拉岡241

拉岡講座141

THE SUBJECT AND THE OTHER: ALIENATION
主體與大它者:疏離

Your money, or your life
要錢?還是要命?
3
The rim process, the circular process, the relation in question is to be supported by the small losange that I used as algorithm in my graph precisely because it is necessary in integrating some of the finished products of this dialectic.

邊緣的過程,循環的過程,我在圖形的軌跡中,使用一個小小的郵戳般的方形符號,來表示它們之間的關係,因為這種循環的辯證法,需要將產生的結果合併來看。

It is impossible not to integrate it, for example, in phantasy itself—it is $ a [barred S, punch, petita]. It is impossible not to integrate it also in that radical node in which are conjoined demand and drive, designated by the $GD [barred S, punch, capital D], which might be called the cry.

例如,我們不得不採用幻想模式,將它合併,因為它的過程是被禁制的主體,經由這個方形符號箭頭方向迴旋,到小客體,然後再迴旋到被禁制的主體。我們也不得不將它合併在需求與驅力互相結合的那個點,符號的表示是:被禁制的主體,經由這個方形符號箭頭方向的那個點,到大寫字母的欲望,然後再迴旋到被禁制的主體。那個點可稱為呼喚點。

Let us keep with this little losange. It is a rim, a functioning rim. One has only to provide it with a vectorial direction, here anti-clockwise—this is governed by the fact that, at least in our writing, you read things from left to right.

讓我們繼續談這個小小的方形符號。這是一個邊緣,一個運作的邊緣。我們只需要供應它一個向量的方向,在這裡,以逆時鐘方向。支配它的運轉的方向是從左到右,至少,在我們精神分析的寫作中是這個方向。

Be careful! They are supports for your thought that are not without artifice, but there is no topology that does not have to be supported by some artifice—it is precisely the result of the fact that the subject depends on the signifier, in other words, on a certain impotence in your thinking.

小心!若是要將它運用到你的思維時,還需要有一些奧妙技巧。凡是地形學的變化,都需要有一些奧妙技巧,才能施展得開。主要的原因是,主體依靠意符的結果,換言之,主體依靠你的思維會有某些意符無法彰顯精神的地方。

The small V of the lower half of the losange, let us say here that it is the vel constituted by the first operation, where I wish to leave you for a moment.

這個方形符號的下半部,是個小小的V字形。容我們在此說,這就是欲望驅力第一回合的運作,我希望讓你們思索一下子。

Indeed, you may find that these things are all rather silly. But logic always is a bit silly. If one does not go to the root of the childish, one is inevitably precipitated into stupidity, as can be shown by innumerable examples, such as the supposed antinomies of reason, for example, the catalogue of all the
catalogues that do not include themselves, and one arrives at an impasse, which, I can’t think why, gives logicians vertigo.

的確,你可能發現,這些事情有點弄巧成拙。但是,邏輯就是有點弄巧成拙。假如我們童心未泯的話,我們最後一定會落得弄巧成拙,如無數例子證明的,例如,理性的白馬非馬的詭論,我正在說謊這句話證明是真話,最後總是陷入進退兩難的僵局,使得邏輯專家都頭昏腦脹,真是匪夷所思。

Yet the solution is very simple, it is that the signifier with which one designates the same signifier is evidently not the same signifier as the one with which one designates the other—this is obvious enough. The word obsolete, in so far as it may signify that the word obsolete is itself an obsolete word, is not the same word obsolete in each case. This ought to encourage us to develop this vel that I have introduced to you.

可是,解決的方法很簡單。我們使用來指明的相同意符的意符,顯而易見,跟使用來指明它者的意符,並非是相同的意符。這是顯而易見的。過時的字詞,已經被使用成陳腔濫調,在每一種情況下,所指明的意涵並不相同。我跟你們介面的欲望驅力這個字詞,我們不妨也如此索解發揮。

The subject is grounded in the vel of the first essential operation. To be sure, it is not at all without interest to develop it here, before so vast an audience, since it is a question of nothing less than that operation that we call alienation.

主體的基礎在於第一輪迴的基本運作。的確,在如此眾多聽眾面前,我將它發揮一下,相信也還能引起大家的興趣,因為這個問題道道地地就是我們所謂的疏離的運作。

One has to admit that there is a lot of this alienation about nowadays. Whatever one does, one is always a bit more alienated, whether in economics, politics, psycho-pathology, aesthetics, and so on. It may be no bad thing to see what the root of this celebrated alienation really is. Does it mean, as I seem to be saying, that the subject is condemned to seeing himself emerge, in initio, only in the field of the Other? Could it be that? Well, it isn’t. Not at all—not at all—not at all.

我們必須承認,今天的世界有許多這種疏離的現象。不管我們如何選擇,我們總是會有一些的疏離感覺,無論是在經濟、政治心理病因學、美學,等等。這也不無小補,假如我們觀看到這惡名昭彰的疏離現象是根源是什麼。這難道不是如我所說,意味著,主體被判定觀看自己的出現,最初只是在大它者所在的領域?可能是這樣嗎?嗯,未必是這樣。根本不是這樣。根本不是。

Alienation consists in this vet, which—if you do not object to the word condemned, I will use it— condemns the subject to appearing only in that division which, it seems to me, I have just articulated sufficiently by saying that, if it appears on one side as meaning, produced by the signifier, it appears on the other as aphanisis.

疏離的現象在於欲望驅力判定主體,容我使用判定這個字眼,判定主體只能出現在我剛剛一再表達的那個區隔,在那個由意符產生的意義那一邊,出現在大它者的那一邊,作為「失蹤者」。

There is a vel that is worth illustrating, in order to differentiate it from the other uses of the vet, of the or. There are two of them. You know, from your earliest lessons in logic, that there is the exclusive vet—I go either there or there—if I go there, I do not go there, I have to choose. There is another way
of using vet—I go to one side or the other, I don’t care, one’s as good as the other. These two vets are not alike. Well, there is a third, and in order not to mislead you, I will tell you straight away what it is intended for.

有一個欲望驅力值得詳加說明,為了區別它跟這個驅力,這個二者選一的驅力的其它用途,有所不同。有兩種欲望驅力的模式。你們從初級的邏輯課程知道,這是一個具有排除性的欲望驅力:我去那裡,或留在這裡。假如我去那裡,我就不會留在這裡,我必須二者選擇一個。欲望驅力還有另外一種選擇:我去那一邊,或留在這一邊,我都無所謂,反正這一邊跟那一邊都一樣好。這兩種欲望驅力並不相同。嗯,還有第三種選擇模式。為了不要誤導你們,我就開門見山,立刻說出它的意圖。

Symbolic logic, which is very useful in bringing a little light into so tricky a domain, teaches us to distinguish the implications of the operation that we call joining. To speak as one speaks when it is a question of sets, adding two collections together is not identical to joining them. If in this circle, that
on the left, there are five objects, and if, in the other, there are also five—adding them together makes ten. But some of them may belong to both circles. If there are two that belong to each of the two circles, joining them together will in this instance consist not in doubling their number—there will be in all only eight objects. I apologize if I am being naive in reminding you of this, but it is in order to give you the notion that this vel that I will try to articulate for you is supported only on the logical form of joining.

當我們在表明如此詭譎的領域,符號的邏輯會有一些幫助,教導我們表明我們所謂的聯合的運作有何意義。當我們在談數學的集合論時,將兩個集合聯接在一起,並不相等於聯合它們。假如在這個圓圈,左邊的這個圓圈,有五樣東西,假如在另一個圓圈,也有五樣東西,將它們添加在一起,總數是十樣東西。但是有幾樣東西共同屬於兩個圓圈。假如有兩樣東西分屬於個別的兩個圓圈,那麼在這種情況,總加起來的數目並不是原先數目的兩倍,總數將是只有八樣東西。恕我使用如此幼稚的集合邏輯提醒你們。我只是想要讓你們明白這個觀念,我設法讓你們了解的欲望驅力,其運作方式就是根據這種集合的邏輯模式。

The vet of alienation is defined by a choice whose properties depend on this, that there is, in the joining, one element that, whatever the choice operating may be, has as its consequence a neither one, nor the other. The choice, then, is a matter of knowing whether one wishes to preserve one of the parts, the other disappearing in any case.

疏離的欲望驅力的定義,就是它的選擇的特性依靠這個邏輯模式。在聯合時,有一個要素,不管你如何運作選擇,它的結果既不包括其中一樣,也不包括另外一樣。因此,這種選擇就是要知道,雖然我們希望保存其中一個部份,但是不管是那一種情況,另外一個部份總是會消失。

Let us illustrate this with what we are dealing with here, namely, the being of the subject, that which is there beneath the meaning. If we choose being, the subject disappears, it eludes us, it falls into non-meaning. If we choose meaning, the meaning survives only deprived of that part of non-meaning that is, strictly speaking, that which constitutes in the realization of the subject, the unconscious. In other words, it is of the nature of this meaning, as it emerges in the field of the Other, to be in
a large part of its field, eclipsed by the disappearance of being, induced by the very function of the signifier.

讓我們使用我們正在處理的問題,主體的生存問題,換言之,人生有何意義的問題,作為說明。假如我選擇身體的生存,主體會消失,會逃避我們、會陷入無意義的部份。假如我選擇人生的意義,意義只有在被剝奪無意義的那個部份,才可能存在。嚴格來說,就是被剝奪無意識作為人的主體,可以實現自我的部份。換言之,這個意義的特性,當它出現在大它者的領域,佔據大它者領域的一大部份,根據意符的功用產生,會隨著身體的存在的消失,意義因而隱遁。

This, as I have said, has a quite direct implication that passes all too often unperceived—when I tell you what it is, you will see that it is obvious, but for all that it is not usually noticed. One of the consequences is that interpretation is not limited to providing us with the significations of the way taken by the psyche that we have before us. This implication is no more than a prelude. Interpretation is directed not so much at the meaning as towards reducing the non-meaning of the signifiers, so that we may rediscover the determinants of the subject’s entire behavior.

我曾經說,這是一個相當直接的暗示,卻往往被大家視而不見。當我告訴你們那是什麼時,你們會恍然大悟,那是那麼明顯。但是儘管顯而易見,它通常就是被大家忽略。其中一個結果是,解釋提供的意義,並不限制於要跟我們心理一廂情願所期盼的意義相符合。這個暗示只是一個序曲。解釋的目標不是朝向尋找意義,而是朝向於將各種意符的意義幻滅為空。這樣,我們才可能重新發現,主體的舉止行為曾受到怎樣的影響。

I would ask you to refer to what my pupil Leclaire contributed, at the Congrês de Bonneval, by way of an application of my theses. You will see in his contribution that he isolated the sequence of the unicorn, not, as was thought in the discussion, in its significatory dependence, but precisely in its irreducible and senseless character qua chain of signifiers.

我想要推薦你們參照一下,我的學生列克烈,在波尼凡的學術研討會,運用我的主張所呈現的論文。你們將在他的論文看到,他分析獨角獸存在的意義,不是根據討論的大綱,分門別類,而是將獨角獸的特性,作為意符的鎖鏈,一一瓦解到無意義的程度。

One cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of some such thing as I have just described for you here. This alienating or is not an arbitrary invention, nor is it a matter of how one sees things. It is a part of language itself. This or exists. It is so much a part of language that one should distinguish it when one is dealing with linguistics. I will give you an example at once..

對於我剛剛所描繪的這些事情,他們的重要性不言而喻。這個疏離的「二者選一」,並不是我心血來潮地獨創,也不是我們觀看事情的問題。它是語言本身的一部份。人生無處不存在著「二者選一」的問題。它是語言的一部份,所以我們應該用語言學的處理方式,來區別它。我現在馬上給你們一個例子。

Your money or your life! If I choose the money, I lose both. If I choose life, I have life without the money, namely, a life deprived of something. I think I have made myself clear.

「要錢?還是要命?」假如我選擇要錢,我失去的不僅是生命,錢也沒用了。我可以沒有錢,但是生命還存在,換言之,生命沒有外物,還能存在。我想我說夠清楚了。

It is in Hegel that I have found a legitimate justification for the term alienating vel. What does Hegel mean by it? To cut a long story short, it concerns the production of the primary alienation, that by which man enters into the way of slavery. Your freedom or your life ! If he chooses freedom, he loses both immediately—if he chooses life, he has life deprived of freedom.

在黑格爾的精神現象學,我們替「二者選一」這個疏離的驅力,找到自圓其說的正當理由。黑格爾的「二者選一」是什麼意思?長話短說,它牽涉到人作為主體,如何成為奴隸,因而產生最原初的疏離現象。「你要自由?還是要生命?」假如它選擇要自由,他馬上兩樣都失去。但是他假如選擇要生命,他擁有生命,但是被剝奪掉自由。

There must be something special about this. This something special we shall call the lethal factor. This factor is present in certain divisions shown us by the play of signiflers that we sometimes see at play at the heart of life itself—these are called chromosomes, and it sometimes happens that there is one among them that has a lethal function. We shall find a parallel to this function in a rather peculiar statement, by introducing death itself into one of these fields. For example, freedom or death! There, because death comes into play, there occurs an effect with a rather different structure.

關於這一點,有件特別要注意的東西。這個某件特別要注意的東西,我們將稱為決定性的因素。這個因素存在於我們生命核心的某些區分領域,根據意符的運作顯示出來。這些意符的運作,我們有時候在生命本身的核心會看到。這些意符,被稱為遺傳染色體,有些染色體會發揮決定性的功用。這個染色體的功用發生在這些領域,無物可以類比,也不是我喜歡危言聳聽,就是死亡的功用。例如,你要自由?還是要生命?在這個地方,只要死亡開始運作,它產生的效果是完全不同的結構。

This is because, in both cases, I will have both. Freedom, after all, as you know, is like the celebrated freedom to work, for which the French Revolution, it seems, was fought. It can also be the freedom to die of hunger—in fact, that’s what it amounted to throughout the nineteenth century, which is why,
since then, certain principles have had to be revised. You choose freedom. Well! You’ve got freedom to die. Curiously enough, in the conditions in which someone says to you, freedom or death!, the only proof of freedom that you can have in the conditions laid out before you is precisely to choose death, for there, you show that you have freedom of choice.

這是因為在這兩種情況,我兩者都想擁有。你們都知道,在法國大革命「不自由、毋寧死」的時代,自由的光輝,畢竟是多麼地耀武揚威。它也可以被解釋為,選擇寧可死於饑餓的自由!事實上,在整個十九世紀,人性的光輝就是自由的選擇。這就是為什麼,迄今的某些原則,必須受到某些的修正。「你要選擇的自由嗎?成全你!你得到選擇死亡的自由!」令人諷刺的是,在某個人跟你說「不自由、毋寧死」的情況中,攤開在你面前的情境,你擁有自由的唯一的證據,就是選擇死亡。因為只有在死亡那裡,你顯示你擁有選擇的自由。

At this moment, which is also a Hegeian moment, for it is what is called the Terror, this quite different division is intended to make clear for you what is, in this field, the essence of the alienating vel, the lethal factor.

這個時刻,也是一個黑格爾精神勝利的時刻,因為它就是我們所謂的恐怖份子的時刻。在這個時刻,這個自由與死亡截然不同的區分,跟你表達得一清二楚:在這個領域,這個疏離的欲望驅力,這個決定性的因素,它的本質是什麼?

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Advertisements

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: