IV
“I’ve just been to the butcher’s”
我刚刚去过屠夫的店

WHAT RETURNS IN THE REAL
在实在界回转的东西

PUPPETS OF DELUSION
幻觉的木偶

R. S. I. IN LANGUAGE
在语言里的实在界，符号界，与想象界

THE EROTIZATION OF THE SIGNIFIER
能指的色情化

In two articles respectively entitled “The Loss of Reality in Neurosis and Psychosis” and “Neurosis and Psychosis”1 Freud provides us with interesting information on the question of what distinguishes neurosis from psychosis.

有两篇文章，各别的篇名是「神经症与精神疾病的现实界的丧失」与「神经症与精神疾病」。弗洛伊德供应我们有趣的讯息，关于神经症与精神疾病的区别的东西的问题。

I shall try to emphasize what distinguishes them from one another with respect to the disturbances they create in the subject’s relations with reality.

我将尝试强调，是什么区别它们互相不同，关于他们所创造的困扰，在主体跟现实界的关系。

It is also an opportunity to recall, in a precise and structured way, what is meant by repression in neurosis.
这也是一个机会回顾一下，以一个正确的结构方式，在神经症的潜抑是什么意思？

1
Freud stresses the extent to which the subject’s relations with reality are not the same in neurosis and psychosis. In particular, the clinical characteristic of the psychotic is distinguished by this profoundly perverted relation to reality known as a delusion. For this great difference in organization, or disorganization, there must be, Freud tells us, a deep-seated structural reason.

弗洛伊德强调，主体与现实界的关系，在神经症与精神疾病者，程度并不相同。特别，精神疾病患者在临床的特征，可根据众所周知的幻觉的跟现实界的深刻倒错的关系来区别。因为弗洛伊德告诉我们，一定有一个根深砥固的结构的理由，在组织，或是瓦解才会有这个巨大的差距。

How are we to spell out this difference?

我们应该如何解释这个差距呢？

When we speak of neurosis, we ascribe a certain role to flight, to avoidance, in which conflict with reality plays a part. Attempts have been made to designate the function of reality in the onset of neurosis by the notion of traumatism, which is an etiological notion.

当我们谈论神经症，我们归属某个角色给逃避，给避免。在那里，跟现实界的冲突扮演一个角色。企图曾经被做，为了用创伤的观念，指明现实界的功用，在神经症的开始。这种创伤的观念是一种病因的观念。

This is one thing, but another is the moment in a neurosis when a certain rupture with reality occurs in the subject. What is the reality involved? Freud stresses from the outset that the reality sacrificed in neurosis is a part of psychical reality.

这是一件事情。但是另外一件事情是在神经症的这个时刻，当跟现实界的某种的断裂，发生在主体身上。这个现实界牵涉到什么？弗洛伊德从一开头就强调：在神经症被牺牲的现实界，是心理现实界的一部分。

We are already entering here upon a very important distinction – reality is not synonymous with external reality. When he triggers his neurosis the subject elides, scotomizes as it has since been said, a part of his psychical reality, or, in another language, a part of his id.2

我们在此已经正在从事一个非常重要的区别： 现实界并不是跟外在的现实界是同义语。当他他触发他的神经症时，主体闪躲，视而不见他的心理现实界的一部分，依照后来的说法，或是换句话说，闪躲，视而不见他的本我的一部分。

This part is forgotten but continues to make itself heard. How? In a manner that all my teaching emphasizes – in a symbolic manner.

这一部分被忘记，但是继续让它自己被听见。用什么方法？用所有我的教学强调的方法，用符号象征的方式。

In the first article I mentioned Freud evokes a storehouse that the subject sets aside in reality and in which he preserves resources to be used in constructing the external world – this is where psychosis will borrow its material from.

在第一篇文章，我提到弗洛伊德引用一种主在现实界体搁置的仓库。在那里，他保留以后要使用的资源，来建造这个外在的世界。这是精神疾病将会借用它的材料的地方。

Neurosis, Freud says, is something quite different, for the subject attempts to make the reality that he at one time elided re-emerge by lending it a particular meaning, a secret meaning, which we call symbolic.3

弗洛伊德说，神经症是某件完全不同的东西，因为主体企图让他有一度闪躲的这个现实界重新出现。他给予这个现实界一个特别的意义，一个秘密的意义，我们所谓的符号象征的意义。

But Freud does not emphasize this properly. Overall the impressionistic manner in which the term symbolic is used has until now never been made precise in a way that
is really consistent with what is at stake.

但是弗洛伊德并没有适当地强调这个。整体来说，这个印象主义的方式，被使用的符号象征这个术语，直到现在，从来没有被弄得很明确，它的方式跟岌岌可危的东西确实是一致。

I point out, in passing, that I don’t always have the opportunity to provide the textual references that a number of you would like, because they mustn’t interrupt my discourse.

我顺便指出，我未必总是拥有机会，提供你们许多人想要的文本的资料，因为它们将会中断我的论述。

Nevertheless I do give you, it seems to me, quotations where necessary. Many passages in Freud’s work show that he felt the need for a complete articulation of the symbolic order, for this is what was at stake for him in neurosis, to which he opposes psychosis, where at some time there has been a hole, a rupture, a rent, a gap, with respect to external reality.

可是，我觉得我的确给予你们，必需要的引言内容。在弗洛伊德的许多段落显示：他感觉有这个需要，对于符号象征作整体的表达。因为对于他而言，这是在神经症，岌岌可危的东西。他将神经症与精神疾病相提并论。在后者，某个时刻曾经有个空洞，断裂，撕开，差距，关于外在的现实界。

In neurosis, inasmuch as reality is not fully rearticulated symbolically into the external world, it is in a second phase that a partial flight from reality, an incapacity to confront this secretly preserved part of reality, occurs in the subject. In psychosis, on the contrary, reality itself initially contains a hole that the world of fantasy will subsequently fill.

在神经症，因为现实界并没有在符号象征方面，充分地被重新表达成为外在的世界，就在第二个部分，从现实界的部分逃避，没有能力来面临这个秘密被保留的现实界的部分，这个部分逃避会发生在主体身上。相反地，在精神疾病患者，现实界本身最初保留一个空洞，幻想的世界随后会填满。

Can we be satisfied with so simple a definition, so summary an opposition between neurosis and psychosis? Surely not, and Freud himself indicates, subsequent to his reading of Schreber’s text, that it’s not enough just to see how symptoms are made. It is also necessary to discover the mechanism of their formation.

我们能够满足于神经症与精神疾病如此简单的一个定义，如此结论的一种对立吗？ 当然不满足。随着他阅读苏瑞伯的文本，弗洛伊德本人指示：这是不足够的，仅是看出病症如何被形成。也有需要发现这种形成的机制结构。

Let’s start with the idea that a hole, a fault, a point of rupture, in the structure of the external world finds itself patched over by psychotic fantasy. How is this to be explained? We have at our disposal the mechanism of projection.

让我们从这个观念开始：这外在世界的结构，有 一个空洞，一个断层，一个断裂点，发现它自己被精神疾病的幻想所缝满。这要如何被解释？我们可用的工具是投射的机制结构。

I shall start with that today, insisting upon it in particular because a number of you working on the Freudian texts I’ve already commented on have said that, in returning to a passage whose importance I’ve pointed out, you are still hesitant over the meaning to give to a fragment, even though it’s very clear, concerning the episodic hallucination in which the paranoid potentialities of the Wolf Man appear.

我今天将从那里开始，坚持它，特别是因为你们许多人研究我已经评论过的弗洛伊德的文本。他们曾经说，当回到我曾经指出的一个重要的段落，你们依旧犹豫不定，对于给予一个片段的意义，即使这是显而易见，关于这个轶事的幻觉。在轶事的幻觉那里，「狼人」的妄想症的潜力出现。

While what I was stressing when I said that what has been rejected from the symbolic reappears in the real was grasped very well, a discussion arose over the way I translate the patient does not want to know anything about it in the sense of repression.4

虽然我当时正在强调的内容受到清楚地理解，当我说，从符号象征曾经被拒绝的东西，在真实界重新出现，对于我翻译的方式，则是引起讨论：潜抑的意义来说，病人并不想要知道关于它的任何事情。

However, to act on the repressed through the mechanism of repression is to know something about it, for repression and the return of the repressed are one and the same thing, expressed elsewhere than in the subject’s conscious language. The difficulty for some was their failure to grasp that what is involved is of the order of knowledge
[un savoir].

可是，通过潜抑的机制结构，对于这个被潜抑者来行动，那是要知道有关它的某件东西。因为潜抑与被潜抑者的回转，是一模一样的东西，它们在别的地方被表达，而不是在主体的意识语言里。对于某些人的困难是，他们没有办法理解，所牵涉到的是属于知识的秩序。

I shall quote you another passage, taken from the Schreber case. While Freud is explaining to us the mechanism of projection as such, which is supposed to explain the reappearance of fantasy in reality, he pauses to observe that we cannot speak here purely and simply of projection.

我将跟你们引述另外一个段落，从苏瑞伯的个案取来。虽然弗洛伊德跟我们解释投射本身的机制结构，它应该被用来解释幻见的重新出现在现实界，他停下来观察到，我们在此无法仅是单纯地谈论投射。

This is all too self-evident if one thinks of the way this mechanism functions, for example, in the delusion of so-called projective jealousy, which consists in imputing to one’s spouse infidelities of which one imaginatively feels guilty oneself. The
delusion of persecution is quite different and manifests itself through interpretive intuitions in the real.

这是太过于自明，假如我们想到这个机制结构运作的方式。譬如，在所谓的投射性的妒忌的幻觉，它在于归咎于我们配偶的不忠实。对于这个不忠实，我们感觉有罪恶感。迫害的幻觉是完全不同，而且是通过在实在界的解释性的直觉，证明它自己。

Here are the terms in which Freud expresses himself -It is incorrect to say that the internally suppressed sensation – Verdrangung is a symbolization, and Unterdriickung simply indicates that something has fallen underneath – is once again projected outwards – this is the repressed and the return of the repressed – But instead we must say that what is rejected – you perhaps recall the note of insistence that usage has given this word – returns from without?

在此，弗洛伊德用来表达他自己的这些术语—这样说是不正确的：内部受到压抑的感觉—「潜抑」是一种符号象征化，而「压抑」仅是指示，某件东西曾经掉落底下。内部被压抑的感觉再一次被投射到外面—这是受到潜抑及受潜抑者的回转。但是代替的，我们必须说：所被拒绝的东西是从外面回转吗？你们或许回想到给予这个字的用法的这个坚持的语调。

There you have a text to add to the ones that I’ve already quoted in the same vein, and which are pivotal. To be precise, the text Die Vemeinung that M. Hyppolite gave us a commentary on has enabled us to articulate with precision that there is a moment that is, one might say, the point of origin of symbolization.

在那里，你们拥有一个文本，可以增加到我已经以相同的风格，引述的那些作为枢纽的文本。确实地，海普莱特给予我们一个评论的「论否定」这个文本，让我们能够正确地表达，有一个时刻是符号象征的起源点，我们不妨这样说。

Let it be clearly understood that this point of origin is not a point in development but answers to the requirement that symbolization has to have a beginning. Now, at any point in development something may occur 58 that is the contrary of Bejahung – a Vemeinung that is in some way primitive, to which Vemeinung in its clinical consequences is a sequel. The distinction between the two mechanisms, Vemeinung and Bejahung, is absolutely essential.

让我们清楚地了解到，这个起源点并不是一个发展点，而是回应这个要求：符号象征化必须要一个开始。现在，在发展的任何点，某件事情会发生，那是「肯定」的相反。一种「否定」在某方面是原始的，「否定」在它的临床的结构是一个系列。「否定」与「肯定」，这两个机制结构的区别是绝对需要的。

We should be better off to abandon this term projection. What we are concerned with here has nothing to do with the psychological projection that makes us – when for example it concerns those about whom we have nothing but extremely mixed feelings – always greet everything they do with at least a certain amount of confusion as to their intentions.

假如我们放弃「投射」这个术语，我们的情况会更好。我们在此所关心的，跟心理的投射，并没有丝毫关系。心理的投射让我们总是欢迎一切它们做的事情，至少带着某种数量的混淆，关于它们的意义。譬如，它关系到我们仅是极端爱很交加的人物。

Projection in psychosis is not that at all; it’s the mechanism that makes what has got caught up in the Vemerfisng – that is, what has been placed outside the general symbolization structuring the subject – return from without.

精神疾病的投射，根本就不是那个。这个机制结构让在「否定」所被套陷的东西从外面回转。换句话说，所曾经被放置在主体结构的一般符号象征以外的东西。

What is this three-card trick we are all prey to, this strange juggler’s game between the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real? Since we don’t know the juggler we can ask the question. I am putting it on this year’s agenda. It will * enable us to define what is called the relation to reality and at the same time to articulate what the goal of analysis is, without falling into the constant confusions made in analytic theory on this subject. What are we talking about when we talk about adaptation to reality? Nobody knows what reality is, until it has been defined, which is not altogether simple.

我们都成为猎物的这个三张牌戏法是什么？在符号界，想象界，与实在界之间，这种奇特的变戏法？因为我们并不知道这位变戏法者，我们能够询问这个问题。我正将它放置在今年的研讨行事表。它让我们能够定义所谓的跟现实界的关系，同时又能够表达精神分析的目标是什么，而不会掉落到精神分析对于这个主体所造成的不断的混淆。没有人知道现实界是什么，直到它已经被定义，这可不是那么简单。

To introduce the problem I shall begin from a thoroughly up-to-the-minute element. No one can say that this seminar is merely a commentary of texts, in the sense in which it would involve a pure and simple exegesis – these things are alive for us in our daily practice, in our supervisions, in the way we conduct our interpretation, in the way we deal with resistances.

为了介绍这个难题，我将使用最新潮的方式开始。没有人能够说，这个研讨班仅是一种文本的评论。因为它将牵涉到实实在在的诠释。对于我们而言，这些事情在我们精神分析的日常实践里，在我们督导里，都是活生生的。不论是我们从事我们的诠释的方式，或是我们处理抗拒的方式。

So I shall borrow an example from my case presentation of last Friday.

所以我将从上个星期五的个案讨论，借用一个例子。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

Ill

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

4
I am not going to answer the first question. Is it true speech? – at the outset we can’t know. On the other hand, what does he talk to you about? About himself no doubt, but first about one object that isn’t like any of the others, about an object that is situated in the prolongation of the dual dialectic – he speaks to you about something that has spoken to him.

我将不会回答第一个问体。这是真实的言说吗？在开始，我们无法知道。在另一方面，他对你谈论什么？无可置疑地，他谈论他自己，但是首先谈论有关一个客体，那个客体并不像任何其他一个客体，关于一个被定位在双重辩证的延长的客体—他跟你言说，关于某件对他言说的东西。

The very basis of the paranoid structure is the fact that the subject has understood something that he formulates, that something has taken the form of speech and speaks to him. No one, of course, is in any doubt that this is a fantasized being, not even he, for he is always in a position to admit the totally ambiguous character of the source of the utterances that have been addressed to him.

偏执狂的结构的基础是这个事实：主体已经了解某件他说明的东西，某件东西曾经形成言说的形态，并且对他言说。当然，没有人会有任何怀疑：这是一个被幻想的存在，甚至他自己，因为他总是处于一个立场要承认，对他言说的这些表达，其来源具完全暧昧的特性。

The paranoiac bears witness to you concerning the structure of this being that speaks to the subject.

偏执狂对你见证，关于这个对着主体言说的这个存在的结构。

You must already be able to tell the difference in level between alienation as the general form of the imaginary and alienation in psychosis. It’s not simply a matter of identification, and of scenery swinging over onto the side of the little other. From the moment the subject speaks, the Other, with a big O, is there. Without this there would be no problem of psychosis. Psychotics would be speaking machines.

你们一定已经能够区别这个差异，处于异化作为想象界的一般形式，跟精神疾病的异化之间。这不仅是认同，及风景摆荡进入小他者的这边的问题。从主体言说的是时刻，大他者拥有一个大写字母O，就在那里。假如没有这个，就不会有精神疾病的问题。精神疾病将会是言说的机器。

It’s precisely insofar as he speaks to you that you take his testimony into account. The question is this. What is the structure of this being that speaks to him, and that everybody agrees is fantasmatic? It’s precisely the S in the sense in which the analyst understands it, but an S with a question mark.

确实是当他跟你言说，你会考虑到他的证词。问题就是这个。跟他言说的这个存在，以及每个人都同意是幻觉的这个存在，其结构是什么？

What part in the subject talks? Analysis says it’s the unconscious. Naturally, for this question to make sense you have to have already admitted that the unconscious is something that speaks within the subject, beyond the subject, and even when the subject doesn’t know it, and that says more about him than he believes.

主体身上什么部分在言说？精神分析说，那是无意识。当然，为了要这个问题有意义，你必须已经承认，无意识是某件在主体之内，超越主体之外的言说，甚至主体并不知道它，而它说出的关于他的事情，超过他所相信的。

Analysis says that in the psychoses this is what speaks. Is this enough? Absolutely not, for the whole question is how it [ga] speaks and what the structure of paranoid discourse is. Freud gave us an altogether gripping dialectic on this point.

精神分析说，在精神疾病，这是他言说的东西。这样就足够吗？绝对不足够。因为整个的问题是它如何言说，偏执狂的论述的结构是什么？对于这一点，弗洛伊德给予我们一个完全迷人的辩证法。

It’s based on the utterance [enonci] of a fundamental tendency that might eventually be recognized in a neurosis, namely – / love him and You love me.

就是以一个基本的倾向的表达作为基础，这个倾向最后可能在神经症身上，被体认为出来。换句话说，那就是：「我爱他而你爱我」

There are three ways of negating this, says Freud. He doesn’t beat about the bush, he doesn’t tell us why the unconscious of psychotics is such a good grammarian and such a bad philologist – from the philologist’s viewpoint all this is in fact extremely suspect. Don’t think that this works like a high school grammar book – there are, depending on the language, many ways of saying / love him. Freud doesn’t stop there, he says there are three ways, and three types of delusion, and it works.

有三个方法来否定这个，弗洛伊德说。他并没有拐弯抹角，他并没有告诉我们
为什么精神疾病的无意识是如此优秀一位文法家，如此差劲的一位语言学家。从语言学的观点，所有这一切事实上都极端可疑。你们不要以为，这种运作就像中学的文法书。凭借着语言，有许多方法说：「我爱他」。弗洛伊德并没有停在那里，他说有三个方法，三种幻觉，它运作。

The first way to negate it is to say – Its not I who love him, its she, my conjoint, my double. The second is to say – Its not him that I love, its her.
第一个否定它的方法是说：「并不是我爱他，而是她，我的共同体，我的双重人。第二的否定的方法是说：「我爱的并不是他，而是她」。

At this level the defense isn’t adequate for the paranoid subject, the disguise is inadequate, he isn’t safe, projection has to enter into play. The third possibility
-I do not love him, I hate him. Here inversion is also inadequate, this at least is what Freud tells us, and the mechanism of projection must also intervene, namely – He hates me. And there we have the delusion of persecution.

在这个层次，防卫并不充分，对于偏执狂的主体，伪装也不充分。他并不安全，投射必须开始运作。第三个可能性是：「我并不爱他，我恨他。」在此，倒转也是不充分，这至少是弗洛伊德告诉我们的。这个投射的机制必须也介入，换句话说：「他恨我」。在那里，我们拥有受到迫害的幻觉。

原注：
10 “Case of Paranoia/’ SE 12:63-65. Freud in fact mentions four kinds of contradiction.
The fourth is: “I do not love him at all – 1 do not love anyone.”

在「偏执狂的个案」，弗洛伊德事实上提到四种矛盾。第四个否定是说：「我根本不爱他—我并不爱任何人。」

The high degree of synthesis that this construction contributes is illuminating for us, but you see the questions that remain open. Projection has to intervene as a supplementary mechanism whenever there is no effacement of the I

这种建构所贡献的高程度的综合，对于我们而言，颇具启发性。但是你们看出这些始终是开放的问题。投射必须介入，作为一种补助的机制，每当没有这个「我」的抹除。

This isn’t totally unacceptable, though we would like more information about it. Furthermore, it’s clear that the not, the negation taken in its most categorical form, definitely doesn’t have, when applied to these different terms, the same value. But on the whole this construction comes close to something, it works, and it situates things at their true level by tackling them from this angle of, I would say, principal logomachy.

这并非完全不可接受，虽然我们想要更多关于它的资讯。而且，显而易见的，这个「并不」，这个否定，以其最分类的方式被接受。当它被运用到这些不同的术语时，它确实并没有拥有相同的价值。但是大体上，这个建构靠近某件东西，它运作，它定位事情在它们的真实的层次，从主要的词语的这个角度来处理它们，我可以这么说。

Perhaps what I have said to you this morning will give you some indication that we can rephrase the question differently. / love him – is this a message, an utterance, a testimony, the brute recognition of a fact in its neutralized state?

或许，今天早上我曾经跟你们说的，将会给予你们某些的指示，我们能够重新以不同方式来诠释这个问题.「我爱他」,这是一个讯息，一种表达，一种证词吗？
这是一种事实处于它的中立状态的严酷体认吗？

Take things in terms of a message. In the first case, Its she that loves him, the subject gets another to carry his message. This alienation surely places us on the level of the little other – the ego speaks through the intermediary of the alter ego, which has meanwhile changed sex. We shall restrict ourselves to observing the inverted alienation. In delusions of jealousy, this identification with the other with a reversal of the sign of sexualization is in the foreground.

以讯息的术语来看待事情。在第一个情况，「是她在爱他」，这个主体要求另外一个主体来载负他的讯息。这个异化，确实将我们摆置在这个小它者的层次，这个「自我」言说，通过这个「超我」的仲介，它同时也改变性别。我们将限制我们自己观察这个倒转的异化。在妒嫉的幻觉，这个认同于小他者，带有性化的讯息的倒转，处在前景。

On the other hand, by analyzing the structure this way, you see that it isn’t, in any case, a question of projection in the sense in which it can be integrated into a mechanism of neurosis. This projection consists in effect of imputing one’s own infidelities to the other – when one is jealous of one’s wife, it’s because one has a few little peccadilloes of one’s own to reproach oneself with.

在另一方面，凭借以这个方式分析结构，你们能够看出，无论如何，这并非是投射的问题，因为它能够被合并成为神经症的机制。这个投射在输入我们自己对小他者的不忠实的影响。当我们妒嫉我们的妻子，那是因为我们有一些我们自己的微小的错误行为，要用来责备我们自己。

The same mechanism can’t be invoked in the delusion of jealousy, probably psychotic, such as it’s presented either in Freud’s case or in the register into which I myself have just tried to insert it, where it’s the person you are identified with through an inverted alienation, namely your own wife, that you make the messenger of your feelings concerning, not even another man, but, as the clinic shows, a more or less indefinite number of men.

相同的机制无法在妒嫉的幻觉里被召唤。在精神疾病的幻觉里，或许可以。譬如，它被呈现在弗洛伊德的个案，要不就是被呈现在这个铭记。我自己刚刚尝试插入它的铭记。在那里，你认同的这个人，通过一个倒转的异化。换句话说，你自己的妻子，你让你的感觉的信差，甚至不是成为另外一个人，而是如同临床所显示的，是一大群的不确定数目的人。

The properly paranoid delusion of jealousy is repeatable indefinitely, it re-emerges at every turning point of experience and may implicate fairly well any subject who appears on the horizon, and even ones that don’t.

妒嫉的适当的偏执狂幻觉，可无穷尽地重复。它重新出现在经验的每一个转捩点，可能会牵连到出现在视野的任何主体，甚至没有出现的主体。

Now, Its not him that I love, its her. This is another type of alienation, no longer inverted, but diverted. The other addressed in erotomania is very special, since the subject doesn’t have any concrete relations with him, so much so that it has been possible to speak in terms of a mystical bond or platonic love.

现在，「我爱的并不是他，而是她。」这又是另外一种异化，不再倒转，而是偏离。在色情狂所被对谈的小他者非常特别。因为主体跟他并没有任何的具体的关系，这样以致于很有可能是以神秘的心灵默契，或是柏拉图式的精神爱的术语来言说。

He is very often a distant object with whom the subject is happy to communicate in writing, without even knowing whether what’s written will get to its destination. The least that can be said is that there is diverted alienation of the message. The accompanying depersonalization of the other is apparent in that heroic perseverance through every trial, as the erotomaniacs will themselves say.

他往往是一个摇远的客体，主体很高兴以书写跟他沟通，而甚至不知道所写的东西，会不会到达它的目的地。至少能够被说的是，这种讯息的异化是一种偏离。小他者伴随而来的除掉人格化，显而易见出现在那种英雄式的坚持，通过每个考验，如同色情狂自己所说的。

The erotomaniacal delusion is addressed to such a neutralized other that he is inflated to the very dimensions of the world, since the universal interest attached to the adventure, as de Clerambault used to say, is an essential part of it.

色情狂的幻觉是针对如此一个中立化的小他者对谈，以致于他自我膨胀到世界的维度，因为对于冒险息息相关的普遍性兴趣，是它的一个基本要素，如同克勒蓝伯特过去常说的。

In the third case we are dealing with something much closer to negation. It’s a converted alienation, in that love has become hatred. The profound deterioration of the entire system of the other, its reduction ratio, the extensive nature of interpretations about the world, shows you here the properly imaginary disturbance at its maximum extension.

在第三个情况，我们正在处理某件更加靠近否定的东西。这是一个倒转的异化，因为爱已经变成恨。小他者的整个系统的深刻恶化，它的沦落速度，关于这个世界的诠释的广泛特性，都给你们显示：在此，这个适当的想象界的困扰，处于它最大量的延伸。

The relations with the Other in delusions now call for investigation. Our terms will help us to reply all the better, through making us distinguish between the subject, he who talks, and the other with whom he is caught in the imaginary relation, the center of gravity of his individual ego, and in which there is no speech. These terms will enable us to characterize psychosis and neurosis in a new way.
30 November 1955

在幻觉里，跟大他者的这些关系，现在需要研究。我们的术语将有助于帮助我们回答得更好，因为它们让我们区别这个主体，会言说的这个主体，跟他被陷住的想象的关系的这个大他者，他的个人自我的引力的中心，在那里，没有言说。这些术语将使我们能够以新的方式，表现精神疾病与神经症的特征。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

Ill

PARANOID KNOWLEDGE
偏执狂的知识

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

http://springhero.wordpress.com

Now, there is another level. She is talking about herself, and she happens to say a little bit more than she would have liked to. This is where we perceive that she is deluding.

现在，还有另外一个层次。她正在谈论她自己，她恰好稍微多说了一下超过她想要说的事情。这就是我们感觉她正在欺骗。

Here she is talking about what is our common object – the other, with a small o. It is indeed still she who is talking, but there is another structure here, which moreover doesn’t reveal itself entirely.

在此，她正在谈论关于我们的公同的客体。这个他者，带有一个小写的o。确实依旧就是她在谈话。但是在此还有另外一个结构。而且，这个结构并没有完全显示它自己。

It’s not quite as if she were talking to me about nothing in particular, she is talking to me about something which to her is very interesting, vital, she is talking about something to which she nevertheless continues to be committed – in short, she bears witness.

这并不完全好像她正在跟我谈论到并没有什么特别的事情。她正在跟我谈论关于某件对她非常有趣而重要的事情。她正在谈论有关某件她仍然继续致力的事情。总之，她作为见证。

Let us try to probe a bit the notion of bearing witness. Is bearing witness purely and simply communication, too? Surely not. It’s clear however that everything we attach value to as communication is of the order of bearing witness.

让我们尝试探索一下作为见证的观念。见证纯粹并且仅仅也是沟通吗？当然不是，可是，显而易见地，每一件我们重视的跟沟通有关的事情，是属于见证的层次。

Disinterested communication is ultimately only failed testimony, that is, something upon which everybody is agreed. Everyone knows that this is the ideal of the transmission of knowledge. The entire system of thought of the scientific community is based on the possibility of a communication that concludes with an experiment that everybody can agree on. The very institution of the experiment is a function of testimony.

客观性的沟通，最后仅是失败的证明。换句话说，人人都同意的事情。众所周知，这是知识传递的理想。科学社团的思想的整个系统，就是以结论是人人都同意的试验的这种沟通的可能性，作为基础。这种试验的体制是一种证明的功用。

Here we are dealing with another sort of otherness. I can’t repeat all I once said about what I have called paranoid knowledge, since I shall also have to take it up again constantly over this year’s discourse, but I am going to give you some idea of it.

在此，我们正在处理另外一种他者。我无法重复所有我曾经说过的关于我所谓的偏执狂的知识。因为我也将必须再一次地不断地从事它，在这一年的论述里。但是我将给予你们有关它的观念。

What I designated thus in my first communication to the group Evolution psychiatrique, which at the time was quite remarkably original, was aimed at the paranoid affinities between all knowledge of objects as such. All human knowledge stems from the dialectic of jealousy, which is a primordial manifestation of communication. It’s a matter of an observable generic notion, behavioristically observable. What takes place between two young children involves this fundamental transitivism expressed by the fact that one child who has beaten another can say – The other beat me. It’s not that he is lying – he is the other, literally.

在我第一次跟「精神分裂进展论」的团体沟通时，我所指明的，在当时是相当原创性，目标朝着偏执狂在各种客体的知识本身之间的密切关联。所有的人类的知识都起源于妒忌的辩证法。这是一种沟通的原初证明。两个小孩之间发送的事情，牵涉到这个基本的转移，根据这个事实表达。有个小孩打到另外一个小孩，却能够说：另外一个小孩打我。这并不是他正在说谎，而是他实质上就是那另一个小孩。

This is the basis of the distinction between the human world and the animal world. Human objects are characterized by their neutrality and indefinite proliferation. They are not dependent on the preparation of any instinctual coaptation of the subject, in the way that there is coaptation, housing, of one chemical valency by another. What makes the human world a world covered with objects derives from the fact that the object of human interest is the object of the other’s desire.

这是人类的世界跟动物的世界之间的区别的基础。人类的客体的特色是它们的中立性及不限定地繁殖。它们并不依靠主体的任何本能的坚持，一个化学原子价会被另外一个原子价所坚持，收容。使人类的世界成为一个被盖满客体的世界的东西，来自于这个事实：人类感到興趣的客体，是大他者的欲望的客体。

How is this possible? It’s possible because the human ego is the other and because in the beginning the subject is closer to the form of the other than to the emergence of his own tendency. He is originally an inchoate collection of desires – there you have the true sense of the expression fragmented body – and the initial synthesis of the ego is essentially an alter ego, it is alienated.

这如何是可能呢？这是可能的，因为人类的自我就是大他者，因为在开始，主体靠近大他者的形式，比靠近他自己的倾向的出现更加接近。他原先就是欲望的不完全的收集。在那里，你拥有「片断的身体」这个词语的真实的意义。自我的最初的综合，基本上是一种「改变的自我」，这个自我是异化的。

The desiring human subject is constructed around a center which is the other insofar as he gives the subject his unity, and the first encounter with the object is with the object as object of the other’s desire.

这个欲望的人类主体，环绕着一个以大他者作为中心被建构。因为他给予主体他的一致性。跟这个客体的第一次遭遇，就是跟客体作为大他者的欲望的客体。

This defines, within the speech relationship, something that originates somewhere else – this is exactly the distinction between the imaginary and the real. A primitive otherness is included in the object, insofar as primitively it’s the object of rivalry and competition. It’s of interest only as the object of the other’s desire.

在言说的关系里，这个定义某件起源于某个其他地方的东西。这确实就是想象界与实在界之间的这个区别。一个原始的大他者被包括在这个客体里。因为它是敌意与競争的客体。它引起興趣，因为它是大他者欲望的客体。

The said paranoid knowledge is knowledge founded on the rivalry of jealousy, over the course of the primary identification I have tried to define by means of the mirror stage.

所说的偏执狂的知识，就是以妒嫉的敌意作为基础的知识，在我曾经尝试凭借镜像阶段，来定义的原初的认同的过程。

This rivalrous and competitive ground for the foundation of the object is precisely what is overcome in speech insofar as this involves a third party. Speech is always a pact, an agreement, people get on with one another, they agree – this is yours, this is mine, this is this, that is that

dudes with an experiment that everybody can agree on. The very institution
of the experiment is a function of testimony.

这个敌意与競争的立场，作为客体的基础，确实就是在言说被克服的东西。因为这牵涉到第三者。言说总是一个盟约，一种协定，人们互相交往，他们同意。这是你的，这是我的，这是这个，那是那个。

But the aggressive character of primitive competition leaves its mark on every type of discourse about the small other, about the Other as third party, about the object. It’s not for nothing that in Latin testimony is called testis and that one testifies on one’s balls. In everything of the order of testimony there is always some commitment by the subject, and a virtual struggle in which the organism is always latent.

但是原始競争的攻击性的特性留下它的记号，在每一种关于这个小他者的论述，关于这个大他者作为第三者，关于这个客体。在拉丁文，证明被称为证词，并不是毫无道理的。我们根据我们的睾丸来证明。在一切属于证明的层次，总是会有主体所做的某个奉献，一个虚拟的奋斗，在那里，有机体总是具有潜能。

This dialectic always carries the possibility that I may be called upon to annul the other, for one simple reason. The beginning of this dialectic being my alienation in the other, there is a moment at which I can be put into the position of being annulled myself because the other doesn’t agree. The dialectic of the unconscious always implies struggle, the impossibility of coexistence with the other, as one of its possibilities.

这个辩证法总是带有这个可能性：我可能会被要求使大他者无能，理由很简单。因为这个辩证的开始成为我的异化，有某个时刻，我会被处于自己成为无能的这个立场，因为大他者不同意。无意识的这个辩证总是暗示着奋斗，跟大他者的共同存在的不可能，作为它的可能性之一。

The master-slave dialectic reappears here. The Phenomenology of Mind probably doesn’t exhaust the whole question, but surely its psychological and psychogenetic value can’t be misrecognized. It’s in a fundamental rivalry, in a primary and essential struggle to the death, that the constitution of the human world as such takes place. Except that at the end one is present when the stakes reappear.

这个主人与奴隶的辩证法在此再一次出现。「精神现象学」可能并没有穷尽全部的问题。但是确定地，它的心理与心因性的价值不可能被误认。在一个基本的敌意里，在一个原初及基本的奋斗到死，人类世界本身的组成会发生。除了，在最后，当赌注重新再出现是，我们在现场。

The master has taken the slave’s enjoyment from him, he has stolen the object of desire as object of the slave’s desire, but at the same time he has lost his own humanity. It was in no way the object of enjoyment that was at issue, but rivalry as such. To whom does he owe his humanity? Solely to the slave’s recognition. However, since he doesn’t recognize the slave, that recognition literally has no value.

主人曾经从奴隶身上获得奴隶的享乐，他曾经偷走欲望的客体，作为奴隶欲望的客体。但是同时，他已经丧失他自己的人性。受到争议，根本不是享乐的客体，而是敌意的本身。他将他的人性归功于谁呢？仅仅是归功于奴隶的承认。可是，因为他并不承认奴隶，那种承认实际上没有价值。

As is habitual in the concrete development of things, the one who has triumphed and conquered the enjoyment becomes a complete idiot, incapable of doing anything other than enjoying, while he who has been deprived of it keeps his humanity intact. The slave recognizes the master, and thus he has the possibility of being recognized by him. Over the centuries he will engage in the struggle to be effectively recognized.

如同事情的具体发展的习性，已经获胜及征服享乐的这个人，成为一个完全的白痴，不能够做任何事情，除了享乐。而被剥夺掉享乐的奴隶，却保持他的人性完整。奴隶承认主人，因此，他拥有可能被主人承认的这个可能性。几个世纪以来，他将从事将会有效地被承认的这个奋斗。

This distinction between the Other with a big O, that is, the Other in so far as it’s not known, and the other with a small o, that is, the other who is me, the source of all knowledge, is fundamental. It’s in this gap, it’s in the angle opened up between these two relations, that the entire dialectic of delusion has to be situated. The question is this – firstly, is the subject talking to you? – secondly, what is he talking about?

大他者带有这个大写字母O，也就是说，这个不为人所知的大他者，和这个小他者，带有一个小写的o，也就是，作为我的这个小他者，所有知识的来源。这种区别是基本的。就在这个差距，在这两个关系之间，被展开的这个角度幻觉的整个辩证法必须被定位。问题首先是，主体跟你谈话吗？其次，他正在谈论什么？

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

Ill

PARANOID KNOWLEDGE
偏执狂的知识

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

3
What is speech? Does the subject speak or does he not? Speech – let’s dwell
on this fact for a moment.

言说是什么？主体言说或是没有言说？言说—让我们详述这个事实一下子。

What distinguishes speech [une parole] from a registering of language? To
speak is first of all to speak to others. I have on many occasions brought to
the foreground of my teaching this characteristic which at first sight appears
simple – speaking to others.

是什么区别言说跟语言的铭杰？言说首先就是对别人言说。我在好几个场合，曾经将这个特性带到我的教学的前景。乍然一看，这个特性似乎简单，对别人言说。

The notion of what a message is has, for some time, been in the foreground
of the preoccupations of science. For us, the structure of speech, as I have
said to you whenever we have had to use this term in its strict sense here, is
that the subject receives his message from the other in an inverted form. Full
speech, essential, committed speech, is based on this structure. We have two
exemplary forms of this.

讯息是什么的这个观念，有一段时间，曾经处在被科学专注佔有的前景。对于我们而言，言说的结构，如同我曾经跟你们说过，每当我们在此必须以严格的意义使用这个术语。这个语言的结构就是，主体以倒转的形式从他者那里接收它的讯息。完整的言说，基本而奉献的言说，就是以这个结构为基础。我们拥有这个结构的两个典范的形式。

The first is fides, speech that gives itself, the You are my woman or the You are my master, which means – You are what is still within my speech, and this I can only affirm by speaking in your place. This comes from you to find the certainty of what I pledge.9 This speech is speech that commits you. The unity of speech insofar as it founds the position of the two subjects is made apparent here.

第一个典范是「坦诚告白」。言说表达它自己：「你是我的女人」，或是「你是我的主人」，它的意思是：「你是我的言说里面依旧存在的东西。仅有凭借站在你的位置，我才能够肯定这一点。这来自于你，为了要找到这个确定性，对于我宣称的东西。这个言说是奉献于你的言说。言说的一致性在此变得显而易见，因为它找到作为两个主体的位置。

If this doesn’t seem obvious to you, confirmation by its contrary is, as usual, so much more obvious.

假如对于而言，这并非显而易见，跟它相反的肯的，通常是如此更加显而易见。

The sign by which the subject-to-subject relation is recognized, and which distinguishes it from the subject-to-object relationship, is the feint, the reverse
of fides.

主体对于主体的关系被承认讯息，区别它跟主体与主体的关系，就是这个欺骗，这个坦诚告白的倒转。

You are in the presence of a subject insofar as what he says and does – they’re the same thing – can be supposed to have been said and done to deceive you, with all the dialectic that that comprises, up to and including that he should tell the truth so that you believe the contrary.

你们处于一个主体的在现场，因为他所说所为—他们都是相同的事情。他们能够被认为曾经被说被做，为了欺骗你，带着完整的辩证法。这个辩证法组成，甚至包括：他应该说出实话，这样你才会相信相反的东西。

You know the Jewish joke, recounted by Freud, about the character who says – / am going to Cracow. And the other replies – Why are you telling me you are going to
Cracow? You are telling me that to make me believe that you are going somewhere
else.9

你们知道弗洛伊德描述的犹太人的笑话，关于那些人物的说法：「我将要去克拉考。另外一人回说：「为什么你告诉我，你要去克拉考？你正在告诉我，为了让我相信，你正要告诉我你正要去某个其他地方。

What the subject tells me is always fundamentally related to a possible feint, in which he sends me, and I receive, the message in an inverted form.

主体告诉我们的，总是基本上是跟一种可能的欺骗有关。在这个欺骗里，他送给我们，我们接收这个讯息，以倒转的方式。

There you have both sides of the structure, foundational speech and lying 48
speech which is deceptive as such.

你们在那里拥有这个结构的两面，作为基本的言说，及作为谎言的言说，它的本身是欺骗性的。

We have generalized the notion of communication. In the present state of affairs, it’s touch and go whether the entire theory of what goes on in living beings will be revised as a function of communication.

我们曾经概念化沟通的观念。在事情的目前状态，这是非常冒险而不确定的情况，在生物正在进行的整个理论，是否将会被修正作为沟通的功用。

Read anything by Mr. Norbert Wiener; its implications are huge. Among his many paradoxes he presents this strange myth of transmitting a man by telegraph from Paris to New York by sending exhaustive information on everything that constitutes
his individuality.

阅的诺伯特、温奈的任何著作，它给予的暗示非常巨大。在他的众多的悖论当中，他呈现这个奇怪的神话：使用电报从巴黎将一个人传递到纽约，以送出所有的资讯，关于组成他的个人性的一切。

Since there is no limit to the transmission of information, the point-by-point resynthesis, the automatic recreation of his entire true identity at a distant place, is conceivable. Such things are curiously deceptive, and everyone wonders at them.

因为资讯的传递是永无止境的，这个点对点的重新综合，他的完整的真实的身份，在遥远的地方的这个自动的重新创造，是可以构想的。这些事情耐人寻味地具有欺骗性。每个人都想要知道它们。

They are a subjective mirage which collapses as soon as one points out that it would be no greater a miracle to telegraph over two centimeters. And we do nothing less when we move ourselves through the same distance. This extraordinary confusion is sufficient indication that the notion of communication has to be treated cautiously.

它们是主体性的幻觉，这个幻觉将会崩塌，当我们指出，将讯息传递两公分，并不是什么奇迹。我们所做的，充其量是将我们通过相同的空间移动。这个特别的混淆是充分的指示：沟通的观念必须谨慎地被处理。

For my part, within the generalized notion of communication, I state what speech as speaking to the other is. It’s making the other speak as such. We shall, if you like, write that other with a big O. And why with a big O? No doubt for a delusional reason, as is the case whenever one is obliged to provide signs that are supplementary to what
language offers.

就我而言，在沟通的一般的观念里面，我陈述跟他者言说是什么。它让他者作为本身言说。你们若愿意，我们将写下那个大者为大写字母O. 为什么要一个大写字母O呢？无可置疑的，是因为幻觉的理由，如同我们被迫供应讯息，来补充语言所提供的东西。

That delusional reason is the following. You are my woman – after all, what do you know about it? You are my master – in point of fact, are you so sure? Precisely what constitutes the foundational value of this speech is that what is aimed at in the message, as well as what is apparent in the feint, is that the other is there as absolute Other.

那个幻觉的理由如下：「你是我的女人」—毕竟，关于它，你知道多少？「你是我的主人」。事实上，你们如此地确定吗？确实是组成这个言说的基础的价值，是这个讯息所要到达的目标，以及在欺骗里显而易见的东西。那是那里的他者，是一个绝对的大他者。

Absolute, that is to say that he is recognized but that he isn’t known. Similarly, what constitutes the feint is that ultimately you do not know whether it’s a feint or not. It’s essentially this unknown in the otherness of the Other that characterizes the speech relation at the level at which speech is spoken to the other.

绝对，换句话说，他被承认，但是他没有被人知道。同样地，组成这个欺骗的东西是，最后你并不知道，是否它是欺骗。基本上就是大他者的这个另一面的这个未知，表现言说关系的这个特性。言说就是在这个层次，对大他者言说。

I am going to keep you at the level of structural description for a while, because it’s only here that the problems can be raised. Is this all that distinguishes speech? Perhaps, but surely it has other characteristics – it doesn’t speak only to the other, it speaks of the other as an object. And this is what is involved when a subject speaks to you of himself.

我将要保持你们在结构的描述的层次一阵子。因为仅在结构这里，问题能够被提出。这就是区别言说的一切吗？或许，但是的确，它拥有其他的特性。它不仅是对大他者言说。它言说大他者作为一个客体。这就是当主体对你言说他自己，所会牵涉到的东西。

Take the paranoiac of the other day, the one who used the term galopiner. While she talks to you, you know that she is a subject by virtue of the fact that she tries to take you in. This is what you are expressing in saying that you are simply dealing with what you clinically call a partial delusion.

拿前天的那个偏执狂为例。使用「galopiner」这个术语的那个人。当她跟你谈论时，你知道，她是一个主体，是凭借这个事实： 她尝试欺骗你。这是你正在表达的东西，当你说：你仅是在处理你的临床所谓的部分幻觉。

It’s precisely to the extent that it took me an hour and a half the other day to make her produce her galopiner, to the extent that during all that time she held me at bay and showed herself to be of sane mind, that she maintains herself at the limit of what can be clinically perceived as a delusion. What you call, in your jargon, the sane part of the personality derives from the fact that she speaks of the other, is capable of making fun of him. It’s by virtue of this that she exists as a subject.

确实到达那个程度，前天我花费一个半小时，让她言说出「galopiner」这个字词。到达这个程度，在所有的那段时间，他让我陷于困境，并且显示她自己跟我们的心灵相同。她维持她自己，处于临床感觉作为的幻觉的极限。随你们高兴用你们的术语，人格的清醒1部分是来自于这个事实： 她言说大他者，她能够开大他者玩笑。凭借这一点，她存在作为主体。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

Ill

AUTOMATISM AND ENDOSCOPY
自动机制与内视镜检视

PARANOID KNOWLEDGE
偏执狂的知识

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

I once tried to outline an analysis of psychotic discourse in an article published
in the Annales medico-psychologiques in the thirties.7 It concerned a case of schizophasia where effectively one can, at every level of discourse, semanteme
as well as taxeme, pick out the structure of what is, perhaps not without reason, but no doubt without full awareness of the term’s significance, known as schizophrenic disintegration.

我曾经尝试描绘精神疾病论述的分析轮廓，在三十年代出版的医学心理学的一篇文章。它包含一个精神分裂的个案。在这个案，我们能够有效地，在论述的层次，从语意及语素，挑选出实质内容的结果，或许不是没有道理的。但是无可置疑并没有充分知道这个术语的意义。这就是众所周知的精神分裂症的崩裂。

I’ve been talking about language. You must in this respect touch upon the inadequacy, the undesirable tendency that is betrayed in the expression – One has to speak the patients language.

我一直在谈论语言。在这一方面，你们必须触及到这种不充足，这种不被渴望的倾向，在这个表达里被泄露出来：我们必须用病人的语言谈论。

No doubt those who say such things must be forgiven, like all those who don’t know what they are saying. Evoking so summarily what is at issue is the sign of hasty thoughts, of repentance.

无可质疑的，那些说这样的事情的人，必须被原谅。就像那些不知道他们正在说什么的人。如此结论性地召唤受到争议的东西，是轻率思想及悔恨的迹象。

One absolves oneself, pays one’s debts – except that one only displays condescension
and reveals at what distance one maintains the object in question, namely the patient. Since he, too, is present, well then, let’s speak his language, the language of simpletons and idiots.

我们赦免我们自己，偿付我们的债务，除了我们仅是展示纡尊降贵的态度，并且显示我们将受质疑的客体维持在怎样的距离。换句话说，病人。 因为他也在现场，呵呵，就让我们用他的语言谈论，傻瓜与白痴的语言。

To mark this distance, to make language a pure and simple instrument, a way of making oneself understood by those who understand nothing, is completely to elude what is at issue – the reality of speech.

为了标示这个距离，标识语言是一种纯粹而简单的工具，一种让自己受人了解的方式，受到那些什么都不了解的人的了解。这仅是逃避受到争议的问题—那就是言说的现实界。

Let’s leave analysts to one side for the moment. On whom is the psychiatric discussion of delusion, whether it seeks to be phenomenological, psychogenetic, or organogenetic, centered? What do the extraordinarily penetrating analyses of a de Clerambault signify, for instance? Some people think that it is a matter of discovering whether or not delusion is an organic phenomenon.

让我将分析家暂时搁置一边。幻觉的精神分裂的讨论，无论它尝试成为现象学，心因性，或是器官基因性，都集中在谁的身上？譬如，克勒蓝伯特的这个特别透彻的精神分析意指着什么？有些人认为，问题是要发现，是否幻觉是一种器官的现象。

This, it seems, is supposed to be discernible in its very phenomenology. This
is all very well, but let’s look at the thing a bit more closely.

似乎，这被认为是从它的现象学可觉察到。这没问题，但是让我们更加仔细地观察事情。

45 Does the patient speak? If we did not distinguish language and speech, it’s true, he speaks, but he speaks like those sophisticated dolls that open and close their eyes, drink liquid, etc. When a de Clexambault analyzes the elementary phenomena, he looks for their signature in their mechanical, serpiginous structure, and God only knows what neologisms.

病人在言说吗？假如我们没有区别语言与言说，的确，他是在言说，但是他言说的样子像是那些精致的洋娃娃，他们的眼睛一开一阖，喝饮料等等。但克勒蓝伯特分析这些基本的现象，他寻找它们的意义，在它们的机械的，逐渐恶化的结构。仅有天晓得，那些新的词语是什么。

But even on that analysis personality is never defined but is always assumed, since everything rests on the ideogenic character of a primary comprehensibility, on the link
between affections and their linguistic expression. This is supposed to be self evident, this is where the demonstration starts from. We are told this – the automatic character of what takes place is demonstrable phenomenologically, and this proves that the disorder isn’t psychogenetic.

但是即使在那个精神分析，人格从来没有被定义，而总是被假定。因为每一样东西都依靠原初的可理解性的观念起因的特性，依靠情感与它们的语言的表达之间的连接。这被认为是自明的。这就是证明从那里开始的地方。我们被告诉这一点：所发生的事情的自动的特性，在现象上是可被证明的。这证明，这种混乱并不是心因性。

But it’s in relation to a psychogenetic reference itself that the phenomenon is defined as automatic. It’s assumed that there is a subject who understands by himself and who
observes himself. Otherwise, how would the other phenomena be grasped as foreign?

但是这个现象被定义为自动，是根据跟心因性的指称。有人认为，会有一个主体自己会了解，会观察他自己。否则，其他的现象如何被理解为外来的？

Notice that this isn’t the classical problem that has brought all philosophy since Leibniz to a standstill, that is, at least since consciousness has been emphasized as the foundation of certainty – must a thought, to be a thought, necessarily think of itself thinking? Must all thought necessarily perceive that it’s thinking of what it is thinking?

请注意，将从莱布尼思以来的所有哲学告一停顿，这并不是经典的问题。换句话说，至少从意识被强调作为确定性的基础以来，一定有一个思想，被认为的思想，必须出于自动思想，思想什么呢？所有的思想必须感觉到，这是它思想的内容的思想吗？

This is so far from being straightforward that it immediately leads into an endless play of mirrors – if it’s the nature of thought to think of itself thinking, there will be a third thought that will think of itself thinking thought, and so on.

这根本不是那么清楚，以致于它立即导致一个永无止境的镜子的遊戏—假如这就是思想自己本身的思想的特性，那将会有一个第三者思想，将会出于自动思想什么是思想，等等。

This small problem, which has never been resolved, suffices on its own to demonstrate the insufficiency of the subject’s foundation in the phenomenon of thought as transparent to itself. But this isn’t at all what is at issue here.

这个小问题，从来没有被解决过，它独立自足地证明，在思想作为它自己的透明体的这个现象，主体的基础是不够充分的。但是这根本并是争议所在。

Once we allow that the subject has knowledge as such of the parasitic phenomenon
as such, that is, as subjectively unmotivated, as written into the structure of the mechanism, into the disturbance of the supposed neurological pathways, we cannot avoid the idea that the subject has an endoscopy of what is actually going on within his own mechanisms.

一旦我们承认，主体拥有这个寄生现象本身的知识本身，换句话说，作为主体性没有被引发动机，作为被书写成为机械的结构，成为被认为是神经脉络的扰乱，我们无法避免这个观念：主体拥有这个内视镜检视，对于在他自己的机械结构里面，实际上正在进行的东西。

This is a necessity imposed on any theory that makes intraorganic phenomena the center of what happens in the subject. Freud attacks this problem more subtly than other authors, but he is equally obliged to admit that the subject is somewhere, at
a privileged point where he is able to have an endoscopy of what is going on
inside himself.

这是一个必要性被赋加在任何以器官内部的现象，作为主体身上所发生的任何理论上。弗洛伊德探究这个问题，比起其他作者，态度更加细腻。但是他同样不得不承认：主体是在某个其他地方，在一个具有特权的点。在那里，他能够拥有这个内视镜的检视，对于在他自己内部所正在发生的事情。

This idea doesn’t surprise anybody when it’s a question of more or less delusional endoscopies that the subject has of what is happening inside his stomach or his lungs, but it’s a more difficult matter when intracerebral phenomena are concerned.

这个观念并没有让任何人大吃一惊，因为这个问题是主体拥有的几乎是幻觉的内视镜检视，对于在他的胃肠或肺的内部正在发生的事情。但是这个一个更加棘手的问题，因为它牵涉到脑的内部现象。

The authors are forced to admit, though usually without being aware of it, that the subject has some endoscopy of what goes on inside the system of nerve fibers.

作者们被迫承认，虽然他们通常并不知道它，主体拥有某些的内视镜的检视，对于脑神经组织的系统内部进行的事情。

Take a subject who is the object of a thought-echo. Let’s agree with C1erambault
that this is the effect of a delay produced by a chronaxic deterioration – one of the two intracerebral messages, one of the two telegrams, as it were, is impeded and arrives after the other, thus as its echo.

以这个思想迴响的客体的主体为例。让我们同意克勒蓝伯特的看法：这是脑神经反应的恶化，产生的延迟效应。这两个脑内部的讯息的其中之一，所谓这两个电报之一，受到干扰，然后跟随另外一个到达，因为作为它的迴响。

For this delay to be registered, there must be some privileged reference point at which this can occur, from which the subject notes a possible discordance between one
system and another. However the organogenetic or automatizing theory is constructed, there is no escaping the consequence that some such privileged point exists. In a word, one is more of a psychogeneticist than ever.

为了让这个延迟被铭记，必须要有某种具有特权的指称点，在那里，这件事情能够发生。从那里，主体注意到一个可能的不协调，处于一个系统及另一个系统之间。无论这个器官起源或自动发送的理论如何被建构，不可能逃避这个结果：某个这样的特权点存在。总之，我们比起以前，更加是心因性学家。

What is this privileged point if it’s not the soul? – except that one is even more idolatry than those who confer the crudest reality on the soul by locating it in a fiber or a system, in what President Schreber designates as the unique fiber attached to the personality. It’s what is habitually called the function of synthesis, the nature of a synthesis being to have its point of convergence somewhere – even if ideal, this point exists.

这个特权点难道不就是灵魂？除了，我们甚至更加崇拜偶像，比起赐给灵魂简陋现实界的那些人，他们在脑组织或脑系统里找出灵魂的位置，在苏瑞伯首席法官指明是这个独特性连系到人格的组织。这就是习惯性地所谓综合的功用，一个综合性的生命实存的特性，拥有它在某个地方的汇集点，甚至是理想点，这个点存在。

So whether we are organogeneticists or psychogeneticists, we shall always be forced to assume the existence of a unifying entity somewhere. Does that entity suffice to explain the level of psychotic phenomena? The sterility of these sorts of hypotheses is astounding. If psychoanalysis has revealed anything significant, clarifying, illuminating, fruitful, rich, dynamic, it’s through disturbing the minuscule psychiatric constructions pursued over the decades with the help of purely functional notions of which the ego, which camouflaged them, necessarily formed the essential hub.

所以无论我们是器官起源学家，或是心因性学家，我们将总是被迫假定，一个统一的实体存在于某个地方。那个实体足够解释精神疾病的现象的层次吗？这些种类的假设的贫瘠是令人大吃一惊。假如精神分析曾经显示什么东西，那么重要，清澈，启蒙，有成果，丰富及活力，那就是通过这个微小的精神分裂的建构，这是过去几十年来被寻求，凭借着这些纯粹功用性的观念的帮助：伪装是他们的自我，必然是形成这个基本的枢纽。

But as for what psychoanalysis has contributed that is new, how do we approach it without again falling into the same rut from a different direction, through multiplying egos, themselves variously camouflaged?

至于精神分析曾经贡献的新颖的东西，我们如何探讨它，而不要从不同的方向，重蹈复徹地通过自我的繁殖，它们本身以各种方式被伪装？

The only approach consistent with the Freudian discovery is to raise the issue within
the same register in which the phenomenon appears to us, that is, in the register of speech. It’s the register of speech that creates all the richness of the phenomenology of psychosis, it’s here that we see all its aspects, decompositions, refractions. Verbal hallucination, which is fundamental to it, is precisely one of speech’s most problematic phenomena.

唯一跟弗洛伊德的发现互相一致的方法，是在相同的铭记里，提出这个问题。在这个铭记里，现象出现在我们身上，换句话说，言说的铭记。就是这个言说的铭记创造出精神疾病的现象的丰富性。就在这里，我们看到它所有的各方面，瓦解，反射。文辞的幻觉，这是它的基本，这确实是言说最棘手的现象之一。

Is there no way of dwelling on the phenomenon of speech as such? Simply by taking it into consideration, don’t we see a primary structure emerge, an essential and obvious structure that enables us to make distinctions that are not mythical, that is, that do not assume that the subject is somewhere?

难道没有方法详述语言的现象的本身？仅是凭借着考虑到它，我们难道不是看见一个原初的结构出现? 一个基本而明显的结构让我们能够从事并非是神秘的区别？ 换句话说，这种结构并没有假定，主体是在某个地方？

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

Ill

THE WORD AND THE REFRAIN
文字与叠句

AUTOMATISM AND ENDOSCOPY
自动机制与内视镜检视

PARANOID KNOWLEDGE
偏执狂的知识

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

2
Those of you who attend my case presentations are aware that last time I presented quite a clear case of psychosis and will recall the amount of time I put into drawing from her the sign, the stigma, that proved we were indeed dealing with a delusional and not simply with a person of difficult character who quarrels with those around her.

你们参加我的个案讨论的那些人，都知道，上一次我呈现一个相当清楚的精神疾病的个案，让人想起我曾经花费许多时间从她那里获得这个讯息，这个羞辱。它证明我们确实是在处理一种幻觉，不仅是一个困难性格的人 她跟她周围的人物争吵。

The examination went well beyond the hour that it usually takes for it to appear clearly that, at the limits of this language that there was no way of making her go beyond, there was another one.

这个检查远超过通常所需要的那个小时，为了让它清楚出现。在这个语言的限制，不可能让她超越，还有另外一个方法。

This is the language, which has a particular and often extraordinary savor, of the delusional. It’s a language in which certain words take on a special emphasis, a density that sometimes err, giving it this frankly neologistic character that is so striking in the creations of paranoia. From out of the mouth of our patient of the other day there finally emerged the word galopiner,4 which gave us the signature to everything that had been said up to that point.

这就是这个语言，它具有一个特别而且时常特殊的嗜爱幻觉。这就是这个语言，在这个语言里，某些的字词具有一种特别的强调，一种有时犯错的密度，给予它这种坦白的铸造新词的特性。这种特性在偏执狂患者的创造物里，是如此的引人注意。从前天我们的病人的嘴里，出现「街头顽童」这个字眼，给予我们这个直到当时所被道及的一切的背书。

This was something quite different from the frustration of her dignity, of her independence, of her daily affairs, of which the patient was the, victim. This term frustration has belonged to the vocabulary of decent people for some time now – who doesn’t go on all day long about the frustrations they have experienced or will experience or that others about them experience? She was obviously in another world, in a world in which this term galopiner, and doubtless many others that she hid from us, constitute essential reference points.

这是某件完全不同于她的尊严，她的独立性，她的日常事物的遭受挫折，病人是这些的受害者。「挫折」这个术语，现在已经属于正当人们的字彙。这些正当的人们并没有整天从事关于他们曾经经验到，或是将会经验到的挫折，或是关于他们的人们经验到的挫折。她显而易见地处于另外一个世界。在那个世界，「街头顽童」这个术语，无可置疑地，许的其他的术语，她隐藏不让我们知道，组成了基本的指称点。

Let me pause here for a moment so you can appreciate how necessary are the categories of the linguistic theory that last year I was trying to make you feel comfortable with.

让我在此暂时停止一下，这样你才能够欣赏，去年我曾经尝试让你们感觉自在的语言学理论的范畴，所多么的需要。

You recall that in linguistics there is the signifier and the signified and that the signifier is to be taken in the sense of the material of language. The trap, the hole one must not fall into, is the belief that signifieds are objects, things. The signified is something quite different – it’s the meaning, and I explained to you by means of Saint Augustine, who is as much of a linguist as Monsieur Benveniste, that it always refers to meaning, that is, to another meaning.

你们回忆一下，在语言学，有能指与所指指。能指应该被理解为语言的材料。这个陷阱，我们一定不要掉落的空洞，就是这个信仰：所指是客体，是物体。所指是某件完全不相同的东西。它是意义，我凭借圣奥古斯丁跟你们解释。他跟边文尼斯特是同样的优秀的语言学家。它总是提到意义，换句话说，总是提到另外一种意义。

The system of language, at whatever point you take hold of it, never results in an index finger directly indicating a point of reality; it’s the whole of reality that is covered by the entire network of language. You can never say that this is what is being designated, for even were you to succeed you would never know what I am designating in this table – for example, the color, the thickness, the table as object, or whatever else it might be.5

语言的系统，无论你们在哪一点掌握它，从来没有产生一种中指，直接指向现实点。这是整个的现实，被语言的整个网络所遮盖。你们永远不能够说，这就是所被指明的东西，因为即使你们想要成功，你们永远不会知道，我以这个表格指明的是什么。譬如，这个颜色，这个厚度，这个表格作为客体，或是任何其他东西。

Let us pause at this quite simple little phenomenon of galopiner that came from the mouth of the patient the other day. Schreber himself constantly underlines the oddness of certain terms in his discourse. When he speaks to us for example of the Nervenanhang, nerve contact, he makes it quite clear that this word was spoken to him by the tested souls or the divine rays.

让我们暂时停止一下，对于前天来自病人嘴中的这个简单的「街头顽童」的小现象。苏瑞伯本人不断地强调在他的论述里某些术语的的奇特性。当他跟我们谈论，譬如，谈论到「神经接触」，他表达得相当清楚：这个字词是承受过煎熬的灵魂或是神性的光辉，跟他言说的字词。

These are key words, and he himself notes that he would never have found the
formula for them, for the original words, the full words, which are very different from the words he uses to communicate his experience. He himself makes no mistake about this, there are different levels here.6

这些都是关键字，他自己注意到，他本来永远不会发现到这个公式来代替它们，代替这些原创的字词，这些完整的字词。它们截然不同于他使用来沟通他的经验的那些字词。关于这一点，他自己并没有犯错误，在此有不同的层此。

At the level of the signifier, in its material aspect, the delusion is characterized
precisely by that special form of discordance with common language known as a neologism. At the level of meaning, it’s characterized by the following, which will appear to you only if you set out with the idea that a meaning always refers to another meaning, that is, precisely, that the meaning of these words can’t be exhausted by reference to another meaning.

在能指的层次，在它的材料的层面，幻觉的特殊性质，确实是跟众所周知的铸造新词的通俗语言的不协调，产生的那个特别形式。在意义的层次，它的特色如下：仅有当你们带着这样的观念出发，意义总是提到意义。也就是说，这些字词的意义，无法被提到另一个意义穷尽，这个意义才会出现在你们身上。

This can be seen in Schreber’s text as well as in the presence of a patient. The meaning of these words that pull you up has the property of referring essentially to meaning as such. It’s a meaning that essentially refers to nothing but itself, that remains irreducible. The patient himself emphasizes that the word carries weight within itself. Before being reducible to another meaning it signifies within itself something ineffable, it’s a meaning that refers above all to meaning as such.

在苏瑞伯的文本以及一位病人的面前，这一点能够被看得出来。让你们停止的这些字词的意义，具有这种特这种特色：它基本上是提到意义的本身。这一个意义基本上没有提到别的，仅是它自己的本身，这个意义始终无法被还原。病人本身强调：这个字词在它的本身之内，具有意义的份量。在意义被还原成为另外一个意义之前，它的意义是指向它的本身之内的某个无法被表达的东西。尤其重要的是，这一个意义提到意义的本身。

We can see this at the two poles of all the concrete manifestations of which these patients are the centre. However far the endophasia that covers the entire phenomena to which they are subject is taken, there are two poles where this characteristic is taken to its highest point, as Schreber’s text stresses, two types of phenomena where the neologism is displayed – the intuition and the formula.

在病人作为中心的所有的具体的证明的两极，我们能够看出这一点。无论它们臣服的涵盖整个现象，这个内化地无可表达是如何深入地被看待，总是有两个极端。在这两个极端，铸造新词被展示—直觉与公式。

The delusional intuition is a full phenomenon that has an overflowing, inundating character for the subject. It reveals a new perspective to him, one whose stamp of originality, whose characteristic savor, he emphasizes, as Schreber does in speaking of the fundamental language to which his experience introduced him.

幻觉的直觉是一个完整的现象，对于主体而言，这个现象具有满溢泛滥的特性。它对于主体显示一种新的观点，主体强调这一个观点的原创性印记，具有特色的风味，如同苏瑞伯所强调的，当他言说他的经验跟他介绍的这个基本的语言。

There, the word – with its full emphasis, as when one says the word for, the solution to, an enigma – is the soul of the situation.

在那里，这个字词—以它的完整的强调，如同当我们说：「一个谜团的字词，一个谜团的解答」。这就是这个情境的灵魂。

At the opposite pole there is the form that meaning takes when it no longer
refers to anything at all. This is the formula that is repeated, reiterated,
drummed in with a stereotyped insistence. It’s what we might call, in contrast to the word, the refrain.

在这个相反的极端，就是意义採取的形，式，当它不再提到任何东西。这就是这个被重复，被反复强调，灌输的公式，具有典型的坚持。这就是我们所谓的叠句，字词的对比。

These two forms, the fullest and the emptiest, bring the meaning to a halt,
it’s like lead in the net [plomb dans le filet], in the network, of the subject’s
discourse – a structural characteristic in which, once we approach it clinically,
we recognize the mark of delusion.

这两种形式，最完整与最空洞的形式，将意义终止。就像网罟里的铅块，在网络里的铅块。主体论述的铅块。这是一种结构性的特色。在里面，我们一旦从临床探讨到它，我们体认出幻觉的这个记号。

This is how this language we can let ourselves be taken in by in our first initial contact with the subject, sometimes even the most delusional subject, brings us to the point of going beyond his conception and positing the term discourse.

For, to be sure, these patients speak to us in the same language as ourselves. Without this component, we would be in total ignorance. It’s therefore the economy of discourse, the relationship between meaning and meaning, the relationship between their discourse and the common organization of discourse, that allows us to ascertain that delusion is involved.

这就是我们如何让我们自己被这个语言欺骗的方式，由于我们首次跟主体接触。有时甚至是最具有幻觉的主体，这个语言带我们来到这一点，要超越他的观念，并提出「论述」的这个术语。因此，这是论述的运作，意义与意义之间的关系，这个论述与共同的论述组织之间的关系，容许我们确定里面会牵涉到幻觉。

雄伯说
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

Ill
The Other and psychosis
大他者与精神疾病

HOMOSEXUALITY AND PARANOIA
同性恋与偏执狂

THE WORD AND THE REFRAIN
文字与叠句

AUTOMATISM AND ENDOSCOPY
自动机制与内视镜检视

PARANOID KNOWLEDGE
偏执狂的知识

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

The life of a psychoanalyst – as I was reminded by my analysands [analysis]
several times on the one day – isn’t rosy.

精神分析家的生活并非是美好幸福—如同有一天我的几位分析者跟我提醒好几次。

The comparison that can be made between the analyst and a rubbish dump
is justified. All day long in fact he has to endure utterances that, surely, are
of doubtful value to himself and even more so to the subject who communicates
them to him.

将分析家与垃圾堆做类比，并非空穴来风。事实上，一整天他必须忍受一些表白，的确，这些表白对于他是否有价值值得怀疑，甚至对于跟他沟通的主体，更是如此。

This is a feeling that the psychoanalyst, if he is a real one, has not only been accustomed to overcoming for a long time, but, to be honest, it’s one that he purely and simply abolishes within himself in the exercise of his practice.

这是精神分析家不但长久以来已经习惯于克服的一种感觉，而且坦白地说，这种感觉，他实实在在从他的内心里面废除，当他运用他的实践时，假如他是实实在在的分析家。

I must on the other hand say that this feeling comes alive again with all its force when one is led to go over the sum total of works that make up what is called the analytic literature. There is no more disconcerting an exercise for scientific attention than to be made aware over a short space of time of the points of view that authors have elaborated on the same subjects. And nobody seems to perceive the flagrant and permanent contradictions that are brought into play whenever basic concepts arise.

在另一方面，我必须说，这种感觉再一次鲜活起来，由于它的力量，当我们被引导要温习那一大堆所谓的精神分析文献组成的著作的总数。这是最令人困窘的科学专注的运作，当我们被迫知道作者们对于相同的主题的建构的观点，往往仅维持一段短时期。似乎没有人感觉这些显著而永久的悖论会产生，每当基本的观念出现时。

1
You know that psychoanalysis explains the case of President Schreber, and paranoia in general, by portraying the subject’s unconscious drive as nothing other than a homosexual tendency.1 Drawing attention to all the facts grouped around such a notion was surely fundamentally new, and it profoundly changed our outlook on the pathogenesis of paranoia.

你们知道，精神分析解释苏瑞伯庭长及一般偏执狂的案例，描述主体的无意识冲动，当著实实在在是一种同性恋的倾向。吸引大家注意所有被汇集到事实，这样一个观念，确实基本上是新颖的。它深刻地改变了我们对于偏执狂的病因学。

But as for knowing what this homosexuality is, at which point of subjective economy it acts, how it occasions the psychosis – 1 believe I can testify that, in this sense, all the outlines we have contain the most imprecise, even the most contradictory approaches.

但是关于知道这个同性恋是什么，它根据主体的生命活力的哪一点运作，它如何产生精神疾病。我相信我能够证实，以这个意义，我们拥有的所有的轮廓，包括这个最不准确的，甚至最悖论的方法。

People speak of defense against the supposed irruption – and why this irruption at this point? – of the homosexual tendency. But this is far from having been proved, if one is to give a meaning that is in any way precise to the term defense – which one is very careful not to do, so as to be able to continue cogitating in the dark. It’s nevertheless clear that there is a constitutive ambiguity here and that the defense maintains a far from univocal relation with the cause that provokes it. It’s thought either that the defense helps maintain a certain equilibrium or else that it provokes the illness.

人们谈论对于防止所谓的同性恋倾向发作的防卫机制。为什么会在这个时刻发作？但是这根本没有被证明，假如我们想要给予意义，这个意义就「防卫机制」这个术语而言，实在是正确的。我们非常小心地不要去证明，为了要能够继续在黑暗里探索沉思。可是，显而易见的，在此有一个内容结构的模糊暧昧，这个防卫机制维持一个更加一致的关系，跟引起它的原因。大家也认为，这种防卫机制帮忙维持某种的平衡，要不然它会引起疾病。

We are also assured that the initial determinants of Schreber’s psychosis are to be sought in the moment of onset of the different phases of his illness.

我们也确定，苏瑞伯的精神疾病的这个最初的决定因素，应该被寻找，在他的疾病的不同时期的开始的时刻。

You know that around 1886 he had his first crisis, whose co-ordinates people
try to show us by means of his Memoirs – at that time he had nominated for
the Reichstag, we are told.2 Between this crisis and the second, which covers
a period of eight years, Magistrate Schreber was normal, with the exception
that his hope of paternity was unfulfilled.

你们知道，在1886年，他遭遇的他的第一次危机。人们尝试跟我们显示这次危机的座标，凭借他的回忆录—，在当时，他曾经提名充当首席法官，我们这样被告诉。在这次的危机跟第二次危机之间，中间区隔八年，苏瑞伯法官是正常的，除了，他想要拥有子女的愿望并没有被实现。

At the end of this period he happened to accede, in a way that up to a point was premature and certainly at an age at which it could not have been foreseen, to a very high function, that of Presiding Judge of the Leipzig Court of Appeal. This function, which was in the nature of an eminent distinction, conferred authority on him, so it’s
said, that elevated him to responsibility that, though not quite total, was at least greater and heavier than any he could have hoped for, which gives the impression that there was a relation between his promotion and the onset of the crisis.

在这个时期的结束，他恰巧必须同意，以直到当时是早熟的方式，确实在一个当时很难预见的年纪，他必须同意一个非常高的功用，雷普西格的上诉法庭的首席法官的功用，那是崇高地位的性质，授予权威给他。所以据说，那个权威提升他的责任，这个责任虽然不是全部，至少比起他本来所能期望的更大更沉重。这给予这个印象，在他的升官与危机的开始之间，有密切关系。

In other words, in the former case one appeals to the fact that Schreber was unable to satisfy his ambition, and in the other that it was fulfilled from the outside, in a manner that is virtually consecrated as being undeserved.

换句话说，在前者的个案，我们诉诸于这个事实; 苏瑞伯不能够满足他的企图心。在后者的个案，它从外在被满足，使用的方式几乎是被奉献，作为不值得。

These two events are given the same value as trigger. It’s carefully noted that
the President had no children, so as to assign a prime role to the notion of paternity. But at the same time it’s claimed that because he finally accedes to the position of father, the fear of castration thus comes to life in him again, with a corresponding homosexual craving.

这两个事件被给予相同的价值，作为启动者。我们细心地注意到，苏瑞伯首席法官并没有子女，为了指定一个重要的角色，给予充当父亲的观念。但是同时地，根据宣称，他最后同意的父亲这个位置，阉割的恐惧因此在他的身上，再一次栩栩如生起来，带有一种相应的同性恋的渴望。

This is what is supposed to be directly at issue in the onset of the crisis and to entail all the distortions, pathological deformations, and mirages that progressively evolve into a delusion.

这就是被认为直接引起争论的地方，在危机的开始，并且涵盖所有的扭曲，病态的畸形，及逐渐演化成为一种幻觉。

Surely the fact that the masculine characters in the medical entourage are present from the outset, that they are named one after the other and successively come to the centre of President Schreber’s extreme paranoid persecution, is enough to show their importance.

的确，在医学的照护，男性的角色从一开始就存在，他们陆续地被命名，并且连续第成为苏瑞伯的极端偏执狂的迫害的核心人物。这个事实，就足够显示他们的重要性。

This is, in a word, a transference – which is undoubtedly not to be taken in quite the sense that we usually mean, but it’s something of that order, bound up in a special way with those in whose care he had been.

总之，这是一种移情—无可置疑的，不要用我们通常的意思去理解这种移情，而是某件那种层次的东西，以特别的方式跟他所接受的照顾的方式息息相关。

Undoubtedly this is an adequate explanation of the choice of characters, but before we become too satisfied with this overall arrangement it needs to be observed that, in providing its motivation, the proof by the contrary is neglected. People fail to realize that both fear of the struggle and premature success are given the value of a sign with the same positive sense in each case.

无可置疑地，这是一种充分的解释，对于人物的选择。但是在我们成为太过于满足它所需要被观察到这个全面性的安排。当提供它的动机时，相反的一面的证据被忽略。人们无法体认到，奋斗与过早成功的双重恐惧被给予一种讯息的价值，在两个情况，都具有相同的正面的价值。

If by chance President Schreber had, between his two crises, become a father, this would be emphasized and much would be made of the fact that this paternal function would have been unbearable for him. In short, the notion of conflict is always played upon in an ambiguous manner – the source of conflict and, what is much less easy to see, the absence of conflict are placed on the same level. The conflict leaves an empty place, one might say, and it’s in the empty place of the conflict that a reaction, a
construction, a bringing into play of subjectivity, appears.

假如偶然地，苏瑞伯首席法官在他的两次危机之间，成为父亲，这将会被强调，这是事实将会被重视： 这个父亲的功用对于他而言，本来会上无可忍受的。总之，冲突的观念总是以一个模糊暧昧的方式被扮演。冲突的来源，更加不容易看出的，与冲突的欠缺，被放置在相同的层次。这种冲突留下一个空洞的位置，我们不妨说，这是在冲突的这个空洞的位置，一种反应，一种建构，一种主体性的运作会发生。

This suggestion is only designed to show you that the same ambiguity as the one our last lesson was about is at work, the ambiguity of the very meaning of a delusion, and which here is concerned with what is normally called the content and which I would prefer to call the psychotic statement [dire].

这种建议仅是被设计为了跟你们显示，这个相同的模糊，如同我们上一次研讨班讨论的相同模糊，正在运作。一种幻觉的这个意义的模糊，在此它关系到正常所谓的内容，我宁可称之为精神疾病的陈述。

You think you are dealing with someone who is communicating with you because he speaks the same language as you. And then, what he is saying is so understandable that you get the feeling, particularly if you are a psychoanalyst, that here is someone who has penetrated, in a more profound way than is given to the common lot of mortals, into the very mechanism of the system of the unconscious. Somewhere in the second chapter Schreber expresses it in passing – Enlightenment rarely given to mortals has been given to me}

你们认为你们正在处理某个正在跟你沟通的人，因为他谈论跟你相同的语言。然后，他所正在说的，是如此可了解，以致于你获得这种感觉，特别是假如你是一位精神分析家，在此是某个曾经贯彻的人，以一种更加深刻的方式，超越有限生命的众生的命运，进入无意识的系统的机制。在第二章的某个地方，苏瑞伯偶然这样表达： 我获得到天启，是一般众生难得一见的。

My discourse today is about this ambiguity whereby the very system of the
delusional is supposed to provide us with the elements of its own understanding.

我今天的论述是关于这个模糊，幻觉者的神经系统被认为提供给与我们，以它自己的理解的要素。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

II

PRESIDENT SCHREBER
苏瑞伯庭长

On the other hand, an entire metabolic imagery is developed with extreme
precision regarding the nerves, according to which the impressions registered
by the nerves subsequenly become the primary material which, reincorporated
into the rays, nourishes divine action and may well be taken up again, reworked, and utilized in later creations.

在另一方面，一整个新陈代谢的意象极端正确地被发展，关于神秘。依照这个意象，印象被神经铭记，随后成为原初的材料。当这些材料被重新合并成为光辉时，滋养了神圣的行动，并且很有理由被重新从事，被重新建构及利用，作为后来的创造。

The details of these functions matter enormously and we shall come back to them. But already it appears to be characteristic of these rays that they talk – they are obliged to, they have to speak. The nerves’ soul intermingles with a certain fundamental language defined by the subject – 1 shall show you with what subtlety when I read out the appropriate passages. It’s akin to a highly vigorous German, with an extremely developed use of euphemism) that includes using the ambivalent power of words – next time I shall give you a condensed reading to greater effect.

这些功用的细节非常地重要。我们将回头谈论它们。但是它似乎是这些光辉的特色：它们谈话，他们不得不谈话，他们必须言说。这些神经的灵魂，跟主体所定义的某些的「基本的语言」，互相混合。我将跟你们显示它们的微妙之处，当我朗读这些适当的段落时。它类似一直非常严峻的德国人，对于委婉语运用得维妙维肖，这些委婉语包括使用文字具有可疑力量。下一次，我将给予你们一个关于那个意思的浓缩的朗读

It’s quite exciting to recognize a striking likeness here to Freud’s famous article on the double meaning of primitive words.14 You recall that Freud thought he had found an analogy between the language of the unconscious, which admits no contradiction, and primitive words that are characterized by their ability to designate the two poles of a property or quality, good and bad, young and old, long and short, etc.

这是相当令人興奋斗，体认到在此一个引人注意的相像，类似弗洛伊德的著名的文章，讨论原始文字的双重意义。你们回想一下，弗洛伊德梦想他曾经找到一个类比，在无意识的语言与原始的文字之间。前者比容许有任何的悖论，后者的特色则是它们能够指明一个特性或特质的两个极端，好与坏，年轻及衰老，长和段等等。

A lecture by M. Benveniste last year presented you with a convincing critique of that from the point of view of linguistics,15 but it remains no less true that Freud’s remark carries weight in our experience with neurotics, and if there were anything that guarantees its value it would be the emphasis that in passing Schreber confers on it.

边文尼斯特去年所做的演讲，呈现给与你们具有说服力的批判，从语言学的观点。但是这仍然是同样真实的，弗洛伊德的谈论具有相当的份量，有关我们精神分析对于神经症的经验。假如有任何东西保证它的价值，那将是苏瑞伯恰好给予它的这个强调。

This delusion, whose richness you will see, presents surprising analogies – not only through its content, the image’s symbolism, but also through its construction, its very structure – with certain schemas that we can ourselves be called upon to draw out of our own experience.

这个幻觉，你们将会看出它的丰富性，呈现令人惊奇的类似，不当通过它的内容，意象的象征，而且通过它的建构，它的结构，带有某些基模，我们自己会被要求根据我们自己的经验描绘这些基模。

You may, in this theory of divine nerves that talk and may be integrated by the subject while remaining radically separate from him, vaguely see something that isn’t totally different from what I teach about the way one has to describe the functioning 37 of the unconscious.

在神性神经的理论：神性神经可能会被主体合并，一方面又跟他强烈地隔开，你们可能模糊地看出某件东西。这个东西并不完全不同于我所教导，关于我们必须描述的无意识的功用。

The Schreber case objectifies certain structures supposed correct in theory – with the possibility of overturning that stems from this, which is in any case a question that arises concerning all species of emotional construction in these sensitive domains that we are habitually exploring.

苏瑞伯的个案让在理论上被认为是正确的某些的结构客观化，带有起源于这里的颠覆的可能性。无论如何，这是一个产生的问题，关于各种情感的建构，在我们正在习惯于探索的这些敏感的领域。

This remark was made by Freud himself, who in some ways authenticates the
homogeneity I’m claiming. At the end of his analysis of the Schreber case he notes that he has never yet seen anything that so much resembles his own libido theory, with its disinvestments, separation reactions, influence at a distance, as Schreber’s theory of divine rays, which doesn’t bother him, since the drift of his whole exposition is to reveal a surprising approximation between Schreber’s delusion and structures of both interindividual exchange and intrapsychical economy.17

弗洛伊德自己发表这个谈论。在某方面，他让我正在宣称的同质性成为真实。在他对于苏瑞伯的个案的精神分析结束，他注意到，他还没有看见过任何东西，如此类似他自己的力比多理论：力比多的错误投注，分开的反应，远距离的影响。这些像是苏瑞伯的神性光辉的理论。这个理论并没有让他感到困扰，因为他的整个的表述的漂浮，是要显示一个令人惊奇的靠近：处于苏瑞伯的幻觉与结构，对于个人之间的交换与内部心理的力量运作。

So, as you see, we are dealing with an advanced case of madness. His delusional introduction gives you an idea of the polished nature of Schreber’s lucubrations. And yet, owing to this exemplary case and to the intervention of such a penetrating mind as Freud’s, we find ourselves for the first time in a position to grasp structural notions which it’s possible to extrapolate to all cases – this vivid and at the same time illuminating novelty allows a classification of paranoia to be recast on completely new foundations.

所以，如你们所见，我们正在处理一个严重的疯狂案例。他的幻觉的介绍给与你们一个观念：苏瑞伯的精心钜作具有润色精炼的特性。由于这个典范的个案，与诸如弗洛伊德如此深刻心灵的介入，我们发现我们自己第一次处于理解结构性的观念。要获得所有个案的结构性的观念是可能的。这个生动而同时具有启发性的新奇，容许偏执狂的分类重新被塑造，根据完全新的基础。

We also find in the very text of the delusion a truth that isn’t hidden, as it is in the neuroses, but made well and truly explicit and virtually theorized. The delusion
presents it – one can’t even say from the moment one has the key to it, but as soon as one takes it for what it is, a double, perfectly legible, of what is explored by theoretical investigation.

就在幻觉的这个文本里，我们也发现一项没有被隐藏的真理，因为它发生在神经症患者身上，但是它被表达得非常明确，而且几乎被实现。这个幻觉呈现它—我们甚至不能够说，从这个时刻，我们拥有它的解答，但是当我们接受它，因为它本来的样子，一个双重，而且非常请楚地，对于理论的研究所探索的东西。

This is where the exemplary character of the field of the psychoses, for which I have recommended that you reserve the greatest extension and the greatest suppleness, is located, and this is what justifies our giving special attention to it this year.
23 November 1955

这就是精神疾病的领域作为典范的特性。我曾经推荐，对于这个特性，你们应该保留这个最大的延伸及最大的弹性。这个特性被定位，这就是我们今年要给予特别注意的地方。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

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

3

After a short illness between 1884 and 1885, a mental illness consisting of a hypochondriacal delusion, Schreber, who then occupied quite an important place in the German judiciary, left Professor Flechsig’s Psychiatric Clinic completely cured, it would seem, with no apparent aftereffects.

在1884年与1885年之间，一场短期的疾病，一场精神的疾病, 内容是忧郁症的幻觉，苏瑞伯，当时在德国的司法界居有举足轻重的地位。他离开弗列思格教授的精神分裂的诊所，似乎完全痊愈，没有明显的后余症。

For the next eight years or so he led an apparently normal life and he himself points out that the only shadow over his domestic happiness was the regret at not having had children.

以后八年左右，他过著明显的正常生活，他自己指出，笼罩在他的家庭幸福的唯一的阴影，是遗憾没有儿女。

At the end of these eight years he was named Presiding Judge to the Court of Appeal in the city of Leipzig. Having received the announcement of this extremely important promotion before the vacation period, he took up office in October. He was, it seems, as so often happens in many mental crises, a bit overwhelmed by his functions. At fifty one he was young to be presiding over a court of appeal of this importance
and the promotion unhinged him slightly.

在这八年结束时，他被提名为雷普兹格市的上诉法庭的首席法官。在暑假之前，当他接到这个极端重要的升官的公告之后，他在十月就职。似乎，如同许多精神危机时常发生的事情一样，他被他的所作所为冲昏了头。在五十一岁，他成为如此重要的上诉法庭的首席法官，算是年轻。这种升官，稍微让他不知所措。

He found himself among men far more experienced, more accustomed to dealing with such difficult matters, and for a month he overworked, as he himself says, and began to become disturbed again – insomnia, flight of ideas, the appearance of more and more disturbing themes in his thoughts, which led him to further consultations.

他发现他自己跟那些老经验的法官平起平坐，更加习惯于处理如此棘手的事情。一个月来，他操劳过度，如他自己所说的，并且开始再一次受到困扰，有失眠症，逃避各种观念，在他的思想里，越来越多的困扰的主题出现。这些症状导致他寻求更多的谘商。

And once again he was confined. First in the same Psychiatric Clinic, Professor
Flechsig’s, then, after a short stay in the mental home of Dr. Pierson in Dresden, in the Sonnenstein Asylum, where he was to remain until 1901.

再一次，他进入医院。首先，在相同的精神分裂的诊所，弗列西格教授，当时，短期停留在德瑞顿的皮尔森医生的精神医院，在孙嫩斯坦的疗养所，他预定留在那儿，直到1901年。

It was there that his delusion went through an entire series of phases of which he gives us an account that is, it seems, extremely trustworthy and extraordinarily composed, written during the last months of his confinement.

就在那里，他的幻觉经历一个整系列的发作，他跟我们描述那场发作。似乎，那个描述是极端可信任，而且特别地镇定，那是在他住院的最后几个月被写成。

The book was to be published immediately upon his release. Therefore, at the time he claimed the right to leave he hid from no one that he would make his experience known to all humanity, with the view of informing everybody of the most important revelations for them that his experience contained.

这本书应该在他公布之后马上被出版。因此，在他宣称离开的这个权利，他隐藏不让任何人知道，他将会让他的经验让全人类所周知，为了要告诉每一个人，有关他的经验所包含的对于全人类的最重要的启示。

This book, published in 1903, is the one Freud picked up in 1909. He spoke of it on his holidays with Ferenczi and it was in December 1910 that he wrote his “Psycho-Analytic Notes upon an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia.”15

这本书，在1903年被出版，是弗洛伊德在1909年获得的这一本。当他跟费冷西去度假时，他谈论到它。那是在1910年的十二月，他书写「精神分析笔记：论偏执狂个案的自传描述。」

We shall quite simply open Schreber’s book, Memoirs of My Nervous Illness.
The letter preceding the body of the work, which is addressed to Professor
Flechsig, private consultant, clearly shows the medium by which a
delusional’s critique of the terms he holds to most can be established.

我们将仅是打开苏瑞伯的书，「我的精神疾病回忆录」。在这本著作的本体之前的这封信，是针对弗列西格教师，他的私人的谘商师。它清楚地显示这个媒介，凭借这个媒介，他最为坚持的术语的幻觉的批判，能够被证实。

This, at least for those of you who have no experience of these cases, is of a value
that deserves to be highlighted. You will observe that Dr. Flechsig occupies a central place in the construction of the delusion.

至少，对于你们没有这些个案的经验的人，这是非常有价值，应该获得强调。你们将会观察到，弗列西格医生在幻觉病症的建构，具有举足轻重的地位。

Lacan reads the letter, pp. vii-xii.

拉康阅读这封信，p411-511.

You will appreciate the courteous tone, the clarity and order. The first chapter is taken up with a whole theory concerning, at least in appearance, God and immortality. The terms at the centre of Schreber’s delusion consist in an admission of the prime function of nerves.

你们将会欣赏这个客气的语调，清晰而有条理。第一章被从事，关系到一整个理论，至少在外表上，上帝跟永恒。在苏瑞伯的幻觉的中心的这些术语，在于承认神经的主要功用。

Lacan reads the first paragraph, pp. 6-7.

拉康阅读第一段 p6-7.

Everything is there. These rays, which exceed the bounds of recognized
human individuality, which are unlimited, form the explanatory network,
but which he also experiences, on which our patient spins his entire delusion
like a web.

每一件东西都在那里。这些光辉，超越可体认的人类的个别性的限制。这些光辉是无限的，形成解释性的网络，但是他也经验到，我们的病人编织他的整个的幻觉，就像一个网络。

The essential point stems from the relation between the nerves, principally
between the subject’s nerves and the divine nerves, which comprises an entire
series of vicissitudes, among which there is the Nervenanhang, or nerve-contact,
a form of attraction apt to put the subject in a state of dependence upon several characters, on whose intentions he decides in different ways over the course
of his delusion.

这个基本的要点起自于神经之间的关系，原则上处于主体的神经及神的神经之间。这组成一整个系列的起伏变化。在这些起伏变化当中，有这个神经的接触，一种吸引的形式，倾向于将主体摆放于依赖好几个人物的状态。他以不同的方式决定那些人物的意图，在他的幻觉的过程。

Initially these intentions are far from benevolent, if only because of their catastrophic effects upon him, but are found over the course of the delusion to be transformed, integrated, into a real progressiveness, like the one you see dominating the personality of Dr. Flechsig at the beginning of the delusion and, at the end, the structure of God. There is examination and even progress characteristic of the divine rays, which are the foundation of souls.

最初，这些意图根本不是善意，假如仅是因为它们对于他的灾难性的影响，但是它们被发现，在这个幻觉被转移，被合并，成为一种真实的进步的过程，就像你们看到这个幻觉支配着弗列西格医生的人格，在幻觉的开始。追根究底，那是上帝的结构。对于神的光辉的这个特色，有关省察跟进展，那就是灵魂的基础。

This is not to be confused with the identity of the said souls – Schreber strongly emphasizes that the immortality of these souls must not be reduced to the level of the person. The preservation of the ego’s identity doesn’t seem to him to require justification. All this is said with an air of likelihood that doesn’t render the theory unacceptable.

这不应该跟所谓的灵魂的认同混淆—苏瑞伯强烈强调，这些灵魂的永恒一定不要被还原到这个人的层次。对于他而言，自我认同的保留似乎并没有要求充分理由。所有这一切被说时，带着可能性的神情，使的理由不会难以接受。

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

http://springhero.wordpress.com

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