The Psychoses 08
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
II
DIALECTICAL INERTIA
辩证法的惰性
SEGLAS AND PSYCHOMOTOR HALLUCINATION
歇格勒斯与心理动力的幻觉
PRESIDENT SCHREBER
苏瑞伯庭长
2
In short, it’s precisely because there has always been a radical misrecognition of the dialectical dimension in the phenomenology of pathological experience that the clinical has gone astray. This misrecognition, it may be said, characterizes a class of mind.
总之，确实是因为对于病理经验的现象，辩证维度总是有一个极端的误认，临床治疗总是迷失。可以这样说，这个误认表现心灵阶层的特色。
It seems that from the entry into the field of human clinical observation a century and a half ago when, with the beginnings of psychiatry, this field as such was formed, from the moment we became concerned with man, we have radically misrecognized that dimension which everywhere else nevertheless seems to be alive, accepted, handled with ease in the sense of the human sciences, namely, that of die autonomy as such of the dialectical dimension.
似乎，一个半世纪之前，从进入人类的临床观察到领域，随着精神分裂的开始，这个领域的本身就被形成，从我们变得关心人的时刻开始。我们强烈地误认那个维度，可是，在每个其他地方，那个维度似乎很热络，容易地被接纳，处理，以人文科学的意义来说。换句话说，辩证维度的自主权本身。
Authors point to the integrity of the paranoid subject’s faculties. Will and action, as Mr. Kraepelin was saying just before, seem to us to be homogeneous in him with what we expect from normal beings.
作者指向偏执狂主体的能够的尊严。如同克拉普林以前所说的，我们觉得，在他身上，意志及行动似乎跟我们从正常人所期望的，具有同质性。
There is no deficiency anywhere, no fault; there are no functional disorders. One forgets that the dialectical changeability of actions, desires, and values is characteristic of human behavior and that it makes them liable to change not only from one moment to the next but constantly and even that it makes them pass over to
strictly opposite values as a function of a change of direction in the dialogue.
任何都没有欠缺，没有错误，没有功用性的疾病。我们忘记，行动，欲望，与价值的这个辩证的可变性，是人类行为的特征。这个可变现性让他们容易受到改变，不但从一个时刻到下一个时刻，而且不断地，甚至是，它让他们传递到绝对相反的价值，作为一种对话的方向的改变的功用。
This absolutely fundamental truth is present in the most popular of fables
that show what was loss and disadvantage at one instant becoming happiness
bestowed by the gods a moment later.
这个绝对基本的真理呈现在寓言的最受欢迎的部分。这些寓言显示在一个瞬间的损失与不利，过一个时刻之后，会变成众神所赐予的快乐。
The ever-present possibility of bringing desire, attachment, or even the most enduring meaning of human activity back into question, the constant possibility of a sign’s being reversed as a function of the dialectical totality of the individual’s position, is such a common experience that it’s stupefying to see this dimension forgotten as soon as one’s fellow whom one wants to objectify is concerned.
质疑欲望，亲密，或甚至人类活动的永久的意义，是否具有永久存在的可能性，一个符号象征不断地被倒转的可能性，作为一种个人立场的辩证的整体性的功用。这是一个如此普遍的经验，以致于令人惊奇地看到这个维度被遗忘，就我们想要客观化的的同伴而言。
It’s never completely forgotten, though. We find a trace of it whenever the observer allows himself to be guided by his feeling for what is going on. The term interpretation lends itself to all sorts of ambiguities in the context of this reasonable madness into which it’s inserted. Authors speak of combinatory paranoia – how fertile this term could have been had they been aware of what they were saying, that the secret effectively resides in the way the phenomena are combined.
尽管如此，它永远不会被忘记。我们找到它的一个痕迹，每当这个观察者容许他自己被他的感觉引导，对于正在进行的东西。「解释」这个术语有助于各种的模糊暧昧，在它被插入的这个合理的疯狂的上下文。作者谈论到综合性的偏执狂—这个术语本来会上多么的丰饒，假如他们当时知道他们正在说些什么。这个秘密有效地在于现象被组合的方式。
The question that has been advocated frequently enough here to be of full value, that of Who speaks?, must dominate the whole subject of paranoia. I already pointed this out to you last time when I reminded you that verbal hallucination plays a central role in paranoia. You know how long it took to perceive what is nevertheless sometimes quite visible, which is that the subject himself utters what he says he hears – it took M. Seglas and his book Legons climques.12
这个问题在此曾经时常地被提出，足够具有充分的价值，是「谁在言说」的价值？它必须支配偏执狂的整个主体。我上一次已经指出这一点，当我提醒你们，文词的幻觉扮演一个中央的角色在偏执狂。你们知道，这需要多久的时间才能感觉到，有时完全可见的是什么。那就是主体本身表达他听到的他所说的话。请看一下西格拉斯及他的书「Legons climques」
By a sort of brilliant stroke at the beginning of his career he pointed out that there were people having verbal hallucinations who could be observed, by quite obvious signs in some cases and by looking slightly more closely in others, to be uttering the words they accused their voices of having spoken to them, whether or not they were aware of it, or did not want to know. It constituted a small revolution to observe that the source of auditory hallucination was not external.
凭借在他的事业的开始，某种杰出的表现，他指出有些人拥有能够被观察到的文辞的幻觉，由于在某些个案的某种明显的符号象征，并且在其他个案，更加仔细所观察，为了表达他们控诉声音曾经对他们言说的字词，无论他们是否知道这个声音，或是不想知道。它形成一种小个革命，当他观察到听力的幻觉来源并不是外在的。
This is because, or so it was thought, the source is internal, and what is more tempting than to think that this corresponds to the tingling of a zone itself called sensory? It remains to be known whether this can be applied to the domain of language. Are there verbal psychical hallucinations properly so-called? Are they not always more or less psychomotor hallucinations? Can the phenomenon of speech, in both its pathological forms and its normal form, be dissociated from the fact, which is nonetheless perceptible, that when the subject speaks he hears himself?
这是因为，或者它被认为，这个来源是内在的。更加令人诱惑的是，有什么会比这样认为更诱惑人？认为这是对应于被称为的感官的地区本身的玎玎声？有待知道的是否这个声音能够被应用到语言的领域。适当来说，文词的心理的幻觉存在吗？他们难道不总是心理动力的幻觉吗？言说的这个现象，在它的病态的形式跟它的正常的形式，能够跟这个事实相脱离吗？这仍然是可以感觉的到的，当主体言说他听到他自己的声音？
One of the essential dimensions of the phenomenon of speech is that the other isn’t the only person who hears you. The phenomenon of speech can’t be schematized by the image that serves a number of what are called communication theories – sender, receiver, and something that takes place in between. It seems to have been forgotten
that among many other things in human speech the sender is always a receiver
at the same time, that one hears the sound of one’s own words. It’s possible
not to pay attention to it, but it’s certain that one hears it.
言说的现象的基本维度之一，是他者并不是唯一听到你的人。言说的现象无法被基模化，由于这个意象充当许多所谓的沟通的理论—送出，接收，及某件发生在中间的东西。它似乎曾经被遗忘。在人类言说的诸多事情当中，送出者同时总是一个接收者，我们听到我们自己话语的声音。不去注意它，这是可能的，确实为们听到这个声音。
Such a simple remark dominates the entire question of what is known as verbal psychomotor hallucination, and it’s perhaps because it’s too self-evident that in the analysis of these phenomena it has moved into the background.
如此一个简单的谈论支配着整个的问题，对于众所周知的文词的心理动力的幻觉。或许因为它是自明的，在这些现象的精神分析，它已经移动到背景。
Of course the little Seglasian revolution is far from having brought us a solution to the enigma. S6glas remained with the phenomenal exploration of hallucination, and he had to retract what was too absolute in his initial theory.
当然，西格拉斯的这个革命，根本没有带给我们对于迷团的解答。西格拉斯对于幻觉始终从事现象的探索。他必须放弃他早期理论太过于绝对的东西。
He restored their place to certain hallucinations that are untheorizable in this register, and he threw some new clinical light and contributed a subtlety of description, neither of which can be ignored – I advise you to have a look at him.
他恢复他们的位置到某种的幻觉，那些幻觉在这个铭记里是无法被理论化，他让我们看到临床的真相，并且贡献许多微妙的描述。其中没有一个描述被忽略—我劝告你们阅读他的东西。
If many of these episodes in the history of psychiatry are instructive, it’s perhaps more by virtue of the errors they bring into focus than by the positive contributions that supposedly result from them. But it’s not possible simply to devote oneself to negative experiences of the field concerned and construct solely on the basis of errors. Errors are in any case so abundant as to be almost inexhaustible. We shall just have to take a few shortcuts to try to get to the heart of the matter.
假如许多这些轶事在精神分裂学的历史上，是具有教育性质。或许凭借着这些错误，它们更加引人注目，比起被认为凭借从它们获得的积极的贡献。但是这并不可能仅是专注于相关领域的负面的经验，及仅是根据错误的基础来建设。无论如何，错误是如此之多，以致于无法穷尽。我们仅是必须採取一些短路，为了尝试探究问题的核心。
We shall do this by following Freud’s advice and, with him, enter into the analysis of the Schreber case.
我们将凭借遵循弗洛伊德的劝告来完成。我们跟随他从事对于苏瑞伯个案的精神分析。
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordpress.com
