Archive for the ‘精神分析对象’ Category

Object 15

January 16, 2012

Object 15

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965
J Lacan’s o-object, its logic, and Freudian theory
(convergences and interrogations)
By André Green

To speak about the object of psychoanalysis immediately gives rise to a question. It
leads us to question ourselves as to whether one is going to treat the object of
psychoanalysis in the sense that one speaks about the object of a science – what the
approach and the progress of the science is aiming at – or whether one is going to
speak about the status of the object as psychoanalysis conceives of it. The surprising
thing will be to show here that these two senses are closely linked and interdependent.

谈论有关精神分析的对象,立刻会产生问题。这个问题引导我们质疑我们自己,关于我们是否处理精神分析的对象,如同我们谈论一门科学的对象。科学的方法与进步的目标,或是我们是否将要依照精神分析构想它的方式,谈论这个对象的地位。令人惊奇的事在此将会是:这两种意义息息相关,而又互相依靠。

Littre points out that at the word “subject” the Académie says: natural bodies are the
subject of physics. And at the word “object”, it says again: natural bodies are the
object of physics. Far be it from us to pick out here a contradictory reduplication or
one too easily reducible. Nor will we join brandishing this example, to the chorus of
those who denounce in the separation of the subject and the object the cause of all the
theoretical impasses for which traditional thought is rendered responsible.

李特指出,对于「主体」这个字词,学院派说:自然的身体是物理的主体。对于「客体」这个字词,它再一次说:自然的身体是物理的客体。在此,我们丝毫并不是要挑剔一个矛盾的字词重复,或是一个太容易被还原的字词。我们也不是要炫耀这个例子,来配合那些异口同声的抨击,在分开主体与客体时,造成理论僵局的原因。这是传统思想必须要对它负责的地方。

Encountering at the beginning the linked fate of the subject and the object is not to
affirm either their confusion or their independence. It is to calculate that we are going
to have to face up to the confrontations of identity and difference, of conjunction and
disjunction, of suturing and cutting. We will then have to ask ourselves if the object
of psychoanalysis – I am speaking now about what it is aiming at – can be content with
this coupled limitation to which many contemporary disciplines, and indeed the most
advanced, limit themselves.

在开始时,遭遇主体与客体被连接的命运,并不就是肯定它们的混淆,或是它们的互相依靠。而是要评估我们将要面对这些冲突:认同与差异,结合与断裂,缝合与切割。我们因此将必须询问我们自己,精神分析的对象,(我是谈论到它的目标),是否能够满足于许多现代的学科研究自我设限的这个双重的限制,的确,即使是最先进的学科研究,也这样自我设限。

I – JACQUES LACAN’S OBJECT: A RAPID REMINDER

1、 雅克、拉康的目标:迅速提醒

To examine the role of the o-object in the theory of Jacques Lacan will help us kill
two birds with the one stone. It will lead us – this at least is our project – to specify its
content in the conceptual framework which is proper to him on the one hand, and on
the other hand to mark the limits of agreement of this thinking – and no doubt of all
psychoanalytic thinking – with modern structuralism.

检查雅克、拉康的理论的这个客体的角色,将有助于我们一矢双鵰。它将会引导我们,(这至少是我的计划),明确指出它的内容,在这个观念的架构上。这个架构一方式对他是本体,另一方面标示这种思想的一致性的限制。无可置疑地,在所有的精神分析思想,它具有现代的结构主义。

A – The (o), mediation between the subject to the Other
The (o) – I am not saying yet the o-object – is present in Lacan‟s oldest graph when he
starts from the theorisation proposed in The mirror stage (1936-1949). (o) can be
understood then in its relationship to o‟ (which will have the closest relationships with the future i(o) namely the specular image) as an element of the indispensable
mediation which unites the subject to the Other.

一、 主体与客体之间的仲介

这个括弧里的对象,(我甚至还没有说这个客体),它出现在拉康最早的欲望图形,当他从1936到1949年的「镜象阶段」所建议的理论开始。这个括弧内的对象能够被了解,处于跟客体的关系。(它跟未来的I (0),也就是理想魅影的意象息息相关),作为连接主体与客体的不可免除的仲介的一种要素。

It is clear that this situation of the mirror stage – which is less important to date as a stage than to designate as a structuring situation – can only be understood if one specifies that it is not psychology that is in question here (whether we are talking about Preyer or Wallon) but psychoanalysis.

显而易见的,镜像阶段的这个情况,其重要性不在于定位为一个阶段,而在于指明为一个结构的情况。它能够被了解,仅是当我们指明,在此受到质疑的并不是心理学 (无论我们谈论的是普瑞伊或瓦伦的心理学),而是精神分析学。

Psychoanalysis which gives to the child which has emerged from his
mother a meaning which weighs on all his development: namely that he is the
substitute for the penis of which the mother is deprived and only accedes to his status
of subject by taking his place there where he is lacking to the mother on whom he
depends. This substitute is the locus and the bond of exchange between the mother
and the father who even though he has a penis cannot for all that create it (because he
has it).

精神分析给予从母亲那里诞生的小孩一个意义,这个意义对于他的发展有举足轻重的影响。换句话说,他是母亲被剥夺的这个男根的替代。他承受他的主体的地位,在他对于他所依靠的母亲而言是欠缺的地方,代替他。这个替代就是这个轨迹及交换的默契,处于母亲与父亲之间。即使他有男根,因为如此,他无法创造它(因为他已拥有它)。

The relationship (o) to i(o) is going to reduplicate the relationship that we have just
described.

括弧的客体跟理想魅影的客体的这个关系,将要执行我们刚刚描述的这个关系。

B – The (o), mediation between the subject to the ego ideal

二、在主体与这个自我理想之间的仲介,这个括弧的客体。
There then comes the quadrangle called the schema R. Here again there are opposed
the couple of tensions between the systems of desires (iM) and the system of
identifications (eI). The (o) is inscribed on the line (iM) which starting from the
subject S and going towards the primordial object M (the mother) is constituted
through the figures of the imaginary other.

然后就是所谓的R基模的四个角度。在此再一次,在欲望的系统iM与认同eI的系统之间的两种紧张的对立。括弧的这个客体,被铭记着欲望的系统iM的这条线,它从这个主体S开始,然后朝向原初的客体M (母亲),它通过想象界的大他者的这些人物,而形成。

On the contrary the o‟is inscribed on the line which goes from the subject S towards the primordial object M (the mother) by way of the figures of the imaginary other. On the other hand o‟ is inscribed on the line which goes from the subject to the ego ideal through the specular forms of the ego.

相反地,这个客体0被铭记着这条线,从主体S开始,朝鲜原初的客体M (母亲),凭借想象界的大他者的人物。在另一方面,这个客体被铭记着这条线,从主体到自我理想,通过自我的理想魅影的形式。

It can be seen how the quadrangle derives from the Z by joining the points which in the first graph are only reached by a round-about journey. One might point out here that in the field of the imaginary the two directions of the subject go either towards the object, or towards the ideal. One also knows that in Freudian thought this orientation is closely dependent on narcissism.

我们看出,这个四角形状从这个Z获得,以加入这些点。在第一个图形,这些点仅是被到达,凭借一个环绕的旅行。我们在此可以指出,在想象界的领域,主体的这两个方向,不是朝向客体,就是朝向理想。我们也知道,在弗洛伊德的思想,这个定向密切地依靠著自恋。

One notes then that the Other which has come to the locus of the Name of the Father, situated only in the field of the symbolic, at the opposite pole to the subject here identified to the phallus, can only be reached by the two paths that we have just described above, the object or the narcissistic, but never in a direct fashion.

我们因此注意到,这个大他者已经来到「以父亲之名」的轨迹。它仅是被定位在符号界的领域,跟在此认同阳具的主体,处于相反的极端。我们仅能凭借我们以上刚刚描述的两条途径到达那里,客体或是自恋的途径。但是我们永远不会处于直接的方式。

The field of the real is comprised in the tension of two couples eI x iM whose meaning we have specified. But it is only in the symbolic field that there appears the third term which is indispensable for the structuring of the process.

实在界的领域被包含在认同eI 与母亲的系统iM这两对的紧张里。它们的意义,我们已经指明。但是仅有在符号界的领域,这第三个术语才会出现。这第三个术语在过程的结构里是不可免除的。

[Foot note
1. It is not out of season to make two remarks here:
a – In French psychoanalytic work the notion of object relations has developed a good
deal (Bouvet) imported from Anglo-Saxon authors (M Klein especially, after
Abraham). Lacan is opposed to it underlining the absence of any references to
elements of mediation in these conceptions. Especially – which amounts to the same
thing perhaps – he will condemn this view-point in so far as it ends up at a Real-
Imaginary opposition which crushes the Symbolic.
b- The opposition between the ideal ego and the ego ideal (Nunberg-Lagache) serves
as a platform for the theoretical developments of Lacan which are inserted in the
perspective of the relationship to the Other. ]

脚注:
在此我从事两个评论并非不合宜:
1. 在法国,客体关系的观念的精神分析研究,曾经高度发展,借助从英国作者的输入。(特别是克莱因,及先前的阿伯拉罕)。拉康则是强调这些观念仲介的指称要素的欠缺,来跟客体关系的观念对立。特别是,这个客体关系的观念相等于是这个相同的东西。他将谴责这个观点,因为它的结果处于一个实在界与想象界的对立,而压垮符号界。
2. 理想自我与自我理想的对立,充当一个平台,作为拉康的理论的发展。这些发展被插入在跟大他者的关系的观点。

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

Object 14

January 15, 2012

Object 14

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

And, nevertheless, what I have just said to you is that the stroke drawn here in black,
which is a simple stroke, a closed edge, of the same type as the one the drawing of Jiu
Oun reduced, as I told you, entirely to this little portion. So then, what is the riddle?

可是,我刚刚跟你们说的,在此用黑色画的笔划,是单纯的一划,一个封闭的边缘,跟「球形」的图画属于相同种类。如同我告诉过你们,这个球形完全被还原成为这个小部分。所以,这个谜团是什么?

I think that you must remember still what I told you earlier, namely, that the cut itself
is the Moebius strip. As you can see in this second outline that I made on the same
figure, next to it, a figure which is schematised in something, a bladder in which I am
trying to help you to intuit what is involved in the projective plane, if you separate the
edges, as I might say, which result from the cut here traced in black, you obtain a gap
which is constructed here like a Moebius strip.

我认为,你们必须依旧记得,我早先告诉你们的。换句话说,这个切割本身就是莫比斯环带。你们从我在它旁边的相同的图形上,制作的这第二个轮廓能够看出,这一个图形是某件东西作为基模,一个囊袋。以这个囊袋,我正在尝试帮助你们直觉感受到在投射层面牵涉的东西。假如你们分开这个边缘,我不妨说,在此用黑色追踪的切割所形成的边缘,你们获得一种差距。这个差距在此被建构,像一个莫比斯环带。

(28) The cut itself has the structure of the surface called Moebius strip. Here you see
it pictured by a double stroke of the scissors that you can also do, in which you would
effectively cut the total figure of the projective plane, or of the cross-cap as I called it,
in two parts: one Moebius strip on the one hand, here it is supposed to be cut, all on its own, and on the other hand a remainder which is what plays the same function of hole in its primitive shape, namely, of the hole that is obtained on a spherical surface.

这个切割本身拥有所谓的莫比斯环带的表面的结构。在此,你们看到它被这个剪刀的双重剪开所描绘。你们也能够做得到,使用这个剪刀,你们将有效地剪开这个投身层面的全部图形,或是我称为的这个两个维度帽,分成两个部分:一边是莫比斯环带,在此它被认为是被切割,各自独立。在另一方面,有一个剩余物,扮演相同的空洞的功用,在它的原始的形状。换句话说,从一个球形的表面获得的空洞。

This is fundamental to consider and you have to see in it another figure in the
schematised shape, and one more properly topological which is the following one
whose complement I have written on the blackboard where I think you can see it.

这是基本要考虑的,你们必须在里面看出另外一个图形,以这个基模化的形状,一个更加适当的拓扑图形。这就是以下的图形,我已经写下它的补助在黑板上,我认为你们能够看见它。

Now, the way in which the first hole, the spherical hole, the one that I called
concentric, is sutured, topology reveals to us that nothing is less concentric than this
form of centre contiguous with the function of the first flap.

现在,第一个空洞,这个圆形的空洞,我称为同心圆的空洞,被缝合,拓扑图形跟我们显示,没有东西比这个中心的形式,更不具有同心圆,因为这个中心邻近于第一个振动翼的功用。

Because in order to close the hole on the sphere, it is enough to have a simple cut which connects the two pieces in the way, simply, in which a dressmaker would darn something for you.

因为为了封闭这个球形的空洞,简单切割一下就足够。这个简单的切割简单地连接这两个片断。以这种方式,一位裁缝匠将会替你修补某件东西。

Having established the cut, if you take things in the inverse sense for the Moebius strip implies an order, and it is really here that we have our third dimension which is what justifies us having introduced earlier a (29) false third in order to make you sense the weight of these figures.

当你完成这个切割后,假如你接纳事情,从反面的意义,这个莫比斯环带意味着一种秩序。确实就是在这里,我们拥有我们的第三维度。那就是我们早先振振有词来介绍一个虚假的第三维度,为了让你们感觉到这些图形的份量。

This dimension of order, in other words, representing a certain temporal base, implies
that to realise this hole, this second hole whose topological properties I am explaining
to you, there is an order necessary which is a diametrical order, diametrical, that is
apparently spatial, founded in accordance with the median stroke, gives you the
figured support in which properly speaking it can be read that this sort of cut is
precisely the one that we were waiting for, namely, it can only be realised by having at the same time to be divided, in other words, if it is not in an intuitive and visual
fashion but in a mental fashion that you try to realise what is involved starting from
the moment that you think that the A, the point A on the circle is identical to the point A that is diametrically opposite it, which is the very definition which was introduced in a quite different context, in metrical geometry by Desargues, in other words, the projective plane, and God knows that Desargues, in writing it, himself underlined how paradoxical, bewildering, even crazy such a conception was which proves very well that the mathematicians are themselves well able to imagine the points of transgression, of going beyond the limit, in connection with the setting up of one or other structural category.

这个秩序的维度,换句话说,代表某个时间段基础,暗示着这个空洞,它的拓扑图形的属性,我正在跟你们解释的,有一个需要的秩序。那是一个直径的秩序,直径,那很明显的空间的秩序,它的基础跟这个中间的笔画一致。它给予你们这个图形的支持。在这个支持里,适当来说,它能够被阅读为,这种的切割确实就是我们正在等待的切割,换句话说,它能够被实现,凭借同时必须被分裂。换句话说,假如这并不是一种直觉及视觉的方式,而是以精神的方式,你们尝试体会到什么被牵涉,从那时时刻开始,你们认为这个A,在圆圈的A点,等同于直径跟它对立的A点,这确实就是这个定义。这个定义以前被用完全不同的内涵介绍,由德萨古在测量几何学。换句话说,这个投射的层面。天晓得,当德萨古在书写它时,他自己强调这样一个观念是多么的矛盾,令人困惑,甚至疯狂,因为它清楚地证明,数学家本身很能够想象这些逾越的点,超越限制的这些点,关于某个结构的范围的这个建立。

If they did forget it, moreover, there would always be their colleagues to remind them by telling them that they understand nothing about what (30) they were saying, something which happens at every turn, and especially what happened to Desargues when the walls of Lyon were covered with posters in connection with things that as you see were very exciting. What a lovely time! What a marvellous epoch!

而且,假如数学家忘记它,总是会有他们的同事提醒他们,告诉他们,他们对于他们正在说的事情,一无所知。这是某件经常发生的事情,特别是发生在德萨古身上,当里昂的城墙被贴满了海报,你们明白,关于那些非常令人興奋的事情。那是多么可爱的时光!多么神奇的时代!

The A and the A are the same …………………….. what does that mean if not that, even if
we consider this as the hole, the conjunction of the edges cannot be carried out except
by dividing this hole, by managing to pass it in the movement, as one might say, of its
conjunction.

这个A跟这个A是相同的。假如它们不相同,那会是什么意思?即使我们考虑这一点,作为空洞,这些边缘的连接无法被执行,除了分裂这个空洞,设法在动作中通过这个空洞,我们不妨说,在它的连接的动作中。

We find here the model of what is involved in the subject in so far as it is determined
by a cut. It ought necessarily to be presented as divided in the very structure.

我们在此发现主体身上所牵涉到这个模式,因为它受到一种切割所决定。它应该被呈现,作为这个结构的分裂。

I was not able, of course, to take any further today the point that I wanted you to arrive at. You should simply know that in referring ourselves to two other topological
structures. which are respectively the Klein bottle, in so far as I already showed you
that it is made up, composed, by the sewing together of two Moebius strips. As you
will see, this is not at all enough to allow us to deduce its properties by simple
addition.

当然,我今天仅能够探讨到我想要你们到达的这一点。你们仅是应该知道,当我们提到两个其他的拓扑图型的结构,分别是克莱因瓶,我已经跟你们显示,它是由两个莫比斯环带缝接在一块所组成。你们将会看出,这根本不足个让我们用简单的加法,推论出它的属性。

On the other hand, the torus, which is still another structure. We can, starting from
these primary definitions about the $ conceive of what use there could be to us these
two other (31) structures of the Klein bottle and the torus in establishing fundamental
relationships which will allow us to situate with a rigour which has never been
obtained up to now in ordinary language, in so far as ordinary language ends up with
an entification of the subject which is the veritable knot and key to the problem.

在另一方面,这个突起的形状,那又是另外一种结构。从这些原初的定义,关于这个被划槓的主体所构想,这个克莱因瓶及突起形状的两个其他结构,对于我们能够有什么用途,当它们建立基本的关系,容许我们严谨地定位,在普通的语言里,迄今哪一个从来没有被获得。因为普通的语言结果都会有一种主体的实体化,那是可验证的环结,及问题的解答。

Every time that we speak about something which is called the subject we make a
“one” of it. Now what it is a matter of conceiving, is precisely the following, it is that
the name of the subject is the following. The one to designate it is missing. What
replaces it? What comes to fulfil the function of this “one”?

每一次我们谈论关某件被称为主体的东西,我们就将它定为「一」。现在,问题是如何构想,确实就是底下,主体的名字就是底下。这个指明它是欠缺的这个名字。是什么代替它?是什么前来实现这个「一」的功用?

Several things, undoubtedly, but if you only see several very different things, the o-object on the one hand, for example, the proper name on the other fulfilling the same function, it is quite clear that you can understand nothing either about their distinction – for when you see that they fulfil the same function one believes that it is the same thing – or about the very fact that they fulfil the same function.

无可置疑的,有好几件东西,但是你们仅看见好几个不同的东西,在一分面是这个客体,譬如,在另一方面,这个专有名字,实现了这个相同的功用。这是显而易见的,关于它们的区别,你们也根本就不能够了解。因为当你们看到,它们实现相同的功用,我们相信,那是相同的东西。或是关于这个事实:它们实现这个相同的功用。

It is a matter of knowing where there is situated, where there is articulated this $, the
divided subject as such. The torus on the one hand, a figure so exemplary that already
in the year of my seminar on identification that, except for the fresh ears who came
that year, nobody listened to what I was in the process of saying, because people had
other worries.

问题是要知道这个被划槓的主体在哪里被表达,这个被分裂的主体本身。一方面是这个突起形状,一个如此典范的图形,在我「论认同」研讨班的这一年,除了新参加的听众,他们那年才来,没有人倾听我正在说,因为人们都有其他的忧虑。

(32) In my seminar on identification, I showed the exemplary value that the torus has
in linking, in a structurally dogmatisable way, the function of demand and that of
desire properly speaking at the level of the Freudian discovery, namely, of the neurotic and of the unconscious. You will see its exemplary functioning.

在我论认同的研讨班,我显示这个突起形状所具有的典范的价值,以一种结构上是武断的方式,它连接要求的功用与欲望的功用。适当来说,是处于弗洛伊德的发现的层次。也就是说,属于神经症与无意识的层次。你们将会看出它作为典范的功用。

………… what can be structured of the subject is entirely linked, structurally, to the
possibility of the transformation, of the passage of the structure of the torus into that
of the Moebius strip, not the true of the subject, but the Moebius strip in so far as it is
divided, in so far as once it is cut through the middle it is no longer a Moebius strip. It
is something which has two faces, a front and a back, which roll up upon themselves
in a funny way, but which, as in the model that I brought you today to enable you to
see it in a tangible fashion, becomes applicable onto this thing which is usually called
a ring and which is a torus.

作为主体的架构的内涵,在结构上完全地被连接到这个转变的可能性,突起形状的结构通过进入莫比斯环带。这对主体而言,并非是真实,但是对于莫比斯环带是真实。因为它是分裂的,因为一旦莫比斯环带从中间被剪开,它就不再是莫比斯环带。它是某件拥有两个表面的东西,一个正面及一个背面。它们滑稽地堆叠在一块,以一种具体的方式。它可应用到这个件通常被称为环结的东西,那也是一种突起形状。

This structural connection allows there to be articulated in a particularly clear and
obvious fashion certain relationships which ought to be fundamental for the definition
of the relationship of the subject of demand and of desire. In the same way it is only
at the level of the Klein bottle that there can be defined the original relationship that is
established starting from the moment there enters into function in language the word
and the (33) dimension of truth. The non-symmetrical conjunction of the subject
and of the locus of the Other is what we can illustrate, thanks to the Klein bottle.
With these simple indications, I will leave you and give you an appointment for the
first Wednesday in January.

这个结构的连接容许某些关系,以特别清楚而明显的方式被表达。这些关系应该是基本的,对于要求与欲望的主体的这个关系。同样地,仅是在克莱因瓶的层次,会有原初的关系被定义。这个原初的关系被建立,从在语言里,这个文字与真理的维度发挥功用的时刻开始。主体与大他者的轨迹的这个非均称的连接,就是我们能够说明的东西。由于这个克莱因瓶。使用这些简单的指示,我将告一段落,跟你们约定一月的第一个星期三。

For the fourth Wednesday of this month, I would urgently ask anyone in this assembly who in whatever manner is interested in the progress of what I am trying to make advance here, to kindly, whatever may be the fate that I may reserve for the
information sheet that he will have to fill up, namely, that whether I invite or do not
invite him to the fourth Wednesday to consider that it is not because of his merits or
his lack of merit that he is invited or not.

这个月底第四个星期三,我将迫切地要求这个会场的任何人,以任何方式,他们对于我在此正在提出的东西的进展感到興趣,请他们填写我保留给他们的参加申请单,不管结果如何。无论我邀请或是没有邀请他们,到第四个星期三。希望他们体谅,他的受邀请与否,并无关他们本身的优点,或欠缺优点。

People are or are not invited for reasons which are the same as those that Plato defined for the functioning of politics, namely, which have nothing to do with politics but which are rather to be considered as those of the tapestry worker.

人们受到邀请或没有受到邀请,理由跟柏拉图定义的政治的功用的理由相同。换句话说,它们跟政治没有丝毫关系。相反地,这些理由应该被认为是跟织锦工人的理由相同。

If I have to have the threads of one colour and different threads of another colour to produce a certain weave on that day, let me choose the threads. That I should do that this year as an experiment on each of the fourth Wednesdays is something that the totality of my listeners and all the more so in that they are the most faithful and all the more so that they may be really interested in what I am saying, ought in a way to leave to my discretion.

假如我必须拥有某种颜色的线,及另外一种颜色的不同的线,来产生那天的某种图案编织,让我选择这些线。今年,我应该那样做,作为一种试验,对于每一个第四个星期三。这是我的听众的整体性,而且是因为他们是最忠实的听众,他们对于我正在说的内容真的感到興趣。他们在某方面应该由我来考量。

(34) You will allow me then for the next fourth Wednesday to invite whomever I
please in order that the subject, the given subject of discussion, of dialogue which will
function on that day should be carried out in the best conditions, namely, among
interlocutors expressly chosen by me. Those who are not part of these on that
Wednesday should in no way take offence.

因此,你们容许我下一次第四个星期三,邀请我想要邀请的人。为了让这个主体,讨论的特定的主体,对话的主体,可以在那天发挥功用。让对话应该以最佳的情况被进行。换句话说,我自己仔细选择的对谈者。请那些星期四没有受到邀请的人,不要因此觉得受到冒犯。

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

Object 13

January 15, 2012

Object 13

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

(23) I will do it all the more easily because, in truth, I believe ……………………… if I
can believe the stylistic remarks which were brought to me by this great reader of
mathematical material who asked me to consult the text of Desargues, who was a
much greater stylist than Pascal, in order to see what we know very definitely from
other sources, the importance that the references to Desargues may have had for
Pascal, which would change the whole sense of his work.

我将会更加轻而易举地探究,因为事实上,我相信,,,假如我能够相信,这位数学资讯丰富的读者带给我的这些流行风格的谈论。他要求我参照德萨古的文本。德萨古是一位比巴斯卡更为伟大的风格主义者。为了看出我们从其他资源明确所知道的。提到德萨古代这些指称,对于巴斯卡可能具有重要性。那将会改变他的研究的整个意义。

In any case, it is clear that on this concentric, spherical structure, if the circle can be
everywhere, undoubtedly the centre is nowhere. In other words, it is obvious to
anyone that there is no centre for the surface of a sphere. This is the inconsistency of
Pascal‟s intuition.

无论如何,显而易见,对于这个同心圆的球形结构,假如圆圈到处都是,无可置疑的,没有地方是中心。换句话说,对于任何人都是显而易见,对于一个球形的表面,并没有中心。巴斯卡的直觉,有其不一致性。

And now the problem is posed for us of whether there cannot be, in order to explain
ourselves in terms not of images but perhaps of ideas, and which give you an idea of
where I am guiding you from, if at the outside of what I very intentionally called the
circle, and not the circumference, the circle means what you would ordinarily call in
geometry circumference, what one usually calls circle I will call disc or flap (lambeau), like earlier.

现在,我们被提出这个问题:为了不是用意象,而可能用观念的术语来解释为们自己,这会让你们想到,我正在从那里引导你。假如在我刻意所谓的圆圈的外贸,而不是在圆周,圆圈意味着,你们普通在几何学的圆周所称的东西。一般通常称为的圆圈,我将称为圆盘,或圆翼,早先那样。

What must there be on the outside in order to structure the subject, in other words, in (24) order that the cut from which there results the fall of the o-object should make appear, on something which was completely closed up to then and where then, nothing could appear in order to make appear …………………….. in what we require for the constitution of the subject, the subject as fundamentally divided.

在外面,我们必须要有什么,我们才能够架构主体。换句话说,为了让这个客体的掉落造成的切割,应该让它出现,为了架构主体在直到当时是完全封闭的某件东西之上,在那里,没有东西能够出现,为了让主体出现作为基本上是分裂的东西,在我们所要求作为主体的形成。

It is easy to make this appear, for it is enough for you to look at the way in which this circle is arranged, the way that I have retraced it, in order to see that if you conceive of this outline as empty, as I taught you to read this one as empty, it becomes very simply, and this is obvious, I think all the same that I have spoken to you sufficiently up to now about the Moebius strip for you to recognise it, it is the mounting, the framework, what allows you to see sustained and immediately intuitable, a Moebius strip.

很容易就让这个出现,因为这足够让你们观看圆圈被安排的方式,我曾经追踪它的方式,为了看出,假如你们构想这个轮廓,当著是空无。如同我教导你们阅读这个当著是空无。它会变成仅是显而易见的,我仍然认为,迄今我曾经充分地跟你们谈论,关于莫比斯环带,为了让你们体认出它。就是这种增加,这种架构,让你们看出一个莫比斯环带能够成立,立即可感受得到。

You see it here. Join, as I might say, with a thread, each of its edges. You will see it
being reversed and see being stitched at the level of the back what was at first its front.

你们在此看出。我不妨说,用一条绳线连接它的每个边缘。你们将会看出,它被倒转,并且看出起初是它的前面的东西,在背后的层次被缝合。

The Moebius strip has numerous properties. There is one major, capital one that I
have, I think, sufficiently represented in the preceding years, even to the extent of
having a pair of scissors here myself, I demonstrated to you, namely, that a Moebius
strip has no surface, (25) that it is a pure edge.

莫比斯环带拥有许多的属性。有一个我具有的主要的重大属性,我认为,在前几年,它充分被代表出来。我甚至在这里拥有一把剪刀。我跟你们证明,换句话说,一个莫比斯环带没有表明,那是一个纯粹的边缘。

Not only is there only a single edge to this surface of the Moebius strip, but if I split it in the middle there is no longer a Moebius strip, for it is the stroke of my cut, it is the property of division which establishes the Moebius strip.

莫比斯环带的这个表面不但仅有一个边缘,而且假如我在中央分裂它,它就不再是一个莫比斯环带。因为它是我的切割的动作。那是建立莫比斯环带的分裂的属性。

You can extract from the Moebius strip as many little fragments as you wish, there will always be a Moebius strip as long as some of the strip remains, but it will still not be the strip that you hold. The Moebius strip is a surface such that the cut which is traced in its centre is itself the Moebius strip.

你们能够从这个莫比斯环带,随你们高兴抽取尽可能多的小碎片,只要这条环带的某些部分保留,一个莫比斯环带总是存在。但是它将不会是你们拥有的环带。莫比斯环带是一个表面,在它的中心被追踪的这个切割,本身就是莫比斯环带。

The Moebius strip in its essence is the cut itself. This is how the Moebius strip can be
for us the structural support of the constitution of the subject as divisible. I am going
to put forward here something that is strictly speaking incorrect from the point of view of topology.

莫比斯环带的本质就是切割的本身。对于我们而言,这是莫比斯环带会上主体的形成作为可分裂的结构的支持。我将要在此提出某件东西,严格来说,从拓扑图形的观点来看,是不正确的。

Nevertheless, this is not going to worry us for I am caught between explaining something to you in an incorrect fashion or not explaining it to you at all;
here we have a tangible example of one of these subjective impasses which are
precisely what we base ourselves on.

可是,这并不会让我们感到忧虑,因为我被套陷在以不正确的方式,跟你们解释某件事情,或是根本就不跟你们解释。在此,对于这些主体的其中一个僵局,我们拥有一个实质的例子。这些主体的僵局确实是我们作为基础的东西。

Therefore I advance, having sufficiently warned you that in strict topological doctrine
this is incorrect. You can remark that my Moebius strip – I am speaking about the one
which is drawn on the mounting of this o-object, this mounting, as I told you, is
exactly a (26 ) spherical flap which is in no way distinguished from what I
demonstrated earlier in connection with the hole of Jiu Oun. For it to serve as a
mounting for a Moebius strip, the fact is that a Moebius strip radically changes its
nature as a flap or little portion by soldering itself to it.

因此,我提出,因为我曾经充分地警告过你们,从严格的拓扑图形的信条来说,这是不正确的。你们能够谈论,我的莫比斯环带—我正在谈论有关这个客体的逐渐增加,所画的这个环带,如同我告诉过你们,这个逐渐增加,确实是一种球形的振动。这个球形的振动根本无法区别,跟我早先所证明的关于这个「球形」的空洞。因为提供作为莫比斯环带的逐渐增加。事实上,莫比斯环带强烈地改变它的特性,作为一种振翼或跟它连接的一小部分。

What is involved is a text, tissue, coherence of a fabric, of something which is of such
a kind that having made in it the trace of a certain cut, two distinct heterogeneous
elements appear, one of which is a Moebius strip and the other is this flap equivalent
to any other sphere.

所牵涉到是一个文本,组织,某个织料的一贯性,某件属于如此一种在里面形成某种切割的痕迹,两个清楚不同的多样性元素出现。其中一个就是莫比斯环带,另外一种是相等于任何其他空间的这个振动翼。

Let us foment this Moebius strip in our imagination, it will come in this line necessarily (if the thing is plunged into three dimensions, this is my incorrectness), but it is an incorrectness which is not enough to set aside the problem of this fact that something which is indicated in the three dimensions by a re-crossing, an intersection which finally gives to the total figure of what is commonly called a sphere topped by a crossed bonnet or a cross-cap which gives what is drawn in red here, namely, what you can always imagine, of course in an incorrect fashion, plunged into the third dimension, as having at the bottom, and at the level of this base, of this chiasma, of this intersection, having the same cut.

让我们在我们的想象里,激起这个莫比斯环带。它将必然沿着这条脉络而来 ( 假如这个东西被投入到三个维度,这就是我的不正确)。但是这一种不正确并不足以将这个事实的问题搁置一旁。在这个三个维度,以一种重新交会指示的某件东西,这一种交会最后给予共同所谓的球形的整个图形,它的顶端是一个交会的软帽,或是两个维度的软帽。它给予在此用红色绘的图形。换句话说,你们总是能够想象,当然,以一个不正确的方式,被投入三个维度里。作为在这两个部分交会的这个底端,在这个基部的层次,拥有相同的切割。

(27) Every cut which goes to the level of what, schematically, is represented as this
line of crossing over, every closed cut which passes by this crossing-over, is
something which dissipates, as I might put it, instantly the whole structure of the
cross-cap, the chapeau croisé or again, the projective plane – as against the sphere
which does not lose its fundamental concentric structure as regards with any cut or
closed edge that you may describe on its surface. Here the cut introduces an essential
change, namely, the apparition of a Moebius strip and, on the other hand, this flap or
little portion.

从两个部分的交会而言,每个切割都到达这个交会线所代表的东西。每个封闭的切割,经由这个交会通过,它是某件扩散两个维度软帽的整个结构的东西。我不妨说,「chapeau croisé」,这个投射到层面。作为跟这个球形的对照。这个球形并没有丧失它的基本的同心圆的结构,关于任何的切割,或是封闭的边缘,你们在它的表面可能描述的。在此,这个切割介绍一个基本的改变。换句话说,一个莫比斯环带的魅影。在另一方面,这个振动翼或是这个小部分。

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

Object 12

January 14, 2012

Object 12

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

(19) In the place where, perhaps, people still write on a sheet of paper and where there is no need to replace it by cubes, it has still not vacillated. There must then be
something here as regards which I am not in the process of saying that it must be
concluded that the real has only two dimensions.

在这个地方,或许,人们依旧书写在纸上,没有必要用方块去替代它,它依旧没有摆动。在此,必须有某件东西。关于这个东西,我并不是正在说,它的结论是:实在界仅有两个维度。

I undoubtedly think that the foundations of the transcendental aesthetic are to be taken up again, that the bringing into play, even if only for probative purposes, of a two dimensional topology for what concerns the subject, would in any case already have this reassuring advantage, if we continued to believe mordicus in our three dimensions which, in effect, we have many reasons for marking our attachment to, because this is where we breath.

我无可置疑地认为,超验美学的基础应该被重新探讨。两个维度的拓扑图型的运作,作为主体相关的东西,即使仅是作为证明命题之用,无论如何,本来就会拥有这个令人安心的利益,假如我们继续固执地相信在我们三个维度,实际上,我们有许多理由标示我们跟它的亲密关系,因为这是我们呼吸的地方。

This would at least have the reassuring advantage of explaining to us the way in which what concerns the subject belongs to the category of the impossible. And that everything that comes to us through it, through the real, is inscribed first of all in the register of the impossible, of the realised impossible.

这至少会有令人安心的利益,用来跟我们解释,跟主体相关的东西,属于这个不可能界的范围。通过它,通过实在界,来到我们这里的东西,首先被铭记在这个不可能的铭记,这个被实现的不可能界。

The real, in which there is carved out the pattern of the subjective cut, is this real that we know well because we find it reversed in a way in our language every time that we really want to circumscribe what is involved in the real, the real is always the impossible.

实在界,就是我们清楚知道的这个实在界,在里面,主体的切割的这个模式被雕塑。因为我们发现在我们的语言里,它以某种方式倒转,每当我们真的想要界定实在界所牵涉到东西,实在界就是说不可能界。

Let us take up again then our sheet of paper. (20) We do not know what our sheet of paper is. We know what the cut is and that the one who has traced out this cut is suspended on its effect. “In three thousand years, how many men will know?”.

让我们再一次从事我们的这张纸。我们并不知道我们这张纸是什么。我们知道这个切割是什么。曾经追踪这个切割的这个人,被悬置在它的影响里:「在三千年内,有多少人会知道?」

It would be necessary to know what condition a sheet of paper must fulfil, what is
called in topology a surface, there where we have made holes, in order that this hole
should be a cause, namely, has changed something.

我们有需要知道一张纸必须实现怎样的条件,在拓扑图形的表面,什么被称为,在那里,我们曾经制作空洞,为了这个空洞应该是一个原因。换句话说,这个空洞改变某事。

Note that for what we are trying to grasp in what is involved about the hole, we are
not going to suppose another one. This one is enough for us. If this hole has had as
an effect to make fall a shoot, a fragment, well then it is necessary that what remains
is not the same thing, because if it is the same thing, it is exactly what is called a hole
or a sword-thrust in the water.

请注意,对于我们正在尝试理解的,在关于这个空洞所牵涉到,我们并没有要假定另外一个空洞。这个空洞对于我们就足够了。假如这个空洞曾经必须让一个发射,一个碎片掉落,充当一种影响,那么这是需要的,所剩余的并不是相同等事情。因为假如那是相同的事情,那确实是所谓的空洞,或是以剑刺水。

Well then if we trust the most accessible, the most familiar, the most fundamental
intuitive support, which it is not a matter moreover of deprecating either in terms of its historical interest or its real importance, namely a sphere – I apologise here to the
mathematicians – it is to intuition that I am appealing here because we only have a
surface into which one cuts and that I do not have to appeal to something which is
plunged, precisely into three dimensional space, namely, ………….

呵呵,假如我们信任这个最可接近,最熟悉,最基本的直觉的支持,而且那并没有贬低之意,无论从它的历史的興趣,或是它的真实的重要性。换句话说,一个球形—我在此对数学家道歉—我在此是诉诸于直觉,因为我们仅有主体切入点一个表面。我并没有需要诉诸于某件被投入的东西,进入这三个维度的空间,换句话说,,,

(21) What I simply mean in asking you to evoke a sphere, is to think that what
remains around the circle has no other edge. You can intuit this in the present state of
things only in the shape of a sphere, a sphere with a hole. If you reflect on what a
sphere with a hole is, it is exactly the same thing as the lid that you have just dropped.
The sphere has the same structure.

当我要求你们召唤一起球形,我的意思仅是要认为,环绕这个圆圈所剩余的东西,并没有另一个边缘。你们能够靠着直觉理解,在目前的事情的状况,仅是以一个球形的形状,具有空洞的球形。假如你们反思具有一个空洞的球形是什么。那确实是相同等东西,如同你们刚刚掉落的盖子。这个球形拥有相同的结构。

The fall that is in question in this fundamental drawing has no other effect than to
make re-emerge in the same place what has just been ablated. This does not allow us
in any circumstance to imagine something which is structural with respect to the
subject which interests us, is structural.

在这个基本的绘图里,受到置疑的这个掉落,并没有其他的影响,除了就是让曾经被勾销的东西重新出现在相同的地方。无论如何,这并并没有让我们想象某件具有结构的东西,关于我们感到興趣的主体的结构。

Since I must advance, I will only make a rapid allusion to the fact that Mr Brouwer, a
considerable personality in the modern development of mathematics, demonstrated
this theorem topologically, which, topologically, is the only one to give us the true
foundation of the notion of centre, a topological homology.

因为我必须提出,我仅有迅速地提出这个事实:布劳维是现代的数学发展一位重要人物,他用拓扑图形证明这个公理。就拓扑图形而言,这是仅有的一个图形给予我们中心的观念的这个真实的基础,一个拓扑图形的同质性。

There are two figures, whatever they may be, provided they have an edge, can, by a distortion of this edge be proved to be homeomorphic. In other words if you take a square, it is topologically the same thing as this circle because you have only to blow, if I can express myself in this way, inside the (22) square and it will swell up to be a circle.

有两个图形,无论它们是什么,只要它们有边缘,它们能够被证明是相同形状,凭借这个边缘的扭曲。换句话说,假如你们拿一个四方形,它在拓扑图形而言,跟着个圆形是相同的东西。因为我们只有吹一下,假如我能够以这种方式表达我自己,在这个四方形里面,它会膨胀成为一个圆形。

And, inversely, you give some hammer blows to this circle, to this two-dimensional circle, you give a two dimensional blow of a hammer also and it will become a square. It has been proved that this transformation, however it may be carried out, leaves at least one fixed point.

倒转过来说,对于这个圆形,对于这两个维度的圆圈,你们用锤子给予打击。你们用锤子给予两个维度的打击,它会成为一个四方形。有人曾经证明,这个转变,无论它如何被执行,至少会留下一个固定的点。

Where? A more astute thing that is less easy to see immediately – even though already
the first thing is not so easy – or an odd number of fixed points. I shall not go any
further into this.

在哪里?一个更加实际的东西,它比较不那么容易一下子就看出—即使第一件东西,并不那么容易—或是一些固定点的奇数。我将不再继续再探究。

I want simply to tell you that at this level of the structure of the surface, the surface is,
as one might say concentric. Even if we go by the outside, I mean intuitively, to see
what is connected up at the level of this edge, what is involved is a concentric
structure.

我仅是想要告诉你们,在这个表面的结构的层次,这个表面上,我们不妨说是同心圆。即使我们从外面看出,我是指直觉的方式,在这个边缘的这个层次,是什么被连接起来,所牵涉到的是一个同心圆的结构。

I said a long time ago, I am still more inclined to say it, but nevertheless I will not say
why, that Pascal was a very bad metaphysician. This “world of two infinities” , this
literary fragment which has been giving us a headache almost since we were born,
appears to me to be the most out of date thing that one could imagine. This other anti-
Aristotelian topos, where the centre is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere,
appears to me to be the most inexact thing possible, except for the fact that I will
easily extract from it Pascal‟s whole theory of anxiety.

我很久以前说过,我依旧倾向于说它,可是,我将不会说,巴斯卡是一位很糟的形上学家。「两个无限的世界」,这个文学的片断,几乎自我们诞生以来,就一直给予我们头痛。我觉得那是我们能够想象的最过时的东西。这个另外的反亚里斯多德的拓扑图形,在那里,到处都是中心,没有一个地方是圆周。我觉得这是最不确实的东西,除了这个事实:我轻而易举地从那里,抽取出巴斯卡的整个的焦虑理论。

雄伯说:
到处都是中心,没有一个地方是圆周。拉康表面说的是拓扑图形,换喻来说,就是我们众生的世界,哪一个生命的主体不是以自我为中心?自我膨胀地言说论断一切,何尝知道自己的圆周在哪里?每个主体各说各话,沟通,交流,与理解仅是自我的幻觉。巴斯卡的「两个无限的世界」,不是什么形上学,而实实在在就是你和我的两个内心的无限度世界。

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

Object 11

January 13, 2012

Object 11

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

But altogether essential to delimit this sort of trap-door of exteriority that I am trying
to define with regard to the function of the dust-bin in its relationships with writing.
This does not imply the exclusion of all hierarchy. Let us say that among the reviews
that we are surrounded by, there are more or less distinguished dust-bins. But in
looking carefully at things I have not seen any tangible advantages in the dust bins of
the rue de Lille as compared to those of the surrounding area.

关于这个垃圾桶的功用,及它跟书写的关系,我正在尝试定义的外在性的这种天窗,除掉限制是完全需要的。这并不意涵要排除所有的阶层。容我们说,在充斥我们四周的评论,有些是显而易见的垃圾桶。但是当我仔细观看事情时,我并没有在评论我的分析室的那些垃圾桶里,看到任何实质上的利益,跟周遭地区的那些垃圾桶比较起来。

So then let us take up our hole again. Everyone known that a Zen exercise has
something to do, even though people do not know very well what that means, with the
subjective realisation of a void.

所以,让我们再一次谈论我们的空洞。众所周知,禅定跟主体的体验空无有些关系,即使人们并不清楚知道,那是什么意思。

(15) And we are not forcing things in admitting that anyone, the average
contemplative, will see this figure, will say to himself that there is something like a
sort of high point which ought to have some relationship with the mental void that it is
a matter of obtaining and that this singular high point will be obtained in an
abruptness, succeeding a wait which is sometimes realised by a word, a sentence, an
ejaculation, even a rudeness, a cocking of the snoot, a kick in the backside. It is quite
certain that these kind of pantalooneries or clowning have no sense except with
respect to a long subjective preparation.

我们并没有正在强迫来承认,任何人,这个一般的沉思者,将会看出这个图形,他将会跟自己说,有某件像是高点的东西,应该具有某种的关系,跟精神的空无。问题是要获得,这个独特的高点,将会突然地被获得,跟随在一种等待之后。这个等待有时在一个字,一个句子,一个惊叹,甚至一个粗鲁动作,一个鼻子的倾斜,一个臀部的碰触。千真万确的,这种的哑剧演出或小丑化,并没有意义,除了就是主体的漫长准备。

But again. At the point that we have got to, if the circle, however empty it may be, is
to be considered by us as defining its holing value, if finding favour in it to depict
what we have approached by all sorts of convergences, about what is involved in the
o-object; that the o-object is linked qua fall (chute) to the emergence, to the
structuring of the subject as division is what represents, I must say, the whole point of
the questioning.

但是再一次。在我们已经到达的高点,假如这个圆圈,无论它是多么的空虚,应该被我们考虑,作为定义它的空洞的价值,假如在它里面找到受欢迎,用来描述为我们已经以各种汇集获得的东西。关于这个客体牵涉的东西,这个客体跟这个出现,跟主体的结构作为区分。我必须说,它所代表的这个问题的整个要点。

What is involved in the subject in our field is this hole, this fall, this ptose, to employ here a Stoic term the quite insoluble difficulty of which for the commentator when it is confronted with the simple categoren seems to me is this with respect to a lecton, another mysterious term, let us translate it (produisons-le) with all sorts of reservations and in the crudest fashion (16) which is certainly inexact by meaning, incomplete meaning, in other words a fragment of thought.

在我们的领域,主体牵涉的东西,就是这个空洞,这个掉落,这个转移。在此,运用一个禁欲主义的用词,这个完全无法解决的困难。对于评论者,当它跟这个简单的「分类」。这是关于另外一个神秘的术语「lecton」,让我们将它翻译为「produisons-le」,它带有各种的保留,粗略的方式,意义确实不精确,不完整的意义,换句话说,思想的碎片。

One of these possibilities, fragment of thought is ………….. Commentators, of course,
caught by the incoherence of the system do not so much miss the relationship by
translating it as subject, logical subject, since it is a matter of logic at this level of
Stoic doctrine, they are not wrong. But we can recognise in it the trace of this
articulation of something which falls with the constitution of the subject. Here is
something that I believe we would be wrong not to be comforted by.

其中一个可能性,思想的碎片,就是评论者,当然,他们被这个系统的不连贯陷住。他们并没有错过这个关系,他们将它翻译为主体,逻辑的主体。因为在禁欲主义信条的层次,这是逻辑的问题。他们并没有错误。但是我们能够在里面体认出某件东西的这个表达的痕迹。这个东西随着主体的形成而掉落。在此有某件东西,我相信,假如我们不接受它的抚慰,我们就错了。

So then are we going to be content with this hole? A hole in the real, that‟s the
subject. A little facile. We are still here at the level of metaphor. We might find here
however, by pausing for a moment, a precious indication, notably something that is
altogether indicated by our experience which could be called the inversion of the
function of the Euler circle, we would still be in the field of the operation of
attribution.

因此,我们将要满足于这个空洞吗?一个实在界的空洞。那就是主体,一个小小的表明。我们在此依旧处于比喻的层次。可是,暂时逼迫一下,我们在此可能发现一个珍贵的指示,显而易见是我们精神分析精验完全指明的东西,可以称之为欧乐数学圆圈的功用的倒转,我们依旧处于给予属性的运用的领域。

We would rejoin here the necessary path to what Freud defined as the
Bejahung first of all which alone makes the Verneinung conceivable, there is the
Bejahung, and the Bejahung is a judgement of attribution. It does not prejudge
anything about existence, it does not tell the truth about the truth. It gives a start to
the truth, namely something that will develop …………. as for (17) example, the
qualification, the quiddity which, moreover, is not quite the same thing.

我们在此将重新加入这条必须的途径,这是弗洛伊德首先定义为「肯定」。仅有这个肯定使得这个「否定」,让人能想象。这个「肯定」是存在的,这个肯定是属性的判断。它并没有给予存在的任何东西具有特权。它并没有说出有关真理的真理。它给真理一个开始,换句话说,某件将会发展的东西。譬如,品质跟特质并不完全是相同的事情。

We have an example of it in psychoanalytic experience. It is primary for our object
today. It is the phallus. The phallus, at a certain level of experience, which is
properly speaking the one analysed in the case of Little Hans, the phallus is the
attribute of what Freud calls living beings. Let us leave this to one side, if we do not
have a better designation.

在精神分析经验,我们拥有它的一个例子。对于今天我们的对象,这个例子具有典范性。那就是阳具。这个阳具,在精神分析的某种层次,适当地说,这弗洛伊德的「小汉斯」个案,被分析的那个阳具。这个阳具是弗洛伊德所谓的活生生的人物的属性。让我们将这个阳具放置一边,假如我们并没有更好地指称。

But note that if this is true, which means that everything that develops in the register of animism would have had as a beginning an attribute which only functions by being placed in the centre, by structuring the field at the outside and by beginning to be fruitful from the moment that it …………. ,namely, when it can no longer be true that the phallus is the attribute of all living beings.

但是请注意,假如这是真实,那意味着,在动物性的铭记,发展的一切,会有一个属性作为开始。这个属性的功用被放置在中央,将这个领域架构在外面,并且从那时开始具有成果。换句话说,当阳具是所有活生生的人物,这一点不再是真实。

I repeat, if I put forward this schema, I only did so in parenthesis. Let it be said in
passing that if my discourse unfolds from the parenthesis, from suspense and from its
closure, then from its often very embarrassed resumption, you should recognise there,
once again, the structure of writing.

我重复一遍,假如我提出这个基模,我仅是用括弧起来表达。容我们顺便这样说,假如我的论述从这个括弧展开,从这个悬置,从它的封闭,然后从它时常感到尴尬的重新开始,你们应该体会出,再一次,那里会有书写的这个结构。

Is this then, do we have here then, one of these summary reminders to which there
would (18) be limited the exhaustion of what we are trying to do. Certainly not. For
it is not a matter for us of knowing at the point to which we take the question, how the
signifier colours the real. That one can colour any map whatsoever on a plane with
four colours and that this is enough, even though this theorem is up to the present still
verified, even though it has not been proven.

因此这难道就是,我们在此难道因此拥有,其中一个结论性的提醒物。我们正在尝试去做的的全面性,将会被限制在那里。当然不是。因为问题不是这个时刻我们要知道,我们对它提出问题,能指如何渲染实在界。那个能指能够渲染任何地图,在具有四种颜色的层面。这样就足够了,即使一直到现在,这个公理依旧被证实 即使它没有被证明。

This is not what interests us today. It is not a matter of the signifier as a hole in the
real. It is a matter of the signifier as determining the division of the subject. What
can give us the structure of it?

这并不是今天我们感到興趣的地方。这并不是能指在实在界作为空洞的问题。这是能指作为决定主体的区分的问题。有什么能够给予我们有关它的结构?

No void, no fall of the o-object that a primordial anxiety is able to account for, and I
am going to try to make you sense it by topological considerations. If I proceed in this
way, it is because there is a quite striking fact which is that, as long as scribblers have
been around, and God knows that it is quite a while ago, even if one believes that
writing is a recent invention, there is no example that everything that is of the order of
the subject and of knowledge, at the same time, cannot always be written on a sheet of
paper.

原初的焦虑能够解释的这个客体,并不是空无,并不是掉落。我将尝试用拓扑图形的考虑,让你们明白它。假如我继续以这个方式前进,那是因为有一个相当引入注意到事实。那就是,只要记录者一直在这里,天晓得,那是很久以前,即使我们相信,书写时一种最近的发明。没有一样东西是属于主体与知识的层次,同时,它无法被书写在一张纸上。

I consider that this is a fact of experience that is more fundamental than the one that we have, that we might have, that we believe we have, of three dimensions. Because we have learned to make these three dimensions vacillate a little, it is enough
for them to vacillate a little bit for them to vacillate a lot.

我认为这是精神分析经验的一生事实。这个事实比我们拥有,我们可能会拥有,我们相信我们拥有这三个维度的这个事实,更加基本。因为我们已经学习到使这三个维度稍微摇摆一下。让它们稍微摇摆一下,就足够让它们摇摆许多。

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

Object 10

January 13, 2012

Object 10

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

It is in so far as these diverse forms of numerical expression are reproduced at
different moments of scansion, I am saying that in reproducing temporally we are not
even sure that it is the same circuit that is involved in this reproduction: we will have
to see. In other words, there are perhaps structural forms of this constitutive lack of
the subject which differ from one another, and that perhaps it is not the same lack
which is expressed in this negative number in connection with which one can indeed
say that the introduction by Kant of this number into the field of philosophy is really,
and when one returns to it, of a really heart-breaking character. Perhaps it is a great
merit that Kant tried such an introduction. The result is an unbelievable mess.

当这些各式各样的数字表达,在审视的不同时刻复制时,我是在说,当我们在时间上复制时,我们甚至不确定,这是相同的迴圈牵涉在这个复制里。我们将必须看出。换句话说,或许有主体的这个结构性欠缺的结构的形式,互相不同。或许,这并不是相同的欠缺被表达,在这个负数。关于这个负数,我们确实能够说,康德对于这个数字的介绍进入哲学的领域,当我们回到它时,那确实是一个令人伤心的特性。或许,康德尝试这样的介绍,是值得赞赏的。结果是难以置信的混乱。

(11) Thus it is perhaps not the same moment of the structural lack of the subject which is supported, I am not saying here is symbolised, here the symbol is identical to what it causes, namely the lack of the subject. I will come back to it. At the level of lack there has to be introduced the subjective dimension of lack and I am astonished that no one has remarked in the article by Freud on fetishism the use of the verb vermessen and one can see that in its three uses in this article he designates the lack in the subjective sense, in the sense that the subject misses out.

因此,或许这并不是受到支持的主体的结构性欠缺的相同时刻。我并不是要说,在此被象征,在此这个象征认同于它引起的东西。换句话说,主体的欠缺。我将会回头谈论它。在欠缺的层次,欠缺的主体的维度必须被介绍。我很惊奇,没有曾经在弗洛伊德谈论物神的文章,注意到「观测」这个动词的使用,我们能够看出,在在这篇文章,它的三个用途里,他指明这个欠缺,以主体的意义,主体失落的意义。

We are brought then to this function of lack in the sense that it is linked to this
original thing which, being called the cut, is situated at a point where it is writing that
determines the field of language.

我们因此被引导到欠缺的功用,因为它跟这个原初的东西息息相关。这个东西被称为欠缺,被定位在一点,在那里,书写决定语言的领域。

If I was careful, I mean, to write Function and field of speech and language it is
because function refers to the word and field to language. A field has an altogether
precise mathematical definition.

假如我仔细,我的意思是,书写「言说与语言的功用跟领域」,那是因为功用提到语言这个字及领域。领域拥有一个完全确实的数学的定义。

The question was posed in the first part of an article which appeared this week, I believe, in any case it was this week that I received its delivery by someone who is very close to some of my listeners and who introduces with a vivacity, a crispness, a vitality which really gives it an inaugural importance this question of the (12) function of writing in language.

这个问题被提出,在一篇文章的第一部分。我相信这篇文章这个星期出现,无论如何,这个星期,我收到某人寄给我这篇文章。他跟我的一些听众很熟识,他興高采烈,简单扼要地介绍。这种方式确实给它一种引导的重要性,对于在语言里书写的这个功用的问题。

He highlights in a fashion which I must say is definitive, irrefutable, that to make of writing an instrument of what is, of what lives in the word is absolutely to fail to recognise its true function.

他以某种方式强调,我必须说,这种方式是明确的,不可反驳的。解释书写为一种实质内涵的工具,生活中文字里面的工具,绝对没有办法体认它的真实的功用。

That it must be recognised elsewhere is structural to language because of something
that I indicated sufficiently myself, if only in the predominance given to the function
of the unary trait in identification so that I do not have to underline my agreement on
this point.

它必须在某个其他地方被体认,是语言的结构,因为我自己充分地指出某件东西,即使是指明给予认同这个独特的特征的功用。所以我并不需要强调我对于这一点的同意。

Those who attended my former seminars, if they still remember something about what
I said, may remember the value given to something, something in appearance so out of date and uninterpretable as the discovery made by Sir Flinders Petrie about
predynastic potsherds, namely, long before the foundation of the Phoenician alphabet,
precisely of the signs of this alphabet which is supposed to be phonetic which were
there obviously as a trade mark.

那些参加我以前的研讨班的人,假如他们依旧记得某件东西,关于我所说的话,他们可能记得给予某件东西的价值,在外表上,某件东西如此的过时,如此的无法解释。如同弗林得、培瑞所做的发现,关于这个世纪之前的古陶器,换句话说,远在菲尼基人的字母被创造之前。那确实是这个字母的各种符号。这个字母应该是语音,这些符号当时显而易见识充当商标。

And on this point I stressed the fact that we must at least admit, even when it is a question of writing that is supposed to be phonetic, that the signs came from somewhere, and certainly not from the need to signal, to code phonemes. Indeed everyone knows that even in a phonetic writing they code nothing at all.

在这一点,我强调为每至少必须承认的这个事实,即使书写的问题被认为是语音,这些符号来自某个地方。确实地,并不是来自这个符号的需要,来自符码音素的需要。的确,众所周知,甚至在语音的书写,他们并没有将任何东西符码化。

(13) On the contrary, they express remarkably well the fundamental relationship that
we put at the centre of phonematic opposition in so far as it is distinguished from
phonetic opposition. These are crude things, which are really way behind when
compared to the precision with which the question is posed in the article that I told
you about.

相反地,它们相当明显地表达这个基本的关系,我们放置在语素的对立的中心。因它不同于语音的对立。这些都是简陋的东西。它们确实是老早以前的东西,跟我告诉你们的这篇文章,问题被提出的精确性相比。

It is always very dangerous moreover to give references. You have to know to whom.
Naturally those who will read this will see put in question certain oppositions such as
that between the signified and the signifier. It goes as far as that and they will see
there perhaps some discordance where in fact there is none.

而且,给予指称总是非常危险的。你必须知道你给予谁。当然,那些将会跟我们阅读的人,将会质疑某些的对立,譬如,所指与能指之间。它运作到那个程度,他们将会看出某些的不协调,事实上,根本就没有。

On the other hand, who knows, it may encourage them to read one or other earlier or later article. There is always something very delicate in this always fundamental reference that a signifier refers on to another signifier.

在另一方面,天晓得,那可能会鼓励他们阅读某篇更早或更晚的文章。总是有某件东西非常脆弱,在这个总是基本的指称,一个能指提到另外一个能指。

To write and to publish is not the same thing. That I write even when I speak is not in
doubt. So then why do you not publish more? Precisely because of what I have just
said. One publishes somewhere.

书写与出版并不是相同的事情。甚至当我在言说时,我在书写,这是无庸置疑的。那么,为什么你不出版更多东西?确实是因为我刚刚所说的。我们在某个地方出版。

The fortuitous, unexpected conjunction of this something which is a writing and which has thus close relationships with the o-object gives to every disunited conjunction of writing, the appearance of a dust-bin.

这个某件东西的偶然地意外地结合,是一种书写。它因此有密切的关系,跟给予每个分开的书写的结合这个客体,一个垃圾桶的外表。

Believe me, at the early morning hour that I come home, I have a considerable experience of dust-bins and of those who busy themselves with them.

请相信我,在我回家的大清早,我有一个相当的经验,对于这些垃圾桶,以及那些忙碌于它们的人。

There is nothing more fascinating than these nocturnal individuals who snitch something or other whose usefulness it is impossible to (14) understand. I have been asking myself for a long while why such an essential utensil had so easily kept the name of a prefect, to whom the name of a street had already been given and which would have been quite enough to commemorate him.

最令人著迷的,莫过于那些夜间的个人。他们偷窃了某件难以了解有什么用途的东西。我长久以来曾经一直询问我自己,为什么一件有用的器皿如此容易保存一位行政长官的名字。他们被给予一条街道的名字,那个东西本来就足够纪念他。

I believe that if the word dust-bin (poubelle) has come to fit in so well with this utensil, it is precisely because of its relationship with publication (poublication)

我相信,假如垃圾桶这个字词,跟这个器皿搭配得那么贴切。那确实是因为它跟出版的这个关系。

To come back to our Chinese, you know, I do not know whether it is true but it is
edifying, one never puts in the dust-bin a piece of paper on which a character has been
written. Pious people, who are supposed to be cheerful because they have nothing
else to do, collect them and burn them on a little ad hoc altar. It is true. Si non e vero e bello.

回到我们的中文字,你们知道,我并不知道,是否这是事实,但是这是具有启示性。我们永远不会将一张书写文字的纸张放在垃圾桶里。虔诚的人被认为是令人愉快的,因为他们没有其他事情可做,就去收集它们,放在特制的祭坛上焚烧。这是确实的。什么意义也没有。

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

Object 08

January 9, 2012

Object 08

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 15 December 1965

Today you are not being spared drawings and cuts. To be strict even, I was careful to
put on the board on the top left-hand side the one which corresponds to the reminder
that I gave the last time of what I had given at the end of my first year here as the
schema for alienation.

今天,你们还是免不了这些图形及切割。甚至严格说,我小心翼翼地在左边的黑板上,书写上对应于这个提醒的东西。那是我上一次给予,对于我第一年结束我曾经给予,作为异化的基模。

Let us say that alienation consists in this choice which is not really one and which of
two terms forces us to accept either the disappearance of the two or a single one
mutilated.

让我们说,异化在于这个选择,那并不确实是一种选择。在这两个术语当中,这种选择强迫我们接受,要就是这两个术语的消失,要不就是一个被切除。

To enjoy the truth, I said, is the true aim of the epistemophilic drive in which there
escapes and vanishes all knowledge as well as the truth itself. To save the truth, and
in order to do this not to want to know anything about it, is the fundamental position
of science and that is why it is science, namely, a knowledge in the middle of which
there is displayed the (2) following hole that the o-object, here marked by taking
support from an Eulerian convention as representing the field of intersection of truth
and of knowledge. It is clear that I raised more than one objection to these Euler
circles on the plane of their strictly logical utilisation and that in fact, here, their usage
is in a way metaphorical.

我不妨说,享受真理就是认识论驱力的真实目标。在这个认识论驱力里,所有的知识及真理的本身会逃离及消失。为了拯救真理,为了这样做,不想要知道有关真理的一切,这是科学的基本立场。那就是为什么这就是科学,换句话说,一种知识。在这个知识当中,底下的空洞被展示出来。这个小客体,在此被标示为从从欧乐数学的传统获得支持,作为代表真理与知识的交会的领域。显而易见的,我提出不仅是一种反对,对于欧乐的数学圆圈,这它们被作为严格来说是逻辑运用的层次,事实上,它们的用法在某方面仅是比喻。

These are precautions that should be taken. You must not think that I think that there
is a field of truth and a field of knowledge. The term field has a precise sense that we
will perhaps have an opportunity of retouching today.

这些是一些应该被採取的预警。你一定不要认为,我认为有一个真理的领域及一个知识的领域。领域这个术语有一个明确的意义,我们或许今天拥有一个机会重新探讨它。

This use of the Euler circles is therefore to be taken with reserve. I note this because
over against this reserve that I have just made, you are going to see me today taking
support from, to say certain shapes does not really express what is involved, cut is
closer; signifier, this is what is involved, writing, why not?

欧乐数学圆圈的这个使用,因此应该被带著保留地接纳。我注意到,因为对抗著我刚刚所做的这个保留,你们今天将要看到我从能指获得支持,仅是说出某些的形状,并没有确实表达所牵涉到东西,切割是更加靠近。能指,这就是所牵涉的东西,就是书写,有何不可呢?

In advance then I ask you to note that their decisive importance is to be taken in a
quite different sense to a sense of meaning, as what represents the circle in the Euler
sense here which, in short, is designed to show us how there is included a certain
extensive and comprehensive conceptualisation in what I am showing you in the
centre of these figures that I brought along for you today, something which has been
traced out by a Buddhist (3) monk who is called by the name that I put there on the
board in its Japanese phonetics, since Jiu Oun was Japanese.

因此,事先我要求你们注意,他们决定性的重要性应该以一种跟正式的意义完全不同的意义来接纳,作为欧乐数学圆圈的的代表。总之,这被设计用来跟我们显示,有某种的延伸及全面性观念,在我正在跟你们显示,在这些图形的中央,今天我带给你们的。某件曾经由佛教和尚追踪的东西。他的名字我用日本的拼音,将它书写在黑板上。因为酒泉和尚是日本人。

Jiu Oun, as one of my faithful friends here today was kind enough to tell me, Jiu Oun
lived between 1714 and 1815. He entered a Buddhist “order” – as I might put it – at
the age of fifteen years and you see that he remained there until an advanced age. His
work is considerable, and I will not tell you about the original foundations which still
carry his mark; in order to give you an idea, for example, of his activity, it would be
enough to evoke, for example, that a Sanskrit study manual, considered today to be
fundamental, comes from him, even if not entirely from his hand and that it contains
no less than a thousand volumes. Which means that he was not a lazy man.

酒泉,如同今天在此的我的一位忠实的朋友,他很好心地告诉我,酒泉生活在1714到1815年间。他进入一间佛教的僧院—我不妨这样说—在十五岁时,你们看出,他始终在那里,直到老年。他的著作很多,我就不告你们关于具有他的标志的那些原创的基础,譬如,为了要让你们了解他的活动。譬如,我只有引述,有一本梵语的研究手册,今天被认为是基本的,就是从他而来。甚至并不完全是他亲笔所写。那包括有一千册之多。这意味着,他并不是一个懒惰的人。

But what you see here is typically the trace of this something which, I would say, is
the high point of a meditation and is not unrelated at least in appearance to what is
obtained from some of these exercises, or rather of these encounters, which are staged
out on the path of what is called Zen.

但是你在此看到的,典型是这种某件东西的追踪。我不妨说,这个东西是一个沉思的高潮。至少在外表上,跟从这些运用,或这些遭遇所获得的东西,不无关系。这些遭遇被展现出来,沿着所谓的禅的途径。

I would have some scruples in advancing this name here, namely, before an audience a part of which I cannot be sure of as regards the way in which I may be understood, to (4) advance without any precaution a reference to something which is certainly not a secret, which is everywhere to be found and which one hears being spoken about
everywhere.

我本来有些顾虑要在这里提出这个名称。也就是说,在这些听众之前。他们有些人,我并不确定,对于我的风格有所了解。我没有预先准备就提出一个名称,对于某件确实并不是秘密的东西。这个东西到处都可找到。我们到处都听到这个东西被谈论。

Zen does not represent something which can go so far as a betrayal of
confidence in the true sense, I cannot advise you too much to distrust all the
stupidities which are piled up under this heading. But after all no more than about
cybernetics itself.

禅并没有代表某件东西,从真实意义来说,甚至是一种信任的背叛。我要再三地劝告你们,不要信任在禅这个标题下累积的那些胡扯禅语。但是毕竟那仅仅是语言的网络。

I am forced all the same to say that this, which is traced in a brush stroke of which no
doubt it is not sure that we can appreciate the particular vigour which is, nevertheless,
for an experienced eye rather striking, this brush stroke is what is going to be
important for me, it is on it that I am going to fix your attention to support what I have
to advance today along the path that we have opened up.

我仍然被迫要这样说。在汉文的书法可被追踪出来的东西。无可置疑的,我们并不确的能够欣赏这种特别的活力。可是,对于有经验的欣赏的眼光,这是引人注意到。对我而言,这是书法是很重要。我将让你们的注意力集中在那个书法之上,为了支持我今天必须提出的东西,沿着我们已经开展的途径。

There is no doubt that it is here in the proper position that I define as being that of the signifier. That it represents the subject, and for another signifier, is sufficiently assured by the content of the writing which is here aligned and read like the Chinese writing that it is, this is written in Chinese characters: I will pronounce it for you, not in Japanese but in Chinese: Chi yen che [?], which means: “In three thousand years how many men will know? “

无可置疑的,就在这里,在我定义的这个适当的位置,作为能指的位置。能指代表主体,对于另外一个能指,这个能指充分地确的,由于书写的内容,被安排阅读像这个中文的书写,用汉文的文字来书写:我将跟你们拼音出来,不是用日语,而是用汉语:「Chi yen che」,意思是:「在三千年里,多少人知道?」

(5) Will know what? Will know who has made this circle. Who was this man whose
range I thought I ought first of all indicate to you between the most extreme, the most
pyramidal of science and a mode of exercise which we cannot fail to take into account
here as a background to what it allows us to describe here.

将会知道什么?将会知道是谁制造这个圆圈。这个人是谁?他的范围,我想我首先要跟你们指出,在最极端,最尖端的科学,及我们一定会考虑到的运作模式。在此它作为一种背景,容许完全没在此描述。

“In three thousand years, how many men will know” What is involved at the level of
this traced-out circle. I allowed myself in my own calligraphy to respond: “In three
thousand years, well before, men will know”……………………………………….. Well before three thousand years, and after all it can begin today, men will know, they will
remember, perhaps, that the sense of this drawing deserves to be inscribed in this way.

「在三千年内,有多少人将会知道?在这个被追踪的圆圈的层次,什么事情被牵涉到?我让我自己用书法来回应:「在三千年内,人们将会知道、、、」在三千年内,毕竟,它能够从今天开始,人们将会知道,他们将会记得,或许这个图形的意义应该值得用这个方式来铭记。

Despite the apparent difference, it is topologically the same thing. Imagine that this is
round, that what I called a circle is a disc. What I traced out here by hand is also a
disc even though it is in the shape of two lobes, one of which covers the other, the
surface is all of a block, it is limited by an edge which, by continual distortion can be
developed so that one of these edges overlaps the other, the topological
homeomorphism is obvious.

尽管这个明显的差异,在拓扑图形上,它是相同的事情。想象看,这是圆的,我所谓的圆,是一个圆盘子。我用手在这里所追踪的东西,也是一个圆盘子,即使它是以两个半叶组成的形状。其中一叶盖住另外一叶。表面都是一个方块。它受到边缘的限制,由于连续的扭曲,这个边缘能够被发展,这样其中一个边缘会重叠另外一个边缘。显而易见,这是拓扑图型的相同圆形的同质性。

What is meant by the fact, then, that I traced it out in a different way and that it is to this that I now have to draw your attention?

这个事实是什么意思? 我以不同的方式追踪出来的东西。我现在必须提醒你们注意这个。

(6) A drawing which I called a circle and not a disc leaves in suspense the question of
what it limits. In order to see things where they are traced out on a plane, what it
limits is perhaps what is inside, it is also perhaps what is outside.

我所谓的圆圈的一个图形,并不是一个圆盘。它将它所限制的问题保留在悬置当中。为了看待它们被追踪的层次上的东西,它所限制的,或许就是里面的东西。也或是是外面的东西。

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

Object 07

January 9, 2012

Object 07

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 8 December 1965

There is another position which is to enjoy (jouir de) the truth. Well then, that is the
epistemological drive. Knowledge as jouissance with the opacity that it brings with it in the scientific approach to the object, this is the other term of the antinomy.

还有另外一个立场,那就是要享受真理。呵呵,那就是认识论的冲动。知识作为生命的欢爽,具有它带来的不可理解性,由于它以科学的方法接近客体。这是真理之「镝」的另一个术语。

雄伯说

拉康所谓的「享受真理」,基本上的假设是:真理是一种生命力比多libidinal的快乐pleasure,与上帝这个女人作爱的大欢爽jouisance,而不是我的网友新雨所说的「真理是个大骗子」。所谓认识论的冲动epistemological drive,就是弗洛伊德所谓的「死亡本能」death instinct,或是拉康所说的「死亡冲动或驱力」death drive。这种认识生命真理的大欢爽jouissance,当我们凭借科学的方法,探讨作为人的生命的客体,也就是我们的身体,它本质上显现的我们理性思维无法理解的不可思议性,不可言说性opacity,拉康用化学元素「镝」这个术语,具有正反对立又兼蓄的特性来做比喻:生命与死亡互相对立,却又互相产生的悖论。

It is between these two terms that we have to grasp what is involved in the subject of
science. It is here that I intend to take it up again in order to take you further. By this
you should understand, to speak about this radical function.

在两个术语之间,我们必须理解在科学的主体会牵涉的东西。就在这里,我打算再一个从事它,为了要让你们更进一步探索谈论这个积极的功用。你们应该了解我这句话的意思。
雄伯说
拉康主张笛卡尔的「我思故我在」的主体,实实在在就是「科学的主体」object of science,使用科学方法的各种定理所意涵的主体,是理性意识的主体。换句话说,对于拉康,被标示为科学化的真理论述,要用高度的数学化来说明。这就是为什么拉康为了让精神分析理论正式化,使用各种数学公式的术语。

I have made nothing emerge yet about what is involved in the o-object, but you ought to sense that the same schema, precisely, that I have not reproduced here, the schema with two circles at the time when I depicted for you the function of alienation as such, remember the example: “ Your money or your life, liberty or death?”

关于这个客体所牵涉到,我并没有搬弄出什么新东西。但是你们确实应该感觉到,这个相同的基模。我在此并没有复制,这个带有两个圆圈的基模,在我跟你们描述的异化本身的这个功用之时。请记住这个例子:「要你的金钱?或是要你的命?要自由?或是要死亡?」

雄伯说
拉康这里所说的两个圆圈的基模,就是画两个圆圈交会,左边圆圈是实在界the Real主体的生命实存Being,右边圆圈是符号界the Symbolic大他者the Other的意义meaning,中间的交会部分vel是无意义地带non-being 。假如我们选择左边圆圈的生命实存Being,主体会消失aphanisis,我们丧失主体,它掉落到中间的无意义地带。假如我们选择右边圆圈意义Meaning,意义存活下来,但是丧失掉中间无意义的部分,换句话说,丧失主体生命展现的部分,也就是无意识的部分。换句话说,这就是这个意义的特性,当它出现在大他者的领域。人作为主体的能指的功用,生命实存会消失。

然后拉康再画两个圆圈的交会。左边圆圈是金钱,右边圆圈是生命,中间有一块交会区vel。假如我选择左边圆圈的金钱,那么右边的生命及交会区的金钱两者全部丧失,假如我选择右边的生命,那么我拥有生命,却没有金钱。换句话说,我拥有的被剥夺某件东西的生命。请问读者们,面对这种异化alienation的功用,金钱或生命,你们会选择哪一边?

哲学家黑格尔在精神现象学谈论主人与奴隶的选择,也被拉康用来画成两个圆圈交会的基模。左边圆圈是自由,右边圆圈是生命,中间有一块交会区vel。选择的问题是:你要自由?还是要你的命? Your freedom or your life! 假如他选择自由,他马上会丧失生命与自由。假如他选择生命,他会拥一个被剥夺掉自由的生命。这就是所谓「致命的因素」:我们大部分众生的选择,过著没有自由的奴隶般的劳碌一生。

另外,还有一种选择模式:你要自由?还是要死亡? Freedom or death! 因为有死亡的因素运作,就产生一种完全不同结构的效应。因为不管我选择哪一边,我会拥两者:自由与死亡。听过法国大革命的口号吗?「不自由,毋宁死!」Give me liberty or death!你不仅拥有选择工作的自己,也拥有选择死于饥饿的自由。也就是你在选择死亡之前,你拥有选择的自由。

(请参照拉康的精神分析四个基本观念 ,211-213页)

As I explained to you, the schema for alienation is a choice which is not really one in this sense that one always loses something in it. Either the whole, you enjoy the truth but who enjoys because you know nothing about it? Or you have, not knowledge but science and this intersection-object which is the o-object escapes you. That is where the hole is. You have this amputated knowledge. This is the point on which I will stop today.

如同我跟你们解释的,这个异化的基模是一种选择。这个选择并非是真实的选择,因为我们总是在里面损失某件东西。要就是整体,你们享受到真理,但是既然你们什么都不知道,是谁在享受真理?或者,你们拥有的并不是知识,而是科学以及这个交会的客体。你们无法理解的这个客体。这就是这个空洞所在。你们拥有的是被切割的知识。这就是我今天要告一段落的地方。

雄伯说:

「要就是整体,你们享受到真理,但是既然你们什么都不知道,是谁在享受真理?」拉康的这个问题问得很微妙。人作为我思故我在的科学的主体,并无法知道发生在我们自己身上的真理。我们仅有凭借信仰的激情从事选择。罗米欧与朱丽叶,林觉民与秋瑾,在激情奔放的时刻,并不知道他们选择时所享受到的真理!他们仅是真实而勇敢地实践他们选择的信仰。借用黑格尔在精神现象学的术语来说,他们是生命的主人master,而非奴隶slave。

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

精神分析的对象 06

January 8, 2012

Object 06

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 8 December 1965

(24) Is it simply the fact, that from a prejudice which is really unbelievable, we choose among all the qualities of the object simply the following: its size, to which we
subsequently apply measurement and people then ask where this comes from. From
Heaven, of course. “Everyone knows that number,” this at least was the way
Krodeker [?] expressed it, if I remember correctly …………….. “except for the whole
number which is a gift of God.”

难道仅就是这个事实,从一个匪夷所思的偏见,我们在众多数量的客体里,仅是选择以下:它的大小体积,我们随后给予测量。人们因此询问,这个大小体积从哪里来。当然从上天而来。「每个人都知道那个数目,除了整个数目是上帝的礼物」这至少是科罗德克表达它的话语,假如我记忆没错的话。

Mathematicians can allow themselves humorous opinions like that. But the question
is not there. It is precisely by remaining stuck at this notion that quantity is a property
of the object and that one measures it, that one loses the thread, that one loses the
secret of what constitutes the scientific object. What is measured by the ell of
something which is always something else, in the dimensions, and they can be
multiple, of the object as lack.

数学家总是容许他们自己表达像那样的幽默。但是这个问题并不是在那里。确实是由于卡陷在这个观念,数量是客体的一个属性。我们测量它,我们失去这个线索,我们失去形成这个科学客体的秘密。根据东西总是别的东西的这个延伸所测量的东西,在客体作为欠缺的这些维度上,他们有时是多重的。

And the thing is so little a simple one that what we have to see is that the true
experience that one has, on this occasion, is the following: namely, that number in
itself, is not at all a measuring apparatus and that the proof of this was given
immediately after the Pythagorean inspirations; it was seen that number could not
measure what it itself allowed (25) to be constructed, namely that it is not in a position to give a number, a number which is expressed in any kind of commensurable way, for the diagonal of a square which would not exist without number.

事情很少是简单的事情,我们必须看出的是,我们拥有的真实的经验,在这个场合,就是以下:换句话说,本身的那个数字,根本就不是一个测量的仪器。在毕达哥拉斯的灵感启发之后,马上就给予证据。可以看出,那个数字无法测量它自己容许被建构的东西。换句话说,它并没有给予一个数字的立场。这一个数字被表达,以任何可被测量的方式,作为一个四方形的斜线,假如没有数字,无法存在。

I am only evoking this here because what is interesting is that if number, for us, is to
be conceived as a function of lack, this, this simple remark that I made about the
incommensurable diagonal indicates to us what richness is offered to us starting from
there.

我在此仅是召唤这个,因为耐人寻味的是,假如对于我们而言,数字应该被构想成为一种欠缺的功用,我所做的这个简单的谈论,关于这个无可测量的斜线,跟我们指示著,从那里开始,怎样的丰富被提供给予我们。

For number furnishes us, as I might say, with several registers of lack. I specify, for
those who are not particularly interested in this question: a number described as
irrational, which is nevertheless, at least since Dedekind, to be considered as a real
number is not a number which consists in something which can be indefinitely
approached. It can only be plunged into the series of real numbers, precisely, by
making intervene a function which, not by chance, is called the cut.

因为数字供应我们好几个欠缺的铭记,如同我所说的。我跟那些对这个问题并不是特别感到興趣的人指明:一个数字被描述为无理数。可是,这个无理数,至少自从德得侃以来,应该被认为是一个实数。这个实数并不是在于某件能够明确被靠近的东西。它仅能被投掷进入这一连串的实数。确实地上,让一个系数介入。这个系数被称为这个切割,并非是偶然的。

This has nothing to do with a goal which keeps retreating as when you write
0.3333……, which is for its part a perfectly commensurable number. It is a third of
one. As regards the diagonal, it is known since the Greeks why it is strictly
incommensurable, namely, that (26) not one of its numbers is predictable up to the
very end.

这跟这个目标没有丝毫关系。这个目标一直撤退,当你书写0,333,,,就它本身而言,它是一个非常可以测量的数字。这是「一」的三分之一。关于这个斜线,自从希腊以来,它就被知道,为什么它绝对不可测量。换句话说,它的数字当中没有一个是可预测的,一直到最后。

The only interest of this is to allow you to envisage that, perhaps, numbers will furnish us with something very useful in order to try to structure what is involved for us, namely, the function of lack.

这个的唯一的興趣,是容许你拟想,或许,数字将会供应我们某件非常有用的东西,为了尝试给予结构给对于我们牵涉的东西。换句话说,欠缺的功用。

Here we are then before the following position: the Here we are then before the following position: the subject can only function by being defined as a cut, the object as a lack. I am speaking about the object of science, in other words, a hole, things going so far that I think I have made you sense that only the hole, in the final analysis, can act as what, effectively is important for us, namely, the function of material cause. Here are the terms between which we are going to have to tie a certain knot.

因此在此我们面临以下的立场:这个「我们在此」,在以下的立场前面:主体能够发挥功用,被定义为一种切割,作为欠缺的客体。我正谈到科学的客体。换句话说,一个空洞。事情发展到如此过分,以致于我认为,我已经让你们感觉到,追根究底,仅有这个空洞能够充当对于我们实际上是重要的东西,换句话说,物质原因的功用。在此是这些术语,我们将要绑某个环结在这些术语之间。

Since I was not able, today, to advance my remarks as far as I had hoped because of
the fact that things were not written out and since also, I cannot hope in a week, to
make at my discretion the necessary choice, I will conduct on the third Wednesday of
this month, exceptionally, the same open seminar to which you are all invited.
In order to punctuate, to highlight what is going to be involved I will make an
opposition.

因为我今天并不能够如我曾经希望地提出我的谈论,因为这个事实:事情并没有被书写出来,因为我无法在一星期之内,以我的谨慎,做必须要的选择。我将会在这个月底第三个星期三,破例地从事开放性的研讨班。你们全部都被邀请。为了中断,为了强调将会被牵涉的东西,我将会提出一种对立。

What relationship can be conceived between this o-object in psychoanalysis and this object of science as I have been trying to present it to you?

如同我一直尝试呈现给予你们的,在精神分析的这个客体与科学的客体之间,什么关系能够被构想?

(27) It is not enough to speak about the hole, even though all the same, of course, it
seems to me, at least for the sharpest among you, that the solution ought already to be
appearing to you, it has to be said, on our horizon.

光是谈论这个空洞是不足够的,即使我仍然觉得,至少对于你们当中感觉敏锐者,我必须说,在我们的展望视野,这个解决应该已经出现在你们面前。

The function of lack – I did not say the idea, be careful, we know how this idea caught Plato by the ankle and that he never freed himself from it – we see the function of lack emerging, undergoing the necessary escape (fuite) through the fall of the o-object and this is what these drawings that I brought today, and that I will bring back again the next time, are designed to let you put your finger on.

欠缺的这个功用—我并没有说这个观念,请小心,我们知道这个观念如何让柏拉图套陷住,他从来没有挣脱这个观念—我们看出欠缺点这个功用出现,经历必须要的逃避,通过这个客体的掉落。这就是我今天带给你们的这些图形。下一次我将再一次带回来。它们被设计就是要让你们理解。

Such a structure is necessary for a cut to determine the field, on the one hand of the subject as it is necessitated as subject of science and on the other hand, the hole where there originates a certain style of the object, the only one to be retained, the one which is called the object of science and as such can be a sort of cause over which I left a question mark the last time, is such, as it appears only the form of laws.

这样一个结构是需要的,为了让一个切割决定这个领域,在主体的这一方面,因为它作为科学的主体的必要性。在另一方面,某种客体的起源的这个空洞,这个唯一应该被保留的客体,被称为科学的客体。它的本身有时是一种原因。上一次,在这个原因之上,我留下一个疑问号?因为它似乎仅是法则的形式。

Or again, where can there be connected up this manifestly materialist aspect, through which science precisely can be designated. It is indeed in this knot of
the function of lack that there lies and there is concealed here the turning point of
what is in question. And what are we going to have at this point which is a point of
gap?

或者,这个明显是唯物主义的面向,在什么地方能够被连接?通过这个唯物主义的面向,科学确实能够被指明。确实就是这个欠缺的功用的环结,受到质疑的转捩点位在那里,隐藏在那里。在处于这个差距点的这个点,我们将会拥有什么?

(28) We saw it last year in connection with the Fregian genesis of the number one. It
is in order to save the truth that it must function. Saving the truth, which means not
wanting to know anything about it.

去年我们看到这个差距点,关于弗瑞秦对于这个数字「一」的开始。这个「一」发挥功用,是为了拯救真理。拯救真理意味着不想要知道真理。

雄伯说
最后一句话,「拯救真理意味着不想要知道真理」,谁能诠释? 这个悖论跟基督教的「不要试探你的神」有异曲同工之妙。要信就信,不信拉倒,别先试探上帝的存在,你才要相信上帝。佛教及道教好像也有「天机不可泄露」的箴言。命运的预先注定的真理是存在的,但是你若是事先知道,它会无法实现。要让真理获得验证的先决条件是:你不想知道。

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

精神分析的对象 05

January 7, 2012

Object 05

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 8 December 1965

What is the best thing he finds to give an idea of it to listeners who are supposed to be
relatively uninformed about what is involved in physics, since up to then they will
only have been taught by incompetents.

什么是他找到的最好的东西,将这个观念给予听众? 这些听众被认为是对于物理学的内容知识比较浅薄的。因为直到当时,他们仅是由能力较差者教导。

He imagines a highly strung little individual whom he calls Denis the menace, Denis, a danger to the public. He is given twenty eight little blocks, but since he is a savage, they are in platinum, indestructible, uncutable, incapable of losing their shape.

他想象一个过度紧张的小人物,他称之为「丹尼斯这位威胁者」,丹尼斯,对于公众的危险人物。他被给予二十八道小方块,但是因为他是一个狂暴之人,这二十八道小方块是白金铸成,无法毁灭,无法切割,不会变形。

The question is to know what Mammy is going to do every time that, in a properly
discreet way, namely, not an American Mammy, comes into her child‟s room and
sometimes finds only twenty three blocks, sometimes twenty two.

问题是要知道,母亲每一次将会做什么,她以小心翼翼地方式,也就是说,不是美国的母亲的方式,每次她进入她的小孩的房间,有时候只找到二十三个方块,有时找到二十二个。

(21) It is clear that these blocks will always be found, either in the garden, because
they have been thrown out the window, or in the difference of weight that one may
notice in a box which, of course, is not opened; or because the water in the bath has
risen slightly, but since the water in the bath is too dirty for the bottom to be seen it is
by means of this slight raising of the level that one comes to know where the blocks
have gone. I am not going to read the passage for you. I do not have the time. It is
sublime.

显而易见的,这些方块总是会被找到,要就是在花园里,因为它们被从窗户抛掷出了,要不就在可能会被注意到的不同重量的盒子里。当然,这些盒子并没有被打开,因为浴缸的水已经稍微满溢出来。但是因为浴缸里的水太脏,缸底无法看清楚。只有凭借水的稍微上升程度,我们可以知道方块跑去哪儿。我就不跟你们朗读这一段路。时间不够。真是令人叹为观止。

The author points out that one will always find the same constant number of blocks
with the help of a series of operations which consists in adding together a certain
number of elements, for example the height of the water divided by size of the bath,
by adding this curious division to something else which might be, for example, the
total number of blocks that remain. I hope you are following. Nobody is making
faces.

作者指出,我们总是会找到相同的固定数目的方块,凭借着一连串的运算。这种运算在于将某些的要素总加在一块,譬如,水的高度被浴缸的体积除。将这个奇特的除法增加到某件其他的东西上,例如,剩余的方块的总数。我希望你们就以下的方块。没有人扮鬼脸。

Namely, to do this thing, I tell you in passing, which is included in the least
scientific formula which is that, not alone does one add but one subtracts, that one
divides, that one operates in all sorts of ways with what? With numbers thanks to
which one adds, and without which there would be no possible science, one adds all
together the towels and the serviettes, the pears and the leeks, is that not so?

换句话说,没有人做这件事。我顺便告诉你们,这个除非被包括在最小的科学的公式里。这个公式是 我们不仅增加,而且我们减少,我们扣除,我们以各种的方式运作什么?我们用数目运作,由于这个,我们增加。假如没有这个,将不可能有科学,我们将手巾及餐巾,梨及葱总加在一块,难道不是这样吗?

(22) And what does one teach children when they begin to enter – I hope this is no
longer the way now but I am not so reassured – precisely in order to explain things to
them, one tells them the opposite, namely, that one does not add together the towels
and the serviettes, or the pears and the leeks which means, naturally, that they are
definitively barred from mathematics.

当小孩进来时,我们教导他们什么?我希望现在不再是这种方式,但是我并不那么确定—确实是为了跟他们解释事情,我们告诉他们相反的东西。换句话,我们并没有将手巾及餐巾,梨与葱总加在一块。当然,这意味着,它们很明确被禁止用数学运算。

Let us come back to our Feynman. This parenthesis will only lead you astray.
Feynman concludes: “Here is the example. One number is always going to emerge as
a constant: twenty eight blocks. Well now, he says, energetics is like that. Only there
are no blocks.”

让我们回头谈论我们的费曼。这个离题谈论仅是会让你们迷失方向。费曼的结论是: 「例如,一个数目总是会作为一个常数出现: 二十八个方块 。呵呵, 他说,精力能源就像那样。只是没有方块。

This means that this constant number which guarantees the fundamental principle of
the conservation of energy – I mean not simply fundamental but of which a simple
shakiness at the base is enough to throw any physicist into an absolute panic, this
principle must be preserved at any price, therefore it will necessarily be so since it will be at any price, it is the very condition of scientific thinking. But what does the
constancy mean here, that one always finds the same number?

这意味着,保证精力能源的保存的基本原理的这个常数—我的意思是,不仅是基本原理,而且在根数简单地动摇一下,就足够将物理学家弄的惊慌失措。这个原理必须不惜任何代价要保存。因此,它将必须总是那样,因为它将是不惜任何代价。这就是科学思想的条件。但是这个常数在此意味着什么?我们总是找到相同的数目吗?

Because that is the whole point. It is not simply a question of a number. That means that something which is lack as such – there is no block – is to be found elsewhere, in another kind of lack. The scientific object is passage, (23) response, metabolism (metonymy if you wish, but be careful) of the object as lack.

因为这就是整个重点。这不仅是一个数目的问题。那意味着,某件欠缺本身的东西—没有方块—应该在别的地方被找到,在另外一种欠缺。这个科学的客体,是客体作为欠缺的过程,反应,及新陈代谢 (你们也可以说是换喻,但是谨慎使用)。

And starting from there many things are clarified. We will refer to what last year we were able to highlight about the function of the one. Does it not seem to you that the first emergence of the one concerning the object, is that of the cave man, to please you, if these sorts of images still please you, who comes home where there is a little bit of food or a lot, why not, and who says: “there is one missing”.

从那里开始,很多事情被澄清。我们将提到去年我们能够强调的关于这个「一」的功用。你们会觉得,关于这个客体的这个「一」的第一次出现,是山顶洞人的出现,让你们喜悦一下,假如这种意象依旧让你们喜悦。山顶洞人回家时,有一些食物或许多食物,有何不可呢?他会说:「还欠缺一个」。

This is the origin of the unary trait: a hole. Of course one could take things much further and we will not fail to do so. Note that this proves that our cave man is already at the high point of mathematics. He knows set theory. He connotes: there is one missing. And his collection is already made. The truly interesting point is obviously the “one” which denotes. Here the referent is necessary. And the Stoics will be of service to us.

这就是单一特征的起源:一个空洞。当然,我们将事情探讨得更深入。我们将一定做得到。请注意,这证明,我们的山顶洞人已经是处于数学的这个高点。他知道集合理论。他暗示欠缺一个。他的收集已经被完成。真正有趣的是,显而易见,这个「一」指明出来。在此,这个指称是需要的。禁欲学派对于我们会有些帮助。

It is obvious that the denotation, here, is what? His word, namely the truth which for
its part opens up for us the hole, namely, why “one”? For what this “one” designates
is always the object as lacking. And what would then be the fecundity of what we are
told is the characteristic of the object of science which is that it can always be
quantified.

显而易见,这个指明出路,在此是什么?他的话语,换句话说,就话语而言,真理跟我们展开这个空洞。换句话说,为什么是这个「一」? 这个「一」所指明的,总是这个客体作为欠缺。我们所被告诉的丰富想象是,科学的客体的这个特征,它总是能够被量化。

雄伯说:
人作为单一特征unary strait的这个「一」one的主体,起源是空洞 the hole,这个「一」本质上是欠缺missing,禁欲学派the Stoics 又能够给予我们什么帮助?我的理解是:禁欲学派节制一切情欲,性欲,功名利禄,虚荣等世俗欲望,但并非什么都不欲望,而是欲望空无the void,欲望空无的真理。为什么?正如哲学家尼采Nietzsche在道德系谱系The Genealogy of Morals 的结语所说的:「人宁愿以空无为目标,也不能没有目标。」Man would sooner have the void for his purpose than be void of purpose.

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