Encore 704

再来一次

By Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Rings of string 04
绳之环

Why did I formerly bring in the Borromean knot? It was to translate the formulation “
I ask you”—what? “ to refuse” –what?—“what I offer you”—why?—“ because that’s
not it.’ You know what “ it” is; it’s object a. Object a is no being. Object a is the void
presupposed by a demand, and it is only situating demand via metonymy, that is, by
the pure continuity assured from the beginning to the end of a sentence, that we can
imagine a desire that is based on no being—a desire without any other substance than
that assured by knots themselves.

为什麽我以前要谈到波罗米安结？那是要翻译底下这个公式：「我要求你们」、
「拒绝」、
「我提供给你们的」、
「为什麽？」
「因为真实界不在那里」。你们知道，那
里指的是什麽？那里指的是小客体。小客体並不是生命的实存。小客体是一个需
求所预先假定的空洞，而需求的位置，只有透过语言的换喻，换句话说，要根
据一个句子从头到尾一气呵成的意义，我们才能想像一个以没有生命实存为基
础的欲望。这个欲望没有其它物质，除了波罗米安结本身所拥有的物质。

Enunciating that sentence, “ I ask you to refuse what I offer you,” I could only
motivate it by the “ that’s not it” that I took up again last time.

若是要清楚表达那个句子「我要求你们拒绝我所提供给你们的」，我只能说，我
的动机是上一次我再一次提过的「真实界並不在那里」。

“ That’s not it” means that, in the desire of every demand, there is but the request for
object a, for the object that could satisfy jouissance. The latter would then be the
lustbefriedigung presupposed in what is improperly called the “ genital drive” in
psychoanalytic discourse, that drive in which the full, inscribable relationship of the
on with what remains irreducibly the Other is supposedly inscribed. I stressed the fact
that the partner of this “ I” that is the subject, the subject of any sentence that
constitutes a demand, is not the Other, but that which is substituted for it in the form
of the cause of desire—that I have diversified into four causes, insofar as the base of
the object of sucking, the object of excretion, the gaze, and the voice. It is as
substitutes for the Other that these objects are laid claim to and made into the cause of
desire.

「真实界並不在那里」的意思是：在每个需求的欲望里，只有对於小客体的追求
人们只是追求能够满足欢爽的小客体。那种欢爽的客体，在精神分析的真理论述
里，将是一种不雅地称之为「性器官的欲望驱力」，所预先假设的性的欢爽，那
种欲望驱力，跟大它者应该被铭记在那里的欢爽並不相同。我强调这个事实，作
为生命主体的这个「我」的伴侣，这个组成一个需求的任何句子的主词，並不是
大它者，而是用欲望的原因来冒充替代。这个欲望的原因，因为构成的多样化，
我依照佛洛伊德的发现，将它区分为四样：吸吮的客体、排泄的客体、凝视的客
体、及声音的客体。它被用来冒充这些客体所宣称的大它者，然后被假定成为欲
望的原因。

It seems that the subject calls inanimate objects to mind as a function of the following
–that there’s no such thing as a sexual relation. It’s only speaking bodies, as I said,
that come up with an idea of the world as such. The world, the world of being, full of
knowledge, is but a dream, a dream of the body insofar as it speaks, for there’s no
such thing as a knowing subject. There are subjects who give themselves correlates in
object a, correlates of enjoying speech qua jouissance of speech. What does it wedge
but other Others?

人作为生命的主体，似乎会回想到一些无生命的客体，当着是以下的功用：没
有性关系这样的事情。充其量如我所说的，人只是作为言说的身体，构想出这个
世界的观念，认为有性关系这样的事。这个世界，这个生命实存的世界，充满了
知识，却仅仅是一场梦境，一场以身体作为言说的梦境。有一些生命的主体，以
小客体来彼此互动，享受言说作为言说的欢爽。除了其它生命主体的小客体外，
它能够掌握到什麽？

I pointed out to you earlier that bilobulation—the transformation by being of the ring
of string into two ears—can be carried out in a strictly symmetrical fashion. Indeed,
that is what happens as soon as one gets to the level of four. Well, similarly, the
reciprocity between the subject and object a is total.

我早先跟你们指出，作为生命实存的绳之环，转变成两瓣，就像树叶分成两瓣，
有时能表现得非常均称。确实，当我们由两瓣，再转变成四瓣的层次，也会发生
均称的情形。同样地，生命的实存作为主体跟小客体之间的彼此互动，也是可以
完全地均称。
For every speaking being, the cause of its desire is, in terms of structure, strictly
equivalent, so to speak, to its bending, that is, to what I have called its division as
subject. That is what explains why the subject could believe for so long that the world
knew as much about things as he did. The world is symmetrical to the subject—the
world of what I last time called thought is the equivalent, the mirror image, of
thought. That is why there was nothing but fantasy regarding knowledge until the
advent of the most modern science.

对於每一个言说的生命实存，它的欲望的原因，就其结构而言，可以说是完全
相等於它的弯曲，也就是完全相等於它的分裂作为生命的主体。那就解释了为什
麽生命的主体长久以来，会执迷不悟地相信，他知道的事情，这个世界就会知
道。这个世界跟生命的主体是均称並存的。我上一次所称为思想的世界，相等於
就是思想的镜中影像。那就是为什麽，关於我们自以为的知识，其实只是我们的
幻见，直到现代的科学的来临。

This mirroring is what allowed for the chain of beings that presupposed in one being,
said to be the Supreme Being, the good of all beings. Which is also equivalent to the
following , that object a can be said to be, as its name indicates a-sexual. The Other
presents itself to the subject only in an a-sexual form. Everything that has been the
prop, substitute-prop, or substitute for the Other in the form of the object of desire is
a-sexual.

这个镜中影像的产生，源自宇宙万物的等级，被预先假定有一个存在，据说是
最崇高的存在，是一切万物的最崇高的善德。这也相等於以下的说法：小客体有
时候也能够被说成是「性的小客体」。大它者显现自己给生命的主体，只是以性
的小客体的形式。每一样欲望的客体的形式，被用来支撑、替代支撑，或冒充大
它者时，都是性的小客体。

It is in that sense that the Other as such remains a problem in Freudian theory—
though we are able to take a step further –a problem that is expressed in a question
Freud repeated—“ What does a woman want?”—woman being, in this case,
equivalent to truth. It is in that sense that the equivalence I produced is justified.

以那种意义来说，大它者本身的角色，在佛洛伊德的理论里，始终是一个问题。
我们不妨再进一步探究。这个问题被表达在佛洛伊德一再重复的问题：「女人到
底想要什麽？」在这个状况，女人的生命实存，相当等於就是真理的论述。我提
出的这个相等是可以自园其说的。
Does that enlighten you as to why it is of interest to work with the ring of string? The
said ring is certainly the most eminent representation of the One, in the sense that it
encloses but a hole. Indeed, that is what makes a true ring of string very difficult to
produce. The ring of string I make use of is mythical，since people don’t
manufacture closed rings of string.

你们现在该恍然大悟吧？为什麽探讨这个绳之环是如此地引起兴趣？我所说的
这个环，确实是人作为一个生命的个体，内部涵盖的只是一个空洞，这是最生
动鲜明的符号象征。的确，这就是一个真实的绳之环，那麽难於产生的原因。我
利用的这个绳之环神秘难测，因为人制作的绳之环都是开放式，而非封闭式。

But still, what are we to do with this Borromean knot? My answer to you is that it can
serve us by representing a metaphor that is so often used to express what distinguishes
the use of language—the chain metaphor.

可是，我们应该如何来处理这个波罗米安结呢？我对於你们的回答是：它对於
我们的用途，是代表一个时常被使用的比喻，它表达语言的用途的最大特色，
就是比喻可以产生连锁的效应。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com