Archive for the ‘拉康被窃的信’ Category

sinthome 41

December 25, 2011

sinthome 41

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

So then for me it is a matter of knowing whether I do not know what I am saying as true. It is to each of those who are here to tell me how you understand it. And especially about the fact that, when I speak – because after all it is not sure that what I say about the Real is anything more than speaking without rhyme or reason.

因此,对于我的问题是要知道,是否我知道我所说的话是真实的。每一位在这里的每一位会告诉我,你们如何了解它。特别是关于这个事实,当我在谈论时,因为毕竟,我并确定,我所说关于实在界,正如我并不确定关于没有什么意义地言说。

To say that the Real is a sinthome, my own, does not prevent the energetics, that I spoke about earlier, being any the less so. What is supposed to be the privilege of energetics? If not that, if not that one has – on condition of making the proper manipulations, manipulations in conformity with a certain mathematical teaching
– one always finds a constant number.

说实在界是一个病征,我自己的病征,并没有阻止我早先谈论的这个精力能源,因为它情况是一样。什么被认为是精力能源的特权呢?难道它不就是那个,难道它不就是我们拥有的东西,条件是做适当的操控,操控来跟某些数学的教导相一致—我们总是找到一个固定的常数。

But one clearly feels at every instant what it can, that it is, as one might say a preestablished requirement. Namely, that one must get the constant. And that this is what constitutes energetics in itself. It is that some knack must be found to find the constant. The appropriate knack, the one that succeeds is supposed to be in
conformity with what is called reality.

但是我们清楚地感觉到,在尽可能的每个瞬间,我们不妨说,那是一个预先建立好的要求。换句话说,我们必须获得那个固定常数。这就是我们组成精力能源的本身的东西。有些的技巧必须被发现,为了找到这个固定常数。这个适当的技巧,成功的这个技巧,

But I make a distinction between this organ, as I might say, between this organ which has absolutely nothing to do with the fleshly organ, I draw a complete distinction between this organ by which the Imaginary and the Symbolic are, as they say, knotted, I draw a complete distinction between this supposed Real as compared to what serves to ground the science, of reality.

但是我区别这个器官,我不妨说,区别这个跟肉体的器官没有丝毫关系的器官。我从事一个完全的区别,对于想象界与符号界赖于构成环结的器官。我从事一个完全的区别,处于这个被假定的实在界,跟作为科学的基础之用的现实界。

The Real that is at stake is illustrated by this flattened-out knot. Is (153) illustrated by the fact that in this flattened-out knot, I show a field as essentially distinct from the Real which is the field of meaning (sens). In this respect, one can say that the Real has and does not have a meaning with respect to the following, which is that the field is distinct from it.

岌岌可危的实在界,由这个被摆平的环结作为说明。这个第153环结根据这个事实来说明:在这个被摆平的环结,我显示一个领域,作为基本上不同于实在界,这是意义的领域。在这一方面,我们能够说,实在界并拥有意义,也可说是,没有意义,对于以下跟它不同的领域。

That the Real does not have meaning is depicted by the following, namely, that meaning is there (X-1). And that the Real is there. And that they are not, they are specifically distinct as fields. The striking thing is this, it is that the Symbolic is distinguished by being specialised, as one might say, as hole. But that the true hole is here. It is here that there is revealed that there is no Other of the Other.

实在界并没有拥有意义,可由以下描述。换句话说,那个意义,是(X-1)那里的图形。实在界在那里。它们作为领域,并没有明确地区别。引入注意到是,符号界由于被明确指定作为空洞,而被区别出来。但是真实的空洞在这里。就在这里,显示出:大他者之外没有大他者。

And that this here would be the place, just as meaning is the other of the Real,
that this here would be the place, but that there is nothing of the kind. At the place of the Other of the Other, there is no, no order of existence. This indeed is why I can think that the Real is not in suspense either as one might say. That the Real can be, can be what I reduced it to, in the form of a question, namely, of only being a response – a response to the lucubration of Freud of which one can say that all the same it feels repugnance for energetics.

这将就是这个位置,根本不是那样的东西。在大他者的大他者的位置,没有存在的秩序。这确实是为什么我能够认为,实在界也不是处于被悬置当中,我们不妨这样说。实在界有时是我用一个问题,将它化简为仅是一个回忆,对于弗洛伊德的构想的一种回应。我们不妨说,它对于精力能源,仍然感到强烈憎恶。

That it is altogether up in the air with regard to this energetics, and that the only conception that can supply for the aforesaid energetics, is the one that I stated under the term of Real. There you are.

关于这个精力能源,它完全是空中楼阁。唯一能够应用到以上所说的精力能源的观念,是我用实在界的术语所陈述的这个。你们瞧!

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

sinthome 40

December 23, 2011

sinthome 40

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

This is how the two functions are distinguished in Freud, because he had a feeling for distinctions; it is in this that reminiscence is distinguished from remembering
(remémoration).

这就是这两个功用在弗洛伊德那里被区别的方式,因为他拥有一种区别的感觉。就是在这里,回顾跟回忆被区别出来。

Remembering, is obviously something which, that Freud (150) completely forced. That he forced thanks to the term impression. He supposed that in the nervous system, there were things that were imprinted. And these things that were imprinted in the nervous system, he provided with letters, which is already saying too much, because there is no reason why an impression should be figured as this something already so distant from the impression as a letter is. Because a letter, there is already a world
between a letter and a phonological symbol.

显而易见地,回忆是某件弗洛伊德完全强迫的东西。由于「印象」这个术语,他强迫。他认为,在神经系统里,有某些东西被印记。这些东西被印记在神经系统里,他用字母供应。这已经是说得太多了,因为没有理由为什么一个印象应该被形成是这个某件东西,跟一个字母的印象那么遥远的东西。因为一个字母,已经是一个世界,处于一个字母与一个语音的符号之间。

The idea the Freud bears witness to in the Project, by depicting in networks, networks, of course these networks, are what, are perhaps what encouraged me to give them a new more rigorous form. Namely, to make of these networks something which is
enchained, which is enchained instead of being simply woven.

在「计划」里,这个弗洛伊德见证的这个观念,用网络描述,当然是这些网络,这就是为什么我被鼓励给予它们一种更加有活力的新的形式。换句话说,将这些网络解释为某件被赋予锁链的东西。它被赋予锁链,而不仅是被编织。

Remembering, properly speaking, is to bring in, and it is certain that it is not easy, that it is not easy, I think that I have given you the testimony of this, it is not easy to bring in the chain or the knot described, placed under the patronage of the Borromeans, it is not easy to make it enter into what is already there. The frequent lapses that I made, in trying to trace them on something like this piece of paper, are the proof of it.

记忆,适当地说,是要带进来,这确实是不容易,并不容易。我认为,我已经给予你们这个证词。要带进这个锁链,被描述的这个锁链,并不容易,它被放置在博罗米恩环结的照顾之下。要让它进入已经在那里的东西,我经常犯的错误是,当我正在尝试追踪它们,在这张纸上,就是它的证据。

Something which is already there and which is named knowledge.

某件已经在那里的东西,它的名字被称为知识。

18.11.75 XII-165
I try to be rigorous by pointing out that what Freud supports as the Unconscious always supposes a knowledge, and a spoken knowledge, as such. That this is the minimum that is supposed by the fact that the Unconscious can be interpreted. It is entirely reducible to a knowledge.

我尝试精神抖擞地指出,弗洛伊德所支持的,作为无意识的东西,总是假定是一种知识,一种口说的知识本身。这就是被这个事实认为的最小量:无意识能够被解释。它完全可化简成为一门知识。

After which, it is clear that this knowledge requires at the minimum two supports, is that not so, that are called terms, by symbolising them as letters. Hence my writing of knowledge as being supported by S, not to the power of 2, of S with this index,
this index that supports it, this index of a small 2, of a small 2 at the bottom. It is not S squared, it is S supposed to be 2, S2.

在此之后,显而易见地,这个知识至少要求两个支持。它并不这样,一个是所谓的术语,被象征化为字母。因此,我对于知识的书写,作为由这个主体所支持,并不是由这个二,带有二个索引的主体的次方。这个索引支持它,在底下的这个小小的二的索引。这并不是主体二次方,主体被认为是这个二,主体的二次方。

The definition that I give of this signifier, as such, that I support from S index 1, S1, is to represent a subject, as such, and to truly represent it. On this occasion truly means in conformity with reality.

对于这个能指的定义本身,我用索引一的主体支持它,第一主体是要代表一个主体,作为本身,它要真实地代表它。在这个场合,真实的意思是跟现实界相一致。

The True is saying in conformity with reality. Reality which is on this occasion what functions; what truly functions. But what truly functions has nothing to do with what I am designating as the Real. It is an altogether precarious supposition that my Real – I
must indeed accept my part in it – that my Real conditions reality; the reality of your hearing, for example.

这个真实界正在言说,跟现实界一致。在这个场合,现实界就是发挥功用的东西,真实发挥功用的东西。「我」的实在界是一个完全不稳定的假设—我必须确实接受我参与它,我的实在界界定了现实界—你的听力的现实界,譬如这样说。

There is here an abyss which is far from, which one is far from being able to guarantee will be crossed over. In other terms, the agency of knowledge that Freud renews, I mean renovates in the form of the Unconscious, is a thing which does not at all obligatorily suppose the Real that I use.

在此有一个深渊,这个深渊根本不能够保证,它将会被越过。以其它术语来说,弗洛伊德重新温习的知识的代理,我的意思是,他以无意识的形式重新改造它。无意识这件东西根本没有义务假定我所用的实在界的存在。

I conveyed a lot of what is called the Freudian thing. I even entitled something that I wrote The Freudian thing. But in what I call the Real, I invented. I invented something, not at all because this imposed itself on me, perhaps there are some who remember how, in short. And at what moment there arose this famous knot which is the most figurative of things.

我传递许多所谓的弗洛伊德的「真实的物界」。我甚至以我书写「弗洛伊德的真实的物」作为论文标题。但是在我所谓的实在界,我发明,我发明某件东西,完全不是因为这个自己赋加在我身上,总之,或许有些人记得如何。在这个著名的环结的起来的时刻,那是最比喻的东西。

The maximum that one can depict of it is to say that to the Imaginary and to the Symbolic, namely, to things which are very foreign, the Real, for its part, contributes the element that can make them hold together. This is something of which I can say that I consider it as being nothing more than my symptom.

我们充其量所能描述它的是说:对于想象界,及对于符号界,换句话说,对于外来的东西,实在界,就它本身而言,贡献某个因素,让它们聚集在一块。这是某件东西,我能够说,我认为它仅仅是我的病征。

I mean that – if indeed it is something that one can call a Freudian lucubration – that it is my own way of raising to its degree of symbolism, to the second degree, it is in the measure that Freud articulated the Unconscious that I react to it.

我的意思是—假如它确实是某件能够被称为所弗洛伊德的深思熟虑。那是我自己的方式,提升到符号界的程度,提到第二个程度。随着弗洛伊德表达这个我对它反应的无意识。

But already we see there that it is way of raising the sinthome itself to the second degree. It is in the measure that Freud truly made a discovery – and supposing that this discovery is true – that one can say that the Real is my symptomatic response. But to reduce it to being symptomatic is obviously no small thing. To reduce it to being
symptomatic, is also to reduce all invention to the sinthome.

但是我们已经看出,将病征的本身提升到第二程度。随着弗洛伊德实在地发现—假定这个发现是真实的—我们能够说,实在界是我的病征的反应。但是为了将它简化成为病征,显而易见,不是一件不重要的事情。将它简化成为病征,也是将所有的发明简化成为病征。

Let us change our seat.

让我们改变我们的立场。

From the moment that one has a memory, does one have a memory? Can one say that, that one is doing any more in saying that one has it than in imagining that one has it?

从我们拥有记忆的时刻开始,我们就有记忆吗?我们能够说,对于我们拥有记忆,除了就是想象我们拥有记忆,我们正在做任何事情?

Imagining that it is at one’s disposal (on en dispose)? I should say that one direspose’s of it, that one has it to say. And this is why the tongue, the tongue, the lalangue that I called lalanglaise has, has all kinds of resources: ‘I have to say.’ J’ai à dire.

除了想象记忆是由我们来使用?我应该说,我们将记忆「语言化」。我们必须这样说。这就是为什么我所谓的「元语言」的这个语言,拥有各种的资源。我必须说:「元语言」

That is how it is translated.

这就是它被翻译的方式。

Moreover it is an Anglicism. But that one can say not simply ‘have’, but ought, ‘I ought to say’ gives the slippage, ‘I have to say’ becomes ‘I ought to say’. And that one can, in this tongue, (152) put the accent on the verb in such a way that one can say: ‘I do make’, I insist in short on the fact that, by this making, there is only fabrication. That one can also separate negation in this form that one says ‘I don’t’, which means that je m’abstiens doing something ‘I don’t talk’. ‘I do not choose to talk’, to talk what?

而且,这是英国人的习惯。但是我们不仅能够说「拥有」,而是应该,「我应该说」这句话有点闪烁,「我必须说」成为「我应该说」。用这种语言,我们能够强调这个动词,以这样一种方式,我们能够说,「我确实做」。总之,我坚持这个事实:凭借这个「做」,仅是这个建构存在。我们也能够以这个形式分开否定,我们说「我没有」,这意味着,「做某件「我没有谈论」的事情,我并没有选择要谈论,谈论什么?

In the case of Joyce, it is Gaelic. This supposes, implies that one chooses to speak the tongue that one effectively speaks. In fact, one only imagines that one is choosing it.

在乔伊士的情况,那是爱尔兰与苏格兰的塞尔语。这假定,这暗示着,我们选择我们有效地谈论的语言。事实上,我们仅是想象我们选择它。

And what resolves the matter, is that when all is said and done one creates this tongue,
one creates a tongue in as much, in as much as at every instant one gives it a meaning. It is not reserved to the sentences in which the tongue is created. At every instant one gives a little prod, otherwise the tongue would not be living. It is living in as much
as at every instant it is created. And that is why there is no collective unconscious, that there are only particular unconsciousness’, in so far as everyone, at every instant, gives a little prod to the tongue he speaks.

这件事情解决的方式是,当一切都说都做了,我们创造这个语言。我们创造一种语言的,如同在每个瞬间,我们给予语言一种意义。意义并不是保留给语言被创造的句子。在每个瞬间,我们给予一点激励,否则语言将不会是活的语言。在语言被创造的每个瞬间,它具有生命力。那就是为什么没有集体无意识,仅有特别的无意识。对于每个人,在每个瞬间,让他谈论的语言,给予一点激励。

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

sinthome 39

December 23, 2011

sinthome 39

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

B. Seminar 10: Wednesday 13 April 1976

Good, as usual, as usual I have something to tell you. Can you hear? Good, so then that’s it, this thing isn’t working! Is it working now? What? What’s happening? It’s working.

呵呵,像平常一样,我有某件事情告诉你们。你们听得见吗?呵呵,那就是了。这个东西坏了!它现在不能用?怎么?发生怎么了?现在可以了。

As usual I have something to tell you. But I would like, like that, today, I would like because, like that, I have an opportunity – its my birthday [applause] – I would like to be able to verify whether, whether I know, whether I know what I am saying.

像平常一样,我有某件东西告诉你。但是我想要,像今天那样,我想要,因为我有一个机会—今天是我生日。我想要能够验证,是否我知道,是否我知道我正在说什么。

After all, saying aims at being understood.

毕竟,说的目标是朝著被了解。

I would like to verify in short whether, whether I am not being satisfied with talking for myself. As everyone else, as everyone else does, of course. If the unconscious has a meaning, it is indeed that. I say: if the unconscious has a meaning.

总之,我想要证实是否我满意我自己的谈论。像每个其他人一样,像每个其它人一样,当然。假如无意识拥有意要,那的确是那样。我说,假如无意识有意义。

I would prefer then that today someone – I am not asking for many, I am not at all asking that, that the spark should shoot forth – I would have liked, no doubt, that, that someone would write, would write something which, which in short would justify, would justify this trouble that I have been taking for, about twenty two years, a little more. The only way of justifying it would be, would be if someone were to invent something that could be of use to me. I have got it into my head that this is possible.

我因此宁愿,今天有某个人,我并不要求有许多人,我根本就没有要求,应该火光四射。我本来想要,无可置疑的,某个人将会书写,将会书写某件东西,总之,那会证实,我一直在从事的麻烦,大约二十二年来,稍微多一点。唯一的方式证实它,假如有人想要发明某件东西,那将对我们有用途。我曾经想过,这是可能的。

I invented what, what is written, is written as the real.

我发明所被书写为实在界的东西。

Naturally, it is not enough to write it Real. Because quite a few people have done it before me. But I have written this Real in the form of what is called the Borromean knot, which is not a knot, (148) which is a chain, a chain having certain properties. And in the minimal form in which I have traced out this chain, there must be at least three of them, the Real, the Real is that.

当然,光是书写实在界是不足够的。因为在我之前,很多人曾经做过。但是我曾经书写实在界,以我所谓的博罗米恩环结。这并不是一个环结,这是一个锁链。这一个锁链拥有某些的特性。以最小量的形式,我曾追踪这条锁链。至少必须有三个。实在界是其中之一。

This is what consists in calling one of these three: Real. That means here that
there are three elements. And that these three elements, in short, said to be knotted, in reality enchained, constitute a metaphor.

这就是所谓的这三个其中之一。那在此意味着,有三个要素。这三个要素,总之,据说是有环结,实际上,被锁链著,形成一个比喻。

It is nothing more, of course, than metaphor of the chain.

当然,那仅仅是锁链的比喻。

How can there be a metaphor of something that, that is only number? Because of that this metaphor is called the figure (chiffre).

如何可能会有某件东西的比喻,那仅是号码吗?因为那样,这个比喻被称为「数目」。

There are a certain number of ways of, of tracing out figures.

有某些的方式来追踪数目。

Anyway, the simplest way is, is the one that I called the unary trait. To make a certain number of strokes (traits), or of points, moreover, and that is enough to indicate a number.

无论如何,最简单的方法,是我称为的这个「单一的特征」。为了形成某些的笔画,或某些的点,那就足够指示一个数目。

There is something important, which is that what is called energetics. It is nothing other than the manipulation of a certain number of numbers, a certain number of numbers from which a constant number is extracted. This was what Freud, in referring himself to science, to science as it was conceived of in his time, to
what Freud referred himself; namely, that he only made a metaphor of it. He never truly, truly founded the idea of a psychic energetics.

有某件重要的东西,这就是所谓的「能源学」。这实实在在是某些数目的操控,从某些的数目,抽出一个固定的常数。这就是弗洛伊德提到科学时,提到他当代所构想的科学,提到弗洛伊德自己所提到的,换句话说,他仅是用它来当作比喻。他从来没有真实地创建一个「心理能源学」的观念。

He would not even, he would not even have been able to make the metaphor hold up, make the metaphor hold up with some degree of verisimilitude. The idea of a constant, for example, between, linking the stimulus to what he called the response, is something completely unsustainable.

他甚至,他甚至不能够让这个比喻维持下去,让这个比喻维持在某个程度的起伏之内。譬如,一个常数的观念,处于他所谓的反应的刺激,是某件完全无法维持的东西。

In the metaphor of the chain, of the Borromean chain, I am saying that I invented something. What does it mean to invent? Is it an idea? That this does not prevent you, all the same, trying in a moment to ask me a question that, that recompenses me. That
recompenses me not for the effort that I am making for the moment because, precisely, what I think, what I am thinking for the moment, is that what I am telling you, for the moment, does not have much chance of getting a response.

在这个锁链的比喻,博罗米恩环结的比喻,我正在说,我发明了某件东西。发明是什么意思?这是一个观念吗?这仍然并没有阻止你们,不要一下子就尝试询问我一个问题,那会补偿我。那还补偿我,并不是因为我目前正在做的努力,因为确实地,我所想的,我目前正在想的是,我正在告诉你们的东西。目前,我并没有多少机会获得回答。

Is this idea of the Real an idea? I mean, as it is, as it is inscribed in what is called the Borromean knot. Which, I underline, is a chain. It is not an idea. It is not an idea that can be sustained (149) because it is here in short that one can touch that the idea,
the idea that comes like that, the idea that comes when, when one is lying down, because when all is said and done, it is that, the idea at least reduced to its analytic value, is an idea that comes to you when you are lying down.

实在界的这个观念是一个观念吗?我的意思是,事实上,它被铭记在所谓的博罗米恩环结。我强调,这是一个锁链。这并不是一个观念。这并不是一个能够被维持的观念,因为总之就在这里,我们能够碰触到,这个观念,这个观念就像那样来临。当我们正躺下来,因为当一切都说都做了,这个观念至少会被沦落到精神分析的价值。这个观念,当你们躺下来时,会降临你们身上。

Whether one is lying down or standing up, the chain effect that one gets by writing is not easy to think about.

是否为们正在躺下,或正在站起,我们用书写获得的连锁效应,并不容易思考。

I mean that, in my experience at least, it is not at all easy to say how a chain, a chain composed of a certain number of elements, even by reducing them to three, is not all that easy to imagine, is not all that easy to write.

我的意思是,至少在我的精神分析经验,我们并不容易说,一个锁链,一个锁链是如何由某些的要素所组成,即使将它们化简为三,这还是不容易想象。还是不容易书写。

And it would be better to be broken in to it beforehand in order to be sure of succeeding of giving it a written form. This is very exactly what you have had a thousand times a testimony of by me, in the errors, indeed the slips of the pen that I have made a hundred times before you in trying to do what? To make a writing. A writing that symbolises this chain.

它最后事先就被分解到里面,为了要能够确定成功地给予一个书写的形式。这确实是我曾经给予你们的上千次的证明,在这些错误里,确实我曾经用笔书写犯过的上百次的错误,在你们面前,当时我尝试要做些什么?为了要形成一种书写,一种象征这个锁链的书写。

I consider that to have stated the Real in question in the form of a writing has the value of what is generally called a trauma. Not that my aim was to traumatise anyone whatsoever, especially, especially my listeners that I have no reason, in short, to have any bad will towards; to have any bad will to the point of causing them what is generally called a trauma. Let us say that it is a forcing.

我认为,曾经陈述这个受到质疑的实在界,以一种书写的形式,它拥有通常所谓的创伤的价值。倒不是因为我的目标是要让任何人都遭受创伤,特别是我的听众,总之,我没有理由对我听众具有恶意,以致于我会引起他们通俗所谓的创伤。让我们说,这是一种强迫性。

A forcing, the forcing of a new writing. A writing which, through metaphor, has a bearing. A bearing that must be called symbolic.

一种强迫性,一种书写的强迫性。通过比喻,一种书写具有一种关系,这种关系必须称为符号界。

It is the forcing of a new type, as I might say, of idea which is not an idea that flourishes, in a way, spontaneously by the simple fact, by the simple fact of what in short makes meaning sense; namely, by the Imaginary.

这种一种新的强迫性,我不妨这样说,这个观念并不是很興盛的观念。在某方面,它根据这个简单的事实,根据总之,让意义具有意义,也就是以想象界让它具有意义。

Nor is it the case either that it is something altogether foreign. I would even say more, it is what, what allows, what renders tangible, what allows us to put a finger on, but in a quite illusory way, what may be, what may be what is called reminiscence
(réminiscence). Reminiscence consists in, in imagining in connection with, with something which plays the function of idea, but which is not one, one imagines that one reminisces it, if I can express myself thus.

它也不是完全是陌生的东西的这种情况。我甚至更进一步说,它容许我们让它具体化,让我们能够理解。但是以一种相当幻见到方式,理解所谓的「回顾」。「回顾」在于想象跟某件扮演观念功用的东西有关。但并不是我们想象,我们回顾它,假如容许我这样表达。

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

sinthome 38

December 22, 2011

sinthome 38

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

In it feminine eroticism seems to be carried – I am not going to simply make a
dividing line in a film – seems to be carried to its extremes. At this extreme there is
the phantasy, neither more nor less, of killing the man. But even that is not enough.
One must after having killed him, go much further.

在里面,色情似乎被表达—我并不是仅是在影片做划分—色情似乎被发挥到极点.在这个极点,有杀死男人的这个幻见,确实是如此。但是甚至这样还不足够。在杀死男人之后,我们还需探讨下去,。

After – why after, here is the doubt – after this phantasy that the Japanese in question, who is a masterful woman, make no mistake, for her partner, cuts off his cock (queue). That is how it is called.

这就是可疑的,在这个幻见之后,受到质疑的这个日本人,她是一位自主的女人,没有错,对于她的伴侣而言,她切割下他的阳具。那就是它的称呼。

One may ask why she did not cut it off before. We know well that it is a phantasy, all
the more in that I do not know what happens after death, but there is a lot of blood in
the film. I am willing to accept that the erectile tissue may be blocked, but after all, I
do not know anything about it.

我们可能会问,为什么她以前没有切割它。我们清楚知道,这更加是一个幻见,因为我并不知道,死亡之后,会发生什么事。但是影片里有许多血腥场面。我愿意接受,勃起的纤维组织受到阻塞,但是,毕竟,我对于它一无所知。

There is here a point, of what I earlier called doubt. And it is here that one clearly
sees that castration, is not the phantasy. It is not so (144) easy to situate, I mean the
function it has in analysis. It is not easy to situate, since it can be phantasmaticised.
This indeed is why I come back to my , my capital here which may also well
be the first letter of the word phantasy. This letter situates the relationships of what I
will call a phunction of phonation.

这里的重点是,我早先所谓的怀疑。就在这里,我们清楚地看见,阉割并不是这个幻见。它没有那么容易定位,我的意思是,阉割在精神分析具有的功用。它不容易定位,因为它会被幻见誇大。这确实是为什么我回到我的这个大写字母,它很有理由是世界幻见的第一个字母。这个字母定位这个关系,我所谓的「男性言说的替代」。

This is the essence of the contrary to what is believed. A phunction of phonation which is found to be substitutive for the male, described as man, as such. With, here is what I was objecting to, it is that the substitution of this for the signifier that I was only able to support by a complicated letter from mathematical notation, namely, what I wrote underneath, here, S(Ø); S of Ø barred is something quite different. It is not what man makes love with, namely, when all is said and done, with his unconscious, and nothing more.

这是跟我们所相信的相反的本质。「男性言说的替代」被发现用来替代男性,被描述为男性。这就是我当时反对的东西,这种对于能指的替代,我仅能够用数学符号的一个复杂的字母来支持它。也就是说,我在这里所书写的「主体(大他者被划槓)」,这是某件完全不同的东西。这并不是人用来做爱的东西。换句话说,当一切都说都做了,跟他的无意识做爱,没有别的。

As regards what the woman phantasises, if indeed here it is what is presented to us in the film, it is indeed something which, in any case, prevents the encounter.

关于女人幻见的东西,假如这确实影片所被呈现的东西,无论如何,这确实是某件阻止邂逅的东西。

But S(Ø), what does that mean? That means that if the device, in other words the
instrument with which one operates – one operates with this instrument, for
copulation – if this instrument is indeed, as is evident, is to be cast aside [rancard?], it
is not of the same order as what is involved in my S(Ø). It is because there is no
Other.

这个主体(大他者被划槓)S(Ø), 是什么意义?那意味着,假如这个策略,换句话说,我们用来运作的工具—我们使用这个工具运作,作为交媾—假如这个工具确实显而易见地被抛弃一边,那并不是属于相同的层次,跟在我的主体(大他者)被划槓。那是因为大他者并不存在。

Not there where there is a supplying, namely, the Other as locus of the unconscious, of which I have said that it is with it that man makes love, in another sense of the word with, that is the partner. But what is meant by this S of O as barred, and I apologise for not having anything other than the bar to make use of. There is a
bar that, that any woman whatsoever knows how to jump, it is the bar between the
signifier and the signified, as I hope has been proved to you by this film, to which I
have just now alluded.

我曾经说过,在有一个供应的大他者作为无意识轨迹的地方,性关系并不存在。人生跟无意识在做爱。这个「跟」字,具有另外一种意涵。那就是伴侣。但是这主体与这个被划槓的大他者是什么意思呢?我很抱歉,因为我没有其他的划槓能够使用。有一条划槓,任何女人都知道如何跳跃过去。就是能指与所指之间的划槓。如我希望的,可以根据我刚刚提到的这个影片来证明。

But there is another bar which consists in barring, namely, it is like this bar here, .
I regret moreover not having made it in the same way. That way it would have been
more exemplary. It says that there is no Other, Other which, which would respond as
a partner. The absolute necessity for the human species being that there should be
Another of the Other.

但是有另外一条划槓在于槓隔。也就是说,就这里像这条划槓,而且,我很遗憾没有用相同的方式来做。以那种方式,那本来会更加具有典范。它说:大他者并不存在。本来会回应作为伴侣的大他者。对于人类种族,这个绝对的必要性,应该要有另外一位大他者。

This is the one generally called God, but which analysis unveils as being quite simply The woman. The only thing that allows her to be designated as The, since I told you that the woman does not exist – and I have more and more reasons to believe it, especially after seeing this film – and the only thing which allows (145) the woman to be supposed, is that, like God, she is a layer (pondeuse).

这个大他者通常被称为上帝。但是精神分析揭发这个上帝,作为就是「女人」。唯一容许她被指明为大他者,因为我告诉过你吗,特别是在看见过这部影片。唯一容许这个女人被认为,就像上帝一,她是一种「表征」。

Only this is the progress that analysis has made us make, it is to make us aware that
even though the myth makes everything come out of a single mother, namely Eve,
well there are only particular layers. And that is why I recalled in the seminar Encore,
it appears, what was meant by this complicated letter, namely, the signifier. The
signifier of the fact that there is no Other of the Other.

仅有这个才是精神分析曾经给予我们的进步。精神分析让我们知道,即使这个神话让每一样东西从单一的母亲出来,也就是从夏娃出来。呵呵,这仅是特别的几层。那就是为什么这个复杂的字母,换句话说,这个能指。在大他者之外,别无大他者,这个事实的能指。

There you are, everything that I am telling you there is only good sense. And in this
respect it is full of risks of making mistaken as the whole of History proves. We have
never done anything but that. If I take the same risks, it is much more rather to
prepare you for the other things I may have to say to you. By trying, by trying to
make a foliesophie, as I might say, that is less sinister.

你们瞧!我正在告诉你们的一切,具有很好的意义。在这方面,它充满了犯错的危险,依照整体的历史所证明的。我们从来没有做过任何其他的事情。假如我从事相同的冒险,这是要替你们准备做其他的事情,我可能必须要跟你们说的。凭借着尝试做一个「新约」,那比较不那么古怪,我不妨说。

Less sinister than the Book described as that of Wisdom, in the Bible. Even though after all, it is the best thing one can do, to found – I recommend you to read it, it is sober and of an excellent tone; Catholics read it less often, it must be said; one can even say that Catholicism consisted throughout the centuries in preventing its adherents from reading the Bible – but to found Wisdom on lack, which is the only foundation that it can have, it is really not too bad at all, it is top drawer.

这本新约不像被描述为在圣经旧约里的智慧之书那么古怪。毕竟,即使这个我们充其量所能做的,建立基础。我推荐你们阅读它,它会让你有猛然清醒的感觉。天主教比较不常阅读它,我们必须说,我们甚至能够说,天主教几个世纪来,都在阻止它的信徒,不要阅读新约。而是要将「智慧」的基础,建立在「欠缺」。这是它能够拥有的唯一的基础。这确实并不太坏,它的顶端的抽屉。

Will I manage to tell you – this must not be simply a dream – will I manage to tell you
what is called a bit of Real? In the proper sense of the word bit (bout) that I specified
earlier.

我将尝试告诉你们—这一定不仅仅是一场梦—我将尝试告诉你们,所谓的些微的实在界是什么?以我早先明确指明的「些微」的适当意涵。

For the moment, one can say that Freud himself only spoke sense and that this
deprives me of all hope. For all that it is not a reason. Not for me to hope for it, but
for me to really do it one day.

目前,我们能够说,弗洛伊德他自己仅能谈到意义,这让我丧失所有的希望。尽管这样,这并不是理由。不是为了让我希望它,而是为了让我有一天真的能够做到它。

There you are. That’s enough for today. We have to laugh a little from time to time!

你们瞧!今天就演讲到这里。我们必须有时付之一笑。

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

sinthome 37

December 22, 2011

sinthome 37

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

Language finds, in its inflection towards the copula, the proof that it is a roundabout
path, altogether bladder (vessie), namely dark. And dark is only a metaphor here;
because if we had a bit of Real, we would know that light is no darker than the
shadows (ténèbres) and inversely.

语言在其朝向交媾的内省中,找到这个证据,那是一条偏离的途径,完全都是气囊,也就是黑暗。在此黑暗仅是一个比喻,因为假如我们有一点实在界,我们会知道,光跟阴影一样地黑暗,反过来说,也是一样。

The metaphor copula is not a proof in itself. It is the way he Unconscious has of
proceeding. It only gives traces. And traces which not only are effaced all by
themselves, but that every use of discourse tends to efface; analytic discourse like the
others. You yourselves think of nothing but erasing the traces of this discourse of
mine, since it is I who began by giving this discourse its status, its status starting from
the pretence (faire semblant) of the little o-object. Or, when all is said and done, of
that which, of what I name, of what man puts in the place of the filth that he is.

「交媾」的这个比喻,本身并不是证据。那是无意识继续前进的方式。它仅是给予痕迹。痕迹不但全部被它们自己抹除,而且论述的每个用途都倾向于抹除。精神分析论述像其他的论述一样。你们自己仅是想到抹除我的这个论述的痕迹。因为是我开始给予这个论述它的地位。它的地位从这个小客体的伪装开始。或是,当一切都说都做了,我所命名的,人们摆放代替他本质地肮脏。

At least in the eyes of a psychoanalyst who has good reason to know it, as he takes up
that place himself. One must pass through this determined filth in order perhaps to
rediscover something which is of the order of the Real. But as you see I use the word
rediscover. Rediscover is already a slippage as if everything of this order had already
been found. This is the trap of History. History is the greatest of phantasies, if I can
express myself thus. Behind History, the History of events that historians are
interested in, there is myth. And myth is always captivating.

至少,在精神分析的眼里,他很有理由知道它,当他自己从事那个位置。我们必须通过这个被决定的肮脏,为了或许能够重新找到某件属于实在界的层次。但是如你们所见,我使用「重新发现」这个字词。「重新发现」已经是一个滑溜,好像这个层次的一切已经被找到。这是历史的陷阱。历史上所有幻见的最大幻见,假如我们能够像那样表达我自己。在历史背后,历史学家感到興趣的事件的历史,就有神话存在。神话总是迷人的。

The proof is that Joyce, after having carefully borne witness to the sinthome, the
sinthome of Dublin which only takes on a soul from his own, does not fail, a fabulous
thing, to fall into the myth of Vico which sustains Finnegans Wake. The only thing
that, that preserves him from it, is that all the same Finnegans Wake is presented as a
dream. Not simply a dream but it designates that Vico is a dream, just as much when
all is said and done as the babblings of Madame (142) Blavatsky, the Mahanvantara
and all the rest of it.

这个证据,乔伊士,经过仔细地见证这个圣征后,都柏林的圣征,它从他自己的圣征形成一个灵魂。乔伊士一定会掉入维持芬尼根守灵的维科的神话,真实匪夷所思。唯一阻止他不要掉入的事情,芬尼根守灵仍然被呈现,作为一场梦。不仅是一场梦,而且它指明:维科是一场梦。如同当一切都说都做了,作为布拉瓦思基的胡言乱语,生灵的呓语,等等。

The idea of a rhythm into which I myself fell, as I might say, in my rediscovered above. One does not refind. Or indeed this is to designate that one never does anything but turn round in circles. One finds. The only advantage of this refound, is to highlight what I am indicating, that there cannot be progress.

我自己掉入的这个韵律的观念,我不妨说,在我以上的「重新发现」。我们并没有重新找到。或的确,这是要指明:我们从来没有做任何事,除了就是指在圆圈里绕圈子。我们发现。这个重新被发现的利益,就是要强调我正在指示的东西。不可能有进展。

That one turns around in circles. But there is perhaps all the same another way of explaining that there is no progress. It is that there is no progress except that marked by death. What Freud underlines about this death, if I may express myself thus, is to trieb it, to make a Trieb of it.

我们在圆圈里打转。或许还有另外一种方式解释,没有进展存在。没有进展存在,除了就是被死亡所标示。弗洛伊德对于这个死亡所强调的东西,容我自己这样表达,就是要让它驱力化,让它成为一种驱力。

This has been translated into French by, I do not know why, the pulsion or the pulsion de mort. A better translation was not found even though there was the word dérive, the death drive is the Real inasmuch as it can only be thought of as impossible. Namely, that every time it shows the tip of its nose, it is unthinkable.

我不知道为什么,这种驱力曾经被翻译成为法文的「悸动」,或「心灵的悸动」。没有更好的翻译被找到,即使有「似曾相识」这个字眼。死亡驱力就是这个实在界,因为它能够被认为是不可能。换句话说,每一次它显现它的鼻子的尖端,它就成为不可思议。

To tackle this impossible does not constitute a hope. Since this unthinkable is death,
and the foundation of the Real is that it cannot be thought.

克服这个不可能,并没有形成一种希望。因为这个不可思议是死亡,而实在界的这个基础,是它无法被思想。

The unbelievable thing is that Joyce, who had the greatest contempt for history, futile
in effect, that he qualifies as a nightmare, a nightmare whose characteristic is to
unleash on us big words which cause us so much harm, could finally only find this
solution: to write Finnegans Wake. In other words a dream which, like every dream,
is a nightmare, even if it is a tempered nightmare.

这个难以置信的事情是,乔伊士对于历史极端地藐视,实际上是徒劳,他将历史视为是一种梦魇。梦魇的特性是要对我们释放夸大的字眼,引起我们如此的惊吓。乔伊士仅能找到这个解决:写下芬尼根守灵。换句话说,梦是梦魇,就像是每个梦一样,即使它是经过淡化的梦魇。

Except for the fact, he says, and this is how this Finnegans Wake is constructed, that the dreamer in it is not any particular character, it is the dream itself. It is here, it is in this way that Joyce slides, slides, slides towards Jung. Slides towards the collective unconscious of which there is no better proof, there is no better proof than Joyce, that the collective unconscious is a sinthome. For one cannot say that Finnegans Wake, in his imagination, is not part of this sinthome.

除了这个事实,他说。这就是这个芬尼根守灵被构想的方式。里面的梦想者并不是任何特别的人物,他是梦的本身。就在这里,以这种方式,乔伊士滑溜,滑溜,滑溜朝向荣格。滑溜朝向集体无意识。关于这个集体无意识,这是最好的证明,没有比乔伊士更好的证明。集体无意识是一种圣征。因为我们无法说,芬尼根守灵,在他的想像里,并不是这个圣征地一部分。

So then it is indeed Joyce who is the sign of my impediment. It is indeed Joyce
precisely in so far as what he advances, and advances in a quite especially artistic way
– he knows how to do it – is the sinthome. And a sinthome such that there is nothing
that can be done to analyse it.

因此,确实乔伊士就是我的阻碍幻影的迹象。确实就是乔伊士,他所提出的东西,以一种相当特别的艺术的方式提出。他知道如何去提出—这就是圣征。这是如此一个圣征,以致没有一样事情能够被做,为了分析它。

I said that recently. A Catholic from good stock as was, as was Joyce – who could
never get over that he had been soundly brought up by the Jesuits – a Catholic, one
who is true as true. But of course, there (143) is not a single true one here, of course;
not a single one of you has been brought up by the Jesuits! Well, a Catholic is
unanalysable.

我最近说。乔伊士是一位来自良好背景的心教徒。他永远无法克服他曾经在耶稣教会接受健全的教养。他是一位天主教徒,实实在在的天主教徒。但是当然,并当一个真实的天主教徒并不容易。你们没有一个人曾经接受耶稣教会的教养。呵呵,一位天主教徒是无法被分析的。

On this point, there is someone who pointed out to me that I had said the same thing
about the Japanese. It was Jacques-Alain Miller, of course, who did not miss his
chance. Anyway, I stick by it. I stick by it, and it is not for the same reason.

在这一点,有某个人跟我指出,我曾经说过相同的事情,关于日本人。当然,那是亚伦米勒,他并没有错过他的机会。无论如何,我坚持这一点,但是理由不一样。

But since, since that evening with Jacques Aubert, to which you were not invited, since that evening with Jacques Aubert, I saw a film, which was also a Japanese film [The Empire of the Senses?]. It was in a small cinema and you could not have been invited to it, any more than to Jacques Aubert. And then, I would not have liked to have given you bad thoughts.

自从共雅克、奥伯会面对那天晚上以来,你们并没有被邀请去那里,因为那天晚上与雅克、奥伯在一块,我看到一部影片。那也是一部日本影片「感官世界」。那是在一个小戏院,你们当时根本不可能被邀请到那里,正如不会被邀请到雅克、奥伯那里。我本来不会给予你们这些不好的念头。

All the same I picked out some people from my School who were attending this film and who were, like me, I suppose, anyway, this is what I use as a term to describe the effect it had on me: I was, properly speaking, stupefied. I was stupefied because, because it is, it is eroticism – I was not expecting that going to see a Japanese film – it was feminine eroticism.

可是,我从我的学派挑选几个人去观看这部影片。我认为他们就像我一样,无论如何,这就是我使用的作为一个术语,来描述那部影片对我的影响。适当地说,我惊骇莫名。我之所以惊骇,是因为那时色情片。我没有预期会去看一部日本影片,那是一部女性的色情片。

There, I began to, to understand the power of Japanese women. It seems, in looking at this film, one day or another you should go and see it, this was a private showing, but I hope all the same that it will get a permit. And by doing a bit of crawling, you will manage to see it in a limited number of cinemas, anyway. You will be asked to show your credentials, but you can say that you have come from my Seminar for example. Yes!

在那里,我开始了解日本女人的这个力量。似乎,当我正在观看这部影片时,。某一天,你们应该去观看。那是私下放映,但是我仍然希望它会获的许可公开放映。稍微避人耳目一下,你们在少数的戏院,应该还是看得到。你们将会被要求出示身份证明,但是你们能够说,譬如,你们来自我的研讨班。没错。

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

sinthome 36

December 21, 2011

sinthome 36

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

18.11.75 VII-153
I must tell you that, in the interval, anyway, I went to listen to Jacques Aubert
somewhere that you were not invited and that there I made a few reflections on the
ego. What the English call the ego. And the Germans the Ich.

我必须告诉你们,如何如何,在这个中间,我想要倾听雅克、奥伯,你们并没有被邀请去那里。在那里,我对于自我,作了一些反省。英文所谓的自我,在德文是这个Ich。

The ego is, it’s a device. It’s a device about which I have cogitated. I have cogitated
in terms of a knot, of a knot that has been cogitated by a mathematician who has no
other name than Milnor. He invented something, namely, the idea of chain – he
called that, in English, link (IX-2).

这个自我,这是一个策略。这是一个我曾经深思熟虑的策略。我曾经用一个环结深思熟虑,这个环结曾经被一位数学家深思熟虑。他的名字就是米诺。他发明某件东西,也就是说,锁链的观念—他用英文称它为「连接」link。

I must draw this differently because this is what is at stake. This is a knot (IX-3).
(139) I am making it again, because, of course, like every time that I draw a knot, I
get into a mess, it is not the first time that this has happened to me in front of you.
There you are, correct at the bottom. You ought to see that that, that is knotted.。

我必须用不同方式画它,因为这是岌岌可危的地方。这是一个环结。我再一次画它。因为,当然,就像每一次我画一个环结,我就陷入混乱。这并不是第一次,我在你们面前发生这样的事。你们瞧,在底端改正。你们应该看出,那个被连接成环结。

But suppose, says Milnor, that you give yourself this permission that, that in some chain or other, this being a chain with two elements, that in some chain or other the same element can cross over itself. So then, you get this of which, which shows you
immediately that from the fact that an element may cross over itself, there results that
what was above here, and here, is underneath there, there is no longer a knot. There
are, of course, a lot of other examples of it; there is no longer a link.

但是米诺说,假如你们容许你们自己,以某种的锁链,这个成为具有两个要素的锁链,以某种锁链的方式,相同的要素会跨越过它自己。因此,你们从那里获得,这立刻会跟你们显示:根据一个要素会跨越自己的这个事实,结果会是:在这个上面的东西,就是在那底下的东西。一个环结不再存在。当然,还会有许多其它例子。连接不再存在。

What I am proposing to your astuteness is the following. To note that if in the first
knot, you double each of the elements of the aforesaid chain, namely, that instead of
having one here, you have two travelling in the same direction and that, in the same
way, you do the same for here, it will no longer be true, however unlikely this may
seem to you – and you will check it, I hope, I did not bring my drawings so that since
I only had a piece of white paper put up here, I will not risk showing you how it is
twisted – it is enough that there should be two of them, which nevertheless does not
seem to create an objection, since one, a loop in the form of eight, if it crosses itself, is
easily freed – from the circular or from the oval, as I drew it – is easily freed when
this eight in question crosses over itself; why would it not be just as true when there
are two of them? I am saying two eights and two ovals (IX-4).

对于你们的精明算计,我的建议如下。为了要注意,假如在第一个环结,你们怀疑前述的锁链的其中一个要素。换句话说,非但不是一个环结在这里,你们拥有两个环结以相同的方向旅行,你们在此做相同的事情。它不再是真实的。无论你们觉得这是多么的不可能。我希望你们将会检视它。我并没有带我的图画,因为我仅有一张白纸被张贴在这里。我将不会冒险跟你显示,它如何的被扭曲—它们应该有两个就足够了。可是,它似乎没有创造一个目标。因为一个目标,以八个的形状的一个圈套。假如它跨越过它自己,它很容易被解放—从这个循环,从这个椭圆形,依照我所画的。它很容易被解放,当这八个受到质疑的环结跨越个它自己,为什么它并不是同样地真实,当它们两个存在时?我是说这两个八环圈的锁链及两个椭圆形的锁链。

(140) It nevertheless remains that – you will check this, I hope, I will come back to it
the next time – not simply is there an obstacle, but it is radically impossible to
separate the four elements.

可是,问题始终是,我希望你们将会检视一下,下一次我将会回头谈论。不仅因为有一个阻碍,而且要分开这四个要素几乎是不可能。

On this point, I must say that I cannot trace out all the algorithms that I have stated of
the type: S(Ø). What is meant by the fact that I protest, in my seminar Encore, it
appears – because of course I never read it – it appears according to some, I had
totally forgotten S(Ø) together with the function. I am saying, not small but
capital which is a function, as is implicated by what I have indicated, namely: there
exists an x for which this function is negative, .

在这一点,我必须说,我无法追踪所有我曾经陈述过的这些轨迹:主体(被画槓的大他者)。根据我抗议的这个事实,它的意思是,似乎是在我的「继续再来」研讨班,因为当然我没有再读它,依照某些人的说法,我完全忘记这个主体(大他者),以及它的功用。我是说,发挥功用的并不是小写,而是大写的大他者。根据我曾经指示的暗示,换句话说:这里存在着一个未知数,这个功用对于它是负面的。

Naturally, the ideal of the matheme is that everything corresponds. This indeed is
why the matheme adds to the Real. Because, contrary to what is imagined, we do not
know why, it is not the end of the Real. As I said just now, we can only reach bits of
Real. The Real, the one that is at stake, in what is called my thinking, the Real is
always a bit, a stump. A stump certainly around which thinking embroiders, but the
stigmata of this Real as such, is to be bound to nothing.

当然,这个数学公式的理想是,每一样东西要对应。这确实是为什么这个数学公式增加到这个实在界。因为跟被想象的东西相反,我们并不知道为什么,这并不是实在界的末日。如我刚才所说的,我们仅能到达些微的实在界。实在界是岌岌可危的东西。在所谓的我们的思想里。实在界总是些微,基本的东西。思想就环绕这个基本的东西装饰。但是这个实在界的创伤标志本身,跟空无相关。

This at least is how I conceive of the Real. And these little historical emergences –
one day there was someone called Newton who found a bit of Real, that gave the
heebie-jeebies to all of those who, to all of those who thought, specifically a certain
Kant, of whom one can say that Newton made him ill.

这至少是我如何构想实在界的方式。这些小小的历史的出现,有一天,某位名叫牛顿的人,发现了些微实在界,引起那些人的惊悚骚动。对你那些思想的人,明确地说,就是康德,我们能够说,牛顿会让他局促不安。

And moreover everyone, all the thinking beings of the epoch all succumbed, each in their own way. It rained down not only on men but also on women. Madame du Châtelet wrote a whole book on the Newtonian System, which pours out stupidities a go-go.

而且,每个人,这个时代的所有思想的人物都表示认同,各以不同的方式。它不仅牵涉到男人,而且也牵涉到女人。杜查特列夫人写了一整本的书,论牛顿的系统。内容可是胡说八道。

It is all the same extraordinary that when one reaches a bit of Real, it has this effect. But this is where one must start. It is the very sign that one has, that one has reached the stump. I am trying to give you a bit of Real, in connection with, in the skin of which we are, namely, the skin of this unbelievable business, in short, of the human spirit, of the human species.

这仍然是特别的,当我们到达些微的实在界,它具有这个效果。但是这并不是我们必须开始的地方。我们拥有的这个迹象,我们已经到达这个基本的地方。我正在尝试给予你们些微的实在界。关于这个实在界,我们可说是最这件难以令人相信的事情的外围。总之,人类的精神,人类的种族的外围。

And I tell you that there is no sexual relationship, but that is embroidery. It is embroidery because that is a matter of yes or no. From the moment that I say there is no, it is already very suspect. It is suspect by not truly being a bit of Real. The stigmata of the Real, is to be bound to nothing, as I already said earlier.

我告诉你们,性的关系并不存在。那是装饰的说法。那是装饰,因为那时肯定与否定。从我说性关系不存在开始,它已经很可疑。它之所以可疑,是因为它并没有丝毫属于实在界。实在界的标志应该是空无连接,如同我早先已经说过的。

(141) One only recognises oneself in what one has. One never recognises oneself –
this is implied by what I am putting forward, it is implied by the fact recognised by
Freud that there is the Unconscious – one never recognises oneself in what one is.
This is the first step of psychoanalysis. Because what one is, is of the order, when one
is man, is of the order of copulation. Namely, of what diverts the aforesaid copulation
into the no less said and, significantly, into the no less said copula constituted by the
verb to be.

一个人仅在他所拥有的东西里,体认出他自己。他从来没有体认出他自己—这是由我所提出的东西所暗示,由弗洛伊德所体认的这个事实所暗示—一个人从来没有在他的生命本质体认他自己。这是精神分析的第一步。因为一个人的生命本质,属于这个层次,当一个人属于交媾的层次。换句话说。将前述的交媾转移成为这个同样被说的东。然后,更重要地,转移成为同样所说由「成为」这个动词所形成的的交媾。

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

sinthome 35

December 21, 2011

sinthome 35

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

Seminar 9: Wednesday 16 March 1976
18.11.75 VII-150
This is the last thing that Soury and Thomé gave me. It is my kind of Borromean
knot, made of two infinite straight lines and of something circular (IX-1).

这是邵瑞及汤玫没有给我的东西。这是我的博罗米恩结。以两条无限的线及某将循环的东西所组成。(IX-1)

You can see for yourselves, with a little effort, no doubt, that it is Borromean. There
you are. So then, the only excuse, because in truth I need excuses. I need excuses at
least in my own eyes. The only excuse that I have for saying something to you today
is that it is going to be sensible. As a result I will not realise today what I would like
– and you will see that in short I will illuminate this – what I would (136) like, is to
give you a bit (bout), it cannot be called otherwise, a bit of Real.

你们自己能够看出,稍微努力一下,无可质疑的,这是博罗米恩环结。你们就在那里。所以,这是唯一的藉口,因为事实上我需要藉口。至少在我自己的眼光里,我需要藉口。今天我跟你们说某件事情,我拥有的唯一的藉口是,这是合情合理的。结果,今天我将不会体会到,我想要的东西—你们将会看出,总之,我将启蒙这个—我想要的是,我想要给予你们一点,那实实在在,就是一点真实。

I am reduced to telling myself that there is something sensible that can be of use,
provisionally; but this provisional is fragile. I mean that I am not sure about how long
it will be useful. There you are.

我的处境不得不告诉我自己,有某件东西合情合理,而且还暂时有用。但是这个暂时是脆弱的。我的意思是,我并不确定,它的有用期限多久。你们瞧!

I have been very preoccupied with Joyce these days, I am going to tell you that, how
Joyce, as one might say, is stimulating. The fact is that he suggests, he suggests but it
is only a suggestion, he suggests an easy way to present him. As a result of which,
and this indeed is where his value lies, his weight, as a result of which everyone
breaks their jaw on him.

这些日子,我曾经专注研究乔伊士。我将要告诉你们,乔伊士是多么令人興奋,我们不妨这样说。事实上,他建议,他建议,但仅是建议,他建议一个容易的方式来呈现。由于这样的结果,这确实是他的价值及他的份量所在。由于这个结果,每个人都对他叹为观止。

Even my friend Jacques Aubert who is there in the front and before whom I feel unworthy. I said that he himself had broken his jaw there, because, because Jacques Aubert cannot manage, any more than anyone else, moreover, any more than someone called Adams who achieved great things along this line, does not manage to present him in this easy way. I am going perhaps later, to indicate to you myself, not to suggest to you, indicate to you what this stems from.

即使我的朋友,雅克、奥伯,他就在前排。在他面前,我感觉自己微不足道。我说,他自己当时也叹为观止,因为雅克奥伯如同任何其他人一样,无法处理,某位名叫亚当的人,也无法处理。亚当在这方面的研究,已经有很大成究。他并无法轻易地呈现他。或许以后,我自己将跟你们指示,并不是跟你们建议,跟你们建议,这个起源是什么。

Naturally I also, I dreamt, and this is to be taken in the literal sense, of this easy way
to present him. I dreamt about it last night. You obviously, obviously as they say,
you obviously were my public, but I was not there, I was not an actor. I was even not
the slightest bit an actor.

当然,我也梦想,这将会以实质的意义看待。用这种简单的方式呈现他。昨天晚上我梦见它。显而易见,你们当时是我的听众,如他们所说。但是我并不在那里,我并不是一位演员。我根本就不是一位演员。

What I was telling you about was the way in which I, not at all an actor, a scribbler, I would rather call it, the way in which I judged characters other than my own. In this way, obviously, I got out of my own, or rather, I had no role. It was something along the lines of a psychodrama; which is an interpretation.

我所正在告诉你们的,以是这种方式,我根本不是一位演员,我宁可称为是一位作家。以这种方式,我判断除了我自己以外的人物。显而易见,我摆脱我自己的角色,或者说,我没有角色。这是沿着心理剧的台词的东西,这是一种诠释。

That Joyce made me dream of, of functioning like that must have a value; an easier
value to extract moreover. Since, as I said, he suggests that to anyone at all. That
there must be an easy to handle Joyce. He suggests that because of the fact that there
is psychoanalysis.

乔伊士让我梦想的,像那样的功用,一定具有价值;而且是,一种容易获得的价值。因为如我所说,他跟任何人都建议。用这样来处理乔伊士是容易的方式。他建议,因为这个事实,精神分析存在。

And it is indeed onto this track that a whole lot of people precipitate themselves. But it is not because I am a psychoanalyst and, at the same time, too involved, that I must refuse to envisage him from this angle. There is here, all the same, something objective.

确实是进入这个轨道,很多的人们投入。但是这并不是因为我是一位精神分析家,同时因为我太过于投入,我就必须拒绝从这个角度来拟想他。就是那个地方,仍然有某件客观性的东西。

Joyce is an a-Freud, I will say; playing on the word affreux. He is an a-Joyce.
Every object as such, every object except the object described by me (137) as small o,
which is an absolute, every object stems from a relation.

乔伊士是一位「弗洛伊德」,我将会说,玩弄字词的高手。他说一位「乔伊士」。每一件东西都是这样,每一件东西,除了被我描述为小客体的东西。这是绝对的东西,每一样东西,都起源于一种关系。

The annoying thing is that there is language, and that relations are expressed, in language, by means of epithets. Epithets, push towards a yes or a no. A certain Charles Sanders Peirce constructed on this his own brand of language which, because of the accent that he put on relations, leads him to make a trinitary logic.

令人懊恼的事是,语言存在。那种关系被用语言表达,作为描述语。描述语提出后,会有肯定或否定。某位查里斯、皮尔斯,以他自己的语言的特色建构这一点。因为他对于关系的强调,让他成为一个三位一体的逻辑。

This is absolutely the same path that I follow. Except that I call the things that are at stake by their name: Symbolic, Imaginary and Real, in the right order. For to push towards a yes or no, is to push to the couple.

这绝对是我所追寻的相同的途径。除了我们称它们的名称岌岌可危:符号界,想象界,及实在界,按照适当的顺序。因为推向一种肯定或否定,会推向这一对。

Because there is a relationship between language and sex. A relationship that
certainly has not yet been quite specified, but which I, as one might say, have
broached (entamé). You see that, huh! In using the word entamé, I realise that I am
making a metaphor. And what does this metaphor mean? The metaphor I can speak
about in a general sense. But what this one means, well, I will leave the trouble of
discovering it to you.

因为在语言与性之间有一层关系。这层关系确实还没有明确被指出。但是,我们不妨说,我曾经提出讨论。你们看出,呵呵!当我使用「驯服」这个字眼,我体会到,我正在做一个比喻。这个比喻是什么意义?这个比喻,我能够用通俗的意义说。但是这个比喻的意思是,呵呵,我将让你们自己来发现。

The metaphor indicates nothing but that: the sexual relationship. Except for the fact
that it proves in fact, from the fact that it exists, that the sexual relationship is to take a
bladder for a lantern. Namely, the best one can do to express a confusion: a bladder
may make a lantern, provided some fire is put inside it, but as long as there is no fire,
it is not a lantern.

这个比喻指示的仅是:性的关系。除了这个事实,事实上,它证明它存在的这个事实。性的关系应该将睾丸视为是灯笼。假如某些的火在里面的话。但是只要没有火,它就不算是灯笼。

Where does the fire come from? The fire is the Real. The Real sets fire to
everything. But it is a cold fire. The fire that burns is a mask, as I might say, of the
Real. The Real is to be sought on the other side of it, on the side of absolute zero.

这个火从哪里来?这个火就是实在界。实在界让每一样东西燃烧起来。但是这是一种冷的火。燃燃的火是一种实在界的面具,我不妨这么说。实在界应该在它的另外一面去寻找,在绝对零度的那一面寻找。

All the same this has been reached. No limit to what can be imagined in terms of high
temperatures. No imaginable limit for the moment. The only Real thing there is, is
the lower limit. This is what I call something that can be orientated. That is why the
Real is it.

无论如何,这已经被获得。从高温度的术语而言,可想象的空间无穷。目前,并没有可想象的限制。仅有实在界的事情存在,这是最低限制。这就是我所谓的能够被定向的东西。这就是为什么它是实在界。

There is an orientation but this orientation is not a meaning (sens). What does that
mean? That means that I am taking up what I said the last time, in suggesting that
sense (sens) is perhaps the orientation. But the orientation is not a meaning since it
excludes the simple fact of the copulation of the Symbolic and the Imaginary in which
meaning consists. The orientation of the Real, in my territory, forecloses meaning.

这是一个定向,但是这个定向并不是一种意义。那是什么意思?那意味着,我正在从事我上次所说的,我建议,意义或许就是定向。但是这个定向并不是意义,因为它排除意义存在于符号界与想象界的交媾的这个简单的事实。在我的领域,实在界的定向预先封闭意义。

I am saying that because last evening I was asked the question of whether there were
other foreclosures than the one that results from the foreclosure of the Name-of-the-
Father. It is quite certain that (138) there is something more radical about foreclosure.
Since the Name-of-the-Father, when all is said and done, is something lightweight.
But it is certain that it is here that it can be of use; instead of the foreclosure of
meaning by the orientation of the Real, well, we are not there yet.

我是说,因为昨天晚上,我被问及这个问题,除了以父亲之名的封闭,是否有其它的封闭。千真万确的是,有比封闭更加激进的东西。因为以父亲之名,当一切都说都做了,它是某件轻量级的东西。但是这是确定的,在此,它会是有用途。非但不是实在界定向的意义的封闭,呵呵,我们还没有在那里。

We must be broken, as I might say, into a new Imaginary establishing meaning. This
is what I am trying to establish with my language.

我不妨说,我们必须被分解进入建立意义的想象界。这是我正在使用我的语言,尝试在建立的。

This language has the advantage of wagering on psychoanalysis inasmuch as I am
trying to set it up as a discourse; namely, as the most likely semblance. As for
example, in short, psychoanalysis, nothing more, a short circuit passing by way of
meaning; the meaning as such that I defined earlier of the copulation, in short, of
language since it is from that that I support the Unconscious: from the copulation of
language with our own body.

这个语言拥有的利益是将赌注放置在精神分析,因为我正在尝试建立它,作为一种论述。换句话说,作为最可能接近真理的类似物。总之,举例而言,精神分析实实在在是凭借意义的一个迴圈短路。意义的本身,总之,如我早先定义的语言的交媾,因为就是从那里,我支持无意识,从语言跟我们自己的身体的交媾。

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

sinthome 34

December 19, 2011

sinthome 34

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

18.11.75 VII-148
(133) Man is the bearer of the idea of the signifier. And the idea of signifier is supported in lalangue from syntax, essentially. It nevertheless remains that if something, in History, can be supposed, it is that the totality of women who, before a tongue that is decomposing, Latin on this occasion, since it is what is at stake at the origin of our tongues – that it is the totality of women who engender what I have called lalangue.

人是这个能指的观念的载负者。能指点这个观念,基本上受到语言的句法的支持。可是,问题仍然是,假如某件事情,在历史上,能够被假定,那就是女人的整体性。在一种逐渐瓦解的语言,在这个场合,指的是拉丁文,因为在我们语言的起源,这是岌岌可危的东西。女人的整体性产生了我所谓的语言。

雄伯说
拉康将女人的整体性,比喻为拉丁文这个逐渐瓦解的语言。拉丁文一般仅有研究希腊古典文化的学者,才在使用。它是一种类似僵死的语言,因为它不可能再重新创新。女人的整体性,也就是语言的起源,若也是如此瓦解,那对于作为能指的主体确实是岌岌可危,因为那意味着他作为根源的「所指」销声匿迹了。

It is this expression (dire) questioned about what is involved in lalangue, about what was able to guide, guide one sex of the two, towards what I will call this prosthesis of equivocation. For what characterises lalangue among all others, are the equivocations that are possible in it. This is what I illustrated by the equivocation of deux and d’eux. A set of women in every case has engendered lalangue.

就是这个表达引导这两个性别的其中一个。这个表达受到质疑,关于在语言所牵涉到东西,关于什么能够引导,朝向我所谓的模棱歧义的人为更换。因为在所有表现语言的特性的东西,都是在语言里面可能的模棱歧义。这就是我以deux 与d’eux 的模棱歧义。在每个情况,女人的一种集合产生了语言。

雄伯说
这里的女人不是一般通俗所称的女人,而是指实在界的无意识大他者。语言的起源在那里,只是本质上会有模棱歧义。

I would all the same like to indicate something to you about this. It is that we have spoken about a lot of things today, except what is proper to the Borromean chain. The Borromean chain would not take place if there were not this thing that I am drawing (VIII-17), and that, as usual, I am drawing badly because that is how it ought to be drawn, what is proper to it and what is what I will call the false hole (faux-trou).

我仍然想要跟你们指出有关这个。今天我们曾经谈论许多事情。除了这个博罗米恩环结锁链的本体的地方。博洛米恩环结将不会发生,假如没有我正在画的这个东西(VIII-17)。通常我会画得很糟糕,因为这是它应该被画的方式。术语它的本体的地方,就是我所谓虚假空洞的地方。

雄伯说
博罗米恩环结的本体的地方是虚假的空洞,这没有什么危如耸听。佛教及基督教也是以「虚空的虚空」及「一切皆幻见」的会色归空的教义。毕竟,无论如何辉煌的生命,终归一死。死亡就是这个虚假的空洞。

In a circle, as I underlined earlier, there is a hole. The fact that one can with one circle by uniting another with it, make this hole which consists in what is happening there, in the middle and which is neither the hole of one nor the hole of the other, this is what I call the false hole.

以一个圆圈,如无早先所强调的,有一个空洞。我们能够用一个圆圈,将它跟另外一个圆圈连接,这个事实形成这个空洞,这个空洞在于那里所发生的事情,在中间,这既不是一个圆圈的空洞,也不是另一个圆圈的空洞,这是我所谓的虚假的空洞。

雄伯说
两个作为空洞本质的主体,互相连接在一块,能够产生一个新的生命的实体,还是仍然保持是原有的空洞?也就是男女激情的爱,能不能产生生命的光辉,驱散这个虚假的空洞。

But there is something on which there is based the whole essence of the Borromean chain, which is that infinite straight line or circle, if there is something that traverses what I called just now the false hole, if there is (134) something, I repeat, straight line or circle, this false hole is, as one might say, verified (VIII-18). The function of this, the verification of the false hole, the fact that this verification transforms it into the Real, is what … and I will allow myself on this occasion to recall that I had occasion to reread my Meaning of the phallus. I had the pleasant surprise of finding from the first line the evocation of the knot.

但是有某件东西,博罗米恩环结锁链的整个本质,就是那条无限的直线或圆圈,假如有某件东西,旅行过我刚才所谓的虚假的空洞,假如有某件东西,我重复一遍,直线或是圆圈,这个虚假的空洞,我们不妨说,会被证实。这个的功用,虚假的空洞的被证实。这个被证实将它转变成为实在界,这个事实是我会容许我自己在这个场合,回忆起,我曾经有机会重新阅读我的「阳具的意义」,我很惊喜地从第一行就发现到这个环结的召唤。

雄伯说
被收集在精神分析论文集Ecrit的「阳具的意义」The Signification of the Phallus。开头第一句是:我们知道,无意识的阉割情结,充当一种环结的功用。
( We know that the unconscious castration complex functions as a knot)

This at a date when I was very far from having, from having interested myself in what is called the Borromean knot. The first lines of the Meaning of the phallus indicate the knot as being what is the mainspring on that occasion, it is this phallus which has the role of verifying, of the false hole, which is the Real.

在当时,我对于所谓的博罗米恩环结,丝毫不感到興趣。「阳具的意义」的前几行,指示著这个环结,作为原动力的东西,在这个场合,那就是这个阳具,它具有扮演证实的角色,证实这个虚假的空洞,那就是实在界。

It is inasmuch as the sinthome makes a false hole with the Symbolic, that there is some kind of praxis. Namely, something which is related to saying, to what I will call moreover on this occasion the art of saying (l’art-dire), indeed, which slides towards ardour.

因为这个圣征使用符号界来造成一个虚假的空洞,这里有某种的实践。换句话说,某件东西跟这种说法有关,跟我所谓的,而且在这个场合,跟言说的艺术有关,的确,这种言说的艺术滑向热情。

Joyce, to end, did not know that he was making the sinthome. I mean that he simulated it. He was unconscious of it. And it is by this fact that he is a pure artificer, that he is a man of know-how. Namely, what is called moreover an artist.

作为总结,乔伊士并不知道,他是在创造这个圣征。我的意思是,他模拟这个圣征。他并不知道它。根据这个事实,他是一个纯粹的艺术表达者。他是知道如何去做的人。换句话说,而且,他是所谓的艺术家。

The only Real which verifies anything whatsoever is the phallus, in so far as I said earlier what the phallus is the support of; namely, of what I underlined in this article, that is to say the function of the signifier in so far as it creates every signified. It is still necessary, I would add, in order to take it up the next time, it is still necessary that there should only be it to verify this Real.

唯一能够证实任何东西的实在界,就是阳具。如无早先说过,阳具是这个支持的东西,换句话说,我在这篇文章所强调的。也就是说,能指的功用,因为它创造每一个所指。我将补充说,这仍然是需要的,为了下一次,我要接续下去。这依旧是需要的,只有阳具才能证实实在界。

雄伯说
拉康所谓的阳具,指的是在符号界作为主体的能指,拉康原先的构想是,先有实在界的无意识的所指,才有符号界的能指。晚期的拉康则是倒转过来,实在界的无意识所指是否存在,要靠符号界的能指来证实,因为是能指的功用创造了每一个所指。

这就让想象界与符号界之间的交会,能指通过艺术的创造与启蒙的功用,所佔的优势大为增加。也让实在界的无意识的所指,被转移到想象界与实在界之间的交会。

无意识的欲望驱力的无头主体,从实在界出发,通过想象界,到符号界去观看及被观看地从事实践,再从符号界,通过想象界,到达实在界观看自己,而成为具有头的主体,再由实在界,通过想象界,回到符号界,获得证实主体具有头的迴圈circuit。颇类似大乘佛教的上下迴向。先是会色归空,再明空即色,真空幻有地回到色界。因为菩提属于众生,若无众生,一切菩萨终不能成无上正觉。

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

sinthome 33

December 18, 2011

sinthome 33
sinthome 33

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
圣征

18.11.75 VII-145
It is certain that I remain extremely struck by my error that I quite rightly called stupidity (connerie), that I was affected by it to a degree that is difficult to imagine. It is indeed because I want to recover that I am now going to oppose to what I believe to be, as they expressed it to me, the opinion of Soury and Thomé, who pointed out to me that it is not simply that the three circles should be the one coloured, the others oriented, or another oriented, here I am formulating, and I think I can prove, in the sense that proving is still close to showing, what is at stake.

的确,我对于我恰如其分地称为愚蠢所犯的错误,印象极端深刻。我受到它的影响,到达难于想像的程度。这确实是因为我想要恢复,我现在将要反对我相信的邵瑞于汤玫的意见,如他们所跟我表达的。他们跟我指出,这不仅是因为这三个圆圈应该是这个被染颜色的这个圆圈,其余的是被定向,或另外一个是被定向。在此,我正在建构,我认为我能够证明,什么事情岌岌可危,就证明的意义靠近显示来说。

Soury and Thomé proceeded by way of a combinatorial exhaustion of three colourings and three collocated orientations on each of the circles; they believed they should carry out this exhaustion to demonstrate that there are two different Borromean chains. I believe that I can oppose this here.

邵瑞和汤玫继续藉由三种颜色及三个分配方向,朝中每一个圆圈的无穷尽组合。他们相信他们应该执行这种组合,为了证明,有两个不同的博罗米恩锁链。我相信我能够在此反对这个。

Oppose it by something that emerges from the way, from the way in (130) which precisely I represent this chain. The way in which I represent the Borromean chain (VIII-13), to maintain the same colours which are those I have made use of, here is how I represent, here is how I usually represent what you have seen there. I represent it by this differently to the way in which I made operate there two infinite straight lines.

我藉由某件从这个方式出现的东西,反对它。根据我确实代表这个锁链的东西。我代表这个博罗米恩结的方式(VIII-13),为了维持相同的颜色,那就是我曾经使用的方式。这就是我代表的方式,这就是我通常代表你们所看见的方式。我用不同方式代表它。用这些方法,我让两条无限的直线运作。,

There, the use of these two infinite straight lines as against the circle that conjoins
them, is enough to allow us to prove that there are two different objects in the chain. That there are two different objects in the chain on this condition that a couple is coloured and a third orientated (VIII-14).

这两条无限的直线的使用,以跟它们公同连接的圆圈为背景,足够让我们证明:在锁链里,有两个不同的东西。在这个情况,在这个锁链里,有两个不同的东西,有两个被染上颜色,有一个第三个被定方向。

If I spoke about infinite straight lines, the fact is that the infinite straight line which, prudently, Soury and Thomé do not use, the infinite straight line is an equivalent of the circle. It is an equivalent of the circle, at least as regards the chain. It is an equivalent whose point, one point of which is at infinity.

假如我谈论无限的直线,事实上,这条无限的直线,邵瑞和汤玫谨慎地并没有使用。这条直线是这个圆圈的相等语。这是这个圆圈的相等语。至少关于这个锁链。这是一个相等物,它的目标是永恒。

What is required from two infinite straight lines, is that they should be concentric. I mean that between themselves, they should not make a chain. This is the point that Desargues had highlighted a long time ago, but without specifying this last point, namely, that the straight lines which are at stake, straight lines described as infinite, must not be linked together. Because nothing is specified in what Desargues formulated, and which I evoked at one time in my seminar, nothing is specified about what is involved about this point said to be at infinity.

从两条无限直线所被要求的东西是,它们应该同心圆。我的意思是,在它们之间,它们不应该成为一个锁链。这就是德萨格很久以前所强调的,但是他没有指明这个最后一点。换句话说,这些岌岌可危的直线,被描述为无限的直线,它们一定不要被连接在一块。因为没有一样东西被指明,在德萨格构想的东西。我在我的研讨班,某一次曾经引用它们。没有东西被指明,关于在这一点被牵涉的东西,据说是朝向永恒。

We see then the following point: let us orient the ring that we say has no need to be of one colour. This obviously already isolates it. And because of the fact that it is not said to be of one colour, this is already to make something different. Nevertheless, it is not indifferent to say that the three must be oriented. If you proceed starting from this orientation, this orientation which, from where we see it is dextrogyratory.

我们因此看出以下一点。让我们定位这个环圈,我们认为它并没有需要属于一种颜色。这个颜色显而易见,已经孤立它。因为这个事实,它据说是属于一种颜色,这确实是让事情不同的地方。可是,这样说并非是冷漠,这三条直线必须被定方向。假如你们继续从这个定方向出发,从我们看见它向右旋转。

It must not be believed that an orientation is something that is maintained in every case. The proof, the proof is easy to give. It is, namely, that by turning inside out, and turning inside out will imply the inversion of straight lines, by turning the ring inside out the red ring will have, after being turned inside out, an exactly inverse orientation. I said that a single one is enough to be oriented. This is all the more conceivable that by making infinite straight lines, starting from where will we give an orientation to the aforesaid straight lines?

我们一定不要相信,一个定方向在每个情况,都是某件被维持的东西。证据,要给证据很容易。换句话说,从里面向外翻转。从里面向外翻转将会暗示着这些直线的逆转,将环圈由里面向红色环圈翻转,在被翻转之后,会有一个确实逆转的方向定位。我说一条单一直线就足够被定方向。这是更加可构想到。凭借制作永恒直线,从那里开始,我们将给予定位方向,给予前述的直线吗?

It is altogether possible to display the second object starting from what I, which was at the principle of my illusion about colouring starting from here (VIII-14a), that by taking the first, while inverting the colours, by taking the first of what I drew there, namely, by putting here the green colour and here the blue colour you get an undoubtedly different object (VIII-15a) on condition of leaving the orientation of this one which is oriented, of leaving it the same.

这是完全可能的,展示这第二个客体,从我处于我的幻想的原则,关于染颜色,从这里开始(VIII-14a)。凭借拿这第一条直线,一方面倒转这些颜色,拿我在那里所画的第一条直线。换句话说,我将绿色放在这里,蓝色放在这里,你们无可置疑地会获得一个不同的东西,只要你们留下这个被定方向的定位,让它保持原样。

Why in effect would I change the orientation? The orientation has no reason to be changed if I change the couple of colours. How will I recognise non-identity, the non-identity of the total object, if I change the orientation? And even if you turn it inside out, you will notice that this object is well and truly different.

实际上我为什么要改变这个方向定位?这个方向定位没有理由被改变,假如我改变这两对颜色。我将如何体认出这个没有身份的东西,整个客体的没有身份,假如我改变这个方向定位?即使你们将它由里面向外发展,你们将会注意到,这个客体,实实在在就是不同。

Because what it is a matter of comparing, is the object constituted by this, namely,
by making it turn through here (VIII-15b). Compare it with this object which is there (VIII-14b) and, in short, we notice that here, is the orientation, the maintained orientation of this object, the maintained orientation which is opposed, which differentiates this triple from this in (132) which it could be said to have the same presentation.

因为问题是要比较,换句话说,由这个组成的这个客体,让它从这里穿过(VIII-15b)。 你们将它跟那里的的这个客体比较(VIII-14b)。总之,我们会注意到,在此,这个方向定位,这个客体的被维持方向定位,这个被维持的方向定位被对立起来,它区别这三个一组,跟这个不同。据说这个拥有相同的呈现。

This allows us to distinguish the difference between what I called earlier the Real as marked by fallacy, from what is involved in the true. Only what has a meaning is true.
What is the relation of the Real to the true?

这容许我们区别这个不同,处于我早先所谓的由错误标示的实在界,跟这个真实界牵涉的不同。只有具有意义的东西是真实的。这个实在界跟这个真实界的关系是什么呢?

The true about the Real, if I may express myself thus, is that the Real, the Real of the couple here has no sense. This plays on the equivocation of the word sense (sens). What is the relationship of sense to that which here is inscribed as orientation?

真实界是关于实在界,容我自己这样表达,这一对的实在界,在此没有意义。这是在玩弄「意义」这个词语的模棱两可。这个意义跟在此被铭记为方向定位的东西,有什么关系?

One may ask the question and one can suggest a response, namely, that it is time. The important thing is the fact that we bring into operation on this occasion the couple described as coloured, and that this has no sense. Is the appearance of colour from vision, in the sense in which I distinguished it, or from the look? Is it the look or vision that distinguishes colour? It is a question that today I will leave in suspense.

我们可以询问这个问题,我们能够建议一个回答。换句话说,那就是时间。重要的事情是,事实上,我们在这个场合,运作被描述为被染上颜色的这一对。这没有意义。颜色的这个外表看想像得到吗?以我跟它区别的方式,或是从这个观看?这种观看,或这种想像,在区别颜色?这个问题,我今天卖给关子。

The notion of couple, of coloured couple, is there to suggest that in sex, there is nothing more than, I would say, the being of colour. Which in itself suggests that there can be woman the colour of man, I will say, or man the colour of woman. The sexes on this occasion, if we support with the red ring what is involved in the Symbolic, the sexes on this occasion are opposed as Imaginary and Real, as Idea and Impossible to take up again my terms.

这一对的这个观念,被染上颜色的这一对,有东西建议,在性方面,我不妨说,那仅是颜色的实存。它本身暗示着:「女人可能是男人的颜色」,容我这样说,或是,「男人具有女人的颜色」。在这个场合,假如我用红色的环圈支持符号界牵涉的东西,在这个场合,男女两性是对立的,作为想象界,及实在界,作为「观念」与「不可能」,我再一次用我的术语。

But is it quite sure that it is always the Real that is at stake? I put forward that in the case of Joyce, it is the idea and the sinthome, rather, as I call it.

但是这是千真万确吗?总是实在界岌岌可危吗?我根据乔伊士的个案,提出那个问题?相反的,如我所说的,这个观念及这个圣征岌岌可危。

Hence the illumination that results from it about what a woman is: not-all here, by not being grasped, by remaining to Joyce, specifically, foreign, by not having a meaning (sens) for him. Besides, does a woman ever have a meaning for a man?

因此,关于女人是什么,从这里获得的启示是:女人在此并非全部。对于乔伊士而言,女人无法被理解,明确地说始终是陌生,对他而言,并没有拥有意义。除外,对于男人,女人曾经有过意义吗?

雄伯说:
给拉康的拓扑图形绕了老半天,都快要晕头转向了。终于才稍微明白他在说些什么。他在原先的实在界the Real,符号界the Symbolic, 及想象界the Imaginary 之外,现在又多加一个真实界the True。无意识不再是如早先所说的处于实在界里,而是处于想象界与实在界之间的交会,产生一个新的真实界,也就是圣征形成的真实界,环圈由内向外翻转的真实界。这真是让人豁然开朗,路终究是人创造出来的啊!

最后结语时,乔伊士的女人并非全部,女人无法被理解,女人始终是陌生,或女人没有拥有意义。这个女人并非我们通俗所称的女人。拉康从早期的「阳具的意义」The Signification of the Phallus 开始,就始终将阳具作为主体的能指the signifier,通过无意识的讯息letter,响往实在界the Real 的所指the signified。这个所指有时被换喻为大他者the Other,无意识的生命欢爽jouissance,上帝,或是女人。拉康晚年终于体悟到:这个所指,或是女人,并非全部,无法被理解,始终是陌生,或没有拥有意义。她处于实在界,想象界,及符号的交会,是圣征sinthome,拉康晚年新铸造一个新词「真实界」the True。

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

sinthome 32

December 17, 2011

sinthome 32

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Le Sinthome
病征

18.11.75 VII-142
(126) We rediscover there, in short, something for which I put forward that concerning what I called by the name of the woman: she is not-all (pas-toute). She is not-all, means that women constitute only one set. In effect, with time, we have come to dissociate the idea of All from the idea of a set. I mean that we have arrived at the thought of the fact that a certain number of objects can be supported by small letters.

总之,我们在那里重新发现某件东西,我提出那个东西,关于我所谓的以女人之名:女人并非全部。女人并非全部的意思是,女人仅是组成一个集合。事实上,随着时间过去,我们渐渐会将「全部」的观念跟一个「集合」的观念分开。我的意思是,我们已经会想到这个事实: 某些的客体能够用小的字母支持。

And then the idea of All is dissociated, namely, that the circle that is supposed in a quite fragile representation to gather them together, the circle is outside the objects a, b, c, etc (VIII-7).

然后,「全部」的这个观念会被分离。换句话说,被认为的这个圆圈,以一个相当脆弱的符号再现,为了将它们集合在一块,这个圆圈是在啊a、b、c、等客体之外。

Specifying that the woman is not-all, implies an asymmetry, an asymmetry between an object that one might call capital A – and it is a matter of knowing what it is – and a set with one element. The two, if there is a couple, being reunited by being contained in a circle which by this fact is found to be distinct (VIII-8). This is usually expressed in the following form, one uses brackets that are written as follows {A{B}}. On the one hand there is an element and on the other hand a set with one element. As you see, I did something stupid.

指明女人并非全部,暗示着一种不均称,处于一个我们所谓的大写字母A之间的客体,与只有一个要素的集合之间的不均称。这个我们所谓的大写字母A的客体的本质是什么,则有待探讨。假如有配对存在,这两个会被重新结合起来,由于被包含在一个圆圈里。根据这个事实,它被发现是不同的。这通常用以下的形式表达。我们使用括弧,被书写如下:{A{B}}. 在一方面,有一个要素,在另一方面,有一个要素的集合。你们看出,我有点弄巧成拙。

So then I must admit the following to you, which is that after having assented to what Soury and Thomé had articulated for me, namely, namely that a Borromean chain of three shows itself as supporting two different objects, on condition that the three rings
that constitute the aforesaid chain are coloured and orientated; the two being required.

因此,我必须跟你们承认以下。在我同意邵瑞与汤玫曾经跟我表达的,换句话说,由三个环圈组成的一个博洛米恩环结的锁链,显示他自己,作为支持两个不同的客体,只要组成前述的锁链的这三个环圈,被染上颜色及确定方向。这两个是被要求的。

What distinguishes the two objects in question in a second phase, namely, after having assented to what they said, but superficially in a way, I found myself in a rather (127) disagreeable position of having imagined that simply to colour them was enough to distinguish two objects. Because I had not, I had consented quite superficially to what they had brought me the affirmation of.

区别这两个受到质疑的客体,在第二个部分,换句话说,在我已经同意他们所说的,但是外表上,用某种的方式,我发现我自己处于相当不和谐的立场,因为我曾想象,仅是跟它们染上颜色,就足够区别这两个客体。因为我没有区别,我曾经在外表上同意他们所带给我的这个肯定。

18.11.75 VII-143
In effect, it seems to be sensed that if we colour in red one of these three rings, this is all the same not the same object if we colour this one in green and this one in blue, or if we do the opposite
(VIII-9).

事实上,我似乎觉得,假如我们用红色染色这三个环圈的其中一个,这仍然不是相同的客体,假如我们用绿色替这个染上颜色,用蓝色染上这个,或倒过来染色。

It is nevertheless the same object if we turn the sphere inside out. We will very easily obtain, I am going, good God, to draw it rapidly for you, we will obtain very easily a contrary layout.

Namely, that in order to start from what is there, from what is there to represent it thus (VIII-10), where, once again, it is turned inside out in the following way.

可是,我们若是将球形由内部向外翻转,它仍然是相同的东西。我们将会很容易获得,我的天,我将要快速地跟你们画出来。我们很容易就获得一个相反的构图。

(128) It is in effect, if we do not consider this as rigid, quite plausible to make of the red ring the following presentation. If here it is also more that plausible, we make the ring (anneau) so as to bring it there where it is quite obvious that it can be, you get
the following transformation (VIII-11).

事实上,假如我们不将这个认为是僵化,它相当合理地将红色的环圈,解释为以下的呈现。假如在此它更加地合理,我们制作这个环圈,为了带它来那里。这是相当显而易见的,你们很可能获得以下的转变。

And starting from the following transformation, it is highly plausible to make this ring slip in such a way that what it is a matter of obtaining, namely, that the green ring should be internal, instead of it being the blue ring, should be inside the red ring.
And that on the contrary, the blue ring should be outside, this can be obtained (VIII-12).

从以下的转变开始,可非常合理地让这个环圈以这种方式滑溜,问题是如何获得,也就是说,绿色的环圈应该是在内部,代替它的是蓝色的环圈,应该在红色的环圈里面。相反的,蓝色的环圈应该在外部,这是可以获得的。

These things, I can after all say it, are not so easy to demonstrate. The proof is that what is immediate by simply thinking that the three rings can be turned inside out with respect to one another, what is immediate and obtained by manipulation, is that not so, obtained as easily as that.

这些东西并不是那么容易证明,就算我能够说它。证据是,属于当下的东西,仅是凭借认为,这三个环圈能够从内部向外互相翻转,这种操控的当下所获得的东西,并不是那样容易可获得。

The proof is that the aforesaid Soury and Thomé, in short, who very rightly represented this manipulation for me, only did it by getting a little entangled. I
tried to represent for you there how this transformation can effectively be said to operate. Good.

证据是,前述的邵瑞及汤玫,总之,对于我而言,他们很有理由代表这种操控。只是他们这样操控时,难免会有一点陷入纠缠。我尝试跟你们呈现出,这个转变据说是如何有效地运作。呵呵。

In short, what stops us? Stops us in the immediacy which is another sort of obviousness (evidence), as I might say, this (129) obviousness that, as regards the Real, I make a joke that I support by hollowing out (l’évidement). What resists this
obviousness-hollowing out, is the nodal appearance produced by what I will call the chain knot (chaîn-noeud), by equivocating on the chain and the knot. This nodal appearance, this form of knot, as I might say, is what gives assurance to the Real.

总之,是什么阻挡我们?在当下属于另外一种显而易见时,阻挡我们。我不妨说,这个显而易见,关于这个实在界,我开个我用掏空方式支持的「玩笑」。所抗拒这种显而易见的掏空,就是我所谓的锁链的环结,产生的的这个节点的外表,由于它们在这个锁链及环结上刻意地模糊。这个节点的外表,这个环结的形式,我不妨说,就是给予实在界保证的东西。

And I would say on this occasion that it is then a fallacy, since I spoke about
appearance, it is a fallacy which bears witness to what the Real is.

在这个场合,我不妨说,这是一个错误。因为我谈论到外表。这是一个错误见证到实在界是什么。

There is a difference between the pseudo-obviousness, because in my stupidity I first held as obvious that there could be two objects by simply colouring the circles, what is meant by the fact that in short I demonstrated for you this series of artifices? This is where the difference between showing and demonstrating is shown.

在虚假与显而易见之间,有一个差异,因为由于愚昧,我起初认为显而易见的是: 仅是将这些球形染上颜色,就会有两样东西。总之,我跟你们证明的这一系列的闪避策略,这个事实是什么?这就是显示跟证明之间的差异被显现出来的地方。

There is, in a way, an idea of downfall (déchéance) in the demonstrating with respect to the showing.

在某方面,会有一个堕落,当我们证明这种显示时。

There is a choice of showing. All the blah-blah starting from the obvious only
produces the hollowing out on condition of doing it significantly.

有一个显示的选择。从这个显而易开始的一切无聊的话,仅是产生这个掏空,只要我们认真地从事它。

The more geometrico which was for a long time the ideal support of proof, is based on the fallacy of a formal obviousness. And this is altogether of a kind to remind us that geometrically a line is only the intersection of two surfaces, two surfaces which are themselves cut out of a solid. But a different kind of support is provided by the ring (anneau), the circle, whatever it may be, on condition that it is supple. It is a different geometry which is founded on the chain.

史宾诺莎的「几何式哲学」,长久以来就是证据的理想的支持。它以正式的显而易见的错误作为基础。这完全是等同于在提醒我们,从几何图形而言,一条线仅是两个表面的交会,两个表面本身从一个固体切割。但是一种不同的支持,由这个环结,这个圆圈供应,不管它是什么,只要它是柔软的。这是一种不同的几何学,以这个锁链作为基础。

雄伯说:
何谓史宾诺莎几何式哲学?史宾诺莎从犹太教会被开除,单独过他的一生,跟开明的新教徒。他尝试改进笛卡尔哲学,使用数学的公理的哲学思想,而成为一贯的系统(使用证明开始定义,公理,假设,定理)。