Archive for the ‘lacan:RSI’ Category

拉康:RSI 24

November 6, 2011

拉康:RSI 24
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of March 18, 1975
I have already evoked the discovery made by Michel Thomé of an error in Figure 6 of the last published of my seminars. Felix Culpa, this was a fortunate error since it gave him occasion to invent some Borromean knots of a special type, which are only unmade beginning from one end. It is only in one direction (sens) and not in the other that all are unknotted.

我已經在我最近被出版的的研討班的圖形六,引用麥克、湯玫對於「一種錯誤」的發現。Felix Culpa, 這是一種幸運的錯誤,因為它給予他機會,發明某個特別種類的波洛米恩結。這種環結只有從某一端開始,才能解開。 只有朝著一個方向,而且不是朝著另一個方向,一切的環結都會被解開。

And in the direction in which all are unknotted, they are freed one by one, and not immediately.

朝著這個方向,所有的環結都被解開。它們是一個環結,又一個環結地被解開,而不是立刻被解開。

This invention is indeed for me the proof that I do not speak without effect. What I know thanks to these two friends, Soury and Thomé, puts me on the path.

對於我而言,這種發明確實證明: 我的談論並非沒有效果。感謝兩位朋友,邵瑞與湯玫,我所知道的事情,讓我繼續前進。

The knots are something quite original, with perhaps–I am not sure–the ambiguity of “the original.” What would confirm this is that it is not so easy to get back there.

這些結是非常原創性的東西,或許—我不太確定—帶有「原創性」的這個曖昧。所能肯定這個的東西是,要退回那裡並不那麼容易。

And, then, the original is not what one begins with. Historically, the Borromean knot is not found under the hoof of a horse. One did not take an interest in it until very late. Me, when I caught wind of the knot–I found it in the notes that someone had taken at Guilbaud’s seminar–I immediately had the certitude that this was something of great value (précieux) for what I had to explain.

因此,這個原創性並不是我們開始的東西。 在歷史上,這個波羅米恩結並不是一個馬蹄下被找到。直到很晚,我們才開始對它感到興趣。我,當我聽到這個環結的奧秘時,我在桂巴德的研討班,某個人的筆記裡發現它—我立刻確定,這是某件非常有價值的東西,因為我必須解釋的東西。

I immediately found the rapport of the rounds of thread of this knot, of these three particular consistencies, with what I had recognized from the beginning of my teaching; which I would no doubt have not emitted, being little inclined to it by nature, without a call, tied in a more or less contingent fashion to a crisis in analytic discourse.

我立刻發現,這個環結的線索的圓圈的密切關係,這三個特別的一致性,從我的教學的開始,我曾經體認到的東西。 無可置疑的,我本來不會發表這種教學,因為我在天性上,並沒有教學的傾向。 假如沒有須要,以一種相當偶然的方式,跟精神分析論述的危機有關聯。

It is possible that with time I would have aperceived that this crisis had to be unknotted, but there had to be certain circumstances for me to pass to the act. The three rounds thus came to me like a ring to a finger, and I immediately knew that the knot incited me to articulate (énoncer) something that would homogenize the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real.

很有可能地,隨著時間過去,我本來會感覺到,這種危機必須被解開環結。但是必須要有某些的情況,我才會採取這個行動。這三個圓圈因此來到我這裡,就像手指上的戒指,我立刻知道,這個環結激勵我表達某件東西,使符號界,想像界,與實在界均勻化。

What does this mean, “homogenize”? It is obvious, as Pierre Soury remarked previously in a little note he communicated to me–I take great care to give each his due–they are somewhat similar, but, he adds, “between the similar (pareil) and the same (même), there is room for a difference.” Putting the accent on the similar is very precisely of what homogenization consists,
the pushing forward of the s, which is not the same, but the similar.

「均勻化」是什麼意思?顯而易見,如同皮爾、邵瑞先前所說,在他跟我溝通的一張小紙條—我很小心各別都歸功於他—它們都相當類似,但是他補充說,「在類似與相同之間,擁有差異的空間。」強調這個類似,確實是屬於均勻化所組成的東西,將這個「類同」推向前,它不是相同,而是類似。

What do they have of the similar? I believe I must designate this with the term
consistency, which is already to advance something rather incredible.

它們對於這個類似擁有什麼?我相信,我必須指明這個,使用一致性這個術語。這個一致性已經是提升某件相當難以置信的東西。

What indeed can the consistency of the imaginary, and of the symbolic and the real, have in common? Do I, by this statement (énoncé), render you enough sensible that the term consistency arises with the imaginary?

想像界,符號界與實在界的一致性確實會有什麼相同?使用這個陳述,我讓你們足夠明理,一致性的這個術語跟隨想像界而來嗎?

Parenthesis. Figuring the knot is not easy. I do not say “figuring it for yourself” (“se” le figurer), because I completely eliminate the subject. I take my departure, on the contrary, from the thesis that the subject is determined by the figure in question. Not that it would be its double.

括弧。要描繪這個環結並不容易。我並沒有說「替你自己描繪它」。因為我完全忽視這個主體。相反地,我從這個主題出發:主體受到這個可置疑的圖像決定。倒不是因為它將是它的雙重者。

But it is from the wedgings of the knot, from what in the knot determines the triple points–it is by the tightening (serrage) of the knot that the subject is conditioned.

但是從這個環結的嵌入開始,從在這個環結決定的三個點—就是憑藉這個環結的緊縮,主體受到制約。

Figuring the knot is not easy (commode). I have already given you some proofs of this in my muddlings over the question of the oriented knot.

描繪這個環結並不容易。我已經給予你們這個的一些證據,在我弄混這個被定向的環結的問題。

To the real of the Borromean knot, you can add this: the differentation of each of these rounds. The simplest way is to color them. Although Goethe notes it nowhere in his Theory of Colors, color is in itself pregnant with differentation.

對於波羅米恩結的這個實在界,你們能夠補充這一點:這些圓圈的每一個的區分。 最簡單的方式是替它們染顏色。雖然歌德在「顏色理論」裡並沒有注意到它,顏色的本身就充滿差異。

There is a limit, certainly, since the number of colors is not infinite, but, finally, thanks to color, there is some difference. Thus, you introduce differentiation into the round by coloring in a different way each of the rounds. You can go as far as to orient them. I have then asked the question of whether this differentiation leaves the knot not similar, but always the same.

確實有一個限制,因為顏色的數目並不是無限,而是,最後,由於顏色,會有某種的差異。因此,你用不同的方式蹄每一個圓圈染顏色,介紹差異進入這個圓圈。你能夠過分到替它們定方向。我因此詢問這個問題:這個區別是否留下這個環結,不是類同,而是總是相同。

It is effectively always the same, but there is only one way to demonstrate it: it is to demonstrate that, in every case–what does “case” mean?–it is reducible to the similar.

它有效地總是相同,但是只有一個方法證明它。那就是證明,在每一個情況—「情況」是什麼意思?它能夠被化簡成為這個類似。

I was indeed convinced that there is only a colored knot, but I waffled a little concerning the oriented knot. Orientation, in fact, concerns a yes or no for each of the knots, and I have been led astray by the relation of each of these yeses or nos with the other two. I have not gone so far as to think that there are eight or four knots, but I have battered my brains to know if there aren’t two.

我確實相信:僅有一個染顏色的環結,但是我稍微有點胡扯,關於這個被定向的環結。事實上,定向關係到一個「是或否」,對於每一個環結。我曾經被引導迷失,由於每一個這些「是或否」的關係,跟其它兩個。 我並沒有過分到認為,有八個或四個環結。但是我曾經絞盡我的腦筋,為了要知道是否有兩個環結。

Thus, it is no small result to have obtained from Pierre Soury, after having asked explicitly for it, the demonstration?–no, the monstration [showing] that there is only one oriented Borromean knot.

因此,從皮爾、邵瑞那裡獲得的結果,非同小可。 在我已經跟你們明確地要求它,這個證明?—不,要求這個顯示:被定向的波羅米恩結僅有一個。

Let us remark that he can only do this by way of what I have called the flattening out.

讓我們談論,他僅能夠這樣做,憑藉我所謂的擺平。

This flattening out is something that merits being individualized, because the knot, I have shown you, is not at all flat by nature. That one must go by way of the flattening out to emphasize the sameness of the oriented knot, is this not a sort of fatum of thought, which in attaching it too closely to the true, lets the real slip through its fingers?

這個擺平是某件應個被個別化的東西。因為這個環結,我曾經跟你們顯示,它在本質上並不是平坦的。我們必須憑藉這個擺平,為了強調這個被定向的環結的相同性。這難道不是一種思想的宿命嗎?這個思想讓實在界從它的手指間滑溜掉,當思想將它緊密地連接到真實?

This is indeed what I brought out last time in distinguishing the concept and the truth. The concept limits itself to a taking (prise), as the word capere indicates, and a taking does not suffice to insure that the real is what one has in hand.

這確實是我上一次所顯露的,當我區別這個觀念及這個真實。這個觀念限制它自己接納,如同「捕捉」這個單字所指示的。接納並不足以保證:實在界就是手中所擁有的東西。

In the comments I make to you and that you have, I don’t know why, the patience to accept, it is impossible for me to inform you at every instant what I do in speaking to you. Your presence proves to me that I do something that concerns you. But in what mode does that happen?

在我跟你們做的這些評論當中,我不知道為什麼,你們擁有這個耐心接受。我不可能隨時都告訴你們,我所做的,當我跟你們談話時。你們的在現場跟我證明,我做了某件跟你們有關的事情。但是以怎樣的模式,那件事情發生?

To say that you understand something of it is not even certain at the level where what I say is sustained. But there is nonetheless something that is worthy, and it is this something that I situate in saying that we understand each other (on se comprend).

說你們瞭解某件關於它的東西,在我所說的內容被維持的層次上,甚至都不確定。但是仍然有某件東西是有價值的。就是這個我定位的某件東西,當我說,「我們互相瞭解」。

We understand each other has no other substratum than we kiss each other (on s’embrasse). This, however, is not exactly what we do. There is an equivoke here, which, like all equivokes, has a smutty side. For my part, I
force myself to put a little humor in my recognition of this smuttiness as presence.

「我們互相瞭解」並沒有其它的基礎,除了我們「互相接吻」。可是,這個並不確實是我們所做的事情。在此,有個雙關語。就像所有雙關語,它具有猥褻的一面。就我而言,我強迫我自己表現一點幽默,當我體認出這個猥褻,作為在現場。

It is indeed this that gives weight to the way I slice the knot, in stating that there is no sexual rapport.

確實就是這個,對於我切碎這個環結,給予重量,當我陳述:性的關係並不存在。

This does not mean that the sexual rapport does not roam the streets. It remains to be put in evidence that everything has to be recentered on this frotti-frotta, this fiddling around (fricotage), to make a call to what? To the real, to the real of the knot. Freud made a step by simply aperceiving that one has never spoken of anything but that, and that everything philosophy did pursued the sexual rapport to overflowing (á plein bord).

這並不意味著:這個性的關係並沒有滿街遊走。性的關係始終是招搖過市,每一樣東西都必須重新集中在這個「挑情」,這個「挑逗」,為了召喚什麼?為了召喚實在界,這個環結的實在界。 佛洛伊德的進步,僅在於他感覺到,我們從來沒有談論到任何事情,除了就是這個。哲學所做到一切,就是追求這個性的關係,到過分氾濫的程度。

By stating that there is no sexual rapport, I designate a very local point. Marking an R, to be put between x and y, to designate the relation, is from the very start to enter into the game of the written. Now, for what concerns the sexual rapport, it is strictly impossible to write xRy. There is no logicizable
elaboration, and at the same time no mathematical one, of the sexual rapport–this is the accent I put on the statement “there is no sexual rapport.”

以陳述:性的關係並不存在,我指明一個非常局限的點。標示一個「R」被擺放在X 跟Y之間,為了指明這個關係,是從一開始,就進入這個書寫的遊戲。現在,對於性的關係所相關的,要書寫「XRY」是絕對不可能。沒有一個邏輯化的建構,同時,也沒有數學化的建構,對於性的關係—這是我對於這個陳述的強調:「性的關係不存在」。

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

拉康:RSI 23

November 6, 2011

拉康:RSI 23
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of March 11, 1975
xlvii

I excuse myself to Pierre Soury, who sent me a very beautiful little schema concerning the Borromean knot of which I will not have time to speak today.

我要跟皮爾、邵瑞道個歉。他送我一個非常美麗的小基模,關於波羅米恩結。可是我今天沒有時間來談論這個結。

These two schemas involve an orientation, a direction–the three essential elements of the Borromean knot are oriented in a centripetal fashion, which he opposes for me with the contrary form, centrifugal (Figure 10).

這兩個基模牽涉到一個定向,一個方向—這是波羅米恩結的三個基本的元素,以一個向心力的方式。他用相反的形式,離心力的方式,跟我針鋒相對。

I remark to him in passing that if we do not identify by coloring them which of these three rounds is the symbolic, which the real, and which the imaginary, these knots, far from being nontransformable the one into the other, are the same, seen from another side.

我順便跟他說,假如我們不將它們染色來辨認,這三個環結當中哪一個是符號界,哪一個是實在界,哪一個是想像界。這些環結,都是一樣的,假如從另外一邊來看, 因為它們並不是屬於不可轉換的,從其中一個環結,轉換到另一個環結。

I should add that, taking things from the other side, the real and the symbolic are inverted, which is not foreseen in his schema. However, this leaves intact the question of whether it is indifferent, in this form, not flattened out, that the order exists or not. I therefore signal to Soury that there is a distinction to be made between the order of the three terms, the orientation given to each, and the equivalence of the knots.

我應該補充說,從另外一邊來看待事情,真實界與符號界將會被倒轉。這在他的基模裡,是沒有被看見的。可是,這會使這個問題無法解答:秩序存在,是否無關緊要,以這個形式,而不是比擺平。我因此跟邵瑞先生表示,在這三個術語的秩序之間,會有一個區別,每一個術語都被給予一個定向,以及這些環結都是相

The imbeciles of mad love who had the idea of making up for (de suppléer) the unreal woman titled themselves surrealists. They were themselves symptoms, symptoms of the aftermath of the war of ’14, to the extent that social symptoms–but it is not said that what is social is not tied to a knot of resemblances.

瘋狂的愛的蠢行,他們擁有這個觀念彌補非真實的女人,替他們自己標題為超現實主義者。他們自己就是病徵,1914年歐戰浩劫後的病徵,甚至成為社會的病徵—但是據說,社會的問題跟真理類似物的結,沒有關聯。

Their idea of making up for the woman who does not exist as the, for the woman of whom I have said that she was the type itself of errancy, put them back in the rut of the Name-of-the-Father, of the Father as naming, of which I have said that it was a device (truc) emerged from the Bible, but of which I add that it is a way for the man to pull his phallic marker (épingle) from the game.

作為彌補這個女人,她並沒有實存,作為「這個」,因為我曾經提到的這個女人,她是屬於錯誤型的本身。她們的觀念將她們放回「以父親之名」的常規,父親作為命名。對於這個命名,我曾經說過,那是一種從聖經出現的策略,但是對於這一點,我補充說,這是男人將他的陽具標誌從遊戲中撤出的方式。

A God, as tribal as the others but perhaps employed with a greater purity of means, is only the quite useless complement–which is what I express with the conjugation of this fourlooped knot–because he is the signifier 1 and without a hole, without a hole of which he would be permitted to be served in the Borromean knot, which has the body of a man–self-sexed, Freud stresses–and gives the man the partner he lacks. He lacks how?–because he is aphlicted, to write it like that, aphlicted really with a phallus which bars for him the jouissance of the body of the Other.

一位上帝,就像其它神祗一樣屬於部落性質,但是可能被使用,帶著作為工具的更純粹性質。他僅是這種相當無用的補充—這是我使用四個圈套的環結的結合所表達的—因為他是這個能指,並且沒有一個空洞。沒有這個空洞的空洞,他將會被准許替波羅米恩結服務。這個波羅米恩結擁有像人一般的身體—是性化的本身—佛洛伊德強調—-並且給予這個人他所欠缺的伴侶。 他是如何地欠缺?—因為他是「被閹割的陽具」,確實擁有一個陽具,這個陽具對於而言,卻是閹割大彼者的身體的歡爽。

There would have to be an Other of the Other for the body of the Other not to be some semblance (semblant) of his own, for him not to be so different from the animals as to not be able, like all of the sexed animals, to make of the female the God of his life.

將必須有一個大彼者的一個大彼者,給大彼者的身體,為了不要成為他自己的某種類似物,為了讓他不要成為如此的不同於動物,以致於不能夠將他自己的生命的上帝解釋為女人,像所有性化的動物一樣。

The mental of the man–which is to say the imaginary, the aphliction of the phallic real because of which he knows himself born–has only the semblance of power. The real is the blank of sense; in other words, the blank sense by which the body makes a semblance, a semblance on which all discourse is founded, first and foremost the master discourse which makes of the
phallus the signifier index 1.

這個男人的精神的實存—也就是說,這個想像界,這個陽具的實在界的閹割,因為這個閹割,他知道他自己的誕生—這個精神的實存僅擁有權力的相似物。 實在界就是意義的空白。換句話說,這個空白的意義,身體憑藉它製成一個類似物。所有的真理的類似物就是以這個類似物作為基礎。 首先,而且最重要的是,主人論述以這個能指的索引「一」,來解釋陽具。

Which does not prevent that if in the unconscious there were not a crowd of signifiers to copulate with each other, to be indexed as abounding two by two, there would be no chance that the idea of the subject, of a patheme of the phallus of which the signifier is the One that divides it essentially, would come to light.

這並沒有阻止,假如在無意識,並沒有一群的能指互相交媾,能夠被編成二乘二的豐富的索引,將不會有任何機會,主體的這個觀念,或陽具的這個「母題」,能指點陽具就是基本上分開它的這個「一」,將會真相大白。

Thanks to which it aperceives that there is some unconscious knowledge, some unconscious copulation, whence this mad idea—of this knowledge making (savoir faire) a semblance in its turn. In relation to what partner?–if not that which is also produced by a blind copulation–it is the case to say.

由於這個陽具的這個「母題」漠然無感,會有些無意識的知識,某些無意識的交媾,從那裡,這個瘋狂的觀念

Only signifiers copulate with each other in the unconscious, but the pathematic subjects that result from this in the form of bodies are lead to do the same–to fuck (baiser), as they call it.

僅有能指在無意識裡互相交媾,但是惡靈的主體,以身體的形狀,從這個而形成, 被引導做相同的事情—去做性愛交媾,如他們所稱呼它。

This is not a bad formula, for something informs them that they can do no better than to suck on the body signified Other, Other only by some writing in the civil registry. To jouir from it, it has to be cut in pieces. The Other body lacks no disposition for that, since it is born prematured.

這並不是一個不好的公式,因為某件東西告訴他們,他們最好在被能指化的大彼者的身體猛吸,這個大彼者僅是根據在文明的銘記裡的某些書寫。為了從它那裡享樂,大彼者被能指化的身體,必須被切成粉碎。大它者的身體並不欠缺遭受粉碎的性情,因為它天生就是早產兒。

And the concept is not lacking–one calls that sado-masochism, I don’t know why. It can be no more than dreamed of, from the unconscious naturally, since this is the road which must be said to be heartened by the Royal dire. King, one more name in the business, which everyone knows always springs to the business of the Name-of-the-Father. But it is a name to lose like the others,
to let fall in perpetuity.

這個觀念並不欠缺—我們稱呼那個為虐待狂與受虐狂。 我不知道為什麼。它僅能夠被夢想,當然是從無意識那裡,因為這是這條必須受到皇家國王鼓勵的道路。國王是這種事情的另一個名字,眾所周知,國王這個名字總是介入到「以父親之名」。但是就像其它的名字,這是一個將會失掉的名字,掉落與永恆當中。

The Noms-du-Pere, the ânons-du-Pere12, what a herd I would have prepared to make reenter their throats their brayings if I had given my seminar; I would have hunited–a wordcoming from hone13 (hune) woman–some new stupidity (ânerie).

這些驢子,假如我當時發表我的研討班,我本來會準備讓這一大群驢子重新讓它們的喉嚨嘟嘟叫。我本來會喋喋不休—這個來自女人的字眼—某些新的愚蠢。

This is why the hanalysts—on the waiting list, of course–lined up at the doors of The Interfamilial Analytic Association and annafreudhummed 14 in the wings the return to the cradle, while patching together tough motions of order against me.

這就是為什麼這些「分析家」—當然,正排入等待的名單—正在「國際分析協會」與安娜佛洛伊德學院的門口兩側排隊。要回到培訓他們搖籃。他們聚集在一塊,採取強烈行動反對我。

I am certainly not insensible to the weariness of ex-sisting (d’ex-sister-terreterre), which one believes one will always attain to finally. But I can only persevere in my erre– Laurent, tighten (serrez) my herre with my discipline.

對於「先前實存」的這種厭倦,我確實並非沒有感覺。我們相信,我們最後我們總是會獲得這種「先前實存」。但是我能夠堅持我的精神分析信仰的無誤。

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

拉康:RSI 21

November 3, 2011

拉康:RSI 21
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of March 11, 1975

You will tell me that I run on (m’en paye), and even to the point of tiring you. It’s that I make an effort to disentangle myself from what is fundamental to thought, what I will call the typical imbecility, typical of thought, of the human humor in regard to the real, which, however, it has to deal with (traiter).

你們將會告訴我,我喋喋不休,甚至到讓你們感到不勝其煩的程度。 那是因為我努力要替我自己擺脫屬於思想的基本的東西,那是我所謂的典型的愚蠢行為,典型的思想,屬於關於實在界的人類的性情,可是,這個實在界,卻又是它必須處理的

Whence the urgency that the sense of this word be discernible.

這個文字的意義應該被辨明的迫切性,從何而來?

Up to the present, what I have said about tradition keeps all of its value. It is no more saleable than religion, the green pastures.11 To go there, right to the end, the true blue (vrai de vrai) at-least-one God is He who taught the speaking being to give a name to each thing—the name of the name, the name-of-the-Father. The non-dupe errs without it, for the zist or zest-for-eternity.

迄至目前,我所說的關於傳統具有一切它的價值。它跟宗教一樣,廣受歡迎,就像是綠茵的草原。為了前往那裡,直到這個目標,這個真實的蔚藍,,至少是「一」是上帝。他教導言說的主體,給予每一樣東西命名—命名的命名,以父親之名。 假如沒有這個命名,這位非易受騙的人會犯錯誤,因為對於「永生的強烈渴望」。

To back up a little, this results in the real being what ex-sists to sense, inasmuch as I define it by the effect of lalangue on the idea, on the imaginary supposed by Plato to the speakingbeing animal among others, among the other animals-in-the-flesh (au corps)–or the devil in the flesh, if you like.

為了稍加支援,這造成實在界成為先于意義之前的實存。我對它的定義,是用語言對於觀念的影響,對於被柏拉圖認為的想像界的影響,對於人作為會言說的動物,處於眾多其它動物中,及眾多具有肉身的動物中,—或者我們也不妨說是,人是具有肉身的惡魔。

Why not, since we are in mental debility. One mentally debilitated is as good as another, why not Plato? Aristotle (Aristote) too, who argues about the idea of the ass (âne) to say that the ass is an ass, and that there is no Ass with a capital A; he too assistotles(anistote).

人為什麼不是具有肉身的惡魔呢?既然我們的精神力量衰弱。一個衰弱的精神跟另一個衰弱的精神大同小異。柏拉圖為什麼不是具有肉身的惡魔? 亞力斯多德也是一樣。 他主張這個白癡的觀念說: 白癡就是白癡。沒有一個具有大寫字母的白癡。他也是一個白癡。

The real has to be conceived of as expelled from sense. It is the impossible as such, the aversion to sense. It is also the version of sense in the anti-sense and the antesense, the shock in return of the word, inasmuch as the word is only there for that–which is not for nothing, if it accounts for what it is in question, for the refuse (immondice) from which the world (monde) is pruned (s’émonde) in principle–insofar as there is a world. This does not mean that it gets there.

實在界必須被構想,作為從意義裡被驅除出來。作為這樣的本身成為「不可能界」,跟意義背道而馳。從反意義及前意義的角度來說,它也是意義的另類。是文字回轉的震撼。因為文字僅是那裡供它使用—-這可不是徒勞無用,假如它解釋受到置疑的本質。因為這個廢料,原則上,這個世界就是從那裡剪接過來—就有一個世界而言。這並不意味著,文字到達廢料那裡。

Man is always there. The ex-sistence of filth (l’immonde), of what is not the world, is the real plain and simple. It is quite worthwhile to push this as far as the elaboration of the quantor.

人總是在廢料那裡。這個污穢物的先前存在,不是屬於世界之物的先前存在,是實實在在的實在界。 這是相當有價值,逼迫這一點直到數量的建構。

Some such x exists; and instead of an (un) x, it is better to say une x. To what does it exsist?

某個這樣的未知數存在,非但不是一個未知數,我們最好說是「非未知數」。它先於什麼之前存在?

That is what one must ask oneself. It ex-sists to the ideic consistency of the body, which body reproduces it. It ex-sists to the symbolic inasmuch as the symbolic turns in a circle around an inviolable hole, without which the three-looped knot would not be Borromean.

那就是我們必須詢問自己的地方。它先前存在於身體的這個觀念的一致性,是身體複製它。它先前存在於符號界,因為符號界以迴圈方式繞著一個不可侵犯的空洞旋轉。假如沒有這個空洞,這三個圈套的環結就不會是波羅米恩結。

That is what the Borromean knot means–the hole of the symbolic is inviolable.
Why not then write it like this (Figure 1)? The symbolic is the red circle I put there.

那就是波羅米恩結的意思—符號界的空洞是不可侵犯的。那麼為什麼不像這樣書寫(圖形一)? 這個符號界是這個紅色的環圈,我放置在這裡。

It is imposed on the imaginary, which I put there in green, the color of hope. One sees how the real ex-sists there, no more compromising itself by knotting itself with the symbolic in particular than it does with the imaginary.

符號界被賦加在想像界的上面。我用綠色將想像界放置在那裡,綠色是希望的顏色。我們看出,實在界如何先前存在那裡,它雖然與想像界,特別是與符號界,連接成為環結,卻並不因此有所妥協。

In whatever direction (sens) one makes this imaginary and this real turn, they will cross each other without making a chain.

無論我們朝著怎樣的方向,使這個想像界與這個實在界回轉,它們總是會互相跨越過,而沒有形成一個鎖鏈環圈。

These two consistencies can just as well be straight lines to infinity. But we must stipulate that, however one conceives of this point at infinity dreamed up by Dessargues as specific to the straight line, a straight line that makes one of its ends return to the other, there is no question of its folding back on itself without the line which first passed over the other line passing over it again.

這兩個一致性很有可能是直線通往無限。但是我們必須有個約定: 無論我們如何構想通往無限的這個點,這個點被德薩古斯擬想為明確是直線,一條直線使其中一條的末端,回轉到另一個末端。它不可能折疊回到本身,假如沒有這條線首先通過到另一條再一次通過它的線,

There is no other way to demonstrate that the Name-of-the-Father is nothing other than this knot than to suppose the rounds unknotted.

沒有別的方法來證明:以父親之名實實在在就是這個環結,就是假定被鬆開的幾個環結。

Let us no longer pass the symbolic in front of the imaginary. How can we knot three independent consistencies? There is a way, which is that one there, which I call the Name-of-the- Father (Figure2)–it is what Freud does.

讓我們不再將符號界通過想像界的前面。 我們如何能夠將三個獨立的一致性連接成環結呢?有一個方法,就是那裡的那個方法。我稱為啥以父親之名( 圖形二)—這就是說佛洛伊德所做的。

At the same time, I show the radical function of the Name-of-the-Father, which is to give a name to things, with all the consequences that this entails, including a jouir, notably. I have already made some traces for you of this four-looped knot, one of which failed. I give you yet another, the same, but in profile (Figure 3).

同時,我顯示以父親之名的激進的功用。那就是給予事情一個名字,帶有這個所涵蓋的所有的結果,特別是包括一種「歡爽」。對於這四個圈套的環結,我已經替你們從事一些追蹤,其中一個追蹤是失敗了,我還可以給你們另外一個追蹤, 樣式是一樣,但是僅是輪廓上一樣(圖形三)。

This story thus leaves us in the three, since the adjunction of the four is superfluous. As one might expect, the distinction in the symbolic of giving-a-name is a part of the symbolic.

這個故事因此讓我們留在這三個環結。因為這四個環結的添加是多餘的。 如同我們可能會期望,在符號界,給予命名的區別是符號界的一部分。

What you see here (Figure 4) in a particularly clear way, I have repeated because it perhaps does not leap into view there (Figure 5). This is the Borromean knot before its flattening out.

你們在此所看到的( 圖形四),以一種特別清楚的方式,我曾經重複。因為或許並沒有跳躍到我們在那裡的視野 (圖形五)。這就是波羅米恩結在它被擺平之前的樣子。

The Borromean knot is what, to two circles that circle each other, introduces this third which penetrates the circles in way that the other is, in relation to this third, in the same relation as with the first circle. I now ask the question: is there a discernible order here? Is the Borromean knot a whole (tout), a conceivable whole, or else does it imply an order?

波羅米恩結,對於兩個互相環繞的環圈而言, 介紹這個第三環圈,貫穿這些環圈,以另外一個環圈相關於這個第三環圈的方式,如同跟這第一個環圈的關係相同。 我現在詢問這個問題:在這裡有沒有一個可辨認的秩序?波羅米恩結是一個「圓全」嗎?一個可想像的圓全,或是它暗示著一種秩序?

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

純精神分析與心理治療的區別

November 1, 2011

純精神分析與心理治療的區別
Jacques-Alain Miller
雅克-艾倫、米勒

THE RESPONSES THAT LACAN DID NOT GIVE
How many times have we read it? But we must understand – and here’s where the change occurs – his response as a response to our interrogations of today. And to appreciate the accent of this response or to understand the impact this response has today, we must base it on what it is not: I mean on the basis of the responses that Lacan did not make in 1973 to the question of knowing what distinguishes psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.
拉康沒有給出的回應
我們讀了多少次?但我們必須明白他的回應,作為我們今天聞訊的回應,那正是改變之地。為了感謝這種回應的腔調或者明白回應在今天的影響力。我們必須以不是它來作為它的基礎。我的意思是以拉康在1973年對精神分析和心理治療的區別這個問題上沒有做出的回應為基礎。
雄伯
拉康沒有給予的回應
有多少次我們曾經閱讀它? 但是我們瞭解—在改變發生的地方—他的回應作為今天對於我們的質疑的回應。為了賞識這種回應的強調,或為了瞭解這個回應在今天產生的影響,我們必需將它的基礎建立在非它本質的地方。我的意思是,在1973年,拉康並沒有做的這些回應,現在作為我們的基礎,針對這個問題:如何知道區別精神分析與心理治療。

純精神分析與心理治療的區別

Jacques-Alain Miller
雅克-艾倫、米勒
THE RESPONSES THAT LACAN DID NOT GIVE
How many times have we read it? But we must understand – and here’s where the change occurs – his response as a response to our interrogations of today. And to appreciate the accent of this response or to understand the impact this response has today, we must base it on what it is not: I mean on the basis of the responses that Lacan did not make in 1973 to the question of knowing what distinguishes psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.

拉康沒有給出的回應
我們讀了多少次?但我們必須明白他的回應,作為我們今天聞訊的回應,那正是改變之地。為了感謝這種回應的腔調或者明白回應在今天的影響力。我們必須以不是它來作為它的基礎。我的意思是以拉康在1973年對精神分析和心理治療的區別這個問題上沒有做出的回應為基礎。

雄伯

拉康沒有給予的回應
有多少次我們曾經閱讀它? 但是我們瞭解—在改變發生的地方—他的回應作為今天對於我們的質疑的回應。為了賞識這種回應的強調,或為了瞭解這個回應在今天產生的影響,我們必需將它的基礎建立在非它本質的地方。我的意思是,在1973年,拉康並沒有做的這些回應,現在作為我們的基礎,針對這個問題:如何知道區別精神分析與心理治療。
I distinguish two responses that he did not make, but which he could have made, making thus a series of three.

我區分兩個他本該做出,而沒有做出的回應。使之成為這樣一系列的三個。
雄伯

我區別他沒有做的兩個回應,這兩個回應,他本來能夠做到,因此讓它們成為三個回應的系列。
The first response he did not make would have used the vector apparatus called the graph of desire. He did not give this response then – even if one finds it in elements throughout the course of the previous seminars which I had to develop in Rennes. The difference between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy was supported by the difference of levels in Lacan’s graph.

  • 第一個他未作出的回應可以用向量表示,叫做欲望圖。他沒有給出這個回應,即使有人在他早期的研討班課程中到處都能發現它。精神分析和心理治療的不同,在拉康的圖示那裡,用不同等級來支援。
  • 雄伯
  • 第一個他沒有做的回應,本來會是使用所謂的欲望的圖形的向量的工具。他當時並沒有給予這個回應—即使我們在他前幾個研討班的課程的內容,發現到這個回應,這前幾個研討班,我在瑞尼斯必須給予發揮闡述。精神分析與心理治療之間的差異,在拉康的圖形裡,以層次的差異來支援。
    http://www.lacan.com/desire1.gif
  • 雄伯
  • 被擺置於傾聽的立場,長期傾聽病人對你作親密而持續的溝通,這個事實的本身,使傾聽者形成是一位大彼者,或是安置他處於大彼者的地位。
  •  
  • It consists in distributing psychoanalysis and psychotherapy on these two stages while posing the crucial role of that which in A opens the way to the upper stage, and where one can consider that the desire of the analyst is operative, since it is not functioning in the lower part.
    http://www.lacan.com/desire1.gif
    它把精神分析和心理治療分開到兩個階段,同時提出一個決定性的角色,那就是在A處打開了一條通向更高階段的路,在那裡人們可以把分析家的欲望看成是運轉的,在低的部分是沒有這種功能的。
  • 雄伯
  • 這個圖形根據這兩個階段,安排精神分析和心理治療,同時提出一個決定性的角色,那就是在A處,它打開了一條通向更高階段的路,在那裡,人們認為,分析家的欲望有在運作,而在低的部分,分析家的欲望並沒有運作。
  • This schema is somewhat convincing because it takes into account the effectiveness of psychotherapy, if one wants to situate it there.
  • 這個圖示是可以信服的,因為它考慮到了心理治療的效力,如果一個人想在處於這種情景,作為一個聽的位置,
  • 雄伯
  • 這個圖示相當令人信服,因為它考慮到了心理治療的效力,如果我們想在定位精神分析為心理治療。
  •  
  •  The fact itself of being placed in the position of listening, of prolonged listening to an intimate and consistent communication of the patient, constitutes the auditor as the Big Other, or installs him in the place of the Other.
  • 一個長期聽的事實本身就是針對一個密友的,並且一直與一個作為大彼者的聽眾交流,或者將他放在小彼者的位置,
  • Constitutes 的主詞是 the fact itself
  • 傾聽者auditor 成為大彼者,不是作為大彼者的聽眾
  • The Other 都是大彼者,這裡沒有談到小彼者

 

  • The auditor’s position as an agent of humanity, in the place of speech, as depository of language, confers to his speech, when he allows it, an operational power which is effective, in particular in rectifying identifications.
  • 聽眾的位置是作為人類的代理,說話的位置則是語言的委託人,他允許授予他的言說一種操作的力量,這種力量是有效地,特別在修正認同的中。

雄伯

傾聽者作為人類的代理者的立場,處於言說的地位,作為語言的存放處,賦予他的言說,具有一種操作的權力,假如他容許它的話。這種操作的權力是有效的,特別是在矯正病人對他的認同。

 

A TRAJECTORY BEYOND
I would remind you that what is obtained is, after all, rather convincing and valorizes the analyst’s desire, which is established by the refusal of the auditor/interpreter to employ his supposed identifying power. It is this abstention itself of the analyst’s desire which opens a trajectory beyond.
一條超越的軌道
我願使你們想起獲得了什麼,畢竟,確信和穩定分析家通過拒絕聽眾或譯員的認同力量建立起來的欲望,就是這種放棄分析家欲望本身,那種欲望通向一條超越的道路。

雄伯

一條投射的軌道
我將提醒你們,畢竟,所獲得的東西是相當令人信服的,並且讓分析家的欲望具有價值。作為傾聽者及詮釋者的分析家,拒絕使用他被認為具有的認同權力,證實他的欲望存在。就是分析家的欲望選擇自我節制,展開一種超越的投射。

Valorize—To give something a value 給予一種價值

Abstention— Choose not to consume 選擇節制
It is clear that this schematic permits, and even incarnates, what might be called a trajectory beyond, since, when it is constructed, the only port of entry to reach the upper stage is in the place of the Other.

這個圖示清晰地允許了,甚至形象化的,展示了也許可以被稱為一條超越之路的東西。而當他被結構之後,成為了一個可以達到更高階段的入口,也就是小彼者的位置,

雄伯

顯而易見地,這個圖示讓所謂的超越投射成為可能,甚至具體顯現。因為當它被建構時,唯一到達上層階段的入口處,就是在大彼者的位置。

It is clear that 修飾整個句子,不是修飾permits,

 

 If the switches don’t give you access to this vector, you are stuck, you can’t get to any other point. Thus we have here a singular point which opens to a vector. When the switch of the subjective trajectory is in operation, we have a unique point.
如果這種轉換沒有讓你進入這個向量,你就被卡住了,你不能得到任何其他的點。可以說我在那裡有一個通向這個向量的孤立的點,當主體的軌道轉移是可以活動的時候,我們就有了一個獨特的點。

雄伯

如果這些轉換沒有讓你進入這個向量,你就被卡住了。你不能到達任何其他的點。因此,我們在這裡,有一個通向一個向量的獨特的點。當主體的投射轉換運作時,我們就有了一個獨特的點。
We must see at what point this schematic becomes for us the instrument itself of pinpointing a practice, a very prevalent instrument, whose echoes resound.

我們必須看到在哪一個位置上這個圖示為我們稱為一個精確定位一種實踐的工具,一種很普遍的工具,他的回聲可以反復被聽到。

雄伯

我們必須看出,在哪一個位置上,這個圖示對於我們而言,它會成為一個精確定位精神分析實踐的工具本身,一種很普遍的工具,工具的回聲可以反復被聽到。

 Its foundation, to state it quickly, is scission and articulation of speech (parole) – these are the circuits of the lower stage – and of drive. Parole would be the first stage; drive would be the second.
.它的基礎就是通過極快的陳述它,分離和連結言說。這些就是低階段的回路,也就是驅力的回路。
雄伯

簡言之,.工具的基礎,就是言說的分離和表達—這些就是低階段的回路—也就是驅力的回路。言說將是第一個階段,而驅力將是第二個階段。

To state it quickly 是不定詞片語,修飾整個句子,不是修飾it foundation
http://www.lacan.com/desire2.gif

We find here, symmetrical with the place of the Other, something in Lacan’s writings which we could decipher, but which, for today, and perhaps for a little while, we could simplify by giving it its Freudian name of id, of conferring to it the privilege of being the space of drives

我們發現在小彼者對稱的位置那裡,拉康寫的一些東西我們可以辨認出來。但是我們一會兒通過給它佛洛德本我的名字來簡化那些東西,而那正是被授予了作為驅力位置特權的。

雄伯

我們在此發現拉康著作的某件東西,與大彼者擁有相同地位。這個東西,我們是有能力詮釋,但是今天,或許我們僅能以些微時間,用佛洛伊德的「本我」的名稱,予以簡化,讓它享有居於驅力的空間的特權。

 

I remember that Lacan, in a detour in his Seminar, reproached himself for having once joined them, instead of separating them, in his “that which speaks.”

我記得拉康在他的研討會上,在一條迂回的道路上,譴責自己在他的“說話的地方”曾經加入了他們,而不是離開他們。

雄伯

我記得,拉康在他的研討班,拐彎抹角地,譴責自己,在他作為“說話者”時,曾經將本我與驅力混為一談,而不是區別它們。

In a detour這裡應該是比喻的用法「拐彎抹角地」,而非實質上的「在一條迂回的道路上」

That which speaks 的that which 是speaks 的主詞,因此譯為「說話者」,而不是「說話的地方」

Them 指前面的id and drives 本我與驅力

He reproached himself for having joined the id and the unconscious, in its manifestation as parole, in his “that which speaks.” This schematic shows the lesson of what Lacan had at one time considered as his confusion, which distinguishes the place of parole and the drive, here the Other and the id.
他譴責自己曾經加入了本我和無意識,在他的“說話的地方”其表現為假釋。這個圖示顯示了拉康曾經一度視之為困惑的部分,那就是區分假釋和驅力的位置,在那裡有小彼者和本我。

雄伯

他譴責自己,曾經將本我和無意識混為一談,,當他展示無意識作為一種「言說」,在他作為「言說者」。這個圖示顯示,拉康曾經一度視之為他的混淆,所獲得的教訓。那個混淆就是突顯「言說」與驅力的位置,在此,就是大彼者與本我的位置。

Parole 在此應該是法文的「言說」speech,而不是英文的「假釋」,又沒有犯人,談什麼假釋!

Confusion 在此不是「困惑」,而是將佛洛伊德的本我與拉康的無意識,混為一談joined them

I’ll forego the interesting digression – that I had prepared but which I must skip – which made me revisit the correlative function, namely that of S( ),which one could say inscribes the scission of the id and the Other, that reflects the scission of the id and the Other.

我將放棄這個有趣的旁支內容,雖然我已經有了準備,但是我必須跳過這個內容。這個內容使得我第二次討論相關的功能,即是SO的功能,可以說這個提名是本我和小彼者的分裂,也是對其的一種反映。

雄伯

我將放棄這個有趣的旁支內容—雖然我已經有了準備,但是我必須跳過這個內容—這個旁支內容使得我能夠重新討論這個的相關功能,即是主體作為大彼者被劃槓(被閹割)的功能。我們能夠說,這個主體作為大彼者被劃槓(被閹割)的功能,銘記了「本我」與「大彼者」的分離,也反映出本我與大彼者的分離。

 

I of course privilege the staged presentation. You evidently find in Lacan the possibility of considering the two stages as simultaneous and functioning in some way superimposed one upon the other.

我賦予分階段的表現以特權。你能明顯地在拉康那裡發現將兩個階段當做同步的和在某種方式上將一者疊加到另一者之上的可能。

雄伯

我當然賦予分階段的表現以特權。你們在拉康那裡,能明顯地發現,我們有可能將兩個階段當做是同時性,並且以讓它們彼此重疊的某種方式運作。

The lower stage, where hypothetically we situate psychotherapy, is such that – and there we would note a difference – the question of jouissance is not posed, since one must rise to the second stage for it to be posed, and it is at this cost that the total power of the Other is preserved.

較低的那個階段,我們假設心理治療存在的那個階段,在那裡我發現了一種不同,享樂的問題沒有被提出來。而這必須被提出來以到達第二階段,它估計小彼者動力的總和是一種保護。

雄伯

較低的那個階段,我們假設是心理治療存在的那個階段—在那裡我們將發現一種不同—這個階段是如此低,以致於歡爽的問題沒有被提出來。因為我們必須上升到第二階段,歡爽的問題才能個被提出。就是要犧牲這個代價,大彼者的全部權力才被保存。

Such that—-The lower stage is so low that the question of jouissance is not posed.

這個階段是如此低,以致於歡爽的問題沒有被提出來

since one must rise to the second stage for it to be posed

= since one must rise to the second stage in order that the question of jouissance may be posed
因為我們必須上升到第二階段,歡爽的問題才能個被提出

at this cost 犧牲這個代價,而不是「估計」
We elude thus, in psychotherapy, that which would put the omnipotence of the Other at fault. We preserve, in psychotherapy, the consistency of the Other, since what would be unique in the analytic position pertaining to psychoanalysis itself would be admitting the question of jouissance, would make the Other inconsistent.
我們逃避如此東西,在心理治療當中,那些錯誤地賦予小彼者全能性的。我們保護的,在心理治療中,是一個同一性的小彼者。適合精神分析自身的分析位置上獨特的東西將允許提出享樂的問題,這將使得小彼者變成非同一性的。

雄伯

因此,在心理治療,我們避免會讓大彼者的全能受到損傷的東西。在心理治療,我們保存大彼者的一致性。

因為在精神分析的立場,那些屬於精神分析本身的獨特的東西,將會接納歡爽的問題,因此會使大彼者喪失一致性。

 

It’s wonderful! I find it truly great. It works. I once explained it almost like that, rather more lengthily. But it is not Lacan’s response.  Of course it is there previously, scattered throughout the course of the Seminar, but it is not the response he gave. He gave a response which seems much less interesting, a truly impoverished response, some laughable phrases.
太棒了!我覺得真是太好了。它有用了。我一度這樣來解釋它。也許更長。但是這不是拉康的回應,當然在之前就在那兒了,分散遍佈到研討班的課程裡。然而這不是他的回應。

雄伯

太棒了!我覺得真是太好了。它有用了。我一度幾乎就是像這樣來解釋它,更加冗長地。但是這不是拉康的回應,當然,在之前它就在那兒了,分散遍佈到研討班的課程裡。然而,這不是他給予的回應。拉康給予一種比較不是那麼有趣的回應,那確實是乏善可陳的回應,一些引人哈哈大笑的詞語。

WHAT THE UNCONSCIOUS RECLAIMS
The second response that Lacan did not give either was to consider psychotherapy as inscribed in the discourse of the master. Why didn’t Lacan simply respond about that aspect, since the four discourses were still for him, in 1973, a totally current reference which we find used in Television itself? Why didn’t he give a response directed toward locating psychotherapy in the discourse of the master, a response which would not have been inadequate?

拉康沒有給出的第二個回應應該是把心理治療視為大師的講述。拉康沒有給出的第二個回應應該是把心理治療視為大師的講述。為什麼拉康不簡單地像這樣回答?自從1973年來,四次講課依然是向他要求這個回應,我們其中發現當時關注的方向在電視業因為在1973年,四種真理論述的區分,對他而言,依然是向他要求這個回應,我們其中發現當時關注的方向在電視業出現了。為什麼他不給出一個回應直接把心理治療定位為大師的講述?而給出一個不充分的答覆?

雄伯

無意識重新要回的東西

拉康也沒有給出的第二個回應,是把心理治療銘記在主人論述裡。既然在1973年,這四種真理論述的區分,對他而言,跟我們在電視訪談的本身發現的,他所使用的目前的全部指稱,並沒有什麼兩樣。為什麼拉康不簡單地回答那個層面的問題?為什麼他當時不給予一種回應,嘗試將心理治療的位置定位在主人論述裡?這樣的回應本來會是合情合理嘛!

since the four discourses were still for him, in 1973, 的since 是「既然」,表原因,不是「自從」,表時間

four discourses 是四種真理的論述(辭說): 主人論述 discourse of the master, 歇斯底里症的論述 discourse of the hysteric,大學論述 discourse of University,精神分析論述 discourse of psychoanalysis

(請參照研討班「精神分析的另一面」The Other Side of Psychoanalysis)

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

拉康:RSI 20

October 31, 2011

拉康:RSI 20
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of March 11, 1975

There must be a tie between that and sense, whereby the1 is applied so well to the 0. It was Frege who made the discovery, and I have blathered on occasion about the difference between Sinn and Bedeutung, where the difference between 0 and 1 is seen, all in suggesting to you that this is not a difference, for there is nothing better than the empty set to suggest the 1.

在那個跟意義之間,一定有一個聯繫,在那裡,這個「一」被運用到這個「零」恰到好處。那是佛瑞吉做的發現。我有時喋喋不休,關於「意思」與「意義」之間的不同,在那裡,「零」與「一」之間的差異被看出。當我跟你們建議,這並不是一種差異。因為建議這個「一」,充其量也就是這個「零」的空洞集合。

There it is. How then does the symbolic, ordinarily called the bla-bla, or the word—how does it cause sense?

就在那裡。 這個象徵,普通被稱為無聊話,或是字詞—它是如何產生意義的?

That is a question I do not ask you without having the answer. Is it in the idea of the unconscious? Is it what I have said since the first Rome discourse?

每當我詢問你們那個問題,我自己就有解答。答案就在無意識的這個觀念嗎? 答案是我從第一次的羅馬論述以來,我曾經說過度話嗎?

Question mark. No, it is not in the idea of the unconscious; it is in the idea that the unconscious ex-sists, which is to say, it conditions the real, the real of this being I designate the speakingbeing.

這是個疑問號。不,答案並不是無意識的這個觀念。答案是無意識先前實存的這個觀念。換句話說,它制約實在界。我指明是人作為言說實存的這個實存的實在界。

It names things, as I have just evoked apropos of the first flirtation of the Bible with an earthly paradise. It names things for the speakingbeing, a being that, although a species of animal, differs singularly. What does this mean, “animal”? An animal is what reproduces.

它命名事情,如同我剛剛召喚,關於基督教聖經媚弄世間的天堂。 它替言說的主體命名事情。這個主體,雖然是動物的一種,卻有顯著地差異。這是什麼意思,「動物」?動物就是會繁殖的東西。

Only, how is this animal parasited by the symbolic, the bla-bla? There, it seems to me—it seems to me, but it is not very probable–I am distinguished from people of my species of animal, who since time immemorial, it must be said, know that they speak, but do not explicitly make much of it.

只是,這個動物如何受到象徵界的寄生,那些無聊話的寄生?在那裡,我覺得—我覺得,但是並不是很有可能—我是跟我同種的動物的人們顯著不同。自從遠古以來, 我們必須說,他們言說,但是沒有明確地重視它。

And what shows that they do not explicitly make much of it is not that they haven’t said it, since everything is said in the bla-bla, but that they dream of not being the only ones (les seuls). This has them by the guts. Let us write laisseuls to evoke let them alone, in this parlance.

是什麼顯示,他們並沒有明確地重視它?這並不是因為他們沒有說過它,因為在這些無聊話裡,每一件事情都被說。 但是他們夢想他們並是唯一的言說者。這讓他們鼓起勇氣。 讓我們書寫「任憑自由」,以這種語調「隨他們自己」吧。

These days, this is manifested in the frenetic need to discover the language of the dolphins and of the bees. Why not? This has always been a dream.

這些日子,這樣的事情被展示出來,在對於海豚與蜜蜂的語言,大家狂熱地需要去發現。有何不可呢? 這始終是一個夢想。

Formerly, this dream had other forms: one dreamed that there was at-least-one God who spoke, and who, above all, did not speak without it
having some effects. What you don’t hear about is the tangled feet with which the sub-speakers, the angels–the commentators?–approach him.

以前,這個夢想擁有其它的形式: 我們夢想,至少有一個言說的上帝。特別重要的是,上帝每次說話,總有某些效果。 你們沒有聽到的是那些交叉前進的腳,次要的言說者,天使,評論者,他們用腳走路去接近上帝。

Finally something more serious comes, a very small advance– not a progress, to be sure, for there is no reason for us not to continue tangling up our feet. In linguistics we have nonetheless distinguished naming,10giving a name, consecrating a thing with a speaking name.

最後某件更嚴重的事情來臨,一個非常小的進展,不算是進步。確實地,因為我們沒有理由不繼續雙腳交叉前進。在語言學,我們仍然區別,「命名」,給予一個名字,用一個言說的名字讓一件事情神聖化。

Naming (nomination) is not communication. It is in naming that the parlotte is knotted to something of the real.

命名並不是溝通。就在命名時,這個「對話」跟實在界的某件東西連接成結。

What is the relation of this naming, as the title of a book says, with necessity? Long ago, the person named Plato accounted for having to have the idea, the , s as a third. The s is a very good translation for what I call the imaginary, since it means the image.

如這本書的書名所說的,這個「命名」跟需要的關係是是什麼?很久以前,有一位名叫柏拉圖的人解釋必有擁有這個觀念「想像」,作為第三個。這個「想像」,是一個非常好的翻譯,對於我所說的想像界,因為它意味著這個意象。

Plato saw very well that without the s there was no chance that words would stick to a thing. That did not bring him to the point of speaking of the Boromean knot ,but only because chance had not furnished him with it. The idea was for him the consistency of the real. Nonetheless, the idea being in his time nothing without something namable, one deduced with university discourse the realism of the name.

柏拉圖看得很清楚,假如沒有這個「想像」,文字就沒有機會跟一件東西緊連在一塊。那並沒有帶他來到這一點,談論波羅米恩結。但是那僅是因為他沒有機會接觸到這個結。對於他而言,這個觀念就是實在界的一致性。 可是,由於在他的時代,假如沒有可命名的東西,這個觀念就沒有價值。我們可用大學的論述方式推論出這個命名的現實主義。

It must be said, the realism of the name is better than the nominalism of the
real–believing that one can use just any name to designate the real. Not that I am marking a preference, I am simply underscoring that nominalism is an enigma paying homage to the effect of the name on the real, to what is added to it when one names it. In the realism of the name, itself founded on the imaginary, a dire is missing–one is interdicted from admitting this homage.

我們必須說,命名的現實主義比實在界的正授權較好—相信我們能夠僅是使用任何名字來指明實在界。 倒不是因為我正在標示某種偏好。我僅是在強調,這個授權是一種謎團,對於實在界的命名的影響表示致敬,對於當我們命名它時,所被增添的東西表示致敬。 在命名的現實主義,它本身的基礎上想像界,有一種「災難」正在漏失—我們被禁止不能承認這種致敬。

This is found again in the prestige of the university. But it does not appear to us, us other analysts, to constitute an advantage. We remain in thought.

在大學的威望那裡,這種狀況再一次被發現到。但是對於我們,我們其它的精神分析師而言,這並沒有形成一種優勢。 我們始終是在思想裡面。

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

拉康:RSI 19

October 31, 2011

拉康:RSI 19
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of March 11, 1975

. . . R.S.I, these are just letters, as such supposing an equivalence. What results from my speaking them, making them serve me as initials, speaking them as real, symbolic, and imaginary? This takes on a sense. The question of sense is what I am trying to situate this year.

實在界,象徵界,想像界,這些僅是字母,它們本身假定是平起平坐。從我談論它們,讓它們替我服務充當字首,談論它們作為實在界,象徵界,與想像界,獲致的結果是什麼?這具有一種意義。意義的問題就是我今年要定位的東西。

The property of sense is that one names something in it, which gives rise to the dimension of what one calls “things,” which only take their seating (assise) from the real.

意義的屬性是,我們在裡面命名某件東西。這個東西產生我們所謂「無意識物」的維度。這些無意識物從實在界獲得它們的位置。

I have been led to the showing (monstration) of the knot, although I sought to do a demonstration of analytic discourse. Now Freud’s work makes no use at all of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real. But it implies them, for it revolves around the Name-of-the-Father.

我曾經被引導從事這個環結的展示,雖然我嘗試替精神分析論述從事一個展示。現在,佛洛伊德的著作根本就不使用象徵界,想像界,與實在界。但是它暗示它們,因為它環繞「以父親之名」運轉。

The Names-of -the-Father are that: the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real. These are the first names insofar as they name something. As the Bible indicates apropos of this extraordinary thing it calls the Father, the first time of this human imagining (imagination) that is God is consecrated to giving a name to what?–to each of the animals.

「以父親之名」的內涵是: 象徵界,想像界,與真實界。這些是最初的名稱,因為它們命名某件東西。 如同基督教聖經,適當地指示它所謂「父親」的這件特別的東西。那是人類第一次想像: 上帝被奉為神聖,給予一個名稱給予什麼?—給予每一種動物。

The Bible did not come from nothing, but from a tradition. A tradition is always stupid (conne). This is even why one has devotion–there is no other manner to be reattached to it than devotion. All that one can hope from a tradition is that it be less stupid than another.

聖經並不是來自於空無,而是來自于傳統。傳統總是愚蠢的。這甚至就是為什麼我們擁有這種虔誠—除了虔誠,沒有別的辦法跟傳統重新銜接。從傳統,我們所能希望的是,它不像另外一個傳統那樣愚蠢。

How is this judged? There we reenter the more and the less. This is judged by the plusde-jouir as production. The plus-de-jouir is all that we can get our teeth into. It is because it is a matter of the jouir that one believes in it. The jouir is at the horizon of this more and this less.

這如何被判斷呢?我們重新進入那裡,帶著較多及較少虔誠。這個由「剩餘歡爽」,作為產物來判斷。這個「剩餘歡爽」就是我們所能夠努力以赴的東西。因為這個歡爽的問題是我們要相信它。 這個歡爽處於這個較多及這個較少的虔誠的地平線。

It is an ideal point, which one calls what one can. One says: the phallus.

這是一個理想點,隨我們怎麼稱呼它。 我們不妨說:這個陽具。

I have already stressed, in its time, that for the speakingbeing it is the essence of the comic. As soon as one speaks of something that has a relation to the phallus, it is the comic– which has nothing to do with the joke. The phallus is a comic like all comics–sad. Reread Lysistrata. You may laugh; you will find it bitter.

我已經強調過,在陽具的時刻。人作為言說的生命實存,陽具是這個喜劇的本質。 當我們談論到某件跟陽具有關的東西,陽具是喜劇—這個喜劇跟笑話沒有絲毫關係。 陽具是一種喜劇,像所有的喜劇一樣,它是悲傷的。請重新閱讀古希臘喜劇「性擺工」,你可能會笑,你可能發現笑得苦澀。

It must also be said that the phallus is what gives body to the imaginary. A little film brought me by Mme Aubry as an illustration of what I called then the Mirror Stage struck me a lot.

我們也必須說,陽具就是讓身體被給予想像界的東西。奧布瑞夫人帶給我一部小影片,可用來說明我所謂的「舞臺鏡像」給予我的印象。

You know how, on some not very assured foundations, I account for the jubilation connoting this moment for the child. I suppose that this jubilation is due to the prematured body, uncoordinated until then, feeling reassembled, its unity seized by way of the image, its mastery assumed. For animals born ripe, it does not seem–without our being able to confirm it–that this is produced to the same degree. There is not for them this jubilation.

你們知道,在某種並不是很確定點基金會,我如何說明指明給小孩的這個時刻的歡慶。我假定這個歡慶是由於這個早熟的身體,直到當時還不協調,感覺到重新裝配,身體的一致性通過意象來掌握,擔負起對身體的掌控。對於生來就成熟的動物—我們沒有辦法證實它—這個掌控似乎沒有到達相同的程度。 這個歡慶並不是為了他們。

Well, there is a tie between this and a gesture I was able to grasp in this film. The child before the mirror–I don’t know if it was a little girl or a little boy; it little matters, the gesture has the same value–the child passed its hand before what was perhaps a phallus or perhaps its absence, and pulled it back sharply from the image.

嗯,在這個跟我在影片裡瞭解到一種姿態之間,有一層關係。 在鏡子前面的這個小孩—我不知道是否是女孩還是男孩,這並不重要,這個姿態擁有相同的價值—這個小孩用他的手放在可能是一個陽具或是陽具的欠缺之處,然後突然從鏡子那裡縮回他的手。

This ellipsis appeared to me the correlate of the prematuration, and the announcement of what will later be called modesty.

我覺得,這種壓抑跟這種早熟,以及後來所謂的羞澀的宣告息息相關。

The phallus, thus, is above all the real insofar as one elides it. If you return to what I have cleared the way to this year in trying to make consonate consistency, ex-sistence, and hole with the imaginary, real, and symbolic, I will say that the phallus is not the ex-sistence of the real.

因此,這個陽具尤其是這個實在界, 因為我們壓抑它。假如你們回答我今年曾經澄清的途徑,當我嘗試用想像界,實在界,與象徵界,讓一致性,先前實存,與空洞互相共鳴。我將會說,陽具並不是實在界的先前實存。

There is a real that ex-sists to this phallus, which is called jouissance, but rather this is its consistency. It is the concept, if I may say so, of the phallus. With “concept,” I echo the word Begriff, which doesn’t go so badly, since in sum the phallus is what is taken in the hand.

有一個實在界在這個陽具先前實存。它被稱為歡爽。但是相反地,這是它的一致性。 它是這個陽具的觀念,容我這樣說。使用「觀念」一詞,我回應「概念」這個字詞。它應用得還不錯,因為在數量上,陽具就是被掌握在手中的東西。

The concept is not without relation with this announcement, this prefiguration of an organ that is not yet taken as a consistency, but as an appendix. The ape also masturbates, and this is how he resembles man. In the concept, there is always something of the order of apishness.

這個觀念跟這個宣告,並非沒有關聯,跟這個器官的預兆。這個器官還沒有被接受作為一致性,而是作為一種附加物。這個人猿也手淫。這就是他類似人的樣子。
在這個觀念裡,總是有某件東西屬於猴子般地秩序。

The only difference between the ape and the man is that the phallus consists no less for him in what he has of the female than in what he has of the male–a phallus worth the same as its absence

在人猿與人之間的唯一差異是,陽具對於他而言,道道地地是他所擁有的女性,如同他擁有的男性—陽具的價值跟它作為欠缺相同。

Whence the special accent that the speakingbeing puts on the phallus, in the sense that jouissance ex-sists to it. This is the accent proper to the real, the real inasmuch as it ex-sists, which is to say the real as real, a real at the power of 2. All that he knows of the two is power, a semblance (semblant) whereby he remains the one-alone. This is what one calls being–beginning with 12 =
1.
言說主體對於陽具的這個特別強調,其意義是:歡爽先前實存於它。 這就是實在界本體的強調,它是實在界,因為它先前實存。 換句話說,實在界,作為實在界,實在界處於「2」的次方。他對於這個「2」所知道的是次方,是一個類似物,在那裡,他始終是這個「一」。這就是我們所謂的「實存」—開始於一的二次方等於一。

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

拉康:RSI 18

October 30, 2011

拉康:RSI 18
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of February 18, 1975

It is the order explored beginning with my experience, I remind you, that has led me to this infernal trinity. I am not thinking here of bringing a cord into play that is not Freudian.

我提醒你們,就是從我的精神分析經驗開始的被探索的秩序,曾經引導我到這個內部隊三位一體。我在此想到的,並不是要運作一個不是屬於佛洛伊德的秩序/

Flectere si nequeo superos Archerontes movebo–here is illustrated what I have called the truth of a certain religion. It is not completely by chance that it arrives at a divine trinity, and this, contrarily to the tradition to which it is connected. I will confide in you in saying that the desire of man is Hell, because Hell is what he lacks.

「Flectere si nequeo superos Archerontes movebo」—在此被說明的,是我所謂的某種宗教的真理。這個真理到達一種神聖的三位一體,完全不是偶然。而且這個結論與它所相關的傳統,恰恰相反。我將會跟你們坦白承認,人的欲望是地獄,因為地獄是人的欠缺。

Thenceforth, it is what he aspires to. We have the testimony for this in neurosis. The neurotic is someone who has not attained to what for him is the mirage where he would find himself satisfied, to wit, a perversion. A neurosis is a failed (ratée) perversion.

因此,地獄就是人所渴望的東西。 我們在神經症患者身上,擁有這個地獄的證詞。 神經症患者是某個還沒有獲得對他而言是幻境的人。在幻境那裡,他將會發現他自己的滿足,更確實地說,他是一位倒錯狂。神經症患者是一位失敗的倒錯狂。

It is because you are a lot more interested than you suppose in this nodalization of the imaginary, of the symbolic, and of the real that you are there, it seems to me; why else would you take this strange satisfaction in hearing these stammerings? For me, I can no more than clear the way for the consequences of what I say.

因為對於想像界,象徵界,及實在界的這個環結化,你們比你們實際的狀況更加感到興趣。我覺得,要不然你們為什麼聽到這些結結巴巴的話語,你們會有這種奇怪的滿足?對我而言,我僅能對於我言談的內容的結果,先清理途徑。

We have established that the ex-sistence of the knot was supported by this field, and that it was of the order of the real. On the other hand, what supports a body? The body only has an appearance for you by being what resists, what consists before dissolving.

我們曾經證明: 這個環結的「先前實存」是由這個領域支持。那是屬於實在界的秩序。 在另一方面, 是什麼在支持身體?對於你們而言, 身體僅是根據它所抗拒的東西,在瓦解之前組成的東西,擁有一種外表。

There is a consistency of the body, just as there is a consistency of the line, and consistency is of the order of the imaginary. As a consequence, by elimination, we are led to pose that the hole is of the order of the symbolic, which I have founded by the signifier.

身體有一種一致性,正如這條線有一種一致性。一致性是屬於想像界的秩序。 結果,由於化減,我們被引導提出: 這個空洞是屬於象徵界的秩序。根據我的生命作為能指,我創建這個象徵界的秩序。。

This is what we have to now interrogate. Is the symbolic the hole? The real, existence? The imaginary, consistency?

這就是我們現在必須要質疑的東西。 象徵界是這個空洞嗎?實在界是生命實存嗎?想像界是一致性嗎?

These categories are not easily manageable. They have, however, left some traces in history. It was by a traditional philosophical extenuation, of which Hegel gave the summit, that something sprang forth under the name of someone named Kierkegaard.

這些範疇並被很容易管理。可是,它們在歷史上曾經留下一些痕跡。憑藉傳統哲學的偏袒的辯護,黑格爾讓它們登峰造極。 在某位名叫齊克果的這個人的名義之下,某件東西開花結果。

You know that I have exposed his promotion of existence as such as convergent with an experience appearing much later in Freud. Think of his stressing of repetition as more fundamental in experience than the
resolution called thesis-antithesis-synthesis on which a Hegel threaded history.

你們知道,我曾經揭露他對於生命實存本身的提升,作為跟稍晚出現在佛洛伊德的精神分析經驗的彙集。想想看,他對於重複的強調,作為精神分析更加基本的東西, 遠超過黑格爾貫穿歷史的「正反合」的解決方式。

The standard unit (étalon) of this function is found in jouissance. The relations lived by the Kierkegaard in question are those of a knot never avowed, which is that of a faulty father (pére à la faute).

這個功用的這個標準的單位,在「歡爽」裡面被找到。 受到質疑的齊克果體驗過的那些關係, 是一個從來沒有承認的一個環結的關係。 那就是一個「有過失的父親」的關係。

It is not a matter of his own experience, but of that of he who in relation to him is found to occupy the place of the father. At the same time, this place of the father is found problematic . . .

問題並不是齊克果自己的經驗,而是跟他的關係,被發現到佔有父親這個位置的他的關係。同時,父親的這個位置被發現是問題重重。

It is only on this date that existence is promoted as such. No doubt it does not have the same accent as I give it by fragmenting it with a dash. If it is in this époque that existence emerges, emerges for me, and that I write it otherwise, and that it becomes tangible in the knot, I do not believe that this puts me in continuity with a philosophical interrogation. Rather, there is a rupture.

生命實存本身被提升,僅是根據這個時代。無可質疑的,它並沒有擁有相同的強調,如同我給予它,用一個破折斜槓,將它們切成碎片。生命實存就出現在這樣的情境裡,為了我而出現。 我用不同方式書寫它。它在這個環結變得很具體。我不相信,這會讓我處於跟一個哲學的質疑處於連續性的關係。相反地,這是一個斷裂。

The emergence of the unconscious as a knowledge, a knowledge proper to each particular person, is of a nature to change completely the notion of knowledge that has dominated since Antiquity. In fact, if knowledge depends on relations of the sequence of generations with the symbolic, with this hole of which I have just spoken, how can we not interrogate its status?

無意識的出現,作為一種知識,作為每個特別的人的本體知識。它屬於的特質會完全改變從古以來盛行的知識的觀念。事實上,假如知識依靠對於這個象徵界的好幾代的系列的關係, 以我剛剛談論的這個空洞,我們如何能夠把質疑它的狀態呢?

Is there a knowledge in the real? The supposition always made, a supposition not avowed, is that by all appearances there is, since the real walked (ça marchait), turned in a circle.

有一種在實在界的知識嗎?這個假定總是被提出,這是一個沒有被承認的知識。從各種外表看起來,既然實在界在運作, 會有一種迴圈的知識。

We, in the real, we touch on a knowledge in a wholly other form . . .

在實在界,我們觸及的一種完全不一樣的另類知識。

When one poses knowledge as immanent to the real, one puts it in the form of the s, thanks to which the real knows what it has to do. And when it is not the s, it is the All- Power, the wisdom, of God. The Newtonian world is not thinkable without God, for how would each of these masses know its distance from all of the others?

當我們提出知識,作為實在界的內在本質,我們將它以這個「道」表達。由於這個表達,實在界知道它必須做些什麼。當它不是這種「道」時,它是上帝的萬能,上帝的智慧。牛頓的世界,假如沒有上帝,是不可思議的。因為每一個這些品質如何會知道它跟其它品質的距離。

Voltaire believed in the Supreme Being: I have not received his confidences; I do not know what idea he had of it. That could hardly be far from the idea of the All-Science, the idea that it is He who makes the machine work. It’s the old story of the knowledge in the real that has sustained all the old metaphors of the potter. Aristotle was a populist–it was the artisan who gave him the model for his causes.

伏爾泰相信最崇高的存在: 我還有獲得他那樣的信心,我不知道他對於這個最崇高的存在,有什麼看法。 那個看法大約就是全知全能的觀點。這個觀念是:上帝讓這台機器運轉。實在界的知識的古老觀念,曾經維持陶壺的古老比喻。亞力斯多德是一位民粹主義者—這位藝匠給予他,作為目標的模式。

Everything superb about the s reduces itself to that, which makes it so his theory has been welcomed with open arms wherever the metaphor of the potter is primary. A divine hand made the pot. But is God always busy making it turn? Does he let it turn by itself? Refinements of knowledge.

關於這個「道」,每一樣優秀的東西都化減自己到那樣。它非常成功,所以他的理論廣受大眾的張臂歡迎,在陶壺的比喻作為基本的地方。 神祗的手製作這個陶壺。但是上帝總是忙著讓它運轉嗎? 上帝讓陶壺自行運轉嗎? 這是知識精鍊的部分。

The question is to be taken up again beginning with this: knowledge is only supposed from a relation to the symbolic, which is incarnated by a material as signifier. But what is a signifying material? We only have the tip of its nose in Aristotle, when he speaks of the . It is certain that the idea itself of matter is only thinkable as an issue of the signifying material, where this idea finds its first examples.

這個問題應該再一次被探討,從這裡開始: 知識僅是從跟象徵界的關係被假定。這個象徵界由作為能指的材料具體表現。但是一個能指化的材料是什麼? 我們在亞力斯多德著作對於它,僅是略知一二,當他談論這個「能指化材料」。物質的這個觀念的本身確實是僅是可思議,只有作為能指化材料的問題。在那裡,這個觀念找到它最初的例子。

Our own experience is that of the symptom. The symptom reflects in the real the fact that there is something that does not work (marche) where?–not in the real to be sure, but in the field of the real. This is owed to what?

我們自己的經驗是病徵的經驗。 病徵在實在界反映出這個事實: 有某件東西沒有在哪裡運作?確實是沒有在實在界運作,但是在實在界的這個領域運作。 這要歸功於什麼?

To what I support in my language by the speaking being–if it did not speak, there would not be the word being . . . There is a coherence, a consistency,
between the symptom and the unconscious. I define the symptom by the fashion in which each jouit from the unconscious insofar as the unconscious determines him.

要歸功於在我的語言,根據作為言說的生命實存,所支持的東西—生命實存若是不言說,將不會有「生命實存」這個字…有一個一貫性,一致性,在病徵與無意識之間。我根據這個方式定義這個病徵。在這個方式裡, 每一個「歡爽」來自無意識,因為無意識決定他。

The origin of the notion of the symptom is not to be sought in Hippocrates, but in Marx, in the liaison that he makes the first between capitalism and what?–the good old days, what one calls the feudal time.

病徵的觀念的起源,不應該從希坡克瑞提斯,而應該從馬克思那裡尋找。他在資本主義與什麼之間,從事最早的溝通。那是美好的過往時代,我們所謂的封建時代。

Capitalism is considered to have some quite beneficial effects, since it has the advantage of reducing to nothing the proletarian man, thanks to which he realizes the essence of the man, of being stripped of everything, and of being the Messiah of the future.

資本主義被認為擁有某些相當有利的影響,因為它擁有這個利益,將普羅階級貶低到一文不值。由於這樣,他體會到,作為人被剝除掉一切後的本質,以及成為未來救世主的本質。

This is how Marx analyzes the notion of the symptom. He gives lots of other symptoms, to be sure, but the relation of this one with a faith in man is incontestable.

這就是馬克思如何分析病徵的觀念。的確,他給予許多其它的病徵,但是對於人的一種信仰的這個病徵的關係,是無可爭議。

If we do not make of man anything whatsoever carrying an ideal future, if we determine him by the particularity in every case of his unconscious and of the fashion in which he jouit from it, the symptom remains at the same place Marx put it, but it takes another sense.

假如我們將人解釋為帶有理想未來的任何東西, 假如我們根據人的無意識,及他形成的方式的個案的特殊性,來決定人,病徵會始終保留在馬克思說明他的相同的地方。但是意義將不會一樣。

Not a social symptom, but a particular symptom. No doubt particular symptoms have types: the symptom of the obsessional is not the symptom of the hysteric.
For the obsessional, there is a very particular symptom, which I’m going to tell you about.

這並不是一個社會的病徵,而是一個特別的病徵。無可置疑的,特別的病徵擁有這些類型: 妄想症的病徵並不是歇斯底里症的病徵。對於強迫症患者,有一個特別的病徵,我將要告訴你們的。

No one has the least apprehension of death; if this were not so, you would not be so tranquil there. For the obsessional, death is a failed act. This is not so stupid, for death is only approachable by an act. Still, for it to succeed, someone must commit suicide knowing that it is an act, which only happens very rarely.

對於死亡,沒有人有絲毫的理解。假如不是這樣,你本來不會那麼安詳在那裡。 對於強迫症患者,死亡是一個失敗的演出。這並不是那麼愚蠢,因為僅有靠著演出,我們才能接近死亡。可是, 為了讓這個演出成功,某個人必須自殺,他才能知道,這是一場演出。這種情況倒是罕見。

This was however very widespread when philosophy had a certain aim–an aim other than to sustain the social edifice. There were then persons who came to group themselves in schools in a way that had some consequences.

可是,這是非常普遍的,當哲學有某個目標—除了維持社會的大架構以外的目標。因此會有一些人前來聚集在學校裡,採用的方式具有某些的結果。

But what is of the nature to make you suspect the authenticity of the engagement in these schools, is that there is no need to have attained to any wisdom whatsoever, that it suffices to be a good obsessional, to know from a sure source that death is a failed act.

但是讓你們懷疑到在這些學校,他們參與的真誠性的這些特質是,根本沒有需要去獲得任何的智慧。只要成為一位完全的強迫症患者,就足夠讓他們根據某個確定來源知道: 死亡是一個失敗的演出。

I will stop there today. I have not even been able to get to the bone of what I wanted to say to you. Someone has objected to me that by dint of saying that the woman does not exist, I have made her (la) exist. Don’t you believe any of it.

今天我就講到這裡。對於我想要跟你們說的東西,我還沒有能夠講到要點。某個人曾經跟我提出異議說,憑藉著說那個女人不存在,我已經使她(不)存在。你們相信任何這樣的話嗎?

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

拉康:RSI 17

October 30, 2011

拉康:RSI 17
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of February 18, 1975
Last time, disappointed that Mardi Gras had not rarefied the plenitude of this room, I let myself slip into telling you what I think. Today, I would like it a lot if someone would ask me a question.

上一次,我因為感到失望,對於馬蒂、格拉斯沒有對這個講壇的過多人數過濾,我讓自己不知不覺的告訴你們我的想法。今天,如果有人想要問我問題,我會很樂意回答。

A certain Spinoza endeavored to spin, to deduce, according to the model given by the Ancients. This more geometrico defined a mode of properly mathematical intuition that does not at all go by itself.

有某一位名叫史賓諾莎的人嘗試編織,推論,依照古代人給予的模式。他的「幾何人生哲學」這本書,描繪適當來說,是一種並非是自動自發的數學的直覺的模式。

The point, the line, are fomented by a fiction; and also the surface, which is only supported by the split, a break specified as being of two dimensions–but since the line, properly speaking, is a dimension without consistency, it isn’t saying much to add a dimension to it.

這個點,這條線,都是由一種幻想激起,而且表面也是,表明僅是由分裂所引起,一種被指明為兩個維度的生命實存標明的分裂—但是因為這條線,適當來說,是一個沒有一致性的維度。給它增加一個謂度,並沒有多大幫助。

And the third dimension, built from a perpendicular to the surface, is also very strange. It is nothing but an abstraction, founded on the cut of a saw. How, without finding the cord again, can we make this abstraction hold?

第三個維度,從垂直被建造到表面,也是非常奇怪的。這僅是一種抽取過程,建立的基礎上鋸形狀的切割。假如沒有再一次找到在條線索,我們如何能夠讓這個抽取維繫下去?

On the other hand, it is no doubt not by chance that things are produced in this way. No doubt there is a necessity here arising from the weakness of a manual being, homo faber, as they say.

在另一方面,事情以這種方式被產生,並不是偶然。無可置疑的,在此有一個必要性,起源于有關作為肉身的生命的弱點,如他們所說。

But why has this homo faber who manipulates, who toils (tisse) and spins, passed to the point, to the surface, without stopping at the knot? Perhaps this has some relation with a repression. Is this repressed the primordial one, the Urverdrängt, which Freud designates as what is inaccessible in the unconscious?

但是為什麼這個肉身的生命,會操弄,會勞苦運作,被傳遞到這一點,被傳遞到表明,而沒有停在這個結點?或許,這跟潛抑有點關係。這個被潛抑的東西,就是原始的潛抑嗎?佛羅伊德指明這個原始的潛抑,作為無意識不可接近的東西?

The Borromean knot, I have told you, remains a knot if we open one of its loops and transform it into a straight line. But we must extend it to infinity (Figure 1).

波羅米恩結,我曾經告訴過你嗎,始終是一個結,假如我們打開其中一個圈套,並且將它轉移成為一條直線。但是我們必須將它延伸到無限(圖形一)。

This is why I say that the straight line is hardly consistent. We have glossed over this from the moment that a geometry called spherical made of this infinite straight line a new round, without grasping that this round is implied beginning with the position of the Borromean knot. We perhaps didn’t have to make this detour.

這是為什麼我說,直線幾乎是一致的。我們曾經掩飾這個,從所謂的圓形幾何學,用一個新的圓圈解釋這條無限的直線開始, 而沒有瞭解到,這個圓圈被暗示,從波羅米恩結的立場。我們或許並不需要從事這個迂迴。

Whatever the case, you saw me, last time, extend the geometry of the Borromean knot from three to four. This was to make you experience the difficulty of what I have called the mental knot.

無論情況是什麼,你們上一次看到我,延伸波羅米恩結從三個到四個的幾何圖形。這是要讓你們經驗到這個困難,我所謂的精神的結的困難。

Flattening it out, as I have attempted, is to submit it to so-called thought, to which in fact extension is stuck. Far from being distinct, as Descartes supposes, thought is nothing but extension.

擺平它,如我曾經嘗試的,是將它屈服於所謂的思想。事實上,延伸就是受限於這個思想。 思想根本不是如同笛卡爾所假定的那麼清楚。思想僅是延伸。

Let us remark that for this there has to be an extension that is not just any, but an extension of two dimensions, which can be daubed on a surface. Thus, it would not be out of place to define the surface I just showed you in geometry, that which is imagined, that which is essentially supported by the imaginary– the surface is what gives us something to daub on.

讓我們談論一下。為了這個精神的結,必須要有一種不僅是任何種類的延伸,而是兩個維度的延伸。這種延伸能夠被塗寫在表面上。因此,這並非是不合適,將我剛剛用幾何學跟你們顯示的表面下個定義。所被想像的東西,基本上是由想像界支持的東西—這個表面就是讓我們可以在上面塗寫的東西。

It is singular that the only way anyone has succeeded in reproducing this ideal surface is precisely the one from which everybody recoils: the braiding of a canvas. The painter daubs on a canvas, since it is all he has found for taming the gaze (dompter le regard).

奇特的是, 任何人曾經成功地複製這個理想表面的唯一方法,確實就是每個人為之望而卻步的方法。 帆布的鑲邊。畫家在帆布上塗畫, 因為它是他找到的一切,作為馴服「凝視」。

As for me, I find myself flattening out what I have to communicate to you of the knot on the surface of a blackboard.

至於我,我發現我自己擺平我必須跟你們溝通的,關於黑板的表面的這個結。

How can we draw the fourth round so that three independent rounds of thread make a knot with it? I have figured it by a flattening out that brings in perspective, and which I give you again here in a little different form (Figure 2).

我們如何畫這第四個圓圈,這樣三個獨立的繩線的環圈,才能跟它形成一個環結呢? 我曾經用一種擺平顯現它的方式描繪它。我在此再給予你們,以一個稍微不同的形式。(圖形二)。

I then wanted to flatten the figure out in a way that reproduces it while modifying it, and there I have found that I have made an error. More exactly, I have slipped up (raté), explicitly, out of laziness, and also to give you an example of the unnaturalness of representing the knot.
Here is the correct figure (Figure 3).

我曾經要擺平這個圖形,以複製它的方式,一方面修飾它。 在那裡我發現,我曾經發現,我犯了一個錯誤。更確實地說,我曾經犯了粗心之過,確實是由於自己的懶惰,而且也是為了給予你們一個例子,對於代表這個結的人為造作。這裡才是正確的圖形 (圖形三)。

Why has the failed act (acte manqué) functioned here?–if not to show that no analysis avoids something that resists in this theory of the knot. I have made you feel it, and in a somewhat experimental fashion.

為什麼會有這個失敗的行動在此運作?—它難道不是要顯現:沒有一個精神分析,會避免某件在環結理論裡抗拒的東西。我曾經讓你們感覺到它,而且以相對試驗性的方式。

. . . What is the essential thing about the round of thread? If one responds that it is the hole in the middle, one is induced to make consistency, ex-sistence, and the hole correspond to the imaginary, to the real, and to the symbolic respectively. Is this right? (Figure 4).

關於這個繩線的環結,最重要的的事情是什麼? 假如我們回應,是中間的這個空洞, 我們被引誘將這個「先前實存」,及個別對應於想像界,實在界,與象徵界的這個空洞,使成一致性。 這個圖不是才正確嗎?( 圖形四)

Saying that the hole is the essential thing about the round does not entirely satisfy me. In fact, what is a hole if nothing surrounds it?

我並不滿意說,這個空洞是這個圓環最重要的東西。事實上,空洞若是沒有東西環繞它,這個空洞算是什麼?

Consistency nonetheless indeed seems to be of the order of the imaginary, since the cord goes off toward the vanishing point of the mathematical line. Ex-sistence, in regard to the opening of the round and in regard to the hole, indeed belongs to the field supposed, if I may say so, by the rupture itself.

可是,一致性確實是在想像界的層次,因為這個條繩線離開朝向這條數學的線的消失點。「先前實存」,關於圓形的展開,及關於這個空洞, 確實屬於被斷裂本身假定的領域,我不妨這樣說。

It is within, in-there, that the fate of the knot plays itself out. If the knot has an ex-sistence, it is by belonging to this field. Whence my formulation that, in regard to this correspondence, ex-sistence is of the order of the real. The ex-sistence of the knot is real, to the point that I could have thought that the mental knot, it (ça) ex-sists,whether or not the mens figures it. It has still to explore the ex-sistence of the knot, and it does not mentalize it without
difficulty.

就在那裡面,這個環結的命運扮演它自己。假如這個環結擁有一個「先前實存」,那是屬於這個領域。關於這個一致性, 「先前實存」屬於真實界的層次,我的說明來自那裡。環結的「先前實存」屬於真實界的程度,我本來能夠構想,這個精神的環結,它「先前實存」,無論是否是這個「善良心靈」描繪它。它依舊必須探究環結的這個「先前實存」,並且沒有困難地擬想它。

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

谵妄

October 30, 2011

2011-10-30 01:04:52 pollus (拉康事業)
關於死亡,精神分析直面死亡與實在的問題,但並非認為死亡是個好的出路,而是面對那個創傷性(有時確實如此嚴酷)精神應該如何打結;如Joyce創造出的文學昇華其嚴酷的實在。
而如果無法處置這個實在,過於接近物件a,那麼將產生極度焦慮,passage a l•acte,付諸行動來舒緩,極端情況就是自殺或者傷害他人;這是焦慮討論班(S10)九格圖處理的核心(之後是在S12中);因此拉康從未認為這是一個好的解決方案,而是解決的失敗,因為精神分析的好壞僅僅是否合適地在處理無意識主體,處理欲望;拉康在Louven堅定地吼出:“人是很堅強的,死支持著生。”是站在那嚴酷實在上的堅定,那裡常常生髮出驚異的花朵,留給後世。
故而,英雄們稱為英雄,通過passage a l•acte,以便獲得實在上不停書寫下去之符號(見拉康後期討論班),獲得一個命名,也算打上一個結,還上家族寄託在肉身上那無限重量無法負載的符號債務。我們不能否認其價值,但精神分析處理的是倫理位置的主體(我不禁想起雄伯在自己譯本總是加上個“生命”的首碼,如果死了,作為能指的無頭主體繼續傳遞,但更多被人利用為客體——表像而存在,但生命之主體是有區別的,這也是認為自己是國王的瘋子和國王本身的區別,拉康說:前者一直是國王{——就是說:命令別人,趾高氣昂}但國王不總是國王!{他還有作為人而非固化的能指特質的別種畫面})。沒有所謂的好壞之分。所以在格雷碼斯四邊形中,英雄是在倫理的另一邊。

對於譫妄,本身就是一種痊癒,至於由於譫妄內容與現實的背反,導致的後果,仍然定位在實在,那片外部現實和精神現實相悖留下的創傷之所。
為此,我寫,寫給一個OTHER來看,如同是跟父母親說:啊,你們看我做的多好(phallus)。知識背後是享樂,因為這是佛洛德之表像,拉康之能指。受衝動所支撐,然而真理(Truth)和存在(Being)有一半在實在(Real)之中,正是因此拉康說知識或者科學,就是譫妄。通過這些譫妄——如佛洛德所說,譫妄本身實際已經是一種治癒了。——我們耗去自己的能量:去找,去外部找尋自己焦慮觸發的問題的答案。

雄伯
若是將譫妄delirium定位在實在界the real,以拉康晚期的RSI來看,應該不算是痊癒,而應該是病症。拉康強調實在界,象徵界,想像界的三結的連接,透過病徵的第四的結,具有交會的核心時,始算是痊癒。

至於譫妄內容與現實的背反,依拉康在「幻見到邏輯」Logic of Fantasy,強調邏輯的矛盾律或背反律paradox,強調antimony 的對立,也就是真理Truth與存在Being,潛在於象徵界的背反,矛盾,與對立的現象當中。我們可透過想像界的創造,將其顯現與實踐於象徵界,而不僅是在實在界。

基督教與佛教也有類似的教義。如梅爾威爾Herman Melville在「白鯨記」Moby Dick,透過牧師傳道約拿從背反上帝到認識上帝的轉折歷程:

「上帝叫我們做的一切事情,都是我們難以辦到的。如果遵從上帝,我們就必須違抗自己;遵從上帝的難處,就在於違抗自己。」

「每一種不幸的反面,必定有一種喜悅,喜悅的頂之高,超過了不幸的底之低。」

「願永恆的喜悅與吉祥臨到的人,他臨死時,能夠用最後一口氣這樣說: 天父啊!我主要是從你的責罰來認識你的。」

梅爾威爾使用鯨魚的眼睛建議自然界的某種雙重性,跟人的單一性相反。 也就是說,鯨魚的眼睛分開於頭的左右兩邊,而不是前面。它隨時會看到兩個不同或是相反的意象。相反地,人雖然有兩個眼睛,卻是同一焦點,僅專注於一件事情。因此,人常用單一的觀念理解事實。而自然與宇宙卻是以多重意象或意義在運作。因此,人要跟宇宙調和,才能理解宇宙,他必須放棄以單一的觀點,來理解宇宙的多重性。

能夠從這個背反律的宏觀,我們才能夠理解大乘佛教的「金剛經」的那些似非而是的矛盾箴言:

「須菩提,說法者無法可說,是名說法。」
「如來說諸心,皆為非心,是名為心」
「如來說人身長大,即為非大身,是名大身。」
「須菩提,菩薩亦如是。若作是言,我當滅度無量眾生,即不名菩薩。何以故,須菩提,實無有法,名為菩薩。是故佛說,一切法無我,無人,無眾生,無壽者。」
「須菩提,若菩薩作是言,我當莊嚴佛土,是不名菩薩。何以故,如來說莊嚴佛土者,即非莊嚴,是名莊嚴。須菩提,若菩薩通達無我法者,如來說名真是菩薩。」

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

Pure Psychoanalysis, Applied Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy

October 27, 2011

Pure Psychoanalysis, Applied Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy
纯精神分析,应用精神分析与心理治疗

Jacques-Alain Miller
雅克-艾伦、米勒

2. A QUESTION POSED FOR LACAN

“THE RIGHT WAY TO REASON”
Today we can perceive that what motivates the apparatus of formal rules and of traditional, institutional validation which was inserted into psychoanalytic practice by its early practitioners is probably the defense against this semblance.
2.向拉康提出的一个问题
朝向理性的正确之路
今天我们发现那些被更早期的精神分析从业者们插入到精神分析实践中的礼仪性的,或者是传统制度,规则设置,促使它们形成的也许就是对精神分析镜像的一种防范。
2.向拉康提出的一个问题
朝向理性的正确之路
今天我们能够发现,那些早期的精神分析从业者们,将正式的规则,传统的,制度的确认程序的设置,插入到精神分析实践里,促使他们的动机,也许就是要防范产生这种类似物。

To their credit, given the nature of psychoanalysis, the premonition that it would produce its semblance didn’t escape them, even in a situation quite different from our own.
即使在一个与我们现在完全不同的情景下,它们预感到了精神分析将产生这种镜像而且无法逃避它们
雄伯
考虑到精神分析的特质,对这种预感:精神分析会产生它的类似物,他们具有这种先见之明,是令人赞赏的,特别是他们所处的情境,跟我们自己的情境完全不同。
, the premonition that it would produce its semblance didn’t escape them, 的
that it would produce its semblance 是形容词子句,修饰 主词 the premonition,动词是escape,
escape 的意思是「无法理解」Be incomprehensible to; escape understanding by,不是「逃避」。例句: What they did escaped me。( 我无法理解他们的作为。)
them 是指 its early practitioners (早期的精神分析从业们),
given —considering 考虑到
to their credit 他们令人赞赏

One can give them credit for anticipating this semblance – and those who are faithful to the apparatus were the first to say so – but today we see the impotence of the apparatus quite well.
,为了保证一个纯粹的精神分析,一个可以给他们抢先于镜像的保证第一个就被提了出来。但是我们今天能清楚地看到设置是多么重要,
雄伯
我们能够赞赏他们,因为他们对于这个类似物有先见之明—那些忠实于精神分析规则设置的人,是最早这样说的人—但是今天我们清楚地看出,这种规则设置是软弱无力。
Impotence 是「软弱无力」,the quality of lacking strength or power
Importance 才是「重要」

It is perhaps because they touched bottom on this anti-semblance apparatus that they have also been the first to alert us to the weakness of the apparatus in regard to the semblance.
也许是因为他们按下了这个反镜像的按钮,他们首先就告诉我们在对待镜像的时候设置的脆弱性。
雄伯
或许正因为他们对于这种预防类似物的规则设置,经历过最糟糕的处境,他们也是最早的人,跟我们警告: 关于预防这个类似物,这种规则设置,其实是软弱无力。
Touch bottom 的意思是「经历最糟糕处境」live through the worst,跟「按钮」无关。Weakness 跟前面的impotence (软弱无能)对应,
We can say today that to make the distinction between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy through rule and tradition leads only to establishing psychoanalysis in a difficult position, that of a besieged fortress. When one is in a besieged fortress, everything indicates that it is already on the way to being taken from within.
我们可以说现今通过规则和传统来区分精神分析和心理治疗的这种方式只是把精神分析推向了一个艰难的位置,那就是一个被包围的堡垒。当一个人深陷一个被包围的堡垒时,一切事物都指出他应该准备好逃离它了。
雄伯
我们今天可以说,通过规则和传统,来区分精神分析和心理治疗,只是导致精神分析的基础处于一个艰难的处境,如同一个被包围的堡垒的处境。当一个人深陷一个被包围的堡垒时,一切事物都指出,这个堡垒即将从内部被人接管了。
today 是修饰we can say, 不是修饰「通过规则」
being taken from within 从内部被接管,而不是「逃离」
Well! Let’s try to keep our heads in this turmoil, which in a short while will become a tempest and, according to Rouletabille’s formula, let’s “take things by the good end of reason.”
很好!让我们保持我们的头脑处在这种混乱当中,不一会儿这混乱将变为暴风雨。根据Rouletabille的公式,让我把事物带向合理的好结局。
雄伯
呵呵!在这种混乱当中,让我们保持镇静。 不一会儿,这混乱将变为暴风雨。根据Rouletabille的公式,让我们期望事情会有合理的好结局。
Keep our heads—remain calm 保持镇静,
We should say first that there is no regulatory, institutional disposition that can hold where the orientation is lacking. We cannot turn to the institution to find some type of filter which would keep the chaff and deliver the grain. We need to trace our path toward an orientation of structure.
我们应当说首先在方向缺失的地方,规章上的或者制度上的倾向不能稳定下来。我们不能再制度上找到可以将糟糠从谷物中分离出来的过滤器。我们需要跟着我们的步伐向结构的方向上走去。
雄伯
我们应当首先说,在方向是缺失的地方,没有规章上的或者制度上的倾向,能够稳定下来。我们不能求助于制度,来找到可以将糟糠从谷物中分离出来的过滤器。我们需要跟着我们的途径,向结构的方向走去。
First 修饰say,不是修饰「在方向缺失的地方」
In this detour, whom can we ask for this orientation? Surely our customary reasoning, but this reasoning has the habit of turning – even if just a little, even if it’s a mistake, even if it is contradictory – toward what Lacan left.
在这条迂回的路上,我们能向谁询问方向?当然我们习惯的理由是向拉康留下的东西里面询问,即便只是一点点,即便是一个错误,即便是矛盾的。
雄伯
在这条迂回的路上,我们能向谁询问方向?当然是向我们习惯的推理能力,但是这个推理能够拥有这个习惯—-朝向拉康留下的东西里面询问,即便只是一点点,即便是一个错误,即便是矛盾的。

In this detour, whom can we ask for this orientation? Surely our customary reasoning, but this reasoning has the habit of turning – even if just a little, even if it’s a mistake, even if it is contradictory – toward what Lacan left.
在这条迂回的路上,我们能向谁询问方向?当然我们习惯的理由是向拉康留下的东西里面询问,即便只是一点点,即便是一个错误,即便是矛盾的。
雄伯
在这条迂回的路上,我们能向谁询问方向?当然是向我们习惯的推理能力,但是这个推理能够拥有这个习惯—-朝向拉康留下的东西里面询问,即便只是一点点,即便是一个错误,即便是矛盾的。

On occasion, these are arguments and not indications. It is there that in terms of orientation we have the custom of looking for our thread, noting that the situation has changed but giving him credit for a certain capacity of anticipation we think we’ve perceived up to the present.
在这个场合,这些争论没有必要提起。在寻找方向的过程中,我们习惯于寻找我们的思路,这个情景没有任何改变,只是给他的发现一个确切的预先的地位,我们可以现在把它发觉出来。
雄伯
在这个场合,具有各种争论,但是没有指示。就在那里,使用定向的术语,我们习惯于寻找我们的线索,注意到,这个情景没有任何改变。我们只是推崇拉康,因为他具有这种能力预期到,我们认为迄今所感觉到的问题。

The small point of support I have is that the question was posed to him – by myself (see Television). 1 The question involved the difference between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, understanding by psychotherapy that which is supported by speech, that is founded on listening and speaking. So we can see, even then, the trace of the phenomenon of semblance which is later inflated, and with which we are grappling.
我有一个小小的观点,一个由我自己向拉康提出的问题。1 这个问题涉及到精神分析和心理治疗的不同之处,通过心理治疗而理解是由言说支持的,是基于倾听和言说的。我们能指导,镜像现象的踪迹之后已经膨胀到了我们正在抓紧的东西那里。
雄伯
我拥有的这个小小的支持点是,这个问题由我自己向他提出 (参照拉康电视访谈)。在精神分析和心理治疗的不同之处,牵涉到的问题,是通过心理治疗而理解由言说支持的内涵,是以倾听和言说为基础。所以,我们能看见,甚至在那个时候就能看见,类似物的现象的踪迹。这个类似物后来被膨胀,我们正在努力跟它搏斗。
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com