拉岡講座248

拉岡講座248

The subject who is supposed to know

應該知道的主體

Belief.
信仰
Alienation apprehended in the fort-da
我去你來之間的疏離

2
I will now re-articulate a number of formulae to be preserved as link points, without which thought will stumble and slip.

現在我重新表達許多被保留當著聯接點的公式，因為假如沒有這些公式，思維將會零亂散漫。

Alienation is linked in an essential way to the function of the dyad of signifiers. It is, indeed, essentially different, whether there are two or three of them. If we wish to grasp where the function of the subject resides in this signifying articulation, we must operate with two, because it is only with two that he can be cornered in alienation.

基本上，疏離與意符的善惡對立的功用有關。至於是否二元對立或是三元對立，確實還是事關重大。假如我們希望了解主體作為意符表達的功用的位置，我們必須以二元對立的方式運作。因為唯有在二元對立的情況，人的疏離可能會被逼迫成僵局。

As soon as there are three, the sliding becomes circular. When passed from the second to the third, it comes back to the first—but not from the second. The effect of aphanisis that is produced under one of the two signifiers is linked to the definition—let us say, to use the language of modem mathematics—
of a set of signifiers. It is a set of elements such that, if there exist—as one says in the theory, with a capital E inverted for notation—only two, the phenomenon of alienation is produced, in other words, the signifier is that which represents the subject for the other signifier. Hence there results that, at
the level of the other signifier, the subject fades away.

一但是三元對立，思維的散漫會成為循環。從第二意符傳遞到第三意符，它回到第一意符，但不是從第二意符那裡。兩個意符之一，會產生失蹤的影響，跟這個定義有關，讓我們用現代數學的語言來說，一組意符的集合。如同在數學理論，一組意符有一個元素的大寫字首E，被倒轉當著指稱，若有兩個意符存在，疏離的現象就會產生。換言之，意符就是主體對另外一個主體的代表。因此，在另外一個意符的層次，造成的結果是：主體消失。

This is also why I pointed out to you the mistake that occurs in a certain translation of this Vorstellungsrepr&entanz, which is, as I told you, the signifying S2 of the dyad.

這也就是為什麼我跟你們指出，欲望驅力，也就二元對立的第二意符，傳譯時會發生錯誤。

I must articulate here what is involved and what, in the text of one of my pupils of whom I have spoken, was sensed, but expressed in a way that misses the point, and which may lead to error, because it specifically omits the fundamental character of the function of the subject. There is constant reference to the relation of the signifier and the signified, which has to do with what I will call the a,b,c, of the question. Of course, it had to happen that one day I would put on the blackboard something that had already been formulated at the roots of the Saussurian development, in order to show my starting point.

我在此必須表明牽涉到什麼。我曾引用我的一位學生的論文所發現的，但是表達時漏掉一點，可能會導致錯誤。因為它明確地漏掉主體的功用最基本的特性。他不斷地提到意符與意旨的關係，這跟我所謂的基本問題有關。當然，有一天，我將必然要在黑板上，寫下某件根據語言學家索緒爾所推衍出來的東西，作為我的開端。

But I immediately showed that it was effective and manageable only to include in it the function of the subject at the original stage. It is not a question of reducing the function of the subject to nomination,
namely, to a label stuck on something. This would be to miss the whole essence of language. I must say that this text, which I described last time as providing proof of infatuation, also provides proof of crass ignorance, in letting it be understood that this is what is involved at the level of the Pavlovian experiment.

但是我立刻要表示，這個東西只有被包含在主體的功用初期的階段，才能有效地掌控。這個問題不是要將主體的功用簡化成為命名，換言之，成為一個黏附於某件東西的標籤。這將會漏失語言的本質。我必須說，我上一次描述作為迷戀的證據的本文，也提供懵懂無知的證據，因為它讓人瞭解到，巴夫洛夫的制約反應，牽涉到些什麼。

If there is something that is situated at the level of the experiment of the conditioned reflex, it is certainly not the association of a sign with a thing.

即使制約反應的試驗層次顯示某件東西，那也確定不會是符號跟事物的聯想。

Whether or not Pavlov recognizes this, the characteristic of every experimental condition is strictly to associate a signjfier, in so far as the experiment is instituted with the cut that may be made in the organic organization of a need—which is designated by a manifestation at the level of a cycle of interrupted needs, and which we find here again, at the level of the Pavlovian experiment, as being the cut of desire.

無論巴夫洛夫是否體會到這一點，每次制約反應的試驗的特性，都會讓人聯想到一個意符。因為試驗的開始，在於需求的有機組織所造成的割裂。需求被中斷的循環所顯示出來的割裂。我們再一次在巴夫洛夫試驗的層次發現到，作為欲望的割裂。

And—rather as one says, that’s why your daughter is dumb —that is why the animal will never learn to speak. At least in this way. Because, obviously, the animal is one step behind. The experiment may cause in him all sorts of disorders, all sorts of disturbances, but, not yet being a speaking creature, he is not called to put in question the desire of the experimenter, who, indeed, if one interrogated him, would be hard put to reply.

「這就是為什麼你的女兒是啞巴？」有人說。那就是為什麼動物永遠學不會說話。至少不會像人類這樣說話。因為，顯而易見，動物的智慧劣於人類。制約試驗會引起動物的各種疾病，各種的困擾，但是由於不會說話，動物不會質問試驗者的欲望是什麼。試驗者若是受到質問，其實很難回答。

Nevertheless, when articulated in this way, this experiment is interesting, indeed is essential, in enabling us to situate our conception of the psycho-somatic effect. I will go so far as to formulate that, when there is no interval between S1 and S2, when the first dyad of signiflers become solidified, holophrased, we have the model for a whole series of cases—even though, in each case, the subject does not occupy the same place.

可是，用這種方式來表達時，這種試驗頗耐人尋味，它確實很重要，因為它讓我們能夠明白心理跟生理的影響。甚至我要說，當第一意符跟第二意符之間沒有間隔，意符最初的二元對立固定用一個詞語來表達，整個案例的模式就展現出來，即使主體並不一定在每案例佔有相同的位置。

In as much, for example, as the child, the mentally-deficient child, takes the place, on the blackboard, at the bottom right, of this S, with regard to this something to which the mother reduces him, in being no more than the support of her desire in an obscure term, which is introduced into the education of
the mentally-deficient child by the psychotic dimension. It is precisely what our colleague Maud Mannoni, in a book that has just come out and which I would recommend you to read, tries to indicate to those who, in one way or another, may be entrusted with the task of releasing its hold.’

例如，黑板上底端的這個意符位置的小孩，是精神異常的小孩，他的母親模糊地將他視為僅僅是自己欲望的支持，因此造成小孩的精神異常，具有精神病患的特質。我們的同事曼諾尼剛出版一本書，我推薦你們閱讀。他確實設法向有關精神病患的單位，作這樣的說明。

It is certainly something of the same order that is involved in psychosis. This solidity, this mass seizure of the primitive signifying chain, is what forbids the dialectical opening that is manifested in the phenomenon of belief.

這確實跟精神病患的層次有相同的東西。原初的意符鎖鏈，若具體地遭到大量的損毀，會使主體的信仰的辯證法無法展開。

At the basis of paranoia itself, which nevertheless seems to us to be animated by belief, there reigns the phenomenon of
X ◇ S1
0. s, s’, s”, s”,… S (i (a, a’, a”, a”,…))
S2
0. s, s’, s”, s”,… : series of meanings.
i (a, a’, a”, a”,…) : series of identifications.
the Unglauben. This is not the not believing in it, but the absence of one of the terms of belief, of the term in which is designated the division of the subject. If, indeed, there is no belief that is full and entire, it is because there is no belief that does not presuppose in its basis that the ultimate dimension that it has to reveal is strictly correlative with the moment when its meaning is about to fade away.

偏執妄想症，我們似乎覺得是由於信仰危機所造成，顯示以下信仰崩裂的現象：
X ◇ S1
0. s, s’, s”, s”,… S (i (a, a’, a”, a”,…))
S2
0. s, s’, s”, s”,… : 意義系列
i (a, a’, a”, a”,…) : 認同系列
這並不等於就是不信仰，而是某種信仰模式的欠缺，某種主體分裂所顯示的信仰的欠缺。的確，假如主體欠缺完整的信仰，那是因為每一種信仰的基礎要能顯示最後的意義，而他的信仰的意義卻是若存若亡。

There are all kinds of experiences that bear this out. One of them, concerning one of Casanova’s misadventures, was told me in a very humorous way by Mannoni, who is with us today, and whose commentary on it is most amusing and revealing.

所有的精神分析經驗都證明這一點。曼諾尼先生今天在現場，他曾經幽默地告訴我，有關一個卡薩諾瓦的奇異冒險。他的評論頗耐人尋味。

At the end of a practical joke that succeeded to the point of moving the celestial forces and unleashing around him a storm which, in actual fact, terrified him, Casanova—who had been pursuing a cynical adventure with some silly goose of a girl, who was the object of the prank, which gathered round him a whole circle of idiots— Casanova, seeing his practical joke begin to work, become real, was so deeply affected—in a surprisingly comic way for a Casanova who defied earth and heaven at the level of his desire—that he was struck with impotence, as if he had really been stopped at the sight of God’s face.

卡薩諾瓦一直在跟某些癡情女人逢場作戲，他是情場的老手，他的身邊總是不乏圍繞一些自作多情的女人。有一次他的惡作劇戀情掀起議論糾紛，引起的風暴自己都嚇到。卡薩諾瓦看到惡作劇的後果，態度變得認真，因為這一次他自己也動了真情。這對卡薩諾瓦而言，頗為滑稽反諷，因為他一向在欲望的層次，恣所欲為，沒有絲毫顧忌。結果，他突然變成性無能，好像上帝對他怒目相向，他真的束手無策。

Take another look at the text I was talking about earlier. In this text, for example, the fort-da is presented as something rather old hat—it is almost as if this individual were apologizing for mentioning once again this fort-da, which everyone had wiped his feet on. It is treated as an example of primal symbolization, while apologizing for mentioning it as if it were something that had now passed into the public domain. Well!

再看一下我先前提到的文章。例如，在這個文章，「我去你來」閃躲遊戲被呈現像是一件古老把戲，好像這個人抱歉再一次又提到這個「我去你來」，因為他的躲避處已經被每個人發現。這就是原初象徵的一個例子。他抱歉提到它，好像它是某件已經是公共領域家喻戶曉的東西。

This is just as big a mistake, for it is not from a simple opposition of the fort and the da that it derives the inaugural force that its repetitive essence explains. To say that it is simply a question for the subject of instituting himself in a function of mastery is idiotic. In the two phonemes are embodied the very mechanisms of alienation—which are expressed, paradoxical as it may seem, at the level of the fort.

這同樣是大錯特錯。它得到開始的力量，是從它重複出現的本質來解釋，而不單純是「我去你來」的對立。認為它僅僅是主體以自主掌控來表現自己，這是愚昧的說法。在「我去你來」兩個字詞裡，具體表現的是疏離的運作，表現在「我去」的層次，雖然聽起來有點矛盾。

There can be no fort without da and, one might say, without Dasein. But, contrary to the whole tendency of the phenomenology of Daseinanalyse, there is no Dasein with the fort. That is to say, there is no choice. If the young subject can practice this game of fort-da, it is precisely because he does not practice it at all, for no subject can grasp this radical articulation. He practices it with the help of a small bobbin, that is to say, with the objet a. The function of the exercise with this object refers to an alienation, and not to some supposed mastery, which is difficult to imagine being increased in an endless repetition, whereas the endless repetition that is in question reveals the radical vacillation of the subject.

每次的「我去」，都預期「你來」，換言之，預期「存在」。但是跟存在主義的現象所描述的相反，在「我去」的地方，我並沒有存在。換言之，我沒有選擇的餘地。假如年輕人樂此不疲玩這個「我去你來」的躲閃遊戲，那確實是因為他們並沒有真的在玩，沒有一個主體知道這個躲閃遊戲的真正意涵。他們靠著一個小線圈的幫助在玩，換言之，靠著小客體的幫助。這個小客體運作的功用是疏離，而不是有些人認為的自我的掌控。在永無止境的重複中，我們很難想像有什麼自我掌控在增加。相反的，這個永無止境的重複顯示出，主體的存在始終搖擺不定。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw