可能不是類似 210h

可能不是類似 210h

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971

I will tell you how man, it is untranslatable, that is how it is, he is a good chap, made up of curious little turns of juggling and exchange between hsing and ming. It is obviously much too subtle for me to speak about it to you today, but I put it at the horizon, at the point, in order to tell you that this is where we have to get to, because in any case, this xin, is something that does not work out, that is underdeveloped; we really have to know where to put it.

我將告訴你們，人究竟如何，這是無法翻譯的，他究竟如何由「性」與「命」之間的交互出現及交換的奇異翻轉所組成，他真是個好傢夥。顯而易見的，此事過於微妙，讓我今天無法言說它。我將它擺放在遠處，在這個點，為了告訴你們，這就是我們必須到達到地方。因為無論如何，這個「性」是無法獲得結果的東西。那是尚未開發的地區，我們確實必要知道要將它擺放在哪里。

That it can mean nature, is not very satisfactory given the state that things are at
as regards natural history. This hsing, there is no kind of chance that we will find it in this thing that requires great cunning to get, to get a close hold of, which is called the surplus enjoying. If it is so slippery, that does not make it easy to get one‟s hands on it. It is all the same not, certainly not to this that we refer when we talk about
underdevelopment.

它能夠意味著「自然天性」的說法並沒有很令人滿意，假如我們考慮事情所處的這種狀態，關於自然界的歷史。這個「性」，我們並沒有這種機會找到它，這個東西需要聰明狡詰，才能獲得，掌握所謂的剩餘的享樂。雖然它是如此的滑溜不定，讓我們難於掌握，當我們談論到這個尚未開發的地帶，我們提到的，仍然不是這個。

I know well that by ending now, because time is passing, I am going to leave you perhaps a little bit in suspense. All the same, I am going to go back, onto the plane of metaphorical acting and to tell you how, because today that was my pivot, linguistics properly filtered, criticised, focussed, in a word, on condition that we make of it
exactly what we want and what linguists do, good God, why not take advantage of it?

我心知肚明，在此作為結束，因為時間快要沒有了，我將讓你們或許稍微留在懸疑當中。我仍然將會回頭談論，這個比喻演出的層次，然後告訴你們，語言學如何巧妙地被滲透，被批評。被專注，因為今天那才是我演講的軸心。總之，我們確實地解釋它，成為我們所需要，及語言家所做的，我的天，我們為什麼沒有利用到它呢？

They may happen to do something useful. If linguistics is what I was saying earlier, a metaphor that is deliberately fabricated in order not to work, this may perhaps give you ideas about what may well be for us the goal.

語言學家可能恰好做了某件有用的事情。假如語言學是早先我所說的樣子，一個刻意被建構的比喻，為了不要運作，這或許會你們明白，我們的目標是什麼。

From where we situate ourselves with Meng-Tzu and then some other people at his epoch who knew what they were talking about, because you must not confuse all the same underdevelopment with the return to an archaic state, it is not because Meng-Tzu lived in the 3rd Century before Jesus Christ that I am presenting him to you as a primitive mentality. I am presenting him to you as someone who, in what he said, probably (53) knew part of the things that we do not know when we are saying the same thing.

從我們定位跟孟子立場一致，在他的時代的有些其他的人，知道他們當時正在談論什麼，因為你們一定不要混淆所有的尚未開發地帶，跟回轉到思古之幽情。這並不是因為孟子生活在紀元前第三世紀，我現在正呈現給與你們，作為原初的精神典範。我呈現給與你們，是從他所說的話。作為某位可能略有所知的人，因為當我們說同樣的話時，我們並不知是什麼。

So then, this is what may serve to teach us with him to sustain a metaphor, not fabricated in order not to work, but whose action we suspend. It is here perhaps that we will try to show the necessary path.

因此，他所說的話，可以充當給予我們的教導，跟隨他維持一種比喻，並不是為了不要運作而被建構。而是它的行動被我們懸置。或許就是在此，我們將會嘗試顯示必需要的途徑。

I will remain there today for a discourse that might not be a semblance.

今天我將停留在此，探討可能不是類似物的真理論述。
13.1.71 I 71

雄伯曰：
我後來發現，“a discourse that might not be a semblance”大陸發譯為「可能不是偽裝的辭說」。

拉康被其他的語言學家批評對於語言學僅是比喻地使用make a metaphorical use of linguistics。對此批評，拉康坦然面對，以他的觀點，精神分析目前所要探索的目標是「尚未被開發」underdeveloped 的無意識的「真實界」，我們卻必須憑藉語言文字作為詮釋的工具，本來就是力有所不逮。能夠比喻地使用，其實就是差強人意了。何況，對照於宇宙及無意識界的浩瀚廣裘，語言學本身本來就僅能是一種比喻。問題是那些語言學家，連這一點自知之明都沒有！

可能不是類似 210gb

可能不是類似 210gb

孟子的盡心篇有「性」與「命」的學說：

口之於味也，目之於色也，耳之於聲也，鼻之於臭也，四肢之于安佚也，
性也，有命焉，君子不謂性也。

仁之于父子也，義之於君臣也，禮之於賓主也，智之於賢者也，聖人之於
天道也，命也，有性焉，君子不謂命也。1

拉康在 Seminar 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971 也提到孟子的「性 hsing」與「命 ming」。讓我們比較一下

You see this is how this is written. That can be read, in a classical French transcription sing. If you put an h in front – hsing – this is the English transcription, and the most recent Chinese transcription, if I am not mistaken, because after all it is purely conventional, is written like that: xing.

你們瞧，這就是它如何被書寫。那能夠被閱讀為古典的法文拼法「sing」，你們若是在字前頭加個「h」，變成「hsing」，那是英文拼法。而最近的中文拼法，被書寫成「xing」，假如我沒弄錯的話，因為它畢竟純粹就是傳統。

Naturally that is not pronounced xing, it is pronounced „sing. It is nature. It is this nature which you have been able to see I am far from ruling out of the affair. If you were not completely deaf, you were able to notice all the same that the first thing that was worth retaining in what I told you in our first talk, is that the signifier – I strongly insisted – can be found everywhere in nature.

自然，它並沒有被發音為「xing」，而是被發音為「sing」。這是自然特性。你們始終能夠明白，我絲毫沒有排除這個事物的自然特性。只要你們不是完全充耳不聞，你們仍然能夠注意到：在我們第一次談論，我所告訴你們的，值得保留的第一件東西，就是：能指在自然天性的每個地方都能夠被找到。我強烈地堅持這一點。

I spoke to you about stars, more exactly of constellations, because there is a star and a star; for centuries all the same that is what the sky is: it is the first feature, what is above, that is important.

我跟你們談論到星辰，更確實地說是星座，因為星星有幾十萬顆，幾世紀以來，天空仍然就是這個樣子。這是第一個特徵，天空的特徵，這點很重要。

It is a tray, a blackboard. I am reproached for using a blackboard. It is the only thing that remains to us to serve as a sky, my good friends, that is why I use it, to put on it what ought to be your constellations.

這是一個盤子，一個黑板。我因為使用黑板而受到譴責。這是唯一留給我們充當天空的東西，我的朋友，這就是為什麼我使用它，在它上面放置應該是你們星座的東西。

(51) So then, a sufficiently developed discourse. From this discourse the result is that all of you no matter how many of you there are, and whether you are from here or from the USA, it is the same thing, and even elsewhere, you are underdeveloped with respect to this discourse.

所以，這是一個充分發展的真理論述。從這個真理論述，結果是，你們所有的人，無論數目有多少，無論你們從這裏或從美國，都是同樣事情，甚至是在別處，關於這個真理論述，你們是尚未開發。

I am talking about this thing, this something by which people are interested but which is certainly what people speak about when they speak about your underdevelopment.

我正在談論到這件事情，人們感到興趣的這件東西，但這確定是，人們所談論的東西，當他們談論到你們的尚未開發。

Where is it to be situated exactly? What can be said about it? It is not doing philosophy to ask where it comes from, what is its substance. There are things in this dear Meng-Tzu, I do not see, after all, any reason to drug you, I really have no hope that you will make the effort to stick your nose into it, so then I will go moreover, why not, to what I have to set out in three stages, especially since he tells us extraordinarily interesting things.

它確實應該被定位在哪里？關於它，有什麼能夠被說？詢問它來自哪里，它的本質是什麼，並非是賣弄哲學。在這位可敬的孟子這裏，有些事情，我不明白為什麼，有些理由會讓你沉迷。我真的並不希望，你們耗費心力去探究它。而且，我將前進，有何不可呢？前進到我必須要開始的三個階段，特別是因為他告訴我們特別有趣的事情。

There is one thing, there is no knowing how it came out moreover, because it is made God knows how, it is a collage, this book of Meng-Tzu, things follow one another, as they say, and are not alike. Anyway! Alongside this notion of hsing, of nature, there emerges all of a sudden that of ming, the decree of the heavens.

有一件事情，而且我們不可能知道，它是如何發生。天曉得是如何，因為它被形成，這是一種拼貼，孟子的這本書。事情接續發展，而且互不相同，如他們所說。無論如何！跟「性」這個觀念並列，突然出現「命」的這個觀念，上天的命令。

13.1.71 I 69
Obviously, I could very easily stick with the ming, with the decree of the heavens, namely, continue my discourse, which means in short: that is how it is because that is how it is, one day, science will grow on our terrain.

顯而易見，我很容易就堅持這個「命」，換句話說，這個上天的命令。我繼續我的真理論述。總之，這意味著，因為這是它實際的情況，有一天，科學會在這個領域成長。

At the same time capitalism did its own thing, and then there was a chap, God knows why, heaven‟s decree, there is Marx who has, in short, ensured a rather long survival for capitalism.

同時，資本主義逕自發展，這樣就產生一種裂痕，跟上天的命令。天曉得為什麼，有位馬克思，總之，他曾經確定資本主義會長治久安。

雄伯曰：
這句話頗費解，馬克思不是反對資本主義嗎？是否有人懂馬克思？幫我解謎一下？

And then there is Freud who all of a sudden was disturbed by something which obviously became the only element of interest that still had some relationship with this thing that people had previously dreamt about and which was called knowledge. At an epoch when there was no longer the slightest trace of something which had a
meaning of this kind, he noticed that there was the symptom.

然後有位佛洛伊德，他突然受到某件事的困擾。顯而易見的，這件事成為他感到興趣的唯一的因素。這個興趣跟人們先前夢想的，以及所謂的知識的事情，有些關係。在人們絲毫不再在乎生命有何意義的時代，他注意到這是一種病徵。

雄伯曰：
拉康將孟子的「性」解釋為nature （自然天性），也就是能指能夠被找到的地方。那應該是在「象徵界」the symbolic。而「命」則解釋為the decree of the heavens （上天的命令）。那應該來自「無意識界」the unconscious 或「真實界」the real 的訊息signs。

他開始談天上的無窮星辰，再轉向在黑板上畫星辰受責備作比喻：天空何其廣裘，星座何其無限，猶如人在無意識的「真實界」，是片「尚未開發的領域」underdeveloped field。而拉康要說明它們，卻必須借助有限範圍的黑板或人的有限語言，以管窺天的無奈溢於言表。

然後，他談到人類科學對於這塊「尚未開發的領域」的展望，開始推崇佛洛伊德的貢獻：將在「象徵界」的人，視為是一種「病徵」symptom。這種「病徵」是在「真實界」的生命主體，傳遞給與我們的訊息signs：真理與生命意義在「無意識界」或「真實界」，而不是在「象徵界」。

耐人尋味地，他突然抨擊資本主義的社會，悖離人的「天命」the decree of heavens，甚至引出馬克思的觀點，作為支持。只是這一個重要主題，他沒有多作發揮。我們只好各憑想像去詮釋。

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

可能不是類似 210g

可能不是類似 210g

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971

You see this is how this is written. That can be read, in a classical French transcription sing. If you put an h in front – hsing – this is the English transcription, and the most recent Chinese transcription, if I am not mistaken, because after all it is purely conventional, is written like that: xing.

你們瞧，這就是它如何被書寫。那能夠被閱讀為古典的法文拼法「sing」，你們若是在字前頭加個「h」，變成「hsing」，那是英文拼法。而最近的中文拼法，被書寫成「xing」，假如我沒弄錯的話，因為它畢竟純粹就是傳統。

Naturally that is not pronounced xing, it is pronounced „sing. It is nature. It is this nature which you have been able to see I am far from ruling out of the affair. If you were not completely deaf, you were able to notice all the same that the first thing that was worth retaining in what I told you in our first talk, is that the signifier – I strongly insisted – can be found everywhere in nature.

自然，它並沒有被發音為「xing」，而是被發音為「sing」。這是自然特性。你們始終能夠明白，我絲毫沒有排除這個事物的自然特性。只要你們不是完全充耳不聞，你們仍然能夠注意到：在我們第一次談論，我所告訴你們的，值得保留的第一件東西，就是：能指在自然天性的每個地方都能夠被找到。我強烈地堅持這一點。

I spoke to you about stars, more exactly of constellations, because there is a star and a star; for centuries all the same that is what the sky is: it is the first feature, what is above, that is important.

我跟你們談論到星辰，更確實地說是星座，因為星星有幾十萬顆，幾世紀以來，天空仍然就是這個樣子。這是第一個特徵，天空的特徵，這點很重要。

It is a tray, a blackboard. I am reproached for using a blackboard. It is the only thing that remains to us to serve as a sky, my good friends, that is why I use it, to put on it what ought to be your constellations.

這是一個盤子，一個黑板。我因為使用黑板而受到譴責。這是唯一留給我們充當天空的東西，我的朋友，這就是為什麼我使用它，在它上面放置應該是你們星座的東西。

(51) So then, a sufficiently developed discourse. From this discourse the result is that all of you no matter how many of you there are, and whether you are from here or from the USA, it is the same thing, and even elsewhere, you are underdeveloped with respect to this discourse.

所以，這是一個充分發展的真理論述。從這個真理論述，結果是，你們所有的人，無論數目有多少，無論你們從這裏或從美國，都是同樣事情，甚至是在別處，關於這個真理論述，你們是尚未開發。

I am talking about this thing, this something by which people are interested but which is certainly what people speak about when they speak about your underdevelopment.

我正在談論到這件事情，人們感到興趣的這件東西，但這確定是，人們所談論的東西，當他們談論到你們的尚未開發。

Where is it to be situated exactly? What can be said about it? It is not doing philosophy to ask where it comes from, what is its substance. There are things in this dear Meng-Tzu, I do not see, after all, any reason to drug you, I really have no hope that you will make the effort to stick your nose into it, so then I will go moreover, why not, to what I have to set out in three stages, especially since he tells us extraordinarily interesting things.

它確實應該被定位在哪里？關於它，有什麼能夠被說？詢問它來自哪里，它的本質是什麼，並非是賣弄哲學。在這位可敬的孟子這裏，有些事情，我不明白為什麼，有些理由會讓你沉迷。我真的並不希望，你們耗費心力去探究它。而且，我將前進，有何不可呢？前進到我必須要開始的三個階段，特別是因為他告訴我們特別有趣的事情。

There is one thing, there is no knowing how it came out moreover, because it is made God knows how, it is a collage, this book of Meng-Tzu, things follow one another, as they say, and are not alike. Anyway! Alongside this notion of hsing, of nature, there emerges all of a sudden that of ming, the decree of the heavens.

有一件事情，而且我們不可能知道，它是如何發生。天曉得是如何，因為它被形成，這是一種拼貼，孟子的這本書。事情接續發展，而且互不相同，如他們所說。無論如何！跟「性」這個觀念並列，突然出現「命」的這個觀念，上天的命令。

13.1.71 I 69
Obviously, I could very easily stick with the ming, with the decree of the heavens, namely, continue my discourse, which means in short: that is how it is because that is how it is, one day, science will grow on our terrain.

顯而易見，我很容易就堅持這個「命」，換句話說，這個上天的命令。我繼續我的真理論述。總之，這意味著，因為這是它實際的情況，有一天，科學會在這個領域成長。

At the same time capitalism did its own thing, and then there was a chap, God knows why, heaven‟s decree, there is Marx who has, in short, ensured a rather long survival for capitalism.

同時，資本主義逕自發展，這樣就產生一種裂痕，跟上天的命令。天曉得為什麼，有位馬克思，總之，他曾經確定資本主義會長治久安。

雄伯曰：這句話頗費解，馬克思不是反對資本主義嗎？是否有人懂馬克思？幫我解謎一下？

And then there is Freud who all of a sudden was disturbed by something which obviously became the only element of interest that still had some relationship with this thing that people had previously dreamt about and which was called knowledge. At an epoch when there was no longer the slightest trace of something which had a
meaning of this kind, he noticed that there was the symptom.

然後有位佛洛伊德，他突然受到某件事的困擾。顯而易見的，這件事成為他感到興趣的唯一的因素。這個興趣跟人們先前夢想的，以及所謂的知識的事情，有些關係。在人們絲毫不再在乎生命有何意義的時代，他注意到這是一種病徵。

(52) This is where we have got to. It is around the symptom that there turns everything that we can, as they say, if the word still had a meaning, have an idea of. It is around the symptom that you orient yourselves, as many of you as are here.

這就是他已經到達的地方。我們能夠理解的一切事物，都環繞著這個病徵運轉，如人們所言。環繞著這個病徵，你們替自己找到定位，有多少人，就有多少病症的定位。

雄伯曰：換句話說，人人都成為欠缺生命意義的病徵主體。無論是忙碌終日，或飽食及遊戲終日，我們都是象徵界的能指太多，而真實界的所指付之闕如。也就是，理應具有靈魂的生命主體消失到無意識裏，處在象徵界的我，僅是行屍走肉。

The only thing that interest you, and which does not fall flat, which is not simply inept as information, are the things that have the appearance of a symptom, namely, in principle, things that make a sign to you, but that you understand nothing about. It is the only sure thing, that there are things that make signs to you that you know nothing about.

你們感到興趣的唯一的事情，唯一會成功的事情，不僅作為訊息是笨拙無能，那些具有病徵外表的事情，也是笨拙無能。換句話說，原則上，跟你們傳遞訊息，你們卻是根本不瞭解的東西是笨拙無能。唯一能夠確定的是，有些跟你們傳遞訊息的東西，你們根本不知道。

雄伯曰：
拉康演講時的句法，並非很合乎標準文法。很容易讓人混淆。讓我嘗試厘清一下。

that interest you 及which does not fall flat，都是形容詞子句，修飾the only thing。

Not simply the only thing that interest you and which does not fall flat， but also the things that have the appearance of a symptom are inept.
你們感到興趣的唯一的事情，唯一會成功的事情，不僅作為訊息是笨拙無能，那些具有病徵外表的事情，也是笨拙無能。
（動詞是are，主詞是not simply the only thing but also the things。在not only、、、but also 的句型，動詞跟後面的主詞一致，the things are）

後面部分是前面的things 的同位語。
Namely, in principle, things that make a sign to you, but that you understand nothing about are inept.
換句話說，原則上，跟你們傳遞訊息，你們卻是根本不瞭解的東西是笨拙無能。
（that make a sign to you, but that you understand nothing about 是形容詞子句，修飾前面的things 。are inept 是我填加原先省略部分，讓它成為完整句子。）

It is the only sure thing, that there are things that make signs to you that you know nothing about.
唯一能夠確定的是，有些跟你們傳遞訊息的東西，你們根本不知道。
（that make signs to you 是形容詞子句，修飾前面的things，而that you know nothing about. 則是修飾前面的signs）

最後一句，讓人猛然清醒：無意識通過病徵，頻頻給我們傳遞生命主體的真理與意義的訊息，我們卻懵懂不解。拉康是苦口婆心，問題是我們自己有沒有嘗試去理解的渴望，決心與耐心？

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

拉康論通過制度 02

拉康論通過制度 02

Lacan invented the pass to clarify and formalize the transition between analysand and analyst: “This dark cloud that covers this juncture I am concerned with here, the one at which the psychoanalysand passes to becoming a psychoanalyst—that is what our School can work at dissipating” (Lacan, 1995).
拉康建構這個「通過制度」，為了澄清及正式化受分析者與分析師之間的這個轉移：「這個黑雲籠罩在跟此地有關的時刻，在這個時刻，這位精神受分析者，通過這個時刻，成為一位精神分析師。這就是我們的學派所要驅散的黑雲。

ocean：
拉康建構“通過制度”，用以澄清及正式化受分析者與分析師之間的過渡：“這一黑雲遮住我此時提到的這一關口，受分析者在通過這個關口的時刻變成分析師——這一黑雲是我們的學派能夠努力去驅散的。” (Lacan, 1995)。

巴莎：
拉康發明了“通過制度”，以澄清和規範化（正式化）從分析者到分析師的轉變：“有一片烏雲籠罩在這裏我所考慮的問題上，即關於一個分析者轉變為一個分析師的問題，——而它正是我們學派可以致力於去工作和驅散的。”

（拉康派不把analysand稱為“被分析者”，而是“分析者”。因為他/她才是分析的主體，不是分析師。）

雄伯
拉康的東西不好懂，歡迎大家提出問題討論，看看會不會明朗一些。

Lacan invented the pass to clarify and formalize the transition between analysand and analyst

根據Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary,“Invent” 的定義是：To produce or design something that has not existed before （產生或是設計某件以前沒有存在的東西），譯為「發明」produce或「建構」design均無不可。我考慮到「通過制度」the pass ，後來被拉康宣告失敗而取消，因此取後者解釋。

根據American Contemporary Dictionary，“Formalize” 有兩種定義：1. To put ( an agreement, plan, etc) into clear written form 規範化 2.To introduce formally into ( in occasion// event, etc) 正式化，正常化

我考慮到拉康，對於正常體制的規範，素來沒有好感，他自己就吃過許多悶虧。說他建構制度來「規範」別人，我想是有點反諷，也不應是拉康的作風。因此取「正式化」解釋。

“ the transition between analysand and analyst” 與 “uthe transition from analysand to analyst”的差別是：“ between” 是分析者與分析師之間的互相轉變，“ from,,, to” 才是一個分析者轉變為一個分析師。拉康強調「兩者之間」的互相轉變，後來演變成分析師要「成為病人」，才能產生「共情」empathy 的理論依據。若是強調「一個分析者轉變為一個分析師」，會成為單行道的進階，絕非是拉康的思想與作法。

This dark cloud that covers this juncture I am concerned with here, the one at which the psychoanalysand passes to becoming a psychoanalyst—that is what our School can work at dissipating

這個句子的主詞是This dark cloud ，但是動詞不見了。作者用that來代替，作為 is what our School can work at dissipating 的主詞。這個“ that” 指的就是the dark cloud。我當時將“ that”譯為「這個黑雲」，而不是「它」，是為了幫助讀者理解。

“ what our School can work at dissipating”是名詞子句，充當主詞補語。裏面的“ what” 是關係代名詞，代替the dark cloud 充當dissipating 的受詞。也就是拉康要「努力去驅散的」就是這個黑雲。

除外，“the dark cloud” 的“ the ”是限定冠詞的用法，後面有“that covers this juncture ” 的形容詞子句，修飾它，只能譯為「這片黑雲」。

「有一片黑雲」的英文是“ a dark cloud”

“ I am concerned with here, ”也是形容詞子句，修飾前面的this puncture。巴莎譯為「這裏我所考慮的問題上」，Ocean 譯為「此時提到的這一關口」，各對一半。“ be concerned with”是「考慮，關心」，而“ juncture”的定義是「危機時刻」或「關鍵時刻」「關口」A crisis situation or point in time when a critical decision must be made。

the one 指的是the juncture 「危機時刻」或「關鍵時刻」「關口」

“ at which the psychoanalysand passes to becoming a psychoanalyst”是形容詞子句，修飾前面的 the one ，“which” 是關係代名詞，代替前面的the one。也就是at the juncture the psychoanalysand passes （ from an analysand ）to becoming a psychoanalyst。（在這個關口，分析者通過，從分析者成為分析師。）

拉康認為「在這個關口，分析者通過，從分析者成為分析師」這樣的構想是「黑雲」，必須予以驅散。精神分析應該是「分析者與分析師之間」的雙向共情empathy，而非從分析者到分析師的單行道。挟督導以自重，絕非拉康所樂見。試想想，如果analysand 都被解釋為「分析者」而非「受分析者」，因為「拉康派不把analysand稱為“被分析者”，而是“分析者”。因為他/她才是分析的主體，不是分析師。」那分析師的提升，更應該是分析的主體，而非是被督導的客體！何況人人找督導，人間最高最後的「督導」是誰？佛洛伊德，榮格，或拉康，而今安在哉？

可能不是類似 210f

可能不是類似 210f

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971

From a serious construction, that of object relations as it can be separated out from
the experience described as Freudian. That is not enough. I had to scupper these relations to make them the bowl of Marx‟s surplus value, which nobody had ever dreamt of as having this use. Marx‟s surplus value cannot be imagined just like that.

根據一個嚴肅的建構，客體關係的建構，它能夠跟被描述為佛洛伊德的精神分析經驗區隔開。光是這樣還不足夠。我必須要將這些關係吸取過來，使它們成為馬克思的剩餘價值的承受器。從來沒有人夢想過擁有這個用途。馬克思的剩餘價值不能夠像那樣被想像。

If it is invented, it is in the sense that the word invention means that one finds a good thing already well established in a little corner, in other words that one makes a lucky discovery.

假如它被杜撰，它的意義是，這個字的杜撰意味著：我們找到一件好的事情，已經在一個小角落被穩定地建立。換句話說，我們有一個幸運的發現。

To make a lucky discovery, it was necessary that it should be there already well polished, grounded, by what, by a discourse. So then, surplus enjoying, like surplus value, is only detectable in a developed discourse, that there is no question of
debating whether it can be defined as the discourse of the capitalist.

為了要有一個幸運的發現，它需要已經被充分精鍊，根據一種真理論述作為基礎。所以，剩餘享受，就像剩餘價值一樣，僅能在已經被發展的真理論述裏被覺察出來。至於它是否能夠被定義為資本主義的真理論述，那是無庸置疑的事。

13.1.71 I 66
(49) You are not very curious, and then especially not very interventionist, so that last year, when I spoke to you about the discourse of the Master, no one pushed me to ask me how the discourse of the Capitalist was situated within it.

你們並沒有很好奇，特別你們並不是很喜歡介入。所以去年，當我跟你們提到關於主人倫述，沒有人逼迫我問我自己，資本主義者的真理論述如何定位在它裏面。

For my part I was expecting that, I was only waiting to explain it to you, especially because it is the simplest thing possible. A tiny little contraption that turns and your discourse of the master shows everything that is highly transformable into the discourse of the capitalist.

就我而言，我一直在期待它，我僅是等待著要跟你們解釋它，特別是因為它是我們可能的最簡單的事情。你們只要將這個小機件這們轉動一下，你們的真理論述就會顯露一切非常可轉換的東西，成為資本主義者的真理論述。

That is not what is important, the reference to Marx was enough to show you that it had the closest relationship with the discourse of the master.

那並不是重要的事情，提到馬克思，就足夠跟你們顯示：它跟主人的真理論述會有最親密的關係。

What I am trying to get to is the following, it is to catch hold of something as essential as what is here, let us say the support – the support, everyone knows that I do not pile it on for you, it is indeed the thing that I am most distrustful of in the world, because it is indeed with that of course that people make the worst extrapolations, it is with this in a word that people construct psychology, psychology, this is what is necessary to be able to manage to think out the function of language – so then when I realise that the support of surplus enjoying is metonymy, it is because here I am entirely
justified, this is what ensures that you follow me, through the fact that this surplus enjoying is essentially a sliding object. Impossible to stop this slide at any point of the sentence.

我正在嘗試到達的是以下，它是要捉住某件東西當作是如同這裏的東西一樣基本。容我們說這個支援—這個支援，眾所周知，我並沒有將它堆在你們身上。確實是這件我在世界上最不信任的東西，因為使用那個當然的東西，人們從事最糟糕的推斷。總之，使用這個，人們建構心理學，心理學，這是我們需要的東西，為了要成功地想出語言的功用—所以，當我體會到，剩餘享樂的支持就是換喻。這是因為在此，我完全能夠自圓其說。這是確定你們會跟隨我的東西，通過這個事實：這個剩餘享樂，基本上是一件溜滑不定的東西。我們不可能在句子的任何一點，阻擋這種溜滑。

Nevertheless, why should we refuse to notice that the fact that it is useable in a discourse – a linguistic one or not, as I already told you, it is all the same to me – in a discourse which is my own, and that it is only such by being borrowed not from the discourse, but from the logic of the capitalist, something that introduces us, or rather brings us back to what I contributed the last time and which left some people a little bit perplexed.

可是，為什們我們應該拒絕注意到，它在真理論述可被使用的事實—無論是語言學的論述與否，如我已經告訴你們的，它對於都一樣—在屬於你們自己的真理論述，它僅有從被借用，才能夠是如此，不是從真理論述借用，而是從資本主義者的邏輯借用。某件東西跟我們介紹，或是帶我們回到我上一次貢獻的地方，它讓一些人們感到有點困惑。

Everyone knows that I always finish what I have to tell you in a little gallop, because perhaps I dragged things out too much, dawdled along earlier, some people tell me,
what matter, everyone has his own rhythm. That is how I make love.

眾所周知，我總是完成我必須告訴你們的，以一個小小的跨步，因為或許我洩漏的事情太多，早先浪費太多時間。有些人告訴我，重要的是，每個人都有他自己的節奏。那就是我作愛的方式。

13.1.71 I 67
I spoke to you about an under-developed logic. That left some people scratching their heads. What could that be, this underdeveloped logic?

我跟你們談論到一種沒有發展的邏輯。那讓一些人墮入五里霧中。這個未被發展的邏輯，那可能會是什麼？

Let us start from this. I had clearly marked out beforehand that what carries along the extension of capitalism, is under-development.

讓我們從這裏開始。我事前清楚地標示，沿著資本主義的延伸發展的東西，就是這個未發展。

Anyway I am going to say it now because someone that I met on the way out and to whom I confided something, I told him “I would really like to have illustrated the thing by saying that Mr Nixon, is in fact Houphouet-Boigny in person”, “Oh”, he told me, “you should have said it”. Well then I am saying it.

無論如何，我現在將要說它，因為某個我在離去途中遇見的人，我對他坦誠以告。我告訴他說「我真的想要說們這件事，尼克遜事實上是赫豪特與波格尼本人。」「哦！」他告訴我說：「你本來應該說出來。」呵呵，我現在就在說了。

The only difference between (50) the two, is that Mr Nixon is supposed to have been
psychoanalysed! You see the result! When someone has been psychoanalysed in a certain way, and this is always true in every case, when he has been psychoanalysed in a particular way, in a certain field, in a certain school, by people that one can name, well then, he is incurable.

在它們之間的唯一差異是，尼克遜被認為是應該接受精神分析！你們知道結果會是如何！當某個人曾經以某種方式被精神分析，無論哪一種狀可，這總是真實的。當他以特別的方式被精神分析，在某個領域，在某個學派，由某些我們能夠命名的人，呵呵，他是可以治癒的。

All the same you have to say things the way they are. He is incurable. It even goes very far. It is for example obvious that it is ruled out that someone who has been
psychoanalysed somewhere, in a certain place, by certain people specifically, not by just anyone, well then, he can understand nothing of what I am saying. That has been seen and there are proofs.

你們仍然必須說出事情的真相是什們。他是可以治癒的。我們甚至可以這樣說。例如，顯而易見的，這件事被排出，某個人曾經在某個地方被精神分析，被某些人明確地，不僅是被任何人，呵呵，他對於我說的話，根本就不瞭解。有一些證據，讓我們可以看得出來。

Books even come out every day to prove it. Just by itself, that gives rise all the same to questions about what is involved in the possibility of performance, namely, of functioning in a certain discourse.

書本甚至每天出版，用來證明它。光是書本的本身，那仍然會產生一些問題，有關實踐的可能性所牽涉的東西，換句話說，充當某種真理論述的功用。

So then, if the discourse is sufficiently developed, there is something, let us say no more, this something as it happens is you, but that is a pure accident, nobody knows your relationship to this something, it is a something that interests you all the same.

因此，假如真理論述充分地被發展，會有某件東西，讓我們不要再說了，這個某件東西恰恰就是你們。但是這是純粹的意外，沒有人知道你們跟這個某件東西的關係，這是仍人讓你們感到興趣的東西。

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

可能不是類似 210e

可能不是類似 210e

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971

Or again it means, in so far as that refers to something which is even more into metaphor, in so far as it refers to something, (47) namely, precisely, it is not one because one is forced to refer to it.

而且，它意味著，它提到某件東西，甚至更加進入比喻，因為它提到某件東西。換句話說，準確地，它並不是比喻，因為我們被迫提到它。

When one thing refers to another, the greatest possible breadth, the greatest possible flexibility is given to the eventual use of this term wei which nevertheless means to act.

當一件事物提到另一件事物，最大的可能寬度，最大的可能彈性被給予這個術語「為」的最後使用。它仍然意味著「行動」。

It is not bad, a tongue like that! A tongue where the verbs and the plus-verbs – to act, what is more of a plus-verb, what more active plus-verb is there? – is transformed into tiny conjunctions.

這並不糟糕，一個像這樣的語言！在一種語言，動詞與這個另加動詞被轉變成為小小的連接詞–「行動」，而且是一個另加動詞，還有怎樣的主動的另加動詞？

That is the usual thing. This helped me a lot all the same to generalise the function of the signifier, even if it fits in badly with some linguists who do not know Chinese.

那是尋常的事情。這仍然幫助我將能指的功用概念化，即使對於不懂中文的語言學家，它適應得很不好。

For my part I would really like to ask a particular one, for example how for him the double articulation that he keeps talking about for some years – I tell you this double articulation is killing us – what does he make of the double articulation in Chinese? Huh?

就我而言，我真的想要問一個特別的問題。譬如，對於他而言，他好幾年了一直在談論的這個雙重的表達—我告訴你們這個雙重表達把我們搞慘了—他如何以中文來解釋這個雙重表達？呵呵？

In Chinese, you see, it is the first that is all alone, and then finds itself like that producing a meaning which from time to time means that, since all the words are monosyllabic, one cannot say that there is a phoneme which means nothing, and then the word that means something, two articulations, two levels.

你們瞧，在中文，第一個在那裏的是全然孤獨，然後發現它自己就像那樣產生一種意義。這個意義有時意味著，因為所有的字是單音節，我們無法說，有一個音素意味著空無。意味著某件東西的這個字，有雙重表達，雙重層次。

Well then, yes, even at the level of the phoneme, that means something. This does not prevent when you put several phonemes together, which mean the same thing, this gives a big word of several syllables, just like with us, which has a meaning that has no relationship with what each of the phonemes mean. So the double articulation looks rather funny there!

呵呵，沒錯，甚至就是在音素的層次，那意味著某件東西。這並沒有阻礙，當你將好幾個音素聚在一塊，這意味著相同的事，這形成好幾個音節的長字，就像跟我們在一起。這具有一種意義，跟每一個音素的意義沒有關係。所以這個雙重表達，在那裏看起來很好笑。

It is funny that it is not remembered that there is a tongue like that, when one states as general a function of the double articulation as characteristic of language. I don‟t mind if all I‟m saying is pure stupidity, but explain it to me!

好笑的是，它並沒有被記得，有一個像那樣的語言，當我們陳述，當著跟語言的特性作為雙重表達一般的功用。假如我正在說的東西純然都是蠢話，我並不介意，但是請替我解釋一下。

Let a linguist come here who can tell me how the double articulation holds up in Chinese [cf. André Martinet, Eléments de linguistique général, new edition, Paris 1967.]

請一位語言學家來告訴我，這雙重表達在中文裏能夠成立。

So then, this wei like that, to get you used to it I am introducing it, but very gently. I will bring you a minimum of other things, which may in fact be of some use. It illuminates many things moreover that this verb is at the same time to act and the conjunction of the metaphor.

因此，這個「為」就像那樣，讓你習慣於它。我是正在介紹它，但是方式溫和。我將會稍微跟你們介紹其他東西，它們事實上是有些用途。而且，它啟明許多事情：這個動詞同時要行動，這個比喻的連接詞也要行動。

Perhaps the Im Anfang war die Tat, as your man says, there where the act was right at the beginning it is perhaps exactly the same thing as to say en arché, in the beginning was the word. There is perhaps no other act than this.

或許這個「開始時是行動」，如你們所說的，在開始行動是正確的地方，這或許是確實相同的事情，如同說「開始」，在開始就是這個字。或許除了這個以外，沒有別的行動。

The terrible thing is, is that I can lead you like that for a long time with metaphor and the further I go, the more you will go astray because precisely, what is proper to the
metaphor is not to be all alone.

可怕的事情是，我能夠像那樣引導你們，長久以來使用比喻。我進行得越遠，我就越迷失。因為確實比喻的本體，不能夠全然是孤獨。

There is also metonymy which functions at this time and even while I am speaking to you , because it is after all the metaphor, as very competent, very friendly people called linguists tell us; they are even so competent that they have been forced to invent the notion of competence.

也有一種換喻，在這個時候發揮功用。甚至當我正在跟你們言談的時刻，因為畢竟，所有的比喻，如同所謂語言學家的勝任而友善的人們告訴我們，他們是如此的勝任，所以他們一直被迫要杜撰勝任的觀念。

The tongue is competence in itself. What is more it is true. One is competent in nothing else. Only, since they have also perceived, there is only one way to prove it, which is performance.

這個語言本身就是勝任。而且，它是真實的。我們並沒有勝任任何其他東西。只是，它們既然也如此感覺，只有一個辦法證明它，那就是實踐。

They are the ones who call it that, performance. I don‟t, I have no need of it. I am in the process of giving it, the performance, giving the performance of speaking to
you about metaphor, naturally I confuse you, because the only interesting thing, is what happens in the performance, it is the production of surplus enjoying, of yours and of the one that you impute to me when you reflect.

它們是那些人稱呼它為實踐，我沒有這樣稱呼，我沒有這個實踐的必要。我處於正在給予它的過程，實踐的過程，實踐我跟你們的言說關於這個比喻。自然地，我會讓你們感到混淆。因為唯一有趣的事情是在實踐時發生的事情。那就是剩餘享樂的產物，屬於你們的產物，屬於當你們反思時歸屬於我的產物。

That happens to you. That happens to you especially when you ask yourselves what I am doing here. It must be that this gives you some pleasure, at the level of this surplus
enjoying that pressurises you; as I already explained to you, it is at that level that the operation of metonymy is carried out, thanks to which you can be more or less led anywhere at all, led by the nose, naturally not simply to go along the corridor. But this is not what is interesting, to lead you into the corridor, nor even to beat you in the
public square.

你們會發生這樣的事。會發生到你們身上，特別是當你們詢問自己，我正在這裏做什麼。那一定是，這給予你們快樂，在剩餘享樂的層次，它給予你們壓力，如同我已經跟你們解釋的。在那個層次，換喻的運作被執行。由於這個運作，你們會被引導到任何地方，被牽著鼻子走，當然，不僅是沿著走廊前進。但這並不是有趣之處，引導你們進入走廊，甚至沒有在公共廣場控制你們。

The important thing, is to keep you there, well arranged, close together, well pressed against one another. As long as you are there, you are doing nobody any harm!

重要的是要維持你們在那裏，秩序井然，緊靠在一塊，互相緊密挨擠。只要你們在那，你們就不會造成任何人的傷害。

This will take us rather far, this little banter, because it is all the same starting from
there that we are going to try to articulate the function of yin. You understand, I remind you of this business of the surplus enjoying, I remind you of it anyway as I am able; it is quite certain that it was only definable by me starting from what?

這將會引導我們走更遠，這個小玩笑，因為它仍然是從那裏開始。我們將嘗試表達「陰」的這個功用。你們瞭解，我提醒你們這個剩餘享樂的事情。我盡我所能提醒你們關於它。相當確定的是，我能夠替它定義，是從哪里開始？

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

可能不是類似210c

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971

It is verifiable at its level, as it is articulated. This in no way proves the truth of the hypothesis. I am absolutely not in the process of saying that science is swimming about there like a pure construction, that it does not engage with the real. To say that
it does not prove the truth of the hypothesis, is simply to recall what I have just said, namely, that implication in logic in no way implies that a true conclusion cannot be drawn from a false premise.

這是可驗證的在它的層次，如它所被表達。這絲毫沒有證明是假設的真理。我絕對並不是正在說：科學正在那裏搖晃，像一個單純的建築，它並沒有從事真實界。說它並沒有證實這個假設的真理，僅是提醒我剛剛所說的。換句話說，邏輯的暗示絲毫沒有意味著，真實的結論無法被獲得，從一個虛假的假設。

It nevertheless remains that the truth of a hypothesis in an established scientific field is recognised from the order that it bestows on the totality of the field in so far as it has its status and its status cannot be defined otherwise than by the consent of all those who are authorized in this field, in other words the status of the scientific field is of a university kind (universitaire).

可是，問題始終是：在一個現有的科學領域裏的假設的真理，是根據它賜予這個領域的整體性的秩序，獲得的承認，因為它擁有它的地位。而它的地位無法被下定義，除了就是根據在這個領域被授權的所有那些人的同意。換句話說，科學領域的地位，是屬於大學這一種。

These are things that may appear crude. It nevertheless remains that this is what justifies situating the level of the articulation of the University discourse, as I tried to do last year.

這些事情看起來很粗糙。可是問題仍然是，這就是定位大學真理論述的表達的層次，能夠自圓其說的地方，如我去年嘗試所為。

Now it is clear that the way that I articulated it is the only one that allows it to be noticed why it is not accidental, out of date, linked to some accident or other.

現在，顯而易見的，我表達它的方式是到唯一的方式，容許它被注意到，為什麼它是並不是偶然，過時，跟某種的巧合相關。

The status of the development of science involves the presence, the subvention of other social entities that are well known, the Army for example, or again the Navy, and of some other elements for a certain provisioning. It is quite legitimate if we see that radically the University discourse can only be articulated if it starts from the
discourse of the Master.

科學的發展的地位牽涉到其他著名的社會實體的存在及援助，譬如軍隊，或海軍，某種預備的其他因素。這是很合理的，假如我們看到，只有當大學的真理論述，積極地從主人真理論述開始，它才能夠被表達。

The distribution of domains in a field whose status is university-like, is the only place where there can be posed the question of what is happening and first of all of whether it is possible for a discourse to be entitled differently.

在類似大學的地位的領域的區域的分配，是唯一的地方，正在發生什麼的這個問題能夠被提出，首先是讓真理論述給予不同的實體，是否是可能。

Here there is introduced in its massiveness – I apologise for starting again from such a basic point, but after all since there are directed at me, and from people authorised as being linguists, objections like the one that I only make a metaphorical use of linguistics, I ought to recall, I ought to respond whatever may be the occasion I do so, and I am doing it this morning because of the fact that I was expecting to meet a more combative atmosphere – well then, I ought to recall here then, that if I can say decently that I know, I know what?

在此，由於這個領域的廣大，一個問題被介紹，呵呵，我應該提醒一下，假如我能夠合宜地說我知道，我知道什麼？–我很抱歉再一次從如此基本的要點開始，但是畢竟，因為這些反對指向我，從具有權威的所謂語言學家。我應該提醒一下這個反對是：我僅是對於語言學作比喻的引用。我應該回應任何我這樣做的場合。今天早上我這樣做，因為這個事實，我一直預期會遭遇到一個更加激烈爭辯的氣氛。

Because after all perhaps I put myself somewhere in a place that the person called Mencius, whose name I introduced to you the last time, the person called Mencius, may perhaps allow us to (44) define, good, it remains that if – may Mencius protect me! – I know what to limit myself to, I have to say at the same time that I do not know what I am saying. I know that what I am saying, in other words, is what I cannot say. This is the date, the date that marks the fact there is Freud and that he introduced the unconscious.

因為畢竟我將我自放置在所謂孟子的某個地方。他的名字我上一次跟你們介紹，這位被稱為孟子的人。他可能讓我們定義「善」。問題始終是—請孟子保佑我–假如我知道將我自己限制在什麼領域，我必須同時說，我並不知道我正在說什麼。我知道我正這說什麼，換句話說，這是我無法說的。這是這個日期，標示這個事實的日期：佛洛伊德介紹無意識

The unconscious means nothing if it does not mean that whatever I say, or wherever I stand, even if I behave correctly, well then, I do not know what I am saying, and that none of the discourses, as I defined them last year, leave any hope, allows anyone to put forward anything at all, to claim, to hope even in any way to know what he is saying.

無意識意味著，假如它並不意味著，任何我所說，或我的立場在哪里，即使我行為正當，呵呵，我並不知道我正在說什麼。如我去年定義它們，這些真理論述，沒有一個留下任何希望，容許任何人提出任何事情，來宣稱，甚至以任何方式希望知道，他正在說什麼。

I say, even if I do not know what I am saying; only I know that I do not know it. And I am not the first to say something in these conditions. It has already been heard. I say that the cause of this is only to be sought in language itself and that what I am adding, what I am adding to Freud, even if in Freud it is already there, open to view, because whatever he demonstrates about the unconscious is never anything but language material, I add this: that the unconscious is structured like a language. Which one?
Well then, precisely, look for it!

我說，即使我不知道我正在說些什麼，只有我知道，我不知道我正在說些什麼。我並不是第一個在這些情況說某件事的人。已經有人曾經這樣說過。我說，這個的原因僅能在語言的本身裏尋找。我正在補充，我正在補充佛洛伊德，即使在佛洛伊德，它已經是在那裏，公開亮相，因為關於無意識，任何他證明的東西，不是別的，道道地地就是語言的材料。我補充這一點：「無意識的結構像是一種語言。」哪一種語言？呵呵，請確實去尋找它！

I will talk to you (je vous causerai) about French and about Chinese. At least I would like to. It is only too clear that at a certain level, what I cause is bitterness, especially on the side of linguists.

我將跟你們談論有關法文及有關中文。至少，我想要談論。這是顯而易見，在某個層次，我所引起的是痛苦，特別是在語言學家這一邊。

This is of a nature rather to make one think that the university status is only too obvious in the developments that force linguistics to turn into a funny mixture; from what one sees of it, there is no doubt about it.

這是屬於一個特性，讓我們想到，大學的地位對於這個發展是非常明顯：這些發展強迫語言學家變成一種好笑的混合物，從我們看到它的東西，這是無可置疑的。

That I should be denounced on that occasion, good God, is not that important. That people will not debate with me, is not very surprising either, because I do not take my stand from a certain definition of the university domain, nor could I do so.

在那個場合，我應該受到抨擊。我的天，這並沒有那麼重要。人們將不會跟我爭辯，這也不足為奇。因為我並沒有採取任何脫離大學領域的某種定義的立場。我也無法這樣做。

The amusing thing is, since it is obvious that it is not our fault, a certain number of people among whom I ranked myself earlier, adding to it two other names and one could add a few more, it is obviously starting from us that linguistics sees there increasing the number of posts, those counted out this morning in the review of the
Ministry of National Education, and then also the number of students.
Good!

耐人尋味的是，顯而易見的，這並不是我們的過錯。某些的人們，我早先曾經將我自己與他們等量齊觀，給它增添兩個其他名字，我們甚至還可以增添更多。顯而易見，從我們開始，語言學家看到這些職位的數目正在增加，今天早上被宣稱的那些職位，在國家教育部門的復審當中，以及學生的數目。好！

The interest, the wave of interest that I contributed to bringing to linguistics, is, it appears, an interest that comes from the ignorant.

這股興趣，這股興趣的浪潮，我將它歸功於語言學的貢獻。似乎，這種興趣是來自無知。

Well then! That already is not too bad! They were ignorant before, now they are interested. I succeeded in interesting the ignorant in(45) something that, in addition, was not my goal, because linguistics, I can tell you, I don‟t give a damn about it!

呵呵！這還不夠糟糕！他們以前是無知，現在則是感到興趣。我終於設法讓無知者感到興趣，而且，這並非是我的目標。因為我能夠告訴你們，我才根本不在乎語言學！

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

可能不是類似 210b

可能不是類似 210b

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971

In the name of what, great God, I had no responsibility in the Ecole Normale for any teaching, but if the Ecole Normale found itself, according to this author, so little initiated in linguistics, it was certainly not I who should have been blamed for it.

我的天，以什麼的名義，我在艾可大學並對於我的教學沒有什麼責任。但是艾可大學發現它自己，依照作者的說法，在語言學方面沒有什麼創意。那確實是不應該怪罪到我的身上。

This indicates to you the point on which I intend all the same to specify something this morning. It is in effect the following, something which is raised and for some time with a sort of insistence, the theme is taken up in a more or less frivolous way in a certain number of interviews, there is a question which is raised about something: is one a structuralist or not when one is a linguist? And people tend to demarcate themselves and say: I am a functionalist.

這跟你們指示這一點，今天早上，我仍然打算要指明它的某件事情。實際上，事實如下：某件事情被提出，被堅持了某段時間，這個主題以相當輕率的方式被從事，用某些的面談。有個問題被提出，關於某件事情：當我是一位語言學家時，我是否一位元結構主義者？人們傾向於區分它們，然後說：我是一位機能主義者。

Why am I a functionalist? Because structuralism, is something, moreover, that is a purely journalistic invention. I am saying, structuralism is something which serves as a label and which of course, given what it comprises, namely, a certain seriousness, does not fail to be disturbing, so that, of course, people want to stake out their own preserve. [André Martinet interviewed in Le Monde, 5 January 1971.]

為什麼我是一位機能主義者？因為結構主義是某件東西，而且，那純粹是新聞記者杜撰之詞。我是說，結構主義是某件充當標籤的東西。當然，考慮到它所包含的東西，也就是說，某些的嚴肅性，一定會令人困擾。當然，人們想要正式宣稱他們包攬的事物。（1917年1月5日，馬提內在曼地接受採訪）

The question of the relationships of linguistics to what I teach, is, in other words, what I want to put in the forefront in order, in a way, to dissipate, dissipate I hope in a way that will mark an epoch, a certain equivocation. Linguists, the university linguists, would like in short to reserve to themselves the privilege of speaking about language.

語言學跟我的教學的關係的問題，換句話說，跟我想要呈現在面前的東西，在某方面，是為了要驅散，我希望驅散標示一個時代的某些的模棱兩可。語言學，大學的語言學，總之，他們想要保留關於語言的言說特權，給他們自己。

And the fact that it is around the development of linguistics that the axis of my teaching operates, is attached to, is supposed to be excessive in some way and is denounced in different formulae the principal one of which is the following, in any case it seem to me to be the most consistent one.

這個事實，環繞語言學的發展，我的教學軸心運作的東西，被連接，被認為在某方面很過分，並且受到不同準則的指責。其中主要的一個準則是以下：無論如何，我覺得它是最一致性的準則。

That of linguistics there is made – in the field which happens to be the one that I am inserted into, in the one also in which someone who certainly, on occasion, would deserve to be looked at a little more closely, much more as regards what comes from me, because….which people might have only a rather vague idea of, at least it is proved, Levi- Strauss for example, and so then Levi-Strauss and then some others again, Roland Barthes – we also are supposed to be making of linguistics a use, I quote, “a metaphorical use”. Well now! It is in effect about (42) this that I would like to clearly make some points.

語言學的準則在那裏被形成—在我被牽扯到的這個領域，也是在某個人有時應該值得受到注視的領域，關於我所表達的東西。因為人們可能會有一個相當模糊的觀念，至少它被證明，例如，列文、史特勞斯。因此，列文、史特勞斯，還有某些其他的人，羅蘭。巴特—我們也應該將語言學解釋為某種用途，我引述「一種比喻的用途」。哇塞！實際上就是關於這一點，我想要清楚地談述幾點。

First of all there is something from which we should start because all the same it
is written, written in something that counts, the fact that I am still here sustaining this discourse, the fact that you are also here to listen to it, the fact is, we have to believe that a formula is not altogether displaced as regards this discourse, in so far as I pronounce it, the fact is in a certain way finally, let us say that I know….I know what?

首先，有某件我們應該開始的事情，因為它仍然是被書寫，被書寫在某件重要的東西。事實上，我依舊在此維持這個真理論述。事實上，你們也在此傾聽它。事實上，我們必須相信：關於這個論述，一種公式並沒有完全被替代。因為我宣稱它。事實上，以某種的方式，容我說我知道、、、我知道什麼？

Let us try to be exact, it seems to be proven that I know what I should keep to (je sais à quoi m‟en tenir). Holding a certain place, I am underlining this, this place is no other – I am underlining it because I am not stating it for the first time, I spend my time clearly repeating that this is what I hold onto – than the place that I identified as that of a psychoanalyst – the question can after all be debated, because many
psychoanalysts debate it – but in any case this is what I hold to.

讓我們嘗試精確表達，它似乎被證明：「我知道我應該堅持什麼」。佔有某種的位置，我正在強調這個。這個位置不是別的—我正在強調它，因為我並不是第一次陳述它。我花費我的時間清楚地重複：這是我堅持的—這個位置就是我認同是一位精神分析師的位置—畢竟，這個問題是能夠接受辯論。因為許多精神分析師辯論它—但是無論如何，這是我堅持的。

It is not quite the same as if I were to state, I know where I stand (je sais où je me tiens), not because the I is repeated in the second part of the sentence, but this is where language always shows its resources, it is because to say I know where I stand, it is on the where that the emphasis would be put as regards what I was priding myself
knowing. I would have, as I might say, I would have the map, the mapping of the thing. And why after all would I have it?

這並不完全相等於好像我想要陳述：「我知道我的立場是什麼」。不是因為這個「我」在這個句子的第二部分被重複，而是因為這是語言總是顯示它的資源的地方。這是因為說「我知道我的立場」，這個強調點就是這個「立場」，關於我以自己「知道」而感到自傲的東西。我不妨這樣說，我將會擁有這個東西的圖形。但是為什麼我要擁有它？

There is a strong reason why I could not even sustain that I know where I stand. This is truly the axis of what I have to tell you this year. The fact is that the principle of science in so far as the process is engaged for us, I am talking about what I refer to when I give its centre as Newtonian science, the introduction of the Newtonian field,
the fact is that in no domain of science, does one have this mapping this map, to tell us where we are.

這是一個強烈的理由，為什麼我甚至無法維持我知道我的立場在哪里。這確實是今你我必須告訴你們的軸心。事實上，科學的原則，就這個過程對於我們的從事而言，我正在談論的我提到的東西，當我給予它的核心，作為牛頓的科學，牛頓領域的介紹。事實上，科學沒有一個領域，沒有這種圖形的描繪，為了告訴我們的所在位置。

And what is more, everyone agrees with this, but whatever the worth of the ell, of the objection that may be raised once one begins to speak precisely of a map, of its chance and of its necessity, well then, anyone at all is in a position to object to you that you are no longer doing science, but philosophy.

而且，每個人都同意這一點。但是這個L形模式的價值是什麼，一旦我們開始確實地談論一個圖形，它的機率，它的必要性，它可能引起的反對是什麼。呵呵，任何人都有反對你的立場，以致於你無法再從事科學研究，而是哲學。

That does not mean that anyone at all knows what he is saying when he says it. But anyway, it is a very strong position.

那並不意味著，任何人都知道，當他說它時，他知道他正在說什麼。但是無論如何，這是一個很強的位置。

The discourse of science rejects this where we have got to (où nous en sommes) it is not with this that it operates. As regards the hypothesis, remember Newton affirming that he did not claim to construct any, the hypothesis, although used, never concerns the foundation of things.

科學的真理論述拒絕這個「我們已經到達的地方」。科學並不是用這個在運作。關於這個假設，清記住，牛頓肯定地說：他並沒有宣稱建構任何東西，這個假設，雖然被使用，從來沒有牽涉到事情的基礎。

A hypothesis, in the scientific field, and whatever anyone may think, a hypothesis is, above all, something to do with logic. There is an if, the conditional of a truth that is never (43) articulated except logically; so then, apodosis: a consequent ought to be verifiable.

在科學的領域，一個假設，無論任何人怎麼想，一個假設尤其是跟邏輯有某些關係。有一個「假如」，這個真理的條件，真理除了以邏輯的方式，從來沒有被表達。所以要有「結句」，一個結果應該被驗證。

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

可能不是類似 210a

可能不是類似 210a

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 3: Wednesday 10 February 1971

I was asked if I was going to give my seminar because of the strike. There were two or perhaps just one, but perhaps two of these people who asked me what I thought of the strike, more exactly they asked my secretary.

有人問我，因為這次學生學潮，我還要上研討班。可能有兩三個人，但是或許有兩個人問我，我對於這次學生學潮的看法，更確實地說，他們是跟我的秘書問。

Well I for my part ask you! Nobody has anything to bring up in favour of the strike? At least in connection with this seminar? I will not absent myself from you…from your presence.

呵呵，就我而言，我問你們！有沒有人有任何論點要提出支持這次學潮？至少關於這次的研討班？我將不會缺席，離開你們的存在。

Nevertheless this morning I was myself rather inclined to go on strike. I was led to this because the person that I have just spoken about, my secretary, showed me a little rubric in a newspaper about the aforesaid strike.

可是今天早上，我自己相當傾向於參加學潮。我被引導在這一點，因為我剛剛談論到的這個人，我的秘書，給我看一份報紙有關前述學潮的報導。

The slogan of the strike, to which there was added, given the newspaper in question, a communiqué from the Ministry of National Education about everything that had been done for the University; the averages of the teachers employed per number of students, etc.

這次學潮的口號，考慮到這份報紙，上面添加一份國家教育部的公報，關於一切體大學所做的事情，教師的平均數及學生人數等等。

Naturally, I am not going to dispute these statistics. Nevertheless the conclusion that is drawn from them, of this very extensive effort which ought in any case to satisfy people, I will say that it does not agree with my information which nevertheless comes from a good source. So that…because of this, I was rather inclined to go on strike.

當然，我並不是要爭辯這些統計數目。可是，從那裏所獲得的結論，關於這個廣泛的努力，無論如何應該滿足人們。我將會說，它跟我來自一個可靠來源的資訊並不符合。所以、、、因為這樣，我相當傾向於參加學潮。

Your presence will force me, let us say by a fact which counts, it is what is called in our tongue courtesy, and in another that I announced like that, as a sort of come-along, that I would refer to, namely, the Chinese tongue about which I went as far as to confide to you that there was a time, when I learned a little bit of it, it is called
yi.

你們的出席將會強迫我，容許我根據一個重要的事實說，以我們的語言來說，就是我們所謂的禮貌。用另外一種語言，我像那樣宣佈，作為一種「快一點」。我將會提到，也就是中文語言。關於這個語言，我甚至跟你們坦誠以告，有一段時間，我稍微學習一點，它被稱為「義」。

The yi, in the grand tradition, is one of the four fundamental virtues, (40) of whom? Of what? Of a man at a certain date. And if I speak about it like that, as it comes to me, because I thought I was going to have to make some casual remarks to you, it is moreover on this plane that I am going to give this discourse today. It will not be,
properly speaking, what I had prepared. In my own way all the same

這個「義」，在優良的傳統，它具有四個基本的品德。跟誰有關？什麼義？跟某個時期的一個人。假如我談論到它，當它來到我這裏，因為我認為我將必須跟你們發表一些隨機的談論，而且是在今天我將要發表真理論述的這個層次。適當地說，那將不是我事先的備課。可是仍然是我的方式。

13.1.71 I 55
I will take account of this strike and it is in a way – you are going to see, the level at which I am going to put things – it is in a more familiar way to reply in a fair-minded way.

我將描述這次的學潮。在某方面，你們將會看出，我將要談論事情的層次—我要用坦然無私的方式來回應，這是大家更加熟悉的方式。

This is more or less the best sense that can be given to this yi, to reply in a fair-minded way to this presence.

這是最好的意義，能夠給予這個「義」，以坦然無私的方式回應這次的出席。

You will see that I shall take advantage of it to tackle a certain number of points that have given rise to an equivocation for some time. Namely, that since moreover there is something in question in the University, it is also at the level of the University – the movements of which in many cases I disdain to remark on when I hear about them – that today I think I should respond.

你們將會看出，我將會利用它來處理某些的要點，它們有段時間，產生模棱兩可的歧義。換句話，在大學有某件東西受到質疑。它也處於大學的這個層次—大學的這些運動，在很多情況，我不屑予以評論，當我聽到之時—但是今天我認為我應該回應。

As perhaps you know – how can we know whether your presence bears witness to it or not – in my relationship to the aforesaid University I am only in what could be called a marginal position.

或許你們知道—我們如何知道是否你們的出席見證它—在我跟前述的大學的關係，我僅是處於所謂的邊緣的立場。

It believes it should give me some shelter, for which certainly I pay it homage, even though for some time something has manifested itself that I cannot but take into account, given the field in which I find myself teaching.

大學相信它給予我某些的保護，因為這樣，我確實予以表示敬意，即使有某段時間，某件事情展現自己，我不得不考慮到，考慮到我正在教學的領域。

It is a certain number of echoes, of rumours, of murmurs that come to me from a quarter of a field defined in a university fashion and which is called linguistics.

有某些的迴響，某些的謠言，從大學定義的領域，被稱為語言學的領域，傳到我這裏。

When I speak, of course about disdain, I do not mean a feeling; what is at stake is a way of behaving.

當我談到，當然談到不屑。我並不是指一種感覺，岌岌可危的是一種行為的方式。

At a time which already, precisely, if I remember correctly, is something like…how long ago is it, two years, it is not enormous, there came out in a journal that nobody reads any more, whose very name seems out of date, La Nouvelle Revue Française, there appeared a certain article called Exercices de style de Jacques Lacan.

在某個時間，確實地，假如我記得正確，某件像是、、、多久以前，兩年前。這並不是什麼大事。出版了一本雜誌，沒有人會再去讀它。這本雜誌的名字是過時了「La Nouvelle Revue Française」，裏面有一篇文章，標題是「拉康風格的應用」。

It was an article that I signalled, moreover, at that time I was under the roof of the Ecole Normale, anyway under the roof!…under the porch roof, at the door.

而且，這篇文章，我指明，當時我是在艾可大學就職，無論如何是在人家屋簷下，在人家門廊道屋簷下，在門口那裏。

I said: “You should read that, it will give you a laugh”. It proved, as you saw subsequently, that it was perhaps a little less funny than it seemed, because it was in a way the bell in which I was rather, even though I was deaf, to hear the confirmation of what had already been announced to me: that my place was no longer under that porch roof.

我說：「你應該閱讀那個，那會讓你哈哈大笑。」那篇文章證明，如你們隨後會看到，它或許不像外表看起來那麼好笑。因為它在某方面是個警鈴，就算我耳背，我還是會聽見它證實我已經被宣告的事情：我的立場不再是在那個門廊的屋簷下。

It is a confirmation that I could have heard, because there was written in the article, there was written something that I must say is rather crude, that one might (41) hope, now that I am no longer under the porch roof of the Ecole Normale, for the introduction into the aforesaid Ecole, of linguistics, I am not sure of exactly quoting the terms, you can well imagine that I did not refer to it this morning, because all this is improvised, high quality, high tension linguistics, something or other of this kind,
perhaps, something that designated the fact that something was besmirching the name of linguistics, good God, within this Ecole Normale.

這篇文章證實我本來能夠聽得見的事情，因為在文章裏被書寫著，某件事情被書寫著。我必須說，非常粗糙的事情。我們可能希望，既然我不再是在艾可大學的門廊屋簷下，介紹一下前述的艾可大學的語言學，某件類似的東西，某件指明糟蹋語言學的這個名稱的東西，我的天，就在艾可大學裏。

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

可能不是類似 120g

可能不是類似 120g

On a Discourse that might not be a semblance

可能不是類似的真理論述

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

Seminar 2: Wednesday 20 January 1971

But anyway that would demand a little bit more development. “And if you do not find it on the side of your spirit, do not look for it on the side of your tchi”, namely, of what the Jesuits translated like that, as best they could, losing breath a little, your sensibility.

但是無論如何，那將需要稍微更多的發展。「假如你沒有在精神的這一面找到它，請勿在你的「氣」的這一面尋找它」。換句話說，耶穌教派像那樣翻譯，盡其全力，稍微漏失原意，你們的理解性。

I am only indicating these stages to tell you the distinction which is very strict between what is articulated, what belongs to discourse, and what belongs to the spirit, namely, the essential, if you have not already found it at the level of the word, it is hopeless, do not try to find it elsewhere at the level of feelings. Meng-tseu, Mencius, contradicts himself, it is true, but it is a matter of knowing along what path and why.

我僅是指示這些階段告訴你們這個區別，處於被表達，屬於真理論述，及屬於精神之間，也就是本質，假如你們沒有在文字的層次找到它，這是無助的，不要嘗試著感覺到層次的別處找到它。孟子自己確實是矛盾，但問題是要知道沿著什麼途徑及為什麼。

13.1.71 I 53
This to tell you that a certain way of putting discourse right in the forefront is not at all something that makes us go back to archaisms because discourse at that epoch, and the epoch of Mencius, was already perfectly well articulated and constituted.

這是要告訴你們，某種在正面處改正真理論述的方法，根本就不是可以容許我們回到復古主義。因為在那個時代的真理論述，在孟子的時代，那個東西已經被表達及被建構得很完善。

It is not through references to primitive thinking that one can understand it. In truth, I do not know what primitive thinking is. Something much more concrete that we have within our reach, is what is called underdevelopment. But that underdevelopment is not archaic, everyone knows that it is produced by the extension of the capitalist
reign.

我們能夠瞭解真理論述，並不是要通過對於原始思想的指稱。我並不知道原始的思想是什麼。某件我們能夠獲得的更加具體的東西，這就是所謂的「暗地發展」。但是那種「暗地發展」並沒有過時。眾所周知，它是由資本主義的統治的延伸所產生。

I would even say more, what one notices, and what will be noticed more and more, is that underdevelopment is precisely the condition for capitalistic progress. From a certain angle, the October Revolution itself is a proof of it.

我甚至想要說得更多，我們所注意，越來越會被注意。暗地發展確實是資本主義進步的條件。從某個角度，十月革命本身就是暗地發展的證明。

But what must be seen, is that what we have to confront is an underdevelopment that is going to be more and more patent, more and more widespread.

但是我們必須看見，我們所必需面對的是一種暗地發展，將會越來越公開，越來越普遍。

Only what in short is at stake, is that we should put the following to the test: if the key of the different problems that are going to propose themselves to us is not to put us at the level of this effect of capitalist articulation that I left in the shadows last year by simply giving you its root in the discourse of the master, I will perhaps give you a little more of it this year. It would be well….we must see what we can draw from what I would call an underdeveloped logic. This is what I will try to articulate before you, as the Chinese texts say, “for your better use”.

總之，岌岌可危的是，我們應該測試以下：假如不同問題的關鍵將要跟我們建議它們自己，並不是要將我們處於資本主義表達的影響的層次，去年我將這種資本主義的表達留在陰影裏。我僅是給予你們它的根源，在主人的真理論述裏。今年或許，我將給予你們稍微更多一點。那將會充分地、、、我們必須看出我們能夠獲得什麼，從我所謂的暗地發展的邏輯。這就是我嘗試在你們面前表達的東西，如中文的文本所說：「好自為之！」

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