拉岡講座 202

The Rat of the Maze

迷宮之鼠

I just got hold of an important book by an author named Bateson about which people
had talked my ears off, enough to get on my nerves a bit.

我剛剛拿到一本重要的書，作者叫巴特森。關於這本書，很多人跟我一再提過，
足夠讓我感到不勝其煩。

I should say that it was given to me by someone who had been touched by the grace
of a certain text of mine he translated into his language, adding something that went
significantly further than ‘ the unconscious structured like a language.’

我應該說，給我這本書的人曾經被我的某篇講演的深刻所感動，翻譯成他自己
的語言，再將「無意識結構像個語言」發揮闡釋。

Now Bateson, not realizing that the unconscious is structure like a language, has but a
rather mediocre conception of it.

現在這位巴特森並沒有體會到無意識結構像個語言，他對於這個觀念僅僅只有
粗淺的瞭解。

But he creates some very nice artifices he calls “ metalogues.”

但是他創造了一些非常漂亮的命題，他稱為「後設語言學」。

They ‘re not bad, insofar as they involve, if we take him at his word, some internal,
dialectical progress, being produced only by examining the evolution of a term’s
meaning.

這些命題還不錯，假如我們相信他所說的為真實，因為他們牽涉到一些內部的
辯證的進展，只有審察一個術語意義的演變才能獲得這樣的進展。

As has always been the case in everything that has been called a dialogue, the point is
to make the supposed interlocutor say what motivates the speaker’s very question, in
other words, to incarnate in the other the answer that is already there.
如同我們所謂的對話常有的情形，重點是要誘使假定的對話者說出問這個問題
的動機，換言之，要對方具體說出他事先已有定見的達案。

It’s in that sense that dialogues,, classical dialogues—the finest examples of which are
represented by the Platonic legacy—are shown not to be dialogues.

就這個意涵而言，對話，古典的對話，最有名的範例就是柏拉圖對話錄所留下
的，其實顯示出來的不是對話。

If I have said that language is what the unconscious is structured like, that is because
language, first of all, doesn’t exist. Language is what we try to know concerning the
function of Ilanguage.

假如我說語言是無意識構成的樣子，那是因為語言首先不存在。語言是我們設法
去知道的東西關於「真語言」的功用。

Certainly, it is thus that scientific discourse itself approaches languages, except that it
is difficult for scientific discourse to fully actualize language, since it misrecognizes
the unconscious.

不錯，科學論述就是這樣接近語言，但是科學語言很難完整地實踐語言，因為
它誤認無意識。

The unconscious evinces knowledge that , for the most part, escapes the speaking
being. That being provides the occasion to realize just how far the effects of Ilanguage
go, in that it presents all sorts of affects that remain enigmatic.

無意識閃躲知識，大部份時間，還閃避說話的主體。說話主體供應機會來體會
「真語言」的情意有多強，因為它展現各種迄今是謎團的各種情意。

Those affects are what result from the presence of Ilanguage insofar as it articulates
things by way of knowledge that go much further than what the speaking being
sustains by way of enunciated knowledge.

那些情意是「真語言」的存在而產生的，因為它藉由知識所表達的事情，意涵遠
比說話主體藉由被說出的知識所道出還要深遠。
Language is, no doubt, made up of Ilanguage. It is knowledge’s harebrained
lucubration about Ilanguage. But the unconscious is knowledge, a knowing how to do
things with Ilanguage.

語言無疑地是由「真語言」所組成。語言是知識對於「真語言」孜孜不息的成果。但
是無意識是知識，知道如何來處理「真語言」的內涵。

And what we know how to do with Ilanguage goes well beyond what we can account
for under the heading of language.

我們所知道如何來處理「真語言」，遠超過我們在語言的標題下所能解釋的。

Llanguage affects us first of all by everything it brings with it by way of effects that
are affects. If we can say that the unconscious is structured like a language, it is in the
sense that the effects of Ilanguage, already there qua knowledge, go well beyond
anything the being who speaks is capable of enunciating.

「真語言」首先以各種情意產生影響的方式影響到我們。假如我們能夠說，無意識
結構像個語言，那是因為「真語言」的影響已經存在那裡作為知識，遠超過任何
說話主體所能表達的內涵。

It is in that regard that the unconscious, insofar as I base it on its deciphering, can
only be structured like a language, a language that is always hypothetical with respect
to what supports it, namely, Ilanguage.

以這個角度看，無意識只能結構像個語言，因為我將它建立於解說的基礎上。這
個語言總是假設性，關於所支撐它的東西，換言之「真語言」。

Language is what allowed me to turn my S2 into a question earlier and ask—is it truly
a question of them-two in language.

憑藉語言，我才能夠將我的第二意符早先轉變成疑問，然後問：在語言中真的
有一分為二的問題嗎？

Stated otherwise, it has become clear, thanks to analytic discourse, that language is
not simply communication.

假如換個方式陳述，就顯而易見，由於精神分析的真理論述，語言不僅僅是溝
通。

Misrecognizing that fact, a grimace has emerged in the lowest depths of science that
consists in asking how being can know anything whatsoever. My question today
regarding knowledge will hinge on that.

若是誤認那個事實，科學界的淺薄之士不免會嗤之以鼻，因為他們的知識立場
就是在於問主體如何能知道任何事物。我今天關於知識的問題，就決定在那個地
方。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw