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

One Response to “拉岡講座253”

  1. 2010 in review « Springhero’s Weblog Says:

    […] 拉岡講座253 February 2010 5 […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: