拉岡講座207

拉岡講座302
THE EYE AND THE GAZE
眼睛與凝視

2
It is there that—free as I am to pursue, in the path in which I am leading you, the way that seems best to me—threading my curved needle through the tapestry, I jump on to the side
on which is posed the question that offers itself as a crossroads, between us and all those who try to conceive of the way of the subject.

就在此,雖然我自由地追尋,在我正在引導你們的途中,在我認為是最佳的途徑,像是在織錦上穿針引線,我突然躍向路邊,因為在我們跟那些設法構想主體何去何從時,這問題被提出充當十字路口。

In so far as it is a search for truth, is this way to be forged in our style of adventure, with its trauma seen as a reflection of facticity?

就真理的追尋而言,這條途徑應該以冒險的方式挺進,而將創傷看待是事實的反映嗎?

Or is it to be located where tradition has always placed it, at the level of the dialectic of truth and appearance, grasped at the outset of perception in its fundamentally ideic,
in a way aesthetic, and accentuated character as visual centering?

或者我們應該尋找它,在傳統習慣擺置它的地方,在真實跟表象互相辯證的層次,理解它,在感官的初始處於理型狀態,有某種的美感,及強調其特性為視覺中心?

It is not mere chance—belonging to the order of the pure psychic—if this very week I have received a copy of the newly published, posthumous work of my friend Maurice Merleau- Ponty, Le Visible ci l’invisible.

這不完全是巧合,心有靈犀一點通。就在這個星期,我剛收到一本我的朋友梅洛、龐帝死後出版的書「可見與不可見」。

Here is expressed, embodied, what made the alternation of our dialogue, and I remember so clearly the Congres de Bonneval where his intervention revealed the nature of his path, a path that had broken off at one point of the oeuvre, which left it nevertheless in a state of completion, prefigured in the work of piety that we owe to Claude Lefort, to whom I would like to pay homage here for the kind of perfection which, in a long and difficult transcription, he seems to me to have achieved.

這本書生動地表現出我們對談時的唇槍舌劍。我清楚地記得,在波內瓦講堂,他出席表達他研究途徑的性質。這條路徑可說以這本書的完成告一個段落。我們得歸功於克勞德、雷佛的忠誠,對於他漫長而艱辛的記錄,在此我想要表示敬意,我覺得他的力求完善已經達成。

This work, Le Visible ci l’invisible, may indicate for us the moment of arrival of the philosophical tradition—the tradition that begins with Plato with the promulgation of the idea, of which one may say that, setting out from an aesthetic world, it is determined by an end given to being as sovereign good, thus attaining a beauty that is also its limit. And it is not by chance that Maurice Merleau-Ponty recognized its guide in the eye.

「可見與不可見」這本書可能對我們指示著,該是哲學傳統到達的時候。這個傳統開始於柏拉圖闡明完美理型,我們不妨說,開始於美感的世界,給人的存在賦予一種目標,作為支配一切的良善,然後得到一種也是最崇高程度的美。梅洛、龐帝從眼睛的可見與不可見,體認到這種完美理型的引導,並不完全是巧合。

In this work, which is both an end and a beginning, you will find both a recapitulation and a step forward in the path of what had first been formulated in Merleau-Ponty’s La Phénomenologie de la perception.

這本書既是完成,也是開始。從這本書,我們不僅找到在梅洛、龐帝的感官現象學首先曾經闡述過的研究的總結,也發現是向前展望的一步。

In this work, one finds a recapitulation of the regulatory function of form, invoked in
opposition to that which, as philosophical thinking progressed, had been taken to that extreme of vertigo expressed in the term idealism—how could the ‘lining’ that representation then
became be joined to that which it is supposed to cover?

從這本書,我們發現龐帝替理型具有規範的功用做一個的總結。隨著哲學思想的演進,理型的二元對立被演繹到淋漓盡致,以理想主義一詞表現出來。問題是,理想的「鑲邊」是符號所組成,如何能夠銜接到它應該涵蓋的內容?

La Phénoménologie brings us back, then, to the regulation of form, which is governed, not only by the subject’s eye, but by his expectations, his movement, his grip, his muscular and visceral emotion—in short, his constitutive presence, directed in what is called his total intentionality.

感官現象學於是引導我們回到理型的規範。規範理型的不但是主體的眼睛,而且是他的期望、他的動作、他的掌握、他的肉體及內心的情感,總之,所謂他整體意向性所引導的全身的生命存在。

Maurice Merleau-Ponty now makes the next step by forcing the limits of this very phenomenology. You will see that the ways through which he will lead you are not only of the order of visual phenomenology, since they set out to rediscover—this is the essential point—the dependence of the visible on that which places us under the eye of the seer. But this is going too far, for that eye is only the metaphor of something that I would prefer to call the seer’s ‘shoot’ (pousse) —something prior to his eye. What we have to circumscribe, by means of the path he indicates for us, is the pre-existence of a gaze—I see only from one point, but in my existence I am looked at from all sides.

梅洛、龐帝於是將這感官現象學的極限再推進到下一個步。你們可以看得出來,他引導你們的途徑,不但是視覺現象學的層次,因為他出發要重新找到什麼是視覺的依靠物,將我們放置在觀看者的目光之下,這是很重要的一點。而且他還走得更遠,因為那個眼光還僅僅是我想要說的觀看者的「放出光輝」的一個比喻而已,這個光輝的存在是早先於眼光。依照他所給我們指示的這條研究途徑,我們必然要指明出來的是凝視的預先存在:我只是從某一點觀看,但是在我的存在,我是被四面八方所觀看。

It is no doubt this seeing, to which I am subjected in an original way, that must lead us to the aims of this work, to that ontological turning back, the bases of which are no doubt to be
found in a more primitive institution of form.

無疑的,因為我這個主體一出生就會承受到觀看的凝視,這個觀看必然會引導我們到這本書的目標,回轉到那個人作為主體的本體論,因為那些目標的基礎,我們應該能夠在更原始的理型的結構中找到。

Precisely this gives me an opportunity to reply to someone that, of course, I have my ontology—why not?—like everyone else, however naive or elaborate it may be. But, certainly, what I try to outline in my discourse—which, although it reinterprets that of Freud, is nevertheless centered essentially on the particularity of the experience it describes—makes no claim to cover the entire field of experience.

這恰好給我一個機會來回答某人的問題。當然,像每一位其它的人,我有我自己的本體論,無論那是多麼的純樸或複雜。怎麼可能沒有?不過,我對真理的論述設法要描述的,並沒企圖要涵蓋生命經驗的整個領域,因為我的論述雖然是在重新詮釋佛洛伊德,基本上還是專注於所描述的經驗的特殊性。

Even this between the two that opens up for us the apprehension of the unconscious is of concern to us only in as much as it is designated for us, through the instructions Freud left us, as that of which the subject has to take possession. I will only add that the maintenance of this aspect of Freudianism, which is often described as naturalism, seems to be indispensable, for it is one of the few attempts, if not the only one, to embody psychical reality without substantifying it.

人際之間不同經驗的特殊性啟發我們去了解到無意識。我們關注到這個特殊性,甚至是因為我們生而為人所特殊賦有,這是我們人作為生命主體所必須擁有的存在,雖然這個道理,我們還是透過佛洛伊德學說才明白的。我只是要補充說,佛洛伊德學說的這個觀點似乎有必要不斷地維護,因為它時常被描述為自然主義,而佛洛伊德的少數幾個企圖之一,即使不是唯一企圖,就是要具體表現心理的真相,但是未竟全功。

In the field offered us by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, more or less polarized indeed by the threads of our experience, the scopic field, the ontological status, is presented by its most factitious, not to say most outworn, effects.

梅洛龐帝提供給我們的這領域,跟我們精神分析學的研究確實有點背道而馳。這是因為他呈現的視覺的領域,也就是本體論的狀態,已經受到人為造作的影響,姑且不說是司空見慣。

But it is not between the invisible and the visible that we have to pass. The split that concerns us is not the distance that derives from the fact that there are forms imposed by the world towards which the intentionality of phenomenological experience directs us—hence the limits that we encounter in the experience of the visible. The gaze is presented to us only in the form of a strange contingency, symbolic of what we find on the horizon, as the thrust of our experience, namely, the lack that constitutes castration anxiety.

我們所要跨越的不僅僅是可見與不可見之間。我們所關心的斷裂,並不是因為一方面世界賦予我們各種理型,而現象的經驗的意圖性引導前往我們這些理型,而產生了距離,因而我們在可見物的經驗方面遭遇到了限制。而是陌生的無常性的理型所呈現給我們的凝視,象徵著我們在地平線所發現的,當著是我們經驗的衝擊,換言之,組成閹割焦慮的欠缺。

The eye and the gaze—this is for us the split in which the drive is manifested at the level of the scopic field.

眼睛與凝視,對於我們而言,這才是欲望的驅力在視覺領域被顯示出來的斷裂。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: