拉岡講座 201

The rat of the maze

迷宮之鼠

Thanks to someone who is willing to polish up what I tell you here, four or five days
ago I received the nicely scrubbed truffle in my elocutions this year.

感謝有人費心潤飾我對你們的講演，四五天前，我收到這本對於我今年講演整
理得清楚明白的錄音稿。

With this title, Encore, I wasn’t sure, I must admit, that I was still in the field I have
cleared for twenty years, since what it said was that it could still go on a long time.

我必須承認，我用「再來一次」這個書名，但是我並不確定我還依舊停留在這二
十年來我開闢出來的領域，因為書的內容意味著，這個演講還有一段漫長的路
要走。

Rereading the first transcription of this Seminar, I found that it wasn’t so bad,
especially given that I began with a formulation that seemed a tad trivial to me, that
The Other’s jouissance is not the sign of love.

重讀這個講座的錄音初稿，我發現整理得還不錯，特別是考慮到我開始時的說
明有點小題大作：大它者的歡喜並不是愛的跡象。

It was a point of departure I could perhaps come back to today in closing what I
opened at that time.

那是個出發點，今天我回來重新替我當時開展的命題做個結語。

I spoke a bit of love. Yet the crux or key to what I put forward this year concerns the
status of knowledge, and I stressed that the use ( exercise ) of knowledge could but
imply a jouissance.

我略微提到愛。可是今年我提出的重點是有關知識的地位。我強調，知識的發揮
只能意謂著歡喜。

That is what I’d like to add to today by a reflection concerning what is done in a

1
groping manner in scientific discourse with respect to what can be produced by way
of knowledge.

那就是我今天想要補充的。讓我們回顧一下，藉由知識，我們找出些什麼？科學
的論述以探索的方式做了些什麼？
1
To get right to the point--Knowledge is an enigma.
言歸正傳：知識是個謎團。

That enigma is presented to us by the unconscious, as it is revealed by analytic

discourse.

精神分析論述顯示：無意識所呈現給我們的就是那個謎團。

That enigma is enunciated as follows: for the speaking being, knowledge is that which
is articulated.
那個謎團陳述如下：對於言說的主體，所表達出來的是知識。

People could have noticed that a long time ago, because in tracing out the pathways of
knowledge they were doing nothing but articulate things, centering them for a time on
being.

人們本來能夠知道，很久以前，追蹤知識的曲折幽徑時，他們所正在做的僅是
表達事情，有一陣子，他們專注討論存在問題。

Now it is obvious that nothing is, if not insofar as it is said that it is.
現在顯然地，空無一物存在，就他們所說的存在而言。

I call that S2. You have to know how to hear that—is it of them-two that it speaks?
我稱那種存在為第二意符。你們必須知道如何區別，因為主體說話一分為二。
It is generally said that language serves to communicate.
通常人們說，語言是用來溝通之用。

To communicate about what, one must ask oneself, about which them?
為了溝通什麼，我們必須先問自己，哪一個我在溝通？

Communication implies reference.

溝通意謂提到事情。

2
But one is clear—language is merely what scientific discourse elaborates to account
for what I call Ilanguage.

但有件事很清楚：語言僅僅是科學的論述建構來說明我所謂的「超語言」。

Ilanguage serves purposes that are altogether different from that of communication.
「超語言」充當的功用跟溝通的目的截然不同。

That is what the experience of the unconscious has shown us, insofaras it is made of
Ilanguage, which, as you know, I write with two I’s to designate what each of us deals
with, our so-called mother tongue, which isn’t called by accident.

無意識的經驗由「超語言」所組成，給我們顯示的就是這樣。你們知道，我寫作時
有兩個我，各別指明處理的是哪一個我，才是我們所謂的母語，這可不是隨意
稱呼的。

If communication approaches what is effectively at work in the joussance of

Ilanguage, it is because communication implies a reply, in other words, dialogue. But
does Ilanguage serves, first and foremost , to dialogue? As I have said before, nothing
is less certain.

假如溝通到達「超語言」的歡喜踴躍的境界，那是因為溝通意味著回答，換言之，
對話。但重要的是：「超語言」是充當對話之用嗎？如我先前所說，我們絲毫無法
確定。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw