拉岡講座253

拉岡講座253
FROM INTERPRETATION TO THE TRANSFERENCE
從解釋到移情

The slave•
奴隸
The ego ideal and the petit a
自我的理想與小客體

3
But I would not like to leave you today without introducing, for next time, two remarks, two remarks that are grounded in the mapping that Freud made of the function of identification.

但是，我今天先將兩點保留到下次。這兩點的基礎是佛洛伊德用來找出認同的功用。

There are enigmas in identification, even for Freud himself. He seems to be surprised that the regression of love should take place so easily in terms of identification—even when, in texts written about the same time, he demonstrates that love and identification have an equivalence in a certain register and that narcissism and over-estimation of the object, Verliebtheit, is exactly the same thing in love.

認同的謎團重重，即使是對於佛洛伊德本人。對於愛的倒退竟然以認同的形態發生，他頗為吃驚。大約在同時間的文章中，他證明：愛跟認同有某種程度上的類似，自戀與過份高估客體，在戀愛中，確實是同一件事。

At this point, Freud pauses—I would ask you to find for yourselves in the text the various clues, as the English say, the traces, the marks left on the trail. I think this is because he had not sufficiently distinguished something. In the chapter of Massenpsjchologie und Ich-Analyse devoted to
identification, I stressed the second form of identification, in order to map in it, and to detach from it, the einziger the single stroke, the foundation, the kernel of the ego ideal. What is this single stroke? Is it a privileged object in the field of Lust? No.

在這一點，佛洛伊德遲疑了一下。我要求你們自己到文章中尋找各種線索，如英國人常說，尋找他遲疑的蛛絲馬跡。我想這是因為他並沒有充份地區別它們。在專注於討論認同的「群眾心理學」及「自我分析」文章，為了找到它的位置，並保持距離觀察，我強調認同的第二種形式，「孤注一擲」是基礎，是自我理想的核心， 這孤注一擲是什麼！在欲望的領域，那是具有特權的客體嗎？顯然不是。

The single stroke is not in the first field of narcissistic identification, to which Freud relates the first form of identification —which, very curiously indeed, he embodies in a sort of function, a sort of primal model which the father assumes, anterior even to the libidinous investment on the mother —a mythical stage, certainly. The single stroke, in so far as the subject clings to it, is in the field of desire, which cannot in any sense be constituted other than in the reign of the signifier, other than at the level in which there is a relation of the subject to the Other. It is the field of the Other that determines the
function of the single stroke, in so far as it is from it that a major stage of identification is established in the topography then developed by Freud—namely, idealization, the ego ideal. I showed you the traces of this first signifier on the primitive bone on which the hunter makes a notch and counts the number of
times he gets his target.

佛洛伊德將認同的形式歸屬於自戀的認同，但是孤注一擲並不是在自戀的認同的第一個領域。這確實令人費解，他將認同的第一形式，具體表現為一種功用，一種父親扮演的原初的模式，早於嬰兒對於母親的力比多情意的投注。那確實是一個神秘的階段。因為主體緊黏住這孤注一擲，它處於欲望的領域，形成的地方，無論如何也不可能是在意符的統治之外，或主體跟大它者的關係之外。認同就是在決定孤注一擲的功用的大它者的領域，因為認同的一個主要的階段，被建立在佛洛伊德所發展的領域，換言之，自我理想的領域。我給你看一下這第一個意符在原初骨骼上的痕跡，獵人在上面記下刻痕，計算他獲得獵物的次數。

It is in the intersection by which the single signifier functions here in the field of Lust, that is to say, in the field of primary narcissistic identification, that is to be found the essential mainspring of the effects of the ego ideal. I have described elsewhere the sight in the mirror of the ego ideal, of that being that he first saw appearing in the form of the parent holding him up before the mirror. By clinging to the reference-point of him who looks at him in a mirror, the subject sees appearing, not his ego ideal, but his ideal ego, that point at which he desires to gratify himself in himself.

經此交會點，孤注一擲在欲望的領域發揮功用，換言之，在原初自戀認同的領域，自我理想的影響的基本泉源，就在那裡被找到。我曾經在別的地方，描述過自我理想的鏡子景象，嬰兒第一次看到自己被父親或母親懷抱在鏡子前面的景象。主體緊黏住在鏡中觀看他的那個意符點，主體所看到出現的，並不是他的自我的理想，而是他理想的自我。他渴望在那一個意符點，滿足自己內在的自我。

This is the function, the mainspring, the effective instrument constituted by the ego ideal. Not so long ago, a little girl said to me sweetly that it was about time somebody began to look after her so that she might seem lovable to herself. In saying this, she provided the innocent admission of the mainspring
that comes into play in the first stage of the transference. The subject has a relation with his analyst the centre of which is at the level of the privileged signifier known as the ego ideal, in so far as from there he will feel himself both satisfactory and loved. But there is another function, which institutes an identification of a strangely different kind, and which is introduced by the process of separation.

這是自我的理想所形成的功用、泉源、及有效的工具。不久以前，一位小女孩甜美地對我說，現在該是有某個人照顧她的時候，這樣她才會覺得自己可愛。這樣表達時，她純真地顯露出，移情的第一階段運作的泉源。主體跟他的精神分析師有一層關係，這關係的中心處於自我理想具有特權的意符，這是眾所周知的，因為從那裡，他會覺得既讓人滿意，又受人疼愛。但是還有另一層功用，開啟一種迴然不同的認同，由疏離的過程所引起。

It is a question of this privileged object, discovered by analysis, of that object whose very reality is purely topological, of that object around which the drive moves, of that object that rises in a bump, like the wooden darning egg in the material which, in analysis, you are darning—the objet a. This object supports that which, in the drive, is defined and specified by the fact that the coming into play of the signifier in the life of man enables him to bring out the meaning of sex. Namely, that for man, because he knows the signifiers, sex and its significations are always capable of making present the presence of death.

精神分析經驗發現，這是特權客體的問題，。那個客體的真實界純粹是地形學，欲望驅力環繞那個客體移動，客體在攪拌中上升，像木製的湯匙攪拌蛋卵。在精神分析經驗，你就是那在攪拌那個小客體。人的一生就是意符的運作，這樣他才能夠顯現性的意義，具體而明確內涵，在欲望驅力裡，就是由這個客體在支持。換言之，對於人而言，因為他知道意符是什麼，性跟性的意義總是能夠將死亡的存在彰顯出來。

The distinction between the life drive and the death drive is true in as much as it manifests two aspects of the drive. But this is so only on condition that one sees all the sexual drives as articulated at the level of significations in the unconscious, in as much as what they bring out is death—death as signifier and
nothing but signifier, for can it be said that there is a being-for death?

生命驅力與死亡驅力的區別是真實的，因為這證明驅力有兩個面向。但是這個理論成立的條件是，我們看待所有性的欲望驅力，當著是在無意識的意義層次的表達，因為這些意義彰顯出來的是死亡，而死亡是一種意符，而且僅僅就是意符。因此，我們能夠說生命的意義就是追求死亡嗎？

In what conditions, in what determinism, can death, the signifier, spring fully armed into treatment? This can be understood only by our way of articulating the relations. Through the function of the objet a, the subject separates himself off, ceases to be linked to the vacillation of being, in the sense that it forms the essence of alienation. This function has been sufficiently indicated to us, for long enough, by enough traces. I have shown at one time or another that it is impossible to conceive of the phenomenology of verbal hallucination if we do not understand what the very term that we use to designate it means—that is to say, voices.

在怎樣的情況下，以怎樣的決心，死亡作為一種意符，能夠讓人豁然開朗地清澈明白？只有透過情況跟決心之間的關係的表達，我們才能這一點。透過小客體的功用，主體跟自己分離，不再緊附著生命的無常起伏，因此小客體就是疏離的本質。我們對於這個功用長久以來，耳熟能詳，有足夠的跡象可循。我曾經反覆再三地說過，我們不可能理解文辭幻覺的現象，假如我們不了解我們所用的術語意謂著什麼，換言之，是什麼聲音在說話。

It is in so far as the object of the voice is present in it that the percipiens is present in it. Verbal hallucination is not a false perceptum, it is a deviated percipiens. The subject is immanent in
his verbal hallucination. This possibility is there, which should make us ask the question as to what we are going to achieve in analysis, concerning the accommodations of the percipiuns.

聲音作為一種客體，存在於文辭的幻覺裡，因為感覺就存在那裡。文辭的幻覺並不是一種虛假的感覺，它只是一種異常的感覺。主體在他的文辭幻覺裡，感受生命的內在性。我們可能要問的問題是，關於這種感覺的適應，我們精神分析經驗究竟想得到什麼？

Up till the advent of psycho-analysis, the path of knowledge was always traced in that of a purification of the subject, of the percipiens. Well! We would now say that we base the assurance of the subject in his encounter with the filth that may support him, with the petit a of which it would not be untrue to say that its presence is necessary.

直到精神分析學來臨之前，知識的道路總是以主體脫離感覺的方式來追蹤。好！現在讓我們說，我們精神分析學的基礎，就在於主體確信他透過小客體，跟生命所憑藉的齷齪無意識邂逅。因此，我們可以確信地說，小客體的存在是必須的。

Take Socrates. The inflexible purity of Socrates and his atopia are correlative. Intervening, at every moment, there is the demonic voice. Could one maintain that the voice that guides Socrates is not
Socrates himself? The relation between Socrates and his voice is no doubt an enigma, which indeed, tempted psychographers on several occasions in the early nineteenth century, and it is already a great merit on their part that they dared to broach the matter since nowadays one daren’t touch it with a bargepole.

以蘇格拉底為例。蘇格拉底的擇善固執跟他的疏離感是息息相關的。不論在何時，總是有惡魔的聲音介入。我們能夠主張說，引導蘇格拉底的聲音，不是蘇格拉底本人嗎？蘇格拉底跟他的聲音之間的關係，無可置疑地是一個謎團，引誘十九世紀早期的心理分析學家前仆後繼地追尋。他們敢於探索這個問題，確實是令人敬佩，因為現代的心理學家，沒有人敢這樣別無依傍地冒險。

It is a new trace to be interrogated in order to know what w mean when we speak of the subject of perception. Don’t make me out to say what I’m not saying—the analyst must not hear voices. All the same, read a book by an analyst of good vintage, a Theodor Reik, a direct pupil and familiar of Freud, Listening with the Third-Ear—in actual fact, I do not approve of the formula, as if two were not enough to be deaf with. But he maintains that this third ear helps him to hear some voice of the
other that speaks to him in order to warn him of deception’* —he belongs to the good old days, the heroic days, when one was able to hear what was being said behind the deception of the patient.

為了瞭解，當我們談到感官的主體時，我們是什麼意思，我們必須探索一條新的痕跡。你們不要誤解我說話時是惡魔附身，因為精神分析師萬萬不可以幻覺聲音當真實。同樣的，你們應該去讀一位著名的精神分析師，希窩德、瑞克的書。他是佛洛伊德的入門弟子及知交。他的書名是「第三隻耳朵的傾聽」。其實，我並不是很茍同他的說法，因為那好像嫌兩個人之間的不能溝通，還不夠悲慘似的。但是，他主張說，這個第三隻耳朵幫忙他聽到另外一個聲音對他說，為了警告他小心謊言。他是傳統的老好人，在那個講義氣的時代，他還能夠聽出病人對他說謊的背後的真正意涵。

Certainly, we have learnt a lot since then, because we know how to recognize in these circumventions, these cleavages, the objet a, which certainly has still scarcely emerged.

的確，自從那時以來，知識的發展突飛猛進。我們知道如何從這些情況，這些精神分裂，去認出始終若隱若現的小客體的存在。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座252

拉岡講座252

Indetermination and determination of the subject.
主體的猶豫與決心
Love, transference, desire•
愛、移情、欲望

2
However, we must move on to what is our main topic, namely, the transference. How can we take up the thread again? The transference is unthinkable unless one sets out from the subject who is supposed to know.

可是，我們必須繼續談主要的問題，換言之，移情的問題。我們如何能夠重新開始呢？移情是不可思議，除非我們從應該知道的主體開始。

You will now have a better idea of what he is supposed to know. He is supposed to know that from which no one can escape, as soon as he formulates it—quite simply, signification. Signification implies, of course—and that is why I first brought out the dimension of his desire—that he cannot refuse it.

你們現在更加明白，主體應該知道什麼。簡單地說，他應該知道，沒有一個人能夠逃避人生有無意義的問題，只要他一開始思索。

This privileged point is the only one by which we can recognize the character of an absolute point with no knowledge. It is absolute precisely by virtue of being in no way knowledge, but the point of attachment that links his very desire to the resolution of that which is to be revealed.

這個特有的點是唯一的點，我們能夠藉以認出沒有知識的絕對點的特性。這個點之所以絕對，確實是因為憑藉它本質並非知識，而是連接他的欲望到渴望顯示的真實的聯結點。

The subject comes into play on the basis of this fundamental support—the subject is supposed to know, simply by virtue of being a subject of desire. Now what actually happens? What happens is what is called in its most common appearance the transference effect. This effect is love. It is clear that, like all love, it can be mapped, as Freud shows, only in the field of narcissism. To love is, essentially, to wish to be loved.

主體根據「主體應該知道」這個基本的支撐來運作，因為人是一個欲望的主體。但是實際發生的情形是如何呢？實際發生的是眾所周知的移情效應。這個效應就是愛。顯而易見，像所有的愛一樣，移情效應的愛，只能夠在自戀的領域，找出位置，如佛洛伊德所顯示。愛，本質上就是希望被愛。

What emerges in the transference effect is opposed to revelation. Love intervenes in its function, revealed here as essential, in its function as deception. Love, no doubt, is a transference effect, but it is its resistance side. We are linked together in awaiting this transference effect in order to be able to interpret, and at the same time, we know that it closes the subject off from the effect of our interpretation. The alienation effect, in which is articulated, in the relation of the subject to the Other,
the effect that we are, is here absolutely manifest.

移情效應所顯現的內涵，跟真理的顯示背道而馳。愛發揮它的功用，在此顯示為本質上是欺騙的功能。愛，無可置疑的，是一種移情效應，但是處於移情效應抗拒的那一面。我們大家匯集在一起，等待移情效應，為了要能夠解釋人生的意義。同時，我們知道，愛將主體阻隔，無法得到我們對於人生意義的解釋。疏離的效應在此彰顯得特別明白，因為它一方面被表達為主體跟大它者的關係，另一方面，又被表達為自我的存在。

We should point out here, then, something that is always avoided, which Freud articulates, and which is not an excuse, but the reason of the transference, namely, that nothing can be attained in absentia, in eftigie. This means that the transference is not, of its nature, the shadow of something that was once
alive. On the contrary, the subject, in so far as he is subjected to the desire of the analyst, desires to betray him for this subjection, by making the analyst love him, by offering of himself that essential duplicity that is love. The transference effect is that effect of deception in so far as it is repeated in the
present here and now.

因此，我們在此應該指出某件總是被逃避的東西，佛洛伊德表達過，那不是移情的藉口，而是移情的理由。換言之，本來無一物，何處惹塵埃？這意味著，本質上，移情並不是事先存在的東西的陰影。相反的，主體一方面屈服於精神分析師的欲望，另一方面，又渴望藉著這樣的屈服，來使精神分析師愛上他，提供給他愛的本質上的欺騙，而背叛他。移情效應就是欺騙的效應，因為它在此時此刻的當下反覆地扮演。

It is repetition of that which passed for such only because it possesses the same form. It is not ectopia. It is not a shadow of the former deceptions of love. It is isolation in the actuality of its pure functioning as deception.

移情效應就是這種欺騙的反覆扮演，因為它擁有相同的形式。它並不是器官的錯置，也不是先前曾遭遇到愛的欺騙的陰影。它在作為欺騙的實際功用中，是孤立無辜的。

That is why we can say that what is there, behind the love known as transference, is the affirmation of the link between the desire of the analyst and the desire of the patient. This is what Freud expressed in a kind of rapid sleight of hand when he said—after all, it is only the desire of the patient—this should
reassure one’s colleagues. It is the patient’s desire, yes, but in its meeting with the analyst’s desire. I will not say that I have not yet named the analyst’s desire, for how can one name a desire? One circumscribes a desire. There are many things in history that provide us with tracks and traces here.

那就是為什麼我們能夠說，在眾所周知的移情的愛的背後，有某件東西肯定了精神分析師的欲望跟病人的欲望之間的聯繫。這就是佛洛伊德含蓄表達說，那只是病人的欲望，這樣才能杜絕同僚八卦的傳聞。不錯，那是病人的欲望，但是要跟精神分析師的欲望邂逅。大家不要以為我沒有講出精神分析師的欲望，只是欲望要如何能明白指出？我們只能將欲望畫個界限。歷史上有許多的軼事供給我們探索的蛛絲馬跡。

Is it not strange, that echo that we found—though, of course, we are not going to stick our noses into this for long—between the ethic of analysis and the Stoic ethic? What does the Stoic ethic really amount to other than the recognition of the absolute authority of the desire of the Other, that Thy will
be done! that is taken up again in the Christian register? But will I ever have the time to show you this?

在精神分析師的倫理學，跟斯多葛禁欲學派的倫理學之間，我們發現不少共鳴迴響，我們竟然沒有再進一步澄清，那不是很奇怪嗎？斯多葛禁欲學派，難道不就是等於是，承認大它者的欲望的絕對權威：「我要你這樣做！」？基督教的上帝的指令，不也就是如此？但是我還需要花更多時間說清楚嗎？

We are solicited by a more radical articulation. The problem may be posed of the relation between the master’s desire and the slave. Hegel declares it to be solved —this is not so at all. Since I am ready to take my leave of you for this year —next time will be my last lecture—may I throw out a few
points that may give you some idea of the direction in which we will travel later.

我們有需要做更詳盡的表達。問題會牽涉到主人的欲望跟奴隸之間的關係。黑格爾宣稱這個問題已經解答，但事實上根本沒有。因為我今年的演講準備告一段落，這將是我下次演講的主題。我先拋出幾個要點，讓你們知道觀念的方向，我們可以能遵循前進。

If it is true that the master situates himself only in an original relation to the assumption of death, I think that it is very difficult to attribute to him an apprehensible relation to desire. I’m speaking of the master in Hegel, not of the master of antiquity, of which we have one portrait, for example, in that
of Alcibiades, whose relation to desire is visible enough. He asks Socrates for something, without knowing what it is, but which he calls agalma. Some of you will know the use that I made of this term some time ago. I will go back to this agalma, this mystery, which, in the mist that clouds Alcibiades’ vision, represents something beyond all good.

假如主人確實將自己定位在人終究會死亡這層關系，我想主人跟欲望的關係，就很難自圓其說。我指的是黑格爾的主人，而不是古代的主人，例如，阿西比底思所表現的主人的形象，他跟欲望的關係。他跟蘇格拉底要求某件東西，卻不知道那是什麼，只好稱之為「最高的善」。你們有些人可能知道，我不久以前用過這個術語。我將回頭來談阿西比底思想像中，撲朔迷離的這個「最高的善」的奧秘，因為它代表了超越各種的善行。

How can one see anything other than a first adumbration of the technique of the mapping of the transference in the fact that Socrates replies to him, not what he said to him when he was young, Look to your soul, but something more suited to the florid, hardened man he now is, Look to your desire, look to your onions. As it happens, it is the height of irony on Plato’s part to have embodied these onions in a man who is so futile and absurd, almost a buffoon. I think I was the first to remark that
the lines Plato puts in his mouth concerning the nature of love are an indication of just such futility, verging on buffoonery, which makes of Agathon perhaps the least likely object to attract the desire of a master. Furthermore, the fact that he is called Agathon, that is to say, the name to which Plato gave
the supreme value, adds an extra, perhaps involuntary, but incontestable, note of irony.

我們難道沒有看出，移情成形的初步輪廓？蘇格拉底的回答，不是針對對方年輕時所說的「觀照你的靈魂，」而是某件更適合對方目前意氣風發的狀況「觀照你的欲望，觀照你的情欲。」無獨有偶，對於柏拉圖，這真是反諷的極致，他將這位如此情欲乖張的虛榮人物，描繪成小丑樣子。我想我是第一位這樣說，柏拉圖放置在他口中的有關愛情屬性的幾行，指證他的虛榮程度，幾近小丑樣子，「詩聖阿甘松」是最不可能解釋成為吸引主人欲望的對象。而且，他被稱為「詩聖阿甘松」，換言之，柏拉圖給予崇高的價值的名稱，讓人不由自主地感受到所彰顯的額外諷刺。

Thus, as soon as it comes into play in the story, the desire of the master seems, of its very nature, to be the most inappropriate term. On the other hand, when Socrates wishes to obtain his own answer, it is to the slave, who has no right to declare his own desire, that he turns. He can always be sure of obtaining
the right reply from him. The voice of reason is low, Freud says somewhere, but it always says the same thing. I don’t wish to draw a false parallel to the effect that Freud says exactly the same thing about unconscious desire. Its voice, too, is low, but its insistence is indestructible. Perhaps there is a relation between the two. It is in the direction of some kind of kinship that we should turn our eyes to the slave, when it is a question of mapping what the analyst’s desire is.

因此，牽涉到故事的發展，主人的欲望就本身的屬性而言，似乎是最不恰當的術語。在另一方面，蘇格拉底希望獲得他自己的解答時，他求助於奴隸，而奴隸卻是沒有權利宣稱他自己的欲望。蘇格拉底總是確定能從奴隸身上獲得正確回答。「理性的聲音是微弱的，」佛洛伊德在某個地方提到他，「但是總是說同一件事。」我不希望將佛洛伊德對於無意識的欲望，反覆陳說，跟蘇格拉底的總是說同一件事，妄加附會。他的聲音也是微弱，但是聲音的堅持卻是不可抹滅。可能，兩者之間，還是有些類似可循。我們應該將我們的眼光轉向奴隸，尋求彼此的某種親密關係，因為這牽涉到精神分析師欲望是什麼的問題。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座251

拉岡講座251

FROM INTERPRETATION TO THE TRANSFERENCE
從解釋到移情

Metaphor.
隱喻
Interpretation is not open to all meanings
意義並非任憑解釋

1
Let us move on. In an article, to which I have already referred in order to correct what seemed to me its dangers, an attempt has been made, in an effort that is not without merit, to give form to certain notions I have introduced concerning the structure of language inherent in the unconscious. What emerged was a formula that consists, in short, in translating the formula that I gave of the metaphor. This formula was essential and usable, since it manifests the dimension in which the unconscious appears, in as much as the operation of signifying condensation is fundamental to it.

讓我們繼續談下去。在一篇我已經提過的文章，依我的看法，它似乎已經修正內容的危險性。它企圖將某些我介紹過觀念，如無意識本質上的語言結構，賦予形式，這是它的可貴之處。結果出現一個公式，總而言之，這個公式被用來詮釋我所列舉的隱喻的形式。這個公式非常重要，而且好用，因為它展示在無意識出現的領域，意符的凝縮作用，是基本的功能。

Of course, signifying condensation, with its metaphorical effect, can be observed quite openly in any poetic metaphor. That is why I took my example from Booze Endormi. Go back to my article, L’Instance de Ia Iettre dans I’inconscient, published in La Psychoanalyze. Of all poems, I have taken the one that, in French, may be said to echo in more people’s memories than any other. Who did not learn when a child to recite endormi! It isn’t a bad example to be used by analysts, especially at the point I introduced it, that is to say, when introducing at the same time the paternal metaphor.

當然，意符的凝縮，具有隱喻的效應，這在任何一首詩的隱喻，明顯可觀察得出來。這就是為什麼我引用布茲、殷多米的詩集。先回到我在精神分析刊物的一篇文章「無意識領域字母的代理」。在所有的詩中，我選了一首膾炙人口的法文名詩。在兒童時代，我們有誰不曾背誦過布茲、殷多米的幾首詩？現在被精神分析師借用作為例子，也還不錯。特別是在我介紹它的時機，換言之，我介紹它，作為父權隱喻的時機。

I won’t go over again what I said, but my reason for introducing it now is obviously to show you what is contributed to the creation of meaning by the fact of designating the character who is in question, Booz —in that position both of divine father and instrument of God—by the metaphor—Sa gerbe
n’était pas avare ni haineuse (‘His sheaf was neither miserly nor spiteful’). The dimension of meaning opened up by this metaphor is nothing less than what appears to us in the final image, that of the golden sickle carelessly thrown into the field of stars. It is the very dimension hidden in this poem. More hidden than you think, because it is not enough to refer to the sickle which Jupiter used to flood the world with the blood of Chronos.

我無庸重複我剛才的話，但是我現在介紹它的理由，顯然是要告訴你們，我指明這位毀譽參半的人物，既是聖父，又是上帝的代理。隱喻來說，「他的光輝洋溢，但不炙熱」，這一句的意義的創造因素是什麼？這句隱喻的意義道道地地就是最後一個意象所揭露的：「黃金般的鐮刀，輕率地擲向星空！」這就是隱匿於這首詩的意涵。超乎你們想像地隱匿，因為它不僅提到邱比特神使用洪水來淹沒大地時，手中拿著的鐮刀。

The dimension of castration that is involved here is, in the Biblical perspective, of a quite different order, and is at work there, present with all the echoes of history, including Booz’s invocations to the Lord—Comment surgira-t-il de moi, vieil homme, une descendance? (How will there ever be offspring for such an old man as I.)

從聖經的觀點，這裡牽涉到的內容是有關閹割的意涵，是完全不同的秩序，持續地迴響在歷史的回聲中，包括布茲對於上帝的祈禱：「我這樣的老人，如何能得子嗣？」

I don’t know whether you have noticed—you would have been much more capable of doing so if this year I had done the seminar I intended doing on the Names-of-the-Father—but the Lord with the unpronounceable name is precisely he who sends children to barren women and old men. The fundamentally transbiological character of paternity, introduced by the tradition of the destiny of the chosen people, has something that is originally repressed there, and which always re-emerges in the ambiguity of lameness, the impediment and the symptom, of non-encounter, dustuchia, with the meaning that remains hidden.

我不知道你們是否注意到，假如我今年的演講內容是有關「以父之名」，你們本來比較能夠了解。但是靜默不語的上帝，確實是不能生育的女人及老人的送子觀音。基本上跨越生物領域的父權特性，基督教上帝選民的傳統，起源就具有壓抑的意涵，會以跛腳、障礙、病徵、閃躲、創傷等模稜兩可的方式一再出現，意涵始終隱匿不明。

This is a dimension that we find again and again and which, if we wish to formalize it, as the author I referred to just now tried to do, deserves to be handled with more prudence than is in fact the case—relying, in a way, on the formalism of fraction that results from marking the link that exists between the signifier and the signified by an intermediary bar. It is not absolutely illegitimate to consider that, at certain moments, this bar marks, in the relation of the signifier to the signified,
the indication of a value that is strictly what is expressed in its use as fraction in the mathematical sense of the term. But, of course, it is not the only use.

這是一個我們一再發現的意義，應該值得我們更加謹慎來處理，假如我們希望說明它。像我剛才提到的那位作者，依靠意符與意旨的仲介門閂，中間的些微變化所組成的形式主義。這並非牽強附會，假如我說，在某些時刻，這條仲介門閂以意符作為意旨的代表，代表一種價值的指示，就像是數學裡分子跟分母的關係。當然，這不是唯一的關係。

There is between the signifier and the signified, another relation which is that of the effect of meaning. Precisely at the point at which it is a question, in metaphor, of marking the effect of meaning, one can absolutely not, therefore, without taking certain precautions, and in as bold a way as has been done, manipulate this bar in a fractional transformation— which one could do if it were a question of a relation of proportion.

意符與意旨之間，還有另外一層關係，那就是意義的效應的關係。確實就是在隱喻時，標明意義的效應的問題，因此，我們處理分子轉移的這條中間橫槓，像以前一樣大膽前進，但不能不多加謹慎，因為那不單純是比例的問題。

When it is a question of fractions, one may transform the product X into a four-storeyed formula, as in the following: It was thought to be very clever to do this with metaphor, arguing from the following— to that which carries the weight, in the unconscious, of an articulation of the last signifier to embody the metaphor with the new meaning created by its use, should correspond some kind of pinning out, from one to the other, of two sigriifiers in the unconscious.

當它是一個分子的問題，我們可以將結果X，放進這四層的公式裡，如下例：用隱喻來說會比較清楚，在無意識部份，負帶最後意符表達重量的東西，使用時所創造的新的意義的隱喻，應該對應某種的輸出，從無意識的兩個意符的其中之一，到另一意符。

Such a formula is quite definitely unsatisfactory. First, because one ought to know that there can be no relations between the signifier and itself; the peculiarity of the signifier being the fact that it is unable to itself; without producing some error in logic.

這樣一個公式顯而易見是不令人滿意。首先，因為我們應該知道，意符跟自身之間無法形成關係。意符的特性在於，它若是僅僅指向自己，必然會產生邏輯上的謬誤。

雄伯曰：
意符若無真實界的意旨作為基礎，即使不產生邏輯上的謬誤，充其量也僅是語言符號的遊戲。大家若渾然不覺，樂此不疲，等到死亡大限來臨時，才幡然醒悟自己幻夢一生，自欺欺人。

To be convinced of this, one has only to refer to the antinomies that have intervened as soon as an attempt has been made to produce an exhaustive logical formulation of mathematics. The catalogue of catalogues that do not contain themselves is obviously not the same catalogue that does not contain
itself—when it is the one that is introduced in the definition and when it is the one that will be inscribed in the catalogue.

大家若是依舊不信，只要參照一下，數學符號的無窮盡演算，最後產生的結果，常是不知所云的矛盾答案。涵蓋眾多目錄的目錄，卻沒有將自身包含在內，這跟沒有包含自身的目錄並不相同。因為前者的目錄是以定義方式作為導引，銘記在目錄裡就是目錄而已。

It is so much easier to realize that what is happening is that a substitutive signifier has been put in the place of another signifier to constitute the effect of metaphor. It refers the signifier that it has usurped elsewhere. If, in fact, one wished to preserve the possibility of a handling of a fractional type, one
would place the signifier that has disappeared, the repressed signifier, below the principal bar, in the denominator, unterdrllckt.

我們很容易體會到，經常發生的是，一個替代的意符，被用來代替另一個意符，造成比喻的效果。它所指稱的意符，背後的意旨早已經蕩然無存。事實上，假如我們希望保存分子式的處理的可能性，我們應該要將消失不見的意旨，被壓抑的意符，放置到中間橫槓底下的分母位置。

Consequently, it is false to say, as has been said, that interpretation is open to all meanings under the pretext that it is a question only of the connection of a signifier to a signifier, and consequently of an uncontrollable connection. Interpretation is not open to any meaning. This would be to concede to those who rise up against the character of uncertainty in analytic interpretation that, in effect, all interpretations are possible, which is patently absurd. The fact that I have said that the effect of interpretation is to isolate in the subject a kernel, a kern, to use Freud’s own term, of non-sense, does not mean that interpretation is in itself nonsense.

結果，如剛才所說，我們若是以真實界的意旨不存在為藉口，就容許任憑解釋，這是錯誤的想法。因為意符連接意符，連接得沒完沒了，結果是什麼意義都沒有。任憑你解釋得天花亂墜，就是沒有意義。這等於是極端荒謬地承認，精神分析經驗的解釋，大家莫衷一是，就容許任憑各作解釋。我剛才說，解釋的效果就是要從主體身上，突顯出一個無意義的核心，用佛洛伊德的術語來說，就是無意義的彰顯。這個事實並不意味著，解釋的本身是胡說八道。

Interpretation is a signification that is not just any signification. It comes here in the place of the s and reverses the relation by which the signifier has the effect, in language, of the signified. It has the effect of bringing out an irreducible signifier. One must interpret at the level of the s, which is not open to all
meanings, which cannot be just anything, which is a signification, though no doubt only an approximate one.

解釋代表的意義，並非是任憑各自解讀。解釋在此是代替語言的主體，然後將語言當中，意符受到意旨的影響的關係，倒轉過來。它具有意符無法化簡為意旨的影響。我們必須從作為語言主體的層次來解釋。這種解釋並非開放給各種意義，意義無法任憑解讀，儘管他們頗為接近。

What is there is rich and complex, when it is a question of the unconscious of the subject, and intended to bring out irreducible, nonsensical— composed of non-meanings— signifying elements. In this same article, Leclaire’s work illustrates particularly well the crossing of significant interpretation towards signifying non-sense, when he proposes, on the subject of his obsessional neurotic patient, the so-called Poordjeli formula, which links the two syllables of the word licorne (unicorn), thus enabling him to introduce into his sequence a whole chain in which his desire is animated. Indeed, you will see in what he will publish later that things go much further still.

當我們提到主體的無意識的問題，用來顯露組成那無法窮盡的無意義的意符的元素，我們發現那裡的東西是不但豐富，而且複雜。在同一篇文章，列克雷特別清楚說明，意義的解釋朝著無意義邁進。在論及著魔精神病患的主體時，他提出所謂的「普潔離公式」，連接unicorn「獨角獸」的兩個音節，使他能夠介紹欲望被激發出來的一套鎖鏈。的確，你會看到，他後來出版的內容，還會更加深入。

Interpretation is not open to all meanings. It is not just any interpretation. It is a significant interpretation, one that must not be missed. This does not mean that it is not this signification that is essential to the advent of the subject. What is essential is that he should see, beyond this signification, to what signifier —to what irreducible, traumatic, non-meaning—he is, as a subject, subjected.

意義並非任憑各自解釋。解釋不僅僅語言的解釋，解釋要能夠創造意義，而且意義是一定不可欠缺的。這並不意味著，對於主體的來臨，重要的不是這個意義。重要的是他應該看出，在這個意義之外，他作為一個主體，無論發揮怎樣的意符，最後終就是無法成為意義，只能成為創傷及無意義。

This enables us to conceive what is materialized in the experience. I would ask you to take up one of Freud’s great psycho-analytic cases, the greatest of all, the most sensational —because one sees in it, more clearly than anywhere else, where the problem of the conversion of phantasy and reality
converge, namely, in something irreducible, non-sensical, that functions as an originally repressed signifier—I mean the case of the Wolf Man. In The Wolf Man, I would say, to give you the thread that will guide you through your reading, that the sudden appearance of the wolves in the window in the dream plays the function of the s, as representative of the loss of the subject.

這使我們能夠將精神分析經驗，具體地構想。我要求你們去看一個佛洛伊德的精神分析病例。那是一個最偉大，也是最聳動的病例，因為從那裡，我們能夠比任何地方都看得清楚，幻想跟真實的匯聚及轉換的問題所在，換言之，某件無法成為意義及無意義的東西，充當原初被壓抑的意符。我指的是「狼人」的病例。在「狼人」病例，讓我給你們引導閱讀的線索，在夢中，狼突然出現在窗戶，扮演的功用是：主體消失的代表。

It is not only that the subject is fascinated by the sight of these wolves, which number seven, and which, in fact, in his drawing of them perched on the tree number only five. It is that their fascinated gaze is the subject

主體不但被狼的景象著迷，數目是七隻，但事實上，他繪畫它們時，潛伏在樹木上的狼，只有五隻。而且受到著迷的凝視，是主體本身。

What does the whole case show? It shows that at each stage in the life of the subject, something always arrived to reshape the value of the determining index represented by this original signifier. Thus the dialectic of the subject’s desire as constituting itself from the desire of the Other is correctly grasped.
Remember the adventure of the father, the sister, the mother and the servant-woman Groucha. So many different stages that enrich the unconscious desire of the subject with something that is to be put, as signification constituted in the relation to the desire of the Other, in the numerator.

整個病例顯示什麼？它顯示，在主體一生的每一個階段，總是有某件東西來到，重新塑造原初意符代表的指標的價值。因此，主體欲望的辯證法，根據大它者的欲望組成，可以正確地被理解。你們記得他跟父親、姐妹、母親及女樸人葛羅采的冒險。眾多不同的階段，使主體的無意識欲望蓬勃豐富，放置於分母的位置，作為組成跟大它者的欲望的關係。

Note what happens then. I would ask you to consider the logical necessity of that moment in which the subject as X can be constituted only from the Urverdrdngung, from the necessary fall of this first signifier. He is constituted around the UrverdrJngung, but he cannot substitute anything for it as such— since this would require the representation of one signifier for another, whereas here there is only one, the first. In this X, we must consider two sides—that constituent moment that sees the collapse of significance, which we articulate in a place in its function at the level of the unconscious, but also the return effect, which operates from this relation that may be conceived on the basis of the fraction. It must be introduced only with prudence, but it is well indicated for us by the effects of language.

然後，請注意發生什麼事。我要你們考慮一下那個時刻的邏輯必然性。主體作為X的未知數，就是由這個原初的意符的必然的掉落所組成。他的組成繞著這個掉落，但是又無法用任何東西來代替，因為這要求用一個意符代替另外一個意符，但是掉落的意符只有一個，原初的意符。在這個未知數X，我們必須考慮到兩邊：一邊是看到意義崩塌的形成的時刻，我們將它放在無意識層次的功用來表達。另一邊是回轉的影響，其運作的關係，可以根據分子的基礎來構想。介紹時必須要小心謹慎，但是語言的影響給我們指明得很清楚。

Everyone knows that if zero appears in the denominator, the value of the fraction no longer has meaning, but assumes by convention what mathematicians call an infinite value. In a way, this is one of the stages in the constitution of the subject.

每個人都知道，假如出現在分母的數目是零，那麼分子的價值就不再有任何意義。但是每個人根據傳統相信數學家所謂的無限值。在某方面，這是主體形成時的階段信仰。

In so far as the primary signifier is pure non-sense, it becomes the bearer of the infinitization of the value of the subject, not open to all meanings, but abolishing them all, which is different. This explains why I have been unable to deal with the relation of alienation without introducing the word freedom. What, in effect, grounds, in the meaning and radical non-meaning of the subject, the function of freedom, is strictly speaking this signifier that kills all meanings.

由於原初的意符就是純粹的無意義，這個無意義的意符負載著主體的價值的無限值，無法開放任憑解釋，因為任何解釋，儘管有差異，最後都蕩然無存。這解釋為什麼我處理疏離的關係時，必然要介紹「自由」這個字眼。事實上，作為主體的意義跟完全無意義的基礎，也就是自由的功用，嚴格來說，就是意義蕩然無存的這個無意義的意符。

This is why it is untrue to say that the signifier in the unconscious is open to all meanings. It constitutes the subject in his freedom in relation to all meanings, but this does not mean that it is not determined in it. For, in the numerator, in the place of the zero, the things that are inscribed are significations, dialectized significations in the relation of the desire of the Other, and they give a particular value to the relation of the subject to the unconscious.

這就是為什麼說，無意識的意符開放各種解釋是不正確的。這個意符讓主體自由地跟各種意義組成關係，但這並不意味著，主體不受到原初意符的操控。因為出現在分母的數目若是零，那些呈現作為意義的東西，作為大它者的欲望的關係所演算出來的意義，在主體跟無意識的關係，他們給予特別的價值。

It will be important, in what will follow in my seminar next year, to show how the experience of analysis forces us to seek a kind of formalization such that the mediation of this infinity of the subject with the finiteness of desire may occur only through the intervention of what Kant, on his entry into the gravitation of what is called philosophical thinking, introduced with so much freshness in the term negative quantities.

在我明年的演講時，我會顯示，精神分析的經驗如何強迫我們尋求一種正常化關係，這樣，主體的這種無限值，跟欲望的有限值，才能憑藉哲學家康德新奇介紹的「負數質量」這個術語，才可能調適，當他從事所謂的哲學思考的引力時。

The freshness is important here, of course, because there is a difference between forcing philosophers to reflect on the fact that minus one ( — i) is not zero and the fact that people soon lose interest in such talk and cease to listen. Nevertheless—and this is the only use of the reference to philosophical articulation —men survive only by being at each moment so forgetful of all their conquests, I am speaking of their subjective conquests.

當然，這個術語的新奇在此是很重要的，因為強迫哲學家去思考負一不等於是零這個是事實，迴然不同於人們聽膩這樣的談話，不願再聽的這個事實。可是，這是哲學表達的唯一用途，因為人們生活的時時刻刻，就是會忘記自己的征服，我是說人們的主觀上的征服。

Of course, from the moment they forget them, they are nevertheless conquered, but it is rather they who are conquered by the effects of these conquests. And the fact of being conquered by something that one does not know sometimes has formidable consequences, the first of which is confusion.
Negative quantity, then, is the term that we shall find to designate one of the supports of what is called the castration complex, namely, the negative effect in which the phallus object enters into it. This is no more than a foretaste, but I thought it worth saying.

當然，從人們忘記的時刻，他們仍然被征服。但是，被這些征服的影響所征服的人，仍然是他們自己。被某件自己不知道的東西所征服的這個事實，有時會有巨大的後果，第一個後果就是困惑。因此，「負數質量」是我們找到的術語，用來表達所謂的「閹割情結」的內涵，換言之，陽具客體進入時產生的負面影響。我現在只是淺嘗輒止，但是我認為還是值得一提。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座250

拉岡講座250
‘9
FROM INTERPRETATION TO THE TRANSFERENCE
從解釋到移情

Field of the ego and field of the Other
自我的領域與大它者的領域

As far as vocabulary is concerned, what I am going to introduce today will, unfortunately, not be very familiar to you. We shall be dealing with the most ordinary terms, such as identification, idealization, projection, introjection. These are not easy terms to handle and it is not made any easier by the fact that they already have meanings.

就辭彙而言，今天我要介紹的內容，恐怕你們不太熟悉。我們將處理一些很普遍的術語，諸如認同、理想化、投射、及內射。這些術語不好處理，儘管已經意義鮮明，還是不好懂。

What could be more ordinary than to identify? It even seems like the essential operation of thought. To idealize, that too might prove useful when the psychologistic position becomes more experimental. To project and to introject are seen by some people as reciprocal terms. Yet I pointed out long ago — perhaps this fact should be realized—that one of these terms refers to a field in which the symbolic is dominant, the other to a field in which the imaginary is dominant, which must mean that, in a certain dimension at least, they never meet.

還有什麼比認同更耳熟能詳？它甚至似乎是我們思維的基本運作。理想化也是老生常談，每次我們嘗試心理學的應用時，我們就被冠上此語。投射跟內射，則是被一些人當著可以互換的術語。可是，我很久以前就指出，請大家注意這個事實，其中一個術語提到一個符號界佔優勢的領域，另一個則是提到想像界佔優勢，這必然意味著，至少在某些方面，它們永遠不會相遇。

The intuitive use of these terms, on the basis of the feeling that one has of understanding them, and of understanding them in an isolated way as revealing their dimension in the common understanding, is obviously at the source of all the misapprehensions and confusions. It is the common fate of anything to do with discourse. In common discourse, he who speaks, at least in his native language, expresses himself with such ease, with such evident familiarity, that it is to the most common user of a language, to the uneducated man, that one has recourse if one wishes to know the correct usage of a term.

對於這些術語的本能的運用，根據我們對它們的瞭解，將它抽離出來瞭解，當著是大家的共識，顯而易見，它位於所有誤解及混淆的來源。這是任何牽涉到表述時，大家的共同命運。在共識表述時，說話者能夠如此泰然自若，如此駕輕就熟地表達自己，至少在使用自己的母語表達時。但是他對象若是一般的使用者，或未受過教育的文盲，他將會發現一個術語的正確用法，鮮少不被誤解的。

As soon as he wishes to speak, man is orientated in the fundamental topology of language, which is very different from the simplistic realism in which he who thinks that he is at ease in the domain of science all too often confines himself: The natural use of such expressions—let us select some at random—as in one’s own heart (a part soi),for good or ill (bon gre mal gre), a business (une afaire), which is different from a thing to be done (une chose âfaire), implies the enveloping topology in which the subject recognizes himself when he speaks spontaneously.

一但人想要表述，他的定位是在語言的基本地形學。這截然不同於單純的現實情境，自以為在科學領域周旋自在的人，在現實情境常感局促。有些俗語脫口而出，讓我們隨便舉幾個例子，例如，「言必由衷」、「不計毀譽」、「一己之事」等，跟實際言行是兩碼子事。因為這意味著，主體侃侃而談時，體認出自己在周遭地形的處境。

If I can speak to psycho-analysts and try to locate to which implicit topology they are referring when using each of the terms I have just listed, it is obviously because, on the whole—however incapable they may often be, for lack of teaching, of articulating them—they frequently make adequate use of
them, with the same spontaneity as the ordinary man uses ordinary speech. Of course, if they are determined to force the results of a case, and to understand where they do not understand, they will inevitably make a forced use of these results.

假如我跟精神分析師交談，設法找出他們使用剛才我列舉的幾個成語時，提到的地形處境意味著什麼，那是因為大體上，他們對於語言，跟一般人使用俚語一樣，總是駕輕就熟，儘管事實上他們對於這些俚語的表達內涵，未必深刻體會，未必受過嚴謹的語言學訓練。當然，假如他們想要草率從事，想要強不知以為知，他們必然會爛用這些陳腔濫調。

In such instances, there will be few people to develop them. Today, then, I’m referring to this fact in the psycho-analytic use of certain words, in order to be able to harmonize them with the evidence of a topology that I have already introduced here and which is, for example, embodied on the blackboard in the schema which shows you the field of the original Ich, the objectifiable Ich, in the last resort, in the nervous system, the Ich of the homeostatic field, in relation to which the field of Lust, of pleasure, is distinguished from the field of Unlust.

在這些情境，很少人會對他們詳加驗證。因此，我今天提到這個精神分析界，術語浮濫使用的事實，為了提供證據，使大家明白我剛在這裡介紹過的地形情境。例如，我在黑板上所畫的這個基型，讓你們明白「原我」、「客體化的我」，「體內平衡的我」在神經系統各有領域，彼此的快樂的領域跟不快樂的領域截然不同。

I have already pointed out that Freud distinguishes clearly between the level of the Ich, for example in the article on the Triebe, when stressing both that it is manifested as organized, which is a narcissistic sign, and that it is precisely to this extent that it is strictly articulated in the field of the real. In the real, it distinguishes, it privileges only that which is reflected in its field by an effect of Lust, as return to homeostasis.

我已經指出，佛洛伊德清楚區別「我」的層次。例如，在「欲望驅力」一文中，他強調驅力的表現是有條理的，自戀的跡象，以及驅力在真實界的領域，表現確實到達這個程度。在真實界，驅力區別並且鍾愛快樂的情意在這個領域的反映，因為它回到了體內平衡。

But that which does not favor homeostasis and is maintained at all costs as Unlust bites still more into its field. Thus, what is of the order of Unlust is inscribed in the ego as non-ego, negation, splitting-off of the ego. The non-ego is not to be confused with what surrounds it, the vastness of the real. Non-ego is distinguished as a foreign body, fremde Objekt. It is there, situated in the lunula constituted by the two small Euler-type circles.

但是，不快樂的情意，雖然在體內平衡不受鍾愛，卻是千方百計還維持著，緊咬住這個領域。因此，不快樂情意鐫刻在自我裡，作為非自我，自我的負面，自我的分裂。這個非自我，不應該跟包圍它四周的廣大的真實界混淆。非自我被區別為一個外來的身體。在那裡，有兩個微積分圓形平等切割形成的半月形領域，就位在那裡。

Look at the blackboard. In the register of pleasure, then, we can make for ourselves an objectifiable foundation, just as the scientist is foreign to the object whose functioning he observes. But we are not simply that, and even if we were, we would also have to be the subject who thinks. And in so far as we are the subject who thinks, we are implicated in a quite different way, in as much as we depend on the field of the Other, which was there long before we came into the world, and whose circulating structures determine us as subjects.

請看黑板上。在快樂的領域，我們能夠替自己建立一個客體化的基礎，就像是一位科學家正在觀察一個客體的功用，但是對於這個客體，他自己卻陌生無知。但是不僅是如此，即使我們能夠知曉，我們也必須是能夠思維的主體。因為我們是能夠思維的主體，我們介入的方式就各有不同，依靠我們的大它者的領域而定。大它者在我們進入這個世界之前，早先存在。大它者的運作結構，決定我們作為主體是怎樣一種人。

It is a question, then, of knowing in what field the different things with which we deal in the field of analysis occur. Some occur at the level of the first field, of the Ich, and others—which should be distinguished from the first, because if one confuses them, one is lost—in the other field, the field of the Other. I have already shown you the essential articulations of this other field in the two functions that I have defined and articulated as alienation and separation.

因此，問題是要知道，在精神分析領域，我們處理的不同的事情，發生在怎樣的領域。有些發生在第一領域的層次，「我」的層次，還有一些則是發生在大它者的領域。我們應該區別這兩種領域，因為混淆而談，我們就弄不清楚。我已經告訴過你們，這兩種功用中，這個另外領域的重要表達，構成我所謂的疏離與分開。

The rest of my discourse today presupposes that you have thought about these two functions since I introduced them to you—in other words, that you have tried to make them function at different levels, to put them to the test.

我今天的其餘表述，預先假設，你們曾經思考過這兩種功用，自從我跟你們介紹以來。換言之，你們曾經設法讓它們在不同層次發揮功用，去驗證它們。

I have already tried to embody certain consequences of the very particular vel that constitutes alienation—the placing in suspense of the subject, its vacillation, the collapse of meaning— in such familiar forms as your money or your or freedom or death, which are reproduced from a being or meaning—terms that I do not propose without some reluctance. I would ask you not to be too hasty in overloading them with meanings, for if you do you will only succeed in sinking them. So I feel that it is incumbent upon me to warn you of this at the outset.

我已經設法具體表現，這個組成疏離的特別的「選擇」，產生的某些的結果：主體的懸置，立場的搖擺不定，意義的崩塌。我用的是一些耳熟能詳的選擇，如「要錢？還是要自由？還是要命？」我是從「要存在？還是要意義？」的選擇衍生而來。這些術語，我剛使用時，還頗有些猶豫。但是我建議你們不要太急切給它們賦予過多聯想。因為假如你聯想太多，你們反而會使它們的意義晦暗不明。所以，我一開始就必須先警告你們。

Nevertheless, I am introducing here what my discourse will try to articulate, if possible, next year. It is a question of something that ought to be entitled the subjective positions. For all this preparation, concerning the fundamentals of analysis, should normally serve to show—since nothing can be properly centred except the position of the subject—what the articulation of analysis, on the basis of desire, makes it possible to illustrate about these fundamentals.

可是，我現在要跟你們介紹，我明年可能要講述的內容。我要談的問題，應該可以命名為「主觀的立場」。關於精神分析的基本原理，一切準備就是用來顯示：除了主體的位置，別無適當的中心。精神分析所表達的內容，以欲望為基礎，使我們得以舉例說明這些基本的原理。

Subjective positions, then, of what? If I relied on what is available, I would say —the subjective positions of existence, with all the advantages that this term may possess from being already much in the air. Unfortunately, this term would allow us a rigorous application only at the level of the neurotic — which, indeed, would be no small matter. That is why I will say the subjective positions of being. I am not committing myself in advance to my title, I may find a better one, but, in any case,
that’s what it’s about.

那麼，主觀的立場是什麼？憑藉現有的發現，我會說，就是主體對於生命存在意義的立場。這個術語已經廣泛為人知道，我引用過來，比較容易人了解。不幸地，這個術語會讓人以為，我們只能將它使用在精神病患的層次。這可是非同小可。那就是為什麼我要提到，主體對於生命存在的立場。對於這個標題，我尚在斟酌考量。我也許還會找到更貼切的標題，無論如何，下一次我要演講的內容，大約是這樣。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座249

拉岡講座249
The Subject who is supposed to know
應該知道的主體

Alienation in pleasure
歡樂中的疏離

3
As usual, I must break off a train of thought in order to keep things within certain limits. However, I wish to say something, however briefly, about what I hope to discuss next time. I have illustrated the essential difference on the blackboard, in the form of two schemata.

像平常一樣，我必須中斷我的思緒，才不會天馬行空，漫無邊際。可是，關於下一次我要討論的內容，我希望簡短地提一下。我曾在黑板上，用兩個基型，說明重要的不同所在。

In his text on the Triebe and the Triebschicksale, the drives and the vicissitudes of the drive, Freud places love at once at the level of the real, at the level of narcissism, at the level of the pleasure principle in its correlation with the reality principle, and deduces from this that the function of ambivalence is absolutely different from what occurs in the Verkehrung, in the circular movement. At the level at which love is in question, we have a schema, which, Freud tells us, is spread over two
stages.

在「驅力與驅力的變遷」的一篇文章，佛洛伊德將愛同時放置在真實界的層次、自戀的層次、快樂原則與現實原則的層次。由此推論出，愛恨交加的功用，絕對不同於彼此翻轉的循環運轉。在愛受到質疑的層次，有一個基型，佛洛伊德告訴我們，延伸在兩個階段之上。

First there is an Ich, an Ich defined objectively by the combined functioning of the apparatus of the central nervous system and the condition of homeostasis, to preserve the tensions at the lowest possible level.

首先有一個「我」。這個「我」客觀上由腦神經系統的器官及體內平衡的狀況，共同運作，這樣才能減緩緊張。

We can conceive that what there is outside this, if one can speak of an outside, is merely indifference. And, at this level, since it is a question of tension, indifference simply means non-existence. Freud tells us however that the rule of autoeroticism is not the non-existence of objects, but the functioning of objects solely in relation to pleasure. In the zone of indifference a distinction is made between that which brings Lust and that which brings Unlust, pleasure or displeasure. In any case, did not the ambiguity of the term Lustprinzip become obvious to everyone long ago ?—since some people also write it Unlustprinzip.

我們能夠覺察出，除此而外，假如有所謂外在的話，那就是漠不關心。在這個層次上，因為牽涉到緊張，漠不關心僅是意味著不存在。可是，佛洛伊德告訴我們，性愛的自動並不就是客體的不存在，而是客體與快樂原則的運作。在漠不關心的地帶，帶來快樂跟帶來不快樂的驅力有所不同。無論如何，「快樂原則」這個術語老早以前，大家不就已經明顯覺得是模稜兩可？因為有些人寫下的是「不快樂原則」。

The next problem, then, is how this stage is to be represented— how are homeostasis and pleasure to be articulated? For, the fact that something brings pleasure is still too much for the equilibrium. What is the closest and most accurate schema that can be given of this hypothetical Ich, in which is motivated the first construction of an apparatus functioning as a psyche? I propose the following.

因此，下一個問題是這個階段如何代表？體內平衡與快樂如何清楚表達？某件事情會帶來快樂，這個事實就讓人耿耿於懷。關於這個假設的「我」，心理運作的器官的最早建構，最靠近，最正確的基型是什麼？我建議以下這個小客體存在的證據的圖形。

You see, indicated by the capital letters ICH, the Ich as apparatus tending to a certain homeostasis— which cannot be the lowest because that would be death and, indeed, this was envisaged by Freud in a second stage. As for Lust, this is not a field strictly speaking, it is always an object, an object of
pleasure, which, as such, is mirrored in the ego. This mirror-image, this bi-univocal correlate of the object, is here the purified Lust-Ich of which Freud speaks, namely, that which, in the Ich, is satisfied with the object qua Lust.

你們瞧，這個大寫字母的「我」，作為一種傾向於要得某種平衡的器官，不能擺置在最低位置，因為那是死亡的位置。的確，佛洛伊德在第二階段才構想到它。至於快樂，嚴格來說，它不是一個領域，它總是個客體，一個快樂的客體，如實地反映在這個自我裡。這個鏡子意象，這個客體的兩個單一體，在此是佛洛伊德所提到「我的快樂」，換言之，這個我以快樂作為滿足。

Unlust, on the other hand, is what remains unassimilable, irreducible to the pleasure principle. It is out of this, Freud tells us, that the non-ego will be constituted. It is situated—note well—within the circle of the original ego, it bites into it, without the homeostatic functioning ever managing to reabsorb it. You see here the origin of what we shall find again later in the so-called functioning of the bad object.
You will notice especially that what structures the level of pleasure already gives the beginning of a possible articulation of alienation.

在另一方面，不快樂始終無法被吸收，被化簡到快樂原則。佛洛伊德告訴我們，這個「非自我」的部份就是由不快樂由成。請注意，它的位置就在「原先的自我」的圈子裡。它跟原先的自我緊密相隨，體內平衡的功能卻無法重新將它吸收進來。你們在此看到，我們後來所謂的不好的客體的運作，起源就在此。你們將會特別注意到，快樂層次的結構，就是疏離的表達可能的起源。

In the external zone, Lust says to itself, more or less—Ah! the Ich is really something I must concern myself with. And as soon as it does concern itself with it, the perfect tranquillity of the Ich disappears. The Lust-Ich stands out and, by the same token, Unlust, the foundation of the non-ego, falls back. This does not imply the disappearance of the apparatus, quite the contrary. You simply see being produced at a primitive level that breaking-off, that splitting-off, which I indicated in the dialectic of the subject with the Other, but here in the opposite direction.

在外部的地區，快樂對自己大約是這樣說：「呀！這個我，我必須關心。」一但快樂不關心到自我，這個「我」的沉著寧靜就會消失。這個「快樂的我」突顯出來的同時，作為「非自我」的基礎的不快樂就會後退。這並不意味著，這個器官就這樣消失，完全相反。你們就會看到，在這個原始的層次，會產生中斷及分裂。在主體與大它者的辯證過程，也會有中斷及分裂，但是在這裡，方向相反過來。

This is expressed in the expression, No good without evil, no good without pain, which preserves in this good and in this evil a character of alternation, of a possible calibration, in which the articulation that I gave earlier of a dyad of signifiers will be reduced, and incorrectly. For, to return things at the level of good and evil, everyone knows that hedonism is unable to explain the mechanism of desire. This is because in passing over to the other register, to the alienating articulation, it is expressed quite differently. I almost blush to repeat here such catchphrases as beyond good and evil, which idiots have been playing around with for so long without knowing exactly what they were doing. Nevertheless, we must articulate what occurs at the level of the alienating articulation thus—no evil without there
resulting some good from it, and when the good is there, there is no good that holds with evil.

有一句很貼切的俗語：「善惡相連，福禍相依。」善行及惡行只是程度上的差異，彼此迭替，早先我提到過，意符的對立可以減緩，並不很適當。回到善惡與福禍的層次，大家都知道，享樂主義無法說欲望的機械學。這是因為傳遞到另一方面，傳遞到疏離的表達時，享樂主義的表達截然不同。容我不厭其煩地一再重複「超越善與惡」這個警句，即使是白痴都會樂此不疲地玩弄這個警句，而不知道自己在幹什麼。可是，我們必須表達在疏離的表達的這個層次。即使是惡行的開端，有時也會有善行的結果。至於善行，每個善行都包含某種邪惡。

That is why, by situating itself purely and simply in the register of pleasure, ethics fails and why, quite legitimately, Kant objects to it that the sovereign good can in no way be conceived as some small good carried to infinity. For there is no possible law to be given of what might be the good in objects.

The sovereign good, if this confusing term must be retained, can be found again only at the level of the law, and in Kant avec Sade’ I showed that this means that, at the level of desire, passivity, narcissism and ambivalence are the characteristics that govern the dialectic of pleasure at the level of the table on
the left. Its term is, strictly speaking, what is called identification.

這就是為什麼，倫理學若是將自己定位在僅是快樂原則上，往往功敗垂成。這也是為什麼，康德振振有詞地反對說：「統治的善，絕對不能僅從細微末節的善行，推到極端。」因為不能可有哪一條法則，將善行定位在客體上。統治的善，這個術語本身就有待商榷，只能在法則的層次被找到。在「康德即是沙德」文章中，我曾揭示，在欲望、自戀與愛恨交加的層次，表現的特徵是基於統治快樂原則的辯證法。它的術語，嚴格來說，就是所謂的「自我認同」。

It is the recognition of the drive that enables us to construct, with the greatest certainty, the functioning that I call the functioning of the division of the subject, or alienation. And how has the drive itself been recognized? It has been recognized in this that, far from the dialectic of what occurs in the subject’s
unconscious being able to be limited to the reference to the field of Lust, to the images of beneficent, favourable objects, we have found a certain type of objects which, in the final resort, can serve no function. These are the objets a—the breasts, the faeces, the gaze, the voice. It is in this new term that resides the point that introduces the dialectic of the subject qua subject of the unconscious.

辨認出欲望驅力，使我們能夠斬釘截鐵地建構，我所謂的主體分裂的功能。我們能用什麼方法辨認出這個欲望驅力？我們所能辨認的是，我們曾找到某一種客體，但是在最後關頭，它卻無法發揮功用。因為發生在主體的無意識的東西，根本不是局限於快樂的領域，不是局限於一些善行及福祉的客體的意象。這些被統稱為「小客體」，如乳房、糞便、凝視、及聲音。人作為無意識的主體，展開的辯證法，就是從這些小客體開始。

Next time, I shall continue to develop the theme of the subject of the transference.

下一次，我將繼續講述「人作為移情的主體」這個命題。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

雄伯手記990204

雄伯手記990207

以出家的心情，過在家的日子。

作為真實的人並不容易，時而興奮激情，時而冷漠，不近情理。在別人眼中看起來，是有點精神異常的。

然而，返真歸樸，減少無聊的虛榮浮華，是我多年來冥思及讀書的結論，好歹也得讓自己有限的餘生，實踐貫徹一下。

又是一年歲末，可是絲毫沒有想要添購新衣新鞋，慶祝新年的念頭。平素深居簡出，幾年來買的幾件衣服，幾雙鞋子迄今看起來猶是嶄新。沒有必要在歲末物價正昂貴的時候，出去湊這個熱鬧。

每日在家安靜地讀書、寫作、從網路下載一些好東西瀏覽。自覺智慧有成長，心靈得以充實，時時有下載期盼，哥倫布發現新大陸般的滿足。每多存活一天，都是上天給我的恩賜！

每夜詭譎的夢境不再使我驚慌失措。那就是真實的我，沒有必要去逃避。周旋於人際之間時，我或許需要佯裝沉著，以掩飾自己內心的感覺。既然是在夢境，反正是身不由己，狼狽或滅亡，都聽天由命罷！

拉岡講座248

拉岡講座248

The subject who is supposed to know

應該知道的主體

Belief.
信仰
Alienation apprehended in the fort-da
我去你來之間的疏離

2
I will now re-articulate a number of formulae to be preserved as link points, without which thought will stumble and slip.

現在我重新表達許多被保留當著聯接點的公式，因為假如沒有這些公式，思維將會零亂散漫。

Alienation is linked in an essential way to the function of the dyad of signifiers. It is, indeed, essentially different, whether there are two or three of them. If we wish to grasp where the function of the subject resides in this signifying articulation, we must operate with two, because it is only with two that he can be cornered in alienation.

基本上，疏離與意符的善惡對立的功用有關。至於是否二元對立或是三元對立，確實還是事關重大。假如我們希望了解主體作為意符表達的功用的位置，我們必須以二元對立的方式運作。因為唯有在二元對立的情況，人的疏離可能會被逼迫成僵局。

As soon as there are three, the sliding becomes circular. When passed from the second to the third, it comes back to the first—but not from the second. The effect of aphanisis that is produced under one of the two signifiers is linked to the definition—let us say, to use the language of modem mathematics—
of a set of signifiers. It is a set of elements such that, if there exist—as one says in the theory, with a capital E inverted for notation—only two, the phenomenon of alienation is produced, in other words, the signifier is that which represents the subject for the other signifier. Hence there results that, at
the level of the other signifier, the subject fades away.

一但是三元對立，思維的散漫會成為循環。從第二意符傳遞到第三意符，它回到第一意符，但不是從第二意符那裡。兩個意符之一，會產生失蹤的影響，跟這個定義有關，讓我們用現代數學的語言來說，一組意符的集合。如同在數學理論，一組意符有一個元素的大寫字首E，被倒轉當著指稱，若有兩個意符存在，疏離的現象就會產生。換言之，意符就是主體對另外一個主體的代表。因此，在另外一個意符的層次，造成的結果是：主體消失。

This is also why I pointed out to you the mistake that occurs in a certain translation of this Vorstellungsrepr&entanz, which is, as I told you, the signifying S2 of the dyad.

這也就是為什麼我跟你們指出，欲望驅力，也就二元對立的第二意符，傳譯時會發生錯誤。

I must articulate here what is involved and what, in the text of one of my pupils of whom I have spoken, was sensed, but expressed in a way that misses the point, and which may lead to error, because it specifically omits the fundamental character of the function of the subject. There is constant reference to the relation of the signifier and the signified, which has to do with what I will call the a,b,c, of the question. Of course, it had to happen that one day I would put on the blackboard something that had already been formulated at the roots of the Saussurian development, in order to show my starting point.

我在此必須表明牽涉到什麼。我曾引用我的一位學生的論文所發現的，但是表達時漏掉一點，可能會導致錯誤。因為它明確地漏掉主體的功用最基本的特性。他不斷地提到意符與意旨的關係，這跟我所謂的基本問題有關。當然，有一天，我將必然要在黑板上，寫下某件根據語言學家索緒爾所推衍出來的東西，作為我的開端。

But I immediately showed that it was effective and manageable only to include in it the function of the subject at the original stage. It is not a question of reducing the function of the subject to nomination,
namely, to a label stuck on something. This would be to miss the whole essence of language. I must say that this text, which I described last time as providing proof of infatuation, also provides proof of crass ignorance, in letting it be understood that this is what is involved at the level of the Pavlovian experiment.

但是我立刻要表示，這個東西只有被包含在主體的功用初期的階段，才能有效地掌控。這個問題不是要將主體的功用簡化成為命名，換言之，成為一個黏附於某件東西的標籤。這將會漏失語言的本質。我必須說，我上一次描述作為迷戀的證據的本文，也提供懵懂無知的證據，因為它讓人瞭解到，巴夫洛夫的制約反應，牽涉到些什麼。

If there is something that is situated at the level of the experiment of the conditioned reflex, it is certainly not the association of a sign with a thing.

即使制約反應的試驗層次顯示某件東西，那也確定不會是符號跟事物的聯想。

Whether or not Pavlov recognizes this, the characteristic of every experimental condition is strictly to associate a signjfier, in so far as the experiment is instituted with the cut that may be made in the organic organization of a need—which is designated by a manifestation at the level of a cycle of interrupted needs, and which we find here again, at the level of the Pavlovian experiment, as being the cut of desire.

無論巴夫洛夫是否體會到這一點，每次制約反應的試驗的特性，都會讓人聯想到一個意符。因為試驗的開始，在於需求的有機組織所造成的割裂。需求被中斷的循環所顯示出來的割裂。我們再一次在巴夫洛夫試驗的層次發現到，作為欲望的割裂。

And—rather as one says, that’s why your daughter is dumb —that is why the animal will never learn to speak. At least in this way. Because, obviously, the animal is one step behind. The experiment may cause in him all sorts of disorders, all sorts of disturbances, but, not yet being a speaking creature, he is not called to put in question the desire of the experimenter, who, indeed, if one interrogated him, would be hard put to reply.

「這就是為什麼你的女兒是啞巴？」有人說。那就是為什麼動物永遠學不會說話。至少不會像人類這樣說話。因為，顯而易見，動物的智慧劣於人類。制約試驗會引起動物的各種疾病，各種的困擾，但是由於不會說話，動物不會質問試驗者的欲望是什麼。試驗者若是受到質問，其實很難回答。

Nevertheless, when articulated in this way, this experiment is interesting, indeed is essential, in enabling us to situate our conception of the psycho-somatic effect. I will go so far as to formulate that, when there is no interval between S1 and S2, when the first dyad of signiflers become solidified, holophrased, we have the model for a whole series of cases—even though, in each case, the subject does not occupy the same place.

可是，用這種方式來表達時，這種試驗頗耐人尋味，它確實很重要，因為它讓我們能夠明白心理跟生理的影響。甚至我要說，當第一意符跟第二意符之間沒有間隔，意符最初的二元對立固定用一個詞語來表達，整個案例的模式就展現出來，即使主體並不一定在每案例佔有相同的位置。

In as much, for example, as the child, the mentally-deficient child, takes the place, on the blackboard, at the bottom right, of this S, with regard to this something to which the mother reduces him, in being no more than the support of her desire in an obscure term, which is introduced into the education of
the mentally-deficient child by the psychotic dimension. It is precisely what our colleague Maud Mannoni, in a book that has just come out and which I would recommend you to read, tries to indicate to those who, in one way or another, may be entrusted with the task of releasing its hold.’

例如，黑板上底端的這個意符位置的小孩，是精神異常的小孩，他的母親模糊地將他視為僅僅是自己欲望的支持，因此造成小孩的精神異常，具有精神病患的特質。我們的同事曼諾尼剛出版一本書，我推薦你們閱讀。他確實設法向有關精神病患的單位，作這樣的說明。

It is certainly something of the same order that is involved in psychosis. This solidity, this mass seizure of the primitive signifying chain, is what forbids the dialectical opening that is manifested in the phenomenon of belief.

這確實跟精神病患的層次有相同的東西。原初的意符鎖鏈，若具體地遭到大量的損毀，會使主體的信仰的辯證法無法展開。

At the basis of paranoia itself, which nevertheless seems to us to be animated by belief, there reigns the phenomenon of
X ◇ S1
0. s, s’, s”, s”,… S (i (a, a’, a”, a”,…))
S2
0. s, s’, s”, s”,… : series of meanings.
i (a, a’, a”, a”,…) : series of identifications.
the Unglauben. This is not the not believing in it, but the absence of one of the terms of belief, of the term in which is designated the division of the subject. If, indeed, there is no belief that is full and entire, it is because there is no belief that does not presuppose in its basis that the ultimate dimension that it has to reveal is strictly correlative with the moment when its meaning is about to fade away.

偏執妄想症，我們似乎覺得是由於信仰危機所造成，顯示以下信仰崩裂的現象：
X ◇ S1
0. s, s’, s”, s”,… S (i (a, a’, a”, a”,…))
S2
0. s, s’, s”, s”,… : 意義系列
i (a, a’, a”, a”,…) : 認同系列
這並不等於就是不信仰，而是某種信仰模式的欠缺，某種主體分裂所顯示的信仰的欠缺。的確，假如主體欠缺完整的信仰，那是因為每一種信仰的基礎要能顯示最後的意義，而他的信仰的意義卻是若存若亡。

There are all kinds of experiences that bear this out. One of them, concerning one of Casanova’s misadventures, was told me in a very humorous way by Mannoni, who is with us today, and whose commentary on it is most amusing and revealing.

所有的精神分析經驗都證明這一點。曼諾尼先生今天在現場，他曾經幽默地告訴我，有關一個卡薩諾瓦的奇異冒險。他的評論頗耐人尋味。

At the end of a practical joke that succeeded to the point of moving the celestial forces and unleashing around him a storm which, in actual fact, terrified him, Casanova—who had been pursuing a cynical adventure with some silly goose of a girl, who was the object of the prank, which gathered round him a whole circle of idiots— Casanova, seeing his practical joke begin to work, become real, was so deeply affected—in a surprisingly comic way for a Casanova who defied earth and heaven at the level of his desire—that he was struck with impotence, as if he had really been stopped at the sight of God’s face.

卡薩諾瓦一直在跟某些癡情女人逢場作戲，他是情場的老手，他的身邊總是不乏圍繞一些自作多情的女人。有一次他的惡作劇戀情掀起議論糾紛，引起的風暴自己都嚇到。卡薩諾瓦看到惡作劇的後果，態度變得認真，因為這一次他自己也動了真情。這對卡薩諾瓦而言，頗為滑稽反諷，因為他一向在欲望的層次，恣所欲為，沒有絲毫顧忌。結果，他突然變成性無能，好像上帝對他怒目相向，他真的束手無策。

Take another look at the text I was talking about earlier. In this text, for example, the fort-da is presented as something rather old hat—it is almost as if this individual were apologizing for mentioning once again this fort-da, which everyone had wiped his feet on. It is treated as an example of primal symbolization, while apologizing for mentioning it as if it were something that had now passed into the public domain. Well!

再看一下我先前提到的文章。例如，在這個文章，「我去你來」閃躲遊戲被呈現像是一件古老把戲，好像這個人抱歉再一次又提到這個「我去你來」，因為他的躲避處已經被每個人發現。這就是原初象徵的一個例子。他抱歉提到它，好像它是某件已經是公共領域家喻戶曉的東西。

This is just as big a mistake, for it is not from a simple opposition of the fort and the da that it derives the inaugural force that its repetitive essence explains. To say that it is simply a question for the subject of instituting himself in a function of mastery is idiotic. In the two phonemes are embodied the very mechanisms of alienation—which are expressed, paradoxical as it may seem, at the level of the fort.

這同樣是大錯特錯。它得到開始的力量，是從它重複出現的本質來解釋，而不單純是「我去你來」的對立。認為它僅僅是主體以自主掌控來表現自己，這是愚昧的說法。在「我去你來」兩個字詞裡，具體表現的是疏離的運作，表現在「我去」的層次，雖然聽起來有點矛盾。

There can be no fort without da and, one might say, without Dasein. But, contrary to the whole tendency of the phenomenology of Daseinanalyse, there is no Dasein with the fort. That is to say, there is no choice. If the young subject can practice this game of fort-da, it is precisely because he does not practice it at all, for no subject can grasp this radical articulation. He practices it with the help of a small bobbin, that is to say, with the objet a. The function of the exercise with this object refers to an alienation, and not to some supposed mastery, which is difficult to imagine being increased in an endless repetition, whereas the endless repetition that is in question reveals the radical vacillation of the subject.

每次的「我去」，都預期「你來」，換言之，預期「存在」。但是跟存在主義的現象所描述的相反，在「我去」的地方，我並沒有存在。換言之，我沒有選擇的餘地。假如年輕人樂此不疲玩這個「我去你來」的躲閃遊戲，那確實是因為他們並沒有真的在玩，沒有一個主體知道這個躲閃遊戲的真正意涵。他們靠著一個小線圈的幫助在玩，換言之，靠著小客體的幫助。這個小客體運作的功用是疏離，而不是有些人認為的自我的掌控。在永無止境的重複中，我們很難想像有什麼自我掌控在增加。相反的，這個永無止境的重複顯示出，主體的存在始終搖擺不定。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

雄伯手記990131

雄伯手記99001231

承蒙C的美意，臨時將週日早上的歲末的讀書會，改為星期一晚間的聚餐會。我原先有一個家教，正在煩惱如何調課，星期一早上忽然接到對方電話，主動改期，真是應證了心理學家榮格所謂的同時性原理synchronicity。

下午四點鐘，A開著他那台豪華的轎車前來接我。坐在前座的年輕的E，回頭對我說：「後座是上座，請老師上坐！」

退休將近五年的我，其實並不在乎什麼座位的禮數。就座後，就將話題導向我在網路上搜尋到A在研究所時代發表的論文，作為奉承。不料A竟然是懊惱的反應：「網路的搜尋，固然甚為方便，有時也是自尋煩惱。例如，我前幾天就偶然搜尋到一篇學生對我的抨擊

我最近正在翻譯精神分析師拉岡的東西，趁機想要發揮一下：「以前權威的時代，主管開會，常說：我們歡迎建設性的批評！言下之意，惡意或傷害性的建議其實是不受歡迎的。問題是，我們讀書會的成員，既然以開明通達的輔導心理學、哲學、及文學的人士自居，對於抨擊的來源，理應比一般人更具有承受及反省的能力。否則，我們自許的啟悟，豈不是淪為文字意符的遊戲言論？」

坐在前座的E，突然冷冷地回應：「我現在看法是，不是看一個人怎麼說，而是看一個人怎麼做！」

汽車駛進鯉魚潭時，A 用手機跟先行到達的C夫妻聯繫，得知「餐廳是在服務中心的對面。」於是A將汽車開到湖的對岸，繞了一陣子，才發現對岸沒有什麼餐廳，而且環湖道路也不容許汽車通行。於是再用手機聯繫，準備回轉。我於是有感而發：「你們瞧！如此實際的語言溝通，都會產生表達者跟聽話者之間的誤差，文學、哲學、心理學、牽涉到的層面更廣，人與人之間所謂的瞭解，其實正是拉岡所謂的誤識及自我幻見！我們的一生都處於自我幻見，而不自覺！」

「人的一生，難免是誤識與自我幻見！」親炙余教授教誨，耳濡目染的年經的E，玄機處處地說：「不過，我們現在不就修正誤識，漸漸找到正途？」

汽車在服務中心旁邊的停車場找到停車位。下車時，年輕的E，環首四顧，忽然恍然大悟地說：「呀！我想起來了！有一次我們跟C來過這個地方，我首次跟你提到法國作家莒哈絲的情人。」

拉崗講座247

拉岡講座247

OF THE SUBJECT WHO IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW,
應該知道的主體

OF THE FIRST DYAD, AND OF THE GOOD
善行與惡行的對立
The trust placed in the analyst
對於精神分析師的信任
Science itself•
科學本身
As soon as there is a subject who is supposed to know, there is transference
一但有了一個應該知道的主體，就會有移情的信仰。

The aim of my teaching has been and still is the training of analysts. The training of analysts is a subject that is well to the forefront of analytic research. Nevertheless—I have already given you evidence of this—in the analytic literature, its principles are lost sight of.

我教學的目的始終是精神分析師的訓練。精神分析師的訓練是精神分析研究最迫切的課題。可是，我已經跟你們證實過，這個原則在精神分析的領域，卻受到漠視。

It is clear, in the experience of all those who have passed through this training, that in the absence of adequate criteria, something that is of the order of ceremony is put in their place and—since for the psycho-analyst there is no beyond, no-substantial beyond, by which to justify his conviction that he is
qualified to exercise his function—the substitution, in this instance, can be interpreted in only one way—as simulation.

顯而易見，根據所有通過這個訓練的那些人的經驗，由於欠缺充份的標準，只好使用一些儀式的東西來充當代替。精神分析師沒有超越的神，沒有非實質的神，可以用來證實，他確信擁有資格來發揮他的功能。在此情況下，儀式的代替，只能用一種方式來解釋，那就是模擬。

Yet what he obtains is of incalculable value—the trust of a subject as such, and the results that this involves by virtue of a certain technique. Now, he does not present himself as a god, he is not God for his patient. So what does this trust signify? Around what does it turn?

可是，他所獲得的是無與倫比的價值，那就是主體對他的信任，以及憑藉諮商技巧所獲得的結果。現在，問題是，他再怎樣表現，都不會是神。他無法成為解救他的病人的神。因此，這樣的信任意味什麼？信任的憑藉是什麼？

For him who places the trust, and who receives its reward, the question can no doubt be ignored. It cannot be for the psycho-analyst. The training of the psycho-analyst requires that he should know, in the process through which he guides his patient, what it is around which the movement turns. He must
know, to him must be transmitted, through actual experience, what it is all about. This pivotal point is what I designate—in a way, which, I think, will seem to you sufficiently justified, but which, I hope, as we progress, will appear more and more clear to you, more and more necessary—it is what I designate
under the term the desire of the psycho-analyst.

對於信任他，並且因此獲益的病人，這個問題無可置疑地可以被忽視。但是對於精神分析師，這個問題不能夠被忽視。精神分析師的訓練要求，在他引導病人的過程中，他應該知道這個引導的動作意義是什麼？他必須要知道，透過實際的精神分析經驗，所要傳達的意義是什麼。重點就是我所指明的問題，我想你們在某方面似乎認為它是天經地義。但是我希望，這個問題會隨著我們的進展，會越來越明朗，越來越迫切，那就是精神分析師的欲望這個術語。

Last time, I showed you the point of application of the Cartesian approach, which, in its origin and in its end, is directed essentially not towards science, but towards its own certainty. It is at the heart of something that is not science in the sense in which, since Plato and before him, it has been the object of the meditation of philosophers, but Science itself.’

上一次，我告訴過你們，關於笛卡爾方法論的運用要點。這個方法論的起源跟目的，基本上並不是朝向科學，而是朝向它自己的確定性。這個問題的核心，並不是自從柏拉圖以降，哲學家思考的那種科學的意義，而是科學的本身。

The science in which we are caught up, which forms the context of the action of all of us in the time in which we are living, and which the psycho-analyst himself cannot escape, because it forms part of his conditions too, is Science itself.

我們陷溺其中的科學，就是科學的本身。因為它組成我們所有人生存世間的行動內涵，精神分析師也無法倖免這種陷溺，因為他也是世間人的一個成員。

It is in relation to this second science, Science itself, that we must situate psycho-analysis. We can do so only by articulating upon the phenomenon of the unconscious the revision that we have made of the foundation of the Cartesian subject. First, today, I shall say something about the phenomenology of the
transference.

我們必須將精神分析學，定位在這個次級的科學，也就是科學的本身。我們充其量所能做的就是，根據無意識的現象，對於笛卡爾主體的基礎，清楚表達我們的修正看法。可是今天，我將先談移情的現象。

I
The transference is a phenomenon in which subject and psycho-analyst are both included. To divide it in terms of transference and counter-transference—however bold, however confident what is said on this theme may be—is never more than a way of avoiding the essence of the matter.

移情是一個主體與精神分析師都被包含在內的現象。分別被稱為移情與反移情，僅是避開事情本質的方式，不管你對這個主題，多麼侃侃而談，多麼信心滿滿。

The transference is an essential phenomenon, bound up with desire as the nodal phenomenon of the human being—and it was discovered long before Freud. It was perfectly articulated—I took up a large part of a year devoted to the transference to showing this—with the most extreme rigor, in a text in which the subject of love is discussed, namely, Plato’s Symposium.

移情是一個重要的現象，跟人類作為一位個體產生的欲望息息相關，在佛洛伊德之前，早已經有人發現。在一篇討論愛的主體的文章，也就是柏拉圖的「嚮宴，」這個主題被發揮得淋漓盡致。我曾花了將近一年的時間，專注討論它有關移情這個問題。

It is possible that this text was written for the character of Socrates, who, nevertheless, is depicted in it in a particularly discreet way. The essential, initial moment that is of particular relevance to the question we must ask ourselves about the action of the analyst, is that in which it is said that Socrates never claimed to know anything, except on the subject of Eros, that is to say, desire. By this fact alone, and because, in the Symposium, he goes further than anywhere else in showing us the signification of comedy in his dialogues, carrying it even to the point of farce, Plato could not fail to show us, in the most precise way, the place of the transference.

這篇文章很可能是為了蘇格拉底這個角色而寫。但是對於他的描述，卻是頗為慎重其事。
跟我們必須要問到有關精神分析師的功能問題，有特別關聯的重要地方是，據說蘇格拉底從來不宣稱說他知道什麼，除了愛神這個主體，換言之，欲望的主體。光憑這個事實，柏拉圖就一定能夠斬釘截鐵地告訴我們，移情的位置在哪裡，因為在「嚮宴」中，他將他的「對話錄」所表現的喜劇的意義，比任何地方都更加透徹明白。

As soon as the subject who is supposed to know exists somewhere— I have abbreviated it for you today at the top of the blackboard as S.s.S. (sujet suppose savoir) there is transference.

一但應該知道的主體存在於某處，移情就存在。今天我在黑板的上方，用縮寫字母給你們顯示：S s S （主體預設歡樂）。

What does an organization of psycho-analysts mean when it confers certificates of ability, if not that it indicates to whom one may apply to represent this subject who is supposed to know?

當精神分析師協會頒發一張合格證照時，那意味著什麼？難道不就是指明，獲頒證照的人，代表他是應該知道的主體？

Now, it is quite certain, as everyone knows, that no psychoanalyst can claim to represent, in however slight a way, a corpus of absolute knowledge. That is why, in a sense, it can be said that if there is someone to whom one can apply there can be only one such person. This one was Freud, while he was alive.

大家知道，沒有一位精神分析師，能夠宣稱他代表某一個絕對知識的體系。不管他代表到什麼程度，那都是千真萬確的。那就是為什麼，在某方面，我們可以說，假如有某個人應該獲頒這張證照，那只有一個人有資格。那一位就是佛洛伊德，假如他還在世的話。

The fact that Freud, on the subject of the unconscious, was legitimately the subject that one could presume to know, sets aside anything that had to do with the analytic relation, when it was initiated, by his patients, with him.

探討無意識這個主題，佛洛伊德充當能夠知道的主體，是當之無愧。這個事實還暫時不牽涉到他跟病人之間的精神分析有關的問題。

He was not only the subject who was supposed to know. He did know, and he gave us this knowledge in terms that may be said to be indestructible, in as much as, since they were first communicated, they support an interrogation which, up to the present day, has never been exhausted. No progress has been made, however small, that has not deviated whenever one of the terms around which Freud ordered the ways that he traced, and the paths of the unconscious, has been neglected. This shows us clearly enough what the function of the subject who is supposed to know is all about.

他不但是唯一知道的主體。他確實知道，而且還用讓人無可辯駁的方式，讓我們信服這個知識。自從他首次發表他的發現，迄今，這些發現經得起接連不斷的一再質疑。我們後來的發展，不論大小，都沒有超越佛洛伊德條分縷析的範圍，也就是無意識的途徑，雖然他原先的發現的功勞被人淡忘。這足夠清楚地顯示，應該知道的主體，他的功用是什麼？

The function, and by the same token, the consequence, the prestige, I would say, of Freud are on the horizon of every position of the analyst. They constitute the drama of the social, communal organization of psycho-analysts.

我要說，佛洛伊德的功用，換言之，他成果，他的威望，是精神分析師的立場的範圍。他們形成精神分析師協會的各色各樣的社會機能的活動。

Who can feel himself fully invested by this subject who is supposed to know? This is not the question. The question is first, for each subject, where he takes his bearings from when applying to the subject who is supposed to know. Whenever this function may be, for the subject, embodied in some individual, whether or not an analyst, the transference, according to the definition I have given you of it, is established. If things reach the point that this is already, on the part of the patient, determined for someone nameable, for a figure accessible to him, there will result from this, for whoever assumes responsibility for him in analysis, a quite special difficulty, concerning the enacting of the transference.

有誰能夠感覺自己完全代表應該知道的主體？這個問題不重要。重要的問題是，對於每個人而言，當他訴諸於應該知道的主體時，他的立場在哪裡？對於每一個主體而言，每當這個功用具體表現在某個個人身上，無論他是否是一位精神分析師，移情的關係就被建立，依照我所給你們的定義。假如在病人這一方面，事情發展到完全寄託於某一特定對象，某一位他可以接近的人物，移情的扮演就會形成困擾重重，對於在精神分析過程，任何替他擔任責任的人而言。

And it can happen that even the most stupid analyst—I don’t know whether this extreme term exists, it is a function that I designate here only in the way one designates that sort of mythical number in logic which is, for example, the greatest number that may be expressed in so many words—even the most stupid analyst realizes it, recognizes it and directs the analysis towards what remains for him the subject who is supposed to know. This is a mere detail, and almost an anecdote. Let us now begin the
examination of what is really at issue.

即使是愚不可及的精神分析師（容我使用這個偏激的術語），我所指明的移情的功用，就像是我們指明一個邏輯的神秘數字，例如，最大數字用許多字來表達。即使是愚不可及的精神分析師，都會體會到移情，認出移情，並且將精神分析引導到應該知道的主體的其它方面。這只是個粗略說法，近乎八卦軼聞。讓我們再檢查一下真正的問題所在。

The analyst, I said, occupies this place in as much as he is the object of the transference. Experience shows us that when the subject enters analysis, he is far from giving the analyst this place.

我要說，精神分析師佔有作為移情的對象這個地位。我們從精神分析的經驗獲知，當主體進入精神分析時，他絲毫沒有打算給予精神分析師這個地位。

For the moment let us leave the Cartesian hypothesis that the psycho-analyst is a deceiver. This hypothesis is not to be excluded absolutely from the phenomenological context of certain entries into analysis. But psycho-analysis shows us that what, above all in the initial phase, most limits the confidence of the patient, his abandonment to the analytic rule, is the threat that the psycho-analyst may be deceived by him.

我們暫時不去討論笛卡爾的假設命題：精神分析師是一位騙子。只是，從某些精神分析的諸般現象來看，這個假設命題無法完全被排除。但是精神分析經驗告訴我們，在剛開始的階段，病人的信任，以及他完全遵守精神分析的規定，最大的阻礙是，唯恐精神分析師會被他蒙騙過去。

How often in our experience does it happen that we discover only very late some important biographical detail? Suppose, for example, that at a particular moment in his life, the subject contracted a venereal disease. But why didn’t you tell me earlier? one might ask, if one is still naive enough. Because, the analysand may reply, I had told you earlier, you might have regarded it as responsible, in part at least, perhaps even wholly, for my disorders and I am not here for you to find an organic cause for them.

在我們精神分析的經驗，曾經發生多少次，我們只是到很後來，才發現到一些重要的傳記的細節？例如，在病人一生中的某一個特別時刻，主體傳染上梅毒性病。「你為什麼不早一點告訴我？」假如我們還懵懂不覺，我們可能會這樣問。被分析的病人可能會回答說：「因為我若先告訴你了，你可能會將部份責任，甚至是全部責任，怪罪到我的性病。而我來找你求助，不是要你將原因歸咎於我的生理機能。」

This is an example that is unlimited in its implications, and which may be understood in a number of different ways—from the angle of social prejudice, of scientific discussion, of the confusion that remains around the very principle of analysis. I quote it here only as an illustration of the fact that the patient may think that the analyst may be misled if he gives him certain facts. He holds back certain facts so that the analyst may not go too quickly. I could give you other, better examples of this.
Should not he who may be misled (être trompé) be afortiori under suspicion of being capable, quite simply, of being mistaken (se tromper)?

這是一個攤開天窗說明白的例子，我們可以用不同方式來解讀，從社會偏見的角度，從科學討論的角度，從精神分析原理的混淆角度。我在這裡引述它，只是舉例說明，病人可能認為自己胡言亂語，可以誤導精神分析師這個事實。他保留某些事實，以免精神分析師太快下斷語。我還可以給你們舉其它更好的例子。被誤導的精神分析師，他的診療能力，難道不是因此更應該受到置疑，單純來說，受到誤解嗎？

Now, that certainly is the limit. It is around this being mistaken (Ce SC tromper) that the balance lies of that subtle, infinitesimal point that I wish to mark.

現在若是確定回答是肯定，那就是它的限制。我希望標明的那個微妙及奧妙的平衡點，就位在那個被誤解的四周。

Given that analysis may, on the part of certain subjects, be put in question at its very outset, and suspected of being a lure —how is it that around this being mistaken something stops? Even the psycho-analyst put in question is credited at some point with a certain infallibility, which means that certain intentions, betrayed, perhaps, by some chance gesture, will sometimes be attributed even to the analyst put in question, You did that to test me!

假如考慮到，對於某些主體，精神分析一開始就會受到質疑，並且被懷疑是一個陷阱，那這個位在被誤解的四周的那個平衡點，如何能得到？即使是受到質疑的精神分析師，在某些時候，曾被推崇是診斷如神，這意味著，某些的意圖，若是在不經意間洩露出來，可以歸咎於被質疑的精神分析師的問題：「你故意來考驗我！」

The Socratic discussion introduced the following theme—that the recognition of the conditions for the good in itself would have something irresistible for man. This is the paradox of the teaching, if not of Socrates himself—what do we know about him other than through the Platonic comedy ?—I will not even say Plato’s comedy—for Plato develops in the terrain of the comic dialogue and leaves all the questions open—but of a certain exploitation of Platonism, which may be said to perpetuate itself in general derision. For, as we all know, the most perfect recognition of the conditions of the good will never prevent anyone from dashing into its opposite. So what is it all about, this trust placed in the analyst? How are we to know that he wishes this good, let alone for another?

蘇格拉底的討論介紹以下的主題：體認善行本身的情況，對於人是不可抗拒的力量。這是我們教學的矛盾，更不用說是蘇格拉底的矛盾。除了透過柏拉圖的喜劇，我們對於蘇格拉底懂得多少呢？我甚至要說，柏拉圖對話錄表現的不是喜劇，而是某種柏拉圖理念的廣播。因為柏拉圖發揮喜劇對話的這個平台，然後開放所有的問題懸而未決。據說，柏拉圖的理念雖然飽受冷嘲熱諷，卻是迄今屹立不搖。大家都知道，善行的情況雖然被人體認得千真萬確，人人卻還照常朝相反方向的惡行，橫衝直撞。那麼，病人對於精神分析師的信任，究竟是怎麼一會事？我們如何能夠知道，精神分析師所作所為是善行，遑論是對另外一個人的善行？

Let me explain. Who does not know from experience that it is possible not to want to ejaculate? Who does not know from experience, knowing the recoil imposed on everyone, in so far as it involves
terrible promises, by the approach of jouissance as such? Who does not know that one may not wish to think?—the entire universal college of professors is there as evidence.

讓我解釋一下。從精神分析的經驗，有誰不知道，男女做愛時，堅忍不早洩是可能的。從精神分析經驗，有誰不知道，高潮來臨時，深怕體內洩精會招來懷孕後果，每個人常會緊急撤退？有誰不知道，做愛時的欲罷不能，要渾然忘掉思維？全世界的大學教授，可以在此做個見證。

But what does not wanting to desire mean? The whole of analytic experience—which merely gives form to what is for each individual at the very root of his experience—shows us that not to want to desire and to desire are the same thing.

但是壓抑欲望意味著什麼？所有的精神分析的經驗，不過是在表達每個人在自己經驗的核心，所存在的問題。我們從那裡知道，壓抑欲望跟欲望本身是相同一回事。

To desire involves a defensive phase that makes it identical with not wanting to desire. Not wanting to desire is wanting not to desire. This discipline which, in order to find a way out of the impasse of the Socratic interrogation, was practiced by people who were not only specifically philosophers, but,
in their own way, some kind of practitioners of religion—the Stoics and the Epicureans. The subject knows that not to want to desire has in itself something as irrefutable as that Moebius strip that has no underside, that is to say, that in following it, one will come back mathematically to the surface that is supposed to be its other side.

欲望牽涉到防衛的部份，這個防衛部份使它跟壓抑欲望相同一致。壓抑欲望等於是設法不要欲望。為了找到一個方法，避開蘇格拉底的詰問的僵局，不但某些哲學家，在實踐這種自我克制，而且某些的宗教的修行者，如斯多葛學派及伊璧鳩魯學派，也都以各自的方式在進行。主體知道，不要去欲望本身有無法反駁的道理，就像莫比烏斯帶，表裡無二般無法反駁。換言之，我們回到數學角度來觀看，應該是裡面的部份，其實就是表面。

It is at this point of meeting that the analyst is awaited. In so far as the analyst is supposed to know, he is also supposed to set out in search of unconscious desire. This is why I say—I will illustrate it for you next time with a small topological drawing that has already been on the blackboard—that desire is the
axis, the pivot, the handle, the hammer, by which is applied the force-element, the inertia, that lies behind what is formulated at first, in the discourse of the patient, as demand, namely, the transference. The axis, the common point of this two-edged axe, is the desire of the analyst, which I designate here as an essential function. And let no one tell me that I do not name this desire, for it is precisely this point that can be articulated only in the relation of desire to desire.

就在這個表裡相會的時刻，我們期待精神分析師。既然精神分析師應該知道，他也應該出發去尋找無意識的欲望。這就是為什麼我說，欲望是軸心、是樞紐、是把手、是鐵鎚。憑藉它們，先前病人陳述及說明的背後的需求，換言之，就是移情，才能發揮力量的因素及它的慣性定理。這一點，我下一次再舉例說明，它的小小地形圖，我已經畫在黑板上。這個軸心，這個雙邊利斧的共同點，就是精神分析師的欲望。我在此指明出來，當著是一個重要的功用。這個欲望，我沒有明確指明是什麼欲望，因為這一點，確實只有憑藉欲望跟欲望的關係，才表達得出來。

This relation is internal. Man’s desire is the desire of the Other. Is there not, reproduced here, the element of alienation that I designated for you in the foundation of the subject as such? If it is merely at the level of the desire of the Other that man can recognize his desire, as desire of the Other, is there not something here that must appear to him to be an obstacle to his fading, which is a point at which his desire can never be recognized? This obstacle is never lifted, nor ever to be lifted, for analytic experience shows us that it is in seeing a whole chain come into play at the level of the desire of the Other that the subject’s desire is constituted.

這個欲望跟欲望的關係是內在的。人的欲望就是大它者的欲望。在這裡被複製的，難道不就是我跟你們所指明的，人作為主體的基礎，所產生的疏離的因素？假如僅僅是在大它者的欲望的層次，人才能夠體認出他的欲望，就是對於大它者的欲望，那麼，難道不是有某件東西，是主體萬萬不可消失的障礙？這個東西，難道不就是欲望始終無法被體認出來的原因？這個障礙從來沒有被消除過，也無法被消除，因為精神分析的經驗告訴我們，主體的欲望被形成，就是在大它者的欲望的層次，觀看意符的鎖鏈運作的時刻。

In the relation of desire to desire, something of alienation is preserved, not with the same elements— not with the S1 and S2 of the first dyad of signifiers, from which I deduced the formula of the alienation of the subject in my last but one lecture—but with, on the one hand, what has been constituted on the basis of primal repression, of the fall, of the Unterdruckung, of the binary signifier, and, on the other hand, what appears first as lack in what is signified by the dyad of signifiers,
in the interval that links them, namely, the desire of the Other.

在欲望跟欲望之間的關係，某種疏離的東西被保留下來，但是元素並不相同。不是在上上次的演講中，我推論出來的主體的疏離的公式，善惡首次對立時的第一意符及第二意符，而是，一方面亞當與夏娃從伊甸園墮落時的原始壓抑所產生的疏離，另一方面，大它者的欲望，聯接意符的善惡對立的表達，首先形成的欠缺，造成的疏離。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw