Archive for the ‘拉康:结论的时刻’ Category

Identification 80

February 7, 2015

Identification 80
认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

1962
7.3.62 XII 147

It is very easy to show that you can draw seven hexagons on the
torus and not one more, each one having with all the others a
common frontier. This, I apologise for it, to give a little
consistency to my object. This torus is not a bubble, it is not
a puff of air; you see how one can speak about it, even though
entirely, as one says in classical philosophy, as a construction
of the spirit it has all the resistance of something real. Seven
domains? For most of you: it is not possible. As long as I have
not shown it to you you have a right to oppose this “not
(24) possible” to me; why not six, why not eight?

我很容易显示,你们能够在圆环面获得七个六边形,但是无法再多一个。每一个六边形跟其他的六边形都拥有一个共同点边界。对于这点,我很抱歉,这是为了给予我的客体有个稍微的一致性。这个圆环面并不是一个泡沫。它并不是一阵气流。你们看见,我们能够谈论它。即使完整地作为精神的结果,如同古典哲学所说,它具有一切的抗拒,对于实在界的东西。七个领域?对于你们大部分的人们,那是不可能的。只要我没有跟你们显示它,你们就有权利对我提出反对,反对这个“不可能”。为什么不是六个领域?为什么不是八个领域?

Now let us continue. This ring here is not the only thing that
interests us as irreducible; there are others that you can draw
on the surface of the torus of which the smallest is what we can
call the most internal of the circles, which we will call empty
circles.

现在让我们继续下去。在此的这个环圈并不是唯一让我们感到興趣的东西,作为是不可化简的东西。还有其他东西,你们能够在这个圆环面的表面获得。最小的这个圆环面就是我们能够所谓的所有圆圈的最内部的圆圈。我们将称它为空洞的圆圈。

They make a circuit around this hole. One can make a lot of
things of them. What is certain, is that it is apparently
essential; now that it is there you can deflate your torus like a
bladder and put it in your pocket, because it is not part of the
nature of this torus to be always completely round, completely
even; what is important is this holed structure. You can
reinflate it every time you need it, but it can like the little
giraffe in little Hans who made a knot of his neck….

它们环绕这个空洞形成一个循环。我们能够用它们形成许多东西。确定的是,它明显是有必要的。就在那里,你们能够将你们的圆环面扁平,就像一个空气袋,然后放进你们的口袋。因为总是完整地保持圆形,完整地均匀,并不是这个圆环面的特性。重要的是这个具有空洞的结构。你们能够重新替它充气,每当你们需要它时。但是它会喜欢小汉斯的小长颈鹿。小汉斯将他的脖子弄成一个环结、、、

There is something that I want to show you right away. If it is
true that the synthetic enunciating in so far as it is maintained
in one of these circuits, in the repetition of this one, does it
not seem to you that this is going to be easy to depict. I have
only to continue what I drew for you at first fully, then in
dots, this will give a bobbin:

有某件东西,我想要立即跟你们显示。假如综合的表述确实在这些圆圈的其中一个圆圈里被维持,在这个圆圈的重复里,你们难道不觉得,这将是很容易描述?我只要继续我起初充足地跟你们所绘画的东西,用这些小点,这就会形成一个纺织轮轴。

Here then are the series of circuits that they carry out in the
unary repetition of what returns and what characterises the
primary subject in his signifying, automatism of repetition
relationship. Why not push the bobbining to the end, until this
be studied as an analyst which exists in the writings of Mr
Jones.

因此在此就是这些圆圈的系列,它们执行的这些圆圈,在独异性的重复,表现原初主体的回转的东西,及表现原初主体的特征的东西,在重复关系的自动机制里。为什么不将这个纺织轮轴推到结束呢?直到这个纺织轮轴被研究,作为存在的精神分析家,存在于琼斯先生的著作里的精神分析家。

What happens at the end of this circuit? It closes itself off;
we find here moreover the possibility of reconciling what is
supposed, implicated and the final return to meaning of
Natiirwissenschaft with what I underline concerning the
necessarily unary function of the circuit.

这个循环的结束时,发生什么事情?它封闭它的自身。而且,我们在此发现有可能协调所被认为,被牵涉的东西。最后回到Natiirssenschaft自然科学的意义,用我所强调的东西,关于这个循环的必然是独异性的功能。

This does not appear to you here in the way I am representing it
for you. But already there at the beginning and in so far as
the subject goes through the sequence of circuits he has
necessarily made a mistake of one in his count and we see
reappearing here the unconscious minus one in its constitutive
function.

在此你们看见的,似乎并不是我正在再现给你们的方式。但是它一开始就已经在那里。当主体经历各种循环的系列,他必然曾经犯下错误,他的计算的这一个循环。我们看见,在形成它的功能里,这个无意识的负一(-1)重新出现。

This for the simple reason that the circuit that he
cannot count is the one that he made in making a circuit of the
torus and I am going to illustrate it for you in an important
fashion, because it is of a nature to introduce you to the
function that we are going to give to two types of irreducible
act, those which are full circles and those which are empty
circles, regarding which you will guess that the second must have
some relationships with the function of desire.

理由很简单,他无法计算的这个循环,就是他形成的这个循环,当他将这个圆环面形成一个循环。我将要跟你们解释它,用一个重要的方式。因为这是相同的特性,跟你们介绍这个功能。我们将这个功能给予两种无法化简的行动,完整圆圈的行动与空洞圆圈的行动。关于它们,你们将会猜测到:第二个行动跟欲望的功能,一定有某种的关系。

Since, as compared to these circles which succeed one another, the
succession of full circles, you ought to notice that the empty
circles, which are in a way caught in the rings of these buckles
and which unify all the circles of demand among themselves, there
must be something which is related to the little object of
metonymy in so far as it is this object. I did not say that it
is desire that is symbolised by these circles, but the object as
such which is opposed to desire.

因为,跟互相接续的这些圆圈比较起来,完整圆圈的接续,你们应该注意到,这些空洞的圆圈,它们某方面被套陷在这些环扣的环圈里。完整的环圈统合所有的要求的圆圈,在它们当中。那一定会有某件东西跟换喻的这个小客体息息相关,因为它就是这个小客体。我并没有说,就是欲望,被这些圆圈所象征。而是说,被这些圆圈象征的这个客体,跟欲望对立。

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

seminar final 45

April 22, 2012

seminar final 45

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

1

Seminar 12: Tuesday 9 May 1978

Things can legitimately be said to know how to behave. It is we who discover how they work. The turning point is that we have to imagine them. It is not always easy because some oratorical, that is to say spoken, precautions are needed.

事情能够合理地被说成是要知道如何行为。那是由我们来发现,事情如何运作。转捩点是,我们必须想象它们。这个未必是容易的,因为有些长篇大论,也就是口头的预防措施是需要的。

Thus it is the cut which realises the threefold knot on a torus. To complete this cut, it is necessary, as I might say, to spread it out, namely, redouble it in such a way as to make a strip. This is what you see here on the right – the cut is there on the left – this is what you see here on the right of this drawing which it has to be said is not without a certain awkwardness.

因此,这个切割实践了一个圆环面上的三重折叠的环结。为了完成这个切割,我不妨说,我们有需要将它摊开来。换句话说,重新跟它加倍复制,这样才能形成一个环结。这是你们所看见的,就在右边这里—这个切割是在左边那里—这是你们在此所看见的,在这个图形的右边。必须说的是,它并非没有某种笨拙。

It has to be redoubled, thanks to which the figure of this strip appears, which for its part gives support, namely, the stuff of the threefold knot.

它必须被加倍复杂,由于这个加倍复制,这个环带的图形出现。就它本身而言,它给予支持,换句话说,它给予这三重折叠的环结。

That is certainly why I stated this absurdity that it was impossible to establish a knot on a torus, which Lagarrigue legitimately took up, for the cut is not enough to make the knot: the strip must be there and you know how it is produced: by redoubling the cut a little to the right, a little to the left, in short by redoubling it. For a cut is not enough to make a knot, there must also be stuff, the stuff of a tube on this occasion which is sufficient. But it must not be believed that the cut suffices to make from the tube a Möbius strip even for example with a triple half-twist. It is the figure that I indicated there, this one which redoubles the cut, this is the figure that I indicated here which provides the stuff for this threefold knot.

那确实是为什么我陈述这个荒谬性:我们不可能在圆环面上建立一个环结。那是拉伽瑞格合理地从事的。因为这个切割并不足够形成这个环结。这个环带必须在那里,你们知道它如何被产生,凭借加被复制这个切割,稍微朝向右边,稍微朝向左边。总之,凭借加倍复杂它。因为一个切割并不足够形成一个环结,也必须要有材料,在这个场合,这是一个管子的材料就足够了。但是我们一定不要相信,这个切割就足够将一个管子形成一个莫比斯环带,甚至,譬如用一个三倍的半扭曲形状。这是我在那里指示的图形,这个图形加倍复制这个切割。这就是这个图形,我在这里指示,它供应这个材料给予这三重折叠的环结。

I am pointing out to you that this threefold knot, is something that is only produced by a cut down the middle of what I called the triple Möbius strip: it is by cutting down the middle this triple Möbius strip that the threefold knot appears, so that after all this is what excuses me for having stated this fact, this absurd fact.

我正在跟你们指出,这三重折叠的环结是某件东西,它仅能被产生,凭借切割到中间,我所谓的三倍的莫比斯环带。凭借将这个三倍的莫比斯环带,切割到中间,这三重折叠的环结出现。所以,毕竟这就是我有藉口,曾经陈述这个事实,这个荒谬的事实。

9.5.78 (CG Draft 2)
2

The triple Möbius strip is not capable of lying on a torus; hence it results that, if one cuts out this as it was originally, namely, the cut, the simple cut, this does not make a threefold knot and if one cuts the tube in the way that is represented here (redoubled cut), well then, what one obtains is something which is quite different from what one was expecting, namely, that it is a thing folded over four times: on this occasion, for example, this is the inside of the tube, this is the inside also and this is the outside.

这个三倍的莫比斯环带并不能够躺在一个圆环面上。因此,它的结果是,假如我们切割掉这个,如同它原先,也就是这个切割,这个简单的切割,这并没有形成一个三重折叠的环结。假如我们切割这个管子,使用在这里被再现的方式(加倍复制),呵呵,我们所获得的是某件东西,它相当不同于我们当时正在期待的东西。换句话说,这是一个被折叠四次的东西。在这个场合,譬如,这是管子的内部,这也是内部,这是外部。

This indeed is why it is not possible to obtain this directly, namely, it is not possible to obtain directly what results for the strip inside the cut, , because this is something that only results by the section along the middle of the triple Möbius strip. This is perhaps what excuses me for having formulated this absurdity that I admitted earlier.

这确实是为什么要直接获得这个环带是不可能的。换句话说,这是不可能的,要直接获得这个切割内部的这个环带所造成的结果。因为这是某件事情,沿着这三倍的莫比斯环带的中间的区隔造成的结果。这或许是为什么我有藉口来说明这个我早先承认的这个荒谬性。

Nevertheless it is a fact that the cut in question realises on the torus something equivalent to the knot and which Lagarrigue was right to reproach me about.

可是,这是一个事实,受到质疑的这个切割,在圆环面上,实践了某件相等于是这个环结的东西。拉伽瑞格谴责我,关于这个东西,不是没有道理的。

What I said about the things that can be legitimately described as to know how one should behave, is something which supposes the use of what I called the Imaginary. What I said earlier, that one must imagine this stuff, suggests to us that there is something primary in the fact that there are fabrics (tissus).

我刚才所说的,关于那些合理地能够被描述的东西,作为想要知道我们应该如何行为。这个某件东西假定我所谓的想象界的使用。我早先所说的东西,我们必须想象这个材料,跟我们建议,在这个事实,有某件原初的东西,有织料存在。

3
Fabric is particularly linked to imagination, to the point that I would put forward that the support of a fabric, is properly speaking what I called just now the Imaginary. And what is striking, is precisely that, namely, that fabric is only imagined. Therefore we find here something which means that what passes for being the least imagined depends all the same on the Imaginary. It must be said that fabric is not easy to imagine, because it is encountered only in the cut.

质料特别跟想象力有关系,到达这个程度,我要提出,一个质料的支持,适当来说,就是我刚才所谓的想象界。引人注意的是,确实就是,换句话说,那个质料仅是被想象。因此,我们发现,在此某件东西意味着,被认为是最没有被想象的东西,仍然是依靠着想象界。我们必须说,质料并不容易被想象,因为它仅有在这个切割时被想象。

If I spoke about the Symbolic the Imaginary and the Real, it is indeed because the Real is the fabric. So then how imagine this fabric?

假如我谈论到符号象征界,想象界,及实在界,这确实是因为实在界就是这个质料。因此,我们如何想象这个质料呢?

Well then, here precisely is the gap between the Imaginary and the Real, and what is between them, is the inhibition…precisely to imagine. But what is this inhibition, since moreover, we have here an example of it, there is nothing more difficult than to imagine the Real and here it seems that we are going around in circles and that in this affair of fabric, the Real, it is indeed what escapes us and it is indeed the reason why we have the inhibition. It is the gap between the Imaginary and the Real, if indeed it is the case that we can still support it, it is the gap between the Imaginary and the Real which constitutes our inhibition.

呵呵,在此确实是处于想象界与实在界之间的这个差距,处于它们中间的就是这个潜抑。确实是要想象。但是属于这个潜抑的东西,而且,我们在此有一个关于它的例子。没有一样东西比想象实在界更加困难。在此,似乎,我们将要环绕圆圈打转。在质料的这个事情上,实在界,这确实是我们无法理解的地方。确实是这个理由,为什么我们拥有这个潜抑。这个处于想象界与实在界之间的这个差距,假如这确实是这个情况,我们能够依旧支持它。处于想象界与实在界之间的这个差距,形成我们的潜抑。

The Imaginary the Real and the Symbolic, is what I advanced as three functions which are situated in what is called a plait. It is clear that if one starts from here, this is a plait and what is curious, is that this plait is very particular.

想象界,实在界,与符号象征界,这些是我提出,作为三个功用,被定位在所谓的编织。显而易见地,假如我们从这里开始,这是一个编织。耐人寻味的是,这个编织非常特别。

There is something that I would like to produce before you today. This is what it is: it is something that is presented like a strip. 2 covers 1; here it is 1 covers 3; here it is 2 which passes under 3, here it is 1, here it is 3, here it is 2, here it is 3.

有某件东西,今天我想要在你们面前产生。这就是它的样子。这是某件东西,像一个环带般被呈现。2 盖住 1; 在此,这是 1 盖住 3; 在此,这是 2 从 3 底下经过。在此是这个 1,在此是这个 3, 在此是 2, 在此 这是3.

And, in a word, at the end, we will find ourselves after 6 exchanges 1-2-3. Well then, this, namely, the equivalent of what is called the Slade strip, with what I depicted here as 1, 2, 3; this equivalence is shown in the fact that it is possible to reduce to this Slade band, by an appropriate manipulation of that in which consists the level where I wrote 1-2-3 [XII-7], it is possible to reduce this to this by an appropriate manipulation.

总之,结束时,我们将会发现我们自己,在这六次的交换之后。呵呵,换句话说,所谓的司列德环带的相等物,跟我在此所描述的,作为1,2,3 的东西相等。这个相等物被显示在这个事实:我们可能凭借一个适当的操弄,将它还原成为这个司列德环带,将在图形(VII-7)我书写的地方,这个层次组成的东西。这是可能的,将这个东西还原成为这个,凭借着一个适当的操弄。

9.5.78 (CG Draft 2)
4
In other words: a plaited belt which terminates by something which is the equivalent of this 1-2-3, namely, on this occasion a waist belt and I mean what is detached in this way (Laughter: Lacan takes off his belt), it is, not simply possible, but easy to demonstrate that this belt if it goes inside this plait, that this belt…It is more than possible in a plaited belt to obtain, with the help of the end of the strap and of the waist belt, to obtain the unknotting of the plait, I am talking about the Borromean plait. Therefore the equivalent of the Borromean plait, is exactly what is posed as unplaitted and this in order to signal for you this equivalence that I assure you you can effectively confirm in the most precise way.
It is no doubt difficult to imagine this fact, but it is a fact.

换句话说,一条被编织的腰带,终结的东西就是这个1,2,3 的相等物。换句话说,在这个场合,一个腰带。我的意思是,以这个方式被疏离的东西 (哄堂大笑,拉康解下腰带)。这不仅是可能的,而是是容易地证明:假如这个腰带进入到编织里,这个腰带、、、在一个被编织的腰带里,更有可能获得,凭借这个皮带与腰带的末端的帮助,获得这个编织的解开环结。我正在谈论关于博罗米恩环结。因此,博罗米恩环结的编织,确实是所被提出的东西,作为解开编织。这个是为了跟你们指示这个相等物,我告诉你们,你们能够有效地以确实的方式确认。无可置疑地,要想像这个事实是困难的,但是这是一个事实。

I would like to suggest to you something that has all its importance, which is the following: it is how can one make the shortest Möbius strip? By folding this triangle here onto that one. There results the following, namely, that something folds back which is this piece here. Well then, it is a matter of seeing that a Möbius strip will be produced by the fact of the folding of this here and of that there. It’s an ordinary Möbius strip. Find the equivalent for what is involved in the triple Möbius strip. This Möbius strip is more or less like this:

我想要跟你们建议某件东西,它具有它所有的重要性。那就是以下:我们如何能够制作这个最短的莫比斯环带?凭借折叠这里的这个三角形,到那个三角形上面。结果如下: 也就是说,某件东西折叠回去,那就是这里的这一个。呵呵,问题是要看出,一个莫比斯腰带将会被产生,根据这里的这个跟那里的那个的折叠的这个事实。这是一个普通的莫比斯环带。你们会找到这个相等物,在这个三倍的莫比斯环带所牵涉的东西的相等物。这个莫比斯环带有点像是这个样子。

5
A curious thing, attack this business of the shortest Möbius strip and you will see that there is another solution, I mean that there is a way to make it still shorter, by still starting from the same equilateral triangle.

这是一件耐人寻味的事情,假如你们攻击这个最短的莫比斯环带的这件事情,你们就会看出,还有另外一个解决方法。我的意思是,有一个方法使它变成更短。那就是凭借从相同的等边三角形开始。

What is the relationship between that and psychoanalysis? I would highlight several things, namely, that the things that are at stake have the closest relationship with psychoanalysis.

那个最短的莫比斯环带跟精神分析有什么关系?我想要强调好几件事情。换句话说,岌岌可危的这些事情,跟精神分析有最密切的关系。

The relationship of the Imaginary of the Symbolic and of the Real, is something which belongs by essence to psychoanalysis. I did not adventure into them for nothing, if only because of the fact that the primacy of the fabric, namely, of what I call on this occasion things, the primacy of fabric is essentially what is necessitated by the highlighting of what is involved in the stuff of a psychoanalysis. If we do not go straight to this distance between the Imaginary and the Real, we are without recourse for what is involved in distinguishing in a psychoanalysis the gap between the Imaginary and the Real. It is not for nothing that I took this path.

想象界,符号象征界,及实在界的关系,是某件本质上属于精神分析。我并没有冒险进入它们,而一无所得,即使仅是因为这个事实:这个质料的原初性,换句话说,在这个场合,我所谓的各种物的原初性。质料的原初性成为必要性,基本上是凭借强调精神分析的材料所牵涉的东西。虽然我们没有直接到达处于想象界与实在界之间的这个距离,我们并没有求助于会牵涉的东西,当我们在精神分析区别这个差距,处于想象界与实在界之间的差距。我採取这条途径,并非没有所得。

The thing is what we must stick to and the thing qua imagined, namely, the fabric qua represented. The difference between the representation and the object is something capital. It is at the point that the object at stake is something which can have several representations.

这个物就是我们必须坚持的东西。这个作为被想象的物,换句话说,这个作为被再现的质料。处于这个再现与这个客体之间的差异,是某件重大的事情。在这一点,岌岌可危的客体,是某件会有好几个再现之物的东西。

I am going to leave you there for today and perhaps do my seminar again next year at an appropriate date.

今天,我将要在那里跟你们告一段落。或许明年,我将在一个适当的日期重新开始为的研讨班。

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

seminar final 43

April 20, 2012

seminar final 43

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

1

Seminar 10: Tuesday 11 April 1978

I stated, putting it in the present, that there is no sexual relationship. It is the foundation of psychoanalysis. At least that is what I have allowed myself to say. There is no sexual relationship, except for neighbouring generations, namely, the parents on the one hand, the children on the other. This is what is warded off – I am talking about sexual relationship – this is what is warded off by the prohibition of incest. Knowledge, is always in relationship with what I write ‘l’asexe’, on condition of following it up with a word which is to be put in parenthesis ‘ualité’: l’asexe (ualité). One has to know how to deal with this sexuality. To know comme enfer [a play on comment faire, how to deal with] this at least is how I write it. I began at one time, to symbolise this sexuality, to make a Möbius strip. I would like now to correct this strip, I mean by that to triple it.

我陈述,以当下表达它,没有性的关系存在。那是精神分析的基础。至少,那是我曾经容许我自己说的。没有性的关系存在,除了前后传存的世代。换句话说,一方面是父母,另一方面是小孩。这就是所被避开的东西—我正在谈论性的关系—这是乱论禁忌所要避开的东西。知识总是处于我所书写的l’asexe 的关系,只要我们遵循它,用一个应该被放在括弧里的字词 ualite:l’asexe (ualite)。如何处理这个,至少是我书写它的方式。我在某个时刻开始,将这个性符号象征化,制作一个莫比斯环带。我现在想要改正这个环带,我的意思是将它切割成为三倍。

This is a strip, just like the other one, namely, that its front coincides with its back, but this time that happens twice. It is easy for you to see, if this is the front, this which turns is the back, following which one comes back to the front; and after that, the back is here, just as here where the back was, is the front; and in the same way here the front is the back. It is therefore a double Möbius strip, I mean that it is on the same face that the front and the back appear.

这是一个环带,就像另一个环带。换句话说,它的前面跟它的后面衔接。但是这一次,它衔接两次。你们很容易看出,是否这是前面,翻转的这个是后面。跟随它,我们回来前面。然后,背面又在这里,就像在此是背面所在,这是前面。同样地,在此,前面就是后面。因此,这是一个双重的莫比斯环带。我的意思是,前面和背面出现在相同的面向。

Here we can say that it is simpler: if this is the front, it is also the back, as appears from the fact that what was the back here returns there; namely, that the Möbius strip has only one front and one back. But the distinction between this [X-2] and this [X-1] comes from the fact that it is possible to have a Möbius strip which, on its two faces, is at the same time the front and the back. There is a single face on each side: it’s a Mobius strip which has the property of being bilateral.

在此,我们能够说,这比较简单:假如这是前面,这也是背面。如同根据这个事实显现,在此属于背面的部分,在那里回转。换句话说,这个莫比斯环带仅有一个前面跟一个背面。但是在图形X-2 与图形X-1 之间的区别,来自于这个事实:拥有一个莫比斯环带是可能的,在它的两个面向,莫比斯环带既是前面,又是背面。在每一边,都有一个单一的面向。这个莫比斯环带具有双边的面向的特性。

2
What does one lose in the abstraction? One loses the fabric, one loses the stuff, namely, that one loses what is presented as a metaphor. Moreover, I point out to you, the art, the art by which one weaves, the art is also a metaphor. That is why I strive to make a geometry of fabric, of thread, of stitching.

在这个抽离中,我们丧失什么?我们丧失这个质料,我们丧失这个质料。换句话说,我们丧失所被呈现作为隐喻的东西。而且,我跟你们指出,艺术,我们凭借作为编织的艺术,艺术也是一种隐喻。那就是为什么我尝试制作一个质料,绳线,及缝纫的几何图形。

This at least is where the fact of analysis has led me; for analysis is a fact, a social fact at least, which is founded on what is called thought that one expresses as one can with lalangue that people have – I recall that I wrote this lalangue in a single word in the drawing in order to make something felt in it.

这至少是精神分析的事实曾经引导我的地方。因为精神分析是一个事实,至少是一个社会的事实。它被创立,是根据所谓的思想。我们使用人们使用的「语言」,表达思想。我提醒一下,我书写这个「语言」,用图画上的一个单一的字词,为了让某件东西在里面被感受到。

In analysis, one does not think just anything whatsoever and nevertheless this indeed is what one tends to in the association described as free: one would like to think anything whatsoever. Is that what we do? Is that what dreaming consists in? In other words: do we dream about the dream? Because that is where the objection lies.

在精神分析,我们并没有思想任何的东西。可是这确实是我们倾向要做的,在被描述为自由的联想当中。我们想要思想任何的东西。那就是我们所从事的吗?那就是梦的形成的内容吗?换句话说,我们梦想关于梦吗?因为那就反对的理由所在。

The objection is that Freud in The interpretation of dreams does no better: about the dream, by free association about the dream, he dreams. How know where to stop in the interpretation of dreams? It is quite impossible to understand what Freud meant in The interpretation of dreams. This is what made me rave, it has to be said, when I introduced linguistics into what is called a quite effective paste, at least we suppose it to be so, and which is called analysis. ‘

反对的理由是,弗洛伊德在「梦的解析」里,表现不见得更高明。关于梦,凭借对于梦的自由联想,他做梦。他如何知道在梦的解析里,何处应该停止?这是完全不可能的,要了解弗洛伊德在「梦的解析」里,那是什么意思。这就是让我侃侃而谈的原因。它必须被说出,当我介绍语言学进入所谓的一种有效的粘贴,至少我们认为它是如此,我们所谓的精神分析。

From syntax to interpretation’, this is what Jean-Claude Milner proposes to us. It is certain that he has all kinds of difficulties in going from syntax to interpretation. What was the state of things in Freud’s time? There is obviously a question of atmosphere as one says, of what are called cultural co-ordinates. I mean that one remains with thoughts and acting by means of thought, it is something which is close to mental defectiveness. There must exist an act which is not mentally defective. I try to produce this act in my teaching. But it is all the same only stammering.

从句法到解释,这就是克劳德、米奈跟我们建议的。他确实遭遇到各种的困难,从句法到解释。在弗洛伊德的时代,事情是怎样的一种状况?显而易见地,有一个我们所说的气氛的问题,对于所谓的文化的座标。我的意思是,我们始终是跟思想在一块,并且凭借思想来行动。这是某件类似精神的缺陷。一种不属于精神上的缺陷的行动必须存在。我尝试在我的教学介绍这个行动。但是它仍然仅是吞吞吐吐地表达。

We are close here to magic. Analysis is a magic which only has as support the fact that, certainly, there is no sexual relationship, but that thoughts are oriented, are crystallised on what Freud imprudently called the Oedipus complex. All that he was able to do, is to find in what was called tragedy, in the sense that this word had a sense, what was called tragedy furnished him, in the form of a myth, something which articulates that one cannot prevent a son from killing his father. 11.4.78 (CG Draft 2)

我们在此靠近魔术。精神分析是一种魔术,它仅获得这个事实作为基础。的确,没有性的关系存在,除了各种思想被定向,被具体表达,对于弗洛伊德轻率地称之为伊底普斯情结。他所能够做的是,在所谓的悲剧里找到某件东西,以悲剧这个字词具有的意义,所谓的悲剧供应给他某件东西,以一种神话的形式。这个东西表达,我们无法阻止儿子杀死他的父亲。

3
I mean by that that Laïus did everything he could to distance this son about whom a prediction had been made, that did not prevent him for all that, and I would say all the more so, from being killed by his own son.

我那样说的意思是,雷奥斯尽其一切能力,让他的儿子避开命运的预言。尽管那样,那并没有阻止他,不要被他自己的儿子杀死。我仍然要这么说。

I believe that by working on psychoanalysis, I made it progress. But in reality, I am breaking it apart. How direct a thought so that analysis works? The thing which is closest to it, is to convince oneself, if this word has a meaning, is to convince oneself that it works. I tried to flatten it out. It is not easy.

我相信,凭借对于精神分析的研究,我让它有所进步。但是事实上,我正在瓦解它。要怎样地引导思想,这样精神分析才能运作?靠近精神分析的这个东西,就是要说服我们自己,假如这个字词有意义的话,要说服我们自己,精神分析能够运作。我尝试将它扁平化,但是并不容易。

In the passage from the signifier, as it is understood, to the signified there is something that is lost, in other words, it is not sufficient to state a thought for it to work. To raise psychoanalysis to the dignity of surgery, for example, would be highly desirable. But it is a fact that the thread of thought in it does not suffice. What does that mean moreover the thread of thought? It is also a metaphor.

从这个能指的通过,据它所被了解的,通过到这个所指,有某件东西丧失。换句话说,为了让精神分析运作,光是陈述思想是不足够的。譬如,将精神分析提升到外科手术的尊严,将是非常被渴望。但是事实上,在里面的思想的脉络并不足够。而且,思想的脉络,那是什么意思?那也是一个隐喻。

This indeed is why I was also led to something that is also a metaphor, namely, to materialise this thread of thoughts. I was encouraged by something which basically is what I was saying at the beginning, namely, this triplicity which founds the fact of the succession of generations. There are three of them, three generations between which there is something of a sexual relationship. This brings with it of course a whole series of catastrophes and this is what Freud, when all is said and done, noticed. He noticed it, but this was not seen in his familial life; because he had taken the precaution of being madly in love with what is called a woman, it must be said, it is bizarre, it is strange. Why does desire go on to love? Facts do not allow it to be explained. There are no doubt effects of prestige.

这确实是为什么我也被引导到某件也是一种隐喻的东西。换句话说,具体表现各种思想的脉络。我受到某件东西的鼓励,那是东西基本上是我开始时正在说的东西。换句话说,作为世代交替的这个事实的基础的三倍特性。它们有三个,三个世代,处于这三个世代之间,有某件性的关系存在。当然,这会给它带来整个系列的灾难。这就是当一切都说都做了,弗洛伊德注意到的东西。他注意到它,但是这并没有在家庭的生活里被看出来。因为他曾经採取警告,不要疯狂地爱上所谓的女人。我们必须说,这是古怪,这是怪异。欲望为什么继续要爱?各种事实并不容许它被解释。无可置疑地,这是受到威望的影响。

What is called social superiority must play a role in it; in any case for Freud it’s very likely. The trouble is he knew it. He noticed that this effect of prestige was operating, at least it’s very likely that he noticed it. Was Freud – the question must be asked all the same, was Freud religious? It is certain that it is worthwhile posing the question. Do all men fall under the weight (faix) of being religious? It is all the same curious that there is something which is called mysticism: mysticism which is a plague as is clearly proved by all of those who fall into mysticism.

所谓的社会的优越性,一定在里面扮演一个角色。无论如何,对于弗洛伊德而已,这是很有可能的。麻烦的是,他知道它。他注意到,威望的这个影响正在运作,至少,这是很有可能的,他注意到它。弗洛伊德,这个问题必须被问,弗洛伊德具有宗教情操吗?确实地,这个问题值得提出。所有的人都会受到宗教情操的影响吗?这仍然是耐人寻味的,有某件东西被称为神秘主义,这是一个瘟疫,如同掉入神秘主义的那些人所证明的。

I imagine that analysis, I mean inasmuch as I practice it, is something that made me limited. Analysis it must be said is an excellent method for cretinisation. But perhaps I tell myself that I am limited because I dream, I dream of being a little less so. 11.4.78 (CG Draft 2)

我想象,精神分析,我是指当我在实践它时,这是某件让我受到限制的东西。精神分析必须被说是一种非常优秀的矮化的方法。但是或许我告诉我自己,我受到限制,是因为我作梦,我梦见,我稍微比较没有作梦。

4
Flattening out something, whatever it may be, is always useful. There is something which is striking, which is that flattening out this, one notices that this is nothing other than a threefold thread, I mean that this is exactly identical to this threefold thread.

扁平化某件东西,不管它是什么东西,总是非常有用的。有某件东西引人注意,那就是将这个东西扁平化。我们注意到,这实实在在就是一个三重的绳线,我的意思是,这确实等同于在个三重的绳线。

Flattened out it is the same thing as this threefold thread. It does not seem to be so, but nevertheless this indeed is what is at stake. The threefold thread, I mean what is properly speaking a knot, a knot that is said to have three points of intersection, this is what flattens out our Mobius strip. I would ask you to consider this and allow me to remain with that.

当它被扁平化时,这跟三重的绳线是相同的东西。它似乎并不是那个样子,但是这确实是岌岌可危的地方。这三重的绳线,我的意思是,适当来说,那是一个环结的东西。这个环结据说拥有三个交会点。这是将我们的莫比斯环带扁平的东西。我想要要求你们考虑这一点,容许我保持那样。

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

seminar final 42

April 19, 2012

seminar final 42

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

1

Seminar 9: Tuesday 21 March 1978

I am warning you that Madam Ahrweiler, President of the University of Paris 1, Madam Ahrweiler has taken steps to ensure that I will give my seminar the 11th and 18th of April. This is a vacation period and therefore you will probably just have to enter by the door not on rue St Jacques, but on the place du Pantheon. In fact I was reduced to two seminars since, as regards May, it would be the 2nd Tuesday, but not the 3rd, given that I have been warned that in this very room there will be exams on the 3rd Tuesday.

我正在警告你们,阿维勒夫人,巴黎第一大学的校长,她曾经採取步骤保证,我将可以发表我的研讨班,在四月11日及18日。这是一个假日期间,因此,你们可能必须从旁门进入,不是从雅克大道,而是从万神庙的那个位置。事实上,我还剩下两次的研讨班,关于五月,那将是第二个星期二,但是不是第三次,因为考虑到我曾经被警告,在这个房间,在第三次的星期二,将会有考试。

It nevertheless remains that I am very concerned about what is involved specifically in the torus. Soury is going to pass you tori, tori on which there is something knitted. There is something that particularly worries me, which is the relationship between what can be called toricity and holing. It seems, according to what Soury says, that there is no relationship between holing and toricity. For my part, I cannot say that I do not see relationships, but probably I have a rather confused idea about what can be called a torus.
Last time you had a certain presentation of what one can do with a torus.

问题仍然是,我非常关心这个圆环面明确所被牵涉的东西。邵瑞将会传递给你们这个圆环面,有某件东西被编织的圆环面。有某件东西,特别让我感到忧虑。那就是所谓的圆环面化及空洞化之间的关系。依照邵瑞的说法,似乎是,在空洞化与圆环面化之间,没有关系存在。就我而言,我无法说,我没有看出这些关系。但是可能,我有一个相当混淆的观念,关于什么能够被称为圆环面。上一次,你们拥有某种的呈现,对于我们能够如何处理一个圆环面。

There is something that Soury is going to pass around later and which involves a holing. It is a holing which is artificial, I mean that it is a torus covered by a knitting which is richer than the simple one, namely the one which is – and that indeed is where the difficulty is – the which is traced out as knitting on the torus. I have not dissimulated from you what this involves: the fact that it is traced out on the torus is of such a nature that one cannot, what I designate as ‘a tracing out’, cannot be passed as a knitting. It nevertheless remains that by convention, people think, and articulate that it is a knitting.

有某件东西,邵瑞等一下将要传递,那牵涉到一个空洞化。这是一个人为的空洞化。我的意思是,这个一个被编织涵盖的圆环面,它比简单的圆环面更加丰富。换句话说—这是困难所在—它被追踪作为一个圆环面的编织。我没有跟你们隐藏这会牵涉的东西。事实上,它在圆环面上被追踪,是属于这样一种性质,我们无法,我所指明作为「追踪」的东西,无法被认为作为一个编织。可是,问题仍然是,根据传统,人们认为而且表达,那是个编织。

But there should be added to this, this complement that what can be traced out on the other side of the surface has by being inverted and by being inverted by highlighting the inversion of above/ below, which of course frankly complicates what we can say about what is happening inside the torus.

但是对于这一点应该有所补充,这个补充,在表面的另外一面,应该被追踪的东西,由于被倒转,凭借强调上面跟底下的倒转,当然会显然地更加复杂化,对于我们所能够说的东西,关于圆环面内在会发生的事情。

This indeed is what manifests itself in the relative complexity of what is drawn at this level. (On Soury’s picture, 3rd and 4th levels in the annexe of the previous session). We will agree to say that the inversion of the above/below complicates the affair, because what I called earlier the complexity of this picture has nothing to do with this inversion that one can agree to call, because it is inside the torus instead of being outside, that one can call, by definition its mirror-image.

这确实是在这个层层,所被绘画的东西的相对的复杂性,显示它自己的东西。(在邵瑞的图画上,第三跟第四层次,在前次的课堂)。我们将会同意地说,以上及以下的倒转,使事情变得复杂,因为我早先所谓的这个图画的复杂性的东西,跟我们同意说的这个倒转,没有丝毫的关系。因为这是在圆环面里面,而不是在外面。我们能够在定义上称为是它的镜子影像。

2
This would mean that there are toric mirrors. It is a simple question of definition. It is a fact that it is what is on the outside that passes for important, outside of the torus, traced outside the torus. There is no trace in these figures (Soury’s picture: levels 3 and 4), there is no trace of this inversion, that I called the image in a toric mirror.

这将意味着,有这个圆环面的镜子。这是定义的一个简单的问题。事实上,这是属于外在的部分被认为是重要的,圆环面的外在。在圆环面的外在被追踪。这些图形上并没有什么痕迹。(邵瑞的图画,第三及第四层次)。并没有这个倒转的任何痕迹,我所谓的圆环面的镜像的意象。

Holing is a means of reversal. By holing it is possible for a hand to be introduced and go on to grasp the axis of the torus and, in that way, reversing it; but there is something else that is possible, which is that through this hole by pushing through the hole the whole of the torus, one obtains a reversal effect. This is what Soury will show you later with the help of a toric knitting that is a little more complicated.

空洞化是一个倒转的方法。凭借空洞化,手可能被介绍及继续理解圆环面的轴心。然后以那种方式倒转它。但是还有某件其他的东西是可能的。那就是凭借强力通过整体的圆环面,凭借通过这个角色,我们获得一个倒转的影响。这就是邵瑞以后跟你们显示的,凭借编织圆环面的帮助,这有点比较复杂。

It is striking that one obtains by pushing the outside of the torus, that one obtains exactly the same result, which I justify by saying that this hole by definition does not properly speaking have a dimension, namely that it is thus that it can be presented, namely that what is a hole here can moreover be projected in the following way.

耐人寻味的,我们凭借逼迫圆环面的外在获得,我们确实地获得相同的结果。我证实这个结果地说,这个空洞的定义,适当来说,并没有一种维度。换句话说,因此,它能够被呈现,换句话说,在此是一个空洞的,而且能够以下面的方式被投射。

3
What will present itself therefore as a grasping of the axis here will find itself inverted; the grasping of the axis will ensure that this will be outside the hole but that, since there is an inversion of the torus, the grasping of the axis will ensure that the torus – this is also a simple circle and will be found here after the axis has been grasped – but inversely one can see that here we will obtain the same figure namely that what is here caught by the hole and this pushed back inside, after the inversion of what is here, will also find itself functioning as a torus, what is here becoming the axis.

因此,将会呈现它们自己的东西,作为这个轴心的理解,在此将会发生它自己被倒转。这个轴心的理解将会保证,这个将会是空洞的外在,但是,因为有一个圆环面的倒转,对于这个轴心的理解将会保证—这也是一个简单的圆圈,这种理解在这里将会被发现到,当这个轴心已经被理解之后。但是倒转地,我们能够说,在此,我们将会获得相同的图形。换句话说,在此被这个空洞所补捉的,这个在内在被逼退的东西。在这里的东西的倒转,也将会发现它自己发挥功用,作为一个圆环面。在此的东西就变成轴心。

I am now going to ask Soury, since he is good enough to be here, to come and show the difference – a null difference – that there is between these two ways of depicting the toric knitting. You have the object?

我现在将要要求邵瑞过来解说这个差异,因为承蒙他好心在这里。这个一个无力的差异,存在于描述圆环编织的这两种方式之间。你的东西带来没有?

Soury: I passed it around.
Lacan: You have passed it around. One can see on this object the difference there is between grasping the axis and pushing back the whole torus. Off you go.
Soury: Will I go ahead? So then it is a matter of reversing the torus by holing. I am going to present it in the following way namely that it is a torus which is grafted onto an infinite plane. This drawing here indicates that there is a torus which is grafted by a pipe onto an infinite plane. Inside this, what corresponds to holing is this pipe part which carries out at once a holing of the torus and a holing of the infinite plane and for that reason, it is similar.

邵瑞: 我已经传阅大家。
拉康:你已经传阅大家。对于这个东西,我们能够看出存在的这个差异,处于理解这个轴心与逼退整个的圆环面。你们瞧!
邵瑞: 我可以开始吗?问题是要凭借空洞化倒转。我正要呈现它,以下面的方式。换句话说,这一个圆环面被插枝到无限的平面。在此地这个图形指示著,有一个圆环面被一条管子接插到一个无限的层面。在这个里面,所对应于空洞化的东西,就是这个管子的部分,它同时带着圆环面的一个空洞,以及无限层面的一个空洞。因为那个理由,它的类似的。

4

So then inside, space is divided in two halves and this surface has two faces…one face that I draw here by hairs [in grey on the drawing], hairs on the surface, is here; here there is one face and there there is another face. Good!

所以这个内在的空间被分裂成为两半,这个表面拥有两个脸孔、、、我用头发在此所画的一个脸孔,(用灰色在图画上),头发在这个表面上,在这里。在此,有一个脸孔,那里还有一个脸孔。呵呵!

The space is divided into two halves, one half of the space, the half which is here on the left of this infinite plane and which is outside the torus and which acts as an axis for this torus; and in the other half, anyway the other half of this infinite plane is in communication with the inside of the torus and here I am drawing something which constitutes the core. So then this configuration here allows there to be indicated the before and after of the reversal. Here I am in the process of redrawing the same thing and it is what is in front. And after the reversal…then I show the two faces by the same indication.

这个空间被分裂成两半;空间的这一半,这一半在这里,在这个无限层面的左边,这是圆环面的外在。它充当这个圆环面的一种轴心。在另外一半,无论如何,这个无限层面的另外一半,正在跟这个圆环面对内在沟通。在此,我正在绘画某将形成这个核心的东西。所以,在此地这种合并容许这个倒转的先前及以后被指示出来。在此,我正处于重新绘图相同的东西,那就是前面的东西。在这个倒转之后、、、因此,我显示这两个脸孔,根据相同的指示。

5
Therefore here is what constituted the outside face, the left face of the plane in front, and now, which after still constitutes the left face of the plane, but which constitutes the inner face of the torus, namely that in the reversal what was an outside face of the torus has become an inside face.

因此,在此是组成这个外在脸孔的东西,前面的这个层面的左边的脸孔。现在,在形成之后,这个层面的左边的脸孔,但是它组成圆环面对这个内在的脸孔。换句话说,在倒转时,圆环面的外在的脸孔的东西,已经变成里面的脸孔。

So then that’s a kind of glove. Anyway this reversal, is something comparable to the reversal of a glove. It is all the same not quite a glove, it is a toric glove, it’s a glove which grasps, it is a glove which closes and which grasps. Now this glove which closes and which grasps can be reversed and that becomes again a glove which closes and which grasps. So then a description that was given earlier, I am going to draw a hand in blue like that which comes to grasp here…

因此,那是一种手套。无论如何,这个倒转是某件可比喻为手套的倒转。这仍然并不完全是手套,这是一个圆环面的手套,这是一个理解的手套,这是一个封闭而理解的手套。现在,这个封闭而理解的手套会被倒转,再一次成为一个封闭而理解的手套。所以早先被给予的描述,我将要用蓝色绘画像那样的一隻手,它前来理解这里、、、

Good, this blue hand – this couple there of ochre and of blue [in red on IX-5] is an inside outside couple – this blue hand which has just grasped, which uses this glove, namely that this toric glove gloves this blue hand and in that way this blue hand grasps, can grasp the axis which is ochre here (in red), this hand which has just used this glove as a glove and in this way grasped the ochre axis. The reversal can, at that moment, be described in the following way, which is that this blue hand pulls, pulls…and how is it going to find itself? Finally this hand is going to be found like that [IX-7].

呵呵,这隻蓝色的手—黄橘色与蓝色的配对( 在图形IX-5时,是红色),是一个内在与外在的配对—这个蓝色的手刚刚理解,它使用这个手套。换句话说,这个圆环面对手套套住这个蓝色的手。以那种方式,这个蓝色的手理解,能够理解这个黄橘色(用红色)的轴心。刚刚使用这个手套作为手套的这隻手,以这种方式,理解这个黄橘色的轴心。在那个时刻,这个倒转能够被描述,以下面的方式。那就是,这个蓝色的手会拉,它将如何发现它自己?最后,这隻手将要像那样地被发现(IX-7)。

6

This hand I am going to draw out in full, here’s the hand which grasps and the arm of this hand is found here. And already now I have slightly changed the drawing of the hand, namely that I have drawn this hand in the style of a hand which grasps, namely I no longer like there left an indication that the fingers were not closed [IX-6]. I drew the hand in two different ways, I am now going to modify the drawing of the hand here to indicate that it is a hand which grasps, therefore I indicate it as a closed hand [IX-9]. There you are.

这个手,我将要完整地画出,在此是这个理解的手。这个手的手臂在这里被找到。现在,我已经稍微改变这个手的图形。换句话说,我以理解的一隻手的风格来绘画这隻手。换句话说,我不再像左边的图那样留下一个指示,手指头并没有被封闭(图形IX-6)。我以两种不同的方式绘画这隻手。我现在正要修改这隻手段绘画,在此是为了指示,这是一隻理解的手。因此,我指示它,作为一隻封闭的手。(图形IX-9)。你们瞧!

I therefore modified the drawing of the hand as a closed hand, a hand which grasps. There you are. Therefore here its relationship with the torus, is that it is gloved by this torus, and here its relation to the torus, is that it is in the situation of a handshake with the torus, namely that from the hand to the torus here it is like handshake, namely that from the hand to the torus is to go here from a situation of reduplication, that the glove is a reduplication of the hand, and here in a situation of complementarity, namely that these two hands which are in a handshake complement one another, anyway they are two complementary tori two interlaced tori, the hand which grasps being itself a torus.

我因此修改这隻手的绘画,作为一隻被封闭的手,一隻理解的手。你们瞧!因此,在此,它跟这个圆环面的关系是,它被这个圆环面戴在手套里。在此,它跟这个圆环面的关系是,在跟这个圆环面对握手的情况。换句话说,从这个手到这个圆环面,就是要从一个复制的情况去那里。这个手套是手的一种复制,在此是一种互补的情况。换句话说,处于握握手的两隻手互相补充。无论如何,它们是两个互补的圆环面,两个交织的圆环面,理解的手本身是一个圆环面。

Therefore here is the before and the after of the reversal. While in the reversal, anyway the reversal therefore can be specified by the situation of this hand, whether it is gloved, or whether it gives a handshake. This can specify the reversal, but it is not indispensible for indicating the reversal, namely that the reversal can be indicated…if this hand did not figure, if this hand were absent, the reversal can be depicted all the same, it is to push all of that into the hole.

因此,在此是这个倒转的先前及以后。虽然在倒转时,无论如何,这个倒转因此能够被指明,用这隻手的情况。无论它是否被戴上手套,或是否它给予握握手。这个能够指明这个倒转,但是这并不是无法免除的,作为指示这个倒转。换句话说,这个倒转能够被指示,假如这隻手并没有包括,假如这隻手是缺席,这个倒转仍然能够被描绘,那就是要推所有这一切进入这个空洞。

7

The reversal of this toric glove can be carried out by pushing it into the hole, namely the passage from the before to the after which is here does not need to be defined by a hand which grasps, which pull and which is found like that there. This hand inside first which becomes a complementary hand, is not indispensible, the reversal can be defined as simply pushing this whole part there, the toric part, pushing it into the hole and it is enough to push it into the hole for it to be found on the other side.

这个圆环面手套的倒转能够被执行,凭借着将它逼进这个空洞。换句话说,从这个先前通过到在此的这个以后,那并不需要被定义,根据一隻理解的手,这隻手会拉,而且在那里像那样被找到。首先,内在的这隻手,成为一隻互补的手。它并不是不可免除的。这个倒转能够被定义,作为仅是逼迫那里的整个部分,这个圆环面的部分,逼迫它进入这个空洞。将它逼迫进入这个空洞,足够让它在另外一边被发现。

In other words, the grasping here does indeed contribute to describing the reversal. The passage from the gloving to the handshake, in other words the passage from the reduplication of the torus to the complementarity of the torus, therefore the grasping inside, which serves to indicate, which indicates, the fact is that on the particular location of the reversal, there is a passage from reduplication to interlacing; but that is not indispensible for…

换句话说,在此的理解确实对于描述这个倒转有贡献。从这个戴手套通过到这个握握手,换句话说,从圆环面的复制到圆环面的互补,因此,这个理解的内部,它提供指示的服务,它指示,事实上,在倒转的这个特别的位置,有一个通道从这个复制到这个交织,但是并不是无可免除、、、

The hand, inside, only shows the complementary torus; the hand inside stands for the complementary torus. But the reversal can be carried out even if the complementary torus is not present and by pushing all of that. Indeed by pushing all of that through the hole, gives this, namely that it is not…one can moreover push the whole, one can push the torus and the hand and that will give this, namely that inside the hand which grasps is only a reduplication of the torus… which then is not indispensible for the reversal, namely that the difference between the description without the hand or with the hand, is the difference between carrying out the reversal of a torus which is white here or of a torus reduplicated by a blue torus.

这个内在的手仅是显示这个互补的圆环面;这个内在的手代表这个互补的圆环面。但是这个倒转能够被执行,即使互补的圆环面并没有出现,并且凭借着逼迫这一切。确实是凭借着逼迫这一切通过这个空洞,给予这个,换句话说,那并不是、、、而且我们能够逼迫这个整体,我们能够逼迫这个圆环面及这个手,那将会给予这个。换句话说,在能够理解的手的内在,仅是一个圆环面的复制、、、这因此是不可免除的,对于这个倒转。换句话说,在没有这个手跟有这个手之间的这个描述的差异,就是这个差异,处于执行一个白色的圆环面的倒转,或是被蓝色的圆环面复制的一个圆环面倒转之间的差异。

So then I am drawing the two descriptions of the reversal [IX-11]– except that I have just made an error, here it is in blue – I am redrawing what was previously drawn, namely previously this torus with its outside here. Here is the outside face of the torus which is reversed like that, the outside face becomes the inside. And here it is the same thing, but the torus is reduplicated by the hand. And here then, there you are. Therefore there are two presentations, two neighbouring descriptions of reversal, in one case the isolated torus, in the other case the torus with its double, the double which is, either the double by reduplication, or the double by interlacing, the double by reduplication being able to be imaged as the situation of gloving and the double by interlacing being able to be imaged by the situation of a handshake. Good. There you are.

所以,我正在描绘这个倒转的这两种描述(IX-11)–除了我刚刚犯的一个错误,在此这是用蓝色—我正在重新绘画先前所被画的,换句话说,先前像那样的这个圆环面。在此,这个圆环面的外在的脸孔像那样被倒转。这个外在脸孔变成这个内在。在此,这是相同的事情,但是这个圆环面被这隻手复制。因此在此,你们瞧。因此,有两种的呈现,两种的邻近的描述,对于这个倒转,在某个情况,这是被孤立的圆环面,在另外一种情况,这是具有它的双重的圆环面。双重的圆环面,要就是凭借复制的双重圆环面,要不就是凭借交织而成的双重圆环面。凭借复制的双重圆环面,能够被想象作为戴手套的情况。而凭借交织而成的双重圆环面能够被想象作为握握手的情况。呵呵,你们瞧!

Ribettes: could you situate the position of the axis?
Soury: So then the axis here, I can add it on. Therefore the gloved hand grasps the axis. On the occasion of the reversal, the axis is going to become the core. So then the axis is here. And after the reversal it has become the soul, the axis here is there and after the reversal it has become core, the axis here is there and after reversal it has become core.
X: Why the image of the handshake, it has such a….
Soury: Why the image of the handshake…
X: It seems so…?

瑞伯忒斯:你们能够定位这个轴心的位置吗?
邵瑞:因此,这个轴心在这里,我能够增加上去。因此,这个被戴上手套的手,理解这个核心。在倒转的这个场合,这个轴心将会变成这个核心。所以,这个轴心在这里。在倒转之后,它已经成为这个灵魂,在此的这个轴心在那里。在倒转之后,它已经成为核心,在此的这个核心在那里,在倒转之后,它已经成为核心、、、
X听众:为什么这个握握手的这个意象,它拥有如此的、、、
邵瑞:为什么这个握握手动意象、、、
X听众: 似乎是如此、、、?

Soury: Why does the image of the handshake seem so….hard? Well, the handshake is completely closed. They are rings which are closed. And the only choice is between the handshake or gloving; anyway in that suppleness only allows going from the handshake to gloving. It does not allow…Anyway, what are hands which open and which close, I know nothing about. There, they are only toric hands, closed hands.

邵瑞:为什么握握手的这个意象似乎如此、、、用力?呵呵,这个握握手是完全地封闭。它们是被封闭的指环。唯一的选择是处于这个握握手,或是戴手套。无论如何,因为柔软仅是容许从这个握握手通过到这个戴手套。它并不容许、、、无论如何,张开及封闭的手是什么,我根本就一无所知。在那里,它们仅是圆环面的手,被封闭的手。

Lacan: You consider that it is a matter of pushing? In this way of doing things, it cannot be simply pushing the whole of the torus. That is why you spoke earlier about the whole of the torus.
Soury: Yes, yes.
Lacan: Good, I’m going to remain there for today. Rendezvous on the 11th April.

拉康: 你认为这是逼迫的问题吗?以这种做事情的方式,它无法仅是逼迫整个的圆环面。那是为什么你们早先谈论关于整个的圆环面。
邵瑞:是的,是的。
拉康: 呵呵,我今天将要在此告一段落。下次聚会是在4月11日。

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

seminar final 40

April 14, 2012

seminar final 40

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

Seminar 7: Wednesday 21 February 1978

There is someone called Montcenis, this at least is what I believe I read in the text that he sent me. He’s not here? It’s you? I thank you very much for having received this text which proves at the very least that there are people who were able to find their bearings, find their bearings in an appropriate way in the rings of string the last time [VI-7].

有某个人名叫蒙先尼斯,这至少是我相信在他送我的文本阅读的。他有没有在现场?那是你吗?我非常感谢你,因为曾经接收这个文本。它至少证明,有些人能够找到它们的关系,以适当的方式,找到上一次的绳之环圈的关系。

I repeat that what is at stake is something like this:

我重复一下,岌岌可危的是像以下这个东西。

Thanks to Soury, here present, I was able to obtain the transformation of this triple thing that I tried to reproduce there, this thing with three elements, thanks to Soury therefore, by a progressive transformation we have, we have something which has the same three elements.

感谢邵瑞,他在现场。我能够获得这个三重的东西的转换,我尝试在那里复制的。这个具有三个要素的东西。因此,感谢邵瑞。凭借逐渐的转换,我们拥有某件东西,这个东西具有三个要素。

And if you consider what is on top, you can note – what is found at the top of the sheet that I only distributed to you so that you could reproduce it – what is found on top on condition of putting it, of considering it, what is found on top, you can see that this reproduces, reproduces the figure which is present here. It is simply sufficient for you to see that this passes under the three elements that compose the figure.

假如你们认为什么在顶端,你们能够注意到—在纸的顶端所被发现的东西,我仅是分发给与你们,这样你们能够复制它—在顶端所能发现的东西,只要放置它,考虑它,顶端所能发现的东西,你们能够看出,这个复制,复制在这里被呈现的图形。就仅是足够让你们看出,从这三个要素底下通过的东西,组成这个图形。

And that this, from the moment that what you see on the right passes under what I called the three elements, this allows to descend what is involved in the black element and that one obtains this figure. What I am now asking Soury, is how the figure at the bottom can be fiddled with in order that it may re-produce, that it may r-produce the figure on top.

从这个时刻开始,你们从右边所看见的,在我所谓的三个要素的东西之下,这容许在黑色的这个要素的东西降临,我们获得这个图形。我现在正在要求邵瑞的是,在底端的这个图形如何能够被玩搞,为了让它可能复制,让它可能产生顶端的这个图形。

He tried to depict for me what is at stake, namely, to fold back what is depicted at the bottom under the form of what comes in front and which could therefore be folded according to a movement which could displace forward what seems to be free. I do not see that he has convinced me on this point. I believe that very exactly these two objects are different.

他尝试跟我描述岌岌可危的东西。换句话说,折叠在底端所被描述的东西,以在前面的这个形式,它因此能够被折叠,依照一个能够替换的动作,推动似乎是自由的东西。我没有看出,他在这一点已经说服我。我相信,非常确实地,这两个东西是不同的。

N. Sels: It’s the same. It is turned over like a pancake.

谢尔思:这都一样。这就像一个煎饼的翻转。

Lacan: I cannot see that it is turned over like a pancake. I don’t think that’s the case. That which is – it has been communicated to me that the figure on top is the image of what one sees in a mirror placed behind the figure at the bottom. It is very precisely this question of the mirror which differentiates the two figures, for a figure placed in a mirror is inverted. And this indeed is why I object to Soury that it is what he calls or what he defines as couple. A figure placed in a mirror is not identical to the figure, to the original figure [VII-2].

拉康: 我无法看出,这是像煎饼一样地翻转。我不认为情况是这样。曾经有人跟我沟通,顶端的这个图形,就是我们在一个被放置在底端的图形背后的镜子,所看到的东西。确实就是镜子的这个问题,区别这两个图形,因为一个被放置在镜子里的图形是倒转的。这确实是为什么我反对邵瑞,他所谓的,他定义作为配对的东西。一个被放置于镜子里的图形,并没有认同与这个图形,认同与原先的图形 (VII-2)。

21.2.78 (CG Draft 2)
3
Can Soury intervene here?

邵瑞能再这里介入吗?

Soury: Yes. So then in this there are a lot of inversions, there are different sorts of inversions, there is the ‘mirror-image’ inversion, there is the inversion of ‘reversing the paper as if it were something in wicker-work’, there is the inversion ‘exchanging the above and below’, there is the inversion by which ‘the front stitches become the stitches at the back’ since it is a kind of stitching, there is the inversion according to which they are ranked – in this there are lines of rows and lines of stitches – wee have to know if the lines of rows pass under or over the lines of stitching, namely, that in the drawing on top the lines of stitches go underneath the lines of rows and, in the bottom drawing it is the contrary. So there is not just one inversion there is a whole quantity of them. So then there is a difficulty in this, which is that there is not just one inversion, there are multiple inversions. Good.

邵瑞:是的,所以在这个,有许多的倒转,有不同种类的倒转。有这个「镜子影像」的倒转。有倒转文件的倒转,好像它是某件编织而成的作品,还有上方与下方交换的倒转。还有凭借着倒转,前面的缝合变成后面的缝合,因为这是一种缝合,依照这种倒转,它们被列位,在这里,有成排的行列,也有缝合的行列。我们必须知道是否成排的行列从缝合的行列的下方,或是上1经过。换句话说,在顶端的图画那里,缝合的行列在成排的行列底下经过,在底端的图画那里,刚好相反。所以不仅只有一个倒转,有一整套数量的倒转。所以在这里,有某种的困难。并不仅只有一个倒转,有多重的倒转,呵呵。

Lacan: And how many of these multiple inversions are there? 21.2.78 (CG Draft 2)

拉康:有多少的这些多重的倒转?
4
Soury: They have a tendency to proliferate (Laughter). So then here there is a principal inversion which is an object inversion; the principal inversion which means that there are two objects, they are the two toric stitchings.

邵瑞:它们有一个想要繁殖的倾向。(哄堂大笑)。所以,在此有一个主要的倒转,这是一个客体的倒转。主要的倒转意味着,有两个客体,它们是两个圆环面的缝合。

Lacan: The two?

拉康:这两个圆环面。

Soury: The two toric knittings. There are two toric knittings, they are two different chains. This is the principle inversion because they are two objects.

邵瑞:这两个圆环面的编织。有两个圆环面的编织。他们是两个不同的锁链。这是这个原则的倒转,因为它们是两个客体。

Good, there are inversions, another inversion is the inversion of plane and purl stitches, namely, the two faces of a jersey fabric. The two faces of a regular knitting – the regular knitting is the jersey knitting that has two faces – that is a very important inversion in the chain. Namely, that in it is a question of a toric knitting, namely, a torus dressed in knitting, dressed in a regular knitting, in a jersey knitting and one of the faces of the torus is in plane stitches and the other face of the torus is in purl stitches. That’s a second inversion.

呵呵,有倒转,另外一个倒转是平面与循环缝合的倒转。换句话说,一种弹性织料的两个脸孔。一个规律的编织的两个脸孔—规律的编织,就是这个弹性编织具有两个脸孔—那是锁链的非常重要的倒转。换句话说,这是一个圆环面编织的问题。换句话说,一个外表是编织的圆环面,以规律的编织作为外表,以一个弹性的编织及这个圆环面的其中一个脸孔,它处于平面的缝合,这个圆环面的另外一个脸孔,处于弹性的缝合。那是一个第二重的倒转。

In this there are still more inversions which are the inversions of the torus, namely, that one can change meridian and longitude or exchange inside and outside. I have already got to four inversions. There’s the inversion of the reversal of the torus. That gives five inversions.
Now, on the plane presentation which is there, the principle inversion, is the inversion, it is not…anyway there is rather an apparent inversion: it is the inversion of above-below, namely, that these two drawings are deduced from one another by changing all the above-belows. I don’t know how many inversions I have got to.

在这方面,依旧有更多的倒转,是圆环面的倒转。换句话说,我们能够改变子午线跟经线,或是交换内在与外在。我已经获得四个倒转。圆环面的倒转的倒转。那给予五个倒转。现在,在那里的平面的呈现,这个原则的倒转,就是这个倒转。那并不是、、、无论如何,有一个相当明显的倒转:这是一个上与下的倒转。换句话说,这两个图形从互相被被推论出来,以改变所有的上与下。我不知道我到达几个倒转。

In this plane presentation, I would like to see there two inversions, namely, that there is the inversion of the knitting, namely, that in the central part of the plane stitches there come purl stitches; on this plane presentation, it is an inversion and another inversion, is that it is this business that the stitches go beneath or above the lines of rows. So then there are several inversions which are combined, already when there is simply one inversion, of the left-right type, one has every reason to take the left for the right and reciprocally.

在这个层面的呈现,我想要看出这两个倒转。换句话说,有这个编织的倒转。也就是,这些平面缝合的中央部分,会有一些弹性的缝合。在这个平面的呈现,这是一个倒转,那是另外一个倒转。就是这个事情,这些缝合进到成排的行列的底下与上方。所以,有几个倒转已经被结合,当仅有一个倒转时,这个左与右这种倒转。我们拥有充分的理由,将左边看成是右边,也可倒过来看待。

Already simply a couple, a binary, an inversion, one is very likely to make mistakes, to choose one if one wants to choose the other. When there are several inversions, this is what I call binaries and liaisons of binaries. Finally in short where have I got to? To assure oneself, to have certainty about these things, in my opinion, it is not enough to succeed in imagining a distortion in space, because by imagining a distortion in space one remains too dependent on these inversions of couples and inversions of binaries.

这已经是一对,一个二元,一种倒转。我们很有可能犯下错误,很可能选择一个,假如我们想要选择另外一个。当有好几个倒转存在时,这是我所谓的二元,及二元的沟通。最后,总之,我已经到达哪里?为了让我自己安心,为了拥有确实是关于这些事情,依照我的意见,这并足够的,要成功地想象一种空间的扭曲,因为凭借想象一种空间的扭曲,我们始终依靠这些配对的倒转,二元的倒转。

That appears to me to be necessary with respect to the proliferation of binaries, the couples of inversions, to make an exhaustive checklist. So then the defect of this sheet, from this point of view, is that it is not an exhaustive checklist, namely, that in order to make an exhaustive checklist which would correspond to this sheet here, four figures would be necessary, namely, that there should be four possible combinations, on the one hand plane stitch, purl stitch and on the other hand to know whether these lines of stitches and of rows pass beneath or above one another. Four drawings would be necessary to have something exhaustive, namely, that, I repeat, with respect to these inversions, one cannot avoid getting lost; there is a need for something exhaustive.

我觉得这是需要的,关于这些二元化的繁殖,倒转的配对,列成一个全面性的名单。所以,从这个观点,这个名单的这个缺点是,这并不是一个全面性的名单。换句话说,为了形成一个全面性的名单,它对应于这里的这个名单,四个图形将是需要的。换句话说,会有四个可能的连接。在一方面,平面对缝合,弹性的缝合,在另一方面,要知道这些缝合及成排的线条,从互相的下面及上面通过。四个绘图将是需要的,为了拥有某件全面性的东西。换句话说,我重复一下,关于这些倒转,我们无法避免迷失。有一个需要做某件全面性的东西。

Therefore we need a second sheet which means that there would be four drawings. There would be four plane presentations and on these four plane presentations, that would set things up properly to discuss: Are these four presentations the presentation of how many objects?’ For it is found that these four presentations are the presentation of two objects, namely, that there are changes of presentation which do not change the object. Now it happens that on this sheet there are two presentations of the same object. So then…

因此,我们需要一个第二个名单。那意味着,那将是四个绘图。那将是四个平面的呈现,在这四个平面的呈现。那将适当地建立事情,为了讨论。这四个呈现就是多少的客体的呈现?因为,它被发现到,这四个呈现就是两个东西的呈现。换句话说,呈现的这些改变并没有改变这个客体。现在,恰巧的是,在这个名单,有相同的东西的两种呈现。所以、、、

Lacan: It is, it seems to me, clear that if one divides this sheet what one sees on the bottom figure is exactly what is reproduced in a mirror by what is depicted on the image on top.

拉康: 我觉得这是显而易见地,假如我们区分这个名单,我们在底端的图形所看见的,确实是在镜子所被复制的东西,根据顶端的意象所被描述的东西。

N. Sels: No, no.

谢尔思:不,不。

Lacan: What?

拉康: 什么?

N. Sels: If it was in a mirror, what is on the left in one would be on the right in the other. It is the bottom.

谢尔思:假如这是在一个镜子里,在其中一个的左边,将是在另外一个的右边。这是底端。

Lacan: There are two different objects, because one is the mirror-image of the other. What you hold, is that what happens, since there are four inversions according to what you’re saying, is that this would be four inversions and there would be two objects, two distinct objects in these four inversions. Here I only see one inversion, I agree with the person who communicated with me, the two schema represent the same object. If we concretise it by three concrete strings, the schema on top is the schema on the bottom always as seen in a mirror put behind and vice versa.

拉康: 有两个不同的客体,因为其中一个是另外一个的镜子意象。你们所拥有的是,所发生的事情,因为有四个倒转,依照你们所说的。那是这将是四个倒转,将将是两个客体,两个清楚的客体,在这些四个倒转里。在此,我仅是看到一个倒转,我同意这个跟我们沟通的人,这两个基模代表相同的客体。假如我们凭借三个具体绳线让它具体化,顶端的这个基模,就是底端的这个基模,如同被放置在背后的镜子所看见,反过来说,也是一样情况。

The object considered has only these two schemas and terms of this the scheme, the relationship of these two schemas is that of a mirror-image. Therefore it does not coincide. A mirror-image does not coincide with the original object, with the first figure. There are not two inversions, there is only one of them. There is only one but it introduces an essential difference namely, that the figure in the mirror is not identical to what is seen in the original figure. There is only a single inversion.

这个被考虑的客体,仅有这两个基模,和这个基模的术语,这两个基模的关系,就是镜子意象的基模。因此,它并没有巧合。一个镜子意象并没有这个原先的客体巧合,跟这个第一个图形。并没有两个倒转存在,仅有一个倒转。仅有一个倒转,但是它介绍一个重要的差别。换句话说,镜子的这个图形,并没有认同与在原初的图形所被看见的东西。仅有一个单一的倒转。

There you are! I am going to dismiss you now, because I believe, in material that is not especially difficult, that I have told you what is involved in these two images once inverted and which are only inverted once.

你们瞧!我现在正要下课。因为我相信,在并没有特别困难的材料,我曾经告诉你们,在这两个曾经一度被倒转的意象,所被牵涉的东西,仅有一次被倒转。

There you are, I am going to stay with that for today.

呵呵,今天我将在这里告一段落。

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

seminar final 39

April 12, 2012

seminar final 39

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

14.2.78 (CG Draft 2)
Seminar 6: Wednesday 14 February 1978

I’m a little bit bothered because as it happens I do not have the intention of sparing you today.

我有点困扰,因为今天偶然地我并没有意图要跟你们分享。

There you are. There is something that I asked myself and that I made an effort to resolve. It is something which consists in the following: let us suppose something which is presented as follows, in other words which involves a double loop.

你们瞧。有某件东西,我询问我自己,我努力要解决它。那是某件东西问题如下:让我们假定某件东西被呈现如下:换句话说,它牵涉到一个双重圈套。

We are capable with this, namely, with this start to make a threefold Borromean knot. You can clearly see that here the two circles that are found to be something like that – they are circles seen in perspective – the two circles are knotted.

我们能够从事这个,也就是说,我们以这个开始做一个三重折叠的博罗米恩环结。你们清楚地看出,在此,这两个圆圈被发现是某件像这样的东西—它们是从透视法观看的圆圈—这两个圆圈被连接。

14.2.78 (CG Draft 2)

2
This is an idea that came to me; I wasn’t sure that this would constitute a Borromean knot. But anyway I wagered and it proved to be right. Here you have to put in a bit of goodwill. Here is how this is pinned down. I put this to the test with Soury whom I am meeting for the moment. I am meeting him because he tells me sensible things on the subject of Borromean knot.

我想到一个主意。我并不确定,这将会形成一个博罗米恩环结。但是无论如何,我睹注,它证明是正确的。在此,你们必须放进一点善意。在此是这个问题被固定的方式。我拿这个问题跟邵瑞测试,我目前正遇到他。我正在跟他会面,因为他告诉我一些明理的事情,有关博罗米恩环结。

Nevertheless I cannot say that he does not worry me. I mean that for this Borromean knot, he wanted at all costs to make a fourfold one. There was already a two, why make a four?

可是,我无法说,我对他不感忧虑。我的意思是,就这个博罗米恩环结,他想要不计任何代价做一个四重折叠的环结。当时已经有一个两重折叠的环结,为什么还要做一个四重折叠的环结呢?

This all the more so because the two does not hold up, while the four it appears will not hold up any the more, namely, that it would certainly become unknotted unless by making it circular. I already spoke to you about this circular Borromean chain. It presupposes something which, as they say, joins the beginning, at the start, and this something which can only be the ring which ends it at the same time as it inaugurates it [VI-3].

这更加是如此,因为这两重折叠的环结并没有成立,而这四重折叠的环结,似乎也没有成立。换句话说,它确实将会被解开,除非凭借让它成为循环,我已经跟你们谈论到有关这个循环的博罗米恩环结锁链。它预先假定某件东西,如他们锁说,连接这个开始,在开头的地方,然后这个某件东西仅能够是这个环圈,结束的地方,同时也是开始它的地方。

This Borromean knot, the one that is outlined as I have just said [VI-2] is not circular. More exactly it is only circular when it is threefold. When it is threefold on condition of making go underneath the lower one, above the upper one, we obtain a typical Borromean knot namely, this one here [VI-4]. This one [VI-1] and that one VI-6]. They are completed like that [VI-6].

这个博罗米恩环结,如同我刚个说的被描绘的这个环结(VI-2),并不是循环的。更加确实地说,只有当它是三重折叠时,它才是循环的。当它是三重折叠时,条件是在底下的这个环结,在上面的这个环结放松,我们获得一个典型的博罗米恩环结。换句话说,这个环结在此是(VI-4。图形(V1-1)的这个环结,及VI-6 的这个环结,它们被完成就像那个图形(VI-6)。

3
It is quite clear that we still have not got used to this Borromean knot. Why the devil did I introduce it? I introduced it because it seemed to me that it had something to do with the clinic. I mean that the trio of Imaginary, Symbolic and Real seem to me to have a sense. In fact what is certain is something which is pinned down like this, namely, which is the third. Well then, that is knotted. This is not obvious on the figure which is there [VI-6]; but if one puts the thing that I added in black, put in front, I mean here, one would see that these two blacks can be identified. I am going to try to show it to you with the help of a supplementary drawing. It is really very complicated.

这是相当显而易见的,我们依旧还没有习惯于这个博罗米恩环结。 为什么我要介绍它呢?我介绍它,是因为我觉得它跟临床有某些的关系。我的意思是,想象界,符号界,及实在界的三个环圈,我觉得是具有意义的。事实上,所确定的是,某件东西像那样地被固定。换句话说,这是第三个环圈。呵呵,那个环圈被连接。在那里的这个图形(VI-6),这并不是很明显。但是假如我们放我用黑色环圈增加的这个东西,被放在前面,我指这里,我们将会看出,这两个黑色环圈,能够被辨认出来。我将要尝试跟你们显示它,凭借一条补助的绘图,它确实非常复杂。

It is more or less that. It is more or less that on condition of completing it as follows. It is obvious that I am extremely awkward in these drawings [Laughter]. There is another way of doing it which is the one that I owe to Soury and which presents itself more or less like this. The way of doing it is the following [VI-7], which is completed in the following drawing [VI-8] which is obviously not very clear. 14.2.78 (CG Draft 2)

那有点像是那样。有点像是那样,条件是完成它如下。这是显而易见地,我是极端地笨拙绘这些图形(哄堂大笑)。有另外一种方式来做它。我将这个图形归功于邵瑞,这个图形呈现它自己有点像是这样。做它的方式如下图(VI-7)。这个图形被完成,如下面的这个图形(VI-8)。这显而易见,并不是很清楚。

4
You should realise that it is conceivable to put the third drawing here, I mean the black drawing. Perhaps, what incontestably is unknotted as it is presented here [VI-5], perhaps you will manage to reconstitute the following which is knotted. I mean that here there is a threefold Borromean knot which is constituted by putting end to end, I mean by the fact that it is closed. That it is closed exactly like what I wrongly showed you here, it is closed as in the case of a simple Borromean knot. There you are.

你们应个体会到,这是可构想的,将这个第三个绘图放在这里。我指的是这个黑色的绘图。或许,无可争议被解放的东西,当它在此被呈现(VI-5),或许你们将会成功地重新组成以下被连结的环结。我的意思是,在此,有一个三重折叠的博罗米恩环结。它结尾跟结尾地被形成。我的意思是,根据它是封闭的这个事实。它是封闭的,确实就像是我错误地跟你们在此显示,它是封闭的,如同在一个简单的博罗米恩环结。你们瞧!

I apologise for not having better prepared this class. I will try the next time to distribute to you some drawings that are a little clearer.

我很抱歉这堂课,并没有充分准备。下一次,我将尝试跟你们分发一些图形,会更加清楚。

There you are, I am leaving you with that for today.

就这样,今天我就讲到这里。

Fig VI-8 [Presented on the board by Lacan with Fig VI-7] 14.2.78 (CG Draft 2)
5

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http;//springhero.wordpress.com

eminar final 38

April 12, 2012

eminar final 38

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

17.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 1
Seminar 5: Wednesday 17 January 1978

There is nothing more asymmetrical than a torus. That leaps to the eyes.
I have just seen Soury – where is he? – I have just seen Soury and I shared this idea with him. He right away illustrated to me what was at stake by marking for me, through a little construction of his own, the cogency of what I cannot say: I was stating. Because in truth…

没有一样东西,比原环面更加地不均称。我们张眼马上就看到。我刚刚看见过邵瑞,他在哪里?我刚刚见过邵瑞,我跟他分享这个观念。他立刻跟我解释什么东西岌岌可危。他跟我标示,通过他自己的一点小建构,我无法言说的真言:我正在陈述。因为在真理里、、、

There you are. So then I am going to show you this. I am going to have it passed around. It is a construction that Soury was good enough to make for me. You are going to see that here there is a passage, that there is, in what is constructed there, a double thickness and that, to mark the whole of the paper, here there is a double thickness, but here there is only one, I mean: at this level here which is continued into the whole of the sheet.

你们瞧!我正在跟你们显示这个。我将要将它给给各传看。这是邵瑞好心跟我制作的一个建构。你们将会看出,在此有一个通过。在那里被建构的东西,一个双重的厚度,为了标示整张纸,在此有双重的厚度。但是在此仅有一个厚度。我的意思是:在这个层次,它被继续到整张纸。

Therefore behind what here constitutes a double thickness, there is only a third. There you are. I am going to pass around this piece of paper.

因此,在形成一个双重的厚度的东西,仅有一个第三者。你们瞧,我正要将这张纸给各位传看。

Fig. V-1

17.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 2 There is a passage at the back. We introduce a pencil which goes underneath the pencil introduced in the front. [See the details of this diagram at the end of the session]

在背后,有一个通道。我介绍一隻粉笔,它延伸到前面被介绍的铅笔之下。(请看这个图形的结果,在下课之后。)

I recommend you to take advantage of the double thickness so that you can see that it is a torus. In other words that this, (V-1), is constructed more or less like that, (V-2), namely, that one passes a finger through this, but that here is what one can call the outside of the torus which continues with the rest of the outside – I am giving it to you – this is what I call asymmetry. There you are.

我推荐你们利用这个双重的厚度,这样你们才会看出,这是一个圆环面。换句话说,这个图形(V-1),有点像这样被建构,(V-2)。换句话说,我们穿过这里,通过一个手指,但是在此,我们所谓的圆环面的外面,它跟外面的部分继续下去—我正在给予你们—这是我所谓的不均称。你们瞧!

This is also what I call ‘what makes a hole’, for a torus makes a hole.

这是我所谓的「形成空洞的东西」,因为圆环面形成一个空洞。

I succeeded – not right away, after a certain number of approximations – I succeeded in giving you the idea of the hole. A torus is considered, quite rightly, to be holed. There is more than one hole in what is called man; he is even a veritable sieve. Where do I enter?

我成功地,虽然不是马上,经过某些的探索之后—我成功地给予你们这个空洞的观念。一个圆环面被考虑成为是一个空洞,不是没有道理的。在所谓的人身上,有不仅是一个空洞,他甚至是一个可验证的筛虑器。我进入哪里?

This question mark has its response for every ‘tétrume un’ [perhaps a pun on être humain, human being]. I do not see why I would not write it like that on this particular occasion. This question mark, as I have just said has its response for every tétrume u’.

这个问号拥有它的回应,对于每个人类。我不明白为什么我不想要像那样书写它,在这个特别的场合。这个问号,如我刚刚说的,拥有它的回应,对于每个人类。

I would write that: l’amort [death\love] what is bizarre in the – because why not also write like that: les17.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 3 trumains [a play on trumeau: a dodderer]; there, I am putting them in the plural – what is bizarre in les trumains, why not write it like that also, since moreover using this orthography in French is justified by the fact that les, the sign of the plural, is well worthy of being substituted for being which, as they say, is only a copula, namely, is not worth much. Is not worth much by the usage that one amphest amphigourique! Yeah!

我将书写那个:死亡与爱情。古怪的是—因为为什么我不也书写为:年老体衰。在那里,我正在给予它们复数形。古怪的是,年老体衰,为什么不像那样地书写,因为使用法文的拼音法,根据这个事实能够自圆其说,复数的这个符号,是非常值得被替代,如他们所说,这仅是一个连缀动词。换句话说,它并没有多大价值。它并没有多大价值,由于我们没有意义地书写 amphest amphigourique!没错!

What is curious, is that man is very keen on being mortal. He hoards death! While all living beings are destined to die, he only wants it to be so for him. Hence the activity deployed around burials. There were even people formerly who took care to perpetuate what I write as laïque hors la vie. They took care to perpetuate that by making mummies of them.

耐人寻味的是,人对于成为会死掉动物,深感興趣。他贮存死亡!虽然所有生物都终归一死,只有人类想要对于他而言,终归一死。因此,这个活动环绕着葬礼在进行。先前甚至有些人小心要强调我所书写的东西为:laïque hors la vie。他们凭借将它们形成木乃伊,小心地强调它,

It must be said that les néz-y-après (the later-born?)) afterwards put a proper order on it. Mummies were seriously shaken. I got the information from my daughter, – because, in my French-Greek dictionary, there were no mummies – I got the information from my daughter who was good enough to go out of her way, to wear herself out to find a French-Greek dictionary.

必须说到的是,这个后来出生者,后来给予它一个适当的秩序。木乃伊受到严重的动摇。我从我的女儿获得资讯—因为,在我们法文与希腊文的字典,并没有木乃伊。我从我的女儿获得资讯,她足够好心刻意费心去寻找一本法文与希腊文的字典。

I was informed by my daughter and I learned that this mummy, is called like this in Greek: to skeleton soma, the skeleton body. Mummies are precisely designed to preserve the appearance of the body to teretichomenon soma. This is also what she brought me. I mean that the to teretichomenon soma means ‘to prevent rotting’.

我被我的女儿告知,我学习到,这个木乃伊在希腊文像这样被称为「骷髅身体」to skeleton soma。木乃伊确实被设计要保存身体的外表,到阻挡肉身腐烂teretichomenon soma。这也是她带给我的东西。我的意思是,这个to teretichomenon soma 意思是阻挡肉身腐烂。

No doubt the Egyptians liked fresh fish and it is obvious that before carrying out a mummification on the dead person – this at least is the remark that was made to me on this occasion – mummies are not especially attractive. Hence the lack of ceremony with which people manipulated all these eminently breakable mummies. This is what those born afterwards devoted themselves to.

无可置疑的,埃及人喜欢新鲜的鱼。显而易见地,对于死人执行木乃伊化时–在这个场合,所给予我的谈论是—木乃伊并没有特别的吸引人。因此,典礼的欠缺,人们以典礼来操控所有这一切都显然会瓦解的木乃伊。这就是那些后来出生的人专心致力的东西。

That is called in Quetchua, namely, around Cuzco – Cuzco is written like: CUZCO – sometimes people speak Quetchua there. People speak Quetchua there thanks to the fact that the Spaniards, since everyone speaks Spanish, the Spanish are careful to preserve this tongue.

在魁查语,那个被这样称呼,换句话说,在秘鲁的库兹克附近,库兹克被书写为:CUZCO。有时,人们在那里讲魁查语。那里的人们讲魁查语,由于这个事实:西班牙人,因为他们讲西班牙语,西班牙人小心地保存这个语言。

Those that I am calling the les néz-y-après, are called in Quetchua, ‘those who are formed in the belly of the mother’, and that is written, since there is a Quetchua writing. This is called: Runayay. This is what I learned with, good God what I would call a velar which teaches me to produce Quetchua, namely, to act as if it were my natural tongue, to give birth to it. It should be said that this velar had the opportunity to explain to me that in Quetchua this is produced by the palate. There is a ferocious amount of aspiration in it.

我正在称为les néz-y-après,,在魁查语里,被称为是那些在母亲的肚子里被形成的东西。那个被书写,因为有一种魁查语的书写。这被称为:跑走。这是我学习到的东西,我的天,我将所谓的软腭音。这个软腭音教导我讲出魁查语。换句话说,好像它就是我自然的母语,产生它。应该说的是,这个软腭音拥有这个机会跟我解释,在魁查语,这个音是有上腭发出。在这个声音,有一种残酷数量的渴望。

A frightful person by the name of Freud knocked into shape some stammerings that he qualified as analysis, we don’t know why, to state the only truth that counts: there is no sexual relationship among human beings (les trumains). It is I who concluded that, after had an experience of analysis, I succeeded in formulating that. I succeeded in formulating that, not without difficulty, and this is what led me to notice that I had to make some Borromean knots.

一位可怕的人物,名字叫弗洛伊德,他将一些结结巴巴的话语整理成型,他给予特质,作为精神分析。我们不知道为什么,陈述这个重要的唯一真理:在人类之间,性的关系并不存在。这是我的结论,经过一段精神分析的经验后。我成功地说明,我成功地说明,千辛万苦地,这是我为什么被引导注意到,我必须从事某些的博罗米恩环结。

Suppose that we follow the rule, namely, that, as I say, above the one which is above and below the one which is below.

假如我们遵照这条规则,换句话说,如我所说,在上面这个的上面,在底下的这个底下。

Well then, it is manifest that as you see it does not work. Namely, that it is enough for you to lift that (1) [V-3] to notice that there is a one above, one in the middle and one below and that as a consequence the three17.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 5 are freed from one another. This indeed is why this must be asymmetrical. It must be like this to reproduce the way in which I drew it the first time; here it must be below, here above, here below and here above [V-4].

It is thanks to this that there is a Borromean knot. In other words, it must alternate [V-5]. It can just as well alternate in the opposite direction [V-6], in which there consists very precisely the asymmetry.

由于这个,有一个博罗米恩环结。换句话说,它必须轮换。它也能够朝相反的方向轮换 (V-6)图形。在那里,这个不均称确实是在那里。

I tried to see what was involved in the fact that…it is just as well not to make the black line cross the red line more than twice. One could moreover make them cross one another more than twice. One could make them cross four times, that would change nothing in the veritable nature of the Borromean knot. 17.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 6 There is a sequence to all of that. Soury, who is responsible for some of it, has developed some considerations about the torus. A torus is something like that. Suppose that we make a torus be held inside another one [V-7].

我尝试看出,在这个事实会牵涉到什么。我们最好不要让这条黑线越过红线,不仅一次。而且,我们能够让它们互相越过,不仅一次。我们能够让它们越过四次。在这个博罗米恩环结的可验证的特性,那并没有改变任何东西。对于所有这一切,有一个系列。邵瑞负责制作一些,他发展一些的考虑,关于这个圆环面。一个圆环面是某件像那样的东西。假如我们让一个圆环面被包括在另一个圆环面里面(图形V-7)。

That’s where the business of inside and outside begin. Because let us turn over the one which is inside in that way. I mean: let us not only turn over this one, but at the same time let us turn over that one [V-8 & 9]. There results something which is going to make what was first of all inside come to the outside and, since the torus in question has a hole, what is outside of it is going to remain outside of it and is going to end up with this form that I called the rod-like shape, where the other torus is going to come inside. 17.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 7 How should we consider these things? It is very difficult to speak here about inside when there is a hole inside a torus. It is completely different to what is involved in the sphere.

这就是内部与外部的事情的开始的地方。因为让我们以那个方式,翻转在内部的这一个。我的意思是: 让我们不但翻转这一个,但是同时让我们翻转那一个(V-8&V-9)
结果是某件东西,将会让起初是内部的东西,来到外部。因为这个受到置疑的拓扑图形,拥有一个空洞,属于外部的东西,将会始终是在外部。并且将会以这种形式结束,我称为是像棍子的形状。在那里,另外一个圆环面,将会来到里面。 我们应该如何考虑这些东西呢?在此,我们很难谈论到内部,当有一个空洞在一个圆环面里面。这是完全不同于在球形所牵涉的东西。

A sphere, if you will allow me to draw it now, is something like that. The sphere also can be turned over. One can define the surface as aiming at the inside. There will be another surface which aims at the outside. If we turn it over, the inside will be outside, by definition, the sphere. The outside will be inside; but in the case of the torus, because of the existence of the hole [V-12], of the inside hole, we will have what is called a great disturbance. The hole on the inside, is what is going to disturb everything that is involved in the torus, namely, that there will be in this rod, there will be a necessity that what is inside becomes what? Precisely the hole. And we will have an equivocation concerning this hole which from then on becomes an outside. 17.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 8 Fig V-12

一个球形,假如你们容许我现在画它,是某件像那样的东西。这个球形也能够被翻转。我们能够定义这个表面,作为目标朝着里面。还有另外一个表面,目标朝着外面。假如我们翻转它,里面将会是外面。在定义上,这个球形。外部将是内部,但是在圆环面对情况,因为这个空洞的存在(V-12),内部空洞的存在,我们将会拥有所谓的大困扰。在内部的这个空洞,是将要扰乱到圆环面会牵涉的一切。换句话说,在这个棍子里,将会有一个必要性,内部的东西变成什么?确实就是变成这个空洞。我们将会拥有一种模糊暧昧,关于这个空洞。从那时开始,它变成外面。

In this rod there will be a necessity that what is inside becomes the hole.
The fact that the living being is defined almost like a rod, namely, that it has a mouth, indeed an anus, and also something which furnishes the inside of his body, is something which has consequences that are not unimportant. It seems to me that this is not unrelated to the existence of the zero and the one. That the zero is essentially this hole, is something that is worth exploring.

在这个棍子,将会有一个必要性,内部的东西变成空洞。事实上,生物被定义,几乎就像是一根棍子,它有一个嘴巴。确实是一个肛门,也是某件供应他的身体的内部的东西。这个东西拥有并非不重要的这些结果。我觉得,这跟这个零跟这个一的存在并非没有关系。这个零基本上是这个空洞,是某件值得探索的东西。

I would really like here if Soury took the floor. I mean by that, if he were willing to speak about the one and the zero it would be very agreeable to me. That has the closest relationship with what we are articulating concerning the body. The zero is a hole and perhaps he could tell us more about it, I am speaking about the zero and of the one as consistency.

我很想要知道邵瑞是否上台来讲演。我的意思是,假如他愿意言谈有关这个一,这个零,我将会感到欣慰。那跟我们正在表达的关于身体,有最密切的关系。这个零是一个空洞,获许他能够告诉我们,更多关于它。我正在言谈关于这个零,这个作为一致性的一。

Are you coming? I am going to give you that. Off we go. In this rod there is a necessity that what is inside becomes the hole.

你过来吗?我将给予你这个讲台。我们开始吧。在这个棍子,有一个必要性,内部的东西变成这个空洞。

Soury: There you are. On the zero and the one of arithmetic, there is something which is analogous to the zero and to the one of arithmetic in the chains. Therefore, what makes the zero and the one exist, are preoccupations about systematisation. 17.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 9 In the case of numbers, good, it is operations on numbers that make the zero and the one hold up. For example, with respect to the operation of summation, with respect to addition, the operation of summation, the zero appears as a neutral element – these are terms which are in place – the zero appears as a neutral element and the one appears as a generating element, namely, that by summation, one can obtain all the numbers starting from the one, one cannot obtain any number starting from zero. Therefore what locates the zero and the one, is the role that they play with respect to addition.

邵瑞:你们瞧。在这个零,算术的这个零,有某件东西类同这个零,类同锁链里的算术的这个零。因为,形成这个零的东西,这个零存在。它们是专注于系统化。在数字的情况,呵呵,数字的运算让这个零,这个一能够成立。譬如,关于总结的运算,关于这个加,这个总结的运算,零出现作为一个中立的因素—这些都是正在运作的术语。这个零出现作为一个中立的要素,这个一出现作为一个产生的要素。换句话说,凭借作为总结,我们获得所有的数字从这个一开始。我们无法获得从零开始的任何的数字。因此,这个零跟这个一的位置,就是它们扮演的角色,关于这个加。

Good then, in the chains, there are things analogous to that. But then it is indeed a matter of a systematic point of view about the chains, anyway a point of view on all the chains, all the Borromean chains; and the chains as forming a system.

呵呵,在这个锁链,有西东西类似那个。但是这确实是一件系统的观点关于这些锁链。无论如何,一种观点,在所有这些锁链,所有的博罗米恩环结。这些环结,作为形成一个系统。

X: What does systematising mean? [Laughter]

听众:系统化是什么意思?(哄堂大笑)

Soury: Good already I do not believe in the possibility of presenting these things, namely, that these things depend on writing and I think it’s scarcely possible to talk about these sorts of things. So then the possibility of answering…, in short, for those things, I do not think that speech can take these sorts of things in charge. Anyway systematisation depends on ways of writing (écritures) and precisely speech cannot practically take charge of anything that is systematic. Anyway what would be systematic and what would not be, I don’t know, but it is rather what ways of writing can carry and speech, is not the same thing. And any speech which wants to give an account of writing appears to me to be acrobatic, risky.

邵瑞:呵呵,我已经不相信呈现这些东西的可能性。换句话说,这些东西依靠书写。我认为这几乎是不可能的,谈论有关这些东西。所以回答的可能性、、、总之,对于那些东西,我并不认为,言谈能够负责这些种类的东西。无论如何,系统化依靠书写的方式。确实地,言谈无法实际上负责任何系统性的东西。无论如何,属于系统的东西及不属于系统的东西。我不知道,但是书写能够执行的方式跟言谈并不相同。任何想要给予书写的描述的言谈,我觉得都是卖弄技巧,冒险。

So then systematisation, what is typical of systematisation, is the number: it is numbers and arithmetic. Namely, numbers, all we know are operations on numbers, namely, that we only know systems of numbers, we do not know numbers, we only know the system of numbers. Good, there is a bit of systematisation in the chains, anyway there is something in the chains which behaves like summation, like addition. It is a certain operation of interlacing, which means that one chain and one chain gives another chain, just as one and one number gives another number. Anyway, I will not try to define this operation of enlacing I am not going to try to present it, to introduce it.

所以,这个系统化,作为系统化典型的东西,就是这个数字:数字跟算术。换句话说,算术,我们所知道的,都是对数字的运算。换句话说,我们仅是知道数字的系统。我们并不知道数字。我们仅是知道这个数字的系统。呵呵,在这些锁链有一点系统。无论如何,在锁链里,有某件东西,行为像个总结,像加法。这是某交织的运算,意味着,一个锁链跟一个所链给出另外一个锁链。正如一跟一个数字给出另外一个数字。无论如何,我将不会尝试定义这个交织的运算。我并没有将要尝试呈现它,介绍它。

But then with respect to this operation of enlacing, the Borromean chain, the threefold chain appears as the generating case, the exemplary case, the case which engenders all the rest, namely, that the exemplarity of the threefold chain can be demonstrated. Relying on an article by Milnor which is called Links groups in English, the exemplarity of the Borromean chain can be demonstrated, namely, that any Borromean chain can be obtained starting from the threefold chain. In particular the chains of any number of elements whatsoever can be obtained starting from the threefold chain. Anyway, what ensures that the threefold chain is something which engenders everything. It is something which is generative and which is comparable to the one of arithmetic. In the same sense that the one is generative in the numbers system, the threefold Borromean chain is generative.

但是由于这个交织的这个运算,这个博罗米恩锁链,这个三重折叠的锁链出现,作为产生的情况,作为典范的情况,这个情况产生所以其余的东西。换句话说,这个三重折叠的锁链的典范能够被证明。依靠著米尔诺的一篇文章,在英文里被称为「连接团体」,博罗米恩锁链的这个典范能够被证明,换句话说,任何的博罗米恩锁链能够被获得,从这三重折叠的锁链开始。特别是,任何数目的要素的锁链能够被获得,从这个三重折叠的锁了。无论如何,保证这个三重折叠的锁链的是某件产生一切的东西。某件东西是具有生产性的,它可比喻为数学的这个一。以同样的意义,这个一是具有生产性的,在数字的系统里,这个三重折叠的博罗米恩环结是具有生产性的。

All the Borromean chains can be obtained starting from the threefold chain by certain operations. Therefore the threefold chain plays the same role as the one.

所有的博罗米恩锁链能够被获得,从这三重折叠的锁链开始,凭借某种的运作。因此,这三重折叠的锁链扮演跟这个一相同的角色。

So then there is something which plays the same role as the zero, it is the twofold chain which is a degenerated case, anyway which is a degenerated case of the Borromean chain. So then I’m going to draw the twofold chain. I am going to draw it because it has been less often drawn than the twofold chain.

所以,有某件东西跟这个一扮演相同的角色。这个两重折叠的锁链是一个退化的情况。无论如何,这是博罗米恩环结的一个退化的情况。所以,我将要画这个两重折叠的锁链。我将要画它,因为比起这两重折叠的锁链,它比较没有常被画。

Twofold chain, the chain of two interlaced circles: Fig V-13

两重折叠的锁链,两个交织的圆圈的锁链。(图形V-13)

The chain two interlaced tori: Fig V-14 This is a plane presentation of the twofold chain. It is two circles caught up in one another, you can do it with your fingers.

这个锁链是两个交织的圆环面,图形 V-14。这是两重折叠的锁链的平面呈现。它是两个圆圈互相套陷在一块。你们能够用你们的手指来做它。

The twofold chain is a degenerate case. In the preoccupations of systematisation, degenerate cases take on an importance. They are quite analogous to the zero. The zero is a degenerate number, but it is from the moment on that there are preoccupations of systematisation on numbers that the zero takes on its importance, namely, that…anyway that does not allow us to respond to this business of systematisation, it is only a criterion, anyway quite simply a sign of what is systematic or non-systematic. It is according to whether the degenerate cases are excluded or not excluded. So then I could respond that systematisation is when one includes degenerate cases and non-systematisations when one excludes degenerate cases.

这两重折叠的锁链是一个退化的情况。在专注于系统化时,退化的情况具有一种重要性。它们相当类似于零。这个零是一个退化的数字。但是从专注于数字的系统化的专注的这个时刻开始,这个零具有一种重要性。换句话说,无论如何,这个零并没有让我们能够回应系统化的这个问题。这仅是一个标准,无论如何,这仅是一个符号,属于系统或不属于系统。依照是否这个退化的情况被排除或是没有被排除。所以,我能够回应,那个系统化是当我们包括一个退化的情况。而没有系统化则是当我们排除退化的情况。

Anyway the zero is a degenerate case which takes on importance. While for the chains, the operations of interlacing on the chains or the operation of interlacing on Borromean chains, what plays the role of zero, is the twofold chain, namely, the twofold chain does not generate anything, it only generates itself; the twofold chain function like a zero, namely, zero + zero = zero; interlacing the twofold chain with itself still gives a twofold chain. From the point of view of interlacing, the fourfold chain is obtained starting from two threefold chains, namely, 3 and 3 make 4.

无论如何,这个零是一个具有重要性的退化的情况。而对于锁链而言,对于锁链的交织的那些运作,或是对于博罗米恩环结的交织的运作,它们都扮演零的这个角色。它是这个两重折叠的锁链。换句话说,这两重折叠的锁链并没有产生任何东西。它仅是产生它自己。这两重折叠的锁链就像零一样地发挥功用。换句话说,零加零等于零。将这两重折叠的锁链跟它自己交织,给出一个两重折叠的锁链。从交织的观点而言,这四种折叠的锁链被获得,从两个三重折叠的锁链开始。换句话说,三加三等于四。

The fourfold chain is obtained by interlacing of two threefold chains. Anyway it’s analogous to arithmetic; but by locating oneself with respect to the number of circles, that gives 3 and 3 make 4, like that, that could be described as 2 and 2 make 2. Anyway the fact that 2 is neutral, is a degenerate neutral – the terms which exist on this subject, namely, generative element, neutral element anyway terms in mathematical culture.

这四重折叠的锁链被两个三重折叠的锁链的交织所获得。无论如何,它类似于数学。但是凭借着定位它自己,关于圆圈的数字。它给出三加三等于四。就像那样,那能够被描述为二加二等于二。无论如何,这个二是中立,是一个退化的中立。存在于这个主体身上的这些术语,换句话说,产生的要素,中立的要素,无论如何,那些是数学文化的术语。

The one is a generative element, the zero is a neutral element. I reinforce these terms a little by saying, instead of saying generative and neutral, exemplary and degenerate, namely, that the one would be an exemplary number and the zero a degenerative number. The threefold chain is the exemplary Borromean chain and the twofold chain the degenerate Borromean chain.

这个一是一个退化的要素,这个零是一个中立的要素。我凭借言说,稍微强调这些术语。我并没有言说产生跟中立,典范及退化。换句话说,这个一将是一个典范的例子,而这个零是一个退化的数字。这三重折叠的锁链,是典范的博罗米恩环结。这个两重折叠的锁链是这个退化的博罗米恩环结锁链。

One can see degenerate in different ways. It is also that, the fact that this chain is degenerate one can see in different ways; in different ways, it is too much. I have several reasons for qualifying the twofold chain as degenerate and several reasons is too much. One reason, is that the neutral element for interlacing, is that interlaced with itself, it only gives itself. It does not generate anything other than itself; it is degenerate in the sense in the sense that to be a neutral element with respect to the operation of interlacing. That’s one meaning.

我们能够看出不同方式的退化。这也是,事实上,这个锁链是退化,我们能够以不同的方式看出。以不同的方式,这是太过分了。我有好几个理由,因为给予这两重折叠的特性,作为退化,好几个理由是太过分了。一个理由是,这个中立的因素作为交织。跟它的本身的交织,它仅是给出它自己。它并没有产生任何跟它自己不同的东西。它是退化的意义,是成为中立的因素,关于这个交织的运算。那是一个意义。

A second meaning of being degenerate, is when the Borromean property degenerates to two; the Borromean property, the fact that each element is indispensible, that, when one removes an element, the others no longer hold together, that one element makes all the others hold together; each one is indispensible, they all hold together, but not without each one. The Borromean property, means something starting from 3, but with 2 everything is Borromean.

成为退化的第二层意义是,当博罗米恩环结的特性退化成为二。这个博罗米恩环结的特性。事实上,每个要素都是无法被免除的,当我们移除一个要素,其余的要素不再聚集在一块。一个要素使其他的所有要素聚集在一块。每一个要素都是无法免除的。它们都聚集一块,但是每一个还是独立存在。博罗米恩环结的特性,意味着某件东西从三开始,但是在二这里,每一样东西都是博罗米恩环结。

At 2 everything is Borromean because holding together, anyway holding together in 2’s, anyway ‘each one is indispensible’ at 2 is automatically realised, while starting from 3, the ‘each one is indispensible’ is not automatically realised, namely, that it is a property which can be either true or false, it is yes or no: yes or no the chain is Borromean.

这二这个地方,每一样东西都是博罗米恩环结,因为聚集在一块,无论如何,以二的方式聚集在一块,无论如何,在二这个地方,每一个环结都是无法免除的。它自动地被实现。而从三开始的地方,每一个环结都是无可免除的,并没有自动地被实现。换句话说,这是一个特性,要就是真实,要不就是虚假。要就是肯定,要不就是否定。这个锁链是博罗米恩环结。

In 2’s, all the chains are Borromean, therefore the Borromean property degenerates in 2’s. So then a third reason why this chain is degenerate, is that in this chain a circle is the reversal of another circle. Another way of saying it is that these two circles have the same neighbourhood, anyway this is the business of surface.

在二这个地方,所有的锁链都的博罗米恩环结,因此,这个博罗米恩环结的特性在二的这个地方恶化。所以,第三个理由,为什么这个锁链是恶化是,在这个锁链里,一个圆圈是另外一个圆圈的倒转。另外一种方式来说它是,这两个圆圈拥有相同的邻近。无论如何,这是表面的事情。

The fact is, that if these two circles are replaced by their two neighbourhood surfaces, it is the same surface, these two circles are only the redoubling of one another, but it is a pure redoubling, it is a pure complementing, but that can be seen on the surfaces. That can be seen on the surface chains, and not on the circular chains. That can be seen on the surface chains which are associated with this chain of circles, namely, if this chain of two circles [V-15] corresponds to a chain of two tori, this chain of two tori corresponds to the redoubling of the torus.

事实上,假如这两个圆圈被它们两个邻近的表面取代,这是相同的表面。这两个圆圈仅是互相的重叠加倍。但是这是一种纯粹的重叠加倍,这是一种纯粹的互补,但是在表面上,那能够被看得出来。从表面的锁链,那能够被看得出来,但不是从循环的锁链。那能够被看得出来,在表面的锁链,这些表面的锁链跟圆圈的这个锁链互相连接。换句话说,假如两个圆圈的这个锁链,对应于两个圆环面的一个锁链,两个圆环面对这个锁链对应于这个圆环面对重叠加倍。

Now that is not obvious; it is not obvious that two interlaced tori is the same thing as two tori which are the redoubling of one another just as the tyre and the tube. The tyre and the tube, is the redoubling of one torus into two tori, two tori which are only two versions of the same torus it is a redoubled torus. That two tori being the redoubling of the torus, is the same thing as two interlaced tori is not obvious. It is the reversal which will say that and the reversal in not obvious. Which means that the two circles [V-15], is the same thing as these two interlaced tori [V-16]; these two interlaced tori is the same thing as a redoubled torus [V-17] and that, that is a reason for saying that it is a degenerate chain.

现在,这并不是显而易见,这并不是显而易见,这两个互相交织的圆环面,跟这两个圆环面是相同的东西。这两个圆环面是互相的重叠加倍,正如轮胎与管子。轮胎与管子是一个圆环面重叠加倍成为两个圆环面。两个圆环面仅是相同的圆环面的两个版本,那是一个重叠加倍的圆环面。两个圆环面是这个圆环面的重叠加倍,它跟两个互相交织的圆环面是相同的东西,这一点并没有显而易见。这意味着,这两个圆圈(V-15)跟这两个互相交织的圆环面(V-16)是同样的东西。这两个互相交织的圆环面跟一个重叠加倍的圆环面(V-17)是相同的事情。那是一个理由,说这是一个退化的锁链。

A degenerate chain because that only means, these two, the two of these two circles, is not the division of space in two halves. There you are, that is a criterion for saying that a chain is degenerate: it is that the elements of the chain only represent one division of space. These two circles here are valid for the division of space into two halves. It is in this sense that it is degenerate: it is that these two here, are only two halves of space. So then why two circles which only represent two halves of space, why is this degenerate? Well then because in the general case of chains, the several circles of chains only represent a division of space in several parts, but it happens that here these two circles only represent a division, a partition, a separation of space into two parts.

这是一个退化的锁链,因为那仅是意味著,这两个,这两个圆圈的这两个,并不是这个空间区分成为两半。你们瞧,那是一个标准来说,一个锁链是恶化的。这个锁链的这个要素仅是代表空间的一个区分。在此的这两个圆圈是有效的,作为空间被区分成为两半。以这样意义而言,它是退化的。就是这里的这两个,仅是空间的两半。所以,为什么两个圆圈仅是代表空间的两半?为什么这是退化?呵呵,因为在锁链的一般情况,这些锁链的好几个圆圈仅是代表空间在好几个部分的区分,但是恰巧的是,在此的这两个圆圈,仅是代表空间的一种区分,一种间隔,一种分离成为两个部分。

Lacan: I would like all the same to intervene to point out to you that if you reverse this circle there for example, the right-hand circle [V-15], you free at the same time the left hand circle. I mean that what you get, is what I call the rod [V-18], namely, that this rod is free from…and it is all the same very different from the torus inside the torus.

拉康: 我仍然想要介入,跟你们指出,假如你们倒转这个圆圈,譬如,右手的这个圆圈 (图形V-15),你们同时解放左边的圆圈。我的意思是,你们所获得的,是我所谓的棍子(V-18)。换句话说,这个棍子被解放、、、这仍然不同于圆环面里面的圆环面。

Soury: It is different, but it is…Look that one, in order to disimplicate one from the other of these two tori, this can only be done by a cut; it is not simply by reversal; by reversal one cannot one cannot disimplicate the two tori, which will be seen for example, if one makes the reversal with a little hole, anyway by holing. If one makes the reversal of a torus by holing, one cannot, one cannot disimplicate the two tori, they can’t be disimplicated, unchained, unlaced.

邵瑞: 这是不同的,但是它、、、请看这个,为了让这一个跟这两个圆环面的另外一个脱离牵涉。这仅能够被做,凭借着切割。这不仅是倒转,凭借倒转,我们无法脱离这两个圆环面。譬如,这两个圆环面将会被看成,假如我们用一个小空洞,做这个倒转,无论如何,凭借着空洞。假如我们凭借空洞,做一个圆环面的倒转。我们无法将这两个圆环面脱离,它们无法被脱离牵涉,解开锁链,解开交织。

It is only when one makes a cut; but to make a cut is to do far more than a reversal. To make the cut, is to do more than holing, and holing is doing much more than reversal. Namely, that to make a cut is to do much more than a reversal.

仅有当我们做一切切割,但是做一切切割,不仅是从事倒转而已。从事这个切割,就是要不仅是从事这个空洞。空洞所做的不仅是倒转而已。换句话说,从事切割,要从事的不仅是倒转而已。

One can make a reversal by cut, but what is done by cutting is not representative of what is done by reversal. And that, would be precisely, it would be exactly an example of it: the fact is that by a cut one can disimplicate one can unchain the inside and the outside while by reversal, it is not a question of disimplicating the complementarity of the inside and of the outside. The fact is that what is done by a cut is much more than what is done by reversal, even though the cut may appear to be as a way to carry out the reversal. In that the cut, is more than holing and the holing is more than reversal.

我们能够凭借切割做一个倒转,但是凭借切割所被做的,并不是凭借倒转所做的代表。那将是确实的,它确实是一个例子。事实上,凭借一种切割,我们能个脱离牵涉,我们能够解开里面及外面的锁链。而凭借倒转,问题并不是解开里面与外面的互补。事实上,凭借切割所做的事情,不仅仅是凭借切割所做的事情,即使这个切割似乎是作为一种方式执行这个倒转。因为这个倒转,不仅是空洞,而这个空洞也不仅是倒转。

The reversal can be carried out by holing; the holing, no, I hesitate to say that holing could be done by a cut all the same. But in the cut there is a holing there is a holing implicit in the cut.

这种倒转能够被实现,凭借这个空洞,这个空洞。不,我犹豫地说,空洞仍然能个凭借切割来做。但是在这个切割,有一个空洞,有一个空洞牵涉到这个切割。

Lacan: In other words what you obtain by holing is in effect like that [V-19].

拉康: 换句话说,你们凭借空洞所能获得的,实际上就是像那样。(V-19)

Soury: Yes, yes.

邵瑞: 是的,是的。

Lacan: There is something which is all the same not mastered concerning that which…it is all the same a result different to that [V-17]!.

拉康:有某件东西,仍然没有被掌控,关于这个东西,它仍然是不同于那个的结果( V-17)。

Soury: No! No! It’s the same thing.

邵瑞: 不!不!这是相同的东西。

Lacan: It is precisely on this ‘it’s the same thing’ that I would like to obtain a response from you. This ‘it’s the same thing’…when we reverse the two tori [V-17], we obtain the following [V-20]. It is all the same something completely different to that [V-19] which is much more like this [V-16]. There is something there which does not appear to me to be mastered, because this [V-17] is exactly the same as that [V-7].

拉康:确实是关于这一点。这是相同的东西,我想要从你那里获得一个回应。这个「并非是相同的东西」、、、当我们倒转这两个圆环面(V-17),我们获得以下( V-20)。 这仍然是某件东西,完全不同于那个圆环面(V-19)。它更像是这个圆环面(V-16)。有某件东西,我觉得并没有被掌控。因为这个(V-17)确实就是相同一那个(V-7)。

Soury: Good! So then we have two interlaced tori [V-19]. Here [V-20] it is two interlocking tori. That is two interlaced tori [V-14]. That [V-18] is two tori freed from one another, independent. So then what is the same thing, is that: two tori, two interlaced tori. And that is two interlaced tori.

邵瑞: 呵呵! 因此,我们拥有两个互相交织的圆环面 (V-19)。这是两个互相交织的圆环面。那是两个互相交织的圆环面(4—14)。那个(V-18)图形是两个圆环面互相被解放,而独立。所以,相同的东西是:两个圆环面,两个互相交织的圆环面。那是两个互相交织的圆环面。

Lacan: These [V-19] are not interlaced: one is inside the other.

拉康: 这些(V-19)的圆环面并没有互相交织,一个是在另外一个的底下。

Soury: Ah good! Good, I thought that it was that. Ah good! It is a matter of two tori, of the black and the red. While there, it is a matter of two interlocked tori, a black and a red interlocked here, here of two interlocked tori [V-20] and here of two interlaced tori [V-14].

邵瑞:呵呵! 我以为它们是交织。呵呵!这是两个圆环面的情况,属于黑跟红。而在那里,问题是两个互相交织的圆环面,一个黑的,一个红灯,在这里互相交织。在此,两个互相交织的圆环面(V-20)。在此是两个互相交织的圆环面(V14)。

Lacan: This is what is not mastered in the categories, in the categories of interlacing and of interlocking. I will try to find the solution which is properly speaking like interlacing. Interlacing is different … (the end is inaudible).

拉康: 这是这那些范畴没有被掌控的部分,在互相交织与互相纠缠的范畴。我将尝试找出这个解答。适当来说,那就像是互相交织。互相交织是不同的、、、(末尾听不见)。

Schema proposed by Pierre Soury

皮尔、邵瑞建议的基模。

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

seminar final 37

April 11, 2012

seminar final 37

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

10.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 1
Seminar 4: Wednesday 10 January 1978

I was a little jaded because Saturday and Sunday there was a congress of my School. Since people preferred that, anyway Simatos preferred that there should only be members of this School, we went a bit far and I only got back with difficulty.

我有点身心俱疲,因为周末及周日,我的学校有聚会。因为人们比较喜欢无论如何,西马托人比较喜欢,应该仅有这个学校的成员,我们弄得有点过分,我回家时身心俱疲。

Someone – someone who was speaking to me – was expecting from it, given that the subject was nothing other than what I call the Passe, someone was expecting from it some light about the end of analysis.

某个人—某个人跟我谈论到—他从那个聚会期盼听到,假如考虑到,主体实实在在就是我所谓的「通过」的东西。某个人从它那里期盼看到,精神分析结束时会有的光辉。

One can define the end of analysis. The end of analysis is when one has gone round in circles twice, namely, rediscovered that of which one is prisoner. Rebeginning twice the turning round in circles, it is not certain that it is necessary. It is enough for one to see what one is captive of.

我们能够定义精神分析的结束。精神分析的结束是当我们已经绕过这些圆圈两次,重新发现我们是其中的囚犯。两次重新开始这些圆圈的旋转。没有确定说这是必要。我们只有看出我们是什么的囚犯就足够了。

And the unconscious, it that: it is the face of the Real – perhaps you have an idea, after having heard me numerous times, perhaps you have an idea of what I call the Real – it is the face of the Real of that in which one is entangled.

无意识,这是实在界的脸孔。或许你们拥有这个观念,在你们已经听我讲过无数遍,或许,你们拥有一个观念,我所谓的实在界是什么。就是这个实在界的脸孔,我们被纠缠在里面。

There is someone called Soury who is kind enough to pay attention to what I stated about the rings of string and he questioned me, he questioned me about what that means, what was meant by the fact that I was able to write like that the rings of string.

有某个人名叫邵瑞。他非常好心,专注我陈述的东西,关于他质疑我的绳之环圈。他质疑我们关于那是什么意思。根据这个事实,我能够像绳之环圈那样地书写,那意味着什么。

For this is how he writes them.

因为这是他书写它们的方式。

Analysis does not consist in being freed from one’s sinthomes, since that is how I write symptom. Analysis consists in knowing why one is entangled by them.

精神分析并不是在于从未们的圣状被解放,因为那是我书写病征的方式。精神分析在于要知道我们为什么被它们纠缠在里面。

This happens because there is the Symbolic.

这种情况的发生,是因为符号界存在。

The Symbolic is language; one learns to speak and that leaves traces. That leaves traces which are nothing other than the symptom and analysis consists – there is all the same progress in analysis – analysis consists in realising why one has these symptoms, so that analysis is linked to knowledge.

符号界就是语言。我们学习言谈,然后留下痕迹。那会留下痕迹,这些痕迹实实在在就是病征。精神分析在于—精神分析仍然是有进展—精神分析在于体会到,为什么我们有这些病征,所以精神分析跟知识有关。

It is very suspect. It is very suspect and it lends itself to every kind of suggestion. That’s the word that must be avoided

这是非常可疑的。它有助于每一种的暗示。那就是必须被避免的文字。

That’s what the unconscious is, the fact that one has learned to speak and by that very fact one has allowed all kinds of things be suggested to one by language.

那就是无意识是什么。事实上,我们已经学习到言谈,而且根据这个事实:我们容许语言对我们建议各种的事情。

What I am trying to do is to elucidate something about what analysis really is. About what analysis truly is, one cannot know unless you ask me for an analysis. That is how I conceive of analysis.

我正在尝试做的,是要说明某件事情,关于精神分析确实是什么。关于精神分析确实是什么,我们无法知道,除非你们要求我做个人分析。那就是我如何来构想精神分析。

This indeed is why I traced out once and for all these rings of string that, of course, I ceaselessly make mistakes in their depiction.

这确实是为什么我一劳永逸地追踪这些绳之环圈。当然,我不停地犯错误,对于它们的描述。

I mean that here (IV-1), I had to make a cut here and that this cut, I had nevertheless prepared, it nevertheless remains that I have to remake it.

我的意思是,图形(IV-1)这里,我必须在此做一个切割,而且我曾经准备的这个切割,它仍然是,我必须重新做它。

Counting is difficult and I am going to tell you why: the fact is that it is impossible to count without two kinds of figures. Everything starts from zero. Everything starts from zero and everyone knows that zero is altogether capital.

计算是困难的,我正要告诉你们为什么。事实上,我们每次计算,就会牵涉到两种的图形。每件东西都是从零开始。每件东西都是从零开始,每个人都知道,零是非常重要的。

Two lines of numbers

两条数目的线

The result, is that here it is (O) is 1. This is how this begins at 11, how the 1 here (*), and the 1 there (O) are distinguished. And of course, it is not the same type of figures which function to mark here the 1 which permits 16.

结果是,在此,这个(0)是 1 。 这就是在11 开始的方式。在此的这个 1 及那里的(0)里的 1, 被区别出来。当然,这并不是相同的图形,它们发挥功用,为了在此标示,这个 1,容许 16 。

Mathematics makes reference to the written, to the written as such; and mathematical thought is the fact that one can represent for oneself a writing. 10.1.78 (CG Draft 2) 3 What is the link, if not the locus, of the representation of writing? We have the suggestion that the Real does not cease to be written. It is indeed by writing that forcing is produced. The Real is all the same written; for, it must be said, how would the Real appear if it were not written?
That indeed is how the Real is there. It is there through my way of writing.

数学会提到这个被书写的东西,提到被书写的本身。数学的思想就是这个事实:我们能够替自己代表一种书写。这个连接,若不是书写再现的的圆环面,还会是什么?我们拥有这个建议: 实在界并没有停止被书写。确实是凭借着书写,力量才被产生。实在界仍然被书写,因为,我们必须说,假如没有被书写,实在界如何会出现?那确实是实在界在那里的方式。通过我的书写方式,实在界存在那里。

Writing is an artifice. Therefore writing only appears by an artifice, an artifice linked to the fact that there is speech and even saying. And saying concerns what is called the truth. This indeed is why I say that one cannot say the truth.

书写是一种欺瞒巧计。因此,书写仅是凭借欺瞒巧计出现,跟这个事实息息相关的欺瞒巧计。有言谈存在,甚至有言说存在。言说关系到所谓的真理。这确实是为什么我说,我们无法言说真理。

In this business of the passe¸I am lead, since, as they say, it is I who produced the passé, produced it in my School in the spirit of knowing what might well arise in what is called the mind (l’esprit) of an analysand to be constituted, I mean receive people who come to him to ask for an analysis.

在「通过制度」的这件事情,我被引导,如他们所说的,这是我产生这个「通过制度」,在我的学派产生它,根据这个精神知道什么将会产生,在所谓的应该被组成的分析者的心灵。我的意思是,接受前来他这里要求做个人分析的人。

That might perhaps be done in writing, I suggested it to someone who moreover was in complete agreement. To proceed by way of writing has a chance of getting a little bit closer to the Real than what is currently done, since I tried to suggest to my School that the passeurs could be named by a few people.

那或许可以用书写来进行。我跟某个人建议这样,而且他完全同意。凭借着书写继续,拥有这个机会更加靠近这个实在界,比目前所做的。因为我尝试跟我们学派建议,这些「通过者」能够由少数人命名。

The trouble is that these writings will not be read. Why so? Because people have read too much about writing. So what chance is there that they would be read. They lie there on paper; but paper is also toilet paper.

麻烦的是,这些书写将无法被阅读。为什么会是这样呢? 因为人们曾经阅读过太多的书写。所以,它们将会被阅读的机会有多大?它们存在于纸面上,但是纸也是卫生纸。

The Chinese realised that there was toilet paper, the paper with which you wipe your bottom. It is impossible therefore to know who reads. There is surely writing in the unconscious, if only because the dream, the principle of the unconscious – that’s what Freud said – the lapses and even the witticism are defined by the readable. One has a dream, one does not know why, and then subsequently it is read; the same with a slip, and everything that Freud says about the witticism is quite notorious as being linked to this economy which is writing, economy as compared to speech.

中国人体会到,有卫生纸存在,你们用了搽屁股的卫生纸。因此,我们不可能知道是谁阅读。确实是有无意识的阅读,即使是因为这个梦,这个无意识的原则—那是弗洛伊德所说的东西—口误,甚至机智语,都是被可阅读物所定义。我们做过梦,我们并不知道为什么。因此它随后被阅读,跟口误一样被阅读。弗洛伊德所说,关于机智语的一切,相当恶名昭彰,因为它跟书写的经济息息相关,跟言谈比较起来,它算是是经济。

The readable – that is what knowledge consists of. And in short, it is limited. What I say about the transference is that I timidly advanced it as being the subject – a subject always supposed, there is not subject, of course, there is only the supposed – the supposed-to-know. What could that mean? The supposed-to-know-how-to-read-otherwise (autrement). The otherwise in question, is indeed what I write, for my part also in the following way: S(Ø). Otherwise, what does that mean? Here it is a matter of the O, namely, the big Other. Does otherwise mean: otherwise than this spluttering called psychology? No, otherwise designates a lack.

可阅读物—这是知识的内涵。总之,它是有限制的。我所说的关于这个移情是,我胆小地提出它,作为是这个主体—一个总是被认为的主体,当然并没有真正的主体,仅有被认为的主体,被认为是知道的主体。那会是什么意思?这个被认为是知道如何阅读的主体,否则就是、、、这个受到质疑的否则就是,确实是我所书写的东西。就我而言,它也是以下的方式:S(Ø) 大他者被划槓的主体。 否则,那会是什么意思? 在此的问题是这个O,也就是这个大他者。「否则」意味着什么?「否则」意味着所谓心理学的侃侃而谈。不,「否则」意味着一种欠缺。

It is a matter of lacking differently (autrement). Differently on this particular occasion, does that mean, differently to anyone else? It is indeed in this way that Freud’s speculations are truly problematic. To trace the paths, leave the traces of what one formulates, this is what teaching is, and teaching is also nothing other than going around in circles. It has been stated, like that, we do not know why, there was someone called Cantor who constructed set theory. He distinguished two types of set: the set which is innumerable and – he points out – within writing, namely, that it is within writing that he makes the series of whole numbers, for example, equivalent to the series of even numbers.

问题是欠缺的方式并不一样。在这个特别的场合,不一样,难道意味着,对于每一个其他的人,都不一样?确实是以这种方式,弗洛伊德的推想确实是问题重重。为了追踪这些途径,留下我们所说明的这些途径,这是教学所在。教学也实实在在就是环绕圆圈打转。它曾经像那样被陈述,我们并不知道为什么,有某个名叫康特的人,他建构集合理论。他区别两种的集合:一种是无法计算的集合—他指出—在书写里。换句话说,在书写里面,他制作整体数字的系列,譬如,相等于偶数的系列列。

A set is only numerable starting from the moment when it is demonstrated that it is bi-univocal. But precisely in analysis, it is equivocation that dominates. I mean that it is from the moment that there is a confusion between this Real that we are indeed led to call ‘thing’, there is an equivocation between this Real and language, since language, of course, is imperfect – this indeed is what is demonstrated about everything which is said to be most certain – language is imperfect. There is someone called Paul Henri who published that in Klincksieck. He calls that, language, ‘a bad tool’. One could not say it better. Language is a bad tool and this indeed is why we have no idea of the Real. It is on this that I would like to conclude.

另外一种集合可以计算,仅是从它被证明是一致性的时刻开始。但是确实是在精神分析里,模糊暧昧佔优势。我的意思是,从这个混淆的时刻开始,从我们确实被引导称为「物」的时刻开始,在这个实在界与语言之间有一种模糊暧昧。当然,因为语言并非是完美—这确实是关于一切据说是最确定的东西,所被证明的东西—语言是并非是完美。有某位名叫保罗、亨利的人,他以克林西科语言出版它。他称它为语言,一个「糟糕的工具」。我们无法表达得比他跟贴切。语言是一个糟糕的工具,这确实是为什么我们并不知道实在界。就是针对这一点,我想要做个结论。

The unconscious, is what I have said, that does not prevent us counting, counting in two ways which are only for their part ways of writing. What is most real, is writing and writing is confused.

无意识是我曾经说的东西。那并没于阻止我们不能计算,以两种方式计算。就它们而言,这两种方式都是书写的方式。最真实的东西是书写,而书写会被混淆。

There you are, I will stay with that for today, since, as you see, I have reason to be tired.

你们瞧! 我今天在此告一段落。你们看出,我很有理由感到疲倦。

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

seminar final 35

April 11, 2012

seminar final 35

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

13.12.77 (CG Draft 2) 1
Seminar 2: Wednesday 13 December 1977

That is to indicate to you that it is a torus. That is why I wrote hole. In principle, it is a fourfold torus. It is a fourfold torus, such that anyone of the four may be reversed.
Here is the fourfold torus that is at stake [II-1].

那是要跟你们指示,这是一个圆环面。那就是为什么我书写这个空洞。原则上,这是一个四个折叠的圆环面,这四个圆环面可能被倒转。在此,这四个折叠的拓扑图形岌岌可危。

It is Soury who noticed that by reversing any one of the four that one obtains what I am showing you, what I am showing you in the figure on the left [II-2]. By reversing any one of the four, one obtains this figure which consists in a torus except for the fact that inside the torus, we only do what is presented there on the board, namely, rings of string, but each one, each one of what you see there, each one of these rings of string is itself a torus.

邵瑞注意到,以倒转四个圆环面的其中一个,我们获得我正在跟你们显示的,我正在跟你们显示,以左边的这个图形。以倒转四个的其中一个,我们获得组成这个圆环面的这个图形,除了这个事实: 在圆环面的里面,我们仅是做黑板上所被呈现的东西。换句话说,绳之环圈,但是每一个环圈,你们在那里看到的每一环圈,这些绳之环圈本身就是一个圆环面。

And this ring of string reversed as torus gives the same result, the same result, namely, that inside the torus which envelopes everything, each of the rings of string which is nevertheless a torus, each of the rings of string, which I repeat is also a torus, each of these rings of string functions in the way that Soury has formulated in the form of this drawing. This implies an asymmetry, I mean that he has chosen a particular torus to make of it the torus such as I have drawn it: it is the torus that he has reversed – I would ask you to be careful – and, in this respect, he has given it a privilege over the other tori which only figure here as rings of string.

当圆环面给予相同的结果时,这种绳之环圈会倒转,这个相同的结果。换句话说,在涵盖一切的圆环面里面,可是,每一个绳之环圈都是一个圆环面,每一个绳之环圈,我重复一下,也是一个圆环面。每一个这些绳之环圈发挥功用,邵瑞以绘图的方式解释。这暗示着一种不均称,我的意思是,他曾经选择一个特别的圆环面,来将它解释成为譬如我所绘制它的这个圆环面。他倒转这个圆环面—我想要要求你们小心—在这方面,他曾经给予它一个特权,甚过于另外一个圆环面,在这里它仅是作为绳之环圈的图形。

Nevertheless [II-1], it is quite obvious that the torus that he has chosen, the torus that he has chosen and which could be designated by 1,2,3,4, starting from the back towards what is in front.

可是,图形(II-1)这是显而易见的,他曾经选择的圆环面,他曾经选择的这个圆环面,能够用1,2,3,4,来指明。它们从后面开始,朝向前面。

This is the one which is in front (1). 13.12.77 (CG Draft 2) 2 This is the one which is most in front and this one which is a little more in front – that is why I give it no.3 – this one is completely in front.

这是一个前面的圆环面。这是最前面的圆环面,这个稍微前面一点。那是为什么我给予它编号3,这一个完全在前面。

Moreover, as you see, provided that you have a bit of imagination, as you see, there are four of them and it is by choosing one and reversing it that one obtains the figure that you see on the left [II-2] and this figure is equivalent for any one of the rings, I mean of the tori.

而且,如你们所见,只要你们拥有一点想象,如你们所见,它们有四个。凭借着选择一个,倒转它,我们获的这个图形,你们在左边看到的这个图形(II-2)。这个图形相等于任何的一个环圈,我的意思是圆环面的任何一个环圈。

Nevertheless I pose the objection to Soury something which is not any less true, which is that by reversing any one whatsoever of what is called the Borromean knot, one obtains the following figure, [II-3]. The 2 and 3 being unimportant, it is by reversing what I designated here as 1, namely, 1 of the elements of the Borromean knot, and you know how it is drawn [II-4].

可是,我提出某件同样的真实的东西,反对邵瑞。凭借着倒转任何所谓的博罗米恩环结,我们获得以下的图形(II-3)。这个2与3的环圈并不重要,凭借着倒转我在此指明作为第一环圈,换句话说,博罗米恩环结的这些要素的第一环圈,你们知道它在此如何被画。

In the figure on the left, this one [II-2], it is quite clear that the rings of string which are inside, inside the torus, and which in a way equivalent to what I said just now can be depicted as tori, each one of these reversed tori envelopes the two other tori, just as what is designated in 1 [II-3] here is a torus which has the property of enveloping the two others, on condition that it is reversed. Therefore what is in the figure on the right [II-4} becomes what is in the figure on the left [II-3], on condition that each of these tori is reversed. 13.12.77 (CG Draft 2) 3 It is obvious that the two figures on the left [II-2 and [II-3] are more complex than the two figures on the right [II-1] and [II-4]. Besides, what makes the third figure appear is the following: that once reversed, the torus that I designated by 1 on the figure, by going from left to right on the third figure…

在左边的这个图形,这个图形,显而易见地,在里面的这个绳之环圈,在圆环面里面,以某种的方式,它相等于我刚才所说的。这些绳之环圈能够被描述为圆环面。这些倒转的圆环面,每一个都涵盖另外两个圆环面,正如在(II-3)的图形所被指明的东西,是一个圆环面,它具有涵盖另外其他两个圆环面对特性,只要它被倒转。因此,在右边的(II-4)图形变成在左边的(II-3)的图形,只要这些圆环面,其中有一个被倒转。显而易见地,左边的(II-2)跟(II-3)的两个图形更加复杂,比起右边的(II-1)跟(II-4)的两个图形。除外,让这个第三图形出现的东西如下: 一旦被倒转,我根据图形的1 指明的这个圆环面,从左边到右边,这第三图形、、、

Left Right
II-2 II-1
II-3 II-4
II-5

Something comes to me, comes to my mind in connection with these tori: suppose that what I called ‘privileging a torus’ happens at the level of torus 2 for example, can you imagine what torus 2 becomes by privileging it as compared to torus 3, namely, by reversing it inside, inside of the torus that I designated by the name of 1, namely, by privileging the 2 with respect to torus 3?

某件东西来到我这里,来到我的心里,有关这些圆环面:假设为所谓的「具有特权的圆环面」发生在圆环面的层次,譬如,你们能够想象第二圆环面变成什么吗?凭借让它拥有特权,跟第三圆环面相比较。换句话说,凭借从里面倒转它,我指明的圆环面的里面,以这个1的名字,换句话说,凭借着给予这个2的圆环面,关于第三圆环面?

In one case, the reversal will change nothing to the relationship of torus 2 with respect to torus 3. In the other, it will amount to a rupture of the Borromean knot. This comes from the fact that the Borromean knot behaves differently according as the rupture happens in a different way on the reversed torus. I am going to indicate on the left hand figure [II.3] something which is obvious:

在某个意义上,这个倒转将不会改变第二圆环面跟第三圆环面的关系。在另一方面,那将等于是博罗米恩环结的断裂。这来自于这个事实:博罗米恩环结行为不同,当这个断裂以不同的方式发生,在被倒转的圆环面。我将要在左边的图形(II.3)指示明显的东西。

Concentric section 1
同心圆的区隔 1

Perpendicular section 2
垂直的区隔 2

The fact is that by sectioning (2) the reversed torus in the way that I have just done, the Borromean knot is undone. On the contrary by sectioning in this other way (1) which is, I suppose, evident to all of you as being equivalent to what I am drawing here [II-5], that it is equivalent, the Borromean knot is not dissolved, while in the present case the cut (2) that I have just made dissolves the Borromean knot. Therefore the privilege that is at stake is not something univocal.

事实上,凭借区隔 2, 这个被倒转的圆环面,以我刚刚做的,这部博罗米恩环结被解开。相反地,凭借另外一种方式的区隔 1, 我认为这是对于你们大家都是显而易见的,它相当等于是我正在这里所画的(II-5)。这是相当的,这个博罗米恩环结没有被解开,而在目前的情况,我刚刚所做的这个切割,解开这个博罗米恩环结。因此,岌岌可危的这个特权,并不是某件一致性的东西。

The reversal of any one at all of what ends up at the first figure, the reversal does not give the same result according as the cut is presented on the torus in such a way that it is, as I might say, concentric to the hole or according to whether it is perpendicular to the hole. 13.12.77 (CG Draft 2) 4

在第一个图形结果的任何东西的倒转,这种倒转并没有给予相同的结果,依照这个切割被呈现在圆环面上,以这样一种方式,跟这个空洞是同心圆,我不妨这样说,或是依照它跟这个空洞是垂直。

It is quite clear – this can be seen on the second figure [II-3] – it is quite clear that it is the same thing, I mean that by breaking according a tracing out which is this one (concentric), the threefold Borromean knot is dissolved; for it is quite clear that even in the state of torus, the two figures that you see there dissolve, I mean are separated if the reversed torus, cut in the sense that I have called longitudinal (2), while I can call the other sense transversal (1). 、

这是相当显见的—在第二个图形(II-3),能够被看得出来—这是相当显见得,这个相同的东西,我的意思是,凭借着突破,依照一种追踪,这是这个同心圆的追踪,这个三重的博罗米恩环结被解开。因为这是相当显见的,即使在圆环面的状态,你们在那里看到的这两个图形被解开。我指的是,它们被分开,假如这些倒转的圆环面被切割,用我所谓的纵长的切割意义,而另外一个意义的切割来说,那是跨越的切割。

The transversal does not free the threefold torus but on the other hand the longitudinal frees it. There is therefore the same choice to be made on the reversed torus, the same choice to the made according to the case that one wants or does not want to dissolve the Borromean knot.

这个跨越的切割并没有解放三重折叠的圆环面,但是在另一方面,这个纵长的切割解放它。因此,在倒转的圆环面,有这个相同的选择能够被做。这个相同的选择能够被做,依照我们想要或是不想要解开博罗米恩环结的情况。

The figure on the right [II-5], the one that materialises the way in which the surrounding torus must be cut in order – I think that you see this to free the three, the three that remain – it is quite clear that, by drawing things like that, you see that what I designate on occasion as (2), that this is freed from (3) and that secondarily the (3) is freed from the (4), [II-1 and II-2].

在右边的这个图形(II-5),这个图形具体表现这个围绕的圆环面必须被切割的方式,为了—我认为你们看出这一点,为了要解放这三个圆环面,始终在的这三个圆环面—显而易见的是,凭借像那样的绘图,你们看出,我有时指明作为,这个从图形(3)解放出来,其次,这个图形(3)被解放从这个图形(4)。(II-1)跟(II-2)

I propose the following, the following which is initiated by the fact that in the way of dividing up the figuration of (4), Soury had a preference, I mean that he prefers to mark that the (4) is to be drawn like that. 13.12.77 (CG Draft 2) 5

我建议以下,以下被开启的东西,根据这个事实:以区隔(4)的图形的方式,邵瑞拥有一个偏好。我的意思是,图偏好标示,这个(4)的图形,应该像那样被画。

This is equally a Borromean knot but I suggest that there is a six-fold Borromean knot, six-fold which is not the same as the Borromean knot which, as I might say, would follow in single file, it is a more complex Borromean knot and I am showing you the way in which it is organised, namely, that, as compared to the 2 that I drew first, these two are equivalent to what happens from the fact that one is on the other; and in this case, the Borromean knot must be inscribed by being over this one which is above and under this one which is below. This is what you see here: it is under the one that is below and over the one that is above.

这确实是一个博罗米恩环结,但是我建议,有一个六重折叠的环结。这个六重折叠的环结,跟博罗米恩环结并不相同。我不妨说,后者将会遵照单一的行列。这是更加复杂的博罗米恩环结。我正在跟你们显示这个方式,它被组织,换句话说,跟我最初所画的这个2 的图形比较起来,这两个相等于所发生的事情,根据这个事实: 以上的这个跟着底下的这个博罗米恩环结。

It is not easy to draw. Here is the one that is below… You have in connection with these two couples, of these 2 couples which are depicted here, you have only to notice that this one is above, the third couple therefore comes above and underneath the one that is below.

要这样画并不容易。在此是你们拥有的底下的这个博罗米恩环结。关于这两对,这两对在这里被描述的博罗米恩环结,你们只需要注意到,这一个博罗米恩环结在上面,这第三对因此,出现在上面,及底下的这个环结的下面。

I pose the question: does reversing one of those which are here, give the same result as what I called the single file figure, namely, thus, the one which is presented thus 1,2,3,4,5,6, all ending in the ring here, would reversing the 6 fabricated in this way give the same result as the reversal of any one at all of these three sixes. We already have an indication of response: which is that the result will be different.

我提出这个问题:倒转在那里的那些环结,给予这个相同的结果,如同我所谓的相同行列的图形。这个图形因此在此被呈现为1,2,3,4,5,6,一切都在这个环圈里结束。倒转以这个方式建构的6的图形,将会给予这个相同的结果,跟所有的这三个 6 的任何一个的倒转。我们已经拥有一个回应的指示, 结果将会是不同的。

It will different because the fact of reversing any one at all of these six that I call single file will give something analogous to what is depicted here [II-2]. On the contrary, the way in which the figure [[II-7] is reversed will give something different.

这将是不同的,因为事实上,倒转我所谓的单一行列的这六个环结的任何一个,都会给予某件类同时在图形(II-2) 所被描绘的东西。相反地,图形(II-7) 被倒转的方式,将会给出不同的东西。

I apologise for having directly implicated Soury. He is certainly very valuable for having introduced what I am stating today. The distinction between what I called the longitudinal cut and the transversal cut is essential. I think I have given you a sufficient indication of this by this cut here. The way in which the cut is made is quite decisive. What happens by the reversal of one of the six, as I designated it here, this is what is important to know and it is by putting it in your hands that I desire to have the final word on it.

There you are, I will stay with that for today.

我很抱歉没有直接引用邵瑞的拓扑图形。他确实是非常有价值,因为他曾经介绍我今天正在陈述的东西。在我所谓的纵长的切割跟横跨越的切割之间的区别,是很重要的。我认为我曾经凭借这里的这个切割,给予你们一个充分的有关它的指示。这个切割被从事的方式是相当决定性的。根据这个六的环结的其中之一的倒转,所发生的事情,如同我在此指明它,这是非常重要的,要知道的事情。凭借将它放置在你们的手里,我渴望拥有对于它的最后的论断。

就这样,今天我在此告一段落。

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

seminar final 36

April 9, 2012

seminar final 36

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Moment to conclude
结论的时刻

20.12.77 (CG Draft 2) 1
Seminar 3: Wednesday 20 December 1977

I am working in the impossible to say.

我正在从事不可能界的言说。

To say (dire) is something different than to speak (parler). The analyser speaks. He produces poetry. He produces poetry when he manages to do so – it is not frequent – but it is art (il est art). I cut because I do not want to say ‘it is late’ (‘il est tard’).

言说是某件不同于言谈的事情。分析者言谈。他产生诗。当他成功于这样做时,他产生诗—这并不常见—但这是艺术。我切割,因为我并不想要说:「时间很迟了。」

The analyst, for his part, slices (tranche). What he says is a cut, namely,, has some of the characteristics of writing, except for the fact that in his case he equivocates in the orthography. He writes differently so that thanks to the orthography, to a different way of writing, he makes ring out something other than what is said, than what is said with the intention of saying, namely,, consciously, inasmuch as consciousness goes very far.
That is why I say that, there is neither in what the analyser says, nor in what the analyst says, anything other than writing.

分析家,就他本身而言,切割成片。他所言说是一种切割,换句话说,他所言说拥有书写的某些特性。除了这个事实:在他的情况,他的拼音方式模棱两可。他书写的方式不同,所以由于这个拼音方式,由于书写的一个不同方式,他让某件东西响亮出来,迴异于所被说的内容,换句话说,为了要有意识地言说。因为意识会过分。那就是为什么我说,无论在分析者的言说,或是分析家的言说,没有别的东西,除了就是书写。

This consciousness does not go very far, one does not know what one is saying when one speaks. This indeed is why the analyser says more than he means to say and the analyst slices by reading what is involved in what he means to say, if in fact the analyst knows what he himself wants. There is a lot of play (jeu), in the sense of freedom, in all of that. There is play in the sense that the word ordinarily has.

这个意识并没有过分。我们并不知道我们正在言说什么,当我们言谈时。这确实是为什么分析者言说,超过他打算说的。分析家切割,凭借阅读所被牵涉的,关于他打算要的内容。假如事实上,分析家知道他自己想要的。在自由的意义上,有许多的玩搞,在所有这一切。在文字通常所拥有的意义上,有玩搞。

All of that does not say to me how I slipped into the Borromean knot to find myself, on occasion, with a lump in my throat because of it. It must be said that the Borromean knot is that which, in thought, constitutes matter.

所有这一切并没有跟我言说,我如何滑进入这个博罗米恩环结,结果发现我自己有时因为它,由哭难言。我们必须说,这个博罗米恩环结是组成思想的物质的东西。

Matter is what one breaks, there also in the sense that this word ordinarily has. What one breaks (casse), is what holds together and is supple, on some occasions, like what is called a knot. How did I slip from the Borromean knot to imagining it composed of tori and, from there, to the thought of reversing each one of these tori? This is what led me to things that constitute metaphor, natural metaphor, namely,, that that it is close to linguistics, insofar as there is one. But metaphor has to be thought of metaphorically.

物质是我们打破的东西,也是在这个字通常拥有的意义。我们所打破的东西,是维系在一块的东西。它是柔软的,在某些的场合,就像所谓的一个环结。我如何从这个博罗米恩环结滑落到想象它由圆环面组成。从那里,滑落到倒转每一个这些圆环面的思想?这是为什么我被引导到组成隐喻的事情上。换句话说,那是自然的隐喻。它靠近语言学,因为有一个语言学。但是隐喻必须用隐喻的方式来思维。

The stuff of metaphor is that which in thought constitutes matter or, as Descartes says ‘extension’, in other words body.

隐喻的东西,在思想里是组成物质的东西。或者,如笛卡尔所说的「延伸」,换句话说,就是身体。

The gap is filled here as it has always been. The body represented here is a phantasy of the body. The phantasy of the body is the extension imagined by Descartes. There is a distance between extension, Descartes’ extension, and the phantasy. Here there intervenes the analyst who colours the phantasy of sexuality.

这个差距在此被填上,如同它总是被填上。在此被代表的身体,是身体的一种幻见。身体的这个幻见就是笛卡尔想象的这个延伸。在延伸之间有一个距离,在笛卡尔的延伸与这个幻见之间。在此,分析家介入,扭曲性的幻见。

There is no sexual relationship, certainly, except between phantasies and the phantasy is to be noted with the accent that I gave it when I remarked that geometry, ‘l’âge et haut-maître hie’ [a play on la géométrie], that geometry is woven by phantasies and in the same way the whole of science.

的确,性的关系不存在,除了在幻见之间。这个幻见应该被注意,由于我给予它的这个强调,当我谈论,几何学是由幻见所编织,同样地,整个的科学也是由幻见所编织。

I read recently a yoke called – it’s in four volumes – The world of mathematics. As you see it’s in English. There is not the slightest world of mathematics. It is enough to hang together the articles in question. That is not enough to make what is called a world, I mean a world that holds up. The mystery of this world remains absolutely intact.

我最近阅读一本所谓的钜作—有四大册–「数学的世界」。如你们所见,那是英文版。那根本不是什么数学的世界。它仅是将受到质疑的文章聚拢在一块。那并不足个形成所谓的一个世界。我的意思是,一个维持的世界。这个世界的神秘始终保持绝对的完整。

And at the same time what is meant by knowledge? Knowledge is what guides us. It is what means that people were able to translate the knowledge in question by the word ‘instinct’, of which what I articulate as l’appensée [thought] forms part, and that I write like that, because it constitutes an equivocation with appui [support].

同时,知识是什么意思?知识是引导我们的东西。知识的意思是,人们能够翻译受到质疑的知识,用「本能」这个字词。我所表达作为思想的东西,形成本能的部分。我像那样书写,因为它跟这个「支持」形成一种模糊暧昧。

When I said like that, the other day, that science is nothing other than a phantasy, than a phantastical kernel, I follow (je suis), certainly, but in the sense of ‘to follow’ (suivre) and, contrary to what someone in an article hoped, I think that I will be ‘followed’ onto this terrain. It seems obvious to me.

当我前天像那样言说,科学实实在在就是一种幻见,一种幻见的核心。我确实遵循那个意思。但是我用的「遵循」的意义,跟文章里的某个人所希望的相反。我认为我将会被「遵循」到这个平台。对我而言,那似乎显而易见。

Science is something futile which has no weight in anyone’s life, even though it has effects: television for example, but its effects depend on nothing but phantasy, which, I will write like that, who hycroit [believes in it].

科学是某件徒劳动东西,它在任何人的生活里,没有份量。即使它具有它的影响,譬如电视。但是它的影响仅仅依靠幻想。我将会像那样书写,我相信它。

Science is linked to what is especially called the’ death-drive’. It is a fact that life continues thanks to the fact of reproduction linked to phantasy. There you are
The other day I made you a torus while pointing out to you that it is a Borromean knot, namely,, that there are here three elements: the reversed torus and then the two rings of string that you see there, which are also tori; and I pointed out to you, that if one cuts this torus, that if one cuts it like that, namely,, as I expressed myself, longitudinally with respect to the torus, it is not surprising that one obtains the cutting effect which is that of the Borromean knot; it is the contrary that would be surprising.

科学跟我们特别所谓的「死亡冲动」息息相关。这是一个事实,生命继续,由于跟幻见息息相关的繁殖的事实。你们瞧!前天,我替你们制作一个圆环面,当我跟你们指出,这是一个博罗米恩环结。换句话说,在此有三个要素:这个倒转的圆环面,然后是你们看到在那里的两个绳之环结,它们也是圆环面。我跟你们指出,假如我们切割这个圆滑面,假如我们像那样切割它,换句话说,当我表达我自己,纵长地切割它,关于这个圆环面。这并不令人惊奇,我们获得这个切割的影响,那就是博罗米恩环结的影响。相反的东西才会令人惊奇。

It is the same thing as to cut … here I am completing it since I left this Borromean knot unfinished … it is the same thing to cut it like that: except for the fact that in this case the cut is – contrary to that one – perpendicular to what is called the hole. But it is quite clear that if things are completed, namely, that this holds together, namely, that something happens here like a junction the circular cut leaves the Borromean knot intact and it is indeed the same cut which is rediscovered there, the same cut as results from what I called the longitudinal cut.

这跟切割是同样的事情。在此,我们渐渐在完成它,因为我留下这个博罗米恩环结没有被完成。这是同样的事情像那样切割。除了这个事实:在这个情况,这个切割时垂直—跟刚才那个相反—跟所谓的空洞的内容垂直。但这个是显而易见的,假如事情被完成,换句话说,这个聚拢在一块。也就是,某件事情在此发生,就像这个循环的切割保持博罗米恩环结的完整的连接。这确实是相同的切割,在那里重新被发现。这个相同的切割,作为我所谓的纵长的切割的结果。

The cut is nothing other than what eliminates the Borromean knot entirely. It is by this very fact something that is repairable provided one sees that the torus that is involved is stuck together again if one deals with it properly in a reversed way.

这种切割实实在在就是完全减少博罗米恩环结的东西。凭借着这个事实,某件可被修理的东西,只要我们看出,被牵涉的这个圆环面,再一次被紧连在一块,假如我们以倒转的方式适当地处理它。

Namely, that what is seen … provided one cuts perpendicular to the hole … what is seen is that the torus at the very moment preserves the Borromean knot.

换句话说,所被看见的、、、只要我们跟这个空洞垂直地切割、、、所被看见的是,在这个时刻的圆环面,保存著博罗米恩环结。

It is enough for the cut to have some of the characteristics of the cut that I have called perpendicular to the hole in order for it to preserve the knot.

让这个切割拥有切割的某些特征就足够了,我曾称呼这种切割为跟这个空洞的垂直地切割,为了让它保存这个环结。

Suppose that the longitudinal cut that we have made here shares in the characteristics of the longitudinal cut. Namely, that something is established of this nature here. In other words that it turns around the torus. I mean the cut.

假设我们曾经在此做的纵长的切割,分享这个纵长的切割的这些特征。换句话说,在此某件属于这个特性的东西被建立。换句话说,它环绕这个圆环面旋转。我指的是这个切割。

Here is what we obtain: the reversal of the torus wards off the effects of its cut. (CG Draft 2) 5 The phantasy of the cut is enough to preserve the Borromean knot. For there to be a phantasy there must be a torus.

在此是我们所获得的; 圆环面的这个倒转,阻挡它的切割的这些影响。切割的这个幻见足够保存这个博罗米恩环结。为了让幻见存在,必须要有一个圆环面。

The identification of the phantasy to the torus is what justifies, as I might say, my imagining of the reversal of the torus.

幻见的认同于这个圆环面,证明我想象的圆环面的倒转,我不妨这样说。

So that here I am going to draw what is involved in what I called earlier a ‘six-fold torus’.
And imagine what can be deduced from the depiction I have just made. There is a couple: drive – inhibition.

所以,在此,我将要描绘所牵涉的东西,在我早先所谓的「六个折叠的圆环面」。你们想象一下,从我刚刚做的描述,能够被推论出什么。存在着这么一对: 冲动与潜抑。

Let us take for example this one, drive – inhibition.

让我们拿这个为例,冲动与潜抑。

In the same way for the others let us call the following couple: pleasure principle – unconscious.

对于其余的例子,也是一样。让我们称以下的这一对为:快乐原则与无意识。

We can sufficiently see from this fact that the unconscious is this knowledge which guides us and that I earlier called pleasure principle.

根据这个事实,我们能够充分地看出,无意识是引导我们的这个知识,我早先称为的快乐原则。

The interesting thing to notice is that the third, I mean that which, because of this is organised in this way – I beg your pardon these knots are always difficult to make – here you have a better way, one that I had to correct there, of representing what I called pleasure principle – unconscious, drive – inhibition, and it is here that the third is presented as the coupling of the Real and phantasy. 20.12.77 (CG Draft 2) 6 This puts a stress on the fact that there is no reality. Reality is constituted only by phantasy, and phantasy is moreover what gives material for poetry.

要注意到的有趣的事情是,这个第三个,我指的是,因为这个而以这个方式组织的东西—我请求你们原谅,这些环结总是很困难制作—在此,你们拥有更好的方式,我必须在那里改正的方式,代表我所谓的快乐原则与无意识,冲动与潜抑。就在这里,第三个例子被呈现,作为实在界与幻见到配对。这强调这个事实,现实界并不存在。现实界被形成,仅是靠着幻见。而且,幻见就是给予作为诗的材料。

This means that our whole development of science is something which, we do not know along what path, which emerges, irrupts due to what is called the sexual relationship.
Why is there something that functions as science? It is poetry. The apperception of this world of mathematics convinced me of this. There is something that manages to get through by what is reduced in the human species to the sexual relationship. What is reduced to the sexual relationship in the human species is something that makes it very difficult for us to grasp what is involved for animals. Do animals know how to count? We don’t have any proof of it, I mean tangible proofs.

这意味着,我们对于科学的整个的发展是某件东西,我们并不知道沿着什么途径,这个东西出现,暴发出来,由于所谓的性的关系。为什么会有某件东西充当科学的功用呢?那就是诗。对于数学的这个世界的赏识,让我相信这件事情。有某件东西成功地通过,凭借在人类的种族被还原成为性的关系的东西。在人类的种族被还原成为性关系的东西,是某件非常困难让我们理解对于动物会牵涉到什么。动物知道如何计算吗?我们并没有拥有这个证据。我指的是具体的证据。

As regards to what is involved in science, everything starts from numeration.
In any case what is involved in this practice is moreover poetry. I am speaking of the practice that is called analysis. Why did someone called Freud succeed in his poetry, I mean, in establishing a psychoanalytic art? This is what remains altogether doubtful.
Why do we remember certain men who have succeeded? It does not mean that what they have succeeded in doing is valid.

关于科学会牵涉到什么,每一样东西都从列举开始。无论如何,在这个实践所被牵涉的东西,而且是诗。我正在谈论到所谓的精神分析的实践。为什么某位名叫弗洛伊德的人,成功地写诗。我的意思是,当他建立一个精神分析的艺术?这就是为什么它始终是完全可疑的地方。为什么我们记得某些成功写诗的人,这并不意味着,他们成功地做到的东西,就能自圆其说。

What I am doing here as was remarked by someone of common sense, Althusser, is philosophy. But philosophy is the only thing we know how to do.

我在此正在做的事情是哲学,由某位具有共同常识的人所标示,他名叫阿图塞。但是哲学是唯一我们知道如何做到事情。

My Borromean knots, are also philosophy. They are philosophy that I handled as best I could by following the current, as I might say, the current of what results from Freud’s philosophy. The fact of having stated the word unconscious is nothing more than poetry with which one makes history. But history – as I sometimes say – history is hysteria.
Freud, if he sensed clearly what is involved in the hysteric, if he fabulated around the hysteric, this is obviously only a fact of history.

我的博罗米恩环结也是哲学。它们是我尽力而为的哲学,凭借遵循这个潮流,我不妨说,遵循从弗洛伊德的哲学形成的结果的潮流。事实上,我曾经陈述无意识这个字词,仅仅就是我们用来形成历史的诗。但是历史—如我有时说的—历史上歇斯底里症。弗洛伊德,假如他清楚地理解歇斯底里症会牵涉到什么。假如他环绕歇斯底里症构想,这显而易见是历史的一件事情。

Marx also was a poet, a poet who has the advantage in having succeeded in making a political movement. Moreover if he qualified his materialism as historical, it was certainly not unintentionally. Historical materialism is what is incarnated in history. Everything that I have just stated concerning the stuff which constitutes thought is nothing other than to say things exactly in the same way. 20.12.77 (CG Draft 2) 7

马克思也是一位诗人。这位诗人拥有这个优势,他成功地从事一个政治的运动。而且,假如他将他的唯物论特质定为是历史的,那确实是并非是无心之举。历史的唯物论就是在历史里具体呈现的东西。我刚刚陈述的一切,关于形成思想的这个材料,实实在在就是要以相同的方式确实地言说事情。

What one could say about Freud, is that he situated things in such a way that it was successful. But it is not sure. What is at stake is a composition, the composition such that I was led to render all of that coherent, to give the note of a certain relationship between the drive and inhibition, and then the pleasure principle and knowledge – unconscious knowledge, of course.

关于弗洛伊德,我们能够说的事情是,他以这样一种方式定位事情,结果是成功。但这并没有确定。岌岌可危的是一种组成,我被引导要将所有的这种组成形成一致性,给予某种关系的强调,处于冲动与潜抑,然后是快乐原则与知识,当然,是无意识的知识。

Pay careful attention that it is here, and that here is the third element, I mean that this is where phantasy is and where there is found what I designated as the Real.

请仔细注意,就在这里,这里有第三个要素。我指的是,这就是幻见所在的地方。在这里,我指明作为实在界被发现的地方。

I really did not find anything better than this way of imaging metaphorically what is involved in Freud’s doctrine.

我确实并没有找到任何东西,除了就是这个方式:隐喻地想象弗洛伊德的信条会牵涉到什么。

What seems to me to be materially unwarranted, is to have imputed so much material to sex. I know well that there are hormones, that hormones form part of science; but it is quite clear that this is the densest point and that here there is no transparency.
Good, I will stop there.

对于我似乎没有在材料方面受到保证的东西,就是要归属如此多的材料给性。我清楚地知道,有遗传因子,有遗传因子形成部分的科学,但是相当显而易见地,这是最紧密的部分,在此没有透明的东西,呵呵,我将在此告一段落。

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