拉康思想研究Ethic 119
Ethic 119
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
IX On creation ex nihilo
第九章: 论从空无中创造
THE FABLE OF THE POT AND THE VASE
陶壶与花盆的寓言
INTRODUCTION TO CATHARISM
净化作用的介绍
THE DRIVE, AN ONTOLOGICAL NOTION
冲动，一种本体论的观念
2
As far as the signifier is concerned, the difficulty is to avoid leaping on the
fact that man is the artisan of his support system.
就能指而言，困难在于要避免快速接纳这个事实：人是他的支持系统的艺匠。
For many years now I have habituated you to the notion, the primary and
dominant notion, that the signifier as such is constituted of oppositional
structures whose emergence profoundly modifies the human world. It is furthermore
the case that those signifiers in their individuality are fashioned by
man, and probably more by his hands than by his spirit.
许多年来，现在我已经让你们习惯于这个观念，最初与支配性的观念：能指本身由相对立的结构组成。这些结构的出现深刻地修正人类的世界。而且，常有的情况是，那些能指在他们的个别性都是人所组成，更有可能是由他的手，而非由他的精神组成。
And here we encounter linguistic usage that, at least in connection with
sublimation in the sphere of art, never hesitates to speak of creation. We
must now, therefore, consider the notion of creation with all it implies, a
knowledge of the creature and of the creator, because it is central, not only
for our theme of the motive of sublimation, but also that of ethics in its
broadest sense.
在此，我们遭遇语言的用法，至少关于艺术领域的昇华。这种昇华从来不犹豫地谈论到传造。因此，我们现在必须考虑创造的观念，用它所暗示的东西，创造物与创造者的知识，因为这是中心，不但对于我们关于昇华的动机的主体，而且关于广义的伦理学的主题。
I posit the following: an object, insofar as it is a created object, may fill the
function that enables it not to avoid the Thing as signifier, but to represent
it. According to a fable handed down through the chain of generations, and
that nothing prevents us from using, we are going to refer to what is the most
primitive of artistic activities, that of the potter.
我提出以下：一个客体可能填补这个功用，因为它是一个被创造的客体。这个功用让它能够不要避免这个「物象」，作为能指，而是要代表它。依照一个寓言，经由好几代的锁链传递下来的寓言，没有东西会阻挡我们不能使用陶壶的寓意。我们将提到艺术活动最原始的寓言。
Last time I spoke to you about a match box; I had my reasons and we will
come back to it. It will also perhaps enable us to explore further our dialectic
of the vase. But the vase is simpler. It was certainly born before the match
box. It has always been there; it is perhaps the most primordial feature of
human industry. It is certainly a tool, a utensil that allows us to affirm unambiguously a human presence wherever we find it. This vase which has always
been there, and which has long been used to make us conceive the mysteries
of creation by means of parables, analogies and metaphors, may still be of
use to us.
上次，我跟你们谈论到关于火柴盒。我有我的理由，我们将回头谈论它。或许，它也将让我们能够更进一步探索我们的花盆辩证法。但是这个花盆更加简单。那确实是诞生于火柴盒之前。它总是在那里。或许，它是人类工业的最原始的特征。它确实是一个工具，一个器皿，让我们能够毫不模糊地肯定一种人类的存在，无论我们在那里找到它。这个花盆总是在那里，它长江以来被使用为了让我们构想创造的这些神秘，凭借寓言，比喻和隐喻。对于我们，它可能仍然有用。
To have confirmation of the appropriation of the vase for this purpose,
look up what Heidegger affirms when he writes about das Ding. He's the last
in a long line to have meditated on the subject of creation; and he develops
his dialectic around a vase.
为了拥有证实花盆被利用来充当这个目的，请查阅海德格所肯定的东西，当他书写大关于「物自体das Ding」。他是漫长传承中最后一位沉思有关创造的主体，他环绕花盆发展他的辩证法。
I will not be concerned here with the function of das Ding in Heidegger's
approach to the contemporary revelation of what he calls Being and that is
linked to the end of metaphysics. You can all of you easily go to the volume
entitled Essays and Lectures and to the article on das Ding. You will see the
function Heidegger assigns it of uniting celestial and terrestrial powers around
it in an essential human process.
我在此将要关心的并不是有关物自体das Ding的功用，在海德格的探究当代的启示，对于他所谓的生命实存。那是跟形上学的目的息息相关。你们大家能够轻易地找到一本书名是「论文演讲集」，及论「物自体」的文章。你们将会看出这个功用，海德格指定它的功用，要统一环绕它的地球及天上掉力量，在一种基本人类的过程里。
Today I simply want to stick to the elementary distinction as far as a vase
is concerned between its use as a utensil and its signifying function. If it really
is a signifier, and the first of such signifiers fashioned by human hand, it is
in its signifying essence a signifier of nothing other than of signifying as such
or, in other words, of no particular signified. Heidegger situates the vase at
the center of the essence of earth and sky. It unites first of all, by virtue of
the act of libation, by its dual orientation - upwards in order to receive and
toward the earth from which it raises something. That's the function of a
vase.
今天我仅是想要坚持这个基本的区别，因为就花盆而言，这个区别介于它的用途作为一个器皿，跟它的能指化的功用。假如它确实是一个能指，由人类手中铸造的众多能指的第一个，在其能指化的本质，它是一个能指，实实在在是能指化本身的能指，或换句话说，并不是特别被所指的能指。海德格定位这个花盆在大地与天空的本质的核心。它统一最初的一切，凭借敬奉神圣的行动，凭借它的双重的定向—向上，为了接收，下朝地面，它提起某件东西。那就是花盆的功用。
This nothing in particular that characterizes it in its signifying function is
that which in its incarnated form characterizes the vase as such. It creates the
void and thereby introduces the possibility of filling it. Emptiness and fullness
are introduced into a world that by itself knows not of them. It is on the
basis of this fabricated signifier, this vase, that emptiness and fullness as such
enter the world, neither more nor less, and with the same sense.
这个特别的空无表现花盆的特征，在它的能指化的功用。在它的具体化的形态，这个特别的空无表现花盆本身的特征。它创造这个空无，因此介绍填满它的可能。空洞与充实被介绍进入这个本身并不知道它的一个世界。就是这个被建构的能指的基础，这个花盆，那种空洞与充实本身进入这个世界，实实在在地具有相同的意义。
This is the moment to point to the fallacious opposition between what is
called concrete and what is called figurative. If the vase may be filled, it is
because in the first place in its essence it is empty. And it is exactly in the
same sense that speech and discourse may be full or empty.
这就是这个时刻，要指向错误的对立，处于所谓的具体与所谓的比喻。假如花盆可能被填满，那是因为首先在它的本质，它是空的。言说与辞说可能充实或空洞，确实是相同的意义。
That's a question that we took up at a certain conference at Royaumont,
where I insisted on the fact that a mustard pot possesses as essence in our
practical life the fact that it presents itself as an empty mustard pot. This
comment, that must at the time have passed for a concetto or conceit, will find
its explanation in the argument I am developing here. Go as far as your fantasy
allows you in this direction. I don't, in fact, mind if you recognize in the
name of Bornibus, which is one of the most familiar and opulent forms taken
by a mustard pot, a divine name, since it is Bornibus who fills those pots. We are limited to this - we are, so to speak, bound by Bornibus.2
那是一个我们探究的问题，在罗姚曼的某次会议。在那里，我坚持这个事实：一个芥末瓶拥有一个本质，在我们实用的生活里，它呈现它自己作为一个空洞的芥末瓶的这个事实。这个评论，在当时一定曾经被认为是自负不凡，将可以找到它的解释，根据我在此发展的论述。请你们朝这个方向尽情地幻想，事实上，我并不介意你们是否以邦尼巴斯Bornibus的名义，体认出一个神圣的名字，因为它是我们对芥末瓶最耳熟能详的形态之一。因为是邦尼巴斯Bornibus填满那些瓶盒。我们受限于这个，换句话说，我们受到邦尼巴斯bornibus 的限制。
The example of the mustard pot and the vase allows us to introduce that
around which the central problem of the Thing has revolved, to the extent
that it is the central problem of ethics, namely, if a reasonable power created
the world, if God created the world, how is it that whatever we do or don't
do, the world is in such bad shape?
这个芥茉瓶及花盆的例子让我们能够介绍，这个「物象」曾经环绕旋转的中心的问题。甚至，这是伦理的中心的问题。换句话说，假如一个理性的力量创造这个世界，假如上帝创造这个世界，我们的作为，或不作为，如何会处于如此糟糕的情况？
The potter makes a pot starting with a clay that is more or less fine or
refined; and it is at this point that our religious preachers stop us, so as to
make us hear the moaning of the vase in the potter's hand. The preacher
makes it talk in the most moving of ways, even to the point of moaning, and
makes it ask its creator why he treats it so roughly or, on the contrary, so
gently. But what is masked in this example of creationist mythology - and
strangely enough by those who use the example of the vase, which is so familiar
in the imagery of the act of Creation (I told you that they are always writers
who work at the borderline between religion and mythology, and there's a
good reason for that) - is the fact that the vase is made from matter. Nothing
is made from nothing.
陶匠用泥土开始制作一个花盆，无论泥土揉过或重新揉过。就在这个时刻，我们的宗教的训诲师阻止我们，为了让我们听见花盆的呻吟，这陶匠的手中。宗教训诲师让它说话，以最动人的方式，甚至以呻吟的方式。他让它询问它的创造者，为什么他如此粗鲁地对待它，或相反地，如此地温柔地。但是，在这个创造者的神话的例子，什么被遮蔽？非常耐人寻味地，被使用花盆的例子的那些人遮蔽？在创造的这个行动的意象，这个花盆是如此的耳熟能详。（我告诉你们，他们总是从事于宗教与神话之间的边际的作家，理由非常充分。）所被遮蔽的是这个事实：花盆是由物质制造而成。没有东西是由空无产生。
雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordpress.com
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
IX On creation ex nihilo
第九章: 论从空无中创造
THE FABLE OF THE POT AND THE VASE
陶壶与花盆的寓言
INTRODUCTION TO CATHARISM
净化作用的介绍
THE DRIVE, AN ONTOLOGICAL NOTION
冲动，一种本体论的观念
2
As far as the signifier is concerned, the difficulty is to avoid leaping on the
fact that man is the artisan of his support system.
就能指而言，困难在于要避免快速接纳这个事实：人是他的支持系统的艺匠。
For many years now I have habituated you to the notion, the primary and
dominant notion, that the signifier as such is constituted of oppositional
structures whose emergence profoundly modifies the human world. It is furthermore
the case that those signifiers in their individuality are fashioned by
man, and probably more by his hands than by his spirit.
许多年来，现在我已经让你们习惯于这个观念，最初与支配性的观念：能指本身由相对立的结构组成。这些结构的出现深刻地修正人类的世界。而且，常有的情况是，那些能指在他们的个别性都是人所组成，更有可能是由他的手，而非由他的精神组成。
And here we encounter linguistic usage that, at least in connection with
sublimation in the sphere of art, never hesitates to speak of creation. We
must now, therefore, consider the notion of creation with all it implies, a
knowledge of the creature and of the creator, because it is central, not only
for our theme of the motive of sublimation, but also that of ethics in its
broadest sense.
在此，我们遭遇语言的用法，至少关于艺术领域的昇华。这种昇华从来不犹豫地谈论到传造。因此，我们现在必须考虑创造的观念，用它所暗示的东西，创造物与创造者的知识，因为这是中心，不但对于我们关于昇华的动机的主体，而且关于广义的伦理学的主题。
I posit the following: an object, insofar as it is a created object, may fill the
function that enables it not to avoid the Thing as signifier, but to represent
it. According to a fable handed down through the chain of generations, and
that nothing prevents us from using, we are going to refer to what is the most
primitive of artistic activities, that of the potter.
我提出以下：一个客体可能填补这个功用，因为它是一个被创造的客体。这个功用让它能够不要避免这个「物象」，作为能指，而是要代表它。依照一个寓言，经由好几代的锁链传递下来的寓言，没有东西会阻挡我们不能使用陶壶的寓意。我们将提到艺术活动最原始的寓言。
Last time I spoke to you about a match box; I had my reasons and we will
come back to it. It will also perhaps enable us to explore further our dialectic
of the vase. But the vase is simpler. It was certainly born before the match
box. It has always been there; it is perhaps the most primordial feature of
human industry. It is certainly a tool, a utensil that allows us to affirm unambiguously a human presence wherever we find it. This vase which has always
been there, and which has long been used to make us conceive the mysteries
of creation by means of parables, analogies and metaphors, may still be of
use to us.
上次，我跟你们谈论到关于火柴盒。我有我的理由，我们将回头谈论它。或许，它也将让我们能够更进一步探索我们的花盆辩证法。但是这个花盆更加简单。那确实是诞生于火柴盒之前。它总是在那里。或许，它是人类工业的最原始的特征。它确实是一个工具，一个器皿，让我们能够毫不模糊地肯定一种人类的存在，无论我们在那里找到它。这个花盆总是在那里，它长江以来被使用为了让我们构想创造的这些神秘，凭借寓言，比喻和隐喻。对于我们，它可能仍然有用。
To have confirmation of the appropriation of the vase for this purpose,
look up what Heidegger affirms when he writes about das Ding. He's the last
in a long line to have meditated on the subject of creation; and he develops
his dialectic around a vase.
为了拥有证实花盆被利用来充当这个目的，请查阅海德格所肯定的东西，当他书写大关于「物自体das Ding」。他是漫长传承中最后一位沉思有关创造的主体，他环绕花盆发展他的辩证法。
I will not be concerned here with the function of das Ding in Heidegger's
approach to the contemporary revelation of what he calls Being and that is
linked to the end of metaphysics. You can all of you easily go to the volume
entitled Essays and Lectures and to the article on das Ding. You will see the
function Heidegger assigns it of uniting celestial and terrestrial powers around
it in an essential human process.
我在此将要关心的并不是有关物自体das Ding的功用，在海德格的探究当代的启示，对于他所谓的生命实存。那是跟形上学的目的息息相关。你们大家能够轻易地找到一本书名是「论文演讲集」，及论「物自体」的文章。你们将会看出这个功用，海德格指定它的功用，要统一环绕它的地球及天上掉力量，在一种基本人类的过程里。
Today I simply want to stick to the elementary distinction as far as a vase
is concerned between its use as a utensil and its signifying function. If it really
is a signifier, and the first of such signifiers fashioned by human hand, it is
in its signifying essence a signifier of nothing other than of signifying as such
or, in other words, of no particular signified. Heidegger situates the vase at
the center of the essence of earth and sky. It unites first of all, by virtue of
the act of libation, by its dual orientation - upwards in order to receive and
toward the earth from which it raises something. That's the function of a
vase.
今天我仅是想要坚持这个基本的区别，因为就花盆而言，这个区别介于它的用途作为一个器皿，跟它的能指化的功用。假如它确实是一个能指，由人类手中铸造的众多能指的第一个，在其能指化的本质，它是一个能指，实实在在是能指化本身的能指，或换句话说，并不是特别被所指的能指。海德格定位这个花盆在大地与天空的本质的核心。它统一最初的一切，凭借敬奉神圣的行动，凭借它的双重的定向—向上，为了接收，下朝地面，它提起某件东西。那就是花盆的功用。
This nothing in particular that characterizes it in its signifying function is
that which in its incarnated form characterizes the vase as such. It creates the
void and thereby introduces the possibility of filling it. Emptiness and fullness
are introduced into a world that by itself knows not of them. It is on the
basis of this fabricated signifier, this vase, that emptiness and fullness as such
enter the world, neither more nor less, and with the same sense.
这个特别的空无表现花盆的特征，在它的能指化的功用。在它的具体化的形态，这个特别的空无表现花盆本身的特征。它创造这个空无，因此介绍填满它的可能。空洞与充实被介绍进入这个本身并不知道它的一个世界。就是这个被建构的能指的基础，这个花盆，那种空洞与充实本身进入这个世界，实实在在地具有相同的意义。
This is the moment to point to the fallacious opposition between what is
called concrete and what is called figurative. If the vase may be filled, it is
because in the first place in its essence it is empty. And it is exactly in the
same sense that speech and discourse may be full or empty.
这就是这个时刻，要指向错误的对立，处于所谓的具体与所谓的比喻。假如花盆可能被填满，那是因为首先在它的本质，它是空的。言说与辞说可能充实或空洞，确实是相同的意义。
That's a question that we took up at a certain conference at Royaumont,
where I insisted on the fact that a mustard pot possesses as essence in our
practical life the fact that it presents itself as an empty mustard pot. This
comment, that must at the time have passed for a concetto or conceit, will find
its explanation in the argument I am developing here. Go as far as your fantasy
allows you in this direction. I don't, in fact, mind if you recognize in the
name of Bornibus, which is one of the most familiar and opulent forms taken
by a mustard pot, a divine name, since it is Bornibus who fills those pots. We are limited to this - we are, so to speak, bound by Bornibus.2
那是一个我们探究的问题，在罗姚曼的某次会议。在那里，我坚持这个事实：一个芥末瓶拥有一个本质，在我们实用的生活里，它呈现它自己作为一个空洞的芥末瓶的这个事实。这个评论，在当时一定曾经被认为是自负不凡，将可以找到它的解释，根据我在此发展的论述。请你们朝这个方向尽情地幻想，事实上，我并不介意你们是否以邦尼巴斯Bornibus的名义，体认出一个神圣的名字，因为它是我们对芥末瓶最耳熟能详的形态之一。因为是邦尼巴斯Bornibus填满那些瓶盒。我们受限于这个，换句话说，我们受到邦尼巴斯bornibus 的限制。
The example of the mustard pot and the vase allows us to introduce that
around which the central problem of the Thing has revolved, to the extent
that it is the central problem of ethics, namely, if a reasonable power created
the world, if God created the world, how is it that whatever we do or don't
do, the world is in such bad shape?
这个芥茉瓶及花盆的例子让我们能够介绍，这个「物象」曾经环绕旋转的中心的问题。甚至，这是伦理的中心的问题。换句话说，假如一个理性的力量创造这个世界，假如上帝创造这个世界，我们的作为，或不作为，如何会处于如此糟糕的情况？
The potter makes a pot starting with a clay that is more or less fine or
refined; and it is at this point that our religious preachers stop us, so as to
make us hear the moaning of the vase in the potter's hand. The preacher
makes it talk in the most moving of ways, even to the point of moaning, and
makes it ask its creator why he treats it so roughly or, on the contrary, so
gently. But what is masked in this example of creationist mythology - and
strangely enough by those who use the example of the vase, which is so familiar
in the imagery of the act of Creation (I told you that they are always writers
who work at the borderline between religion and mythology, and there's a
good reason for that) - is the fact that the vase is made from matter. Nothing
is made from nothing.
陶匠用泥土开始制作一个花盆，无论泥土揉过或重新揉过。就在这个时刻，我们的宗教的训诲师阻止我们，为了让我们听见花盆的呻吟，这陶匠的手中。宗教训诲师让它说话，以最动人的方式，甚至以呻吟的方式。他让它询问它的创造者，为什么他如此粗鲁地对待它，或相反地，如此地温柔地。但是，在这个创造者的神话的例子，什么被遮蔽？非常耐人寻味地，被使用花盆的例子的那些人遮蔽？在创造的这个行动的意象，这个花盆是如此的耳熟能详。（我告诉你们，他们总是从事于宗教与神话之间的边际的作家，理由非常充分。）所被遮蔽的是这个事实：花盆是由物质制造而成。没有东西是由空无产生。
雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordpress.com
> 我来回应