拉康：RSI 36

真實界，象徵界，與想像界

Seminar of May 13, 1975

You knot two circles in a way that leaves them unknotted (Figure 4). If a consistency passes here, whether of a circle or of an infinite straight line, that suffices to make a Borromean knot.

你們將兩個圓圈連接成結，用的方式卻是讓它們解開。（圖像四）。假如一個一致性經過這裡，無論它是一個圓圈，或一條無限的線，那就足夠形成一個博羅米恩結。

If you make another pass here (Figure 5), you have a figure that has the air of being a Borromean knot, but which is not, because it does not suffice to cut one of these consistencies for each of the other three to be freed.

假如你們在此從事另外一次通過（圖形五），你們擁有一個圖形，它擁有成為一個博羅米恩結的神態，但事實上，它並不是博羅米恩結。因為光是切割其中一個一致性，並不足以讓其它三個環結的每一個被解放。

For that to happen, things must be disposed otherwise (Figure 6). This has the air of being similar, but here, one whichever of the elements being broken, the others are free.

為了讓每一個環結被解放，事情必須以不同方式來處理。這擁有成為類似的神態，但是在此，三個元素中不管哪一個元素被打破，其餘的都會被解放。

And, to begin with, what do the straight line as infinite and the circle have in common? It is this: the rupture of the circle is equivalent to the rupture of the infinite straight line in its effects on the knot–it frees the other elements of the knot. But these two ruptures do not have the same effects of remainder on the element.

首先，這條直線作為無限，以及圓圈有什麼相同的地方？就是這個： 圓圈的斷裂相當等於的無限的線的斷裂，在它對於環結的影響—它解放這個環結的其它三個環結。但是這兩個斷裂並沒有相同的剩餘物的影響，在元素上。

In fact, what remains of the circle after its rupture? A finite straight line as such, which is as much as to say something to throw out, a scrap, a bit of a cord of nothing at all.

事實上，在它的斷裂後，這個圓圈剩餘什麼？一條有限的直線本身，它好像是說某件拋出的東西，一個碎片，根本什麼都不是的一點線。

Allow me to figure the circle by this zero, cut by what separates, which is to say the two, that is: 0/2 = 1, this little 1 of nothing at all. On the other hand, the sectioning of the infinite straight line, with a big 1, gives us two half-lines which begin at a point, and go off to infinity: 1/2 = 2.

請容許我用這個零來描繪這個圓圈，它被分開的東西切斷。這等於是說，這個二。換句話說，就是二分之零等於一。這個小小的根本就是空無的一。在另一方面，無線的直線的區分，擁有一個大「一」，給予我們兩條半線。這兩條半線開始於一個點，然後分開到無限： 二分之一等於二。

This makes it felt for you how I understand that there is no sexual rapport. I no doubt give to the word rapport the sense of proportion, but the mos geometricum of Euclid, which has appeared for such a long time the paragon of logic, is completely insufficient.

這讓你們感覺到，我如何瞭解：性的親密關係不存在。我無可置疑地給予「親密關係」這個字，具有「均衡」的意義。但是歐幾裡德的「幾何學」是完全不勝任的，雖然它如此長久的時間來似乎是邏輯的典範。

Also, in entering into the figure of the knot, there is a wholly other fashion to figure the non-rapport of the sexes– two circles not knotted. Each is in its fashion of turning in a circle as a sex is not knotted to the other. That is what my non-rapport means.

而且，當我們進入這個環結的圖形，有一個完整的其它方式要描繪兩性的非親密關係—兩個圓圈並沒有連接成結。每一個都以它的圓圈的旋轉方式作為性，彼此並沒有被連接成結。這就是我所謂非親密關係的意思。

雄伯曰：

拉康所謂的「性的親密關係不存在」There is no sexual rapport. 儘管反復陳述，還是令人覺得匪夷所思。倒不如最近有一位網友金枝條，用通俗的話跟我說，還比較言簡意賅：

關於：the man in the woman

竊以為“女人心中的男人”不妨翻譯成“女人裡面的男人”，這跟“岩石上羚羊的腳步“才可類比。：）其實就是從情感記憶上並不作數的男人，肯定不曾進入女人心裡，也許只是進入女人體內。

這個觀點，雄伯只有首肯。僅能補充地說，反過來說，情感記憶上並不作數的女人，擁有男人進入她的體內，，也肯定不曾擁有男人心裡。兩造都是身體的小客體在互動，作為兩造的無意識的大他者，彼此並沒有發生性的親密關係。

It is striking that language has for a long time anticipated the figure of the knot—with which mathematicians have not begun to busy themselves until our day–by calling what unites the man and the woman a knot. These knots imply as necessary the elementary 3 with which I support them: the three indications of sense, of sense materialized, posed in the namings of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real.

引人注意的是，長久以來，語言曾經期盼這個環結的圖形—使用它，數學家還沒有開始忙碌從事，直到我們的時代—我們稱呼聯接男人與女人的東西為結。這些環結暗示這個基本的「三」是需要的。用這個「三」，我支持他們。這個三大意義指標，意義的具體化，以符號界，想像界，及實在界的命名方式被提出。

I am introducing the word naming (nomination). I have had to respond with it recently apropos of the theory of reference, as logicians understand it. My knot brought me down to earth.

我正在介紹「命名」這個字。最近我曾經必須回應它，關於指稱的這個理論，依照邏輯家所瞭解它。我的環結讓我變的比較實際。

The whole question is of knowing if naming again arises, as it seems, from the symbolic.

整個問題是要知道，是否命名會再一次出現，似乎是從符號界出現。

The least one can say is that, for my knot, naming is a fourth element. I have already drawn this figure for you (Figure 7). A fourth circle knots the three at first posed as unknotted.

我們至少能夠說的是，對於我的環結，命名是第四個元素。我已經跟你們描繪出這個圖形（圖形七）。一個第四個圓圈，將起初被提出作為未被連接成結的這三個圓圈，連接成結。

In engaging in this four, one finds a particular path (voie) that only goes to six. What engages you in this path is what the three imposes, not of a distinction, but, quite to the contrary, of an identity between the three terms symbolic, imaginary, and real.

當我們從事這第四圓圈，我們發現一個特別的途徑，這條途徑僅是通往「六」。在這條途徑讓你從事的是，這個三所賦加，不是作為一種區別，而是，相反地，作為這符號界，想像界，及實在界三個術語之間的認同。

This is true (Cela va) to the point that it seems to us necessary (exigible) to find again in each this trinity. I have had to foment to account for it the terms ex-sistence, consistency, and hole.

這個陳述真實的程度，我覺得有需要重新在這「三位一體」的每一個裡去找到。為了解釋它，我曾經必須鼓吹「外部存在」「一致性」「空洞」等這些術語。

I make of ex-sistence, of what is in play up to a certain limit in the knot, the support of the real. What makes consistency is of the order of the imaginary, since if the rupture involves something, it is indeed consistency, to give it its most reduced sense.

我解釋「外部存在」，解釋是什麼在運作，直到環結的某個限度，實在界的支持。構成一致性的東西，是屬於想像界的秩序，因為假如這個斷裂牽涉到某件東西，那確實就是這個一致性，為了給予它，它最被還原的意義。

There remains then—but does it remain?–for the symbolic the affectation of the term hole. Topology gives us a figure of it in the form of the torus. But is this figure suitable, since the torus has two holes, an internal hole with its gyrie, and an external hole, thanks to which the torus is demonstrated to participate in the figure of the cylinder?

那麼，還剩下什麼呢？—但是它始終是什麼呢？– 對於這個符號界，「空洞」這個術語的裝模作樣。拓撲圖型給予我們一個它的圖形，以凸起的形式。但是這個圖形上適合的嗎？因為這個凸起圖形有兩個空洞，一個內部的空洞，擁有它的環結，還有一個外部的空洞。由於它們，這個凸起圖形被證明參與圓柱狀物的圖形？

The cylinder is for us one of the best ways of materializing the straight line to infinity, of which everyone knows its rapport with what I call the round of consistency.

對於我們而言，這個圓柱狀物是最好的方法，具體表現這條直線到達永恆。眾所周知，它跟我所謂的一致性的這個圓圈的親密關係。

Desargues was aware for a long time that the infinite straight line is in every way homologous to the circle, whereby he anticipated Riemann. Nonetheless, a question remains open, to which I give an answer by the attention I bring to the Borromean knot.

長久以來，德薩古斯知道，無限的直線從各方面來看，都跟這個圓圈具有一致性。在那裡，他預期會有瑞曼的複雜球形。可是，一個問題始終未被回答，我提醒你們注意博羅米恩結，來作為回答。

Let us only consider this drawing (Figure 8). Let us say that this circle is the symbolic, and that the two straight lines figure the real and the imaginary. What is needed for it to make a knot? The point at infinity must be such that the two straight lines do not make a chain, whatever they may be and from wherever one might see them (les voie).

讓我們僅是考慮到這個圖形（圖形八）。讓我們說，這個圓圈就是符合界，這兩條直線描繪實在界與想像界。需要什麼，才能讓它形成一個環結？ 在無限的這個點必須是這樣，這兩條直線並沒有形成一個鎖鏈，無論它們是什麼，及無論我們從哪裡看見它們。

I remind you in passing that this from wherever one might see them supports this reality I enounce of the gaze. The gaze is only definable by a from wherever one might see them.

If you think of a straight line as making a round from a unique point at infinity, how can you not see that this has the sense that not only are they are not knotted, but that in not being knotted they are effectively knotted at infinity. Desargues, to my knowledge, neglected this question.

假如你認為一條直線，作為從一個無限的獨特點，形成一個圓圈，你們如何能夠看不出，這具有這個意義，它們不但被連接成結，而是由於沒有被連結成結，它們實際上在永恆處有效地連接成結。據我所知，德薩古斯忽略這個問題。

I made use of Desargues at the time when I gave my seminar on Las Meninas at the Normale Supérieure, focusing on situating this famous gaze that is quite obviously the subject of the painting. I situated it in the same interval that I establish here on the board in another form; that is, what I define by the fact that the infinite straight lines, in their supposed point of infinity, are not knotted in a chain.

我利用德薩古斯的問題，當我在「the Normale Supérieure」發表我對於「宮女畫」的研討班。我專注於定位那個著名的眼神，那顯而易見地，是那幅圖畫的主題。 我定位這個眼神，當我以另外一種形式在黑板上這裡建立相同的間隔。換句話說，我根據這個事實定義：這些無限的直線，在它們被假定的永恆點，它們並沒有在一個鎖鏈裡，被連接成結。

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com