。在这个宇宙里,「你是我要求跟随的这个人。」

精神病 331

March 23, 2014

精神病 331
雅克、拉康

XXIV
第十四章
“Thou art”
「你是」
FORMS OF GAPS
差距的形式
THE VERB TO BE
「生命实存」作为动词
FROM THE THOU TO THE OTHER
从「你」到大他者
THE TORTOISE AND THE TWO DUCKS
乌龟及两隻鸭子
THE ONSET OF PSYCHOSIS
精神病的开始

I shall begin my little weekly discourse by telling you off – but when all is
said and done, when I see you there, all so kindly lined up so late in the year,
it’s rather this verse that comes to mind –It is you who are the faithful ones. . . .
I shall nevertheless resume my plan again, which is related to the last meeting
of the Soc[fran^aise de psychanalyse].

我将凭借谴责你们,作为我每周的小辞说的开始。但是当一切都说都做了,当我看见你们在那里,在岁末时刻,还耐心地排队。我的心头就浮上这首诗:「你们才是忠诚的人们、、、」可是,我仍然再次开始我的计划。这个计划跟法国精神分析协会的上次会议有关。

It’s clear that while the paths I take you down lead somewhere, they’re not
so well beaten that you have no difficulty in showing that you recognize the
place where someone is moving along. Nevertheless this is no reason to keep
quiet – even if it were only to show that you have some idea of the question.
By speaking you might display some confusion, but you gain nothing from
remaining silent. You will tell me that what you gain from it is that it’s as a
group that you act like duffers and that when all is said and done it’s much
more bearable in this form.

显而易见地,虽然我引导你们的那些途径引向某个地方,它们是人迹罕至的途径,因此你们会遭遇困难,当年你们要辨认某人正在前进的地方。可是,这并不是保持沉默的理由。即使仅是为了显示,你们对于这个问题略有所知。凭借言说,你们可能展现某种的混淆,但是你们若是保持沉默,则什么都没有得到。你们将会告诉我,你们从它所获得的东西是,作为一个团体,你们行为就像是笨手笨脚的人们。当一切都说都做了,用这样的形式,还比较能忍受得了。

On this subject one can’t but be struck by what certain philosophers, who
are precisely those of the moment and to whom from time to time I discreetly
refer, have formulated – that man, of all entities, is an open entity. The
openness of being fascinates anyone who begins to think. This kind of panic
statement that defines our time cannot fail to appear at certain moments as a
balance to and a compensation for what the colloquial term bouchi, duffer,
expresses, namely, as is sententiously observed, a divorce between the prejudices
of science where man is concerned and the experience of man in what
is supposed to be his authenticity. These people strive to rediscover that
surely what is at the bottom of thought isn’t the privilege of thinkers, but
that in the slightest act of his existence the human being, however much he
may err as to his own existence, nevertheless remains, precisely when he
wishes to articulate something, an open being.

对于这个主题,我们不禁印象深刻。有某些哲学家,他们都是杰出人物,有时提到他们时,我都小心翼翼。他们曾经诠释说:在所有的实体当中,人是一个开放性的实体。生命实存的开放性让开始思想的任何人都感到著迷。定义我们的时代的这种令人惊恐的陈述,在某些时刻,一定会出现,作为平衡与补偿,对于「bouchi, duffer」这个术语所表达的东西。也就是,如明确地被观察到的,跟人类息息相关的科学的偏见,与被认为是人类的真诚的经验的分离。这些人们尝试重新发现,处于思想底端的东西,确实并不是思想家的偏见,而是,即使在他的微不足道的行为里,人类始终是开放性的生命实存。无论关于他自己的存在,当他确实希望表达某件东西时,犯了多大的错误。

This is the level at which those who really think, who say it, are said to
maintain themselves. Rest assured in any case that I’m not at this level, even
though certain people try to circulate the contrary idea. At the very least, this
isn’t the level at which the reality in question is situated and conceptualized
when we are exploring analytic matters.

据说,这就是那些确实在思想,说出这句话的人们,自圆其说的层次。无论如何,请你们放心,我并不是处于这个层次。虽然某些人们尝试散播相反的观念。至少,这并不是受到质疑的现实界被定位与被概念化的层次。当我们正在探索精神分析的事物。

No doubt it’s impossible to say anything sensible about this, unless one
resituates it in what we shall call the gaps of being. But these gaps have
assumed certain forms, and this is where there is something valuable in analytic
experience – it’s surely in no way closed to the radically questioning and
questionable side of the human position, but it contributes some determinants.
Of course, to take these determinants as determined is to propel psychoanalysis
down the path of the prejudices of science, which lets the entire
essence of human reality escape. But by simply maintaining things at this
level, and not placing them too high, either, it is possible to give our experience
the right tone of what I call mediocre reason.

无可置疑地,关于这件事,我们不可能说出通情达理的话,除非我们重新定义它,在我们所谓的生命实存的差距。但是这些差距具有某些的形式。这就是在精神分析经验,存在某件有价值的东西的地方。对于人类的立场具有强烈的询问与可被询问的这一边,它确实并没有封闭。但是它贡献某些的决定因素。当然,将这些决定因素作为是被决定的,等于是将精神分析推下科学的偏见的途径。这会让人类现实界的整个本质逃走。但是仅是凭借维持事情在这个层次,也不要将它们放置太高,就有可能让我们的精神分析经验,具有我所谓的中庸之道的合宜语调。

Next year – Francois Perrier’s lecture propelled me into this, as I wasn’t
sure what I would do – I shall take as the theme of the seminar the object
relation or purported relation. Perhaps I shall introduce this by a comparison
between the objects of phobia and fetishes, two series of objects. You can
already see straight off how different they are in their catalogue.
For today we shall pick things up again where we left them last time.

明年–法兰西、培瑞尔的演讲将为推进到这里,我并确定我要做些什么—我将会将客体关系,或目标关系,作为研讨班的主题。或许,我将比较恐惧与物神化的客体,两种系列的客体,来介绍这个主题。你们能够立即看出,在它们的目录里,它们的差别有多大。今天,我们再次从上次我们离开它们的地方开始。

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

精神病 335
雅克、拉康

精神病 329

March 22, 2014

精神病 329
雅克、拉康

What happens when we don’t have a highway and we are forced to combine
minor paths, more or less separate modes of grouping meaning, with
one another when we go from one point to another? To go from this point to
that point we shall have a choice between different components of the network,
we can take this route, or that route, for various reasons – for the sake
of convenience, in order to roam, or simply because of a mistake at a crossroads.
Several things can be deduced from this, which explain Schreber’s delusion
to us.

当我们没有公路,我们被迫连接次要的途径,当我们从一个点到另外一个点,跟彼此,将意义聚拢的相当分散的模式,那会发生怎样的事?从这个点到那个点,我们将会有一个选择,处于网络的不同的成分之间。我们能够採取这个途径,或那个途径,为了各色各样的理由。为了方便,为了漫游,或仅是为了在十字路口的一个错误。从这里,好件事情能够被推论出来。这跟我们解释了许瑞伯的妄想。

Which signifier is it that is in abeyance in his inaugural crisis? It’s the
signifier procreation in its most problematic form, the one that Freud himself
evokes in relation to obsessionals, which isn’t the form being a mother but the
form being a father.

哪一个能指在他开始的危机里,处于暂时停顿的状态?就是这个处于问题重重的形态的「繁殖」的能指。关于偏执狂,弗洛依德自己召唤的这个能指。这并不是「作为母亲」的形态,而是「作为父亲」的形态。

This is an appropriate place to pause for a moment to think about the fact
that the function of being a father is absolutely unthinkable in human experience
without the category of the signifier.

这是一个合适的地方,稍微停顿一下来思考关于这个事实:假如没有能指点范畴,在人类的经验,「作为父亲」的这个能指绝对是不可思议的。

What can it mean to be a father? You are familiar with the learned discussions,
ethnological or other, one immediately enters into to establish whether
primitives who say that women conceive when they’re placed in such and
such a spot possess the scientific notion that women become fertilized once
they have duly copulated. These inquiries have nevertheless seemed to some
to be perfectly foolish, since it’s difficult to conceive of human animals stupid
enough to fail to notice that when one wants to have kids one has to copulate.

「成为父亲」会是什么意思?对于某种种族学的那些学识的讨论,你们耳熟能详。我们立即进入,为了证实,原始人们说女人怀孕,当她们被放置在某某地点,这是否具有科学的观念:一旦女人适当地交媾,她们就会受孕。可是,对于某些人们,这些研究似乎是愚不可及。因为很难去构想,动物会愚笨到没有注意到,当我们想要有小孩时,我们必须去交媾。

This is not the point. The point is that the sum of these facts – of copulating
with a woman, that she then carries something within her womb for a certain
period, that this product is finally expelled – will never lead one to constitute
the notion of what it is to be a father. I’m not even speaking about the entire
cultural cluster implied in the term being a father, I’m simply speaking of
what it is to be a father in the sense of procreation.

这并不是重点。重点是,这些事实的总和—跟女人交媾,经过某段时间,她因此在她的子宫里怀有某件东西,这个产物最后被排除出来—从来不会引导人们形成这个观念:「成为父亲」是什么样子。我甚至并不是谈论,以「成为父亲」这个术语,所暗示的整个文化的情结。我仅是谈论到,从繁殖的意义而言,「成为父亲」是个什么样子。

A rebound effect is necessary for the fact that man copulates to receive the
sense it really has, but to which no imaginary access is possible, that the child
is as much his as the mother’s. And for this effect of action in return to occur,
the elaboration of the notion of being a father must have been raised by work
that has taken place through an entire cluster of cultural exchanges to the
state of major signifier, and this signifier must have its own consistency and
status. The subject may well know that copulating is really at the origin of
procreation, but the function of procreation as a signifier is something else.

一个反弹的效应是必须的,为了让男人交媾的这个事实,接收到它确实拥有的意义。但是,对于这个意义,没有想像的接近是可能的。小孩是他的,也同样是母亲的。为了让反弹的行动的效应发生,「成为父亲」的观念的建构,一定曾经被提出,由通过整个文化的情结,到主要的能指的状态,发生的工作。这个能指必须要有它自己的一贯性与地位。主体很有理由知道,交媾确实是处于繁殖的起源,但是作为能指的繁殖的功能是某件其他东西。

I grant you that I haven’t yet completely lifted the veil – I’ll leave that for next time. In order for procreation to have its full sense there must also be, in both sexes, an apprehension, a relation with the experience of death, which gives the term to procreate its full sense. Moreover, paternity and death are two signifiers that Freud links in relation to obsessionals.

我跟你们承认,我还没有完全揭起面纱。我将那个问题留到下次。为了让繁殖拥有它完整的意义,在两性方面,也必须要有理解,跟死亡的经验的关系。死亡的经验给予「繁殖」这个术语完整的意义。而且,父亲与死亡是弗洛依德连接一块的两个能指,跟偏执狂的关系。

精神病 330

The signifier being a father is what creates the highway in sexual relations
with a woman. If the highway doesn’t exist, one finds oneself faced with a
number of elementary minor paths, copulation and then the woman’s pregnancy.
To all appearances President Schreber lacks this fundamental signifier called
being a father. This is why he had to make a mistake, become confused, to
the point of thinking of acting like a woman. He had to imagine himself a
woman and bring about in pregnancy the second part of the path that, when
the two were added together, was necessary for the function of being a father
to be realized.

「成为父亲」的能指,就是在跟女人的性的关系,创造公路的东西。假如公路并不存在,我们发现我们自己面对许多的基本的次要途径,交媾,然后就是女人的怀孕。显而易见地,许瑞伯庭长欠缺所谓的「成为父亲」的这个基本的能指。这就是为什么他必须犯下一个错误,感到混淆,甚至想要行动像个女人。他必须想像他自己是一个女人,在怀孕时,导致途径的第二部分。当两件事情被增添一块,途径的第二部分是必须的,为了让「成为父亲」的功能被实现。

The experience of the couvade, as problematic as it seems to us, may be
located as an uncertain, incomplete assimilation of the function of being a
father. It does effectively answer to a need imaginarily – or rituaUy or otherwise
– to realize the second part of the path.
「丈夫的怀孕同理心」的经验,虽然我们觉得棘手,可以被定位为不确定,不完整的吸收「成为父亲」的这个功能。它实际上回应一个需要–想像地,或仪式地,或其他方式。为了要实现这个途径的第二部分。

To take my metaphor a little bit further I shall say to you – what do those
who are called road-users do when there is no highway and it’s a question of
taking minor roads to go from one point to another? They follow the signs
erected by the side of the road. That is, where the signifier isn’t functioning,
it starts speaking on its own, at the edge of the highway. Where there is no
road, written words appear on signs. This, perhaps, is the verbal function of
auditory verbal hallucinations – they are the signs along their little path.

为了将我的隐喻稍微再发挥,我将跟你们说—当没有公路时,问题就是要採取次要途径,从某个点到另外一个点,那些所谓的道路使用者做些什么?他们遵循道路旁边竖立的路标。换句话说,在能指没有发挥功能的地方,它开始自己言说,在公路的边缘。在没有公路的地方,被书写的文字出现在路标。这或许就是听觉与文辞幻觉的文辞的功能。它们都是沿着它们的途径的路标。

If we suppose that the signifier continues on its way alone whether we pay
attention to it or not, we must admit that within us, more or less eluded by
the maintenance of the meanings that interest us, there is a kind of buzzing,
a veritable pandemonium, which we have been bewildered by ever since
childhood. Why not imagine that, at the precise moment at which the link
between what Saussure calls the amorphous mass of the signifier and the amorphous
mass of meanings and interests comes apart and is revealed to be deficient,
the continuous current of the signifier once again assumes its
independence? And then, in this buzzing that people who are hallucinating
so often depict to you on this occasion, in this continuous murmur of these
sentences, of these commentaries, which are nothing but the infinity of these
minor paths, the signifiers begin to talk, to sing on their own. The continuous
murmur of these sentences, of these commentaries, is nothing other than the
infinity of these minor paths.

假如我们认为,能指单独地继续它的途中,无论我们注意到它与否,我们必须承认,在我们内心,多少会受到我们感觉興趣的意义的维持所闪躲。有某种的吵杂声,可验证的混乱。自从童年以来,我们一直对它们感到困惑。你们为什么不想像一下?在索绪尔所谓的「能指的不定形质量」,与意义跟興趣的不定形质量之间的联结,瓦解而且显示是欠缺的这个确定时刻,能指的连续的潮流再次各自独立的确定的时刻。然后,那些妄想的人们在这个场合经常跟你们描述的吵杂声,在这些句子,这些评论的这个连续的喃喃自语。它们仅是这些次要的途径的永续。能指开始谈话,开始独立地歌唱。这些句子,这些评论的喃喃自语,仅仅就是这些次要的途径的永续。

There’s still a chance that they will vaguely indicate the right direction.
Next time I shall try to show how everything that in delusion is orchestrated
and organized according to different spoken registers reveals, in its
layering and in its texture, the fundamental polarization of the suddenly
encountered, suddenly observed, lack of a signifier.
20 June 1956

依旧有一个机会,它们将会模糊地指示正确的方向。下一次,我将尝试跟你们显示,在妄想里,依照不同被言说的铭记,被排演被组织的一切,如何在它的表层及在它的质料里显示,能指的欠缺的基本的极端化,能指突然被遭遇,突然被观察到的欠缺。

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