拉岡講座242

拉岡講座242

THE SUBJECT AND THE OTHER: ALIENATION
主體與大它者：疏離

The why?
「為什麼」的問題

4
Given the time, I can do no more here than introduce the second operation. It completes the circularity of the relation of the subject to the Other, but an essential twist is revealed in it.

由於時間限制，我現在只能夠介紹這第二回合的運作。它完成主體到大它者的循環，但是在這裡有一個重要的演變。

Whereas the first phase is based on the sub-structure of joining, the second is based on the sub-structure that is called intersection or product. It is situated precisely in that same lunula in which you find the form of the gap, the rim.

雖然第一部份的基礎是聯合的次級結構，第二部份的基礎，是所謂交會或結果的次級結構。它的位置確實就是在那個相同的新月形狀的地分，你會發現到分裂的形狀，邊緣的形狀。

The intersection of two sets is constituted by the elements that belong to the two sets. It is here that the second operation in which the subject is led by this dialectic takes place. It is as essential to define the second operation as the first, because it is there that we shall see the emergence of the field of the transference. I shall call it—introducing my second new term here—separation.

這兩組的交會，分由屬於這兩組的因素所組成。受到辯證法引導的主體的第二次運作，就發生在這裡。第二次運作，可以認定跟第一次運作同樣的重要，因為在這裡，我們將會看到移情的場域出現。我將稱之為分裂，作為我第二個新的術語。

Separare, to separate—I would point out at once the equivocation of the se parare, of the se parer, in all the fluctuating meanings it has in French. It means not only to dress oneself; but also to defend oneself; to provide oneself with what one needs to be on one’s guard, and I will go further still, and Latinists
will bear me out, to the se parere, the s’engendrer, the to be engendered, which is involved here. How, at this level, has the subject to procure himself? For that is the origin of the word that designates in Latin to engender. It is juridical, as indeed, curiously enough, are all the words in Indo-European that designate to put into the world. The word parturition itself originates in a word which, in its root, simply means to procure a child from the husband—a juridical and, it should be said, social operation.

在法文裡，分裂這個字詞有各種模稜兩可的意涵，容我馬上指出它的曖昧雙關處。它的意思不僅是替自己穿衣，而且也是要保衛自己，供應自己防衛所需的東西。我會再詳加說明，分裂這個字詞，意思牽涉到「即將產生」，拉丁語學家可以為我證實。在這個層次上，主體如何實現自己？因為那個字詞起源於拉丁文的原意「即將產生」。確實耐人尋味的是，在所有印歐語系，這個字詞合情合理地指的是「進入世界」。「分娩」這個字詞本身，從字根起源的原意，僅是從丈夫那裡得到一個小孩。我們應該說，這樣的運作是合情合理的。

Next time, I shall try to show how, like the function of the alienating vel, so different from the other vels defined so far, use is to be made of this notion of intersection. We shall see how it emerges from the superimposition of two lacks.

下一次，我將設法顯示，我們如何利用「交會」這個觀念，因為如同疏離的欲望驅力的功用，它跟迄今所談論到其它欲望驅力如此的不同。我們將會看到，從兩個欠缺的重疊處，有交會的現象出現。

A lack is encountered by the subject in the Other, in the very intimation that the Other makes to him by his discourse. In the intervals of the discourse of the Other, there emerges in the experience of the child something that is radically mappable, namely, He is saying this to me, but what does he want?

主體在大它者那裡遭遇到一個欠缺，由於大它者憑藉自己的論述，給予它種種耳提面命。在大它者的論述的間隔，孩童經驗到某種明顯可找得出來的東西，換言之，「他正在跟我這樣說，但是他到底要我怎麼做？」

In this interval intersecting the signifiers, which forms part of the very structure of the signifier, is the locus of what, in other registers of my exposition, I have called metonymy. It is there that what we call desire crawls, slips, escapes, like the ferret. The desire of the Other is apprehended by the subject
in that which does not work, in the lacks of the discourse of the Other, and all the child’s why’s reveal not so much an avidity for the reason of things, as a testing of the adult, a Why are you telling me this? ever-resuscitated from its base, which is the enigma of the adult’s desire.

這個意符的交會的間隔，組成意符結構的部份，也是我所謂意符轉喻的軌跡，用我在其它表述的說法。就在那裡，我們所謂的欲望，像雪貂一樣，潛行、溜走、又逃脫。大它者的欲望，看似不著運作痕跡，卻是在大它者的論述的兩個欠缺處，被主體所理解。小孩發出種種「為什麼」，顯示著，他不是熱切地想尋問各種理由，而是對大人的一種探問：「你為什麼跟我說這些？」這個問句，從它的根源處，週而復始地冒出來，是大人欲望的謎團。

Now, to reply to this hold, the subject, like Gribouille, brings the answer of the previous lack, of his own disappearance, which he situates here at the point of lack perceived in the Other. The first object he proposes for this parental desire whose object is unknown is his own loss—Can he lose me? The phantasy of one’s death, of one’s disappearance, is the first object that the subject has to bring into play in this dialectic, and he does indeed bring it into play—as we know from innumerable cases, such as in anorexia nervosa. We also know that the phantasy of one’s death is usually manipulated by the child in his love relations with his parents.

現在，為了回答這糾纏的問句，像「格瑞波利」影片中主角一樣，主體以自己的消失，及先前的欠缺，作為回答。主體自己的位置，在大它者的領域，所感受的是欠缺。這個父母親的期望的目標，主體不甚瞭然，他替自己豎立的第一個目標，是讓自己消失：「他能夠失去我嗎？」幻想自己的死亡，幻想自己的消失，就是主體在這個意符辯證法，必須運作的第一個目標。他確實讓這個目標運作，如同我們從無數神經性厭食症的例子所獲知。我們也知道，小孩在處理自己跟父母親的關係時，常幻想自己的死亡。

One lack is superimposed upon the other. The dialectic of the objects of desire, in so far as it creates the link between the desire of the subject and the desire of the Other—I have been telling you for a long time now that it is one and the same—this dialectic now passes through the fact that the desire is not replied to directly. It is a lack engendered from the previous time that serves to reply to the lack raised by the following time.

一個欠缺重疊著另一個欠缺。欲望的各種目標的辯證法，創造主體的欲望，跟大它者的欲望之間的關係，我長久以來一直告訴過你們，兩者常是混為一談。這個欲望目標的辯證法，所經歷的現實是，欲望並沒有得到直接的回應。欲望是先前欲望所產生的欠缺，而先前的欲望，卻又充當後來欲望提出的欠缺的回應。

I think I have sufficiently stressed the two elements that I have tried to present today, in this new and fundamental logical argument—non-reciprocity and the twist in the return.

我想我已經反覆再三地強調，在這個新的根本的邏輯辯證裡，我今天設法提出的這兩種因素：非互惠的特性及回轉時的演變。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw