拉康：RSI 36

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

拉康：RSI 35

拉康：RSI 35
真實界，象徵界，與想像界

Seminar of May 13, 1975
There are no states of the soul. There is a dire to demonstrate. And to promote the title under which this dire will be pursued next year if I survive, I will announce it: 4, 5, 6.

沒有靈魂的狀態。有一個「言說」要證明。為了要提升這個標題，在這個標題之下，這個「言說」明年將會被探討，假如我還活著的話，我將會宣佈它：4，5，6.

This year, I have said RSI. Why not 1, 2, 3? . . . . we will go to the woods. You know what follows: 4, 5, 6, gathering cherries–7, 8, 9, in my new basket.19
I will stop at 4, 5, 6. Why? And why are RSI given as letters?

今年，我已經演說過實在界，符號界，想像界。為什麼不說是1，2，3 ，等等。我們將會迷失其中。你們知道後面跟隨的是什麼：4，5，6，像採取櫻桃似的，7，8，9，放在我的新籃子裡。我在面臨4，5，6 的地方停住。為什麼？為什麼實在界，象徵界，想像界，被給予作為字母，而非數位？

That they are three can be said secondly. It is only because they are three that there is one that is the real.

它們是三個能夠從另一個角度說。僅是因為它們是三個，有一個「一」是實在界。

Which of the three merits the title of real? At this level of logic, it little matters. The sense cedes to the number, to the point that it is the number that . . . am I going to say dominates this sense? No–determines it.

這三個哪一個獲得真實界的頭銜？在邏輯的這個層次，這個問題幾乎沒什麼重要。意義讓與數位，到達意義就是數位的程度，，，我將要是數字操控這個意義嗎？不—-是數字決定意義。

The number three has to be demonstrated as what it is if it is the real, that is, the impossible. What one wants to demonstrate at the point of saying it (en passe du dire) must be impossible, a required (exigible) condition for the real. It exists as impossible.

三這個數字必須被證明，作為它的本質，假如它就是實在界。換句話說，這個不可能界。在說出它的時候，我們想要證明的東西，必須是不可能，這是一個對於實在界被要求的情況。它存在作為不可能。

Still, it must be demonstrated, and not only shown. Demonstrating is a matter for the symbolic. The symbolic is thus a step ahead of the imaginary. But this does not suffice, because it only sets the tone. One must not trust in the tone, but in the number.

可是，我們必須證明，而不單是顯示而已。證明是符號界的問題。符號界因此超前想像界前面一步。但是這並不足夠。因為它僅是豎立這個基調。我們一定不要信任那個基調，而要信任這個數字。

And this is what I try to put to the test. But is a number knotted still a number?
That’s where we are. I have retained you throughout the year around a certain number of flashes. I am not there for much, being determined as a subject by the unconscious, or else by my practice.

這就是我嘗試付諸考驗的地方。但是一個數字被連接成結，還依舊是一個數字嗎？那就是我們所在的地方。這一整年當中，我曾經以某些的靈光一閃，讓你們留連在此。我在那裡所求不多，我僅是決心以無意識，要不然就是以我的精神分析實踐，作為一位主體。

This implies the unconscious as supposed–is this to say that, as wholly supposed it is imaginary? This is the sense itself of the word subject: supposed as imaginary.

這暗示著，無意識作為被假定的東西—-這難道是說，作為被假定的東西，它是想像？這就是「主體」這個字的意義本身：被假定作為想像界.

What is there in the symbolic that is not imagined? There is the hole. Someone who saw me in the grip of the knot said to me that I contradicted myself by having at one time appropriated for my purposes a Picassoian formula: “I do not seek, I find.” To seek (Chercher) is a term that derives from circare. I find nonetheless, since I have found the hole (trouvé le trou), a mouse hole through which I am reduced to passing. Does it have something to do with
what one imagines to determine it, that is, the circle? A circle can be a hole, but it is not always.

在符號界有什麼不是被想像的呢？有這個空洞存在。某個人看到我被這個環結掌控，對我說，我反駁我自己，因為有一次我篡改畢卡索的公式，充當我的用途：「我沒有尋求，我是找到。」「尋求」是一個從「旅遊」獲得的術語。可是，我「找到」，因為我已經找到這個空洞，一個老鼠的空洞。穿過這個空洞，我被還原成為是「經過」。它跟我們想像要訣定它的東西，有些關係。也就是說，這個圓圈？一個圓圈有時會說一個空洞，但是未必總是如此。

It is only the consequence of the hole.

那僅是這個空洞的結果。

While I am there, I will remind you of the Arab proverb which is found already in the last lines of my Propos sur la causalité psychique, and which states that there are three things that leave no mark: the man in the woman, the step of the gazelle on the rock, and, more inaccessible to our eyes made for signs of change, the mark on the touched coin, the mark that is not there– there is only wear. It is here that is sold cut-rate (se solder), it is the case to say, this something knotted in question.

當我在那裡，我將會提醒你們這個阿拉伯的諺語。這個諺語在我的「心理的因果關係」的最後幾行，已經被找到。裡面陳述：有三個東西沒有留下標記。女人心中的男人，岩石上羚羊的腳步，（令我們為了探尋改變的訊息的眼睛無法窺測的），被碰過的錢幣上的記號。這個並不在那裡的記號—只有磨損。就在這裡，這個切割的速率被賣掉。這是要說的情況，這個某件受到質疑的某件東西。

雄伯曰
拉康將「女人心中的男人」列為「三個沒有留下標記的東西」之一，說得令人發噱。女性同胞大概也不會服氣。不過有一天我在一位女性同胞的網頁，看到她替自己立下的精神指標，才有點恍然大悟。

「“每個人都很孤獨。在我們的一生中，遇到愛，遇到性，都不稀罕，稀罕的是遇到瞭解。”

對於感情的態度：
你來了，我當你不會走
你走了，我當你不曾來 」

在「你來了」跟「你走了」的矛盾論述裡，拉康的話語隱然在焉。

I find enough, enough for having to circulate. Hegel poses quite well that all that is political is rooted in the Police. There is nothing political that is not finally, in the final term of reduction, the police pure and simple. Now, the police have only one thing to say: Circulez!

我找到足夠的東西，因為我必須將它們流通。黑格爾清楚地提出：所有政治的一切都根源于員警。沒有一樣政治的東西，最後追根究底，不是實實在在的員警。現在，員警只有一件事情可說：「往前行吧！」

[Move on!]. The gyrie little matters.

「往前行吧！」環結幾乎沒有什麼重要。

All of this only becomes serious if one begins with the hole, through which it is necessary to pass. What is remarkable about the bo knot is that it makes a knot without circling in a fashion that utilizes the hole as such.

只有我們從這個空洞開始，這一切才會是成為嚴肅。通過這個空洞，經過是必須的。關於這個博羅米恩結，引人注意的地方是，它形成一個環結，迴圈的方式，卻沒有利用到這個空洞的本身。

There is a difference between the knot and this (Figure 1), which utilizes the hole. This makes a chain. The knot makes a chain without using the hole (Figure 2).

在那個環結跟這個環結之間的差異（圖形一），前者利用這個空洞。這形成一個鎖鏈。這個環結形成一個鎖鏈，但是沒有利用這個空洞。（ 圖形二）

Despite its appearance, in this form here, a form that is pure appearance, we again find the bo knot (Figure 3). In the measure that these two rounds, the two larger ones, are not knotted, the third, smaller one knots them. It first modifies (infléchit) one of them, then, having arrived at the other end, it modifies the other in its turn, and thus turns in a circle.

儘管它的外表，在這裡的這個形式，一個純粹是外表的形式，我們再一次找到這個博羅米恩結（圖形三）。隨著這兩個圓圈沒有被連接成結，這兩個較大的圓圈，這個第三個較小的圓圈將它們連接成結。它起初修正其中之一，然後，到達另外一端之後，它修正輪換過來的另一端，然後以迴圈方式旋轉。

If we suppose it symbolic, let us say that it will indefinitely turn around the false chain of the imaginary and the symbolic, unless this fourth round is interposed. How are we to recognize ourselves in this double circle, and precisely as not being knotted?

假如我們認為它是符合，讓我們說，它將無窮盡地環繞想像界與符號界的虛假鎖鏈旋轉，除非這第四個環圈被介入。在這個雙重的迴圈裡，確實是並沒有形成環結，我們應個如何體認出我們自己？

Boromean, it does not suffice that it be a knot; each of the knotted elements must be freed by the rupture of one among them.

我們就是博羅米恩結，它應該成為一個環結，這並不足夠。每一個被連接成結的元素，必須被它們其中一個環結的斷裂而解開。

Let us remark that one does not give to this expression, “it must and it suffices,” its full sense, save in referring to the knot. “It suffices” implies –something that one always forgets because one does not make the hole, the only hole worth anything (le seul trou qui vaille), the discovery (la trouvaille)–that if the condition is lacking, nothing works anymore, which is the inverse of “it must” (il faut). This inverse is always eluded; I am going to demonstrate how right away.

讓我們評論說，我們並沒有給予這個表達「它必須，而且它足夠」。它的充分意義，除了提到這個環結。「它足夠」暗示著—某件我們總是忘記的東西，因為我們沒有形成這個空洞，這個值得一切的唯一的空洞，這個發現—假如這個情況欠缺，再沒有東西運作。這就是「它必須」的倒轉。這個倒轉總是被躲避。我將要立刻證明如何躲避

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

拉康：RSI 34

拉康：RSI 34
真實界，象徵界，與想像界

Seminar of April 15, 1975

There are people who have succeeded in making the interdiction of incest emerge in myths. The Hindus are even the only ones to have said that one must, if one has slept with one’s mother, go off–I no longer know whether it is into the Sunrise (Orient) or into the Sunset (Couchant)–with one’s own penis (queue) between one’s teeth–after having cut it off, of course.

有些人曾經成功地讓亂倫的禁忌在神話裡出現。僅有印度人這樣說：假如我們曾經跟自己的母親睡過覺，我們必須離開—我不再知道是否進入太陽界，或進入日落界—把陽具咬在牙齒之間—當然，要先將它切下。

But we do not have to consider the fact of the interdiction of incest as historical: it is, of course.

但是我們並不必須把亂倫禁忌這個事實，認為是屬於歷史。當然，現在它是屬於歷史。

For us, the interdiction of incest is not historical, but structural–why? Because there is the symbolic. This interdiction consists in the hole of the symbolic, so that appears, individualized in the knot, something that I do not call the Oedipus complex–it is not as complicated as all that–but the Name-of-the-Father, which means the father as name—which doesn’t mean anything at first–and not only the father as name, but the father as naming.

對於我們，亂倫的禁忌並不是屬於歷史—而是屬於結構性。為什麼？因為符號界存在。 這個禁忌在於符號界的空洞，所以我並不稱為伊底普斯情結的某件東西出現，在環結裡被個體化—它並不像那個情結那麼複雜—-而是稱它為「父親之名」，這意味著父親作為名字—起初，那並沒有任何意義—-不但父親作為名字，而且父親作為命名。

One cannot say that concerning this the Jews are not Gentiles. They have indeed explained what they have called the Father. They cram him (le foutent) in a point of the hole that one cannot even imagine–I am what I am; that’s a hole, no? A hole, if you believe my little schema’s, swallows up, and there are moments when it spits out again. Spits out what again?

我們無法說，關於這一點，猶太人並不是「非猶太人」。他們確實曾經解釋他們所稱為的父親。他們將他塞進我們甚至無法想像的這個空洞點—「我就是我的本質」。那是一個空洞，不是嗎？一個空洞，假如你們相信我的小小基模，接受它，那麼就有有它再次分裂的時刻。再次分裂什麼？

The name, the Father as name.

再次分裂這個名字，父親作為名字。

That brings with it the interdiction of incest, and this is propagated on the side of castration, as indeed the Greek Gentiles have shown us in a certain number of myths.

那隨之帶來亂倫的禁忌，並且在閹割這一邊被傳播，如同希臘的非猶太人曾經跟我們顯示，在某些的神話裡。

They raised a geneology founded exclusively on the father, Uranus, and so on, and so forth, up to the moment when Zeus, after having made love a lot, disappears into thin air (s’évanoit devant un souffle). But there is an additional step to take to understand the tie of castration with the interdiction of incest.

他們提出一種專門以父親作為基礎的系譜學。優拉納斯神，等等，一直到這個時刻，當宙斯天神，經常作愛之後，消失在空中。 但是有一個額外的步驟要採取，為了要瞭解閹割跟亂倫禁忌的關係。

The tie is what I call my sexual rapport. The Name-of-the-Father means
that there can be, in the Borromean knot, an indefinite number of rounds. The vital point (point vif ) is that all repose on one, on one inasmuch as it is a hole, which communicates its consistency to all of the others.

這個關係就是我所謂的性的關係。「以父親之名」意味著，可能會有性的關係，在波羅米恩結，無窮數目的環結。重要的一點是，一切都依靠著「一」，依靠「一」，因為這個「一」是一個空洞，它跟所有其它的「一」，溝通它的一致性。

The year when I wanted to speak of the Names-of-the-Father, I would have spoken a little more of two or three. What a jumble that would have made for the analysts if they had a whole series of Names-of-the-Father. I am quite content to leave them dry, and to have never again taken up these Names-of-the-Father except in the form of the non-dupes who err.

當我想要談論「父親之名」的那一年，我本來想要稍微更加詳細談論「二」或「三」。對於精神分析而言，那會變成多麼的混亂，假如他們擁有一整個系列的「父親之名」。我相當滿足不對它們感到興趣，從來沒有再探討這些「父親之名」，除了以犯錯的「非易受騙之人」的形式。

Obviously, they can only err, because the more there are, the more they will be entangled, and I congratulate myself for not having brought forth a single one.

明顯地，他們僅是會犯錯，因為他們越是會犯錯，他們越是會本額糾纏不清。我慶倖我自己，因為我從來沒有導致這樣的一種犯錯。

This is why I found myself at the end of these Journées having to answer the question of how we know what constitutes a cartel in the School. A cartel, why?

那就是為什麼我發現我自己處於這些「學派」的結束，他們必須回答這個問題：我們如何知道是什麼組成學派的聯盟。一種聯盟，為什麼？

I obtained some revealing answers, some pseudopodia, some things that made a very small knot. Why have I posed that a cartel begins with a three, plus one person, which, in principle, makes four; and why have I given
as a maximum this five thanks to which that makes six? Is this to say that there is a three that must incarnate the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real?

我獲得某些啟發性的回答，有些回答是錯誤的觀念，有些是打成一個小環結的東西。 為什麼我曾經提出，一個聯盟開始於一個「三」，加上一個人。原則上，它就成為「四」。為什麼我曾經給予這個「五」，作為最大量。由於這個「五」，那個形成「六」？這難道是說，有一個「三」，它必須具體表現這個符號界，想像界，及實在界？

The question could be posed; I could be crazy. But have you never heard identification spoken of? What is it that I wish for? The identification with a group.

這個問題能夠被提出，我可能是瘋了。但是你們從來沒有聽過「認同」被談論到嗎？我願望的是什麼？認同於一個團體。

It is certain that human beings identify with a group. When they don’t, they’re screwed, they have to be locked up. But I do not say by this at what point of the group they are to be identified.

確實地，人類認同於一個團體。當他們沒有這樣認同時，他們會感覺緊張，他們必須被封閉起來。但是我並沒有根據這個就說：他們應該認同於團體的哪個點？

The beginning of any social knot is constituted from the sexual non-rapport as a hole, not two, at least three. Even if you are only three, that always makes four. The plus-one is there as this schema shows, giving the example of what a Borromean knot would make if one began with the idea of the cycle as it is made (last seminar, Figure 6) by two knotted rounds.

任何社會環結的開始被形成，從性的沒有關係，作為一個空洞，不是兩個空洞，指少是三個。即使你僅是三個，那總是形成四個。這個「加一」在那裡，如同這個基模所顯示，給予這個例子，假如我們以迴圈的這個觀念開始，因為它由兩個連接成結的圓圈形成，（上個研討班，圖形六），波羅米恩結將會形成怎樣的一個結？

Even if you are only three, that will make four, whence my expression “plus one.” And it is in withdrawing one, a real, that the group will be unknotted, which proves that the knot is Borromean, and that it is indeed constituted of three minimal consistencies.

即使你們僅是三個環結，那將成為四個環結，我的「加一」的表達出於何處？那就是在於撤銷一個，一個實在界，團體就會被解開環結。這證明，這個環結束波羅米恩結。它確實是由三個最小量的一致性所組成。

Of three consistencies, one never knows which is real. Which is why they have to be four. The four is what (last seminar, Figure 6), by this double-buckle, supports the symbolic by what it is made for, the Name-of-the-Father. Naming (nomination) is the only thing that we can be sure makes a hole. And this is why I give the figure (chiffre) four as the minimum for the cartel, not without considering that one can have a little play in what ex-sists . . .

在這三個一致性當中，我們永遠不會知道，哪一個是實在界。那就是為什麼它們必須是四個一致性。這四個一致性（上個研討班，圖形六），用這個雙重環扣，支援這個符號界，根據它被形成的目標，「父親之名」。命名是唯一我們確定會形成一個空洞的東西。這就是為什麼我給於這個圖形四，作為聯盟的最小量，並不是沒有考慮到，我們能夠稍微玩弄一下「外在存在」的東西。

But perhaps we can make clear that, after all, it is not only the symbolic that has the privilege of the Names-of-the-Father. It is not obligatory that naming be conjoined to the hole of the symbolic. I will point this out next year.

但是或許我們澄清，畢竟，不但是這個符號界擁有「父親之名」的特權。命名並沒有被強迫應該跟符號界的空洞共同連接。 我明年將會指出這一點。

To return to Freud, isn’t it strange that he only gives (énonce) three identifications? In these three, there is already everything we need to read my Borromean knot. With these three, Freud properly designates consistency as such. Certainly, this is not yet the knot, but do not forget that consistency, in the knot, is throughout, that it is the base.

為了回到佛洛德，這難道不是奇怪的嗎？他僅是給予三個認同？在這三個認同裡，已經有每一樣我們需要的東西，來閱讀我的博羅米恩結。用這三個認同，佛洛德適當地指明一致性，作為本質。的確，這尚不是這個環結，但是不要忘記，這個環結的一致性，是無所不在的，它是基礎。

Three that consist without making a knot are the triskele (Figure 6).

沒有形成一個環結的一致的三個環結，是這個「三個套結」（圖形六）

The triskele is not a knot. They are only inscribed from consistency. Freud called this the trait unaire. He could not better say the components (composants) of the knot. And he put it in our heads that there is no love except from what, of the Name-of-the-Father, buckles together the three of the triskele (Figure 7).

這三個套結並不是一個環結。它們僅是因為一致性而被銘記。佛洛德稱這個為「單一特徵」。對於這個環結的組成成分，他說的再貼切不過了。他用我們的頭來表達它，頭腦這裡沒有愛，除了以「父親之名」將這三個套結環扣在一起的東西。

Let us note that of this triskele, three rifles that make a stack, the ones supported as a three by the others, the Bretons have made the coat of arms of modern Brittany. This takes us out of the cross; it is already that. While one can say that the cross of Lorraine, if one draws it in the right fashion, also makes a triskele.

讓我們注意到，這三個套圈當中，三隻來福槍搭成三角架，被其它來福槍支撐的這隻來福槍，是其中三分之一。「圓盤形」曾經形成現代不列塔尼城邦的邦徽。這讓我們避開十字，已經是那樣。雖然我們能夠說，羅蘭尼的十字架，假如我們用正確的方式畫它，也能個形成一個「三個套圈」。

It is therefore inasmuch as the triskele ex-sists that there can be identification there. Identification with what? With what is the heart, the center, of the knot, where I have already situated for you the place of the object a. This object dominates what Freud makes the third possibility of identification, that of the hysteric, with the desire the Other.

因此，就這個三個套圈是「外在存在」而言，那裡能夠有認同。認同於什麼呢？認同於屬於環結的「心」的東西，環結的中心。在那裡，我曾經跟你們定位小客體的位置。這個小客體支配佛洛德所形成的認同的第三個可能性，歇斯底里症的認同的可能性，認同於大他者的欲望。

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

Encore 13

Encore 13
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
IV

Love and the signifier
愛與能指

2
I have been throwing in doubt for a long time what Freud thought he could say about the said revolution. The hysteric’s discourse taught him about that other substance, which consists entirely in the fact that there are signifiers (ily a du signifiant). Having apprehended the effect of the signifier in
the hysteric’s discourse, he managed to turn the latter by the quarter turn that made it into analytic discourse.11

長久以來，我曾經置疑佛洛德所說的，他能夠說關於所被說的革命。歇斯底里症的論述教導他，關那個其它的實體。那個實體完全在於那個事實：能指存在。由於曾經理解在歇斯底里症能指的影響，他成功地將後者，憑藉回轉四分之一，使它成為精神分析論述。

The very notion of a quarter turn evokes revolution, but certainly not in the sense in which revolution is subversion. On the contrary, what turns – that is what is called revolution – is destined, by its very statement (énoncé), to evoke a return.

回轉四分之一的這個觀念，引起革命，但是確實地，這個革命的意義並不是顛覆。相反地，所回轉的部分—這就是所謂的革命—是註定的，由於它的這個陳述，為了引起回轉。

雄伯注：revolution 有兩個意思，一是革命，另一是旋轉。

Assuredly, we have by no means reached the completion of this return, since this quarter turn is being made in a very painful way. But it would not be an exaggeration to say that if there was, indeed, a revolution somewhere, it was certainly not at the level of Copernicus.

確實地，我們絕對沒有到達這種回轉的完成，因為這個四分之一到回轉正在以一種非常痛苦的方式在進行。但是容我們算誇張地說： 假如某個地方，確實有一個革命，那確實並不是哥白尼天文學的層次。

The hypothesis had been advanced for many years that the sun was perhaps the center around which things revolved. But so what? What was of import to mathematicians was certainly the point of origin of that which turns.

太陽或許並非是萬物環繞的中心，這個假設曾經被提出好幾年了。但是那又怎樣？ 對於數學家而言，重要的是確實並不是回轉的東西的起源。

According to Aristotle, the eternal circling (virée)12 of the stars in the last of the spheres presupposed
an unmoved sphere, which was the first cause of the movement of those that revolve. If the stars revolve, it is because the earth itself turns.

依照亞力斯多德，在眾多星球的最後一個星球，眾多星球的這個永恆的旋轉，預先假定一個沒有移動的星球，那就是那些旋轉的星球的旋轉動作的第一原因。假如這些星球旋轉，那是因為地球本身在旋轉。

It was already wondrous that, on the basis of this circling, revolution, or eternal 42 turning of the stellar sphere, there were men who forged other spheres, conceiving the so-called Ptolemaic system, and made the planets revolve –planets that, with respect to the earth, are in the ambiguous position of coming and going in a zigzag pattern – revolve in accordance with an oscillatory movement.

這已經是令人驚奇不已，根據這個旋轉的基礎，旋轉，或星座的永恆的旋轉的，有些人就鑄造其它的星球，構想這個所謂的「托勒密天文系統」，並且讓行星旋轉—關於地區，這些行星以一個迂回旋轉的模式，處於來跟去的曖昧地位—它們依照搖擺的動作旋轉。

Wasn’t it an extraordinary tour de force to have conceptualized the movement of the spheres?

這難道不是一個特別的創始之舉，曾經構想這些星球的動作？

Copernicus merely added the remark that perhaps the movement of the intermediary spheres could be expressed differently.

哥白尼僅僅補充這個談論： 或許介於中間的星球的動作，能夠以不同的方式表達？

Whether or not the earth lay at the center was not what was most important to him.

是否地球位於中心，對於他而言，並不是最重要的問題。

The Copernican revolution is by no means a revolution. If the center of a sphere is assumed, in a discourse that is merely analogical, to constitute the pivotal point (point-maître), the fact of changing this pivotal point, of having it be occupied by the earth or the sun, involves nothing that in itself subverts what the signifier “center” intrinsically (de lui-même) preserves.

哥白尼的地球繞日旋轉說，絕對不是革命。假如一個星球的中央被假定，以一種僅是類似的論述，為了形成這個軸心點，改變軸心點，將它由地球或太陽來佔據的這個事實，絲毫沒有牽涉到本身會顛覆這個能指「中心」本質上保存的東西。

Man – what is designated by this term, which is nothing but that which makes (things) signify – was far from ever having been shaken by the discovery that the earth is not at the center. He had no problem substituting the sun for it.

人—由這個術語指明的東西，僅是讓事情可以指明—絲毫沒有被這個發現所動搖：地球並不是中心。他讓太陽來充當中心，對他並沒有困難。

Of course it is now obvious that the sun is not a center either, and that it is strolling through a space whose status is ever more precariously established.

但是，現在顯而易見的，太陽也並不是一個中心。太陽正在穿過一個空間慢行，這個空間的地位，更加是不確定地被證明。

What remains at the center is the fine routine that is such that the signified always retains the same meaning (sens) in the final analysis. That meaning is provided by the sense each of us has of being part of his world, that is, of his little family and of everything that revolves around it. Each of you – I am speaking even for the leftists – you are more attached to it than you care to know and would do well to sound the depths of your attachment.

要保留在中心，是美好的例行習慣，以致於終歸究底，所指總是保留相同的意義。意義是由我們每一個擁有的意義提供，關於我們每一個人都是他的世界的一部分。換句話說，他的小家庭，及一切每一樣環繞家庭的東西。你們每一個人—我正在甚至是左派說話—你們跟這個小家庭關係更加密切，勝過你們願意知道的。你們最好探測一些你們跟它關聯的深度。

A certain number of biases are your daily fare and limit the import of your insurrections to the shortest term, to the term, quite precisely, that gives you no discomfort – they certainly don’t change your world view, for that remains perfectly spherical.

某些的偏見是你們日常遭遇的事情，並且將你們顛覆的意義限制於最短的期限，確實限制於這個期限，才不會引起你們的不舒服—他們確實沒有改變你們的世界觀，因為那個世界觀依舊是球形的世界觀。

The signified finds its center wherever you take it. And, unless things change radically, it is not analytic discourse – which is so difficult to sustain in its decentering and has not yet made its entrance into common consciousness – that can in any way subvert anything whatsoever.

能指找到它的中心，無論你們帶它去哪裡。而且，除非事情激烈地改變，這並不是精神分析論述—這個論述是如此難以維持，在它的除掉中心，並且還沒有從事進入共同的意識—它能夠以任何方式顛覆任何東西。

Nevertheless, if you will allow me to make use of this Copernican reference, I will stress what is effective about it. It’s not the fact of changing the center.

可是，假如你們容許我使用這個哥白尼的指稱，我將會強調關於它，有效用的部分。 那並不是改變中心的這個事實。

It turns. That fact still has a great deal of value for us, as reduced as it may be in the final analysis, motivated only by the fact that the earth turns and that it therefore seems to us that it is the celestial sphere that turns.

它會旋轉。 對於我們而言，那個事實依舊具有許多價值，雖然追根究底，它可能會被化減，被地球會旋轉這個事實引起動機。因此，我們覺得，地球就是旋轉的天空的星球。

The earth continues to turn and that has all sorts of effects, for example, the fact that you count your age in years. The subversion, if it existed somewhere, at some time, was not that of having changed the point around which it circles (point de virée) – it is that of having replaced “it turns” with “it falls.”

地球繼續旋轉，那具有各種的影響。譬如，這個事實：你計算你的歲月的年紀。這個顛覆，假如它存在於某個地方，在某個時間，這並不是曾經改變它迴圈的點的顛覆—它的顛覆是用「它掉落」，來代替「它旋轉」。

What is crucial, as some people have noticed, is not Copernicus, but more specifically Kepler, due to the fact that in his work it does not turn in the same way – it turns in an ellipse, and that already throws into question the function of the center.

重要的是並不是哥白尼，如同一些人曾經注意到，更明確地說，是凱蔔勒，根據這個事實： 在他的研究，地球並沒有以相同的方式旋轉—它是以橢圓形方式旋轉。那已經是質疑到中心的這個功用。

That toward which it falls in Kepler’s work is a point of the ellipse that is called a focus, and in the symmetrical point there is nothing. That is assuredly a corrective to the image of the center. But “it falls” only takes on the weight of subversion when it leads to what? To this and nothing more:

在凱蔔勒的研究，地球朝著它掉落的東西，是一個橢圓形的一個點，被稱為是一個軌跡，而在這個均稱點，是空無一物。 那確實是一個修正，對於這個中心的意象。但是「它掉落」僅僅具有顛覆的重量，當它導致什麼？導致這個什麼都沒有的空無：

F=g（ mm
d2

It is in this writing (écrit), in what is summarized in these five little letters that can be written in the palm of your hand, and one number to boot, that consists what we unduly attribute to Copernicus. This is what rips us away from the imaginary function – nevertheless grounded in the real – of revolution.

就在這個書寫公式裡，在這五個小的字母裡，所獲得的結論，能夠被書寫著你的手的掌心，一個可利用的數字，包含我們過分歸功於哥白尼的東西。 這是把我們從想像界的功用撕開的東西—可是它以實在界作為基礎—旋轉。

What is produced in the articulation of the new discourse that emerges、as analytic discourse is that the function of the signifier is taken as the starting point, for what the signifier brings with it by way of meaning effects is far from accepted on the basis of the lived experience of the very fact.

在表達這個出現的新的論述，所被產生的東西，如同精神分析論述是，能指的功用被當作是起始點，因為能指藉由意義的影響所隨之帶來的東西，根本沒有被接受，根據這個事實的生活過的基礎。

It is on the basis of meaning effects that the structuring of which I reminded you was constructed. For quite some time it seemed natural for a world to be constituted whose correlate, beyond it, was being itself, being taken as eternal.

根據意義影響的基礎，我提醒你們的這個結構被建造。 有一段時間來，一個世界被形成似乎是很自然的，這個世界的互相關聯，是在它之外的實存本身，實存被認為是永恆的。

This world conceived of as the whole (tout), with what this word implies by way of limitation, regardless of the openness we grant it, remains a conception13 – a serendipitous term here – a view, gaze, or imaginary hold.

這個世界被構想作為這個「整體」，擁有這個字詞作為限制的意涵，儘管我們給予它的開放，它始終就是一個觀念—在此，這是一個意外發現的術語—一種觀點，凝視眼光，或是想像的掌握。

And from that results the following, which remains strange, that some-one – a part of this world – is at the outset assumed to be able to take cognizance of it. This One finds itself therein in a state that we can call existence, for how could it be the basis of the “taking cognizance” if it did not exist?

以下就是從那裡造成的東西，這個東西始終很奇怪，某一個「一」—這個世界的一部分—它一開始就被認為是能夠體悟到它。這個「一」發現它自己在那裡處於一種我們所謂的「生命實存」的狀態。因為假如它並不存在，它如何可能是「體悟到它」的基礎？

Therein has always lain the impasse, the vacillation resulting from the cosmology that consists in the belief in a world. On the contrary, isn’t there something in analytic discourse that can introduce us to the following: that every subsistence or persistence of the world as such must be abandoned?

僵局總是位在那裡，這個由於信仰一個世界的宇宙論的搖擺的結果。相反地，這難道不是精神分析論述的某件東西，能夠介紹我們到以下論述：這時界的每個生存或延續本身必須被放棄？

Language – the language (langue) forged by philosophical discourse – is such that, as you see, I cannot but constantly slip back into this world, into this presupposition of a substance that is permeated14 with the function of being.

語言—由哲學論述鑄造的語言—是如此，以致於如你們看見，我不得不經常重回這個時界，重回這個一個實體的預先假設，這個實體彌漫著生命實存的功用。

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

拉康：RSI 32

拉康：RSI 32
真實界，象徵界，與想像界

Seminar of April 15, 1975

Let us then be content to say that the unconscious is the real inasmuch as it is afflicted in the speakingbeing by the only thing that might make a hole, which assures us of the hole: to wit, what I call the symbolic, in incarnating it in the signifier of which, in the final analysis, there is no other definition than the hole. The signifier makes a hole.

讓我們因此滿意於說：無意識是實在界，因為它具有的唯一的東西形成一個空洞，帶給言說主體痛苦萬分。這跟我確定會有這個空洞，總之，我所謂的象徵界，當具體表現這個空洞在能指裡。追根究底，對於這個能指，沒有其它的定義，除了就是這個空洞。能指形成這個空洞。

It is in this that the knot is not a model. What makes a knot is not imaginary, not a representation. Besides, its characteristic–and it is in this that it escapes the imaginary–is that each time I represent one, I cross it out. Since I don’t believe myself less imaginative than anyone else, I think that this shows already to what point the knot repulses us as a model.

在這裡，這個環結並不是典範。形成一個環結的，並不是想像，而是一個符號再現。除外，它的特徵—在這一點，想像界無法理解—就是，每一次我符號再現一個空洞，我就將它劃掉。因為我不相信我自己會比別人欠缺想像力。我認為，這顯示這個環結拒絕給予我們充當典範。

There is no affinity of the body with the knot, even if the holes in the body play a sacred role for analysts. The knot is not a model; it is a support. It is not reality; it is the real. There is a distinction between the real and reality; the knot demonstrates it. To the extent that, fossilization arriving, you might pass your time making knots between your fingers–it is to be wished, besides; this would suggest to you a little more ingenuity.

身體跟這個環結沒有什麼親密關係，甚至身體的空洞對於精神分析扮演一個神聖的角色。這個環結並不是一個典範，它是一個支持。它並不是一個現實界，它就是實在界。實在界與現實界有所區別，這個環結證明它。到達這個程度，當化石化到達時，你可能度過你的時間在你的手指間，製作這些環結—除外，化石化被希望；這將會跟你們建議稍微更多的機指。

In thus folding back the unconscious over the symbolic, which is to say, over what of the signifier makes a hole, I accomplish something that will be judged by its effect, by its fecundity; but this appears to me imposed by our practice itself, which is far from able to content itself with an obscure reference to instinct, as one insists in translating the word Trieb in English.

因此，將無意識折疊回符號界時，那就是說，折疊回能指成為一個空洞的東西時，我完成某件將根據它的影響，根據它的繁殖力來判斷東西，但是對我而言，這似乎是由我們對它本身的實踐所賦加。 它根本沒有能力滿足於一個模糊的指稱到本能，因為我們堅持用英文來翻譯「本能」這個字。

Instinct had its emergence, which of course is immemorial, but how can we know what it might have meant before Fabre? Fabre only supported it with one thing: how the devil can an insect know, have this knowledge that one establishes in the precision of its gestures?

「本能」有它出現的地方。當然這種出現是無法追憶。但是我們如何能夠知道在「法伯」使用它之前，它本來可能是什麼意思。法伯僅是用一件東西支持它：一隻昆蟲如何能夠知道，擁有我們建立的這個知識，對於昆蟲確實的形態。

How does it know that it must–in some specific point of the body of some other insect, in some jointure, and in weaving beneath what one calls a carapace–and which is nothing but a figurative mythology–how can it attain to such a precise point in the nervous system, and, there, break something which makes it so the other will be ready to be put in conservation?

昆蟲如何知道，它必須—在某個其它昆蟲的身體的某個明確的點，在某個連接的地方，當它在所謂的甲殼之下編織—這僅是一種象徵的神話—它如何能夠在神經系統，獲得如此一個明確點，然後在那裡，突破某件形成它的東西，這一另外一件東西，得以被保存下來？

This knowledge of the insect–how does it explain anything to transport it to the human? In the behavior that we see in the human every day, there is manifestly no instinctual knowledge; he sees no farther than the end of his nose.

昆蟲的知識—它如何解釋任何東西，為了將它轉移到人類身上？在每天的人類生活裡，我們看到的行為，顯而易見並沒有本能的知識，他所能看到的，充其量是他的鼻子的尖端。

Certainly, he also, but from another source, finds himself knowing how to make (savior faire) a bunch of devices (machins). Savoir faire is a manner of speaking–saying that he knows how to make love is probably a great exaggeration.

的確，從另外一個來源，他也發現他自己知道如何製作一些策略。製作是一種言說方式—-說出他知道如何作愛，可能是一種跨大其辭。

This pushes us to this idea I have endeavored to formulate, that the real is not all. Which implies at the same time that science perhaps only pulls up little bits of this real.

這逼使我們想到我曾經企圖要闡述的這個觀念：實在界並不全部。它同時暗示著： 科學僅是修正這個實在界的零碎部分。

Up to the present, the idea of the universe, it indeed seems, is indispensable to it for what it succeeds in rendering sure. Manifestly, it succeeds in rendering certain things sure when there is number.

直到現在，宇宙的觀念，似乎確實無法免除，這樣它才能變得確定。顯而易見的，它成功地將某些東西變得確定，當有數目存在時。

This is truly the knot in the affair–how is it that language carries a certain number of numbers?–and that one has succeeded in qualifying as real some numbers properly ungraspable, and which are not defined otherwise; to wit, by their not belonging to a series, by their not even being able to, by being fundamentally excluded.

這確實是事情的環結—語言如何載負某些的數目呢？我們曾經成功地將某些的數目，給予特質，雖然適當來說，它們是無法理解的。它們無法用別的方式定義。總之，假如它們不屬於一個系列的話，它們甚至沒有辦法，由於基本上，就被排除。

Which speaks volumes on the subject of knowing how these numbers–1, 2, 3, 4 –could have even come to mind. Me, I have taken a certain side, pushed by what? I will not say by my experience, because an experience only means one thing: that one is engaged in it, and I don’t see why my engagement would be preferable.

這談論到知道我們如何會想到1234這些數目的主題的系列。我，我曾經偏袒某一邊，是受到什麼的逼迫？我將不說是我自己的經驗，因為經驗僅是意味著一回事：我們正在從事它，我不明白為什麼我的從事，會是比較好。

If I were the only one, all that I could say would have no scope. Which is why I try to situate psychoanalytic discourse; which is to say that I am not the only one to have this experience. Thanks to the fact that I too am a speakingbeing, I am lead to formulate what might account for it.

假如我不是這唯一的一個，我所能說的一切將會沒有範圍。那就是為什麼我嘗試將精神分析論述定位，那就是說，我並不是這個唯一的人，擁有這個精神分析經驗。由於這個事實，我也是一個言說的主體。 我被引導闡述可能解釋它的東西。

There is someone–an asshole (connard) of the first water–who said that my theory was dead. It is not yet so dead as all that, but it will end up becoming that way with the encrustation of which I have just spoken. In the meanwhile, this guy–who obviously is not on my side– speaks of psychic reality.

有某個人—一位尊榮的學者—他說我的理論是非常不正確的，但還沒有像其它學說那樣不正確。但是結果會成為那樣，它的外殼，我剛剛說過。同時，這個人，他顯而見並不站在我這邊—他談論到精神界的現實情況。

Me, I find that the psyche makes for incredible difficulties, that it brings with it a world of suppositions, God in any case. Where would the soul be if there were no God, and if God had not explicitly created us to have one? God is ineliminable from any psychology.

我，我發現到，這個精神界朝向難以相信的困難。它帶來一個各種假設的世界，如何如何，上帝就是其中一種。假如沒有上帝，靈魂會是什麼呢？假如上帝沒有明確地創造我們，為了擁有一個世界？任何心理學，都不能將上帝減除掉。

What I myself try to do is to speak of an operative reality. This is a lot shorter, but it imposes itself. The asshole I just mentioned, who says that my theory is dead, who literally does not know what he is talking about, who does nothing but talk, who blablates–in his analyses, however, that operates, I’m sure of it. It operates with a certain limitation, but I am sure that it functions; if it didn’t, he wouldn’t continue being an analyst.

我自己嘗試所做的，就是談論到一個運作的現實界。這現實界簡短得多，但是它負加它自己。 我剛剛提到的那個人，他說，我的理論是不正確，他並沒有真正知道，他正在談論什麼，他僅是談論，他侃侃而談—-可是，在他的精神分析裡，侃侃而談是在運作，我確定是那樣。它運作，但是有某個限制，但是我確定，它是在運作.假如言說沒有運作，他不會繼續充當一位分析師。

Yes, even the speech of those who believe in psychic reality operates. What I would like to make you grasp, is that for you the structure of the world consists from your talk (à vous payer de mots). This is even what in the world is more futile–I mean that it flees–than the real, this real that I try to suggest for you in its proper dit-mansion by this dit which is mine; to wit, by my dire.

沒錯，甚至相信精神的現實界的那些人的言說，也在運作。我所要讓你們理解的是，對於你們而言，這個世界的結構是由你的言說組成。這甚至是在這個世界會比實在界更加徒勞的東西—-我的意思是，言談會飛走。這個實在界，我嘗試跟你們建議，以適當的「言說維度」，由於這個屬於我的「言說」，總之，那就是我的「言說」。

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

拉康：RSI 31

拉康：RSI 31
真實界，象徵界，與想像界

Seminar of April 15, 1975
I imagined this morning on waking two little drawings of nothing at all; you may have seen the trouble I had reproducing them. It is a question (Figures 1 and 2) of two triangles of the most ordinary type, which overlap each other.

今天早上醒來時，我想像兩幅根本就是空無的圖畫。你們可能見過複雜它們的煩惱。這是一個很普通的種類的兩個三角形的問題（圖形一及二），它們互相重疊。

Those of Figure 1 are knotted as a chain and, based on this fact, are in every respect comparable with two torii, one of which passes through the hole of the other. Those of Figure 2 are not knotted, and can be pulled free of one another. This is like a torus flattened so as to play –not to be knotted but to play–in the hole of the other.

圖形一的那些三角形被連接成為一個環結，以這個事實作為基礎，它們從各個角度，均可類比兩個凸出環圈，其中一個通過另外一個的空洞。圖形二的那些三角形，能夠互相被扯開。這就像一個凸出形狀被擺平，為了要玩弄—-不是為了要被連接，而是要玩弄—在另一個的空洞裡。

The case is the same for the two triangles in Figure 3, except that one of them is folded around what is presented as one of the sides of the other. I say side, because one imagines that a triangle has three sides, which is no longer the case in this geometry that is not one–topology.

這種情況跟圖形三的這兩個三角形是相同的。除了其中一個被折疊，環繞所被呈現，作為另一個的兩邊。我說「邊」，因為我們想像，一個三角形有三個邊。在不是「一」的這個幾何學不再是這種情形—-拓撲圖形。

A topology is what permits us to grasp how elements that are not knotted two by two can nonetheless make a knot. We call a Borromean knot that which is constituted in a fashion such that in subtracting, in breaking one of these elements that I have figured–this is only a figure; this is not a consistency–all the others are equally unknotted from each other.

拓撲圖形容許我們理解：並沒有二乘二連接的元素，是如何仍然形成一個環結？我們稱為的波羅米恩結，是以某個方式形成的東西，在扣除時，在突破我曾經繪畫的那些元素之一時，這僅是一個圖形，這並不是一個一致性—所有其它的圖形，同樣彼此之間都沒有連接。

This can be done for a number as large as one might enounce (énoncer), and you know that there is no limit to this enunciation. It is in this that it seems to me that the term sexual non-rapport can be supported in a sayable fashion; inasmuch as it is supported essentially by a non-rapport of the couple.

這種情況，僅能就一個數目像我們宣佈的那麼大。你們知道，這個宣佈是沒有受到限制。對於這一點，我覺得：「沒有性的親密關係」這個術語，能夠以可被說出的方式來支援。因為它基本上受到這一個配對的非關係的支持。

Is it that the knot as chain suffices to represent the rapport of a couple? In a time when most of you were not in my seminar, I illustrated with two torii the tie to be made between demand and desire.

難道不是因為這個作為鎖鏈的環結，足以代表一個配對的關係？在某個時候，當你們大部分的人，並不是在我的研討班，我用兩個凸出環圈說明，在需要與欲望之間的所形成的關係。

I drew (Figure 4) a torus that enters into the hole of another. I figured on each that turns in a round, and I thus showed that what makes an encircling on this one is traced on the other, in a series of coilings around the central hole. What does that mean?–if not that demand and desire are knotted. They are knotted in the measure that a torus represents a cycle, and therefore is orientable.

我繪畫一個凸出環圈（圖形四），這個凸出環圈進入另外一個凸出環圈的空洞。我期盼每一個凸出環圈會繞著圓圈轉。以一系列的卷圈，環繞著這個中央的空洞。那是什麼意思？—難道不是因為需要與欲望被連接嗎？

What makes the difference between the sexes, as you know, is situated at the level of the cell, and especially at the level of the cellular nucleus or in the chromosomes, which, being microscopic, appears to you to insure a definite level of the real.

眾所周知，形成兩性之間的差異，被定位在這個細胞的層次，特別是在細胞核的層次，或是在染色體。當在顯微形態時，你們覺得它們保證實在界的層次。

But why the devil want what is microscopic to be more real than what is macroscopic! Something usually differentiates sex. In one case, there is a homozygotism, which is to say, a certain gene that makes a pair with another; and in the other case, there is a heterozygotism. Now, one never knows in advance how this is distributed in each species; I mean, whether it is the male or the female that is homzygote.

但是為什麼你們需要顯微形態的東西，比顯微形態的東西更加真實？某件東西通常區別性別。在某個情況裡，有一個同型結合子，那也是說，某種的基因跟另外一個基因配成一對。在另外一種情形，有一個異型結合子。現在，我們永遠不會事先知道，在每個品種，這是如何被分配。我的意思是，無論是男性，或是女性，都是同型結合子。

It is a matter of giving all of its weight to the proverb of which André Gide makes so much in Paludes: Numero deux impare gaudit–which he translates, The number two rejoices in being odd [impair].

問題是要重視安德列、紀德在「月湖」如此重視的這個格言「Numero deux impare gaudit-」他翻譯為「二的數目歡喜于成為奇數」。

As I have said for a long time, he is quite right, for nothing would realize the two if there were no odd, the odd inasmuch as it begins at number three–which is not seen immediately, and renders the Borromean knot necessary.

如同我長久曾經說過的，他是完全正確，因為假如沒有奇數的話，沒有一樣東西體會到這個二，這個奇數當它開始作為三—它並沒有立刻被看見，並且使波羅米恩結成為必要。

The Borromean knot puts within reach something crucial for our practice: that we have no need for a microscope for there to appear the reason for this first truth, to wit, that love is hainamoration18, and not velle bonum aliculi, as Saint Augustine states (énonce).

波羅米恩結將某件對於我們精神分析實踐非常重要的東西，讓我們能夠理解。我們並不需要一台顯微鏡，為了讓這個真正的真理的理由出現，愛是「愛恨交加」而不是「愛專注於本身的幸福」,如同聖奧古斯丁所陳述。

Bonum is well-being, and no doubt, on occasion, love is preoccupies itself a little, the minimum, with the well-being of the other. But it is clear that it only does so up to a certain limit, of which I have not up to this day found anything better than the Borromean knot to represent it.

「Bonum」是幸福。無可置疑的，愛是稍微轉注於本身，最小量，擁有另一人的幸福。但是顯而易見地，它這樣做僅是到達某個程度。迄今我還找不到比用波羅米恩結，更能貼切地表達它。

Let it be understood that it is not a matter of a figure, of a representation–it is a
matter of the real. This limit is only conceivable in terms of ex-sistence, which, in its vocabulary, means the play permitted by the Borromean knot to one of the cycles, to one of the consistencies.

讓我們瞭解到，這不是一個圖形的問題，不是一個符號再現的問題—這是真實界的問題。 這個限制僅能用「外部存在」這個術語，才能想像。這個「外部存在」，在它的字彙裡，意味著，被波羅米恩結容許的這個遊戲，對於其中一個這些圓圈，其中一個一致性。

Starting from this limit, love insists (s’ obstine)–because there is something of the real in the affair–love insists on something completely the contrary of the well-being of the other.

從這個限制開始，愛堅持—因為在這個事物裡，有某件真實界的東西—愛堅持某件完全相反於他者的幸福。

What I have called hainamoration, with the vocabulary substantified by the writing with which I support it. The notion of a limit implies an oscillation, a yes or no. Here, it is to wish the good of someone, or to wish strictly the contrary. Which might suggest to you the idea of a sinusoid.

我所謂的「愛恨交加」，是憑藉我支援它的這個書寫，給予這個字彙具體化。有一個限制的觀念暗示著一種搖擺，一種肯定或否定。在此，對於某個人祝福美好的東西，或是祝福完全相反的東西。這可能跟你建議「正弦曲線」的觀念。

What is it like, this sinusoid? Like this (Figure 5). The limit is the circle. Is this sinusoid coiled? Does it make a knot in being coiled, or not? This is a question posed by the notion of consistency, more nodal, if I can say so, than that of the line, since the knot is subjacent. There is no consistency that is not supported by the knot. It is in this that the knot imposes the idea itselfof the real.

這個「正弦曲線」是什麼樣子呢？就像這個（ 圖形五）。這個限制是這個圓圈。這個正弦曲線被捲曲嗎？在被捲曲的狀態，它是否會形成一個環結？ 這是一個問題，被一致性的觀念所提出，容我這樣說，它比線的觀念具有更多的節點，因為這個環結是作為基礎。沒有一個一致性不是由這個環結所支持。

The real is characterized by being knotted. Yet this knot has to be made. The notion of the unconscious is supported by this: not only does one find it already made, but one finds oneself made–one is made; one is made by this act x by which the knot is already made.

這個實在界的特質在於被連接成結。可是，這個環結必須被製作。無意識的觀念由這個來支持：我們不但發現它已經被形成，而且我們發現我們自己被形成—我們被形成，我們被「未知」的這個行動形成。憑藉「未知」的這個行動，這個環結已經被形成。

There is no other possible definition for my sense of the unconscious. The unconscious is the real. I measure my terms if I say–it is the real inasmuch as it is holed. I advance a little more than I have the right to, since there is no one but I who says it, who still says it.

就無意識的意義而言，沒有其它可能的定義。無意界就是實在界。我衡量我所說的術語—實在界就是這個空洞。我提出一點我有權利提出的東西。因為除了我，沒有人說出它，依舊在說它。

Soon, everyone will repeat it, and by the force of the rain that will fall on it, it will end up making very pretty fossil. In the meanwhile, it’s something new. Up to now, there has been no one but I who said there was no sexual rapport, and this made a hole in a point of being, of the speakingbeing.

不久，每個人都會重複它，憑藉降落在它上面的雨量。它結果會成為非常漂亮的化石。同時，它是某件新的東西。迄今，除了我，沒有一個人說過，性的關係並不存在。這會形成在生命實存點，「言在」的空洞。

The speaking being is not widespread, but it is like mold: it has a tendency to spread.

「言在」的生命實存，並不普及，但是就像黴菌，它會有擴展的傾向。

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

拉康：RSI 30

拉康：RSI 30
真实界，象征界，与想象界

Seminar of April 8, 1975

But, finally, one must not carry on (charrier), nor charity-on (chariter). There is no chance that one might have the key to the road accident (accident de parcours) that made it so that sex has ended up becoming a malady for the speakingbeing, and the worst malady, that by which it reproduces.

但是最后，我们一定不要执行，也不是从事慈善。没有机会让我们拥有这个道路意外地解答。这个道路意味如此形成，以致性结果成一种疾病，对于言说的主体。这是最糟糕的疾病，主体凭借它来繁殖。

It is obvious that biology has an advantage in forcing itself to become, with
a little different accent, viology, the logy of violence; in forcing itself to the side of mold, with which said speakingbeing has many analogies. One never knows.

显而易见地，生物学拥有一个优势，以稍微不同的强调，强迫它自己成为暴力学，强迫它自己到黴菌的这一边。被说的言说主体跟黴菌有许多的类似。我们永远无法知道

A good encounter. One François Jacob is enough of a Jew to have permitted rectifying the non-rapport, which, in the current state of knowledge, can only mean replacing the fundamental disproportion of said rapport by another formula, by something that can only be conceived of as a detour devoted to an
erre, but to an erre limited by a knot.

一个很好的遭遇。有一位法兰克斯、杰柯布是一位犹太人，他曾经容许修正这种「非亲密关系」，根据知识的目前状态，那仅能意味着，凭借另外一种公式，取代被说的亲密关系的基本不平衡。以某件仅能被构想，作为专注于「失误」的迂回，但是专注于受到环结限制的「失误」。

I think you have seen the papers distributed by Michel Thomé and Pierre Soury, which demonstrate that there is only one oriented Borromean knot. I would like to underline the remark I have made today; the fact that there is a means of making a cycle with two circles has some consequences concerning this proposition. I agree that there is an oriented knot when there are three rounds of thread, but not when there are more.

我认为你们已经看见过麦克、汤枚与皮尔、邵瑞散发的论文。这些论文证明我今天做过的谈论。事实上，有一个方法用两个圆圈製作一个循环。关于这个命题，它拥有一些结果。我同意，有一个定向的环结，当有三个线的圆圈，但是再多圆圈就没办法。

Nonetheless, if you transform one of these circles into an infinite straight line, there is no longer only one oriented knot, but two. For the infinite line is not orientable. Beginning with what could one orient it? It is only orientable
beginning with any chosen point on it, from which the orientations diverge. But if they diverge, that does not give it one orientation.

可是假如你们转移其中一个圆圈，成为无限的直线，就不再仅是一个定向的环结。因为无限定线并不是定向的。开始于我们能够替它定向什么？那仅是可定向的，开始于任何可选择点在它上面，从那里，这些定向分叉。但是假如它们分叉，那并没有给予它一个定向。

To hold ourselves to a simple formulation, let us remark that in the double circle (Figure 8), there is an orientation, which we will designate with the word gyrie.

为了让我们自己固定在一个简单的构想，让我们谈论，在这个双重的圆圈（图形八），有一个定向。我们将会用「环圈」这个字词指明它。

Not that we could say that this is a dextro- or levogyrie Everyone knows–it’s why we couldn’t send as a message to someone from another planet the distinction between right and left.

倒不是因为我们能够说，这是一个「右旋」或是「左旋」的环圈。每个人知道—这就是为什么我们不能够送右与左之间的区别，给某一位从另外一个星球来的人。

It has to be admitted that it is impossible, like the quadrature of the circle. But we could with words distinguish the gyres as being two for the inhabitants of another planet. It would suffice that they have the notion of a horizon, which would also give them that of the plane.

我们必须承认，这是不可能的，就像圆圈的求面积。但是我们能够使用文字区别那些环圈，作为是两个环圈，给另外一个星球的居民。这样说就足够了，他们拥有一个地平线的观念，那也会给予他们平面的观念。

If we flatten out these two circles by themselves, having supposed the notion of a horizon (Figure 9), we can distinguish the two circles from our Figure 8, the direction their respective gyres ( . . .). Thus we have here (Figure 8) two orientations, this one dextrogyre and this one levogyre.

假如我们摆平这两个圆圈的本身，因为我们曾经假定一个地平线的观念（ 图形九），我们能够区别这两个环圈，跟我们的图形八，它们的个别的环圈的方向（…）。因此，我们在此拥有（图形八） 两个定向

But we are incapable of saying which is dextro, which levo. We are incapable of transmitting it in a message. And no manipulation of the three-looped knot gives without ambiguity the definition of levo and dextro.

但是我们不能个说哪一个是右旋转，哪一个是左旋转。我们不能个以讯息传递它。 这三个圈套的环结的操控，毫无曖昧地给予左旋转与右旋转的定义。

On the other hand, the existence as such of two gyres is quite manifest. For there to be two gyries, two oriented Borromean knots, it therefore suffices that we make one of the three rounds into an infinite straight line, inasmuch as the
infinite straight line is defined as non-orientable.

在另一方面，两个环圈的存在本身，是相当明显的。为了让有两个环圈，两个定向的波洛米恩结，因此我们制作这三个环圈的其中一个成为一条无限的直线，就足够了。因为这条无线的直线，被定义为「非定向」。

If the rounds are all oriented, either as centrifugal, going toward the exterior, marked e, or centripetal, toward the interior, marked i, we have the following possibilities, extracted quite correctly by Soury and Thomé: 3e/3i/1i, 2e/1e, 2i. Which only makes one oriented knot.

假如这些圆圈都是被定向，不管是离心定向，朝向外面，被标示为「e」，或是向心定向，朝向内部，被标示为「i」，我们都有以下的可能，有邵瑞与汤玫相当正确地抽取出：3e/3i/1i, 2e/1e, 2i.。这仅是会形成一个定向的环结。

But with a line without an orientation, marked o, we have 1o, 1i, 1e. And this order is differentiated from another: 1o, 1e, 1i.

但是用一条没有定向的线，被标示为0，我们就拥有1o，1i，1e。这个秩序不同于另外一个1o，1e，1i。

From the diverse flattenings out of Soury and Thomé it results that the knot remains the same–if I may say so–from all the points of view of the flattening out. But it suffices to take one from elsewhere, from the non-point-of-view, to demonstrate that there are two oriented Borromean knots.

从对于邵瑞与汤玫的这个差异的摆平，结果是，环结始终是相同—容我这样说—从摆平的各个观点。但是我们只要从别的地方取来一个就足够了，从这个「没有观点」，为了要证明：有两个定向的波罗米恩环结。

Lets us sum up. If the three rounds are oriented, the knot isn’t, since orientation implies that there are two orientations. But to the extent that one of these rounds is specified, two distinct orientations appear.

让我们作个结论。假如三个圆圈都是定向，这个环结就没有定向，因为定向暗示着：有两个定向。但是随着这三个圆圈的其中一个被指明，两个清楚的定向就会出现。

Specifying a round can be simply to color it, to signify that it remains identical to itself, and that it is therefore non-orientable. Coloring a round is thus equivalent to transforming it into a straight line. Which shows you in passing that coloring a round and orienting it can make two.

明确指明一个圆圈，有时仅是要给予染色，要标示，它跟它自己始终是一致的。它因此是「非定向」。替一个圆圈染色，因此是相等于转换它成为一条直线。这有时候跟你们显示：染色一个圆圈及定向它，会成为两个圆圈。

No doubt it will come to the minds of Thomé and Soury that the flattening out introduces a suspicious element here.

无可置疑地，汤玫与邵瑞会想到，摆平介绍一个可疑的元素在这里。

Nonetheless, I indicate to them that the same articulations concerning orientation are relevant (valent) if we draw the two circles in the following fashion (Figure 10), which makes no reference to the exteriority of one of these curves in relation to the curve of the other. There is neither an external nor an internal; however, there is thus already a means to demonstrate that there are two oriented three-looped Borromean knots.

可是，我跟他们指示著，关于定向的相同的表达是相关的，假如我们用以下的方式，画这两个圆圈（图形10）。它没有提到这些弯曲线的其中一个的外在性，相关于另外一个的弯曲线。可是，既没有外在，也没有内在，它因此仅有一个方法证明，有两个定向，三个圈套的波罗米恩环结。

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

拉康：RSI 28

拉康：RSI 28
真实界，象征界，与想象界

Seminar of April 8, 1975

Simply, Freud remarked that there is perhaps a dire which has value from up to now only being interdicted. This means said between, between the lines. He called this the repressed.

单纯地，佛洛伊德谈论说，可能会有一个「言说」，从迄今仅是被禁止。这意味著，「介于被说之间」，「介于字里行间」。他称这个为「被潜抑的言说」。

I made this discovery of the knot without seeking it, of course. It appears to me a notable discovery from recuperating, not the air of Freud, but his erre, which ex-sists rigorously, an affair of the knot.

我发现到这环结，并没有寻求它，当然。我觉得这是一个引人注意到发现，不是从佛洛伊德，而是从他的「口误」恢复过来。这个口误是强烈地「先前存在」，这是这个环结的事情。

Now let us pass to something we can get our teeth into. That one (Figure 2) is the important one. Why the Devil hasn’t anyone drawn on this plus which consists in writing the sign like that, in the right way (Figure 4)?

现在让我们通往我们能够用心理解的某件东西。那个「一」（图形二）是这个重要的东西。 为什么没有任何人依赖这个「加号」? 它在于像这样书写讯息，以适当的方式(图形四)？

Young Aragon got heated up in claiming that our time had gone so far as to suppress the crossroads, the quadrivii; he was thinking of autoroutes [turnpikes]–it’s a funny word, autoroute; is this a route in-itself or a route for-itself?

年轻的阿拉贡興奋地宣称：我们的时代已经过分到压制十字路口。他当时正在想的是汽车道路—「汽车道路」是一个好笑的词语。这是指道路的本身？还是指道路的功用？

There are still a lot of crossroads and street corners, but he took to thinking that there would be no more crossroads, only tunnels. It is curious that he drew no conclusion from this.

依旧还有许多十字路口及街道角落，但是他开始思想：将不会再有十字路口，仅有隧道。耐人寻味地，从这里，他并没有获得结论。

This is the surrealist mode; it has never led to anything; it has not
spacialized the knot in the good way–thanks to which we are still in being, as Heidegger said to me, in-der-Welt. The in-der-Welt-sein. This is a cosmeticology, cosmetibuttologous (cosméticuleuse) in addition. And thanks to this Welt, there is the Umwelt and the Innenwelt.

这就是超现实的模式；它从来没有导致任何东西，它并没有以这个好的方式将这个环结专门化—感谢这个环结，我们依旧在实存当中，如同海德格跟我说的，「在世界里」。这个「在世界的实存里」。这是一个「美容术」，而且是「整容术」。感谢这个「世界」，有「外在世界」与「内在世界」。

This should make us suspicious, this repetition of the bubble.

这应该让我们怀疑，这个泡状幻想的重复。

I have learned that in comic strips one speaks in bubbles. I never look at comic strips, and I am ashamed, because this is marvelous. In fact, it was a photo-novel from Nous Deux, with words–thoughts, that’s when there are bubbles.

我曾经学习到，在漫画里，对话被放在泡状里。我从来没有看连环图画。我很惭愧，因为这是很神奇的。事实上，那是从「迁移的家畜」改编过来的图画小说，有一些文字与思想。那是放在泡状里。

Well, the question I ask here, in this form of a bubble, is what proves that the real makes a universe? I ask this question starting from Freud, who suggests that this universe has a hole, a hole that there is no means of knowing.

呵呵，我在此询问的问题，以这个泡状的形式，什么用以证明，实在界形成一个宇宙？我询问这个问题，从佛洛伊德开始，他建议：这个宇宙有一个空洞，我们不再有方法知道的空洞。

lxi
Then I follow the trail of the hole, and I encounter the Borromean knot, which comes to me there like a ring to a finger–there we are in the hole again.

然后我遵照这个空洞的踪迹，并且我遭遇这个波罗米恩结。它就像一个手指上的戒指，来到我这里—再一次，我们处在这个空洞里。

Only, when one follows the trail of things one grasps that there is not just one trick for making a circle. There is not only one hole. If you take two of these circles, if you knot both in the right way and if you add this infinite straight line, it makes a knot as valuable as the one I usually draw (Figure 6). Rather than make the infinite straight line, it is a lot more convenient to close this consistency, and we then return to the familiar knot.

只是，当我们遵照事情的踪迹，我们理解到：制作成一个环圈不仅有一个诡计。空洞不仅只有一个空洞。假如你拿两个这些圆圈，假如将两个圆圈以适当方式连接，假如你增加这个无限的直线，它会形成一个环结，跟我通常所画的这个环结，具有同样价值（图形六）非但不是形成这条无限的直线，假如要封闭这个一致性，将会更加方便。我们因此回到这个熟悉的环结。

The interest in representing it in this way (Figure 6) is to show how the knot can be, if I may say so, doubly Borromean, which is to say that we pass to the four-looped Bo-Bo knot. Here I give you (Figure 7) a new illustration of the four-looped knot. But the question that this raises is the following–what is the order of equivalence of the infinite straight line and cycle？

以这个方式来代表它引起的興趣（图形六），就是要显示，这个环结会是什么样子？假如容我这样说，它是双重的波罗米恩结。也就是说，我们通过到四个圈套的波波罗米恩结。在此，我给予你们（图形七）四个圈套的结 一个新的说明。但是这个引起的问题是如下—无限直线与圆圈的相等的秩序是什么？

There was a man of genius called Desargues to whom it came to mind that any infinite straight line closed itself at a point at infinity. How could this idea have come to him? It is an absolutely sublime idea, around which I constructed my commentary on Las Meninas, of which it was said, if you believe the pen-pushers (gratte-papiers), that it was completely incomprehensible.

有一位天才名叫德萨古斯，他构想到：任何的无限直线在无限点封闭它自己。他如何会想到这样的观念呢？这是一个绝对崇高的观念，环绕着这个观念，我建构我对于「宫女」图画的评论。假如你们相信文书记载的话，据说这幅图画书完全不可理解的。

What is the equivalence of the straight line to the circle? It is obviously because they make a knot. This is a consequence of the Borromean knot; it is a recourse to efficiency, to effectiveness, to the Wirklichkeit. But if we find them equivalent in the efficiency of the knot, what is their difference?

什么是直线与圆圈的相对语? 显而易见地，因为它们形成一个环圈。这是波罗米恩结的一个结果，它诉诸于效率，诉诸于效果，诉诸于「事实」。但是假如我们发现它们在环结的效率方面相等，它们的差异在哪里？

As you see, I painfully approach the “thinking the Borromean knot will give you pain.”

如你们所见，我痛苦地接近这个「思考波罗米恩结将会给予你们痛苦。」

Because it is not easy to imagine, which gives a proper measure of what all thinking is. Even Descartes never made anything of his Regula decima, and this is a sign.

因为要想像并不容易，这给有一种适当的衡量，一切的思考是什么。甚至笛卡尔从来没有重视他的「正则十位数」，而且这是一个讯息。

Between the circle and the straight line, there is a play, which leads to their equivalence.

在圆与直线之间，有个遊戏，导致它们的相等。

But how can we formulate in what their difference of ex-sistence consists? The straight line exsists, goes off in the erre until it encounters simple consistency, while the circle is centered on the hole.No one knows what it is, this hole.

但是我们如何阐述它们的「先前实存」的差异在于哪里？直线先前实存，朝向「失误」发展，直到它遭遇到单纯的一致性，而圆形则是集中在空洞。没有知道那是什么，这个空洞。

That, when it comes to the corporal, the accent is put by all analytic thought on the hole, plugs it up rather. This is not clear. That it be from the orifice that is suspended all that there is of the pre-oedipal, as one says; that it be there that is oriented the perversity which is integrally that of our conduct, is indeed strange. This does not clarify for us the nature of the hole.

当我们提到这个肉体，所有的精神分析思想都强调这个空洞，把空洞阻塞起来。这是不清楚的。所有属于伊底普斯之前的东西，都被悬置，避开这个洞口。如我们所说，这种倒错就是被定位在那里。完全属于行为的倒错。这确实是奇怪的。这并没有跟我们澄清这个空洞的特性。

There is another thing that could come to mind and which is completely unrepresentable –it is what one calls by a name that only flickers forth because of language: death. This doesn’t plug it up any less, because one doesn’t know what death is.

我们想到还有另一件事情，是完全无法代表的—那就是我们所谓的一个名字，仅是因为语言而闪烁不定：死亡。 这同样会阻塞它，因为我们并不知道死亡是什么。

However, there is an approach that envisages space otherwise; it is topology. One cannot say that it leads us to very easy notions. One sees well there the weight of the inertia of the imaginary.

可是，有一个方法拟想不同等空间。那就是拓扑图形。我们无法说，它引导我们到容易的观念。我们很清楚地看到想象界的惯性的重量。

Why is geometry found so at ease in what it combines? Is this because of the
adherence to the imaginary or is it because of a sort of injection of a symbolic?

为什么几何被发现如此安逸于它所连接的东西？这是因为它坚守于想象界？或是因为这是一种符号界的投入？

A question that merits being posed to a mathematician. Whichever the case, with the topological notions of neighborhoods and of points of accumulation, the accent is put on discontinuity, while, manifestly, the natural slope of the imagination is continuity.

这一个问题值得跟一位数学家提出。不管是哪一个情况，用邻近及累积点的拓扑观念，强调在不连续性，而可证明地，想像的自然斜坡是连续性。

The difficulty of the introduction of the mental to topology indeed gives us the idea that there is something to learn here concerning our repressed.

将精神介绍给拓扑图形的困难，确实给予我们这个观念：关于我们受到潜抑的东西，在此有某件可以让人学习的地方。

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

拉康：RSI 27

拉康：RSI 27
真實界，象徵界，與想像界

Seminar of April 8, 1975
Cogitation remains glued into an imaginary rooted in the body, which is the imaginary of the body. Literature bears witness to this, philosophical as well as artistic–which besides are in no way distinguished from one another. To quickly lay down my cards, I am going to speak of the imaginary of the sphere and the cross.

仔細思考始終是根源於身體的想像界緊粘在一塊。這是身體的想像界。哲學以及藝術的文獻，見證到這件事情。除外，它們根本無法互相區別。為了很快攤開我的底牌，我將談論到球形與十字架的想像界。

I have wandered into Joyce because someone asked me to speak before a congress. Well, if Joyce is glued into the sphere and the cross, it is not owed only to his having read Saint Thomas because of his education with the Jesuits.

我曾經邂逅英國作家喬伊絲的作品，因為某個人邀請我在會議中演講。呵呵，假如喬伊絲被緊粘到球形與十字架，那並不僅是是由於曾經閱讀聖湯姆士，因為他所接受的耶穌教會的教育。

You are all as glued as he into the sphere and the cross. Moreover, this makes the plus sign. It may happen that an artist who plaques a bit of plaster on a wall will make something that by chance resembles this (Figure 2). But no one aperceives that this is already the Borromean knot.

你們大家都跟他一樣，被這個球形及十字架緊粘住。而且，這形成這個「加號」。恰巧地，有一位藝術家塗了一點灰泥在牆壁上，這個灰泥灰會形成某件東西，恰巧類似這個（圖形二）。但是沒有人感覺到，這已經是一個波羅米恩結。

When you see this, what do you make of it imaginarily? You make two things that hook together, which bends them in this fashion (Figure 3). By means of which, the round slips over what is knotted in this way. It is not natural–what does that mean, “natural”?–it is not natural to your imagination to do the contrary and distort the round in this way (Figure 4).

當你們看見這個，你們如何用想像力解釋它？你們製作兩件東西掛鉤在一塊。這使它們以這種方式彎曲它們（圖形三）。憑藉著這個圖形，這個圓圈滑過以這個方式被聯接的東西。這個並不自然—那是什麼意思？「自然」？—若是相反而為，並且以這個方式，扭曲這個圓形，那對於你們的想像並不自然。

The Borromean knot is not necessarily what I have drawn for you a hundred times. This (Figure 5) is a Borromean knot as valuable as the one I usually flatten out.

波羅米恩結未必是我曾經跟你們繪製過一百次的東西。 這個（圖形五）是一個波羅米恩結，跟我通常擺平的那個波羅米恩結同樣有價值。

If I was one day taken hold of by the Borromean knot, it was in relation to this order of event (événement), of arrival (avènement), which is called analytic discourse, a social tie emerging in our day. This discourse has an historical value, yet to be established.

假如有一天我被這個波羅米恩結掌握，那是跟這個事件的秩序有關，跟到達的秩序。它被稱為精神分析論述，這是一個社會的關聯出現在我們的時代。這個論述擁有歷史的價值，還有待被建立。

It is true that my voice is weak for sustaining it, but this is perhaps all the better, because if it were stronger, I would perhaps have fewer chances of subsisting. I mean that, based on all of history, it appears to me difficult for the social ties prevailing until now not to silence any voice that sustains another, emerging discourse.

的確，我維持它的聲音的微弱，但是這或許是更好，因為假如我的聲音較強，我可能會擁有較少的機會過我實存的生活。我的意思索，根據所有的歷史的基礎，我覺得要讓社會關係佔優勢是很困難的，直到現在，為了不要讓任何維持另外一種，新出現的論述的聲音變成沉默。

This is what one has always seen up to now, and it is not because there is no
more inquisition that we should believe that the social ties I have defined–the master discourse, the university discourse, even the hysterico-diabolic discourse–would not stifle what I might have of a voice.

這是直到現在我們總是看見，這並不是因為沒有更多的研究，我們應該相信，我曾經定義的社會關係—主人論述，大學論述，甚至歇斯底里的病態論述，它們將會悶注我發出的聲音的內容。

This said, me in there, I am a subject, I am taken in this business because I have put myself into ex-sisting as an analyst. This does not at all mean that I believe myself a mission of truth, as have believed some people who have come down on my head. No mission of truth since the truth can only be half-said (se mi-dire). So let us rejoice that my voice is low.

當說完這個之後，我在這裡，我是一個主體，我專注於這件事情，因為我曾經將我自己擺進「先前存在」，作為一位分析家。 這根本沒有意謂著，我相信我自己負有真理的使命。如同一些人相信的，他們曾經支持我的想法。我並沒有真理的使命，因為真理僅能被說一半。所以讓我們歡欣，我的聲音很微弱。

In philosophy up to the present, there has been the good philosophy, the ordinary one, and then, from time to time, there have been kooks who believe themselves a mission of truth.

在迄今的哲學，曾經有過這個善的哲學，普通的哲學，然後，有時候，會有一次狂熱份子相信他們自己具有真理的使命。

The lot (L’ensemble) are simple buffoonery. But my saying it has no importance–fortunately for me, no one believes me. All told, for the moment, the good one dominates.

這一批人僅是滑稽。但是我這樣說並沒有什麼價值—沒有人相信我，對於我而言，是幸運的。目前，總共算起來，善的哲學佔優勢。

I made a little visit over the vacation–a story of giving him a little sign before both of us dissolve–to the person named Heidegger. I like him a lot. There is something in him like a presentiment of sicanalisse, as Aragon used to say. But it is only a presentiment, because Freud doesn’t interest him at all.

我在度假時曾經去拜訪名字叫海德格的這個人，在我們分開之前，給他一個小小的訊息。在他身上有某件東西，像是是一種「sicanalisse,」的預感，如同阿拉貢過去常說的。但是那僅是一種預感，因為佛洛伊德對他根本不感興趣。
lx
However, Freud made something emerge from which I draw the consequences to give weight to its effects–which are not nothing, but this would suppose that the psychoanalyst existed a little bit more.

可是，佛洛伊德讓某件東西出現。我從這個東西獲得結果，給予它的影響賦予意義—-這並不毫無效果。但是這將會假定，精神分析師稍微有更多的存在。

He has nonetheless begun to ex-sist. How, for this knot I have come to–not, of course, without getting my paws tangled up in it as much as you–how can
we make it so it tightens, this knot, to the point where the speakingbeing, as I call it, no longer believes, no longer believes in being, outside of the being of speaking?

可是他已經開始「先前存在」。因為我已經獲得的這個環結—當然，並不是沒有讓我的爪掌跟你們一樣糾纏其中—我們如何能夠製作它，這樣它緊縮這個環結，甚至言說的主體，如我稱呼它，不再相信，不再信仰實存，言說的這個實存之外的生命實存？

He believes in being; it would be crude to say that this is exclusively because there is the verb “to be.” No, this is why I say “being of speaking.” He believes that because he speaks he is healthy.

他相信生命實存。這會很粗糙，假如我們說：這僅是因為這個「實存」的動詞。不，這就是為什麼我說：「言說的生命實存」。他相信它，因為他言說時，他是健全的。

This is an erre, and even a trait unaire. Thanks to which what I call an oriented nonsense (déconnage) has prevailed in what one calls thought, which is said to be human. I am letting myself go; I get the itch (la mouche me pique) from time to time. This erre merits being pinned to the word transhumant16– so-called humanity only owing to a naturality of transit, which postulates transcendence.

這是一個「錯誤」，甚至是一個「獨特特徵」。由於這個獨特特徵，我所謂的定向的「無意義」，在我所謂的思想佔優勢。這個思想據說是人類的思想。我讓我自己放鬆。我有時獲得這個啟示。這個「錯誤」獲得跟「超人」的這個字詞緊連在一塊。所謂的人類，僅是由於一種傳遞的自然，這個傳遞提出超越的觀念。

My succeeding has no connotation of success in my eyes. I, like Freud, only believe in the failed act, but in the failed act as revealer of the site, of the situation, of the transit in question, with transference as its key. Simply, one must bring this trans back to its proper measure. My success, therefore–my succession is what this means–will it remain in this transitory?

我的成就在我的眼裡，並沒有成功的意涵。我像佛洛伊德一樣，僅是相信這個失敗的行動。但是在這個失敗的行動，作為這個地點，這個情境，這個受到置疑的傳遞的顯示者，具有超越作為它的解答。僅僅地，我們必須將這個「超越」帶回到它適當的程度。因此，我的成功—我的成就就是這個意思—-它將會保留在這個瞬間嗎？

This is the best thing that can happen, since, in any case, there is no chance that the humant-trans will ever approach any of this. Therefore, peregrination without end is worth as much.

這是可能發生最佳情況，因為，無論在任何情況，這個「超越的人類」會有機會到達這個的任何地方。因此， 沒有目的地遊歷同樣具有價值。

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

拉康：RSI 26

拉康：RSI 26
真實界，象徵界，與想像界

Seminar of March 18, 1975

lv
These cords supposed to consist give some support to the metaphor of the hole, and allow us to elaborate mathematically a topology distinguished from that of the sphere. Every imaginary supposition participates implicitly in the sphere insofar as it shines (rayonne)—Let there be light!

被假定的組成的這些繩線，給予某種的支持，給予空洞的換喻，並且容許我們以數學方式建構一種拓撲圖形，區別於這個球形的圖形。每一個想像的假定都暗涵地參與這個球形，因為它照亮—「讓這裡有光！」

Only, concerning what there is of the consistency of the body, analysis reveals that we have to come to the intestines (boyaux). Far from the polyhedrons that have occupied the imagination, Timaein for centuries, it is the gut-torus that prevails. Besides, this is also a sphincter.

只是，關於屬於身體的一致性所擁有的東西，精神分析顯示，我們必須來到這個內部。這個內部根本不是幾世紀來，佔據我們想像的多面體的上帝。它是一種到處存在「內部的凸出形狀」。除外，它也是一種括約肌。

This renders sensible for you the relation of the body to the imaginary. I now ask you the following question: can we think the imaginary, inasmuch as we are held to it by our body, in a way that reduces its imaginarity?–or its imagery, if you like?

對於你們而言，身體與想像界的關係得以讓人理解。我現在詢問你們以下的問題：我們能夠認為想像界，依照我們根據我們的身體給予它，因而減化身體的想像性嗎？或者依照你的想法，減化它的意象性？

One is in the imaginary. However elaborated one makes it–and this is what analysis leads us back to–one is in the imaginary. There is no means to reduce its imaginarity.

我們處於想像界。無論我們讓它變得多麼複雜—這是精神分析引導我們回來的地方—我們處於想像界。沒有方法可以減化它的想像性。

It is here that topology makes a step. It permits you to think–but it is a thought after the fact–that the aesthetic, in other words, what you feel, is not in itself transcendental. The aesthetic is tied to what is only a contingency, that it is this topology that is the right one for a body.

就在這裡，拓撲圖形進一步發展。它容許你認為—但是這是事後之明—這個美的東西，換句話說，你所感覺的東西，本身並不是超驗的。這個美的東西，跟僅是偶然性銜接。就是這個拓撲圖形，對於身體才是適當的拓撲圖形。

Yet this is not a body all alone. If not for the symbolic, and the ex-sistence of the real, the body would have no aesthetic at all, because there would be no gut-torus.

可是，這並不是完全單獨的身體。假如不是因為這個符號界及實在界的「先前存在」，身體本來根本就不美。因為將不會有「內部凸出形狀」。

The gut-torus is a mathematical construction, which is to say it is made from this nonexistent relation between the symbolic and the real.

這個「內部凸出形狀」是一個數學的建構。那等於是說，它是由這個介於符合界與實在界之間的非存在的關係組成。

The notion of the knot that I promote is imagined, is figured, between imaginary, symbolic, and real, without for all that losing its weight of the real. But why exactly? Because there is an effective knot, which is to say that the cords are wedged together.

我提倡的這個環結的觀念是被想像出來，被描繪形狀，處於想像界，符號界，與實在界之間。儘管那樣，它並沒有喪失實在界的份量。但是確實是為什麼？因為有一個有效的環結，那等於是說，繩線被嵌入在一塊。

There are cases where this turn-around no longer works because of the triple points that suppress ex-sistence.

有些情況，翻轉不再運作，因為這三個點壓制了「先前存在」。

This is what I have indicated to you in saying that the real is demonstrated to have no sense. There is no sense because only sense as vanishing, reduced to this triple point, gives sense to the term real (Figure 3).

這就是我曾經跟你們指示燈，當我說，實在界被證明沒有意義。沒有符號的意義，因為僅有作為消失的意義，被化減成為這個三重點，給予意義，給這個「實在界」這個術語（ 圖形三）。

Likewise, in this other triple point is situated jouissance insofar as it is phallic —which implies its liaison with the imaginary as ex-sistence. The imaginary is the step of (pas de) jouissance. Likewise, what gives consistency to the symbolic, is precisely that there is no Other of the Other.

同樣地，歡爽的位置在這個其它的三重點，因為它是陽具—陽具暗示著它跟想像界的交媾作為「先前存在」。這個想像界就是歡爽的步驟。同樣地，給予符號界一致性的東西，確實就是大彼者的大彼者並不存之

Is this to say that these figures are models? I have said that models recur to the pure imaginary. Knots recur to the real. They take their value from this: that they have no less bearing in the mental than the real, even if the mental is imaginary. Every couple, all that there is of the couple, is reduced to the imaginary.

這難道是說，這些圖形都的典範模式？我曾經說過，典範模式依賴這個純粹的想像界。環結依賴實在界。它們從這裡獲得它們的價值： 它們跟實在界一樣，都跟精神有關聯，甚至這個精神是想像界。每一配對，屬於配對的一切東西，都被化減為想像界。

Negation is also a way of admitting–Freud insists on it from the start–a way of admitting there alone where the admission is possible, because the
imaginary is the place where all truth is stated, for a denied truth has as much imaginary weight as an admitted truth: Verneinung-Bejahung.

否定也是一種承認的方式—佛洛伊德從一開始就堅持—否定是一種單獨地承認：准許進入是可能的，因為想像界就是所有真理被陳述的地方。因為一個被否認的真理，具有同樣想像界的份量，跟一個被承認的真理。否定就是承認的真理。

How is it that the real only begins at number three? Every imaginary has some two in the mix, as a remainder of this two effaced from the real. And this is how the two ex-sists to the real.

實在界如何從「三」這個數目開始？每個想像界在這個混合裡，都有某個「二」，作為這兩個從實在界被抹除的這個「二」的剩餘。這就是這個「二」先前存在於實在界。

Ex-sistence is the play of the cord until something wedges it; this is what plays on each cord, as ex-sistence, to the consistency of the others. Freud renewed the accent on the consistency of the real with an ancient term, the phallus–but how are we to know what the mysteries placed under the term phallus?

「先前存在」就是這個繩線的遊戲，直到某件東西嵌入裡面。這就是在每個繩線運作的東西，作為先前存在於其它環結的一致性。佛洛伊德根據實在界的一致性，用一個古代的術語「陽具」，更新這個強調點。但是我們應該如何知道，在陽具這個術語之下，神秘主義者擺放了什麼東西？

In accentuating it, Freud exhausted himself, but this is done in no other way than its flattening out. It is a matter of giving weight to this consistency,
and not only the ex-sistence, of the real.

當佛洛伊德強調它時，他讓自己身心俱疲。但是搞成這樣，並不是別的方式，而是他將它擺平。問題是要給予這個一致性價值份量，不單是實在界的這個「先前存在」。

Naming (Nommer)–which we could write n’hommer15– naming is an act, from adding a dit-mension, a dimension of flattening out. No doubt, Pierre Soury, in his monstration that there is only one knot, distinguishes the turning around of the plane, the turning around of the round, the turning around of the band, indeed, internal and external exchanges.

命名—我們能夠書寫為「人的命名」—命名是一種行動，從增加一個「維度」，一個擺平的維度。無可置疑地，皮爾邵瑞，在他的「證明」，僅有一個環結，區別這個層面的翻轉，這個圓形的翻轉，這個環帶的翻轉。確實的，內部與外部的交換。

These are only effects of a flattening out. An exemplary recourse to the distance between the real of the knot and this conjunction of domains that I wrote on the board, giving weight to sense.

這些僅是擺平的影響。 一種典範地訴諸於環結的實在界，與我書寫在黑板上的這些領域的聯接之間，保持距離。這些領域給予價值重量給意義。

Whether this clarifies the practice of analytic discourse, I leave to you to decide. I propose, in closing today’s meeting, this formulation of the triple identification that Freud advances. If there is a real Other, it is not elsewhere than in the knot itself, and it is in this that there is no Other of the Other. If you identify with the imaginary of this real Other, it is the identification of the hysteric with the desire of the Other–which passes to the central point.

無論這是否澄清精神分析論述的實踐，我聽由你們來決定。當我結束今天的演講時，我建議，佛洛伊德提出的這三重認同的構想。假如有一個實在界的大彼者，它不是在別的地方，它就是在它本身的環結裡。就是在這裡，除外沒有大彼者的大彼者。假如你們認同這個實在界的大彼者的想像界，就是歇斯底里症認同於大彼者的欲望—-這就通過到這個中心點。

Identify with the symbolic of the real Other, and you have the identification with the trait unaire.

假如你們認同於實在界大彼者的符號界，你們就認同於這個「獨特特徵」。

Identify with the real of the real Other, and you obtain what I have indicated by the Name-of-the Father, where Freud designates what identification has to do with love.

假如你們認同實在界大彼者的實在界，你們就獲得我所指示的，以「父親之名」。在那裡，佛洛伊德指明是，認同必須跟愛有關的東西。

I will speak to you next time of these three forms of the Name-of-the-Father, those that name the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real, for it is in these names that the knot holds.

下一次，我將跟你們談論「以父親之名」的這三個形式。命名想像界，符號界，及實在界的那些形式。因為環結就存在於在這些命名裡。

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