拉岡講座219

拉岡講座219

The Presence of analysts
精神分析師的在現場

Obscurantism in Ablata
對於目標消失的蒙昧無知

2
The aim of this introduction is to remind you that if we are to approach the fundamentals of psycho-analysis we must introduce a certain coherence into the major concepts on which it is based. Such a coherence is already to be found in the way I have approached the concept of the unconscious— which, you will remember, I was unable to separate from the presence of the analyst.

這次介紹的目的是要提醒你們，假如我們想要理解精神分析學的基本原理，我們必須先介紹作為它的基礎的主要觀念，是具有一貫性。這個一貫性已經能夠被找到，在我介紹無意識的觀念的方式上。你們還記得，我無法將無意識跟分析師的在現場分開。

Presence of the analyst—a fine phrase that should not be reduced to the tear-jerking sermonizing, the serous inflation, the rather sticky caress to be found in a book that has appeared under this title.

精神分析師在現場，好個漂亮的詞語，不應該只是被解釋為分析師說頭頭是道，讓人感動涕泣，躊躇滿志，或溫情地撫慰，如一本書名「精神師在現場」所描述的。

The presence of the analyst is itself a manifestation of the unconscious, so that when it is manifested nowadays in certain encounters, as a refusal of the unconscious—this is a tendency, readily admitted, in some people’s thinking—this very fact must be integrated into the concept of the unconscious. You
have rapid access here to the formulation, which I have placed in the forefront, of a movement of the subject that opens up only to close again in a certain temporal pulsation—a pulsation I regard as being more radical than the insertion in the signifier that no doubt motivates it, but is not primary to it at the level of essence, since I have been driven to speak of essence.

分析師的在現場本身就是證明無意識存在，可是我們不得馬上不承認有個趨勢，有些人竟然認為，今天某些互動的邂逅，精神師在現場被證明是無意識受到拒絕。這個事實必須要合併到無意識的觀念來談。你們在此可以迅速獲得說明，因為我開門見山所談的就是，主體的動作是在顯示某一個心靈的悸動瞬間展開，結果又關閉。這個心靈的悸動，我認為比意符的介入更加激烈，但是意符雖然激發心靈的悸動，在本質的層次，還不算是它最根本的所在。說到這裡，我不得不談一下本質的問題。

I have shown, in a maieutic, eristic way, that one should see in the unconscious the effects of speech on the subject—in so far as these effects are so radically primary that they are properly what determine the status of the subject as subject. This proposition was intended to restore the Freudian unconscious to its true place. Certainly, the unconscious has always been present, it existed and acted before Freud, but it is important to stress that all the acceptations given, before Freud, to this function of the unconscious have absolutely nothing to do with the Freudian unconscious.

我已經用問答及闡釋的方式，說明我們應該在無意識的領域看到主體有話要說產生的影響。這些影響是主體最根本的底層，決定主體的地位所在。我這樣建議，是要將佛洛伊德的無意識恢復到它真實的位置。的確，無意識始終是存在的，它在佛洛伊德之前就已經存在，而且活躍。但是我們必須強調一點，在佛洛伊德之前，所有對於無意識的這個功用的認識跟接納，跟佛洛伊德的無意識絲毫沒有關係。

The primal unconscious, the unconscious as archaic function, the unconscious as veiled presence of a thought to be placed at the level of being before it is revealed, the metaphysical unconscious of Edward von Hartmann —whatever reference Freud makes to it in an ad hominem argument—above all the
unconscious as instinct—all this has nothing to do with the Freudian unconscious, nothing at all, whatever its analytic vocabulary, its inflections, its deviations may be—nothing at all to do with our experience. I will ask analysts a straight question: have you ever, for a single moment, the feeling that you are handling the clay of instinct?

原初的無意識，是范、哈特門的形上學的無意識，雖然是過時的說法。他認為無意識的功用是作為思想的遮蔽，在顯示之前，被定位在生命存在的層次。尤其是，他認為無意識是本能，這跟佛洛伊德的無意識真是風馬牛不相及，被佛洛伊德嗤之以鼻。這種無意識無論是分析辭彙、推論變化，或衍生運用，都跟精神分析學沒有絲毫關係。我乾脆直接問分析師一個問題：你們什麼時候曾感覺到你們是在處理人的本能問題？

In my Rome report,l I proceeded to a new alliance with the meaning of the Freudian discovery. The unconscious is the sum of the effects of speech on a subject, at the level at which the subject constitutes himself out of the effects of the signifier.

我在羅馬演講時，我繼續將我的學說跟佛洛伊德發現無意識的意義合為一談。這個無意識是主體作為有話要說產生的影響的總合。在這個層次上，主體使用意符的影響，組成自己的本質。

This makes it clear that, in the term subject—this is why I referred it back to its origin—I am not designating the living substratum needed by this phenomenon of the subject, nor any sort of substance, nor any being possessing knowledge in his pathos, his suffering, whether primal or secondary, nor even
some incarnated logos, but the Cartesian subject, who appears at the moment when doubt is recognized as certainty—except that, through my approach, the bases of this subject prove to be wider, but, at the same time much more amenable to the certainty that eludes it. This is what the unconscious is.

我不妨說個清楚。我之所以一再回頭談到主體這個術語，是因為我指明的，不是主體現象學所需要的那種基層生命，也不是任何物質，或任何擁有或多或少的知識、情懷、及痛苦的生命主體，甚至不是一些具體表現的理性主體，而是笛卡爾的我思故我在的主體。這個主體出現在以懷疑自己的存在當作是確定性的時刻，差別的只是我探討的主體的基礎還要更廣泛，更加閃爍地捉摸不定。這就是無意識所在。

There is a link between this field and the moment, Freud’s moment, when it is revealed. It is this link I express when I compare it with the approach of a Newton, an Einstein, a Planck, an a-cosmological approach, in the sense that all these fields are characterized by tracing in the real a new furrow in
relation to the knowledge that might from all eternity be attributed to God.

這個無意識識領域跟佛洛伊德所顯示的啟悟時刻有關。我表達這個關聯時，我是將它比喻為牛頓、愛因斯坦、布蘭克，或超驗宇宙論的研究。所有這些領域的特徵是以新的視野，探討自古以來被歸屬為上帝轄域的知識。

Paradoxically, the difference which will most surely guarantee the survival of Freud’s field, is that the Freudian field is a field which, of its nature, is lost. It is here that the presence of the psycho-analyst as witness of this loss, is irreducible.

矛盾的是，確定佛洛伊德領域能夠自成一家之言的差異，在佛洛伊德的領域是一個本質上損失的領域。就在這裡，精神分析師的在現場，作為損失的見証人，這是無可置疑的。

At this level, we can get nothing more out of it—for it is a dead loss, with no gain to show, except perhaps its resumption in the function of pulsation. The loss is necessarily produced in a shaded area—which is designated by the oblique stroke with which I divide the formulae which unfold, in linear form, opposite each of the terms, unconscious, repetition, transference.

在這個層次，我們一無所獲，因為這是個平白的損失，沒有利益可得，可能除了一再重現的心靈的悸動的功用外。這個損失必然是在一個陰影的地區產生。這個陰影的地區，可用一道歪斜的橫槓標示。我用這道橫槓來區隔直線展開的常規，相對於其它的每個術語，如無意識、重復、移情。

This area of loss even involves, as far as these facts of analytic practice are concerned, a certain deepening of obscurantism, very characteristic of the condition of man in our times of supposed information—obscurantism which, without really knowing why, I can well believe will be regarded as incredible in the future. What I mean by obscurantism is, in particular, the function assumed by psycho-analysis in the propagation of a style that calls itself the American way of in so far as it is
characterized by the revival of notions long since refuted in the field of psycho-analysis, such as the predominance of the functions of the ego.

這個損失的地區，就精神分析的行業而言，甚至牽涉到對於生命更深層的蒙昧無知。在我們認為是資訊蓬勃的時代，作為人的狀況的特徵恰恰就是這種蒙昧無知。至於將來，我也不知為什麼會深信，這種蒙昧無知只會有過之而無不及。我所謂的蒙昧無知，特別是指精神分析學所擔負的功用，在宣揚自己的風格為美國式思維。這個風格的特色，其實是精神分析學原先排斥的舊觀念的復活，例如，過份彰顯自我的功用。

In this sense, then, the presence of the psycho-analyst, seen in the very same perspective in which the vanity of his discourse appears, must be included in the concept of the unconscious. Psycho-analysts of today, we must take account of this slag in our operations, as we must of the caput mortuum of the discovery of the unconscious. It justifies the maintenance, within analysis, of a conflict situation, necessary to the very existence of analysis.

因此，從這個意義來看，精神分析師在現場，必須要被包括為無意識的觀念的部份，因為精神分析師論述真理時的躊躇滿志，不也是棋局中人觀棋局？作為這個時代的精神分析師，我們必須將自身的運作的立場考量進去，如同我們必須考量到無意識的發現時，自身的頭顱何在？在精神分析的內部，必然會維持某種衝突的情況，這對於精神分析的存在是不可或缺的。

If it is true that psycho-analysis rests on a fundamental conflict, on an initial, radical drama as far as everything that might be included under the heading psychical is concerned, the innovation to which I refer, and which is called recall of the field and function of speech and language in psychoanalytic experience, does not claim to exhaust the possibilities of the unconscious, since it is, itself, an intervention in the conflict.

就精神分析學的領域概括一切而言，假如精神分析學確實是依賴某件基本的衝突，某個原初激烈的戲劇，我所提到的這種創新，被稱為「精神分析經驗：言說及語言的領域與功用的撤銷」並沒有宣稱可以窮盡無意識的一切可能性，因為它自身就是這種衝突的介入。

This recall has an immediate implication in that it has itself a transferential effect. In any case, this is recognized by the fact that my seminar has been criticized precisely for playing, in relation to my audience, a function regarded by the orthodoxy of the psycho-analytic association as dangerous, for intervening in the transference. Now, far from denying it, I would regard this effect as radical, as constituting, indeed, this renewal of the alliance with Freud’s discovery. This indicates that the cause of the unconscious—and you see that the word cause is to be taken here in its ambiguity, a cause to be sustained, but also a function of the cause at the level of the unconscious—this cause must be conceived as, fundamentally, a lost cause. And it is the only chance one has of winning it.

這個撤銷有當下的意涵，因為它本身具有移情的影響。無論如何，從現實狀況就可看得出來：我的講座一直受到批評，因為它跟觀眾扮演一種正統精神分析師協會認為是危險的功用，也就是對於移情的介入。現在，我絲毫不否認，我認為這種影響是激烈的，是在建構回歸佛洛伊德發現無意識的復興。這意味著，無意識的目標，你們知道，目標這個字讓我們聚集在這裡，雖然它的語意模稜兩可。這個目標不但是一個值得維護的目標，而且是處於無意識層次的目標。這個目標基本上必須被構想為是一個損失的目標。我們唯一的機會就是將它贏取回來。

That is why, in the misunderstood concept of repetition, I stress the importance of the ever avoided encounter, of the missed opportunity. The function of missing lies at the centre of analytic repetition. The appointment is always missed—this is what constitutes, in comparison with tuche, the vanity of
repetition, its constitutive occultation.

這就是為什麼，談到重複的觀念飽受誤解時，我強調這個失落機會的千載難逢，因為我們一直逃避心靈的邂逅。這個失落的功用就在於精神分析的重複的核心。相約總是未能相逢，跟邂逅比較起來，這就構成渴望重複的虛榮心，本質上的奧秘。

The concept of repetition brings me to the following dilemma—either I assume quite simply my implication as analyst in the eristic character of the discord of any description of my experience,
or I polish up the concept at the level of something that would be impossible to objectify, if not at the level of a transcendental analysis of cause.

重複的觀念使我們陷入以下的困境：一方面，我就是實踐我在描述精神分析經驗的衝突的辯証特色時，我作為分析師必然要扮演的角色。另一方面，我對於重複這個觀念閃爍其辭，當我遇到我作為生命主體必然要介入的時刻，姑且不談精神分析學的目標必須要我超越的時刻。

Cause might be formulated on the basis of the classical formula of the ablata causa tollitur effectus—I would have only to stress the singular of the protasis, ablata causa, by putting the terms of the apodosis in the plural tolluntur would mean that the effects are successful only in the absence of cause. All the effects are subjected to the pressure of a transfactual, causal order which demands to join in their dance, but, if they held their hands tightly, as in the song, they would prevent the cause intruding in their round.

目標可能要用「原因消除就是結果消除」這個古典的公理的基礎來說明。我要強調的是，原因消除的條件是單數主詞，而消除卻是複數動詞。這意味著：只有在目標消失的時刻，結果才會成功。所有的結果都必須承受轉移的因果律的壓力，而因果律卻要求加入牽手共舞。問題是，假如因果之手牽得太緊，如同歌詞所說的，因緣的成果反而受阻。

At this point, I should define unconscious cause, neither as an existent, nor as a a non-existent—as, I believe Henri Ey does, a non-existent of possibility. It is a of the prohibition that brings to being an existent in spite of its non-advent, it is a function of the impossible on which a certainty is based.

此時此刻，我應該將無意識的目標定義為：既不是已經存在，也不是不虛無飄渺，而是看似虛無飄渺，卻是有其存在的可能，如法國精神分析師亨利、艾所深信的。這是禁制的效應：越是禁止的東西，越是有人要。正因為其不可能實現，我們確定有一天會實現。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw