Archive for January, 2010

拉岡講座237

January 12, 2010

拉岡講座237

The field of the drive: making oneself.. . seen, heard, sucked, shitted’
驅力的領域:使自己被觀看、被聽見、被強暴、被拉屎

The myth of the lamella
處女膜的神話

3
Everything Freud spells out about the partial drives shows us the movement that I outlined for you on the blackboard last time, that circular movement of the thrust that emerges through the erogenous rim only to return to it as its target, after having encircled something I call the objet a. I suggest
— and a punctilious examination of this whole text is a test of the truth of what I propose—that it is in this way that the subject attains what is, strictly speaking, the dimension of the capital Other.

佛洛伊德對於驅力的說明,讓我們明白,我上次在黑板上為你們描繪的動作。欲念驅力穿透性感的邊緣,循環地移動,環繞著我所謂的小客體,結果又回到原點,作為它的目標。我建議,就是以這種方式,主體以為就是到達他真正所期盼的大它者的國度。你們若仔細閱讀佛洛伊德本文,就知道我的這個建議是真是假。

I suggest that there is a radical distinction between loving oneself through the other—which, in the narcissistic field of the object, allows no transcendence to the object included—and the circularity of the drive, in which the heterogeneity of the movement out and back shows a gap in its interval. What have seeing and being seen in common? Let us take the Schaulust, the scopic drive. Freud certainly makes a distinction between to look at an alien object, an object in the strict sense, and beschaut werden, being looked at by an alien person.

我建議,透過它者來愛自己,跟欲望驅力的循環,兩者有一個顯明的差異。在客體的自戀領域,透過它者來愛自己,並無法使自己超越所包含的客體。而在欲望驅力的循環,向外跟回來的動作的差異,會顯現中間間隔的裂隙。觀看跟被觀看,有什麼相同之處?讓我們以視覺驅力當例子。佛洛伊德確實區別過,觀看一個外來客體,嚴謹來說,觀看一個東西,跟被一個外來的人觀看,兩者有何不同

This is because an object and a person are not the same. At the end of the circle, let us say that they lose touch—or that the dotted line eludes us to some extent. Indeed, in order to link them together, it is at the base—where origin and point converge—that Freud must bring them together and try to forge a union between them—precisely at the point of return. He brings them together by saying that the root of the scopic drive is to be found entirely in the subject, in the fact that the subject sees himself.

這是因為東西跟人畢竟是兩碼子事。我們不妨說,循環的結果,他們彼此失落,換言之,實線連接漸漸變成點點的虛線。的確,為了再連接它們,佛洛伊德必須在基礎的地方,起源跟小點匯聚的地方,準確地說,就是在回轉點的地方,將它們聚攏在一起,設法鑄造彼此之間的連繫。他將它們聚攏時說,視覺驅力的基礎,在主體身上全然可以找到,因為主體看到自己本身。

But, because he is Freud, he does not fall into error here. It is not seeing oneself in the mirror, it is SeThst ciii Sexualglied beschauen—he looks at himself, I would say, in his sexual member. But, be careful! That’s not right either. Because this statement is identified with its opposite—which is curious enough, and I am surprised that nobody has noticed the humorous side of it. This gives—Sexualglied von eigener Person beschaut werden. In a way, just as the number two delights at being odd, the sex, or widdler, delights at being looked at. Who has ever really grasped the truly subject-making (subjectivable) character of such a sentiment?

但是,因為他是佛洛伊德,他在這裡並沒有犯下錯誤。他不是在鏡子裡看到自己,他是在他性的伴侶身上,看到他自己。但是,請小心!這種說法也不正確。因為陳述跟內容,恰恰背道而馳,這真是個反諷!你們看到這樣的幽默諷刺,不免莞爾一笑!從某個意義來說,這就像是偶數「二」這個數目字,以自己是奇數,而沾沾自喜;性或尿尿,以自己被人觀看,而沾沾自喜。你們曾經體會過這種「正笑他人命不長,哪知自己歸來喪」的反諷嗎?

In fact, the articulation of the loop formed by the outward and return movement of the drive is obtained very well by changing only one of the terms in Freud’s statement. I do not change eigenes Objekt, the object in the strict sense, which is in fact what the subject is reduced to and I do not change von
fremder Person, the other, of course, nor beschaut, but in place of werden I put machen—what is involved in the drive is making oneself seen (sefaire voir). The activity of the drive is concentrated
in this making oneself (sefaire), and it is by relating it to the field of the other drives that we may be able to throw some light upon it.

事實上,要清楚表達欲望驅力,這種向外延伸及回轉的動作,所形成的圈套,我想改用佛洛伊德陳述的一個術語。我保留「客體」這個嚴謹的術語,因為主體最後會成為客體;我也保留「人」及「它者」,我只用「使成為」 代替「成為」 ,因為欲望驅力牽涉到自己被觀看的問題。欲望驅力的活動,專注於這個「使自己成為」。當我們將它跟它者的欲望驅力併攏來看,我們就能真相大白。

Unfortunately, I must move fairly quickly, and not only am I cutting short, but I am filling in the gaps that Freud, surprisingly, left in his enumeration of the drives. After making oneself seen, I will introduce another, making oneself heard, of which Freud says nothing. I must, very quickly, point out to you the difference between making oneself heard and making oneself seen. In the field of the unconscious, the ears are the only orifice that cannot be closed. Whereas making oneself seen is indicated by an arrow that really comes back towards the subject, making oneself heard .goes towards the other. The reason for this is a structural one—it was important that I should nmention it in passing.

不幸地,我必須加快進度,我不但要長話短說,而且我要將佛洛伊德列舉各種驅力時,出人意料地,遺留的一些缺口填補上。在使我「自己被觀看」之後,我還要介紹另外一件,佛洛伊德沒有提到的東西,這樣我才能夠使我「自己被聆聽」。我必須馬上跟你們提出,「使自己被聆聽」,跟「使自己被觀看」,兩者有何差異。在無意識的領域,耳朵是唯一沒有被封閉的洞口。「使自己被觀看」,我們可以用一個箭頭標示,它會回轉到主體本身。而「使自己被聆聽」則是指向它者。這種區別的理由是結構上的關係,非常重要,容我順便提一下。

Let us turn to the oral drive. What is it? One speaks of phantasies of devouring, of being gobbled up. Indeed, everyone knows that this, verging on all the resonances of masochism, is the altrified term of the oral drive. But why do we not get a definite answer? Since we refer to the infant and the breast,
and since suckling is sucking, let us say that the oral drive is getting sucked, it is the vampire.

讓我們回到口腔驅力。那是什麼?我們提到吞噬及被吞噬的幻想。的確,每個人都知道,這是口腔驅力的另類術語,類似受虐狂的迴響。但是,我們為什麼要一個明確的答案?因為我提到嬰兒的吸母奶,因為吸母奶不僅是吸而已,我們不妨說,口腔驅力牽涉到被吸,像是吸血鬼。

Indeed, this throws some light on that singular object —which I am trying to unstick in your minds from the food metaphor —the breast. The breast is also something superimposed, who sucks what?—the organism of the mother. Thus we see clearly enough, at this level, the nature of the subject’s claim to something that is separated from him, but belongs to him and which he needs to complete himself.

的確,這使我們稍微明白「乳房」那個獨特的客體。我正在設法從你們的腦海,排除跟攝取食物有關的比喻。乳房也是一件監視的東西。誰在吮吸什麼?不用說,是作為生命有機體的母親。因此,我們足夠清楚地看出,主體在這個層次的需求的性質。他要求某件跟他分開的東西,某件屬於他自己,某件他需要自我完成的東西。

At the level of the anal drive—you can now relax a bit—things don’t seem to work out like that at all. And yet, Se faire cider has a meaning! When one says here, on sefait rudenwnt c/zier, one has the emmerdeur éternel in mind.’ It is quite wrong simply to identify the celebrated scybala with the function given it in the metabolism of obsessional neurosis. It is quite wrong to separate it from what it represents, a gift, as it happens, and from the relation it has with soiling, purification, catharsis. It is
wrong not to see that it is from here that the function of oblativity emerges. In short, the object, here, is not very far from the domain that is called that of the soul.

在肛門驅力的層次,事情的結果就完全不一樣。你們不妨輕鬆一點來看。可是「讓人拉屎」還是會有言外之意。有人曾說「你的屎臭氣沖天」,我們會聯想到「你真是無聊透頂」。但是,若是將那惡名昭彰的糞便的功用,就等同於妄想症精神病犯的新陳代謝的功用,那也是錯得離譜。糞便有其象徵性的意義,糞便是一種禮物,糞便可以充當肥料、淨化、宣洩的功能,我們必須跟這些象徵的意義來聯想,才是正確。你們難道沒有從這裡看出犧牲奉獻的功用嗎?總而言之,糞便作為一個客體,跟我們所謂的靈魂的領域,相距並不甚遠。

What does this brief survey tell us? Does it not seem that the drive, in this turning inside out represented by its pocket, invaginating through the erogenous zone, is given the task of seeking something that, each time, responds in the Other? I will not go over the series again. Let us say that at the level of the Schaulust, it is the gaze. I point this out only to deal later with the effects on the Other of this movement of appeal.

這個簡短的探討告訴我們什麼?這難道不是意味著,驅力透過主體的性感地帶,進入一個像是口袋的內部後,由內向外翻轉,它被給予的工作使命,就是要從大它者那裡,找出某些回應的東西?這個系列,我先談到這裡為止。讓我們說,在觀看的這個層次,那就是凝視。我先指出這一點,以後再來處理,這個訴求大它者的動作產生怎樣的影響。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座236

January 11, 2010

拉岡講座236

From Love to Libido
從愛到力比多

The narcissistic field’
自戀的領域
Sexual difference’
性的差異

2
It is there, then, that Freud intends to set up the bases of love. It is only with activity/passivity that the sexual relation really comes into play.

因此,佛洛伊德打算將愛的基礎就建立在那裡。只有以主動與被動的關係,性的關係才真正地運作。

Now, is the activity/passivity relation identical with the sexual relation? I would ask you to refer to a passage in the Wolf-Man, for example, or to various others scattered throughout the Five Psycho-analyses. There Freud explains in short that the polar reference activity/passivity is there in order to name, to cover, to metaphorize that which remains unfathomable in sexual difference. Nowhere does he ever say that, psychologically, the masculine/feminine relation is apprehensible
otherwise than by the representative of the activity/passivity opposition. As such, the masculine/feminine opposition is never attained.

現在問題是,主動與被動的關係,就相等於是性的關係嗎?我要求你們去參考一下佛洛伊德寫的「狼人」的一段,或散佈在「五個精神變態症分析」一書的各個段落。在那裡,佛洛伊德簡短地解釋,為了要命名、涵蓋、及比喻說明男女性別的差異,有深不可測的地方,我們才使用主動與被動兩極的說法。可是,佛洛伊德絕對沒有說,從心理學的角度而言,男性與女性的關係,撇開主動與被動對立的符號,還能夠被理解。問題是,我們永遠無法形成絕對的男性與女性的對立。

This is sufficient indication of the importance of what is repeated here, in the form of a verb particularly appropriate in expressing what is at issue—this passivity/activity opposition is poured, molded, injected. It is an arteriography, and even the masculine/feminine relations do no exhaust it.
Of course, it is well known that the activity/passivity opposition may account for many things in the domain of love. But what we are dealing with here is precisely this injection, one might say, of sado-masochism, which is not at all to be understood, as far as its properly sexual realization is concerned, as ready money.

有足夠證據指出,我們一再強調的這一部份的重要性,也就是動詞的形式,特別適合於表達目前爭議的問題,所以主動與被動的對立,就傾巢而出,或被塑造,或被注入。這是一種動脈X光攝影,光是主動與被動的關係,還無法涵蓋全部。當然,眾所周知,主動與被動的對立,可以解釋愛的領域的許多事情。但是,我們目前所處理的,我們可以說,確實就是這個虐待狂與受虐狂的注入。就適當的性的滿足而言,虐待狂與受虐狂絕對不能只作為表面現象來處理。

Certainly, all the intervals of desire come into play in the sexual relation. What value has my desire for you? the eternal question that is posed in the dialogue of lovers. But the supposed value, for example, of feminine masochism, as it is called, should be subjected, parenthetically, to serious scrutiny. It belongs to a dialogue that may be defined, in many respects, as a masculine phantasy.

確實地,在性的關係,欲望的運作會有間隔。「我的欲望對於你會有怎樣的價值?」這個永恆的問題,在情人的對話中被提出。但是,大家所認為的價值,例如,一般所說的「女性的虐待狂」,應該括弧起來,接受認真的審察。它屬於一種對話,在許多方面,可以被定義為男性的幻想

There is every reason to believe that to sustain this phantasy would be an act of complicity on our part. In order not to deliver ourselves up completely to the results of Anglo-Saxon research, which is not worth very much on this subject, even if there is a certain amount of consent on the part of women in it, which means nothing—we analysts will confine ourselves, more legitimately, to the women in our own group. It is quite striking to see that the representatives of this sex in the analytic circle are particularly disposed to maintain the fundamental belief in feminine masochism. It may be that there is a veil here, concerning the interests of the sex, that should not be lifted too quickly. In any case, this is an excursion from our subject, but an excursion profoundly linked to it, as you will see, for we shall have to come back to a consideration of this link.

有許多理由,可以相信,維持男性的這個幻想,是我們參與共犯的一個舉動。為了不要全盤接受英國方面的研究,我們精神分析師將我們的立場,合情合理地限制於我們自己團體的女人。英國方面對於這個問題的研究,並沒有多大價值,雖然在女性虐待狂方面有些共識,但沒有多大意義。耐人尋味地,在精神分析圈的女性的代表,特別傾向於維持對於女性虐待狂的基本信仰。有關對於女性虐待狂的興趣,可能有一層遮掩的面紗,我們不應該太早把它揭開。無論如何,它會離開我們討論的本題,但是你們將會看到,這個離題,跟我們的本題還是有千絲萬縷的關聯,因為我們還是要回來討論這個關聯。

However, at this level, we can learn nothing from the field of love, that is to say, from the framework of narcissism, which, as Freud shows quite clearly in this article, is made up of the insertion of the autoerotisch in the organized interests of the ego. Within this framework, there may well be a representation of the objects of the external world, choice and discernment, the possibility of knowledge, in short the whole field with which classical psychology concerned itself is included in it. But nothing—and that is why all psychology of the affections has, up to Freud, failed —nothing represents in it the Other, the radical Other, the Other as such.

可是,在這個層次,我們從愛的領域,換言之,從自戀的架構,並沒有學習到什麼。佛洛伊德在這篇文章相當清楚地告訴我們,自戀的架構的組成,是因為自我性愛插入自我的精打細算的利益區。在自戀這個架構之內,很有理由有一個外在世界的客體的符號,精緻而明辨,慎思而睿智,總之,古典心理學所關心的自戀的整個領域,都被包括在裡面。但是,裡面沒有一樣東西,沒有一樣東西代表大它者,激進的大它者,大它者的自身。這就是為什麼所有有關感情心理學,一直到佛洛伊德,都功敗垂成的原因。

This representation of the Other is lacking, specifically, between the two opposed worlds that sexuality designates for us in the masculine and the feminine. Carrying things as far as they will go, one might even say that the masculine ideal and the feminine ideal are represented in the psyche by something
other than this activity/passivity opposition of which I spoke earlier. Strictly speaking, they spring from a term that I have not introduced, but of which one female psycho-analyst has pin-pointed the feminine sexual attitude—the term masquerade.

這個大它者的符號是欠缺的,明確地說,在男女之間的性,所指明出來的兩個相對立的世界。若是將這些事情發揮到極致,我們甚至可以說,男性的理想與女性的理想,在心理方面,還不是我早先所提到的主動與被動的對立,就能代表得了的。嚴格來說,它們起源於我還沒有介紹的一個術語,那就是偽裝。女性的精神分析師曾經一針見血地指出,女性對於性的態度,就是偽裝。

Masquerade is not that which comes into play in the display necessary, at the level of the animals, to coupling, and in any case display is usually to be seen on the side of the male. Masquerade has another meaning in the human domain, and that is precisely to play not at the imaginary, but at the symbolic,
level.

偽裝並不是指在動物的層次,由於性交構的需求,而運作的技能。無論在任何狀況,偽裝的展現,都是在雄性這方面被觀察到。偽裝在人類的領域,還有另外一層意義。偽裝的運作,確實不是在想像界的層次,而是在符號界的層次。

It is on this basis that it now remains to us to show that sexuality as such comes into play, exercises its proper activity, through the mediation—paradoxical as that may seem—of the partial drives.

就是根據這個基礎,有待我們去揭露的是,性的本身,要透過欲望的部份驅力的媒介,才能運作,才能發揮它適當的活動,雖然聽起來有點矛盾。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座235

January 11, 2010

拉岡講座235
‘5
FROM LOVE TO THE LIBIDO
從愛到力比多

The subject and the Other.
主體與大它者

Today I intend—this does not mean that I will have the time to do so—to take you from love, at the threshold of which I left things last time, to the libido.

今天,我想跟你們從愛談論到力比多,這是我上一次提到,但是沒有來得及發揮。今天也未必能有時間全部講完。

I will say at the outset what will be the burden of this elucidation by saying that the libido is not something fleeting or fluid, it cannot be divided up, or accumulated, like magnetism, in the centres of focusing offered it by the subject. The libido is to be conceived as an organ, in both senses of the term, as organ-part of the organism and as organ-instrument.

一開始,我將先說,我這樣說明有何負擔。力比多並不是瞬間或流動的東西,它無法像磁場一樣被分割,或累積,在主體提供給它的專注的中心。力比多應該被構想為一個器官,作為有機體的部份器官,跟作為器官工具。

I apologize if, as someone remarked last time, there are some obscurities along the way I take you. I believe that obscurity is characteristic of our field. Let us not forget that it is usual to represent the unconscious as a cellar, even as a cave, by way of allusion to Plato’s cave. But it is not a good comparison. The unconscious is much more like the bladder, and this bladder can be seen only if one places a little light inside it. Why should one be surprised if it sometimes takes a little time for the light
to come on?

上一次,有人評論我演講的內容艱澀難懂,對於此點,我甚表歉意。我相信,艱澀難懂正是我們精神分析領域的特色。讓我們不要忘了,無意識通常被比喻為地窖,甚至比喻為洞穴,如柏拉圖以洞穴比喻人的認知處境。但是這樣的比喻並不恰當。無意識更像是囊袋,囊袋裡面要有一點兒光線,才能看得見。假如光線要等一段時間才會出來,這有什麼好驚奇的?

In the subject who, alternately, reveals himself and conceals himself by means of the pulsation of the unconscious, we apprehend only partial drives. The ganze Sexualstrebung, the representation of the totality of the sexual drive, is not to be found there, Freud tells us. Following Freud, I will lead you
along the path of this conclusion, and I would state quite clearly that everything I have learnt from my experience accords with it. I cannot expect everybody here to agree with it fully, since some of you do not have this experience, but your presence here is evidence of a certain trust in what we shall call—in the role in which I am in relation to you, that of the Other—good faith. This good faith is no doubt always a precarious assumption—for where, in the end, does this relation of the subject to the Other end?

人作為主體,憑藉無意識的悸動,輪替顯露自己,旋又隱藏自己。我們所能理解的,只是部份客體。佛洛伊德告訴過我們,性的驅力,還無法完全代表無意識的整體性。我追隨佛洛伊德之後,引導你們繼續探索這個結論。我清楚地告訴你們,我從精神分析的經驗所體會到,跟這個結論完全符合。我無法期望在此的每個人都完全贊同我的觀點,因為你們有些人未必有這個經驗。但是你們出席在現場,就是證明你們有某個程度的信任,對於我跟你們有類似大它者的關係。無可置疑,這個信任未必都是一成不變,因為,人作為主體,跟大它者的關係,最後要發展到哪裡,誰能說個確定呢?

What I, Lacan, following the traces of the Freudian excavation, am telling you is that the subject as such is uncertain because he is divided by language. Through the effects of speech, the subject always realizes himself more in the Other, but he is already pursuing there more than half of himself. He will simply find his desire ever more divided, pulverized, in the circumscribable metonymy of speech. The effects of language are always mixed with the fact, which is the basis of the analytic experience, that the subject is subject only from being subjected to the field of the Other, the subject proceeds from his synchronic subjection in the field of the Other.

拉岡,我,追隨佛洛伊德的研究,現在所要告訴你們的是,人作為這樣的主體,是不確定的,因為他被語言所切割。受到語言的影響,主體總是從大它者那裡,體現他自己,但是他從大它者那裡,總是只追尋到自己的一半多一些而已。他將發現,儘管大它者演說得頭頭是道,他自己的欲望卻更加被切割,更加被粉碎。語言的影響,總是脫離不開現實,這也是精神分析經驗的基礎所在。人只有屈服於大它者的領域,才形成自己的主體。這個主體就在屈服於大它者領域的瞬間,才繼續發展。

That is why he must get out, get himself out, and in the getting-himself-out, in the end, he will know that the real Other has, just as much as himself, to get himself Out, to pull himself free. It is here that the need for good faith becomes imperative, a good faith based on the certainty that the same implication of difficulty in relation to the ways of desire is also in the Other.

那就是為什麼他必須掙扎,掙脫出來。就在讓自己掙脫出來的過程,最後他會知道,這個真實界代表的大它者,跟他一樣,必須讓他解脫,讓他獲得自由。就在這個地方,信心的需要是不可或缺的。它必須堅決地相信,就欲望的滿足而言,大它者遭遇的困難不會比他更少。

The truth, in this sense, is that which runs after truth—and that is where I am running, where I am taking you, like Actaeon’s hounds, after me. When I find the goddess’s hiding place, I will no doubt be changed into a stag, and you can devour me, but we still have a little way to go yet.

就這層意義來說,真理就是真理的追尋。那就是我正在追尋的地方,我正在引導你們,像阿達安帶著獵犬,隨著我去的地方。當我發現,戴安娜女神裸露身體正在幽深河流處戲水,我雀躍地一撲而上。毫無疑問地,我將被轉變成一隻雄鹿,而你們會像獵犬般將我吞噬。不過,我們距離這個結局,依舊還有一段路要走。

I
Did I perhaps represent Freud to you last time as some such figure as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? In his Le Salutpourlesjujfs, Leon Bloy depicts them as three equally old men who are there, according to one of the forms of Israel’s vocation, squatting around some piece of canvas on the ground, engrossed in that eternal occupation of dealing in second-hand goods. They are sorting out the various objects on the canvas. Some things they put on one side, others on the other. On one side, Freud puts the partial drives and on the other love. He says— They’re not the same.

上一次,我不是將佛洛伊德,比喻為像是阿伯拉罕、以撒克、及約伯,等先知的人物?在Le Salutpourlesjujfs 這本書中,里昂、布洛伊將他們那描述為三位年紀差不多的老人,依照以色列的職業種類,蹲坐在地上的帆布上,專注於買賣二手貨品的常年行業。他們將各種物品分門別類排列在帆布上。有些東西放在一邊,還有一些放在另一邊。在一邊,佛洛伊德放置的是部份客體,在另一邊,放置的是愛。他們並不相同。

The drives necessitate us in the sexual order—they come from the heart. To our great surprise, he tells us that love, on the other hand, comes from belly ,from the world of yum-yum. It may come as a surprise, but it elucidates for us something fundamental to analytic experience, namely, that the genital
drive, if it exists, is not at all articulated like the other drives —in spite of the love-hate ambivalence. In his premises, and in his own texts, Freud completely contradicts himself when he tells us that ambivalence may be regarded as one of the characteristics of the reversal of the Verkehrung of the drive.

各種驅力使我們必須被放置在性的秩序,它們來自心。令我們大吃一驚的,他告訴我們說,在另一方面,愛來自小腹部,來自甜美的性世界。這種說法也許出人意料之外,但是它替我們說明,在精神分析經驗最根本的東西,換言之,性器官的驅力,儘管具有愛恨交加的模稜兩可,若是存在,表現方式跟其它驅力完全不一樣。在他的假設,及在他的本文,佛洛伊德完全自我矛盾。他告訴我們,愛恨交加的模稜兩可,可以被認為是驅力的性器官具有翻轉功能的特色。

But when he examines it, he tells us quite clearly that ambivalence and reversion are not at all the same thing. If, therefore, the genital drive does not exist, then it can get f. . . formed somewhere else, on the other side from the one in which the drive is to be found, on the left of my schema on the blackboard. You will have noticed already that it is on the right, in the field of the Other, that the genital drive has to find its form.

但是他檢視性的驅力時,佛洛伊德相當清楚地告訴我們,愛恨交加及彼此翻轉,完全是兩碼子事。因此,性的驅力即使不存在此處,它仍然能夠在別處形成,在驅力能夠被找到的地方的別處形成,在我畫在黑板上的這個基型的左邊形成。你們可能已經發現到,性的驅力必須是在右邊,在大它者的領域,找到它的形式。

Well! This is precisely borne out by what we learn in the analytic experience, namely, that the genital drive is subjected to the circulation of the Oedipus complex, to the elementary and other structures of kinship. This is what is designated as the field of culture—somewhat inadequately, because this field is
supposed to be based on a no man’s land in which genitality as such subsists, whereas it is in fact dissolved, not re-assembled, for the ganze Sexualsirebung is nowhere apprehensible in the subject.
Yet because it is nowhere, it is nevertheless diffused, and it is this that Freud is trying to convey to us in this article.

好罷!這確實是我們從精神分析經驗獲知所證實,換言之,性的驅力隸屬於伊底普斯情結的流通的轄域,隸屬於親屬關係的最基本及其它的結構。這就是被指明為文化領域的東西。這樣說相當不貼切,因為文化的這個領域,基礎應該被建立在,性的驅力的存活,有賴於超越個人的領域,但實際上,性的驅力在此受到瓦解,而不是重新組合,因為主體的性的欲望的凝視,完全無法讓人理解。可是,它儘管無法讓人理解,卻又是四處散播。就是這一點,佛洛伊德在這篇文章,設法要傳達給我們的。

Everything he says about love tends to emphasise the fact that, in order to conceive of love, we must necessarily refer to another sort of structure than that of the drive. He divides this structure into three, three levels—the level of real, the level of the economic and the level of the biological.

他談到愛的種種現象,用意在強調這個事實:為了構想愛是什麼,我們必須在軀力的結構之外,先提到另一種結構。他將這種結構區分為三個層次:真實界的層次、經濟界的層次,及生物界的層次。

To these levels correspond three oppositions. To the level of the real corresponds the that-which-interests/that-which is- indifferent opposition. To the level of the economic, that which-
gives-pleasure/that-which-displeases. It is only at the level of the biological that the activity/passivity opposition presents itself; in its own form, the only valid one in its grammatical sense, the loving/being loved position.

針對於這三種層次,對應著三種對立。針對真實界的層次,對應著引人興趣與冷漠相待的對立;針對經濟的層次,對應著給人快樂與令人不悅的對立。只有在生物的這個層次,主動與被動的對立,才會以自己的方式出現。愛與被愛的立場,在文法的語態上是能自圓其說的。

We are invited by Freud to consider that love, in its essence, can be judged only as a sexual passion of thegesamt Ich. Now, in Freud, gesamt Ich is a hapax, to be understood in the sense suggested in his account of the pleasure principle. The gesam: Ich is the field that I have invited you to regard as a surface and a fairly limited surface so that the blackboard is able to represent it, and so that everything may be included in it on paper. I am referring to the network that is represented by arcs, lines linking points of convergence, of which the closed circle marks whatever is to be preserved in tensional homeostasis, in lower tension, in necessary diversion, in diffusion of excitement into innumerable channels—whenever it might be too intense in any one of them.

佛洛伊德要求我們認為,在其本質上,愛的真實與否,只有當著是一種真實自我的性的激情,才能夠被判斷。現在,在佛洛伊德的用詞,真實自我是一種歡愉自在,我們應該從他描述快樂原理所用的意義來理解。真實自我這個領域,我建議你們將它視為是一個表面,而且是一個相當有限的表面。這樣,我才能夠在黑板上畫出來,在論文報告包括在裡面。我現在所提到的是各種弧線代表的網絡,各種聯繫線的匯聚點,封閉的圓圈代表緊張的體內平衡所保存的東西,例如,愛的強烈緊張,各種必須的娛樂,興奮的洋溢一處容不下,就散發到無數的頻道。

The filtering from stimulation to discharge is the apparatus, the dome, to be circumscribed on a sphere, in which is defined at first what he calls the stage of the Real-Ich. And it is to this that, later in his discourse, he attributes the qualification autoerotisch.

從興奮刺激,到發洩的過濾,就是我們在一個球狀領域所劃定界限的裝置領域。佛洛伊德所講的真實自我的階段,就被劃分在那裡。在他後來的論述,佛洛伊德又添加「自動性欲」的特質,到這個領域。

Analysts have concluded from this that—as it must be situated somewhere in what is called development, and since what Freud says is gospel—the infant must regard everything around him as indifferent. One wonders how things can go on, in a field of observers for whom articles of faith have such overwhelming value in relation to observation. For, after all, if there is one thing that cannot be said about the infant it is that he shows no interest in what enters his field of perception.

精神分析師從這裡得到一個結論:真實自我必須在所謂成長的過程找到定位,既然佛洛伊德所說像是人間福音,嬰兒看待周圍世界,必然先是冷眼旁觀。他們會驚奇,周遭的世界是怎麼一回事。他們處於一個觀察者的領域,信心的培養對於觀察會有舉足輕重的影響。畢竟,關於嬰兒,有一件絕對不可能發生的事情,那就是他們對於進入他們感官領域的東西,絕對不會不感到興趣。

There can be no doubt that there are objects deriving from the earliest period of the neo-natal phase. Autoerotisch can in no way mean a lack of interest in them. If you read Freud on this, you will see that the second stage, the economic stage, consists precisely in that the second Ich—the second in a de jure sense, the second in logical sequence—is the Lust-Ich, which he calls purifiziert, the purified Lust-Ich, which is established in the field exterior to the dome in which I designate the first Real-Ich of
Freud’s explanation.

無可置疑地,在新生嬰兒的早期階段,我們會得到一些東西。自動性欲絲毫並不意味著,嬰兒對於性欲欠缺興趣。假如你閱讀佛洛伊德,你會看出,第二階段,經濟的階段,確實就是在那第二自我,具有欲望的第二自我,在形成順序上的第二自我,在那個欲望的自我,他稱之為「最純粹的欲望的自我」。這第二自我,被建立的領域,處於佛洛伊德所解釋的第一個真實的自我的領域的外圍。

The autoerotisch consists in the fact—and Freud himself stresses this—that there would be no emergence of objects if there were no objects of use to me. This is the criterion of the emergence and distribution of objects. Here, then, is constituted the Lust-Ich, and also the field of the Unlust, of the object as remainder, as alien. The object that one needs to know, and with good reason, is that which is
defined in the field of Unlust, whereas the objects of the field of the Lust-Ich are lovable. The hassen, with its profound link with knowledge, is the other field.

自動性欲在於這個事實,佛洛伊德自己也強調這一點,假如我不覺得有任何東西對我有用途,那些東西對我而言,等於是不存在。這就是東西的存在及散佈的標準。因此,欲望的自我就是如此構成,無欲望的領域也如此構成,東西作為一種客體的殘餘物,像是外星人寄居我們的體內。我們所需要去知道,而且理所當然需要去知道的東西,就是在位於無欲望領域的東西,儘管欲望的自我的領域的東西,看起來比較可愛。在無欲望這個它者的領域,主體恍然大悟時,愛常常轉變成恨。

At this level, there is no trace of drive functions, except those that are not true drives, and which Freud calls in his text the Ichtriebe. The level of the Ich is not that of the drive, and it is there—I would ask you to read the text very attentively—that Freud grounds love. Everything that is defined in this way at the level of the Ich assumes sexual value, passes from the Er/witungstrieb, from preservation, to the Sexualtrieb, only in terms of the appropriation of each of these fields, its seizure, by one of the partial drives. Freud says quite clearly that Vorhangung des Wesentlichen, to bring out the essential here, it is purely passive, in non-drive, way that the subject records the ãusseren Reize, that which comes from the external world. Its activity comes only durch seine eigene Triebe, from its own drives. It is a question here of the diversity of the partial drives. In this way, we are brought to the third level that he introduces, that of activity/passivity.2

在這個層次,並沒有驅力的功用的痕跡,除了那些並不是屬於真正驅力的功用,那些功用的痕跡,佛洛伊德稱之為「自我的驅力」。這個自我的層次,並不是驅力的層次。我要求你們很仔細地閱讀佛洛伊德本文,他將自我的層次建立在愛的基礎上。在自我的層次,以這種方式定義的一切東西,都具有性的價值,從性的自我保存功能,傳遞到性的驅力,用性充當部份客體,奪取那些領域的各個領域。佛洛伊德很清楚地說,為了顯示自我的真實本質,主體以純粹是被動的,非外在驅力的方式,記錄這個來自外在世界的客體。主體的活動只是來自它自己的驅力。當然,這個問題牽涉到部份驅力的多樣形態的問題。以這種方式,我們開始要談到佛洛伊德介紹的第三個層次,也就是主動與被動的層次。

Before noting the consequences of this, I would simply like to draw your attention to the classic character of this conception of love. Is there any need to stress that se vouloir son bien, to wish
oneself one’s own well being, is exactly the equivalent of what is traditionally called the physical theory of love, St Thomas’s velle bonum alicui, which, for us, on account of the function of
narcissism has exactly the same value. I have long stressed the specious character of this supposed altruism, which is pleased to preserve whose well being?—of him who, precisely, is necessary to us.

在談到它的結果之前,我僅想要提醒你們注意,愛的觀念在傳統上具有的特性。我有需要再三強調嗎?祈求自己一生的幸福,完全就是等於傳統上,如聖、湯姆士所稱為的愛的具體理論嗎?自戀的功用不也具有完全相同的價值?我曾經一再強調,大家都公認,自利的人也具有利他的特性。這個利他的特性,是想要維護誰的幸福呢?準確地說,是要維護跟我們有必要關係的人的幸福。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座234

January 8, 2010

拉岡講座234

Partial Object and its Circuit
部份客體及其流通

3
Let us now follow Freud when he talks to us about Schaulust, seeing, being seen. Is it the same thing? How can it even be sustained that it can be that, except by inscribing it in terms of signifiers? Or is there, then, some other mystery? There is a quite different one, and, in order to introduce you to it, I have only to point out that Schaulust is manifested in perversion. I stress that the drive is not perversion. What constitutes the enigmatic character of Freud’s presentation derives precisely from the fact that he wishes to give us a radical structure—in which the subject is not yet placed. On the contrary, what
defines perversion is precisely the way in which the subject is placed in it.

佛洛伊德跟我們談過觀看及被觀看,讓我接下去談。觀看與被觀看是同一件事嗎。?這個觀點怎麼可能自圓其說,除非是用意符的差異?或者,還有其它的奧妙?有一個相當不同的奧妙,容我在此介紹一下。我所要指出的是,觀看常以變態的方式展現。可是,我強調一點:驅力不是變態。
佛洛伊德呈現這個觀點,有些晦澀難解之處,主要是在於他希望給予一個激進的結構,在主體尚位找到定位以前。相反的,變態的定義,恰恰就是主體的位置所在。

We must read Freud’s text very attentively here. The value of Freud’s texts on this matter, in which he is breaking new ground, is that like a good archaeologist, he leaves the work of the dig in place—so that, even if it is incomplete, we are able to discover what the excavated objects mean. When Mr
Fenichel passes by the same ground, he does as one used to do, he gathers everything up, puts it in his pockets and in glass cases, without any kind of order, or at least in a completely arbitrary order, so that nothing can be found again.

我們必須非常仔細地閱讀佛洛伊德的本文。佛洛伊德對於這個觀點的本文的價值,發前人所未見。就像是一位優秀考古學家的本文,他將他挖掘的遺跡留在那裡,雖然未竟全功,我們還能夠繼續去發現,已經被挖掘出來的東西是什麼?。當精神分析師菲尼差,經過相同的遺址時,跟一般人以前的做法一樣,他將所有的東西收攏起來,放進他的口袋跟玻璃櫃,沒有整理,至少沒有分門別類地整理。所以,在那裡,再沒有什麼可發現了。

What occurs in voyeurism? At the moment of the act of the voyeur, where is the subject, where is the object? I have told you that the subject is not there in the sense of seeing, at the level of the scopic drive. He is there as pervert and he is situated only at the culmination of the loop. As for the object—this is
what my topology on the blackboard cannot show you, but can allow you to admit—the loop turns around itself; it is a missile, and it is with it, in perversion, that the target is reached.

窺視狂發生什麼事?在窺視動作的那個時刻,主體在哪理?客體在哪裡?我曾告訴過你們,從觀看的意義,在視覺驅力的層次,主體並不在那裡。主體在那裡是作為一為變態者,他的位置是在圈套位置的最上方。至於客體,我畫在黑板上的圖形沒有顯示,但是你們還是能夠看得出來:客體就在圈套的倒轉處。那客體就像是一顆飛彈,在變態中,目標被飛彈擊中。

The object, here, is the gaze—the gaze that is the subject, which attains it, which hits the bull’s eye in target-shooting. I have only to remind you what I said of Sartre’s analysis. Although this analysis brings out the agency of the gaze, it is not at the level of the other whose gaze surprises the subject looking
through the keyhole. It is that the other surprises him, the subject, as entirely hidden gaze.

在此的客體,就是凝視。主體以凝視充當飛彈,在瞄準時,擊中靶心目標。我只需要提醒你們,我曾談過對於沙特小說的分析。雖然這篇分析揭露凝視的功能,可是透過鑰匙孔正在偷窺的主體,所受到的驚嚇,我當時並沒有提到是它者的凝視。

You grasp here the ambiguity of what is at issue when we speak of the scopic drive. The gaze is this object lost and suddenly refound in the conflagration of shame, by the introduction of the other. Up to that point, what is the subject trying to see? What he is trying to see, make no mistake, is the object as
absence. What the voyeur is looking for and finds is merely a shadow, a shadow behind the curtain. There he will phantasize any magic of presence, the most graceful of girls, for example, even if on the other side there is only a hairy athlete. What he is looking for is not, as one says, the phallus—but precisely its absence, hence the pre-eminence of certain forms as objects of his search.

當我們提到視覺的驅力,你了解到爭議的問題有些模糊。凝視是這個迷失的客體,然後在羞愧交加的災難中,由於它者的介入,重新被找回。直到現在,主體到底設法要觀看什麼?無可置疑地,他一直設法觀看的,就是客體做為一種欠缺。窺視狂找到的,只是一個陰影,一個窗簾背後的陰影。例如,他會將任何存在現場的東西,馳騁幻想為風華絕代的驚豔美人,但實際上,在門後的另一邊,那只是一位頭髮蓬鬆的運動員。他所正在尋找的,不是陽具,如一般人所說,而道道地地是陽具的欠缺,因此某些的東西就會突顯出來,作為他尋求的客體。

What one looks at is what cannot be seen. If, thanks to tic’ introduction of the other, the structure of the drive appears, it is really completed only in its reversed form, in its return form, which is the true active drive. In exhibitionism what is intended by the subject is what is realized in the other. The true aim of desire is the other, as constrained, beyond his involvement in the scene. It is not only the victim who is concerned in exhibitionism, it is the victim as referred to some other who is looking at him.

我們所觀看的東西,其實是無法看得見的東西。藉著它者這個術語的介紹,驅力的結構展現出來。驅力只有在其倒轉的形式,在其回轉的形式,才算功德圓滿,才算是真正的激烈的驅力。在暴露狂的展示中,主體所企圖的目標,要在它者那裡,才能夠被實現。欲望的真正目的是它者,是主體身不由己地介入於現場之外的它者。在暴露狂的展示,關係到的不僅僅是受害者,而且是某個正在觀看他的它者的受害者。

Thus in this text, we have the key, the nodus, of what has been so much an obstacle to the understanding of masochism. Freud articulated in the most categorical way that at the outset of the sado-masochistic drive, pain has nothing to do with it. It is a question of a Herrschaft, of Bewdltigung, violence done to what?—to something that is so unspeakable that Freud arrives at the conclusion, and at the same time recoils from it, that its first model, in accordance with everything I have told you, is
to be found in a violence that the subject commits, with a view to mastery, upon himself.

因此,在這個本文,我們找到關鍵,一直以來阻礙我們了解受虐狂的關鍵點。佛洛伊德條分縷析地表達,剛開始時,虐待狂與受虐狂的驅力,跟痛苦沒有絲毫沒有關係,而是跟對於某個東西施加的暴力有關。這個東西無法言喻,佛洛伊德在結論時,已經抵達,而又退縮。這個東西,我一直在告訴你們。 我們能夠找它的第一個模式,在主體為了控制自己,對於自己所從事的暴力。

He recoils from it. And with good reason. The ascetic who flagellates himself does it for a third party. Now, this is not what he is trying to convey. He wishes only to designate the return, the insertion on one’s own body, of the departure and the end of the drive.

佛洛伊德退縮,而且理由充份。苦行修行者鞭打自己,不是表演給第三者看的。現在,他所要表達的不是表演。他只希望表示,驅力的出發跟目的,會回轉過來,插入他自己的身體

At what moment, says Freud, do we see the possibility of pain introduced into the sado-masochistic drive?—the possibility of pain undergone by him who has become, at that moment, the subject of the drive. It is, he tells us, at the moment when the loop is closed, when it is from one pole to the other that there has been a reversal, when the other has come into play, when the subject has taken himself as the end, the terminus of the drive.

佛洛伊德問道,在什麼時刻,我們才有可能看到,痛苦被介紹到虐待狂與受虐狂的驅力呢?就在他成為驅力的主體的那個時刻,他才可能經歷到痛苦。佛洛伊德告訴我們,就在圈套封閉的時刻,就在從一端到另一端,它者開始運作,而發生倒轉的時刻。在那個時刻,主體已經將自己當著是目標,驅力的終點。

At this moment, pain comes into play in so far as the subject experiences it from the other. He will become, will be able to become, in his theoretical deduction, a sadistic subject, in so far as the completed loop of the drive will have brought into play the action of the other. What is at issue in the drive is finally revealed here—the course of the drive is the only form of transgression that is permitted to the subject in relation to the pleasure principle.

在這時刻,痛苦開始運作,因為主體從它者那裡經驗到痛苦。在他這個戲劇性的演變中,他將成為,也將能夠成為一位虐待狂的主體,因為驅力的完整的迴旋,使它者的行動開使運作。驅力飽受爭議的地方終於在此顯現出來:相較於快樂原理,驅力的途徑是主體唯一被允許的逾越的形式。

The subject will realize that his desire is merely a vain detour with the aim of catching the jouissance of the other—in so far as the other intervenes, he will realize that there is a jouissance beyond the pleasure principle.

主體將會體會到,為了要獲得它者的歡躍,他的欲望僅僅是一個徒勞無功的迂迴。當它者介入的時刻,他將體會到,歡躍存在於快樂原理之外。

The forcing of the pleasure principle by the effect of the partial drive—it is by this that we may conceive that the partial, ambiguous drives are installed at the limit of an Erhaltungstrieb, of the maintenance of a homeostasis, of its capture by the veiled face that is that of sexuality.

快樂原理受到部份驅力的影響所逼迫。從這裡,我們可以構想,這個曖昧的部份驅力,被安置在維持體內平衡的最高點,它被戴面紗的臉孔,也就是性作為臉孔的凝視所捕捉。

It is in so far as the drive is evidence of the forcing of the pleasure principle that it provides us with evidence that beyond the Real-Ich, another reality intervenes, and we shall see by what return it is this other reality, in the last resort, that has given to this Real-Ich its structure and diversification.

因為驅力證明是快樂原理的逼迫,它也證明,在真實的自我之外,還有另外一個真實界介入。我們將會看到,這個它者的真實界,在最後,會以怎樣的翻轉,使原有的真實的自我,享有更豐富充實的生命光輝。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座233

January 6, 2010

拉岡講座233

Partial Object and its Circuit
部份的客體及其流通
2
Freud now introduces us to the drive by one of the most traditional ways, using at every moment the resources of the language, and not hesitating to base himself on something that belongs only to certain linguistic systems., the three voices, active, passive and reflexive. But this is merely an envelope. We must see that this signifying reversion is something other, something other than what it dresses in. What is fundamental at the level of each drive is the movement outwards and back in which it is structured.

佛洛伊德現在以傳統的方式,為我們介紹驅力。他不時使用語言的資源,毫不遲疑地,他將基礎建立於只屬於某些語言系統的東西上,如主動、被動、反身及物、三個語態。但這只是外表包裝。我們必須看出,意符的翻轉是某件其它不同於它所包裝的東西。驅力層次最基本的東西,是它自己的結構向外衝撞而又回來的動作。

It is remarkable that Freud can designate these two poles simply by using something that is the verb. Beschauen und beschaut werden, to see and to be seen, qualen and gequalt werden, to torment and to be tormented. This is because, from the outset, Freud takes it as understood that no part of this distance
covered can be separated from its outwards-and-back movement, from its fundamental reversion, from the circular character of the path of the drive.

耐人尋味的是,佛洛伊德僅僅使用動詞的主被動,如看見與被看見,折磨與被折磨,來指明這兩個極端。這是因為從一開始,佛洛伊德認為他所研究發現的東西,大家都已經心知肚明,不外乎是:向外衝撞而又回來的動作,驅力的根本的翻轉,以及驅力的途徑具有循環的特性。

Similarly, it is remarkable that, in order to illustrate the dimension of this Verkehrung, he should choose Schaulust, the pleasure of seeing, and what he cannot designate other than by the combination of two terms in sado-masochism. When he speaks of these two drives, and especially of masochism, he is careful to observe that there are not two stages in these drives, but three. One must distinguish the return into the circuit of the drive of that which appears—but also does not appear—in a third stage. Namely, the appearance of em neues Subjekt, to be understood as follows—not in the sense that there is already one, namely the subject of the drive, but in that what is new is the appearance of a subject. This subject, which is properly the other, appears in so far as the drive has been able to show its
circular course. It is only with its appearance at the level of the other that what there is of the function of the drive may be realized.

同樣耐人尋味的是,為了解釋這個來回的疏離,他竟然選擇窺視的快樂一詞,以及不得不使用虐待狂與受虐狂兩個術語來說明。當他提到這兩種驅力,特別是受虐狂,他仔細地觀察到,這兩種驅力並不是兩個階段,而是三個階段。我們必須區別驅力的循環回來時,若有若失的東西隱隱若現,那就是第三階段。換言之,這個第三階段的出現,可以被理解如下:不是驅力的主體事先存在,新奇的妙事是,主體現在才出現。這個主體,貼切地說,就是它者的主體,出現在驅力能夠展現它循環的過程時。只有隨著這個它者的出現,驅力的功用才可能被實現。

It is to this that I would now like to draw your attention. You see here, on the blackboard, a circuit formed by the curve of this rising and redescending arrow that crosses, Drang as it is in its origin, the surface constituted by what I defined last time as the rim, which is regarded in the theory as the source, the Quelle, that is to say, the so-called erogenous zone in the drive. The tension is always loop-shaped and cannot be separated from its return to the erogenous zone.

我現在要提醒你們注意的就是這個。你們在此看到,在黑板上,有一條上升及重新下降的箭頭的曲線,形成一道循環。這條起源於欲望的曲線,越過我上次定義為邊緣所組成的表面。這個邊緣在精神分析理論,被認為是來源所在。換言之,就是所謂驅力的性感地帶。這個敏感的地帶是個迴旋的形狀,無法跟它的的回轉地帶區隔開來。

Here we can clear up the mystery of the zielgelzemmt, of that form that the drive may assume, in attaining its satisfaction without attaining its aim—in so far as it would be defined by a biological function, by the realization of reproductive coupling. For the partial drive does not lie there. What is it?

在此,我們能夠弄清楚,驅力所造成的狀態的神秘,就在於不必到達目標,就得到它的滿足,因為它被定義為一種生物的功能,實現繁殖交配的功用。可是,部份的驅力並不是在那裡。那部份的驅力是什麼?

Let us still suspend the answer, but let us concentrate on this term but, and on the two meanings it may present. In order to differentiate them, I have chosen to notate them here in a language in which they are particularly expressive, English. When you entrust someone with a mission, the aim is not what
he brings back, but the itinerary he must take. The aim is the way taken. The French word but may be translated by another word in English, goal. In archery, the goal is not the but either, it is not the bird you shoot, it is having scored a hit and thereby attained your but.

讓我們暫時不回答這個問題。我們先專注於這個術語,專注於它可能呈現的兩個意義。為了要區別它們,我選擇用特別能使它們表現生動的語言,我用英文來描繪它們的迴轉。當你們信任某個人可以從事某個任務,他所帶回的,不是這個任務的目標,而是他所從事的途徑。「目標」就是所從事的途徑。法文的「但是」在英文可以用另一個字翻譯為「目的」。在拉弓射箭時,目的也不是這個「但是」。目的不是你要射中的鳥,而是你已經達成目的,因此你獲得你的「但是」。

If the drive may be satisfied without attaining what, from the point of view of a biological totalization of function, would be the satisfaction of its end of reproduction, it is because it is a partial drive, and its aim is simply this return into circuit. This theory is present in Freud. He tells us somewhere that
the ideal model for auto-eroticism would be a single mouth kissing itself—a brilliant, even dazzling metaphor, in this respect so typical of everything he writes, and which requires only to be completed by a question. In the drive, is not this mouth what might be called a mouth in the form of an arrow?—a
mouth sewn up, in which, in analysis, we see indicating as clearly as possible, in certain silences, the pure agency of the oral drive, closing upon its own satisfaction.

假如驅力的得到滿足,不必從生物的整體的功用而言,經由它的繁殖交配的目的來得到,那是因為部份的驅力的存在,而它的目的僅僅就是回轉到它的循環。這個理論,佛洛伊德已經提出。他在某個地方曾告訴我們:性衝動的自動機能,理想的模式將是一張嘴巴的自吻。這個比喻生猛鮮活,形容佛洛伊德的著作等身,再貼切不過。還有待回答的只剩一個問題。在驅力的迴圈,嘴巴難道不就是箭頭形狀的那個開口處的嘴巴?那個被縫合的嘴巴?在精神分析經驗,我們很清楚看到,在某些沉默的時刻,口腔的驅力欲語還休,一經滿足就封閉。

In any case, what makes us distinguish this satisfaction from the mere auto-eroticism of the erogenous zone is the object that we confuse all too often with that upon which the drive closes —this object, which is in fact simply the presence of a hollow, a void, which can be occupied, Freud tells us, by any object, and whose agency we know only in the form of the lost object, the petit a. The objet petit a is not the origin of the oral drive. It is not introduced as the original food, it is introduced from the fact that no food will ever satisfy the oral drive, except by circumventing the eternally lacking object.

無論如何,區別這個滿足,跟性感地帶的性衝動的自動機能的滿足,有何不同的地方,就是我們時常將驅力的封閉,混淆成為它的客體。事實上,這個客體僅僅是一個空洞的存在,一個無法被任何客體佔據的空無,佛洛伊德如此告訴我們,我們只是知道,這個客體的代理是失落的客體,小客體。這個小客體不是口腔驅力的起源。它不是被介紹作為原初的食物。它之所以被介紹,是因為食物永遠滿足不了口腔的驅力,食物只是權充對於這個永遠失落的客體的代理。

The question now confronting us is this—where is this circuit plugged in and, to begin with, is it spiral in form, that is to say, is the circuit of the oral drive continued by the anal drive, which would then be the following stage? Is it a case of dialectical progress being produced out of opposition? Even for
people who are used to us, it is already to carry the question rather far, in the name of some kind of mystery of development, to regard the thing as already acquired, inscribed in the organism.

我們現在面臨的問題是:這個循環的銜接點在哪理?循環起初是迴旋形狀嗎?換言之,口腔驅力的循環,會以下一階段的肛門驅力繼續嗎?這是個陰陽兩性所產生的辯證歷程嗎?你若是將這個問題,當著是你已經在自身的有機體生命獲得驗證,獲得解答,你未免過於自信。即使你對於精神分析經驗甚為熟稔,你要知道,天機奧秘,知之不祥。

This conception seems to be sustained by the fact that as far as the emergence of sexuality in a so-called completed form is concerned, we are certainly dealing with an organic process. But there is no reason to extend this fact to the relation between the other partial drives. There is no relation of production between one of the partial drives and the next.

這個觀念似乎由下面這個事實得到佐證:就性總要達到高潮才會爽快而言,我們確實是在處理有機體的生命過程。但是,我們仍然沒有理由,將這個事實,擴大到其它部份驅力之間的關係。某一部份驅力產生的結果,未必跟下一個部份驅力產生的結果,有任何關係。

The passage from the oral drive to the anal drive can be produced not by a process of maturation, but by the intervention of something that does not belong to the field of the drive—by the intervention, the overthrow, of the demand of the Other. If we introduce the other drives with which the series may be formed, and the number of which is fairly short, it is quite clear that you would find it very difficult indeed to situate in relation to the drives that I have just named, in a historical succession, the Schaulust, or scopic drive, or even what I will later distinguish as the invocatory drive (la pulsion invocante),
and to establish between them the slightest relation of deduction or genesis.

從口腔驅力到肛門驅力的歷程,不一定要經過長大成年的過程,而是要經過驅力以外的某件東西的介入,換言之,經過大它者所要求的介入跟翻轉。即使我介紹過其它數目不多的驅力,例如,我剛剛提到的視覺驅力 或我後來又揭露的祈求驅力,因為它們跟這一系列的形成有關,顯而易見,你們將會發現,要從它們衍生的過程,找到彼此關係的位置,或在彼此之間,建立演變或起源的絲毫關係,確實都不是一件很容易的事情。

There is no natural metamorphosis of the oral drive into the anal drive. Whatever appearances may emerge to the contrary from the play of the symbol constituted, in other contexts, by the supposed anal object, namely, the faeces, in relation to the phallus in its negative effect, we can in no sense— experience shows us — consider that there is a continuity between the anal phase and the phallic phase, that there is a relation of natural metamorphosis.

從口腔驅力到肛門驅力的蛻變,並不是很自然的過程。就組成的符號的運作而言,出現的表象符號,在其它的情境,可能會是完全相反的表象符號。例如,口腔驅力的食物,蛻變成為所謂肛門驅力的客體,換言之,糞便,或陽具驅力的反面作用,尿尿。精神分析經驗告訴我們,我們完全沒有辦法認為,肛門的部份驅力,跟陽具的部份驅力,有任何的連續性,或彼此的蛻變有任何關係。

We must consider the drive under the heading of the kon- stante Kcraft that sustains it as a stationary tension. Let us take a look at the metaphors that Freud gives us to express these outlets. Take Schub, for example, which he immediately translates by the image that it bears in his mind, that of a spindle of
lava, a material emission from the deflagration of energy that has occurred there in various successive stages, which complete, one after another, that form of return journey. Do we not see in the Freudian metaphor the embodiment of this fundamental structure—something that emerges from a rim, which redoubles its enclosed structure, following a course that returns, and of which nothing else ensures the consistency except the object, as something that must be circumvented.

我們考慮驅力,不妨先給它一個大標題:「蓄勢待發」,意思是,驅力被維持作為一種蠢蠢欲動的緊張力量。讓我們先看一下,佛洛伊德為了表達這些發洩,所給予的比喻。以精液為例,他立即以腦海浮現的岩漿的爆發的意象,將它翻譯成為一種能源的逬發,所產生出來的物資。這個物質以各種連續的階段發生在那裡,然後陸續地,繞一圈回轉到原來的地方。從佛洛伊德的這個比喻,我們難道不是看到驅力這個基本結構的具體形象?從邊緣出現的某件東西,以封閉的形狀重疊增加,遵循回轉的途徑前進。除了陽具這個客體,沒有其它一樣東西可以保證它的持續性,因為它沛然莫之能禦。

This articulation leads us to make of the manifestation of the drive the mode of a headless subject, for everything is articulated in it in terms of tension, and has no relation to the subject other than one of topological community. I have been able to articulate the unconscious for you as being situated in
the gaps that the distribution of the signifying investments sets up in the subject, and which figure in the algorithm in the form of a losange [a], which I place at the centre of any relation of the unconscious between reality and the subject. Well! It is in so far as something in the apparatus of the body is structured in the same way, it is because of the topological unity of the gaps in play, that the drive assumes its role in the functioning of the unconscious.

佛洛伊德的表述引導我們將驅力的展現,解釋為無頭主體的亂闖,因為驅力的每一樣東西,都是用緊張力量的術語來表述,而且這些東西,必需是主體處於社會環境之內,才會發生關聯。我之所以能夠表述無意識,因為它的位置,就在意符的投注散佈在主體身上形成的裂口,形狀像是郵戳的四角方塊。我將這個裂口,放置在無意識處於真實界與主體之間的關係中心。驅力扮演它在無意識的功用的角色,如同身體裝置的某件零件的功用,因為這個裂口的運作,在社會環境裡有其脈絡可循。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座232

January 5, 2010

拉岡講座232

THE PARTIAL DRIVE AND ITS CIRCUIT

部份的驅力及其流通

When I read in the Psychoanalytic Quarterly an article like the one by Mr Edward Glover, entitled Freudian or Neo-Freudian, directed entirely against the constructions of Mr Alexander, I sense a sordid smell of stuffiness, at the sight of a construction like that of Mr Alexander being counter-attacked in the name of obsolete criteria. Good Heavens, I did not hesitate to attack it myself in the most categorical way fourteen years ago, at the 1950 Congress of Psychiatry, but, it is the construction of a man of great talent and when I see at what level this construction is discussed, I can pay myself the complement that through all the misadventures that my discourse encounters, here and certainly elsewhere, one can say that this discourse provides an obstacle to the experience of analysis being served up to you in a completely cretinous way.

當我在精神分析學季刊看到一篇文章,作者是格洛波先生,標題是「新佛洛伊德學派」。內容完全指向反對亞力山大先生的學說。我看像亞力山大先生這樣的學說,遭遇到過時的批判標準的抨擊,我覺察到復辟者的故步自封。上天有眼,我自己在十四年前,在1959年的精神分析會議上,我自己也是毫不猶豫地抨擊。不過,我後來目睹他的學說所討論的層次,發現其學說才華橫溢,我開始表示敬意。我自己的論述,也曾經在此地及別地,遭遇過許多阻擾及反對。我們可以說,這個論述對於精神分析學的阻礙,在於窄化應用的範圍。

At this point, I will resume my discourse on the drive. I was led to approach it after positing that the transference is what manifests in experience the enacting of the reality of the unconscious, in so far as that reality is sexuality. I find that I must pause here and ask myself what this very affirmation involves. If we are sure that sexuality is present in action in the transference, it is in so far as at certain moments it is manifested in the open in the form of love. That is what it is about. Does love represent the summit, the culminating point, the indisputable factor, that makes sexuality present for us in the here and now
of the transference?

此時,我將再開始我對於驅力的論述。當我提出,在精神分析經驗,移情顯示無意識的真實界的扮演。因為那個真實界是性,我不得不談到驅力。我發現,我必須在此暫停一下,問問自己,這個肯定牽涉到些什麼?假如我們確定性存在於移情的行動,那是因為某個時刻,愛情的表現方式是性的纏綿。就是這麼一回事。問題是,在移情的當下或當時,愛到最高點,或愛的高潮,無可爭辯地,性必然會出現嗎?

Freud’s text, not, certainly, any specific text, but the central import of those writings that deal with the drives and their vicissitudes, rejects such a view in the clearest possible way. It was this text that I began to approach last time, when I was trying to make you feel in what a problematic form, bristling
with questions, the introduction of the drive presents. I hope that many of you will have been able to refer to this text in the meantime, whether you are able to read it in German, which seems to me eminently desirable, or whether, as second best, you will be able to read it, always more or less improperly translated, in the two other languages of culture, English or French—I certainly give the worst marks to the French translation, but I will not waste time pointing out the veritable
falsifications with which it swarms.

佛洛伊德的本文,確實地,不限於任何明確的本文,在有關處理驅力及其變遷的那些著作的中心思想,都斬釘截鐵地排斥這樣的觀點。上一次,我開始要談論到的就是這個本文。我設法讓你們了解到,介紹驅力會呈現怎樣的困難重重的問題。我希望,你們許多人已經讀過這篇文章。最好是德文版,我認是最直截了當。其次是其它兩種語言,法文版或英文版,雖然翻譯得不盡人意。對於法文版的翻譯,我的批評最不佳。不過,我將不浪費時間挑剔它的錯誤連篇。

Even on a first reading, you would have been able to see that this article falls entirely into two parts—first, the deconstruction of the drive; secondly, the examination of das Lieben, the act of love. We shall now approach this second point.

即使乍看一遍,你都能夠看出,這篇文章全部分成兩個部份:第一、驅力的解構;第二、愛的行為的省察。我們現在從這二點談起。

I
Freud says quite specifically that love can in no way be regarded as the representative of what he puts in question in the terms die ganze Sexualstrebung, that, is to say, the tendency, the forms, the convergence of the striving of the sexual, in so far as it culminates in an apprehensible whole, that would sum up its essence and function.

佛洛伊德相當明確地說,愛絲毫不能被認為是代表die ganze Sexualstrebung,換言之,他質疑的性的追求的傾向、形式、跟匯聚,因為愛的高潮要從整體來理解,這才能概括愛的本質與功能。

ICommt aber auf damit nicht zulier, that’s not at all how it happens, he cries, when answering this far-reaching suggestion. We analysts have rendered it by all sorts of misleading formulae. The whole point of the article is to show us that with regard to the biological finality of sexuality, namely, reproduction, the drives, as they present themselves in the process of psychical reality, are partial drives.

「完全不是那麼一回事!」他聲嘶力竭地說,當他回答這個影響深遠的問題。我們精神分析師詮釋的公式,很多都是誤導。這篇文章的整個重點是要告訴我們,關於性作為生物的最終目標,換言之,性的繁殖或性的驅力,只是部份的驅力,因為它們是出現在心理真實界的過程。

In their structure, in the tension they establish, the drives are linked to an economic factor. This economic factor depends on the conditions in which the function of the pleasure principle is exercised at a level that I will take up again, at the right time, in the term Real-Ich. Let me say at once that we can conceptualize the Real-Ich as the central nervous system in so far as it functions, not as a system of relations, but as a system intended to ensure a certain homeostasis of the internal tensions.

在性衝動的結構,在性衝動造成的緊張,驅力與經濟的因素有關。這個經濟的因素,依靠快樂原理的功能所運作的狀況而定,我曾在適當時刻,以「真實的自我」這個術語名之。容我立即說,這個真實的自我,我們能夠構想為中央的神經系統,因為它的功能不是作為器官彼此關聯的系統,而是一個用來保持內部緊張得到體內平衡的系統。

It is because of the reality of the homeostatic system that sexuality comes into play only in the form of partial drives. The drive is precisely that montage by which sexuality participates in the psychical life, in a way that must conform to the gap-like structure that is the structure of the unconscious.

因為在這個體內平衡的真實界,性只是以部份驅力的形式運作。驅力確實就是那個蒙太奇畫面:性介入主體的精神生活,其形式必須是,跟無意識像是個缺口的結構相一致。

Let us place ourselves at the two extremes of the analytic experience. The primal repressed is a signifier, and we can always regard what is built on this as constituting the symptom qua a scaffolding of signifiers. Repressed and symptom are homogeneous, and reducible to the functions of signifiers. Although their structure is built up step by step like any edifice, it is nevertheless, in the end, inscribable in synchronic terms.

讓我們將自己放置在精神分析經驗的兩個極端。一是、主體的最初的意符,就是已經是被壓抑。我們總是將建造在這個意符之上的東西,當著是病徵的內容,當著是各種意符的鷹架。被壓抑跟病徵是同質性的,最終能還原成為意符的功用。他們的結構像是建築物一樣逐層建造,可是,到最後,這個結構還是可以當下瞬間完成。

At the other extreme, there is interpretation. Interpretation concerns the factor of a special temporal structure that I have tried to define in the term metonymy. As it draws to its end, interpretation is directed towards desire, with which, in a certain sense, it is identical. Desire, in fact, is interpretation itself. In between, there is sexuality. If sexuality, in the form of the partial drives, had not manifested itself as dominating the whole economy of this interval, our experience would be reduced to a mantic, to which the neutral term psychical energy would then have been appropriate, but in which it would miss what constitutes in it the presence, the Dasein, of sexuality.

另一個極端是,我們有解釋的空間。解釋牽涉到特別時間結構的因素,我曾經用轉喻這個術語,定義它的內容。當解釋完畢後,它被導向欲望。在某個意義上,解釋是跟欲望一模一樣。事實上,欲望就是解釋本身。性愛就存在它們兩者之間。假如性愛沒有以部份驅力的方式顯現自己,作為支配這個內部緊張的整個經濟力量,我們精神分析經驗將會淪為江湖術士的算命。我們不如用精神能源這個中性的術語,還貼切些。問題是,算命東拉西扯,就是沒有明言,性欲望的存在蠢蠢欲動。

The legibility of sex in the interpretation of the unconscious mechanisms is always retroactive. It would merely be of the nature of interpretation if, each moment of the history, we could be certain only that the partial drives intervened effectively in time and place. And not, as one tended to believe at the beginning of the analytic experience, in an erratic form. That infantile sexuality is not a wandering block of ice snatched from the great ice-bank of adult sexuality, intervening as an attraction over an immature subject—this was proved at once in analysis and with what, later, might seem a surprising significance.

在解釋無意識機械構造時,性的明顯存在,總是會有逆轉作用。假如在過程的每一個時刻,我們確定的只是,性作為部份客體,隨時隨地介入,都會有效用,那會變成,每次提到性,就可以解釋無意識,而不再是,無意識是撲朔迷離的問題,如精神分析經驗初創時,我們所相信的。例如,
嬰兒的性,並不是從成人的性的大冰庫,捉取出來的幾塊零散冰塊,被用來解釋對於不成熟的主體的吸引。這在精神分析經驗,馬上就可以證實的,嬰兒的性有它令人驚奇的意義。

In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Freud was able to posit sexuality as essentially polymorphous aberrant. The spell of a supposed infantile innocence was broken. Because it was
imposed so early, I would almost say too early, this sexuality made us pass too quickly over an examination of what it essentially represents. That is to say that, with regard to the agency of sexuality, all subjects are equal, from the child to the adult —that they deal only with that part of sexuality that passes into the networks of the constitution of the subject, into the networks of the signifier—that sexuality is realized only through the operation of the drives in so far as they are partial drives, partial
with regard to the biological finality of sexuality.

在「有關性的理論的三篇論文」,佛洛伊德假設,性具有多樣形式的變態。他破除我們一般認為嬰兒是純真無邪的偏見。他很早就下這樣的定論,我幾乎要說,是過早下定論,結果使我們忽略去審察,嬰兒的性所代表的重要意義。換句話說,關於性的代理,所有的人都一樣,從小孩到成年。他們都僅是在他們形成主體的意符的網絡,處理他們遭遇到部份的性。只有透過驅力的運作,性才會當著是部份驅力被實現。就生物的整體而言,性的驅力只是部份。

The integration of sexuality into the dialectic of desire passes through the bringing into play of what, in the body, deserves to be designated by the term apparatus—if you understand by this that with which the body, with regard to sexuality, may fit itself up (s’appareiller) as opposed to that with which bodies may be paired off (s’apparier).

性被合併到欲望的辯證法,是透過在我們的身體,儀器這個術語所應該指明的內容的運作。
假如你了解這個術語的意思是,性是各自的身體,像儀器般,互相跟對方的身體適應,相對於兩個身體的互相交媾。

If all is confusion in the discussion of the sexual drives it is because one does not see that the drive represents no doubt, but merely represents, and partially at that, the curve of fulfillment of sexuality in the living being. Is it surprising that its final term should be death, when the presence of sex in the living being is bound up with death?

有關性的驅力的討論會如此混亂,是因為我們沒有看出,無可置疑地,性代表,僅是代表,而且僅是部份代表,人作為生物主體,性的滿足的部份曲線。若我說,性的最後術語是死亡,性在生物界跟死亡息息相關,你會大吃一驚嗎?

Today I have copied out on the blackboard a fragment of Heracitus, which I found in the monumental work in which Diels has gathered together for us the scattered remains of the pre-Socratic period. To the bow (Bids), he writes, and this emerges for us as one of his lessons in wisdom which, before all
the circuit of scientific elaboration, went straight to the target, to the bow is given the name of life and its work is death.

今天,我在黑板上抄寫幾句赫拉西達思的片斷。這是從帝爾思為我們編輯的那本偉大鉅著,前蘇格拉底時代,保存下來的斷簡殘篇,我挑選出來的片斷。在科學研究昌明之前,他這句智慧的教導啟人深省。他寫到,「拉弓射箭,要直接到達目標,它的目標是生命,但是結果卻是死亡。」

What the drive integrates at the outset in its very existence is a dialectic of the bow, I would even say of archery. In this way we can situate its place in the psychical economy.

從一開始,驅力存在的整體,就是這個拉弓射箭的辯證法。我不妨稱之為生命的弓箭術。以這種方式,我們能夠發現,驅力在精神分析經驗的位置。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座231

January 4, 2010

拉岡講座231

Deconstruction of Drive
驅力的解構

4
I have left the question of the source till last. If we wished at all costs to introduce vital regulation into the function of the drive, one would certainly say that examining the source is the right way to go about it.

我將起源的問題留到最後。假如我們想要不計任何代價,介紹驅力的功用有何重大的規範,我們必然要說,檢視起源是我們著手的不二法門。

Why? Why are the so-called erogenous zones recognized only in those points that are differentiated for us by their rimlike structure? Why does one speak of the mouth and not of the oesophagus, or the stomach? They participate just as much in the oral function. But at the erogenous level we speak of the mouth, of the lips and the teeth, of what Homer calls the enclosure of the teeth.

為什麼?為什麼只有在像是邊緣的結構的區分點,我們才體認出有性感的地帶?為什麼我們會提到嘴巴,而不是提到食道或胃腸?他們同樣參與口腔的功用。但是在食道的層次,我們提到嘴巴、嘴唇跟牙齒、提到詩人荷馬所描述的牙齒的封閉。

The same goes for the anal drive. It is not enough to say that a certain vital function is integrated in a function of exchange with the world—excrement. There are other excremental functions, and there are other elements that participate in them other than the rim of the anus, which is however, specifically
what, for us too, is defined as the source and departure of a certain drive.

相同道理可運用到肛門驅力。我們不能光是說,排糞便具有某個重大的功用,就是跟世界有交換的功能。排糞便還有其它功用,參與排糞便的因素,除了肛門之外,還有其它單位。我們不妨明確地將它定義為,某個驅力的來源跟離開。

Let me say that if there is anything resembling a drive it is a montage.

讓我這樣說,若要找出某件東西,類似驅力的功能,那莫過於蒙太奇畫面。

It is not a montage conceived in a perspective referring to finality. This perspective is the one that is established in modern theories of instinct, in which the presentation of an image derived from montage is quite striking. Such a montage, for example, is the specific form that will make the hen in the farmyard run to ground if you place within a few yards of her the cardboard outline of a falcon, that is to say, something that sets off a more or less appropriate reaction, and where the trick is to show us that it is not necessarily an appropriate one. I am not speaking of this sort of montage.

提到人的整體功能的觀點時,我構想的並不是蒙太奇畫面。我的這個觀點,只有在有關本能的現代理論才能成立:那就是,一個從蒙太奇畫面得到來的影像,呈現時,常令人觸目驚心。例如,這樣一個蒙太奇畫面,千真萬確會使農場的母雞驚慌奔跑,例如,你用紙板畫一隻老鷹,放置在母雞幾碼的地方,換言之,這樣的畫面會引起或多或少的適當的反應。這個把戲告訴我們,這樣的反應未必那樣的理所當然。我並不是說,對這樣的蒙太奇畫面。

The montage of the drive is a montage which, first, is presented as having neither head nor tail—in the sense in which one speaks of montage in a surrealist collage. If we bring together the paradoxes that we just defined at the level of .Drang, at that of the object, at that of the aim of the drive, I think that the
resulting image would show the working of a dynamo connected up to a gas-tap, a peacock’s feather emerges, and tickles the belly of a pretty woman, who is just lying there looking beautiful. Indeed, the thing begins to become interesting from this very fact, that the drive defines, according to Freud, all the
forms of which one may reverse such a mechanism. This does not mean that one turns the dynamo upside-down—one unrolls its wires, it is they that become the peacock’s feather, the gas-tap goes into the lady’s mouth, and the bird’s rump emerges in the middle.

驅力的蒙太奇畫面,像是沒有頭顱,也沒有尾巴,如同在超現實主義畫家所呈現的蒙太奇畫面。
假如我們將在欲望的層次、客體的層次、驅力的目標的層次,所描述的矛盾,聚攏在一起,我想,結果的影像將會顯示,生命的能源,類似瓦斯筒的開關封閉,逬發時,有如孔雀開屏,即使是雍容華貴的美女,也難於自持。的確,這個事實開始饒有趣味,依佛洛伊德的說法,驅力定義所有我們可能翻轉這種機械構造的各種形式。這並不意味著,我們顛覆了生命能源。我們只是分析其線圈構造,發現孔雀開屏的奧妙,女人的嘴唇有如瓦斯筒的開關,旋轉開時,孔雀的彩羽花枝招展。

This is what he shows as a developed example. Read this text of Freud’s between now and next time, and you will see that it constantly jumps, without transition, between the most heterogeneous images. All this occurs only by means of grammatical references, the artifice of which you will find easy to grasp next time.

這是佛洛伊德給我們展示的範例。此時或下次,你們閱讀佛洛伊德的字裡行間,你們會發現到,各種意象五彩繽紛般此起彼落。這些現象有其文法脈絡可循,所形成的奧妙文采,你們下一次會發現,其實不難理解。

Incidentally, how can one say, just like that, as Freud goes on to do, that exhibitionism is the contrary of voyeurism, or that masochism is the contrary of sadism? He posits this simply for grammatical reasons, for reasons concerning the inversion of the subject and the object, as if the grammatical object and subject were real functions. It is easy to show that this is not the case, and we have only to refer to our structure of language for this deduction to become impossible. But what, by means of this game, he conveys to us about the essence of the drive is what, next time, I will define for you as the trace of the act.

順便提一下,我們如何能順理成章地像佛洛伊德所說:暴露狂的反面是窺視狂,或受虐狂的反面是虐待狂?他提出這種假設,只是因為文法脈絡的順理成章,因為主體跟客體的必然翻轉,好似文法脈絡的客體跟主體就是真實界的功用。我們不難指出,情形並非是如此。我們只要參照一下我們的語言結構,我們就能發現這樣的推論難於自圓其說。但是,憑藉這樣語詞的翻轉耍弄,他傳達給我們有關驅力的本質是什麼。下一次,我將會描述驅力有何行動的痕跡。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座230

January 2, 2010

拉岡講座230

Deconstruction of Drive
驅力的解構

3
At the other end of the chain, Freud refers to Befriedigung, satisfaction, which he writes out in full, but in inverted commas. What does he mean by satisfaction of the drive? Well, that’s simple enough, you’ll say. The satisfaction of the drive is reaching one’s Ziel, one’s aim. The wild animal emerges from its hole querens quem devoret, and when he has found what he has to eat, he is satisfied, he digests it. The very fact that a similar image may be invoked shows that one allows it to resonate in harmony with
mythology, with, strictly speaking, the drive.

在驅力鎖鏈的另一端,佛洛伊德提到滿足。他詳細地描述滿足是什麼,但是用引號限制。他所謂的驅力的滿足是什麼呢?非常簡單,你會說。驅力的滿足就是要到達我們的目標。野生動物從自己的洞穴出現。當他發現它必須吃食物,它才能滿足,它只有消化食物。人作為動物,何嘗不是如此?這顯示,飲食的滿足在神話中,或嚴格地說,在驅力的神話中,天經地義地存在。

One objection immediately springs to mind —it is rather odd that nobody should have noticed it, all the time it has been there, an enigma, which, like all Freud’s enigmas, was sustained as a wager to the end of his life without Freud deigning to offer any further explanation—he probably left the work to those
who could do it. You will remember that the third of the four fundamental vicissitudes of the drive that Freud posits at the outset—it is curious that there are four vicissitudes as there are four elements of the drive—is sublimation. Well, in this article, Freud tells us repeatedly that sublimation is also satisfaction of the drive, whereas it is zielgehemmt, inhibited as to its aim—it does not attain it. Sublimation is nonetheless satisfaction of the drive, without repression.

我們心裡馬上浮起一個反對見解:為什麼竟然沒有人曾經注意到這一點?驅力始終像一個謎團般存在。像所有佛洛伊德的謎團,它被維持作為一個賭注。終其一生,佛洛伊德並沒有假裝提供更進一步的解釋。他可能要將這個工作留給勝任的人去做。你們還記得,佛洛伊德一開始提出,驅力有四個基本的變數。其中第三個變數就是昇華。耐人尋味的,驅力有四個元素之外,竟然還有四個變數。在這篇文章中,佛洛伊德不厭其煩地告訴我們,昇華也是一種驅力的滿足,雖然它的目標被壓抑,它並沒有得到它的目標。儘管如此,昇華仍然是驅力的滿足,不算是壓抑。

In other words —for the moment, I am not fucking, I am talking to you. Well! I can have exactly the same satisfaction as if I were fucking. That’s what it means. Indeed, it raises the question of whether in fact I am not fucking at this moment. Between these two terms—drive and satisfaction—there is set up an extreme antinomy that reminds us that the use of the function of the drive has for me no other purpose than to put in question what is meant by satisfaction.

換言之,目前這一刻,我沒有正在跟你們做愛,我正在跟你們演講。嗯!我得到的滿足,確實跟我正在跟你們做愛得到的滿足差不多。那就是我的意思。當然,這會浮現一個問題:我現在這一刻到底算不算正在你們做愛?驅力與滿足這兩個術語,形成一個極端的二律悖論提醒我們,驅力的功用的使用,就我而言,沒有其它目的,就是要質疑滿足是什麼意思?

All those here who are psycho-analysts must now feel to what extent I am introducing here the most essential level of accommodation. It is clear that those with whom we deal, the patients, are not satisfied, as one says, with what they are. And yet, we know that everything they are, everything they experience, even their symptoms, involves satisfaction. They satisfy something that no doubt runs counter to that with which they might be satisfied, or rather, perhaps, they give satisfaction to something. They are not content with their state, but all the same, being in a state that gives so little content, they are content. The whole question boils down to the following—what is contented here?

所有在現場的精神分析師,現在一定會感覺到,我要將驅力的基本調適,介紹到什麼程度?顯而易見,我們處理的對象是病人,他們並不滿足於他們的現狀,我們可以這樣說。可是,我們知道,他們的一切,他們的經驗,甚至他們的病徵,都牽涉到他們的滿足與否。無可置疑地,他們自己的滿足愈多,他們給人的滿足就愈少,換言之,他們就愈自私自利。他們並不滿意於自己的現狀,但是對於自私自利的這個現狀,他們卻仍然安之若素。問題的癥結可以簡述如下:在此,有什麼東西被滿足?

On the whole, and as a first approximation, I would say that to which they give satisfaction by the ways of displeasure is nevertheless—and this is commonly accepted—the law of pleasure. Let us say that, for this sort of satisfaction, they give themselves too much trouble. Up to a point, it is this too much
trouble that is the sole justification of our intervention. One cannot say, then, that the aim is not attained where satisfaction is concerned. It is.

大體上,我可提出一個概略的說法,大家可以接受的說法:不樂之捐,仍然是滿足需要,仍然是基於快樂原理。容我們這樣說,為了這種滿足,人們苦心孤詣。目前,就是這個苦心孤詣,成為我們精神分析要介入的唯一理由。因此,我們不能說,就滿足而言,目標沒有達到。確實有達到。

This is not a definitive ethical position. But, at a certain level, this is how we analysts approach the problem—though we know a little more than others about what is normal and abnormal. We know that the forms of arrangement that exist between what works well and what works badly constitute a continuous series. What we have before us in analysis is a system in which everything turns out all right, and which attains its own sort of satisfaction. If we interfere in this, it is in so far as we think that there are other ways, shorter ones for example. In any case, if I refer to the drive, it is in so far as it is at the level of the drive that the state of satisfaction is to be rectified.

這並不是一個明確的倫理立場。但是,在某個層次上,這是我們精神分析師處理問題的方式,雖然對於正常與不正常,我們充其量比別人懂得稍微多一點。我們知道,我們的方法行得通或行不通,條分縷述起來,不勝枚舉。我們精神分析所面對的,是一個結果一切都好的系統,這個系統自己志得意滿。我們介入干涉,是因為我們認為,還有其它途徑,例如,更簡捷的途徑。無論如何,假如我提到驅力,那是因為在驅力的這個層次,滿足的狀態可以被改正過來。

This satisfaction is paradoxical. When we look at it more closely, we see that something new comes into play—the category of the impossible. In the foundations of the Freudian conceptions, this category is an absolutely radical one. The path of the subject—to use the term in relation to which, alone,
satisfaction may be situated—the path of the subject passes between the two walls of the impossible.

這個滿足是矛盾的。當我們看得更仔細,我們看到某件新的東西在運作,某件不可能領域的範疇。在佛洛伊德的觀念的基礎,這個範疇絕對是激進的。主體的途徑,容我使用跟滿足的情境有關的術語。主體的途徑,穿越於不可能的兩個牆壁之間。

This function of the impossible is not to be approached without prudence, like any function that is presented in a negative form. I would simply like to suggest to you that the best way of approaching these notions is not to take them by negation. This method would bring us here to the question of the possible, and the impossible is not necessarily the contrary of the possible, or, since the opposite of the possible is certainly the real, we would be led to define the real as the impossible.

這個不可能領域的功用,就像其它具有負面形式的功用,接近時,我們必須小心翼翼。我僅想要建議一點,接近這些觀念的最佳方法是,不要將它們以負面形式看待。憑藉這樣的方法,我們才會到達可能的領域。不可能領域未必就是可能領域的相反,但是因為可能領域的相反領域,確實就是真實界的領域,我們不得不將真實界定義為不可能的領域。

Personally, I see nothing against this, especially as, in Freud, it is in this form that the real, namely, the obstacle to the pleasure principle, appears. The real is the impact with the obstacle; it is the fact that things do not turn out all right straight away, as the hand that is held out to external objects wishes. But I think this is a quite illusory and limited view of Freud’s thought on this point. The real is distinguished, as I said last time, by its separation from the field of the pleasure principle, by its desexualization, by the fact that its economy, later, admits something new, which is precisely the impossible.

就我個人而言,我認為這樣說沒有什麼不妥。特別是在佛洛伊德學說,快樂原理求之而不可得的真實界,就是以這種形式出現。到達真實界的途徑阻礙重重。因為這樣,事情往往無法馬上令人稱心滿足,伸手向外索取,也無法如願以償。但是我認為,在佛洛伊德學說的這一點,我們的觀點過於狹隘而不切實際。如我上一次所說,真實界的顯現,在於跟快樂原理的領域區隔,在於自身的性的超越,在於真實界的運作,換顯現某件新的東西,準確地說,就是顯現不可能領域。

But the impossible is also present in the other field, as an essential element. The pleasure principle is even characterized by the fact that the impossible is so present in it that it is never recognized in it as such. The idea that the function of the pleasure principle is to satisfy itself by hallucination is there
to illustrate this—it is only an illustration. By snatching at its object, the drive learns in a sense that this is precisely not the way it will be satisfied. For if one distinguishes, at the outset of the dialectic of the drive, not from Bedilrfnis, need from the pressure of the drive—it is precisely because no object of any Not, need, can satisfy the drive.

但是,這個不可能領域也出現在其它領域,作為一個基本的元素。快樂原理的特徵同樣也是,不可能領域出現在那裡,只是從來沒有恰如其份地被人承認。快樂原理的功用,就是要以幻覺滿足自己。這個事實足以說明,但充其量只是說明。驅力企圖奪取它的目標時,他馬上恍然大悟,這確實並不是它所要滿足的方式。因為在驅力的辯證之初,我們就區別需求與驅力的壓力,有何不同,確實就是因為沒有一個負面需求的客體,能夠滿足驅力。

Even when you stuff the mouth—the mouth that opens in the register of the drive—it is not the food that satisfies it, it is, as one says, the pleasure of the mouth. That is why, in analytic experience, the oral drive is encountered at the final term, in a situation in which it does no more than order the menu. This
is done no doubt with the mouth, which is fundamental to the satisfaction—what goes out from the mouth comes back to the mouth, and is exhausted in that pleasure that I have just called, by reference to the usual terms, the pleasure of the mouth.

即使你將食物填滿嘴巴,在驅力領域展開的嘴巴,滿足它的並不是食物,而是嘴巴的爽快,如一般人所言。那就是為什麼在精神分析的經驗,口腔的驅力被放置在最後一期,只充當點菜單的情境之用。無可置疑地,這跟嘴巴有關係,因為嘴巴是滿足的根本所在。從嘴巴出來的東西,又回到嘴巴,在我剛才所提到的快樂領域消耗殆盡,用俗話說,就是嘴巴的爽快。

This is what Freud tells us. Let us look at what he says—As far as the object in the drive is concerned, let it be clear that it is, strictly speaking, of no importance. It is a matter of total indifference. One must never read Freud without one’s ears cocked. When one reads such things, one really ought to prick up one’s ears. How should one conceive of the object of the drive, so that one can say that, in the drive, whatever it may be, it is indifferent?

這就是佛洛伊德告訴我們的。讓我們看看他怎麼說:「顯而易見,驅力的客體,並不重要。它完全無足輕重。」我們閱讀佛洛伊德的這番話,必然大吃一驚。對於這樣的說法,我們確實應該洗耳恭聽。我們如何能夠將驅力的客體,或不管驅力的什麼東西,構想成無足輕重?

As far as the oral drive is concerned, for example, it is obvious that it is not a question of food, nor of the memory of food, nor the echo of food; nor the mother’s care, but of something that is called the breast, and which seems to go of its own accord because it belongs to the same series. If Freud makes a remark to the effect that the object in the drive is of no importance, it is probably because the breast, in its function as object, is to be revised in its entirety.

例如,就口腔的驅力而言,顯而易見,問題不是食物,不是對於食物的回憶,或食物的迴響,或母親的關愛,而是某件被稱為是乳房的東西。這個東西自動會蹦出來,因為它屬於跟口腔相同的系列。佛洛伊德表述過,大意是說,驅力的客體並不重要。那可能是因為乳房在其作為客體的功用上,應該從整體來重新考量。

To this breast in its function as object, objet a cause of desire, in the sense that I understand the term—we must give a function that will explain its place in the satisfaction of the drive. The best formula seems to me to be the following—that lapulsion en fait le tour.1 I shall find other opportunities of applying it to other objects. Tour is to be understood here with the ambiguity it possesses in French, both turn, the limit around which one turns, and trick.

依據我對於小客體的術語的了解,乳房作為欲望的小客體,我們必須界定它在驅力的滿足方面,有何功用。我覺得,最佳的公式似乎如下:驅力遊走及耍弄客體。我將再找其它機會,將這一個公式應用到其它客體。Tour 在法文的理解是一語雙關,兼具有迴轉、繞著圈圈迴轉,及耍弄的模稜兩可。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

雄伯手記990102

January 1, 2010

雄伯手記990102

「天將破曉之際,我從一場匪夷所思的夢中醒來,心中充滿了失落與焦慮。」
「你失落什麼?你焦慮什麼?」
「我失去她了!」
「你什麼時候開始擁有她?」
「我從來沒有擁有過她。」
「沒有擁有,何來失去?你焦慮什麼?」
「我逃避現實,結果被現實所排斥!」
「你在乎這個現實嗎?」
「不能不在乎!要不然我算什麼?」
「你喜歡這個現實嗎?」
「不喜歡!」
「既然不喜歡,又何必在乎被排斥?」
「問題是,被排斥後,我剩下什麼?」
「你現在不是還在嗎?」
「我就這樣孤伶伶地活著?」
「哪一個人不是這樣呢?既然擁有只是一個幻覺!」

拉岡講座229

January 1, 2010

拉岡講座229
Deconstruction of Drive
驅力的解構

2
Now let us ask ourselves what appears first when we look more closely at the four terms laid down by Freud in relation to the drive. Let us say that these four terms cannot but appear disjointed.

現在讓我們自問:當我們更仔細觀看佛洛伊德提出的這四個術語,首先出現的是什麼?我們不妨這樣說,這四個術語彼此各自獨立。

First, thrust will be identified with a mere tendency to discharge. This tendency is what is produced by the fact of a stimulus, namely, the transmission of the accepted portion, at the level of the stimulus, of the additional energy, the celebrated Qn quantity of the Entwurf. But, on this matter, Freud makes, at the outset, a remark that has very far-reaching implications. Here, too, no doubt, there is stimulation, excitation, to use the term Freud uses at this level, Reiz, excitation. But the Reic that is used when speaking of drive is different from any stimulation coming from the outside world, it is an internal Reiz. What does this mean?

首先,衝動並不等同於僅僅是發洩的傾向。這個傾向由刺激所產生。在刺激的層面上,現有部份被轉移,額外的精力被轉移,那著名的「充沛精力」被轉移。但是對於此事,一開頭,佛洛伊德說了一句影響深遠的話。在此,無疑地,刺激是存在、或佛洛伊德在這個層次所用的術語「興奮」存在。但是談到驅力所使用的「興奮」,不同於來自外在世界的任何刺激,它是內在的「興奮」。
這是什麼意思?

In order to explicitate it, we have the notion of need, as it is manifested in the organism at several levels and first of all at the level of hunger and thirst. This is what Freud seems to mean when he distinguishes internal excitement from external excitement.

為了說明它,我們引用「需求」的觀念,因為它在好幾個層次的有機體顯示出來,尤其在饑餓與渴望的層次。這似乎就是佛洛伊德的意思,當他區別內在的興奮跟外在的興奮。

Well! It has to be said that, at the very outset, Freud posits, quite categorically, that there is absolutely no question in Trieb of the pressure of a need such as Hunger or Durst, thirst. What exactly does Freud mean by Trieb? Is he referring to something whose agency is exercised at the level of the organism
in its totality? Does the real qua totality irrupt here? Are we concerned here with the living organism?

我們必須說,在開始的時候,佛洛伊德以分類的方式提出,無疑地,驅力是有諸如饑餓、渴望等需求的壓力。佛洛伊德的「驅力」是什麼意思呢?他指的是有機體在整體的狀態下運作的代理嗎?真實界的整體在此迸發出來嗎?在此,我們關心的是活生生的有機體嗎?

No. It is always a question quite specifically of the Freudian field itself, in the most undifferentiated form that Freud gave it at the outset, which at this level, in the terms of the Skekh referred to above,
that of the kh, of the Real-Ich. The Real -Ich is conceived as supported, not by the organism as a whole, but by the nervous system. It has the character of a planned, objectified subject. I am stressing the surface characteristics of this field by treating it topologically, and in trying to show you how taking it in the form of a surface responds to all the needs of its handling.

不,相當明確地,這個問題總是屬於佛洛伊德的自身領域,跟佛洛伊德一開頭所表達的形式沒有什麼不同。在這個層次,用以上的所提到的描繪而言,就是「真實的我」的領域。這個「真實的我」被構想為不是由有機體當著整體來支持,而是由神經系統來支持。他的特色是一個計劃好的客體化的主體。我現在是用地形學方式,來強調這個領域的表面特徵,因為我設法顯示,表面的形式的處理方式,如何回應它在處理過程的需求。

This point is essential for, when we examine it more closely, we shall see that the Triebreic is that by which certain elements of this field are, says Freud, invested as drive. This investment places us on the terrain of an energy—and not any energy—a potential energy, for—Freud articulated it in the most pressing way—the characteristic of the drive is to be a konstante Irafi, a constant force. He cannot conceive of it as a momentane Stosskraft.

這一點很重要。當我們更仔細地審察它,我們將會看出,Triebreic 就是這個領域的某些元素被認為是驅力所集中的地方,如佛洛伊德所說。這個集中使我們位於精力的平台,不是任何精力,而是潛在的精力。佛洛伊德聲嘶力竭地說,驅力的特性是要成為一個持續的力量。他無法構想它僅當著是一時的衝動。

What is meant by momentane Stosskraft? About this word Moment, we already have the example of a historical misunderstanding. During the siege of Paris in 1870, the Parisians made fun of Bismarck’spsjc/zologiscke Moment. This phrase struck them as being absurdly funny, for, until fairly recently, when they have had to get used to everything, the French have always been rather particular about the correct use of words.

一時的衝動是什麼意思?關於衝動這個字,我們對它的誤解,歷史上有一個例子。在1870年,巴黎遭到德國圍攻時,巴黎居民就開玩笑說,這是「俾斯麥鐵血宰相的一時衝動」。他們將這個詞語當著是荒謬可笑,直到後來,他們接受德國佔領,也只好一語成籤地自食其果。從此,法國人對於字詞的正確用法總是格外小心翼翼。

This quite new psychological moment struck them as being very funny indeed. All it meant was the psychological factor. But this momentane Stosskraft is not perhaps to be taken quite in the sense of factor, but rather in the sense of moment as used in the cinema. I think that this Stosskraft, or shock force, is simply a reference to the life force, to kinetic energy. In the drive, there is no question of kinetic energy; it is not a question of something that will be regulated with movement. The discharge in question is of a quite different nature, and is on a quite different plane.

他們確實把這個一時衝動產生的心理影響,當著是荒謬可笑。它的反諷是心理的因素。但是「一時衝動」也許不應該完全從因素的意義,而是要從電影常用的突然的動作來看。我認為這個「衝動」或衝擊的力量,指的就是生命力量,生命的精力。可是,驅力的問題,並不就是生命的精力,也不是動作的規範的某件東西。我們目前討論的這個驅力的發洩,性質完全不同,處於相當不同的層面。

The constancy of the thrust forbids any assimilation of the drive to a biological function, which always has a rhythm. The first thing Freud says about the drive is, if I may put it this way, that it has no day or night, no spring or autumn, no rise and fall. It is a constant force. All the same, one must take account
of the texts, and also of experience.

衝動具有持續性,使得驅力無法僅僅是被限制於生物的功用,因為生物的功用總是有節奏間隔。佛洛伊德提到有關驅力的第一件事是,容我這樣說,驅力沒有白天或夜晚,沒有春天或秋天,沒有升起或下降。驅力是一個持續的力量。儘管如此,我們必須考慮到人作為主體的文本,以及精神分析的經驗。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw