Archive for the ‘拉康可能不是类似’ Category

可能不是類似 120g

July 18, 2011

可能不是類似 120g

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 20 January 1971

The woman is in a position, with respect to sexual enjoyment, to punctuate the
equivalence of enjoyment and the semblance. In this indeed lies the distance that man finds himself from her.

這個女人處於一種立場,關於性的享樂,為了要強調享樂與類似物的等值。男人發現他自己與女人有段距離,確實就是在這一點。

If I spoke about a moment of truth, it is because she is the one that the whole formation of man is designed to respond to, and now over and against everything, the
whole status of her semblance. It is certainly easier for a man to confront any enemy on the plain of rivalry than to confront the woman in so far as she is the support of this truth, of the semblance in the relationship of man to woman.

假如我談論有關真理的時刻,那是因為真理是:男人的整個形態被設計要回應,以一切作為衡量,回應她的類似物的整個狀態。男人確實比較容易面對具有敵意的任何敵人,勝過于面對女人,因為她是這個真理的支持者,男女之間的關係的類似物的支持者。

In truth, that the semblance is here enjoyment, for the man, is sufficiently indicated by the fact that enjoyment is semblance. It is because it [he?] is at the intersection of two enjoyments that man suffers in the highest way the malaise of this relationship that is
designated as sexual. As someone or other said, these pleasures that are called physical.

在真理這一面,類似物在此對於男人是享樂。事實上,享樂就是類似物,充分地指出這一點。那是因為在兩種享樂的交會點,男人對於被指明為性的關係的不舒坦,感到強烈的痛苦。如某個人所說的,這些被稱為是肉體的歡樂。

On the contrary, no one other than the woman, because it is in this that she is Other, no one other than the woman knows better what is disjunctive between enjoyment and the semblance, because she is the presence of this something that she knows, namely, that enjoyment and semblance, if they are equivalent, in a dimension of discourse,
are nonetheless distinct in the test, that the woman represents for man the truth, quite simply, namely, the only one that can give its place as such to the semblance.

相反地,道道地地就是女人,因為在這一點,她是大它者。除了女人,沒有人更清楚地知道,什麼是享樂與類似物之間的分裂。因為她是某件她知道的東西的存在。換句話說,享樂與類似物在這個考驗,仍然是清楚的,假如它們是等值,在真理論述的維度。對於男人而言,女人代表真理,就是如此,也就是說,唯一能夠給予它的作為類似物的立場的真理。

It has to be said, everything we have been told as being the mainspring of the unconscious represents nothing but the horror of this truth. It is this, of course, that today I am trying, I am attempting to develop for you just as one makes Japanese flowers.

我們必須說,我們曾經被告訴作為無意識的原動力的一切,代表僅僅就是對於這個真理的驚駭。當然就是這個,今天我正在嘗試,我正在企圖跟你們發展,如同我們正在製作日本人工花。

It is not particularly agreeable to listen to, because this is what is usually packaged under the register of the castration complex.

傾聽這一點並不是特別愉快,因為通常這是被包裹在閹割情結的銘記之下。

By means of which, in that case, with this label, one is at peace, one can leave it to one side, one has no longer anything else to say about it, except that it is there and that one makes a little genuflection to it from time to time.

憑藉這一點,在那個情況,使用這個標籤,有一個是和平,我們能夠讓它擱置一邊。對於它,我們不再有任何別的話要說,除了,就在那裏,我們有時稍微要屈服於它。

But that the woman is the truth of man, that this old proverbial business, when it is a matter of understanding something, the cherchez la femme, to which people naturally give a police-style (35) interpretation, is something completely different, namely, that to grasp the truth of a man, one would do well to know who his wife is.

但是這個女人是男人的真理,這個古老諺語的事情,問題是要瞭解某件事情:「尋找那個女人!」對此諺語,男人自然給予一種員警模式的解釋。這是某件完全不同的事情,換句話說,為了理解一個男人的真理,你最好要知道他的妻子是誰。

I mean his spouse in this instance, and why not? This is the only situation that can give a meaning to something that one day someone in my entourage called the pèse-personne. To weigh a person, there is nothing like weighing his wife. When the woman is at stake it is not the same thing! Because the woman has a very great liberty….

我的意思是他的配偶,舉例而言,有何不可呢?這是唯一能夠給予意義的的情境,這個東西,曾經有一天,跟隨我的講座的某個人稱它為「體重測量儀器」。為了測量一個人,沒有比測量他的妻子更準確。當這個女人岌岌可危時,情況並不相同!因為這個女人有更大的自由度、、、

Louder! 大聲一點!
What‟s that? 什麼事?
We can‟t hear! 我們聽不見!
You can‟t hear? 你們聽不見嗎?
No. 聽不見!

I said: the woman has very great freedom with respect to the semblance! She will manage to give weight even to a man who has none. These are…these are truths, of course, that in the course of the centuries, have been perfectly well noted for a long time, but which are never said except from mouth to mouth, as I might say. And a
whole literature has been constructed, exists, it would be a matter of getting to know its breadth, naturally it is only of interest if one takes the best.

我說:女人擁有很大的自由,關於類似物!她將會成功地讓完全沒有價值的男人,具有價值。這些是、、、這些是真理,當然,在幾世紀的過程,這些真理長久以來曾經被清楚地注意到,但是從來沒有被說出,除了口耳相傳,我不妨這樣說。整體的文學曾經被建構,存在,問題是要如何認識它的廣度,當然,只有念茲在茲的人,才會對這個感到興趣。

Someone, for example, that someone must take responsibility for one day, is Baltazar Gracian, who was an eminent Jesuit, who wrote some of the most intelligent things that could be written.

例如,某個人,某個今天必須負起責任的人,是巴塔紮、格瑞信恩。他是一位傑出耶穌會教徒,他寫了一些有史以來最智慧的著作。

They are absolutely prodigiously intelligent in that everything that is involved,
namely, to establish what one could call the sanctity of man, he resumes in one word, resumes it in what?

這些著作絕對是智慧絕倫,每一樣被牽涉的東西,也就是說,要證實所謂的人的聖潔,他以一個字重新開始,以哪一個字重新開始?

His book on the Courtier, in a word, two points: to be a saint. It is the only point of western civilisation where the word saint has the same sense as in Chinese, Tchen-Tchen. Note this point, because, this reference, because all the same it is late, today, I am not going to introduce it today, I will give you this year some little references to the origins of Chinese thinking.

他討論「朝臣」的書,總之,要成為聖人的兩個要點。這是西方文明的唯一點,「聖人」這個字跟中文的「神聖」有相同的意義。請注意這一點,因為這個指稱,因為它仍然是太遲,今天,我今天將要介紹它。今年,我將給予你們某些的指稱,關於中國思想的起源。

In any case, yes, I have noticed one thing, which is that perhaps I am a Lacanian because I formerly did Chinese. I mean by that that I notice that in re-reading things like that, that I had gone over, but mumbled through anyway like a like a simpleton, with donkeys ears, I notice in re-reading them now that, it is on all fours with what I am (36) telling you.

無論如何,是的,我曾經注意到一件事情。或許我是一位拉康學派,因為我以前研究過中文,我是意思是,我注意到,在重新閱讀像那樣的東西,我曾經檢視過的東西。但是我就是像個笨蛋一樣,帶著驢子的耳朵,含糊混過。重新閱讀時,我現在注意到,我正在告訴你們是一模一樣。

I don‟t know, I will give an example; in Mencius, which is one of the fundamental, canonical books of Chinese thought, there is a chap who is his disciple moreover, not him, but who begins to state things like the following: “What you do not find on the side of yen, this is discourse, do not look for on the side of your spirit”. I translate it for you as spirit, it is hsin, but that means, that by hsin which means heart, what he designated was well and truly the spirit, the Geist of Hegel.

我不知道,我將用孟子的話給予一個例子。那是中國思想基本的權威的書。有一個人,是他的門徒,不是孟子,他開始像以下這樣陳述:你在「言」的這一邊找不到,這就是真理論述。不要在你的精神的這邊尋找。我跟你們翻譯為「精神」,那是「性」。那是意思是,所謂「性」意味著「心」。他所指明的,道道地地是這個精神,黑格爾的「精神」。

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

可能不是類似 120f

July 17, 2011

可能不是類似 120f

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 20 January 1971

It only happens by accident; and this is also an occasion to illuminate what is involved in what I have long differentiated from the passage à l‟acte, namely, acting out, to bring the semblance onto the stage, to put it on the stage, to make an example of it, this is what in this order is called acting out.

這僅是偶然發生,這也是一個場合說明牽涉的內容是什麼,在我長期區別的「激情演出」,也就是無意識演出,將類似物帶上舞臺,將它放置在舞臺,以它作為榜樣。這就是在這個層次上所謂的激情演出。

Or again, it can be called passion. But, I am forced to go quickly, you will notice that it is in this connection, and here as I have just illuminated things, that one can clearly highlight, clearly designate what I am always saying: it is that discourse is there in so
far as it allows the stake of what is involved in surplus enjoying, namely, I am giving it the full treatment, it is very precisely what is forbidden to sexual discourse.

而且,它也能夠被稱為是「激情」。但是我不得不講快一點,你們將會注意到,有關這一點,在此我剛剛說明事情。我們能夠清楚地強調,清楚地指明,我總是在說的。就是那個真理論述,因為它容許牽涉到剩餘享樂牽涉的賭注。也就是說,我正在給予充分的處理,這確實就是性的真理論述被禁止的東西。

There is no sexual act [or relationship?], I already expressed this on several occasions, I am tackling it here from a different angle. And this is made quite tangible in a massive way by the economy of analytic theory, namely, what Freud encountered, first of all so innocently, as I might say, that this is why it is a symptom, namely,
that he advances things to the point that they concern us on the plane of truth.

性的激情演出(或性的關係)並不存在。我已經在好幾個場合表達過這個。我在此正從不同的角度處理它。由於精神分析理論的運作,能夠大而化之地讓它相當具體化。換句話說,佛洛伊德遭遇的,起初是純真地,我不妨這樣說。這就是為什麼它是一種病徵。也就是,他將事情推進到這一點,它們在真理的層面,跟我們息息相關。

Who can fail to see that the myth of Oedipus is necessary to designate the real, because this indeed is what it pretends to do, and more exactly what the theoretician is reduced to, when he formulates this hyper-myth, the fact is that the real properly speaking is incarnated…by what?

有誰會看不出來,伊底普斯的神話是需要的,為了指明是真實界。因為這確實是它偽裝要做的東西。更確實地說,是理論家淪落的處境,當他說明這個超級神話。事實上,真實界適當地說,被具體顯現為什麼?

By sexual enjoyment, as what? As impossible, since what the Oedipus complex designates, is the mythical being whose enjoyment – his enjoyment – is supposed to be that of what? Of all the women.

由性的享樂顯現為什麼?為不可能的東西,因為伊底普斯情結所指明的是,神秘的生命實存。他的享樂—他的享樂—應該是什麼的享樂?是所有女人的享樂。

That such … a system is here in a way imposed by discourse itself, does this not provide the surest (33) cross-check in terms of what I state as theory, concerning the prevalence of discourse, concerning everything that is precisely involved in enjoyment?

這樣一種系統在此,以某種方式是有真理論述的本身所賦加。它難道不是提供最確實的核對,以我陳述為理論的術語?關於真理論述的盛行,關於在享樂牽涉的一切?

What analytic theory articulates is something whose character, graspable as an object, is what I designate by the o-object, in so far as through a certain number of favourable organic contingencies – breast, excrement, look or voice – it comes to fill the place defined as that of surplus enjoying.

精神分析理論所表達的是某件東西,它的特性可理解作為一種客體。那是我用小客體指明,通過某些有利的器官的意外狀況—乳房,排泄,外觀或聲音—它前來填補這個位置,被定義為剩餘享樂的客體。

What does the theory state if not the following: something that tends, this relationship of surplus enjoying, a relationship in the name of which the function of the mother comes to such a predominant point in all our analytic observation, surplus enjoying is only normalized from a relationship that one establishes to sexual enjoyment, except
for the fact that this enjoyment, this sexual enjoyment is only formulated, is only articulated from the phallus in so far as the phallus is its signifier. Someone one day wrote that it is the signifier that designates the lack of signifier.

理論所陳述的,難道不就是底下?某件東西傾向於,剩餘享樂的這個關係,以這個關係的名字,母親的功用到達一個支配點,在我們各種精神分析的觀察。剩餘享樂僅是從我們跟性的享樂建立的一個關係被正常化,除了這個事實:這個享樂,這個性的享樂,僅是被說明,它僅是從陽具來表達。陽具是它的能指。有一天,某個人寫到:這個能指指明能指的欠缺。

This is absurd, I never articulated such a thing. The phallus is very properly sexual
enjoyment in so far as it is co-ordinated, is solidary with a semblance.

這是荒謬的。我從來沒有表達這樣的內容。適當來說,陽具是性的享樂,因為它被協調,跟真理的類似物結合在一塊。

This indeed is what happens and this is what it is rather strange to see all the analysts striving to turn their gaze from. Far from having insisted more and more on this turning point, this crisis of the phallic phase, they use every opportunity to elude the crisis, the truth, to which not one of these young speaking beings does not have to face up to, which is that there are some of them who do not have the phallus.

這確實是發生的事情。這是非常奇特的,當我們看到所有的精神分析師努力將他們的目光轉開的東西。他們根本沒有越來越堅持這個轉捩點,這個陽具部分的危機。他們使用每一個機會逃避這個危機,這個真理。這是年輕的言說的生命主體都必須面對的。他們有些人並沒有這個陽具。

A double intrusion into lack, because there are those who do not have one, and then this truth was lacking up to the present.

這是雙重闖入欠缺,因為那些人並沒有陽具,然後這個真理迄今都是欠缺的。

Sexual identification does not consist in believing oneself to be a man or a woman, but in taking account of the fact that there are women, for the boy, and that there are men, for the girl.

性的認同並不是在於相信自己是一位男人或是一位女人,而是描述這個事實:有些女人,對於這個男孩;也有些男人,對於這位女孩。

And what is important, is not so much what they experience, it is a real situation,
if you allow me, the fact is that for men, the girl is the phallus. And this is what castrates them. That for women, the boy, is the same thing, the phallus and this is what castrates them also, because all they acquire is a penis and that spoils things.

重要的並不是他們所經驗的東西,而是一種真實的情境,假如你們容許我這樣說。事實上,對於男人而言,這個女孩就是陽具。這是讓他們被閹割的東西。對於女人而言,這個男孩也是同樣情況,他是陽具,這也是他們被閹割的東西。因為他們所獲得的是一個陰莖,那把一切事情都搞砸了。

Neither the boy nor the girl initially run risks except through the dramas that they unleash, they are the phallus for a moment. This is the real, the real of sexual
enjoyment in so far as it is detached as such, it is the phallus, in other words the Name of the Father, the identification of these two terms having in its time scandalised some [pious?] people.

起初,這位男孩跟這個女孩都沒有冒什麼危險,除了通過他們釋放的這個戲劇:他們有那麼一個瞬間是陽具。這是真實界,性的享樂的真實界,因為它本身被疏離。這是這個陽具。換句話說,父親的名字,這兩個術語的認同,在它的時代,曾經使某些虔誠的人大為憤慨。

(34) But there is something that is worth insisting on a little more. What is the fundamentally foundational part in this operation of the semblance, such as the one that we have just defined at the level of the relationship of man and woman, what is the place of the semblance, of the archaic semblance?

但是有某件東西值得稍微更加堅持。在真理類似物的運作,屬於基本部分的東西,譬如我們剛剛定義的東西,在男人與女人的關係的層次。什麼是真理類似物的位置,這個過時的類似物?

This assuredly is why it is worth the trouble to hold on a little more to the moment of what the woman represents. The woman is precisely in this relation, this relationship, for man, the moment of truth.

這確實是為什麼它值得這個麻煩,稍微更加堅持這個時刻,這個女人所代表的內容的時刻。這個女人確實處於這個關係,對於男人而言,真理的時刻的這個關係。

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

可能不是類似 120e

July 17, 2011

可能不是類似 120e

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 20 January 1971

This has absolutely nothing to do with what is at stake, and has a name that can be perfectly well stated, called the relationships of man and woman. It is necessary to start from these two terms with their full sense, with what that involves in terms of relation. Because it is very strange when one sees the little timid attempts that people
make at thinking within the framework of a certain system which is that of the psychoanalytic institution.

这跟岌岌可危的东西绝对无关,有一个能够完美陈述的名称,被称为「男人与女人」的关系。我们需要从这两个术语开始,具有它们完整的意义,从关系的术语所牵涉的东西。因为这是奇怪的,当我们看到人们所做的这小小的胆小的企图,在某个系统的架构里思考,这就是精神分析的机构的系统。

They notice that not everything is regulated by the frolics that are presented as conflictual, and they would really like something different, the non-conflictual, that is
more restful. And so then they notice for example, that there is no need to wait for the phallic phase to distinguish a little girl from a little boy, they are not at all the same. They marvel at this!

他们注意到,并不是每一样事情都被这些呈现为冲突的欢乐规范。他们确实想要某件不同的东西,这个非冲突的东西,那是更加令人休息的。例如,他们注意到没有必要等待阳具的部分来区别一个小女孩跟一位小男孩。他们根本就不相同。他们对这件事感到惊奇!

And then – I am pointing it out to you because between now and when we meet
again, it will be only in the month of February, the second Wednesday of February, you will perhaps have the time to read something, because once I recommend a book, that improves its circulation, which is called Sex und Gender, and Gender, it is in
English, pardon me!

然后—我正在跟你们指出它,因为在现在与我们下次会面之间,仅有在二月的这个月,二月的第二个星期三,你们或许有这个时间阅读某件东西。因为一旦我推荐一本书,那还促进它的流通。它被称为「性爱与性别」,那是英文版,对不起!

It is by someone called Stoller, very interesting to read, because this gives on an important subject, that of transsexuals, a certain number of very well observed cases with their familial correlates. You know perhaps that transsexualism consists
very precisely in a very forceful desire to cross over by every means to the other sex, even by having oneself operated on, when you are male.

某个人名叫史泰乐,读起来很有趣,因为对于一位重要的生命主体,这给予改变性别者,某些被仔细观察的案例,跟他们的家庭有关。你们或许知道,改变性别者确实是在于一种非常强烈的欲望,要用一切方法,跨越到另一种性别,甚至将自己实施手术,当你是男性。

There you are! With the co-ordinates, the observations that are there you will certainly learn a lot about this transsexualism because these are observations that are quite usable. You will also learn the (31) complete….the completely invalid character of the dialectical apparatus with which the author of this book treats these questions,
and which means that there arise quite directly the great difficulties he encounters in explaining his cases.

你们瞧!用这个协调,存在那里的观察,你们确实会学习到许多关于改变性别,因我这些都是相当有用的观察。你们也学会这完整的、、、这辩证的工具的完整无效的特性。这本书的作者用来处理这些问题,它意味着,会有极大的困难直接产生,当他在解释他的个案时,遭遇的困难。

One of the most surprising things, is that the psychotic aspect of these cases is completely eluded by him, because he has no reference points, Lacanian foreclosure
never having reached his ears, which immediately and very easily explains the form of these cases. But what matter!

最令人惊奇的事情是,这些案例的精神病的层面完全被他闪避。因为他没有指称点,他从来没有听过拉康式的永远丧失赎回权。这马上而且容易地解释这些案例的形式。但是有什么关系!

The important thing is this, that to speak about gender identity, which is nothing
other than what I have just expressed as this term, man and woman, it is clear that the question is posed of what emerges precociously from the fact that at adult age, it is the destiny of speaking beings to divide themselves up between men and women and that to understand the emphasis that is put on these things, on this agency, one has to take
into account that what defines the man, is his relationship with the woman, and inversely.

重要的事情是,谈论到性别的认同,这道道地地是我刚刚表达,作为这个「男人与女人」的术语。显而易见的,关于早熟出现的这个问题被提出,根据这个事实:在成年时,言说生命主体的命运将他们区分为男人与女人。为了了解对于这些事情的这个强调,对于这个代理,我们必须考虑:定义这个男人的东西,就是跟这个女人的关系,反过来亦是。

That nothing allows us in these definitions of man and woman, to abstract them from the complete speaking experience, up to and including in the institutions where they are expressed, namely marriage.

没有一样东西容许我们抽离他们,从完整的言说的经验,在男人与女人的这些定义,一直而且包括它们被表达的机构,也就是说婚姻里。

If one does not understand that in adult age, what is at stake is to be-a- man (de faire-homme), that this is what constitutes the relation to the other party, that it is in the light, at the start, starting from something that constitutes a fundamental relation, that there is questioned everything that in the behaviour of the child can be interpreted as being oriented towards this being-a-man, for example and that one of the essential correlates of this being-a-man, is to indicate to the girl that one is so, that we find ourselves, in a word, put right away into the dimension of the semblance.

假如我们不了解,在成年,岌岌可危的是这个「成为一个男人」。这是形成跟另外一半的伴侣的关系。从这个观点,在开始,从这个某件东西开始,它组成一个基本的关系。每一件事情都受到质疑,在小孩的行为,一切都被解释为朝向这个「成为一个男人」的相关因素。这跟女孩指示著:我们是这样,我们发现我们自己,总之,立刻被放进类似物的维度。

But besides, everything bears witness to it, including references that are common, that one finds everywhere, to sexual display principally in the higher mammals, but also among … in a very great number of insights that we can have very, very far into the animal phylum, which shows the essential character, in the sexual relationship, of something that should be clearly limited to the level at which we touch it, that has nothing to do either with a cellular level, whether it is chromosomic or not, nor with an organic level, whether it is a matter or not of the ambiguity of one or other tract involving the gonad, namely, an ethological level which is properly one of a semblance.

除外,每一样东西都见证到它,包括共同的指称,我们在每个地方找到,主要是对于较高等的哺乳动物的性的展示,而且是在、、、以非常多的洞见,我们能够深刻地洞见到动物的语系。它显示这个基本的特性,在性的关系,某件应该清楚地被限制在我们碰触他的层次。它跟细胞的层次或器官的层从,没有丝毫关系,无论是遗传因子与否,无论牵涉到生殖腺的器官道曖昧与否。换句话说,一个动物行为的层次,适当来说,是一种类似物的层次。

It is in so far as the male, most often the male, the female is not absent from it because she is precisely the subject affected by this display, it is in so far as there is a display that something which is called sexual (32) copulation, no doubt, in its function, but which finds its status in particular elements of identity, it is certain that human sexual
behaviour easily finds its reference in this display as it is defined at the animal level.

就男性而言,往往是男性,女性并不缺席,因为她确实是受到这个展示影响的生命主体。有一种展示,某件被称为性的交媾,无可置疑的,在它的功用,而且发现它的地位,在特别的认同的元素里。的确,人类的性的行为很容易找到它的指称,在这个展示,如同它被定义在动物的层次。

It is certain that human sexual behaviour consists in a certain maintenance of this animal semblance. The only thing which differentiates it from it, is that this semblance is conveyed in a discourse, and that it is at this level of discourse, at this level of discourse alone, that it is carried towards, allow me, some effect that might not be a semblance.

的确,人类的性的行为在于动物的类似物的某种的维持。唯一区别它与它的东西是,这个类似物在真理论述里被表达。就是在真理论述的层次,仅是在真理论述的层次,它被扱带朝向某个可能不是类似物的效果,容我这样说。

That means that instead of having exquisite animal courtesy, it can happen, it can happen that a man rapes a woman, or inversely. At the limits of discourse, in so far as it strives to make the same semblance hold up, there is from time to time something real, this is what is called the passage à l‟acte, I see no better place to designate what that means. Note that in most cases, the passage à l‟acte is carefully avoided.

这意味着,非但没有精致的动物的殷勤,恰巧的是,男人强暴女人,或是反过来。在真理论述的极限,它设法让相同的类似物延续下去。有时会有某件东西是真实的,这被称为「激情演出」。我想这是指明它的意义的最佳地方。请注意,在大部分的情况「激情演出」是小心地被避免。

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

可能不是類似 120d

July 17, 2011

可能不是類似 120d

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 20 January 1971

To illuminate what is involved in where I want to get to, I will go to what I want to mark today, about what is involved in analytic theory.

為了說明「我想要到達哪里」牽涉的問題,我將前往今天我想要標示的東西,關於精神分析理論牽涉的東西。

Because of this, I am not coming back, I am skipping over a function that is expressed in a certain way of speaking that I use here when I address you. Nevertheless, I cannot but draw your attention to the fact that, if the last time, I challenged you with a term which might have appeared impertinent, and rightly so, to many, of plus de jouir
pressé (a pressurised surplus enjoying) ought I then talk about some kind of pressurised….?

因為這個,我不回頭,我跳過一種被表達的功用,以我跟你們演說時,在此使用的某種言說的方式。可是,我忍不住還是要提醒你們注意這個事實,假如上一次,我用一個術語挑戰你們。這個術語當時可能並不是很中肯,對於許多人,很有理由是這樣,「承受壓力的剩餘享樂」。因此,我應該談論某種承受壓力的東西嗎?

Nevertheless this has a meaning, a meaning which is one from which I preserve my discourse, that in any case has not the character of what Freud designated as the discourse of the leader. It is indeed at the level of discourse, at the beginning of the
20‟s, that Freud articulated in Massenpsychologie und Ichanalyse something which curiously was found to be at the source of the Nazi phenomenon.

可是,這具有一個意義,這個意義是我從那裏保留我的真理論述的東西。無論如何,它並沒有佛洛伊德指明我領導者的真理論述的特性。確實就是在真理論述的這個層次,在二十年代的開始,佛洛伊德在「群眾心理學與自我分析」,表達某件耐人尋味被發現是納粹現象的來源。

Consult the schema that he gives in this article, at the (29) end of the chapter on Identification; you will see indicated there almost open to view the relations between capital I and small o.

請參照他在這篇文章提供的這個基模,在「論認同」這個章節的末尾,你們將會看到大寫字母的「我」與小客體o之間的關係,被指示,幾乎就是公開亮相。

Truly, the schema seems to be designed for the Lacanian signs to be imposed on it.
That which, in a discourse, is addressed to the Other as a Thou, gives rise to an identification to something that one can call the human idol.

的確,這個基模似乎是被設計,作為拉康的符號被賦加在上面。在真理論述裏,對於大它者言說的東西,當著一個「你」。它產生一種認同,對於我們所謂的人類的偶像。

If I spoke the last time about red blood as being the blood that is most useless to propel against the semblance, it is indeed because, as you have seen, one cannot advance and overthrow the idol without immediately afterwards taking its place, and we know that this is what has happened to a certain type of martyr! It is indeed in the
measure that something in every discourse that appeals to the Thou provokes a camouflaged, secret identification, which is only one to this enigmatic object that may seem to be nothing, the tiny little surplus enjoying of Hitler, that went no further perhaps than his moustache, this was enough to crystallise people who….who had nothing mystical about them!

假如我上一次談論紅色的血,作為最無用的血,逆著類似物推進。那確實是因為,如你們曾經看出,我們無法前進推翻偶像,而不立刻取代它的位置。我們知道,這是某種烈士曾經發生的事情!確實就是在每一個向這個「你」訴求的真理論述,有某件東西誘導一種偽裝,秘密的認同。這是唯一對於謎團一般的客體的認同,這個東西似乎是空無,希特勒的小小的剩餘享樂,不是別的,或許就是他的八字髭,就足夠具體表現這些人們、、、他們身上沒有什麼神秘的東西。

Who were the most committed to the process of the discourse of the capitalist, with what that involves in terms of a questioning of surplus enjoying in its form of surplus
value.

他們對於資本主義的真理論述的過程,最為奉獻致力,以其剩餘價值的形式,用剩餘享樂的術語,所牽涉的東西。

It was a matter of seeing whether, at a certain level, one would still have one‟s little bit (son petit bout) and indeed this was enough to provoke this effect of identification.

問題是要看出,在某個層次上,我們是否依舊擁有一個「小東西」。這確實就足夠召喚這種認同的效應。

It is amusing simply that this should have taken the form of an idealisation of the race, namely, of the thing which on that occasion was least involved. But one can find
where this character of fiction comes from, one can find it.

耐人尋味的僅是,這本來應該採取對於種族認同的形式。也就是說,對於在那個場合牽涉最少的東西的認同。但是我們發現到,幻想的特性來自哪里,我們能夠找到它。

What must be simply said, is that there is no need for this ideology for a racism to be constituted, and that all that is needed is a surplus enjoying that recognises itself as such. And that whoever is a little bit interested in what may happen would do well to tell himself that every form of racism, in so far as a surplus enjoying is very well
capable of supporting it, is now what is on the agenda. This is what is in store for us in the years to come.

我們所必須說的是,沒有必要讓種族主義的意識形態被構成。所需要的東西是一種剩餘享樂,體認出它自己作為本身。對於可能發生的事情,任何人只要稍微感到興趣,最好告訴他自己,每一種種族主義,現在都在這個議程表上,因為剩餘享樂支持它,綽綽有餘。這就是未來幾年,我們很可能會遭遇的事。

You will understand why better, when I tell you what the theory, the authentic exercise of analytic theory, allows us to formulate as regards what is involved in surplus enjoying.

你們瞭解為什麼,當我告訴你們,這個理論,這個精神分析理論的真實的運用,容許我們說明什麼,關於剩餘享樂會牽涉的東西。

People imagine, people imagine they are saying something when they say that what Freud has contributed, is the underlay of sexuality in everything involved in
discourse. People say that when they have been touched a little by what I state about the importance of discourse to define the unconscious. And then when they do not pay attention to the fact that I have not yet for my part, tackled what is involved in this term sexuality, sexual relationship.

人們想像,人們想像,他們正在說某件事情,當他們說,佛洛伊德貢獻的是性的支撐物,在牽涉到真理論述的每一樣東西。人們說,當他們感動我所陳述的,關於真理論述的重要性,為了替無意識下定義。然後當他們並沒有注意到這個事實:就我而言,對於「性」的這個術語,「性關係」所牽涉的東西,我還沒有完全解決。

It is certainly strange – it is only strange from one point of view, the point of view of the charlatanism (30) that presides over every therapeutic action in our society – it is strange that people have not noticed the world there is between this term sexuality, wherever it is beginning, where it is only beginning, to take on a biological substance – and I would point out to you that, if there is somewhere that one can begin to notice the sense that this has, it is rather on the side of bacteria – of the world that there is between that and what is involved concerning what Freud states about the relations that the unconscious reveals.

這確實很奇怪—從一個觀點來看,從我們社會上,主導每個治療舉動的江湖郎中的觀點來看,是很奇怪—奇怪的是,人們沒有注意到,這個世界存在於「性」這個術語,與佛洛伊德陳述的無意識顯示的關係之間。無論那裏,性的開始,僅是開始於具有一種生物的物質。我將跟你們指出,假如有某個地方,我們能夠開始注意到這個擁有的意義,在細菌的這一邊。

Whatever stumblings he himself may have succumbed to in this order, what Freud reveals about the functioning of the unconscious has nothing biological about it.

無論他曾經遭遇怎樣的顛沛,在屈就這個層次,佛洛伊德顯示有關無意識的這個功用,沒有絲毫屬於生物層次的東西。

This only has the right to be called sexuality because of what is called the sexual relationship. It is completely legitimate, moreover, until the moment when one makes use of sexuality to designate something else, namely, what is studied in biology, namely, the chromosome and its combination XY or XX, or XX, XY.

只有這個無意識層次,才有權利被稱為「性」,因為所謂的「性關係」。而且,這是完全可以自圓其說的,直到我們利用性來指明別的東西。也就是,生物學研究的東西。換句話說,遺傳因數及其XY or XX, or XX, XY.等因數的組合。

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

可能不是類似 120c

July 17, 2011

可能不是類似 120c

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 20 January 1971

Two young sages, whom I greet if they are here again today, I hope they will not be offended that they were overheard in passing, gravely nodding their heads, it appears, asking one another: „Is he a dangerous idealist?‟ Am I a dangerous idealist? That seems to me to be completely beside the point!

兩位年輕的賢人,假如他們今天再次在此,我將熱烈歡迎。我希望他們不會覺得冒犯,假如你偶爾聽見,他們似乎會嚴肅地點頭贊同,互相詢問:「他是一位危險的理想主義者嗎?」「我是一位危險的理想主義者嗎?」我覺得,那完全不是要點!

Because I began – and with what emphasis, I would say that I said the opposite of what exactly I wanted to say – by putting the emphasis on the fact that discourse is an artefact. What I am initiating with that, is exactly the contrary, because the semblance is the contrary of an artefact.

因為我開始—用怎樣的強調,我將會說,我說的內容跟我確實想要說的恰恰相反—我強調這個事實:真理論述是一種人工製品。我用人工製品開始的東西,恰恰相反,因為類似物是人工製品的相反。

As I pointed out, semblances flourish in (27) nature. The question, once knowledge is no longer at stake, once we no longer believes that it is along the path of perception,
from which we are supposed to extract some quintessence or other, that we know something, but by means of an apparatus which is discourse, there is no longer any question of the idea.

如我所指出的,類似物在自然界大為興盛。一旦知識不再岌岌可危,一旦我們不再相信,沿著感官的途徑,從那裏,我們應該提取某些的精華,我們知道某件東西,但是憑藉真理論述的工具,對於觀念的問題不再存在。

The first time, moreover, that the idea made its appearance, it was a little better positioned than after the exploits of Bishop Berkeley. It was Plato who was involved, and he asked himself where was the real of what was called a horse.

而且,第一次這個觀念出現,它比柏克萊主教對於「觀念」的貢獻立場稍微好一點。觀念的問題會牽涉到柏拉圖,他詢問自己,所謂「一匹馬」的真實界是什麼。

His idea of the idea, was the importance of this naming. In this multiple and transitory thing which was moreover perfectly obscure in his epoch more than in ours, is not the whole reality of a horse in this idea in so far as that means the signifier, a horse.

他對於「觀念」的看法,對於這個命名非常重要。在這個多重及瞬息變化的東西,而且在他的時代,比起在我們的時代,是完全蒙昧的。這個東西並不是一匹馬在觀念的現實界,因為那意味著「一匹馬」的這個能指。

You must not believe that because Aristotle put the emphasis of reality on the individual, that he got any further. The individual means exactly what one cannot say.

你們一定不要相信,因為亞力斯多德強調個人的現實界,他就沒有再探討下去。這個個人確實意味著我們無法說出的東西。

And precisely at a certain point, if Aristotle had not been the marvelous logician that he was, who took the unique step, the decisive step, thanks to which we have a reference point about what an articulated sequence of signifiers is, one could say that in his way of highlighting what ousia is, in other words the real, he behaves like a mystic.

確實是在某個時刻,假如亞力斯多德當時不是身兼這個神奇的邏輯專家,我們可能會說,以他強調「生命本質ousia」的方式,換句話說,就是「真實界」,他的行為會讓人覺得像是一位「神秘主義者」。他採取這個獨特的步驟,關鍵性的步驟。由於這個步驟,我們才有一個指稱點,關於能指的被表達的順序是什麼。

What is proper to ousia, he says it himself, is that it cannot in any way be attributed, it is not sayable. What is not sayable, is precisely what is mystical. Only it appears, he is not of that opinion, but he leaves the place to the mystic. It is obvious that the solution to the question of the idea could not come to Plato. It is from the angle of the function
and of the variable that all of that finds its solution.

這個「生命本質」的本體,他自己說到它,它無法以任何方式給予屬性,它是不可說的。所謂的不可說,確實是神秘的東西。只是似乎他並不是持那種看法,但是他將這個位置留給神秘主義者。顯而易見的,柏拉圖並無法解決「觀念」的這個問題。而是要從功用及這個變數的角度,所有觀念的問題,才能找到它的解答。

If it is clear that if there is something that I am, it is not a nominalist, I mean that I do not start from the fact that the name is something that is stuck like that onto the real.

顯而易見的,假如沒有「我實存」這個東西,這並不是唯名論者,我的意思是,我並不從這個事實開始:名字是某件像那樣卡進真實界的東西。

And you have to choose; if one is a nominalist, one must completely renounce dialectical materialism, so that in short the nominalist tradition, which is properly speaking the only danger of idealism that can be put forward here in a discourse
like mine, is very obviously rejected.

你們必須選擇,假如我們是一位唯名論者」我們必須完全放棄辯證的「唯物論」。總之,這個唯名論者的傳統,適當來說,是觀念論的唯一危險。在像我這樣的真理論述,這個觀念論在此被提出,唯名論者的傳統顯而易見是被拒絕了。

It is not a matter of being realist in the sense that people were in the Middle Ages, the realism of universals. But it is a matter of designating, of highlighting the fact that our discourse, our scientific discourse, only discovers the real because of the fact that it depends on the function of the semblance.

問題不是要成為一位實在論者,因為我們指的人們是在中世紀,那是普遍性的實在論。問題是要指明,要強調這個事實:我們的真理論述,我們科學的真論述僅是發現這個真實界,因為這個事實:它依靠這個類似物的功用。

The effects of what I call the algebraic articulation of the semblance and as such it is only letters that are at stake, is the only system by (28) means of which we designate what is real; what is real, is what makes a hole in this semblance. In this articulated semblance which is scientific discourse, scientific discourse progresses without even
asking itself any more whether or not it is semblance.

我所謂用代數來表達這個類似物的影響,作為這種表達的本身,就是文字岌岌可危。文字是唯一的系統,憑藉它,我們指明真實界的東西。真實界的東西,就是在這個類似物形成一個空洞的東西。在這個科學的真理論述被表達的類似物裏,科學的真理論述繼續發展,甚至沒有再詢問它自己,它是不是一個類似物。

It is simply a question of whether its network, its net, its lattice, as they say, makes the holes appear in the right place. The only reference is the impossible at which these deductions culminate; this impossible, is the real.

這個問題僅是它的網路,它的網脈,它的「網格」,如他們所說的,使這些空洞出現在適當的位置。唯一的指稱是這個不可能。在那裏,這些演繹的東西達到登峰造極;這種不可能就是真實界。

The apparatus of discourse in so far as it is what, in its rigor, encounters the limits of its consistency – it is with this that we aim, in physics, at something that is real.

真理論述的這個工具,積極運用時,會遭遇它能否一致性的限制—以這個工具,在物理,我們目標朝著真實界的東西。

What is important for us in what concerns us, namely, the field of truth – and why it is the field of truth, only qualified as such, that concerns us, I am going to try to articulate today – in what concerns us, we are dealing with something that takes into account that it differs from this position of the real in physics, this something that
resists, that is not permeable to every meaning, which is a consequence of our discourse, and which is called phantasy.

對於我們而言,重要的東西是我們關心的東西。也就是,真理的領域—為什麼它是真理的領域,僅是作為本身的本質,我們感到關心。今天我將要嘗試表達—在我們關心的領域,我們正在處理某件考慮到,它跟物理的真實界的這個立場不同。這個某件抗拒的東西,它無法容許每個意義的滲透。這是由於我們真理論述的一種結果,這是所謂的「幻見」。

And what has to be tested are its limits, its structure, the function, the relationship in a discourse of one of the terms, of the o, the surplus enjoying, the $ of the subject, or precisely the point which is broken (rompu) in the discourse of the master.

必須要被測試的是它的限制,它的結構,這個功用,在其中一個術語的真理論述的關西,這個小客體o,這個剩餘的享樂,作為被閹割的生命主體,或是確實是在主人的真理論述被中斷的這一點。

This is what we have to test in its functioning, when in the completely opposite position, that in which the o occupies this place, it is the subject that is opposite, this
place where it is questioned, it is here that the phantasy must take on its status, its status which is defined by the very part of impossibility that there is in analytic questioning.

這是我們必須測試它的功用的東西,在這個完全相反的立場,這個小客體o佔有這個位置。這是相反的生命主體,這個被質疑的位置。就在這裏,幻見必須形成它的地位。在精神分析的詢問,它由存在的不可能的這個部分,定義它的地位。

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

可能不是類似 120b

July 16, 2011

可能不是類似 120b

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 20 January 1971

I am not going to go through, even rapidly, an account of what is involved, even though of course I will have to come back to it and to show what is involved in it.

對於所牽涉的東西,我將不要從事描述,即使快速地。雖然當然,我將必須回頭談論它,顯示裏面牽涉到什麼。

I pointed out that you could refer in the answers described as Radiophonie in the last Scilicet, to what is involved in them, in what there consists this function of discourse as I announced it last year.

我指出,在上次的「不用說」雜誌被描述為「收音機」的回答,你們能夠提到它們裏面會牽涉到什麼,在組成真理論述的功用,如我去年所宣佈的。

It is supported by four privileged places among which one precisely remained unnamed, and precisely the one which, gives the title of each of these discourses, by the function of its occupant.

它由四個具有特權的位置所支援。其中有一個位置確實始終無以名之,確實是這一個位置,使用它的佔有者的功用,給予這些真理論述的每一個標題。

It is when the master signifier is at a certain place that I speak about the discourse of the Master; when a certain knowledge also occupies it, I speak of that of the University; when the subject in its division, fundamental for the unconscious, is in place there, I speak about the discourse of the Hysteric, and finally when surplus enjoying occupies it, I speak about the discourse of the Analyst.

當主人論述的能指處於某一個位置,我談論到主人的真理論述,當某個知識也佔據它,我提到大學的真理論述,在這個區域的生命主體各就各位時,對於無意識是基本的,我談論到歇斯底里的真理論述。最後,當「剩餘享受佔有它」,我談論到精神分析師的真理論述。

This place, which in a way is sensitive, that of the top left, for those who were there and who still remember, this place which is here occupied in the discourse of the Master by the signifier as master, S1, this place still not designated, I am designating by its name, by the name that it deserves, it is very precisely the place of the semblance.

這個位置,在某方面是很敏感,左上方的位置,對於那些在那裏的人,那些依舊還記得的人,這個位置,在主人的真理論述裏,在此由能指所佔據,作為主人,S1 這個位置依舊沒有被指明,我是根據它的名字指明,根據它應得的名字,這確實是類似物的位置。

This shows, after what I stated the last time, the degree to which the signifier, as I
might say, is here at its place.

這顯示這個程度,經過上一次我的陳述後,我不妨說,這個能在有幾分程度是在此這個位置。

Hence the success of the discourse of the Master, the success all the same that makes it worth while to pay attention to it for an instant, because after all, who can believe that any master ever ruled by force?

因此,主人的真理論述的成功,這仍然是成功,使它值得讓我們注意它一下子。因為畢竟,有誰會相信,任何主人竟是受到力量的控制?

Especially at the start, because after all, as Hegel reminds us in this admirable sleight of hand, one man is worth another. And if the discourse of the Master gives the basis, the structure, the strong point around which several civilisations are organised, it is indeed because its mainspring is all the same of a different order to violence.

特別是在開始的時候,因為畢竟,如同黑格爾提醒我們,以令人崇敬的靈巧手腕:一個人值得另外一個人。假如主人的真理論述給予這個基礎,這個結構,這個強大點,好幾個文明環繞它們而組成。這確實是因為它的主要動力,仍然是屬於暴力的不同秩序。

This does not mean that we are in any way sure that, in these facts, which it must be said we can only articulate with the most extreme caution, that once we pinpoint them by some term or other, as primitive, pre-logical, archaic, and anything whatsoever of whatever order it may be, archaic, archè, are the beginning, why?

這並不意味著,我們有任何方式確定,在這些事實裏,我們必須說,我們僅能夠萬分謹慎地表達它。一旦我們使用某種的術語確定它們,作為原始,前邏輯,過時,及任何屬於怎樣的秩序,開始的地方讓人有思古之幽情。為什麼?

And why would this not also be a waste product, these primitive societies? But
nothing settles it. What is certain, is that they show us that it is not necessary for things to be established in function of the discourse of the Master; first of all the mytho-ritual configuration, which is the best way of pinpointing them, does not necessarily imply the (26) articulation of the discourse of the Master.

為什麼這也是一種浪費的產品,這此原始的社會?但是沒有東西解決它。所能確定的是,它們跟我們顯示,事情並不需要以主任的真理論述的功用來建立。首先,神話與典禮的融合,這是最好的方式來確定它們,它未必是暗示著主人的真理論述的表達。

Nevertheless, it must be said, it is a certain form of alibi to interest ourselves so much in what is not the discourse of the Master, in most cases it is a way of confusing things completely; while you busy yourself with that, you are not looking after something else.

可是,我們必須說,這是讓我們如此感到興趣的藉口,對於並不是主人論述的東西。在大部分的情況,這是令事情完全混淆的方式。儘管你們忙於那件事,並沒有照顧別的事情。

And nevertheless the discourse of the Master is an essential articulation, and the way I expressed it ought to be something that some people, I am not saying everyone, some people, should try to get their heads around.

可是,主人的真理論述,是一種基本的表達。我表達它的方式,應該是某件,有些人,我姑且不說每個人,有些人應該嘗試改變他們的觀念。

Because what is at stake, and this I also clearly stressed the last time, what is at stake, anything new that can happen and is called, I have always said it, insisting on the tempering that should be applied to it, because what is called revolutionary can only consist in a change, in a displacement of discourse, namely, of each of these places. I would like in a way, to give an image – but you know the sort of cretinising that an image can lead to – to represent by what one might call four bowls, each of which would have its name, the way that into these bowls there slide a certain number of terms, specifically what I have distinguished by S1, S2 in so far as, at the point that we are at, S2 constitutes a certain body of knowledge, the o, in so far as it is directly a consequence of the discourse of the master, the $ which in the discourse of the master, occupies this place which is a place that we are going to talk about today, that for its part I have already named, which is that of the truth.

因為岌岌可危的,上一次我也清楚地強調這一點。岌岌可危的,可能發生的任何新的事情,我總是說到它,堅持應該用緩和的語氣說,因為所謂的革命性,只能在於改變,處於真理論述的代替位置。換句話說,每一個位置,我想要以某種方式給予一個意象—但是你們知道意象會導致這種的矮化—我用所謂的四個「劇場」來代表它們。每一個劇場都有它的名稱,將會有某些的術語被放進這些劇場裏,明確地說,就是我用第一生命主體S1,及第二生命主體 S2 來作為區別。在我們所在地方,第二生命主體組成某種知識的體系,這個小客體o,因為它直接是主人論述的一種結果。這個被禁止的生命主體$,在主人的真理論述裏,佔據這個位置。這就是我們今天要談論的位置。就它本身而言,我已經命名,那就是真理的位置。

Truth is not the contrary of semblance, the truth as I might say is this dimension, or this demansion, if you will allow me to make up a new word, to designate these bowls, this demansion which is strictly correlative to that of the semblance.

真理並不是相反的類似物。我不妨說,真理就是這個維度,或是這個「向度demansion」,假如你們容許我杜撰一個新的單詞,來指明這四個劇場。這個「向度demansion」跟類似物的維度息息相關。

This demansion, I told you that the latter, that of the semblance, supports it. So then, something is indicated all the same about what this semblance is getting at. It is
clear that there is a question that is a little inexact, I mean the one that came back to me along quite indirect paths.

這個「向度」,我告訴你們,後者,也就是類似物的「向度」支持它。因此,某件東西仍然被指示,關於這個類似物意指的是什麼。顯而易見的,會有稍微不確定的問題。我的意思是,沿著相當間接的途徑,回到我的問題。

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

可能不是類似 120a

July 16, 2011

可能不是類似 120a

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 20 January 1971

If I was looking through these sheets, it was not to assure myself, but to reassure myself about what I said the last time, the text of which I do not have at the moment. I have just been complaining about it.

假如我當時正在翻閱這幾頁,那並不是要告訴我自己,而是要讓我自己安心,關於上一次我所說。那篇文本,我現在沒有。我僅是一直在抱怨它。

Remarks of this kind come back to me – I do not have to go to any trouble for that – it happens that some people were asking themselves at certain points of my discourse the last time as they express it, what I was getting at (où je veux en venir). Other remarks came to me from elsewhere, that it is very hard to hear at the back of the room. I will try – I was absolutely unaware of it the last time, I thought that the acoustics were just as good as in the previous amphitheatre – if you don‟t mind giving me a sign when my voice lowers despite myself, I will try to do my best.

諸如其類的談話回到我這裏—我並不需要為它而費任何心—湊巧的是,有些人在上一次我的真理論述的某些時刻,詢問他們自己。依照他們所表達的,我所獲得的東西。還有些談論從別的地方來到我這裏,那是在房間背後很難聽到的東西。我將設法—我上一次絕對不知道,我以為這裏的音響跟圓形大劇場一樣的好—假如你們不介意告訴我一下,假如我的聲音,不知不覺地降低的話,我會儘量大聲一點。

So then, at certain turning points, people may have asked themselves the last time what I was getting at. In truth, this sort of question seems to me to be too premature to be significant, namely, that it is people who are far from being insignificant, people who are very well informed from whom this remark was reported, and sometimes quite calmly by themselves.

因此,在某些轉捩點,在上一次,人們可能曾經詢問過他們自己,我到底在建議什麼?事實上,我覺得這種的問題問得太早,不具有重要性。換句話說,人們並非是無足輕重,人們充分地被告知,這個談論就是從他們被報導出來,他們有時相當泰然自若地報導。

It would perhaps have a greater implication, given precisely what I put forward the last time, if they were to ask where I am starting from or even where I want you to start from.

或許,它會有一個更大的暗示,假如考慮到,上一次我提出的問題,假如他們想要問,我要從哪里開始,甚至我要你們從哪里開始。

Already, this has two meanings, this perhaps means, to go somewhere, and again this may also mean, to get a move on from where you are. This „what I am getting at‟ is in any case a very good example of what I put forward about the desire of the Other: che vuoi? What does he want? Obviously when you can say it right away, you are much more comfortable.

這已經具有兩個意義,這或許意味著,為了到達某個地方。而且,這可能也意味著,為了從你們所在地地方開始前進。這個「我正在建議什們」,無論如何是一個很好的例子,對於我所提出關於大它者的欲望,「他到底要什麼?」顯而易見的,當你們馬上說出這句話,你們會更加舒服一點。

This is an opportunity to note the factor of inertia that is constituted by this che vuoi, at least when (24) you can answer it. This indeed is why in analysis one strives to
leave this question in suspense.

這是一個機會要注意「慣性」這個因素,它由這個「他到底要什麼?」所組成,至少當年回答它時。這確實是為什麼在精神分析,我們設法將這個問題留在懸疑當中。

Nevertheless, I clearly specified the last time that here I am not in the position of the analyst. So that in short, I believe I am obliged to answer this question, and in saying this I ought to give the reason why I have spoken.

可是,我上一次清楚地指明,在此,我並不是處於精神分析師的立場。所以總之,我相信我不得不回答這個問題。當我在說這句話時,我應該給予為什麼我談論的理由。

I spoke about the semblance and I said something that is not common knowledge; first of all, I insisted, I laid stress on the fact that the semblance that presents itself as what it is, is the primary function of truth.

我談論這個類似性,我說了某件並不是普通常識的東西。首先,我堅持,我強調這個事實:呈現它自己作為本質的類似物,是真理的基本功用。

There is a certain I speak that brings this about, and it is not superfluous to recall it in order to give to this truth, which gives rise to so many logical difficulties, its correct
positioning.

有某個「我言說」導致這件事。提醒一下並非多餘,為了給予這個真理。這個真理產生這許多的邏輯困難,它的正確的定位。

This is all the more important to recall in that, if there is in Freud, to designate like that a certain tone, if there is in Freud something revolutionary – I already warned about the excessive use of this word – but it is certain that, if there was a moment when Freud was revolutionary, it is in the measure that he put in the foreground a
function which is also the one, it is the only common element moreover, which is also this element that Marx contributed, namely, to consider a certain number of facts as symptoms.

提醒一下是更加重要的,因為假如在佛洛伊德那裏,像那樣指明某一種語調,假如在佛洛伊德有某件革命性的東西—我已經警告有關這個字的過分使用—但是確實地,假如有某個時刻,當佛洛伊德是在革命,隨著他在前臺提出一個功用。也是這個功用,而且是唯一共同的因素。這也是馬克思貢獻的這個因素,換句話說,將某些的事實當著是病徵。

The dimension of the symptom is that it speaks, it speaks even to those who do not
know how to hear; it does not say everything, even to those who know it. This promotion of the symptom, is the turning point that we are living through in a certain register which, let us say, was pursued, rumbling quietly throughout the centuries, around the theme of knowledge.

這個病徵的維度是:它會言說,它甚至對那些不知道如何聽的人言說,它並沒有說出一切,甚至知道它的那些人。這個病徵的提升就是被追求的這個轉捩點。容我們這樣說,經過幾世紀來,它泰然自若地侃侃而談,環繞著知識的主題。

It cannot all the same be said that from the point of view of knowledge we are completely lacking, and we clearly sense what is outmoded in the theory of knowledge when it is a matter of explaining the order of a process constituted by the formulations of science. Physical science gives models of it today.

我們無法照常說,從知識的觀點,我們是完全地欠缺。我們清楚地感覺到,在知識的理論,那些落伍的東西,問題就是要解釋用科學的說明所組成一個過程的秩序。今天的物理科學給予我們一些它的榜樣。

The fact that we are, in parallel to this revolution of science, in a position that one can
qualify as being on the path of a certain truth, is what shows a certain heterogeneity of status between the two registers. Except for the fact that, in my teaching, and only there, an attempt is made to show their coherence, which is not obvious, or which is not obvious for those who, in this practice of analysis, go on about the semblance. This is what I will try to articulate today.

事實上,跟科學的這種革命相對比,我們處於的立場是,我們能夠定位為對於某種真理的途徑的追求。這就是為什麼它顯示這兩種銘記之間的地位的某種異質性。除了這個事實,在我的教學裏,僅有在那裏,一種企圖被嘗試,為了顯現它們的一致性。這種一致性並不是很明顯,或是對於那些人不是很明顯。在精神分析的實踐,那些人繼續從事有關類似物。這就是我今天設法表達的。

I said a second thing. The semblance is not only locatable, essential, to designate the primary function of truth, it is impossible without this reference to qualify what is involved in discourse.

我說第二件事情。類似物不僅可找出位置,對於指明是真理的初始作用非常重要,而且不可能沒有定義真理論述牽涉的內容的這個指稱。

What defines discourse, this at least is the way I tried last year to give some weight
(25) to this term by defining four of them whose titles I was only able to recall last time, to hastily recall, at which point certain people found that they were out of their depth. What is to be done?

真理論述定義的內容,至少這是我去年設法給予它們的四個定義,來重視這個術語。它們的標題,我上一次僅能夠提醒一下,匆促地提醒。在那一點,某些人們發現,他們無法理解。我們應該怎麼辦?

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

可能不是類似 609i

July 16, 2011

可能不是類似 609i

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 9: Wednesday 9 June 1971

It was even explicitly in order not to run the risk of attacking the aforesaid father that he exiled himself. What the myth is suggestive of, is to show the place that the generating father has at an epoch in which Freud underlines that, just like our own, this father is problematic.

這甚至是很明確是為了不要冒攻擊前述的父親這個危險,他放逐自己到別地。這個神話所暗示的,是要顯示這個地位,生產的父親所擁有的地位,在佛洛伊德強調它的時代,就像我們的時代一樣,這個父親是問題重重。

Because, moreover, Oedipus would be absolved, if he were not of royal blood, namely, if Oedipus did not have to function as the phallus, the phallus of his people, and not of his mother.

而且,伊底普斯將會被赦免,假如他不是屬於皇家血統。換句話說,假如伊底普斯並不需要充當陽具的功用,他的同胞的陽具,不是他父親的陽具。

And that for a time, what is most surprising is that it worked, namely, that the Thebans were so implicated that it is from Jocasta that the turn-about had to come. Is it because of what she knew or of what she was unaware of?

有一段時間,最令人驚奇的是,它發揮功用。換句說,底比斯城的人們是如此地牽涉其中。這個倒轉來自喬凱斯達,難道不是因為她知道,或是因為她不知道內情?

What is there in common in any case with the murder of the second myth which we are led to believe is one of revolt, of need, that in truth is unthinkable, indeed unthought, except as proceeding from a conspiracy.

無論如何,我們被引導去相信,第二個神話的謀殺共同的地方,是反叛的謀殺,出於需要的謀殺。事實上,這是不可思議的,確實是沒有被想到,除了作為從一種陰謀發展出來。

It is obvious that all I have done there is to approach the terrain on which, in any case, let us say, a conspiracy also prevented me from ridding myself of my problem, namely, in Moses and monotheism, namely, from the point at which everything that Freud articulated becomes truly significant. I cannot even indicate to you what is
necessary to bring you back to Freud.

顯而易見,我所做的事情,是要接近這個平臺。無論如何,在這個平臺,容我們說,一個陰謀也讓我們無法擺脫我的問題。換句話說,在「摩西與一神教」,也就是從這一點開始,佛洛伊德表達的每一件事情,變得真實地有意義。我甚至無法跟你們指示,要引導你們回到佛洛伊德需要的是什麼?

But I can say that in revealing to us here his contribution to the analytic discourse, he proceeds no less from neurosis than from what he picked up from the hysteric in
the form of the Oedipus complex. It is curious that I have had to wait until now in order that such an assertion, namely that Totem and taboo is a neurotic product, for me to be able to put it forward, which is absolutely indisputable, without for all that my questioning in any (158) way the truth of the construction.

但是我能夠說,在此給予我們的啟示,佛洛伊德對於精神分析真理論述的貢獻。他同樣從神經症與從歇斯底里症學習到的東西出發,以伊底普斯情結的形式。耐人尋味的是,我必須等到現在,為了要讓這樣一個主張,也就是說,「圖騰與禁忌」是一部神經症的著作,我能夠提出它。這是絕對無可爭議的,儘管這樣,我絲毫沒有質疑到建設的這個真理。

That is even how it bears witness to the truth. One does not psychoanalyse an oeuvre, and that of Freud less than any other, is that not so? One criticises it, and far from a neurosis making its solidity suspect, it is the very thing that solders it in this case. It is to the testimony that the obessional contributes about his structure, to the aspect of the sexual relationship that proves to be impossible to formulate in discourse, that we owe
the myth of Freud.

它甚至見證到這個真理。我們並沒有將一部「著作」精神分析化,無論是佛洛伊德的著作或任何其他著作,難道不是如此?我們批評它,這絲毫不受一位精神症患者讓它的結合成為可疑。在這個情況,就是這件事焊接它。就是這個證詞,妄想症患者對於他的結構的貢獻,對於性關係的這一面的貢獻。在我們歸功於佛洛伊德的神話的真理論述,性關係證明是不可能說明的。

I will stop there for today. The next time I will give to this its exact import, because I would not like there to be any misunderstanding.

今天我在此告一段落。下一次,我將給予這個它的確實的意義,因為我不想要有任何的誤解。

The fact of articulating in a certain way what the contribution of Freud is to the fundamental myth of psychoanalysis, I underline, is not at all rendered suspect because its origin is underlined in this way. Quite the contrary, it is simply a matter of knowing where it can lead us

事實上,要用某種方式表達,佛洛伊德對於精神分析的基本神話的貢獻,我強調,這絲毫沒有什麼可疑之處,因為它的起源就是以這種方式被強調。相反的,問題僅是要知道,它會引導我們前往哪里?

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

可能不是類似 609h

July 16, 2011

可能不是類似 609h

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 9: Wednesday 9 June 1971

A step towards seriousness could, it seems to me, be taken here by engaging with the man, and you will have noted that up to this point of my presentation I have given him the more modest part.

我覺得,朝向認真的一步能夠被採取,以探討男人。你們將會已經注意到,直到我呈現的這個時候,我給予男人的角色比較次要。

Even though it is one of them, your servant, who forms part here of this beautiful world. It seems to me impossible — it is not for nothing that I come up against this word from the start – not to grasp the split that separates the Oedipus myth from Totem and taboo.

即使我是男人其中一位,我,你們的奴才,在此湊成這個美麗世界的一個角色。這對我而言似乎是「不可能的」–從一開頭,我就遭遇這個字,不是毫無意義—不是為了要理解隔開「伊底普斯神話」與「圖騰與禁忌」之間分裂。

I am showing my hand right away. The first is dictated to Freud by the dissatisfaction
of the hysteric, the second by his own impasses. There is no trace in the second myth of the little boy, or of the mother, or of the tragic passage from the father to the son – passage of what, if not the phallus – of what is the very stuff of the first myth. Here, Totem and taboo, the father enjoys, a term that is veiled in the first myth by power.

我立刻亮出我的底牌。前者是歇斯底里症患者的不滿足給予佛洛伊德的指令,後者是他自己的僵局給予的指令。在第二神話裏,沒有什麼小男孩,或母親,或從父親到兒子的悲劇過程—這個過程,難道不就是陽具的過程—第一個神話的材料的過程?在此,「圖騰與禁忌」,父親享受,這個術語在第一個神話裏,被權力所遮蔽。

The father enjoys all the women until his sons slay him, which they only set about after a prior agreement, according to which (156) no one would succeed to him in his gluttony for enjoyment.

父親享受所有的女人,直到他的兒子們殺死他。他們事前先獲得協議,才開始殺死他。依照這個協議,沒有人會繼承他,由於他對於享樂的貪得無厭。

The term is required by what comes in return, because the sons devour him, each one necessarily only having a part of him and by this very fact the whole making a communion. It is starting from that that there is produced the social contract.

這個術語由回報的東西所要求,因為兒子們吞噬他,每一位都必須要吞噬他的一部分,根據這個事實:整體是大家所共有。從那裏開始,社會契約被產生。

No one will touch, not the mother here, it is clearly specified, in Moses and monotheism, in Freud‟s own writing, that among the sons only the younger ones are
still listed in the harem. So then it is no longer the mothers but the wives of the father, as such, who are concerned in the prohibition.

在「摩西與一神教」,在佛洛伊德自己的著作,沒有人會碰觸,在此不是指母親。這是清楚被指明的,在眾兒子當中,只有年齡尚小的幾位還在閨房。因此不再是母親,而是父親的妻妾們,她們關心到這個禁忌。

The mother only comes into play precisely for her babies which are the grain of heroes. But if this is how there is constructed, according to Freud, the origin of law, it is not the law described as that of maternal incest, which is nevertheless given as inaugural in psychoanalysis.

確實只有對於具有英雄氣質的嬰兒,母親的功用才會運作。假如這是所被建構的東西,依照佛洛伊德,法則的起源,這並不是被銘記為母親亂倫的法則。可是,這個亂倫法則被給予作為精神分析的開幕辭。

While in fact, this is a remark, apart from a certain law of Manou which punished it by a real castration, you will go to the west with your balls in your hand, etc., this law of maternal incest is everywhere more or less elided. I am not at all disputing here the
prophylactic grounds for the analytic prohibition. I am underlining that at the level at which Freud articulates something about it, Totem and taboo, and God knows he stuck by it, he does not justify this prohibition mythically.

事實上,要注意的是,除了印度祖先的法則,以真正的閹割作為懲罰外,你們有勇氣去探險一下。這個母親亂倫的法則在每個地方或多或少都被刪掉。

The strangeness begins with the fact that neither Freud, nor moreover any other person either, seems to have noticed this.

這種怪異感開始於這個事實:既不是佛洛伊德,也不是任何其他人,似乎曾經注意到。

I stride on. Enjoyment is promoted by Freud to the rank of an absolute which brings back to the care of the man, I am talking about Totem and taboo, of the original man – and this is all admitted – of the Father of the primitive horde, it is simple to recognise here the phallus, the totality of what „femininely‟ can be subject to enjoyment.

容我大步前進。佛洛伊德將享樂提升到絕對的地位。這個「絕對」讓人回想的男人的照顧,我是談論到「圖騰與禁忌」,原初的人—這是大家共認定—原始部落的父親,在此我們要體認出陽具是很簡單的,那是「女性化」會跟享樂息息相關的整體性。

This enjoyment, I have just noted, remains veiled in the royal couple of the Oedipus complex, but it is not only from the first myth that it is absent.

我剛剛注意到,享樂始終是在伊底普斯情結的皇家夫妻裏,但是不僅僅是從欠缺的第一個神話開始。

The royal couple is not even put in question until something which is stated in the drama, that they are the guarantors of the enjoyment of the people, which moreover agrees with what we know about all royalties, whether ancient or modern. And the castration of Oedipus has no other end than to end the Theban plague.

皇家夫妻甚至沒有受到質疑,直到某件東西在戲劇中被陳述。他們是人們享樂的保證者。而且,這是跟我們所知道的所有的皇家互相一致,無論是古代或是現代的皇家。伊底普斯的閹割沒有其他目的,除了就是要結束底比斯城的瘟疫。

Namely, to render to the people the enjoyment of which others are going to be
the guarantors, which of course, given where it has started from, will not happen without some bitter adventures being experienced by all.

換句話說,要將享樂給予人們,其他的人則是這個享樂的保證者。當然,假如考慮到,享樂是從那裏開始,假如沒有一些痛苦的冒險被大家經驗到,這樣的事是不會發生。

13.1.71 I 186
Must I underline that the key function of myth is strictly opposed in the two? The law first of all in the first, so primordial that it exercises its retortions even when the guilty have only contravened it innocently, and it is from the law that the profusion of enjoyment has (157) emerged. In the second, enjoyment at the origin, then law, whose correlates with perversion you will spare me having to underline.

我必須要強調:在這兩者,神話的關鍵功用是嚴格對立的。首先,在第一個神話的法則是如此的原始,以致於它運作它的反擊,甚至當罪惡感僅是裝無辜地否認。就是從法則開始,享樂的豐沛曾經出現。在第二個神話,起源處的享樂,然後這個法則,它跟變態的相關,恕我不需要強調了。

Since it is, when all is said and done, with the promotion, sufficiently insisted on, of sacred cannibalism, that all the women are prohibited, in principle, for the community of males, which has been transcended as such in this communion.

因為當一切都說都做了,就是神聖的殘酷行為的這個提升,充分地被堅持,所有的女人原則上,被禁止對於男人的社區,這個社區在這個共有的團體裏已經被超然存在。

This indeed is the sense of the other primordial law, otherwise, what grounds it? Eteocles and Polynices are there, I think, to show that there are other resources. It
is true that they proceed from the genealogy of desire.

這確實是另外一個原初法則的意義。否則是什麼充當它的基礎?我認為,伊底普斯的兩個兒子,阿提奧力斯與波力尼西斯在那裏顯示:還有其他的資源。的確,他們從欲望的系譜開始前進。

It must be that the murder of the father has constituted – for whom, for Freud, for his
readers? – such a supreme fascination, that no one has ever even dreamt of underlining that in the first myth this murder happens without the knowledge of the murderer, who not only does not recognise that he is attacking the father, but who cannot recognize him because he has another, who, from all antiquity is his father,
since he adopted him.

那一定是,對父親的謀殺曾經形成—為了誰?為了佛洛伊德?為了他的讀者?如此崇高的著迷,沒有人曾經夢想到要強調:在第一個神話,這樣的謀殺,兇手自己並不知道。他不但不承認他是在攻擊父親,而且他的父親並無法認出他,因為他有另外一位父親。根據古代風俗,那就是他的父親,他收養他。

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

可能不是類似 609f

July 14, 2011

可能不是類似 609f

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 9: Wednesday 9 June 1971

Anyway the whole pantaloonery of the first great formal logic, is absolutely essentially linked to the idea that Aristotle had of the woman. This does not prevent,
precisely, that the only universal formula that he did not allow himself to pronounce was all women (toutes les femmes).

無論如何,整個的最初偉大的正式邏輯的滑稽劇,絕對基本上是跟亞力斯多德對於女人的觀念息息相關。確實地說,這並沒有妨礙,他不容許他自己宣稱的唯一普遍性公式,都是女人。

There is no trace of it. Open the Prior Analytics. No more than he, even though
his successors rushed into it headfirst, would have allowed himself to write this incredible enormity, on which formal logic has lived ever since, all men are mortal.

沒有這個痕跡。打開這本「先前邏輯分析」。僅僅是他自己本來就能夠寫下這本難以置信的钜作,即使他的後續者前仆後繼。在這部書裏,這個正式的邏輯從此保留下來:凡人都會死。

Which is something that completely prejudges the future fate of humanity. All men are mortal, that means that all men, because what is at stake is something that is stated in extension, all men qua all, are destined to death, that is that the human race is going to be extinguished, which to say the least is rather daring.

這個東西完全預先假定人類未來的命運。「凡人都會死」意味著:所有的人。因為岌岌可危的是,是某件延伸到陳述:作為全體的所有的人,都註定有一天會死。
也就是,人類的種族將會消滅。這是相當大膽的說法,恕我保守地說。

That x requires the passage to a being, to an every woman (toute femme) that an individual as sensitive as Aristotle never in fact wrote this every woman, is precisely what allows it to be advanced that every woman is the statement by which there is
decided the hysteric as subject, and that it is for this reason that a woman is solidary with a papludun which properly lodges her in this logic of the successor that Peano gave us as a model. The hysteric is not a woman (une femme).

那是未知數X要求通往一個生命的實存,通往每一個女人。像亞力斯多德這麼敏感的個人,事實上永遠不會書寫這個「每一個女人」。這個「每一個女人」確實是容許這個命題被提出:「每一個女人」是這個陳述,歇斯底里症患者被決定作為一個生命主體。因為這個理由,一個女人跟一位「僅僅是一個」是休戚與共。適當來說,這「僅僅是一個」駐居在她身上。他的後繼者皮阿諾,給予我們這個邏輯作為典範:歇斯底里症患者並不是「一個女人」。

It is a matter of knowing whether psychoanalysis as I define it gives access to a woman or whether, for a woman to come to pass, is the business of doxa. Namely, if it is like virtue, to listen to the people who were dialoguing in Meno – you remember Meno, but no (mais non) – like this virtue, and this is what gives its value, its meaning, to this dialogue, this virtue is what cannot be taught.

問題是要知道,我所定義的精神分析學是否接近「一個女人」,或是讓「一個女人」成為真實,是「共同信仰」的事情。換句話說,假如它像品德,傾聽在「柏拉圖對話錄」對話的那些人—你們記得是「Meno」,而不是「mais non」–就像品德。這是它被給予這個對話錄的它的價值,它的意義的原因。這個品德只能體會,無法教導。

This can be expressed, that what can be about her, about a woman, as I have defined the step, be known in the unconscious, i.e., in an articulated fashion. Because after all – I will stop there – someone who precisely puts it up on the stage again, as if this were a question worthy of absorbing great deal of activity – it is a book that is very
well done – a great amount of activity on the part of the analyst, as if it were really what an analyst should specialise in, someone accords me the merit, in a note, of having introduced the distinction between truth and knowledge.

這個能夠被表達,關於她,關於一個女人的可能性,如我曾經定義這個步驟,在無意識界能夠被知道,譬如,以被表達的方式。因為畢竟—我將停止那兒—某個確實再次將它放置在舞臺上的人,好像這個問題值得吸引許多的活動—這是一本寫得很好的書—在精神分析師這一方面,有很多的活動,好像它確實就是一位精神分析師應該精通的東西。某個人以紙條的方式,給予我這個價值,介紹真理與知識之間的區別。

Outrageous! Outrageous! I have just been talking to you about Meno, have I not? Naturally, he never read it, he only reads theatre. Anyway it was with Meno that I began to open up the first phases of a crisis that a certain analytic system has
confronted me with.

可恨!可恨!我剛剛跟你們談論到「柏拉圖對話錄」,不是嗎?當然,他從來沒有閱讀它,他僅是閱讀舞臺。無論如何,我就從「柏拉圖對話錄」開始,展開一個危機的前面的部分。某一個精神分析系統讓我們面臨到這個危機。

The distinction between truth and knowledge, the opposition between episteme and the true doxa, the one that can ground virtue, you will find written, quite crudely, in Meno.

當然,真理與知識之間的區別,處於「認識論」與這個「共同信仰」之間的對立。能夠作為品德的基礎的這個對立,你們將會發現被書寫,相當簡要地,在「柏拉圖對話錄」。

What I highlighted, is precisely the contrary, it is their junction. Namely, that there, there where they are knotted together in appearance, in a particular circle, the knowledge that is at stake in the unconscious is the one that slides, that is prolonged, which at every instant proves to be a knowledge of the truth.

我所強調的,確實是相反,這個它們的功用。換句話說,就在那裏,它們在外表上被打結在一塊,以一個特別的圓圈。在無意識界岌岌可危的知識,就是這個滑動的知識,被延長的知識。在每個時刻,它總是證明是真理的知識。

And this is where just now I am putting the question. Does this knowledge effectively allow us to make progress with respect to Meno? Namely, is this truth, in so far as it is incarnated in the hysteric effectively capable of a subtle enough sliding to be the
introduction to a woman.

這就是剛才,我提出問題的地方。這個知識有效地讓我們能夠有所進步,關於「柏拉圖對話錄」?換句話說,這個真理,就它在歇斯底里患者具體表現,它能夠從事足夠微妙地滑動,才能成為「一個女人」的前導。

I know well, the question has risen by a notch since I proved that there is something that can be articulated in language which cannot for all that be articulated in words, and that it is on that simply that desire is based. It is nevertheless easy to settle,
it is precisely because what is at stake is desire, in so far as it puts the emphasis on the invariance of the unknown, of the unknown which is on the left (à gauche), the one that is only produced under the heading of a Verneinung.

我心知肚明,這個問題會逐級上升,自從我證明,在語言裏,有某件東西被表達。儘管如此,這個東西無法以文字來表達。欲望的基礎僅就是在這裏。可是,要解決很容易,確實是因為岌岌可危的是欲望。因為欲望強調在左邊的這個未知數,這個未知數的不變性。這個未知數,僅有在「否認」的這個標題下,才被產生。

It is precisely because it puts the emphasis on the invariance of the unknown, that obviously what belongs to desire cannot be inscribed by analysis in any function of a variable.

確實是因為它強調這個未知數的不變性,顯而易見,屬於欲望的東西,無法被精神分析,以一個變數的任何功用銘記。

This is the stumbling block by which there is separated as such the desire of the hysteric, from what nevertheless is produced, and allows innumerable women to function as such, namely, by playing the function of the papludun of their being for all their situational variations.

這就是這個絆腳石,歇斯底里症患者的欲望的本身被分開,可是從被產生的地方,並且容許無數的女人充當本身的功用。換句話說,它扮演她們生命實存「僅僅是一個」的功用,儘管她們有情境上的變數

(154) The hysteric here plays the role of functional schema, if you know what that means. This is the import of my formula of desire described as unsatisfied. It can be deduced from this that the hysteric is situated by introducing the papludun by which each one of the women is established along the path of it is not of every woman that it
can be said that she is a function of the phallus (ce n‟est pas de toute femme que se peut dire qu‟elle soit fonction du phallus).

在此,歇斯底里症患者扮演這個功用性基模的角色,假如你們知道那是什麼意思。這就是我對於欲望的公式的意義,被描述為無法被滿足。從這個地方,我們能夠推論:歇斯底里症患者被定位為「僅僅是一個」的介紹。憑藉這「僅僅是一個」,每一個女人被建立,沿著這個途徑:她是一種陽具的功用,並不是屬於據說的「每一個女人」。

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