拉岡講座226

拉岡講座226

Against Jung and against hermeneutics of reality.
反對榮格及反對真實界的解釋學

2
Where is all this leading? It is leading us to the question as to whether we must regard the unconscious as a remanence of that archaic junction between thought and sexual reality. If sexuality is the reality of the unconscious—just think what this involves—the thing is so difficult of access that we may be able
to elucidate it only by a consideration of history.

這會將我們引導到何方?它引導我們去質疑,我們是否必須認為,在古代,思想先是被認為就是性的真實界,難於自圓其說後,就演變成為無意識才是。假如性是無意識的真實界,想想看,那將牽涉到什麼?那個真實界如此困難進入,我們只有回溯一下歷史,才有辦法說明。

The solution, which, in history, has taken form in the thought of Jung, where the relation between the psychical world of the subject and reality are embodied under the term archetype, is to restore the level at which man’s thought follows those aspects of the sexual experience that have been reduced by the invasion of science.

在歷史上,解決的方法在榮格的思想,自成一家之言。榮格將主體的心理世界與真實界的關係,用原型的術語具體表現。解決的方法就是要將層次恢復到,在性的經驗領域,人的思想是如何運作,因為性學領域已經被視為一門科學從事研究。

Now, Jungianism—in so far as it makes of the primitive modes of articulating the world something that survives, the kernel, he says, of the psyche itself—is necessarily accompanied by a repudiation of the term libido, by the neutralization of this function by recourse to a notion of psychical energy, a much
more generalized notion of interest.

榮格學派訴諸於心理精力的觀念,這個觀念雖然引人興趣,卻較為空泛。因此,它必須伴隨著排斥佛洛伊德將力比多作為生命力的這個術語,以及將力比多的功用中立化。換言之,榮格學派以某件殘存的東西,也就他所謂的心理自我的核心,作為表達世界的原始模式。

What we have here is not some scholastic quibble, some small difference of opinion. For what Freud intends to make present in the function of this libido is not some archaic relation, some primitive mode of access of thoughts, some world that is there like some shade of an ancient world surviving in ours.

我們在此遇到的,並不是思想學派彼此術語些微不同,在學術上的無稽之談。佛洛伊德有意以力比多的功用呈現的,並不是某些過時的關係,接近某些思想的原始模式,某個存在那裡的世界,好像某個古代世界的陰影還殘存在我們的世界。

The libido is the effective presence, as such, of desire. It is what now remains to indicate desire—which is not substance, but which is there at the level of the primary process, and which
governs the very mode of our approach.

力比多是欲望本身的活生生的存在。它是現在仍然殘留下來,可以被指明是欲望的東西。它不是物質,而是處在最初過程的層次的東西。它統轄我們研究的模式。

I was recently rereading, in the context of an address I gave to a congress that took place in 1960, what someone else said about the unconscious. This person—it was M. Ricceur in fact —was trying to remove himself as far as possible from his own position in order to conceptualize our domain. He had certainly gone a long way to reach what, for a philosopher, is the area most difficult of access, namely, the reality of the unconscious— that the unconscious is not an ambiguity of acts, future knowledge that is already known not to be known, but lacuna, cut, rupture inscribed in a certain lack. M. Ricceur concedes that there is something of this dimension to be retained. But, philosopher that he is, he monopolizes it for himself. He calls it hermeneutics.

我最近重新閱讀某人提問的無意識,那是在1960年舉行的會議,我發表的演講的內容。那個人就是里克爾。他當時盡量擺脫他自己原有的立場,為了理解我們的領域的概念。就一位哲學家而言,他確實煞費苦心到達那個費解的領域,換言之,無意識的真實界。無意識並不是行為的曖昧不明處,無法理解的未來的知識,而是被鐫刻在某個欠缺處的脫漏、割痕、及斷裂。里克爾承認,這個領域的某件東西應該要被保存下來。但是他是一位哲學家。他將這個領域據為己有,稱之為「詮釋學」。

A lot of fuss is made nowadays of what is called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics not only objects to what I have called our analytic adventure, it objects to structuralism, as it appears in the works of Levi-Strauss. Now, what is hermeneutics, if it is not to read, in the succession of man’s mutations, the progress of the signs according to which he constitutes his history, the progress of his history—a history that may also, at the fringes, extend into less definite times? And so M. Ricceur casts into the limbo of pure contingency what the analysts at every stage are dealing with. One has to admit that, from the outside, the corporation of analysts does not give him the impression of an agreement so fundamental as to impress him. But this is no reason to leave the field to him.

目前,所謂的解釋學正在風起雲湧。解釋學不但反對我們所認為的精神分析的研究,它也反對結構主義,如列維、史特勞斯的研究。現在,什麼是解釋學?難道不就是要閱讀,在人類進化的過程,符號的演變嗎?依照這個符號,人類形成自己的歷史及歷史的進展,這個歷史還可能回溯到遠古沒有文字記載的時代。所以,里克爾將我們精神分析學在每一個階段所正在從事的研究,認為是無稽之談。我們必須承認,從外表看來,我們精神分析師的團體並沒有得到他根本上的認同,遑論讚賞了。不過,這並不構成他可以據為己有的理由。

I maintain that it is at the level of analysis —if we can take a few more steps forward—that the nodal point by which the pulsation of the unconscious is linked to sexual reality must be revealed. This nodal point is called desire, and the theoretical elaboration that I have pursued in recent years will show you,
through each stage of clinical experience, how desire is situated in dependence on demand—which, by being articulated in signifiers, leaves a metonymic remainder that runs under it, an element that is not indeterminate, which is a condition both, absolute and unapprehensible, an element necessarily lacking,
unsatisfied, impossible, misconstrued (méconnu), an element that is called desire. It is this that makes the junction with the field defined by Freud as that of the sexual agency at the level of the primary process.

我主張,無意識的悸動,跟性的真實界有關的這個關鍵點,必須要顯示在精神分析的這個層次,我們才能夠有進一步的發展。這個關鍵點被稱之為欲望。最近幾年來,我從事的研究理論架構顯示:從診所經驗的每一階段,凡是有需求的依賴,就會發現有欲望。由於是用意符表達,欲望只能藉用換喻讓人理解,但是又意在言外地撲朔迷離。這個元素並非不能確定,它既是一個絕對,又是無法理解的狀況。它是必然是一個欠缺、無法滿足、不可能、常被人誤認的元素。這一個元素被稱為欲望

The function of desire is a last residuum of the effect of the signifier in the subject. Desidero is the Freudian cogito. It is necessarily there that the essential of the primary process is established. Note well what Freud says of this field, in which the impulse is satisfied essentially by hallucination. No mechanism-schema will ever be able to do justice to what is given as a regression on the reflex arc. What enters by the sensorium must leave by the motorium, and if the motorium does not work, it goes back.

欲望的功用是意符影響主體的最後殘渣。「我欲」是佛洛伊德的「我在」。生命的最初始的過程必然是建立在那裡。請注意佛洛伊德對於這個領域的說法:人的欲念的滿足基本上是有賴於幻覺。無論再精緻的機械理論,都無法充份描述性愛時的那種倒轉的衝動反應。進入時是感官,出來時必然是動力。假如動力停擺,又回到感官。

But if it goes back, how can we conceive that this constitutes a perception—if not by the image of something which, from an arrested current, makes the energy flow back in the form of a lamp which lights up, but for whom? The dimension of the third party is essential in this supposed regression. It can only be conceived in a form strictly analogical with what, the other day, I drew on the blackboard in the form of the duplicity between the subject of the statement and the subject of the enunciation. Only the presence of the desiring and sexually desiring, subject, brings us that dimension of natural metaphor from which the supposed identity of perception is decided.

但是假如又回到感官,我們如何構想感官的形成,若非憑藉某件東西的意象,使精力像電燈光亮般流動回來?這個燈亮起來,但是為了誰而亮?只有以類似我前幾天我在黑板上所畫的,陳述的主體與表達的主體互相欺騙的方式,我們才能自圓其說。只有主體的欲望及性的慾望存在時,我們才能理解,這個被誤認為決定感官極致的性的自然的妙喻。

Freud maintains the libido as the essential element of the primary process. This means—contrary to how it may seem in the texts in which he tries to illustrate his theory—that in hallucination, the simplest hallucination of the simplest of needs, the hallucination of food, as it occurred in the dream of
little Anna when she speaks of tart, strawberries, eggs, and other delicacies, there is not purely and simply a making present of the objects of a need. It is only on account of the sexualization of these objects that the hallucination of the dream is possible —for, as you will notice, little Anna only hallucinates forbidden objects.

佛洛伊德主張,力比多是生命最初始過程的基本元素。這不同於他原先設法解釋自己的理論。
這意味著,在幻覺時,即使是單純需要時的單純幻覺,食物的幻覺,如同小安娜的夢中幻覺,當她提到餡餅、草莓、蛋及其它點心,這並不純然是需要的東西的呈現。只因為這些東西具有性的暗示,夢的幻覺才有可能,如你們將注意到的,小安娜只幻想那些被禁忌的東西。

One can argue over each case, but it is absolutely essential to map the dimension of signification in every hallucination if we are to grasp what the pleasure principle means. It is from the point at which the subject desires that the connotation of reality is given in the hallucination. And if Freud contrasts the reality principle with the pleasure principle, it is precisely in so far as reality is defined as desexualized.

所有的個案都可以商榷,但是假如我們想要理解快樂原理是什麼意思,將意義定位在幻覺的向度是絕對必要的。就是從那個向度,主體渴望,真實界的意義能在幻覺中被表現出來。佛洛伊德所以將現實原理跟快樂原理對比並列,確實就是因為現實界被定義為性的被禁制。

A lot is said in the most recent analytic theories about desexualized functions. It is said, for example, that the ego ideal rests on the investment of a desexualized libido. It seems to me very difficult to speak of a desexualized libido. But the notion that the approach of reality involves a desexualization lies at
the very principle of Freud’s definition of the Zwei Prinzipien des Geschehens, of the two principles into which psychical ‘eventiality’ is divided.

在最近的精神分析理論,有關性的禁制的功用談論甚多。例如,自我的理想有賴於全神貫注於禁制性的力比多。這對於我而言,真是匪夷所思。但是「現實界的接近,牽涉到性的被禁制」的這個觀念,就在於佛洛伊德將心理的「主體」區分為現實原理與快樂原理。

What does this mean? It means that in the transference we must see established the weight of sexual reality. Largely unknown happens at the level of the analytic discourse, which is well and truly, as it takes form, that of demand—it is not for nothing that all experience leads us to throw it on to the side of the terms frustration and gratification.

這是什麼意思?這意味著,在移情時,我們必然看到性在真實界佔的份量很重。我們在精神分析的表述層次,發現許多我們不知道的東西,具體地說,就是渴望要的東西。根據精神分析的經驗,我們用挫折與滿足這樣的術語來形容它,不是憑空杜撰的。

I tried to draw on the blackboard the topology of the subject according to a sign that I once called the interior 8. This is certainly reminiscent of Euler’s famous circles, except, as you will see, that Euler was concerned with a surface that could actually be made. The edge is continuous, except that at one point it does not proceed without being concealed by the surface that has previously unfolded

我曾設法在黑板上畫一個主體的地形位置,我稱之為八號内部圖的符號。這確實讓人聯想到猶洛那個著名的雙層圓形圈,如你們所見,差別的地方是,猶洛關心的是如何將表面畫好。邊線一直繼續,除了在某一點,它的前進被先前展開的表面隱藏。

This drawing, seen from a certain perspective, may seem to represent two intersecting fields. I have placed the libido at the point at which the lobe defined as field of the development of the unconscious covers and conceals the other lobe, that of sexual reality. The libido, then, would be that which belongs to both—the point of intersection, as one says in logic. But this is precisely what it does not mean.
For this sector at which the fields appear to overlap is, if you see the true profile of the surface, a void.

從某個角度觀看,這個雙層圓形圖似乎代表兩個有趣的領域。被定義為無意識發展的領域,蓋住及隱藏另一領域,也就是性的真實界的領域。我就將力比多放置在那個交叉點。邏輯引申來說,力比多在那個交叉點將會左右逢源。但其實上恰恰相反,因為似乎是重疊的部份是空無,假如你看到表面圖的輪廓的話。

This surface belongs to another whose topology I have described to my pupils at various times, and which is called the cross-cap, in order words, the mitre. I have not drawn it here, but I would simply ask you to note what is its most obvious characteristic. You can obtain it from the interior 8. Bring the
edges together two by two as they are presented here, by a complementary surface, and close it. In a way, it plays the same role as complement in relation to the Initial 8 as a sphere in relation to a circle, a sphere that would close what the circle would already offer itself as ready to contain.

這個表面屬於另一個表面,其地形圖我曾經對我的學生描述過好幾次。這就是我所謂的重疊帽,換言之,雙疊帽。我不曾在這裡畫過那個圖,但是我只是要你們注意它最明顯的特徵。你們可以從八號內部圖也可以看得出來。用一個互補的表面,將邊緣重疊畫在一起,然後再封閉它,就會呈現出來。在某方面,它跟八號內部圖的關係,如同球形跟圓圈的關係,都是扮演相同的互補的角色。這個球形將會封閉圓圈呈現自己作為包容的部份。

Well! This surface is a Moebius surface, and its outside continues its inside. There is a second necessity that emerges from this figure, that is, that it must, in order to close its curve, traverse at some point
the preceding surface, at that point, according to the line that I have just reproduced here on the second model.

不錯!這個表面是莫比思的那個表面,它的外面繼續到內面。從這個圖形,出現第二道需要,換言之,為了封閉它的曲弧線,它必須在某個點穿越過先前那個表面,依照我在第二個圖形所複製的那條線。

This image enables us to figure desire as a locus of junction between the field of demand, in which the syncopes of the unconscious are made present, and sexual reality. All this depends on a line that I will call the line of desire, linked to demand, and by which the effects of sexuality are made present in experience.

從這個意象,我們能夠將欲望想像為渴望的領域,跟性的真實界之間的交叉軌跡。無意識的若有若無在那裡被顯現出來。這一切都端賴我所謂的欲望的線,跟渴望的需求聯接。性所產生的影響,在精神分析的經驗上昭然若揭。

What is this desire? Do you think it is there that I designate the agency of the transference? Yes and no. You will see that the thing is not so simple, if I tell you that the desire we are concerned with here is the desire of the analyst.

這個欲望是什麼?你們認為我是將移情的代理放置在那裡?可以說是,也可以說不是。你們將會看到,事情沒有那麼單純。容我告訴你們!我們在此所關心的欲望,是精神分析師的欲望。

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: