Lacan 401

Lacan 401

The Subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious

佛洛伊德的無意識：主體的顛覆及欲望的辯證

The praxis that we call psychoanalysis is constituted by a structure. An audience like the one here today—an audience that we presume to be aware of philosophical problems—cannot ignore this structure.

結構組成我們所謂的精神分析學的本體。今天在現場的觀眾，我假定你們對於哲學的問題已經耳熟能詳，但是不要忽略這個問題。

The notion that to be a philosopher means being interested in what everyone is interested in without knowing it has the interesting peculiarity that its pertinence does not imply that it can be verified. For it can be put to the test only by everyone becoming a philosopher.

作為一位哲學家，表示你關心的問題，是一般大眾關心，但是不知其所以然的問題。這個觀念的特質頗耐人尋味，因為它非常中肯，卻不見得就能證實。因為只有每個人都成為哲學家，它才能夠被驗證。

I say its philosophical pertinence, for ushc, in the last resort, is the schema that hegel gave us of History in The Phenomenology of Mind.

我說，它在哲學方面非常中肯，是因為在黑格爾的「精神現象學」一書所給我們的歷史的模式中，它得到最後的證實。

Summarizing it in this way is to provide us with a mediation that facilitates the situating of the subject—namely, in relation to knowledge.

以這種方式概括論述，是要提供給我們一個仲介，方便確認主體的位置，換言之主體跟知識的關係。

It is also easy to demonstrate the ambiguity of such a relation.

主體跟知識的關係模糊不清，是顯而易見的。

The same ambiguity is manifested in the effects of science in the world today.

在今日的世界，顯而易見的，科學的效用也是同樣的模糊不清。

The scientists, too, is a subject, and one particularly qualified in his constitution, as is shown by the fact that science did not come into the world o is own accord ( its birth was not without its vicissitudes, and it was preceded by a number of failures—by abortion or premature birth).

科學家也是一位人的主體，只是對於自己的專業特別內行。事實上，科學並不是自動自發來到這個世界（科學的起源不是沒有興衰階段，中間經歷無數的失敗，或是中途夭折，或是時機不成熟。）

Now this subject who must know what he is doing, or so one presumes, does not know aht, in the effects of science, is already, in fact, where everyone finds himself at the same level as the scientist as far as ignorance on this point is concerned.

科學家作為一位主體，必須知道自己在做些什麼，或以為自己知道在做些什麼。但事實上，他並不知道，哪些科學的效用是受人歡迎。就欠缺自知之明這一點而言，科學家處於今天的世界，跟一般大眾的自以為是，其實是五十步笑百步。

This fact alone justifies us in speaking of a subject of science—a notion to which an epistemology that can be said to display more promise than success hopes to be equal.

光是這個事實，就足以讓我們振振有詞談到，人作為科學的主體是什麼。據說，人是有認識自己的本體是什麼的展望，但是不見得就能成功地達到。我希望精神分析學能夠符合這個期望。

Hence, let it be noted, my entirely didactic reference to Hegel, by which I wished to say something, for the purposes of the training that I have in mind, about the question of the subject, in so far as that question is properly subverted y psychoanalysis.

因此，讓我們注意一下。我的全部講授始終脫離不了要談黑格爾。對於人作為主體的問題，就我心目中的精神分析師的訓練，我希望有所貢獻，因為精神分析學道道地地顛覆了這個問題。

What qualifies me to proceed in this direction is obviously my experience of this praxis. What has decided me to do so, those who follow my teaching will bear this out, is a theoretical nullity coupled with abuses in the way in which it is passed on, which, while presenting no danger to the praxis itself, result, in either case, in a total absence of scientific status. To pose the question of the minimum conditions required for such a status was not perhaps a dishonest departure. This departure has taken us a long way.

我有資格對這個問題侃侃而談，顯而易見，是因為我在這個領域累積的經驗。聽過我授課的學生可以為我證明，我之所以如此孜孜不息，是因為精神分析學的理論莫衷一是，再加上方法的傳授粗製濫造。這對於精神分析學本身雖然並無大礙，但無論如何，卻造成完全無法在科學的地位受人肯定。不可諱言，精神分析學要成為一門科學，困難重重。但是，長久以來，我們卻都諱疾忌醫。

I am not dealing here with anything so broad in scope as a radical questioning of social bases; I do not intend, in particular, to dwell on the conclusions that I have been forced to draw about the notorious deviations in analytic praxis that are perpetrated in the name of psychoanalysis in Britain and America.

我目前並不是要處理精神分析學的建立，需要怎樣的社會基礎，如此廣泛的激進問題。特別是，我並不打算詳述在英國及美國，我所見所聞，那些打著精神分析學的旗號，諸般的惡名昭彰的從事行為。

What I will try to define is subversion proper, and I apologize to this gathering, whose quality I have already acknowledged, for being unable to do more in its presence than in its absence, that is, to take it as the very pivot of my demonstration, even though it is up to me to justify this attitude with regard to it.

我設法要談到的，是人作為主體的顛覆。恕我冒昧地說，我承認現場的諸位聽眾都具有基本的精神分析學素養，但是我依舊無法在諸位面前當下立竿見影，換言之，我無法當場證明你們作為人的主體已經被顛覆，雖然我有義務要為我的危言聳聽提供證詞。

Yet I shall use it in order to take as given the fact that empiricism cannot constitute the foundations for a science.

可是，我還是堅持我的主張，因為科學的基礎並不等於是經驗主義，已經受到公認。

At a second stage, we encounter what has already been constituted, by virtue of a scientific label, under the name of psychology.

其次，我們遭遇的問題是，精神分析學被歸類在心理學的名下，作為一門科學的標誌，所牽涉到的內涵。

A label that I would reject—precisely because, as I will show, the function of the subject, as it is established in Freudian experience, disqualifies from the outset what, under cover of the term ‘ psychology’, however one dresses up its premises, merely perpetuates an academic framework.

我會拒絕這個標誌，主要是因為，如我所說，佛洛伊德創立精神分析學的開始，以「心理學」這個術語作為掩飾，在學術的架構舞台粉墨登場，但主體的功用始終是妾身不明。

Its criterion is the unity of the subject, which is one of the presuppositions of this sort of psychology, it being even taken as symptomatic that its theme is always more emphatically isolated, as if it were a question of the return of a certain subject of knowledge ( connaissance), or as if the psychical had to obtain its credentials as a double of the physical organism.

它的標準是主體的一致性，這是這種心理學的預設立場之一。心理學處理的主題甚至刻意被孤立出來當著是病徵，好像某種主體的認知一但被恢復過來，他就會大病痊癒，或是好像心理的病徵，必須在生理的器官身上得到驗證。

We must take as our standard here the idea in which a whole body of traditional thought comes together to validate a term, ‘ state of knowledge’ ( etat de la connaissance), that is not without foundation. Whether it is a question of the states of enthusiasm described by Plato, the Buddhist degrees of Samadhi, or the Erlenis, the experience obtained under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, it is necessary to know how much of these is authenticated by any theory.

我們在此必須將這個觀念當著是我們的標準，傳統思想的整套系統一以貫之，就是要證實人的「認知的狀態」，這不是沒有道理的。是否這個狀態是柏拉圖所描述的全神貫注，或是佛教徒的涅槃境界，或德國哲學的超越經驗，或迷幻藥作用下的飄飄欲仙，我們都有需要去知道，它們到底有多少程度會獲得理論證實為真實。

Authenticated in the register of the connaturality implied in knowledge ( connaissance).

人對於真實的認知，意味著人天生稟賦有辨認真實的潛力。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Lacan 304

Lacan 304
The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason Since Freud
自佛洛伊德以降，在無意識界或理性界，字母的代理

The Meaning of the Letter
字母的意義
But enough. It is beginning to sound like the history of France. Which it is more human, as it ought to be, to evoke here than that of England, destined to tumble from the Large to the Small End of Dean Swift’s egg.
但是我不再說下去，那聽起來會是說法國的歷史。我在此娓娓道來，應該是比引述英國的歷史還要合乎人性些，因為英國的四分五裂，像是葛列佛遊記的作者史威夫特所描述的蛋頭大尾小，註定要崩坍的。
It remains to be conceived what steps, what corridor, the S of the signifier, visible here in the plurals in which it focuses its welcome beyond the window, must take in order to rest its elbows on the ventilators through which, like warm and cold air, indignation and scorn come hissing out below.
剩下要談的，只是這個意符的主體要採取怎樣的步驟，怎樣的走道，來走進窗外的男廁與女廁的門，以便找到排泄的通風口。透過這個通風口，憤怒及藐視像一陣溫暖及寒冷的氣流，從底下嘶嘶吹過。
One thing is certain: if the algorithm S/s with its bar is appropriate, access from one to the other cannot in any case have a signification. For in so far as it is itself only pure function of the signifier, the algorithm can reveal only the structure of a signifier in this transfer.
Now the structure of the signifier is, as it is commonly said of language itself, that it should be articulated.
有一件事是千真萬確：即使中間帶有橫槓的意旨與意符的演算精確的話，從意符到意符旨還是無法產生任何意義。因為那純粹只是意符的功用，演算只能顯示意符的演算結構。現在，這個意符的結構，如同我們提到語言的結構，就是它應該被表達。
This means that no matter where one starts to designate their reciprocal encroachments and increasing inclusions, these units are subjected to the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential elements and of combining them according to the laws of a closed order.
這意味著，無論我們從哪裡指明它們互相的侵佔及逐漸的涵蓋，這些單元一定會遭到雙重的狀況。一是被簡化成為無數差異的元素，二是依照封閉秩序的法則，將這些元素結合起來。
These elements, one of the decisive discoveries of linguistics, are phonemes; but we must not expect to find any phonetic constancy in the modulatory variability to which this term applies, but rather the synchronic system of differential couplings necessary for the discernment of sounds in a given language. Through this, one sees that an essential element of the spoken word itself was predestined to flow into the mobile characters which, in a jumble of lower-case Didots or Garamonds, render validly present what we call the ‘letter’, namely, the essentially localized structure of the signifier.
這些元素在語言學的重大發現中被認為是「音素」。但是我們一定不要期望在這個術語所規範的變數中，可以找到任何語音的常數。我們僅能期望在某個語言當中，找到差異的一對元素，會有同時性的系統。經由這個系統，我們看到，口語單字本身的一個基本的元素，預先註定會流入浮動的字的符號裡。狄德羅或嘉洛門等語言學家，以一大堆低階符號，將我們所謂的「字母」具體地表現出來。換言之，他們找到意符的基本的部份結構。
With the second property of the signifier, that of combining according to the laws of a closed order, is affirmed the necessity of the topological substratum of which the term I ordinarily use, namely, the signifying chain, gives an approximate idea: rings of a necklace that is a ring in another necklace made of rings.
其次，談到意符的第二個特性，依照封閉秩序法則結合元素的特性，地形階層的需要被肯定。我通常使用地形階層這個術語，換言之，意符化的鎖鏈，可以給我們一個近似的觀念：一個由諸多圈環組成的項鍊，圈圈相扣。

Such are the structural conditions that define grammar as the order of constitutive encroachments of the signifier up to the level of the unit immediately superior to the sentence, and lexicology as the order of constitutive inclusions of the signifier to the level of the verbal locution.
這些結構的情況可區分如下：文法的定義是，意符組成的侵佔的秩序，到達優於句子的單元的層次，而辭彙的定義是，意符組成的涵蓋的秩序，到達口說慣用語的層次。
In examining the limits by which these two exercises in the understanding of linguistic usage are determined, it is easy to see that only the correlations between signifier and signifier provide the standard for all research into signification, as is indicated by the notion of ‘usage’ of a taxeme or semanteme which in fact refers to the context just above that of the units concerned.
了解語言的用法時，文法及辭彙這兩種功用有其限制。檢查這些限制時，我們很容易看出，只有意符與意符的相互關係提供所有研究意義的標準，如同語法要素或語意要素的「用法」的觀念所指示，也是如此，僅管它們事實上都會提到有關單元的更高層次的內容。
But it is not because the undertakings of grammar and lexicology are exhausted within ¦certain limits that we must think that beyond those limits signification reigns supreme. That would be an error.
但不是因為文法及辭彙的使用在某個限制之內黔驢技窮，我們就必須認為，超越那些限制之外，意義居於統治的崇高地位。那將是一個錯誤的想法。
For the signifier, by its very nature, always anticipates meaning by unfolding its dimension before it. As is seen at the level of the sentence when it is interrupted before the significant term: ‘I shall never…’, ‘All the same it is…’, ‘And yet there may be. ..’. Such sentences are not without meaning, a meaning all the more oppressive in that it is content to make us wait for it.
因為意符展開它的先前的空間時，它本身的性質，總是讓人預期會有意義。如同在句子的層次，我們所看到的，當它在意義的表達時，突然被中斷：「我將不、、、」，「儘管如此、、、」，「可是還有、、、」。這樣的句子並非沒有意義，那個意義更加吊人胃口，因為它滿意於讓我們等待。
But the phenomenon is no different which by the mere recoil of a ‘ but’ brings to the light, comely as the Shulamite, honest as the dew, the negress adorned for the wedding and the poor woman ready for the auction-block.
但是這個現象類似我們說「但是」一詞作為退讓的表示。如奴隸拍賣場被打扮成新娘模樣，那可憐的黑奴所說：「我嬌美如花，純潔如晨露，但是、、、」
From which we can say that it is in the chain of the signifier that the meaning ‘ insists’ but that none of its elements ‘consists’ in the signification of which it is at the moment capable.
從這裡，我們可以說，意義「堅持」在符號的鎖鏈裡，但是盡其可能，沒有一個意義的元素「存在」於意義當中，
We are forced, then, to accept the notion of an incessant sliding of the signified under the signifier – which Ferdinand de Saussure illustrates with an image resembling the wavy lines of the upper and lower Waters in miniatures from manuscripts of Genesis; a double flux marked by fine streaks of rain, vertical dotted lines supposedly confining segments of correspondence.
因此，我們被迫接受這個觀念：意符底下的意旨不斷地滑動。語言學家索緒爾用一個意象舉例說明。從創世紀原稿的一些小圖畫，上下海水的波狀起浮，那是下雨的雨點造成的波動，雨水的垂直線條被認為要與水面的波紋一致。
All our experience runs counter to this linearity, which made me speak once, in one of my seminars on psychosis, of something more like ‘anchoring points’ (‘points de capiton’) as a schema for taking into account the dominance of the letter in the dramatic transformation that dialogue can effect in the subject.
我們所有的經驗都跟這個垂直的一致恰恰相反。在我討論「精神變態狂」的講座中，我曾提到類似一種「固定點」，作為一種模式，考量到字母的優先性，當對談在主體身上所造成的強烈的轉變。
The linearity that Saussure holds to be constitutive of the chain of discourse, in conformity with its emission by a single voice and with its horizontal position in our writing – if this linearity is necessary, in fact, it is not sufficient. It applies to the chain of discourse only in the direction in which it is orientated in time, being taken as a signifying factor in all languages in which ‘Peter hits Paul’ reverses its time when the terms are inverted.
索緒爾認為這個垂直的一致組成真理論述的鎖鏈，對應於單一聲音的表達，及我們寫作時的平面立場。我則認為，這個垂直的一致是有必要，但是還不足以組成真理的論述。它若是能夠千古不變，在所有的語言中都被接納為意符的因素，如「彼得打保羅」，倒轉為「保羅打彼得」，時間逆轉，道理仍在，它才能夠運用到真理論述的鎖鏈。
But one has only to listen to poetry, which Saussure was no doubt in the habit of doing, for a polyphony to be heard, for it to become clear that all discourse is aligned along the several staves of a score.
但是我們必須傾聽詩，毫無疑問，索緒爾也有這樣的習慣，這樣我們才能聽見多重的聲音，讓這個問題彰顯出來：禪詩幾行，真意無窮。
There is in effect no signifying chain that does not have, as if attached to the punctuation of each of its units, a whole articulation of relevant contexts suspended ‘vertically’, as it were, from that point.
事實上，從那一點出發，任何意符的鎖鏈，都會有一整套相關的內涵的表達「垂直地」懸置在那裡，好像它被連接到每個單元的標點。
Let us take our word ‘tree’ again, this time not as an isolated noun, but at the point of one of these punctuations, and see how it crosses the bar of the Saussurian algorithm. (The anagram of ‘arbre’ and ‘barre’ should be noted.)
讓我們再一次拿「樹」這個字當例子。這一次不是當作是一個孤立的名詞，而是當著標點符號之一。看看它如何越過索緒爾演算法的中間那條橫槓。（請注意ambre 與 barre 字母顛倒拼法。）
For even broken down into the double spectre of its vowels and consonants, it can still call up with the robur and the plane tree the significations it takes on, in the context of our flora, of strength and majesty.
即使它們被分解成為母音與子音兩樣元素，它們依舊能讓人想像到夏櫟樹跟懸鈴木樹，在我們植物界的內涵，它具有力量跟雄偉的意義。
Drawing on all the symbolic contexts suggested in the Hebrew of the Bible, it erects on a barren hill the shadow of the cross. Then reduces to the capital Y, the sign of dichotomy which, except for the illustration used by heraldry, would owe nothing to the tree however genealogical we may think it.
依照聖經的希伯來文所具有的象徵內涵，此樹在荒涼的小山上，巍然矗立，像個十字架的陰影。然後，它輪廓可以簡化成Y大寫字母，那是分叉形狀的符號。這個符號，除了用在勳章的圖案外，我們很難從樹的系譜去聯想到它。
Circulatory tree, tree of life of the cerebellum, tree of Saturn, tree of Diana, crystals formed in a tree struck by lightning, is it your figure that traces our destiny for us in the tortoise-shell cracked by the fire, or your lightning that causes that slow shift in the axis of being to surge up from an unnamable night into the ‘`’`language:
血管的循環樹狀，腦的生命分佈狀，土星的形狀，鍊金術的水晶樹狀，閃電擊中樹形成的水晶樹狀，從被火燒裂的烏龜外殼上，我們可以追蹤到命運的發展嗎？或是你的閃電，引起存在的軸心慢慢地改變，從無以名狀的黑夜，洶湧而出，成為「語言」的世界？
No! seys the Tree, it says No! in the shower of sparks of its superb head
「非也！」樹說。在崇高樹頂星光閃爍中，它說「非也！」
lines that require the harmonics of the tree just as much as their continuation:
底下幾句需要樹的和聲，才接續得下去：
Which the storm treats as universally
As it does a blade of grass. (Paul Valéry)
暴風雨對待我一體同仁
與對待一根草葉無異。
保羅、梵樂希
For this modern verse is ordered according to the same law of the parallelism of the signifier that creates the harmony governing the primitive Slavic epic or the most refined Chinese poetry.
這首現代詩依照意符的對稱法則排列。這種對稱排列，跟創造原始斯拉夫史詩，及中國的精練古詩的排列法則別無二致。
As is seen in the fact that the tree and the blade of grass are chosen from the same mode of the existent in order for the signs of contradiction – saying ‘No!’ and ‘treat as’ – to affect them, and also so as to bring about, through the categorical contrast of the particularity of ‘superb’ with the ‘universally’ that reduces it, in the condensation of the ‘head’ (tête) and the ‘storm’ (tempête), the indiscernible shower of sparks of the eternal instant.
如上所見，樹與草葉的選擇都是從相同的存在模式出發，為了呈現「非也」及「一體同仁」的否定的符號，為了彰顯它們，並透過「崇高」與「一體同仁」的特殊對比，及「樹頂」與「暴風雨」的濃縮，激發永恆瞬間的星光迷離閃爍。
But this whole signifier can only operate, it may be said, if it is present in the subject. It is this objection that I answer by supposing that it has passed over to the level of the signified.
但是據說，這整個意符只能在主體的身上運作。對於這樣的異議，我的回答是，要看他的意符是否傳遞到意旨的層次。
For what is important is not that the subject know anything whatsoever. (If LAD IES and GENTLEMEN were written in a language unknown to the little boy and girl, their quarrel would simply be the more exclusively a quarrel over words, but no less ready to take on signification.)
因為，重要的不是主體應該知道。（假如小男孩及小女孩不認識「女側」與「男廁」上的文字，他們的爭吵將僅僅是文字的差異，而不再具有任何意義。）
What this structure of the signifying chain discloses is the possibility I have, precisely in so far as I have this language in common with other subjects, that is to say, in so far as it exists as a language, to use it in order to signify something quite other than what it says. This function of speech is more worth pointing out than that of ‘disguising the thought’ (more often than not indefinable) of the subject; it is no less than the function of indicating the place of this subject in the search for the true.
這個符號鎖鏈的結構所開展的是，假如我擁有這個語言跟其它東西一樣，換言之，它存在作為一種語言，我有可能使用它來指明它的言外之意。言談的功用，比「思想的偽裝」（往往是匪夷所思），更值得被指明出來。這跟我們在追尋真理時，指出主體的立場是同樣的功用。
雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Lacan 303

Lacan 303
The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason Since Freud
自佛洛伊德以降，在無意識界或理性界，字母的代理

The Meaning of the Letter
字母的意義
For this primordial distinction goes well beyond the discussion concerning the arbitrariness of the sign, as it has been elaborated since the earliest reflections of the ancients, and even beyond the impasse which, through the same period, has been encountered in every discussion of the bi-univocal correspondence between the word and the thing, if only in the mere act of naming. All this, of course, is quite contrary to the appearances suggested by the importance often imputed to the role of the index finger pointing to an object in the learning process of the infans subject learning his mother tongue, or the use in foreign language teaching of so-called ‘concrete’ methods.
因為這原初的區別，遠在符號的任意形成的討論之外，自從宇宙洪荒以來就已經形成。它甚至也在僵局之外，同樣自宇宙洪荒以來，討論到文字與真實之間的雙邊對應時，人類就遭遇到這個僵局，即使在為萬物命名之際。當然，表面上，當嬰兒作為主體在學習自己母語的學習過程，用食指指著東西認字，所扮演的重要性來看，或者從外國語教學使用所謂的「實物教學法」來看，似完全相反。
One cannot go further along this line of thought than to demonstrate that no signification can be sustained other than by reference to another signification: in its extreme form this amounts to the proposition that there is no language (langue) in existence for which there is any question of its inability to cover the whole field of the signified, it being an effect of its existence as a language (langue) that it necessarily answers all needs.
意義本身無法自證，除了引述另一個意義旁證，這一點已經獲得證實外，我們還可以順水推舟地探討下去。推到極端，這等於是說，無論哪一種現存的語言，都遭遇到本身沒有能力涵蓋意旨的全部領域，因為語言需要回應所有的需求，而自身作為一種語言客體卻有其限度。
If we try to grasp in language the constitution of the object, we cannot fail to notice that this constitution is to be found only at the level of concept, a very different thing from a simple nominative, and that the thing, when reduced to the noun, breaks up into the double, divergent beam of the ’cause’ (causa) in which it has taken shelter in the French word chose, and the nothing (rien) to which it has abandoned its Latin dress (rem).
假如我們透過語言理解到客體的組成內涵，我們一定會注意到，這個組成內涵只能在觀念上的層次被找到，這跟簡單的命名法截然不同。而事物一但被簡化為一個名詞，就為一分為二。例如，「原因」一詞，在法文是雙關語，一方面指「選擇」，另一方面，指「空無一物」，而拉丁文「服飾」的原意，則已經被捨棄。
These considerations, important as their existence is for the philosopher, turn us away from the locus in which language questions us as to its very nature. And we will fail to pursue the question further as long as we cling to the illusion that the signifier answers to the function of representing the signified, or better, that the signifier has to answer for its existence in the name of any signification whatever.
雖然這些考量的存在對於哲學家而言非常重要，他們卻轉移我們應該注意的焦點：語言質疑我們，有關它自己的特性。只要我們堅持這個幻覺：意符一定要對應意旨的功用，或者，更好的是，意符必須負責自身的存在具有意義，這個問題就難以為續。
For even reduced to this latter formulation, the heresy is the same – the heresy that leads logical positivism in search of the ‘meaning of meaning’, as its objective is called in the language of its devotees. As a result, we can observe that even a text highly charged with meaning can be reduced, through this sort of analysis, to insignificant bagatelles, all that survives being mathematical algorithms that are, of course, without any meaning.
僅就「意符必須負責自身的存在具有意義」這個論述而言，這種說法引導實證主義前去探索「意義中的意義」，因為這是他們所宣稱的目標，但同樣是難以為續。結果，我們能夠觀察到，即使是一篇意義豐富的本文，透過這種分析之後，往往變為支離破碎，殘剩下來的是一些數學般的演算，當然，意義已經蕩然無存。
To return to our formula S/s: if we could infer nothing from it but the notion of the parallelism of its upper and lower terms, each one taken in its globality, it would remain the enigmatic sign of a total mystery. Which of course is not the case.
回到我們意符與意旨S/s的公式：假如從這個公式，我們只能推論出上面及下面兩個術語的對稱的觀念，即使每一個術語都普遍被接受，它們仍然是匪夷所思的謎團符號。但事實上，情形不是這樣。
In order to grasp its function I shall begin by reproducing the classic, yet faulty illustration by which its usage is normally introduced, and one can see how it opens the way to the kind of error referred to above.
為了理解它的功用，我將先從複製這個古典，雖然略有瑕疵的插圖開始。這個插圖常被介紹使用，我們能夠看出，它如何引導我們到以上所提到的錯誤。

In my lecture, I replaced this illustration with another, which has no greater claim to correctness than that it has been transplanted into that incongruous dimension that the psychoanalyst has not yet altogether renounced because of his quite justified feeling that his conformism takes its value entirely from it. Here is the other diagram:
在我的演講中，我用另一個插圖替代這個插圖。我並不是宣稱我的插圖比較正確，而是原有插圖已經被引用到成為陳腔濫調，一般精神分析師還沿用不止，因為他們還振振有詞地認為，媚俗求同有其必要價值。另一個插圖如下：

where we see that, without greatly extending the scope of the signifier concerned in the experiment, that is, by doubling a noun through the mere juxtaposition of two terms whose complementary meanings ought apparently to reinforce each other, a surprise is produced by an unexpected precipitation of an unexpected meaning: the image of twin doors symbolizing, through the solitary confinement offered Western Man for the satisfaction of his natural needs away from home, the imperative that he seems to share with the great majority of primitive communities by which his public life is subjected to the laws of urinary segregation.
我們看到，我們無須將試驗中有關的意符的範圍擴大，換言之，我們只要透過兩個術語的並列，將彼此互補的意義顯然會互相增強的名詞重複，就會產生令人驚奇的效果，因為出乎意料的意義油然而生：雙重門的意象，透過西方人出門在外如廁時，男女有別地滿足生理上的需求，象徵著他似乎認同多數原始社會的規訓：在公共場所如廁，男女有別。
It is not only with the idea of silencing the nominalist debate with a low blow that I use this example, but rather to show how in fact the signifier enters the signified, namely, in a form which, not being immaterial, raises the question of its place in reality. For the blinking gaze of a short sighted person might be justified in wondering whether this was indeed the signifier as he peered closely at the little enamel signs that bore it, a signifier whose signified would in this call receive its final honours from the double and solemn procession from the upper nave.
我使用這個例子，不但是要反駁名實需相符論者的爭辯，而且要顯示，實際上，意符如何進入意旨，換言之，意符並非抽象，它在現實中是如何定位，是一個問題。對於一位近視眼的人，瞇起眼睛觀看琺瑯釉的標誌是否確實就是他凝視的意符。門板上方的題字「男士」與「女士」的意符所代表的意旨，在此狀況受到大家嚴肅地尊重。
But no contrived example can be as telling as the actual experience of truth. So I am happy to have invented the above, since it awoke in the person whose word I most trust a memory of childhood, which having thus happily come to my attention is best placed here.
但是沒有一個人為設計的例子能夠像真理的實際經驗更加具有說服力。所以，我很樂意杜撰以上的例子，因為它喚醒我童年的記憶，有一個人的話，我深信不疑。這件事回想起來頗為有趣，讓我在起提一下。
A train arrives at a station. A little boy and a little girl, brother and sister, are seated in a compartment face to face next to the window through which the buildings along the station platform can be seen passing as the train pulls to a stop. ‘Look’, says the brother, ‘we’re at Ladies!’; ‘Idiot!’ replies his sister, ‘Can’t you see we’re at Gentlemen’.
火車抵達車站時，有一對兄妹的小男孩跟小女孩，車廂裡，跟車窗面對面坐著。他們觀看沿著車站月台的建築物，當火車停下來時。「你瞧！」哥哥說，「我們在女廁前面！」「白癡！」妹妹回答，「你難道沒有看到，我們是在男廁前面！」
Besides the fact that the rails in this story materialize the bar in the Saussurian algorithm (and in a form designed to suggest that its resistance may be other than dialectical), we should add that only someone who didn’t have his eyes in front of the holes (it’s the appropriate image here) could possibly confuse the place of the signifier and the signified in this story, or not see from what radiating centre the signifier sends forth its light into the shadow of incomplete significations.
這故事裡的鐵軌具體代表索緒爾語言公式的中間橫槓（形式上被用來意味著，意旨與意符的抗拒並非是辯證的）。除外，我們應該補充說，只有井底之蛙，以管窺天的人，才有可能將故事裡的意符與意旨的位置混淆，才會看不出，意符是從怎樣的發光中心發出部份意義的光芒到陰影裡。
For this signifier will now carry a purely animal Dissension, destined for the usual oblivion of natural mists, to the unbridled power of ideological warfare, relentless for families, a torment to the Gods. For these children, Ladies and Gentlemen will be henceforth two countries towards which each of their souls will strive on divergent wings, and between which a truce will be the more impossible since they are actually the same country and neither can compromise on its own superiority without detracting from the glory of the other.
因為這個意符現在代表的僅是動物層次的紛爭，事情過後，就被人遺忘於自然的迷霧中，但是意識形態的戰爭，家族的無情爭吵，宗教對立的苦難，紛紛擾擾何時了？對於這兩位小孩，女廁還是男廁的爭議，延伸來看，就形同兩個國家的不同意識形態，各自的人民宛如坐在不同的車廂各自主張，他們是同一個國家，這樣和平休戰怎有可能？兩邊如何能妥協退讓自己的主權，而不損害到對方主權的尊嚴？
雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Lacan 302

Lacan 302
The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason Since Freud
自佛洛伊德以降，在無意識界或理性界，字母的代理

The Meaning of the Letter
字母的意義
As my title suggests, beyond this ‘speech’, what the psychoanalytic experience discovers in the unconscious is the whole structure of language.
如我文章篇名「字母的代理」所表明，精神分析經驗在無意識界所發現的，就是語言的整個結構，但是真理在這個「言談」之外。
Thus from the outset I have alerted informed minds to the extent to which the notion that the unconscious is merely the seat of the instincts will have to be rethought.
因此，從一開始，我就反覆再三地提醒過有識之士，我們需要重新再思考
「無意識僅僅是本能的所在」這個觀念。
But how are we to take this ‘letter’ here? Quite simply, literally.
但是我們在此應該如何看待這個「字母」?很簡單，按字面索解。
By ‘letter’ I designate that material support that concrete discourse borrows from language.
所謂「字母」，我指的是，真理的論述從語言借用過支撐素材。
This simple definition assumes that language is not to be confused with the various psychical and somatic functions that serve it in the speaking subject – primarily because language and its structure exist prior to the moment at which each subject at a certain point in his mental development makes his entry into it.
這個簡單的定義認為，我們不應該將語言，跟服侍言談主體的諸般心理與生理的功用混為一談。主要是因為語言及其結構的存在，時間上早先於每個主體的心智發展進入之前。
Let us note, then, that aphasias, although caused by purely anatomical lesions in the cerebral apparatus that supplies the mental centre for these functions, prove, on the whole, to distribute their deficits between the two sides of the signifying effect of what we call here ‘the letter’ in the creation of signification. A point that will be clarified later.
因此，我們需注意到，雖然失語症的病變原因，純粹是語言機能的心智核心，在大腦器官遭受的生理損害，大體上，它已經被証明是，我們在此所謂的「字母」，以意符代理意旨，意義的創造受到意符化的影響，意符與意旨兩邊無法結算，產生的赤字狀態。這一點，容我以後我再詳細澄清。
Thus the subject, too, if he can appear to be the slave of language is all the more so of a discourse in the universal movement in which his place is already inscribed at birth, if only by virtue of his proper name.
因此，假如主體似乎成為語言的奴隸，相對於真理的論述而言，主體一出生的處境，即使自己是一個獨特的個體，就被語言的普遍運作所鐫刻，他也更加是處於失語症的狀態。
Reference to the experience of the community, or to the substance of this discourse, settles nothing. For this experience assumes its essential dimension in the tradition that this discourse itself establishes. This tradition, long before the drama of history is inscribed in it, lays down the elementary structures of culture. And these very structures reveal an ordering of possible exchanges which, even if unconscious, is inconceivable outside the permutations authorized by language.
但是怪罪到社會的背景，或怪罪到真理論述的本質，於事無補。因為這個社會的背景，跟這個真理的論述所建立的傳統息息相關。早在人類的歷史發展之前，這個傳統就奠定文化的基本結構。這些結構顯示互相交換的秩序，這個秩序在語言認可的的領域之外，是無法被理解的，何況是無意識的交換秩序。
With the result that the ethnographic duality of nature and culture is giving way to a ternary conception of the human condition – nature, society, and culture – the last term of which could well be reduced to language, or that which essentially distinguishes human society from natural societies.
人種誌具有自然與文化的雙重特性，逐漸產生人類處境的第三個特性的觀念：自然、社會、與文化三足鼎立。最後一個特性，文化，我們可以用語言作為表達，基本上，區別人類的社會，跟自然的社會的不同。
But I shall not make of this distinction either a point or a point of departure, leaving to its own obscurity the question of the original relations between the signifier and labor. I shall be content, for my little jab at the general function of praxis in the genesis of history, to point out that the very society that wished to restore, along with the privileges of the producer, the causal hierarchy of the relations between production and the ideological superstructure to their full political rights, has none the less failed to give birth to an esperanto in which the relations of language to socialist realities would have rendered any literary formalism radically impossible.
但是，我並非特意要發揮這個不同的區別，而將意符與文化累積的原先關係置之不理。因為我探討歷史的起源，人類作為本體的功用，我確信地指出，即使有社會希望要恢復生產與意識形態的超級結構，相互之間的因果關係，以及生產者的特權，還給它們充份的政治權利，這個社會仍然無法產生一個世界語。使用這樣的世界語，語言跟社會主義的現實之間的關係，本來會使文學的形式主義完全不可能產生。
For my part, I shall trust only those assumptions that have already proven their value by virtue of the fact that language through them has attained the status of an object of scientific investigation.
就我而言，我只相信那些已經被證明其價值的學說。透過這些學說，語言獲得科學研究的客體的地位
For it is by virtue of this fact that linguistics is seen to occupy the key position in this domain, and the reclassification of the sciences and a regrouping of them around it signals, as is usually the case, a revolution in knowledge; only the necessities of communication made me inscribe it at the head of this volume under the title ‘the sciences of man’ – despite the confusion that is thereby covered over.
語言學被認為在這個領域居舉足輕重的地位。依循知識進步的慣例，環繞語言學的諸項文理學科的重新分類，意味著知識的革命。我只是為了溝通的需要，才將它列為本書的首篇，篇名為「人文科學」。但是如此一來，語言學是人文或是科學的混淆，反而遭到漠視。
To pinpoint the emergence of linguistic science we may say that, as in the case of all sciences in the modern sense, it is contained in the constitutive moment of an algorithm that is its foundation. This algorithm is the following:
S/s
which is read as: the signifier over the signified, ‘over’ corresponding to the bar separating the two stages.
為了強調語言科學的出現，我們不妨說，如同所有科學的現代意義，語言學包含其規則系統的組成作為基礎。這個規則系統的標示如下：
S/s
意符與意旨分成兩個階段，中間有一橫槓，意符是意旨的分子，放置在上面。
This sign should be attributed to Ferdinand de Saussure although it is not found in exactly this form in any of the numerous schemas, which none the less express it, to be found in the printed version of his lectures of the years I906-7, I908-9, and I9I0-11, which the piety of a group of his disciples caused to be published under the title, Cours de linguistique génerale, a work of prime importance for the transmission of a teaching worthy of the name, that is, that one can come to terms with only in its own terms.
這個符號應該歸功於佛帝蘭、索緒爾，雖然被運用到無數的模式時，形式略有些差異。索緒爾在I906-7 年, I908-9年, 及 I9I0-11年的出版的著作上，都還是用這個符號表達。他的一些忠實的門徒將這些著作出版，書名為「語言學教程」。這是一本非常重要的著作，對於學術的影響名聲卓著，簡言之，我們無論如何推崇，亦不為過。
That is why it is legitimate for us to give him credit for the formulation S/s by which, in spite of the differences among schools, the beginning of modern linguistics can be recognized.
那就是為什麼我們對於意符與意旨S/s的公式化推崇有加。儘管各學派的主張各有不同，這個公式已經被公認為是現代語言學的開端。
The thematics of this science is henceforth suspended, in effect, at the primordial position of the signifier and the signified as being distinct orders separated initially by a barrier resisting signification. And that is what was to make possible an exact study of the connections proper to the signifier, and of the extent of their function in the genesis of the signified.
事實上，這們科學的主題，因此被擺放在意符與意旨的原初位置，中間有一條橫槓，作為鮮明秩序的區分，表明意義的抗拒。換言之，意符本體的關係的研究，讓我們有可能探索意旨的起源。
雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Lacan301

Lacan 301
The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason Since Freud
自佛洛伊德以降，在無意識界或理性界，字母的代理
[1]
Of Children in Swaddling 包紮 Clothes
O cities of the sea, I behold in you your citizens, women as well as men tightly bound with stout 結實的bonds around their arms and legs by folk who will not understand your language; and you will only be able to give vent to 發洩your griefs and sense of loss of liberty by making tearful complaints, and sighs, and lamentations 哀悼one to another; for those who bind you will not understand your language nor will you understand them.’
LEONARDO DA VINCI

包裹在衣服裡的小孩
海洋之城！我在你的市民當中，觀看到女人以及男人緊緊被牢固的繩索綁住手腳。那些綁住你們的人不懂你們的語言，你們只好自己彼此淚流滿面抱怨、歎息、及哀悼，來發洩你們的痛苦，及喪失自由的苦楚。因為那些綁住你們的人不會瞭解你們，你們也不會瞭解他們。
李奧那多、達文西

Although the nature of this contribution 投稿was determined by the theme of the third volume of La Psychanalyse, I owe to what will be found there to insert it at a point somewhere between writing (l’écrit) and speech – it will be half-way between the two.
雖然我這篇投稿的性質，受限於精神分析期刊第三期的主題，我還是權且充數，將它視為介於寫作與演講，兩者之間的一個折衷。
Writing is distingiushed by a prevalence of the text盛行in the sense that this factor of discourse will assume in this essay a factor that makes possible the kind of tightening up緊縮 that I like in order to leave the reader no other way out than the way in, which I prefer to be difficult. In that sense, then, this will not be writing.
寫作的特色在於以文字舖陳內容，方便於表達思想的精鍊濃縮，讓讀者可以深入內裡，探索幽微。但我明知如此寫作並不容易，也只好勉為其難。
Because I always try to provide my seminars each time with something new, I have refrained so far from giving such a text, with one exception, which is not particularly outstanding in the context of the series, and which I refer to at all only for the general level of its argument.
因為我總是試著為我的講座推陳出新，我迄今未嘗以文本寫作來表達，除了這次破例。僅管我的拙作在群芳競秀之中未見顯著，我仍然厚顏拋磚引玉。
For the urgency that I now take as a pretext for leaving aside such an aim only masks the difficulty that, in trying to maintain it at the level at which I ought to present my teaching here, I might push it too far from speech, whose very different techniques are essential to the formative effect I seek.
成稿倉促，未成暢所欲言，只是我掩遮自己力有不貸的藉口。不過，寫作與言說的水平有所差異，兩者的技巧各有千秋，也正是我現在所要探討的重要的主題之一。
That is why I have taken the expedient offered me by the invitation to lecture to the philosophy group of the Fédération des étudiants dès lettres to produce an adaptation suitable to what I have to say: its necessary generality matches the exceptional character of the audience, but its sole object encounters the collusion of their common training, a literary one, to which my title pays homage.
那就是為什麼我欣然接受邀約，對於「潘德瑞辛哲學協會」的觀眾演講。我將我這篇文章的內容改頭換目，本來打算將我的演講務求深入淺出，幸好與會觀眾有共同的知識訓練的背景，使我的講演篇名不致於過於份艱澀難懂。
Indeed, how could we forget that to the end of his days Freud constantly maintained that such a training was the prime requisite in the formation of analysts, and that he designated the eternal universitas litterarum as the ideal place for its institution.
的確，我們如何能忘記，佛洛伊德直到晚年，始終耿耿於懷，這樣的知識訓練是精神分析學成立的先決條件。他還指明那歷史悠久的「利特瑞納」大學，作為精神分析學訓練的理想場所。
Thus my recourse (in rewriting) to the movement of the (spoken) discourse, restored to its vitality, by showing whom I meant it for, marks even more clearly those for whom it is not intended.
因此，我將本來以言說表達的真理，改用文字寫作重新論述，重振其真理力量，清楚地表明，我寫作的對象跟我演講的對象迴然不同。
I mean that it is not intended for those who, for any reason whatever, in psychoanalysis, allow their discipline to avail itself of some false identity – a fault of habit, but its effect on the mind is such that the true identity may appear as simply one alibi among others, a sort of refined reduplication whose implications will not be lost on the most subtle minds.
我寫作的對象，並不是那些在精神分析領域已經獲得訓練的人。他們沾沾自喜，自以為得到精神分析的堂奧。這種虛假的認同是一種積非成是，但是它對於心靈的影響是如此之深，以致真正的認同可能僅僅成為一種藉口，一種故作風雅，即使是理解敏銳的心靈，對於他們的真正意涵都會覺得是匪夷所思。
So one observes with a certain curiosity the beginnings of a new direction concerning symbolization and language in the Internationl Journal of Psychoanalysis, with a great many sticky fingers leafing through the pages of Sapir and Jespersen. These exercises are still somewhat unpractised, but it is above all the tone that is lacking. A certain’seriousness’ as one enters the domain of veracity cannot fail to raise a smile.
所以，我們在「國際精神分析期刊」，不禁好奇地觀察到，一種關於象徵性與語言的新的方向。很多讀者留連地翻閱莎皮爾與傑波森的大作。這種對於精神分析的關注迄今還相當罕見，但它確實是我們期盼已久的風潮。容我坦率以道，「過度當一回事」往往引來會心一笑。
And how could a psychoanalyst of today not realize that speech is the key to that truth, when his whole experience must find in speech alone its instrument, its context, its material, and even the background noise of its uncertainties?
今天的精神分析師為何無法體會到， 言談是那個真理的關鍵所在？因為他的整個精神分析經驗，僅僅是在言談中，找到它的工具、它的內涵、它的材料、甚至它的不穩定狀態的背景的噪音。
雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

雄伯手記990318

雄伯手記990318

「正高興夢想終於實現，卻不料發現是麻煩一大堆的災難！」

H對著露天的柴火堆，鼓足力氣直吹，氧氣充足時，乾草泛紅地絲絲發亮起來。但是，吹氣的動作一但停頓，燃亮的乾草又馬上熄滅。我自作聰明地添加衛生紙盒的紙板跟紙張，結果發現命運還不如乾草。

「阿P用一根吹管就能將乾草點燃起來！」H不服氣般說，但是又無可奈何地望著奄奄一息的火苗，臨機一動說「我們作個弊！」

她將木炭拿進屋裡的瓦斯爐上烘烤一陣子，再放進柴火堆，用吹管直吹氣。泛紅的炭火終於使乾草的火光逐漸旺盛起來。H滿足地走到屋邊，關掉電燈。

四周陷入黑暗時，乍然呈現一片晴朗的滿天星斗，H興奮地驚叫起來：「真是出乎意料的好日子！」

「北斗星在哪裡？」對於星座其實外行的我，戴著近視的眼鏡，跟隨H的手指方向，朝著星光點點的天空，迷惘地瞧了一陣子。

「法國哲學家巴舍拉將火燄比喻為人的激情，」我若有所思地說。

H點點頭地陷入沉思，卻沒有作任何回答，大概這是無聲勝有聲的時刻。再抬起頭時，又是一聲驚叫，「你瞧！月亮也是圓的！」

雄伯手記990314

雄伯手記990314

「每至產卵季節，鮭魚必須溯游到河流上游原鄉，既艱辛又危險。我一直在思考，鮭魚能不能抗拒這樣的宿命，直接就在大海產卵，或根本不產卵？」

這週讀書會的題目談拉岡的「論捉住欲望的尾巴Desire Caught by its Tail」。談到欲望的源頭是主體的欠缺時，C有感而發地說。

「那怎麼可能？溯游還鄉的驅力被鐫刻在它們的基因裡！」B斷然地說。

「這會破壞生態食物鏈的平衡。假如鮭魚拒絕溯源還鄉，那上游的熊就沒有鮭魚可吃。熊吃鮭魚先將它們踩住，再撥踢上岸。」A也神來一筆。

「這牽涉到一個關鍵的議題，」我乘機發揮，「人能不能憑藉知識或智慧的啟悟enlightenment，抗拒人被鐫刻為欲望的動物的基因？」

「我認為這是可能的，」C回答說，「還記得上個月，我們參加氣功研習的那位D講師？她自言從丈夫乘飛機失事後，她萬念俱灰，勤練氣功，現在已經修練到清心寡欲，淡泊人生。」

「她的欲望其實並未消失，只是轉向自己的內在。這樣的自力救濟會不會引起免疫力的反撲？」我心中的疑惑，油然而生，但還來不及發問，話題已轉向B最近花了三千多元買到的「榮格紅色書」Liber Novus “ The Red Book” of C.G. Jung。

拉岡講座256

拉岡講座255
IN YOU MORE THAN YOU
不僅是你的肉身

I mutilate you
我使你殘缺

3
I have already indicated the interest to be found in situating, at the level of the subjective status determined as that of the objet a, what, for the past three hundred years, man has defined in science.

我已經指明，我們的興趣在於發現，過去三百年來，人類以科學定義的真理，層次上是處於
主觀性的地位，受到人作為小客體的地位所決定。

Perhaps the features that appear in our time so strikingly in the form of what are more or less correctly called the mass media, perhaps our very relation to the science that ever increasingly invades our field, perhaps all this is illuminated by the reference to those two objects, whose place I have indicated for you in a fundamental tetrad, namely, the voice—partly planeterized, even stratospherized, by our machinery—and the gaze, whose ever-encroaching character is no less suggestive, for, by so many
spectacles, so many phantasies, it is not so much our vision that is solicited, as our gaze that is aroused. But I will leave these features to one side and stress something else that seems to me quite essential.

也許，如此顯著出現在我們時代的特徵，形式上就是我們所謂的「俗眾文化」，也許，越來越侵犯到我們精神分析領域的科學，跟我們息息相關，也許，所有這些都因為這兩個小客體而真相大白。這兩個小客體，我已經用一個基本的四角關係指明出來。第一個小客體是「聲音」，部份被到我們的機械時代星雲化，甚至同溫層化。另一個小客體是「凝視」，其越來越侵奪的特色，同樣耐人尋味，因為對於許多觀眾，許多幻想而言，不是我們的視覺影像被召喚，而是我們的凝視被挑逗。但我將把這些特徵擱在一旁，先強調某件我覺得是更重要的東西。

There is something profoundly masked in the critique of the history that we have experienced. This, re-enacting the most monstrous and supposedly superseded forms of the holocaust, is the drama of Nazism.

有某件東西深深被我們經歷過的歷史的批判所掩蓋。這就是納粹黨的鬧劇，以駭人聽聞的大屠殺及滅絕人寰方式，轟轟烈烈地演出。

I would hold that no meaning given to history, based on Hegeiano—Marxist premises, is capable of accounting for this resurgence—which only goes to show that the offering to obscure gods of an object of sacrifice is something to which few subjects can resist succumbing, as if under some monstrous
spell. Ignorance, indifference, an averting of the eyes may explain beneath what veil this mystery still remains hidden. But for whoever is capable of turning a courageous gaze towards this phenomenon— and, once again, there are certainly few who do not succumb to the fascination of the sacrifice in itself—the sacrifice signifies that, in the object of our desires, we try to find evidence for the presence of the desire of this Other that I call here the dark God.

我相信，黑格爾與馬克思的唯物史觀，並無法解釋這樣的鬧劇會再重現。因為那足以顯示，對於黑暗的神祇的獻祭誘惑，沒有幾個人的主體能抗拒臣服，好像著魔於某種力量。無知、冷漠、視若無睹等，都可以用來解釋，在這層面紗底下，某種奧秘依舊隱隱約約。但是，儘管確實沒有幾個人，能夠不屈服於這種獻祭本身的魅力，假如有人能夠對於這種現象勇敢正視，這種獻祭會顯示出，在我們欲望的小客體，我們會設法找到大它者的欲望，我在此稱之為黑暗的神祇，君臨
操控的証據。

It is the eternal meaning of the sacrifice, to which no one can resist, unless animated by that faith, so difficult to sustain, which, perhaps, one man alone has been able to formulate in a plausible way— namely, Spinoza, with his Amor intelleaualis Del.

獻祭雖然具有永恆的意義，是任何人都無法抗拒的，但是假如沒有信仰的激勵，其實相當難以維持。可能，只有一個人曾經這樣地身體力行，那就是史賓諾莎，他對於「知識的真理之神」的熱愛。

What, quite wrongly, has been thought of in Spinoza as pantheism is simply the reduction of the field of God to the universality of the signifier, which produces a serene, exceptional detachment from human desire. In so far as Spinoza says—desire is the essence of man, and in so far as he institutes this
desire in the radical dependence of the universality of the divine attributes, which is possible only through the function of the signifier, in so far as he does this, he obtains that unique position by which the philosopher—and it is no accident that it is a Jew detached from his tradition who embodies it—may be confused with a transcendent love.

相當異端的思想，史賓諾莎所構想的泛神論，將上帝的君臨領域，擴散為神祇意符的無所不在，莊嚴地跟人類的欲望，保持特別的區隔。依照史賓諾莎的說法，欲望是人的本質。當人完全依賴神性的無所不在，來開始這個欲望，那只有透過神祇的意符的功用。這樣，他得到哲學家與超越神性合而為一的那個獨特地位。史賓諾莎作為一位猶太人，身體立行地跟傳統的單一上帝的信仰如此叛離，真是孑然獨立。

This position is not tenable for us. Experience shows us that Kant is more true, and I have proved that his theory of consciousness, when he writes of practical reason, is sustained only by giving a specification of the moral law which, looked at more closely, is simply desire in its pure state, that very desire that culminates in the sacrifice, strictly speaking, of everything that is the object of love in one’s human tenderness—I would say, not only in the rejection of the pathological object, but also in its sacrifice and murder. That is why I wrote Kant avec Sade.

對我們而言，這個立場並不難自圓其說。經驗告訴我們，康德更加踏實。我曾經證明過，他論述實踐理性批判時，只有先提供一個明確的道德法則，他的意識的理論才能成立。更加細究起來，這個道德法則只是純淨狀態的欲望，嚴格來說，就是在人性心軟時，獻祭一切愛的客體，以達到高潮的欲望。容我補充說，對於病態的客體，不但要拒絕，而且要犧牲及謀殺。那就是為什麼我寫「康德為沙德化身」一文。

This is the prime example of the eye-opening effect (disillement) that analysis makes possible in relation to the many efforts, even the most noble ones, of traditional ethics. This is an extreme position, but one that enables us to grasp that man can adumbrate his situation in a field made up of rediscovered knowledge only if he has previously experienced the limit within which, like desire, he is bound. Love, which, it seems to some, I have down-graded, can be posited only in that beyond, where, at first, it renounces its object. This also enables us to understand that any shelter in which may be established
a viable, temperate relation of one sex to the other necessitates the intervention—this is what psycho-analysis teaches us—of that medium known as the paternal metaphor.

這是精神分析學對於傳統倫理，勇往直前，兢兢業業地探索，讓人大開眼界的最佳例子。這是一個偏激的立場，但是這個立場使我們能夠了解，人只有先前曾經驗到諸如被欲望束縛的限制，他才能夠體會出，處於欲望這個一再被發現的領域，人的自我了解是什麼。只有超越先前棄絕自己的客體的地方，愛才能夠展現出來，雖然有些人似乎認為我這樣是貶低了愛。這個立場也使我們能夠了解到，人與人之間的性關係出乎欲望，還要合乎禮數，以求安全保障，是由於父權象徵的介入的需要。這是精神分析學所教導我們的。

The analyst’s desire is not a pure desire. It is a desire to obtain absolute difference, a desire which intervenes when, confronted with the primary signifier, the subject is, for the first time, in a position to subject himself to it. There only may the signification of a limitless love emerge, because it is outside
the limits of the law, where alone it may live.
June 24, 1964

精神分析師的欲望，並不是一個純淨的欲望。這個欲望想要獲得超然獨立的地位，這個欲望的介入，是當主體面臨最初的意符時，第一次處於將自己臣服於這個欲望的立場。只有在那裡，無窮盡的愛的意義才會出現，因為這個法則的限制之外，主體可能只是孤獨地活著。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座255

拉岡講座255

IN YOU MORE THAN YOU
不僅是你的肉身

the objet petit a—
小客體
2
The objet a is that object which, in actual experience, in the operation and process sustained by the transference, is signaled to us by a special status.

小客體以一個特別的地位，跟我們傳遞訊息。在實際的經驗中，這個客體的運作跟過程，以移情方式來維持。

One constantly has on one’s lips, without quite knowing what one means, the term the liquidation of the transference. What, in fact, does the term mean? Exactly what assets are being liquidated? Or is it a question of some kind of operation in an alembic? Is it a question of—It must go somewhere and empty itself somewhere? If the transference is the enaction of the unconscious, does one mean that the transference might be a means of liquidating the unconscious? Do we no longer have any unconscious after an analysis? Or is it, to take up what I said before, the subject who is supposed to know who must
be liquidated as such?

我們常常喃喃自語「移情的清償」這個術語，但是並不十分清楚是什麼意思。事實上，這個術語是什麼意思？有怎樣的債務確實被清償？或者，那只是像是某種蒸發消失的運作？那像是「到某個地方掏空自己」的問題嗎？假如移情是無意識的扮演，那意味著，移情可能是一個清償無意識的方法嗎？經過精神分析後，我們難道不再有無意識嗎？或者容我舊話重說，那是應該知道的主體應該如此被清償嗎？

It would be odd all the same if this subject who is supposed to know, supposed to know something about you, and who, in fact, knows nothing, should be regarded as liquidated, at the very moment when, at the end of the analysis, he begins at last, about you at least, to know something. It is therefore at the
moment what he takes on most substance, that the subject who is supposed to know ought to be supposed to have been vaporized.

假如這個應該知道，應該知道有關你的一些事情的主體，而實際上卻是一無所知，在經過精神分析之後，應該被認為是已經清償，他終於開始知道一些至少關於你的事情，這聽起來還是有點奇怪。因此，就在他具有某種意義內涵的時刻，這個應該知道的主體，應該被認為是已經蒸發消失了。

It can only be a question, then, if the term liquidation has any meaning, of the permanent liquidation of that deception by which the transference tends to be exercised in the direction of the closing up of the unconscious. I have already explained to you how it works, by referring to it the narcissistic relation by
which the subject becomes an object worthy of love. From his reference to him who must love him, he tries to induce the Other into a mirage relation in which he convinces him of being worthy of love.

因此，假如清償這個術語有任何意義，那問題將是，朝無意識封閉的方向，移情所從事的那個欺騙，被一勞永逸地清償。我已經用主體成為值得愛的客體的自戀的關係，跟你們解釋過，它如何運作。從他提到對方必須愛他，他設法誘拐大它者進入海市蜃樓般的幻想，說服他值得愛。

Freud designates for us its natural culmination in the function known as identification. The identification in question is not—and Freud articulates it with great subtlety, I would ask you to go back and read the two chapters in Group and the Analysis of the Ego that I referred to last time, the first is called Identification and the second Hypnosis and the State of being in Love
— the identification in question is not specular, immediate identification. It is its support. It supports the perspective chosen by the subject in the field of the Other, from which specular identification may be seen in a satisfactory light. The point of the ego ideal is that from which the subject will see
himself, as one says, as others see him—which will enable him to support himself in a dual situation that is satisfactory for him from the point of view of love.

佛洛伊德用眾所周知的認同的功用，將它的特性發揮得淋漓盡致。這個值得商榷的認同，並不是魅影般的當下認同。佛洛伊德表達得細膩微妙，我建議你們回去重讀我上次推薦的「團體與自我的分析」的那兩章。第一次被稱為「認同」，第二次則被稱為「催眠與戀愛狀態」。

As a specular mirage, love is essentially deception. It is situated in the field established at the level of the pleasure reference, of that sole signifier necessary to introduce a perspective centred on the Ideal point, capital I, placed somewhere in the Other, from which the Other sees me, in the form I like to be seen.

作為一個魅影的幻想，愛基本上是一種欺騙。它的位置被建立在歡樂符號的層次。唯一需要的意符，用來介紹一個觀點，集中在那個大寫字母的「我」的理想的點，然後被放置在大它者的某個地方。從那裡，大它者觀看我，以我喜歡被觀看的形象。

Now, in this very convergence to which analysis is called by the element of deception that there is in the transference, something is encountered that is paradoxical— the discovery of the analyst. This discovery is understandable only at the other level, the level at which we have situated the relation of alienation.

現在，就在精神分析被欺騙的因素召喚的匯聚點，某件矛盾的東西被邂逅，那就是精神分析師的發現，產生了移情。這個發現只有在另一個層次，才有辦法理解。這個層次就是我們所謂的疏離的關係。

This paradoxical, unique, specified object we call the objet a. I have no wish to rehash the whole thing again, but I will present it for you in a more syncopated way, stressing that the analysand says to his partner, to the analyst, what amounts to this—I love you, but, because inexplicably I love in you something more than you—the objet petit a—I mutilate you.

這個矛盾、獨特、明確的客體，我們稱之為小客體。我不想在這裡舊調重彈，但是容我簡單扼要地複述一下。重點是，被分析的病人對他的夥伴，對他的精神分析師，相當等於是說：我愛你，但是微妙地，我愛的不僅僅是肉身的你，我把你當小客體，我使你殘缺。

This is the meaning of that breast-complex, that mammal complex, whose relation to the oral drive Bergler saw so clearly, except that the orality in question has nothing to do with food, and that the whole stress is placed on this effect of mutilation.

這就是乳房情結，也就是哺乳情結的意義。這個情結跟口腔驅力的關係，波格勒一目瞭然，除了兩點：所謂的口腔跟食物沒有絲毫關係，及整個重點放置在殘缺產生的影響。

I give myself to you, the patient says again, but this of my person—as they say—Oh, mystery! is changed inexplicably into a gift of skit—a term that is also essential to our experience. When this swerve is achieved, at the conclusion of the interpretative elucidation, we are able to understand retroactively that vertigo, for example, of the white page, which, for a particular character, who is gifted but stuck at the limits of the psychotic, is like the centre of the symptomatic barrage which
blocks off for him every access to the Other. If, quite literally, he cannot touch this white page at which his ineffable intellectual effusions come to a stop, it is because he apprehends it only as a piece of lavatory paper.

「我委身於你」，病人再次說，「但我這個人，如他們所說，已經不可思議地變成為一件雜七雜八的禮物。真是匪夷所思！」這樣的告白，在我們精神分析經驗，也是非常重要。當我們經過一番分析解釋，結論到達這樣的轉折，我們能夠回顧地了解到，例如，那種對於空白頁的暈眩。
對於某個聰明絕頂，但是呈現精神症狀的特定的人物，那種暈眩，就像是病徵難關的中心，阻擋他無論如何也無法接近大它者。望文生義來說，假如他無法碰觸到這個空白頁，縱使他在知識’方面怎樣的才華橫溢，他也只有望而卻步，那是因為他理解這個空白頁，只當是一張衛生紙。

How shall I describe for you the effect of this presence of the objet a, rediscovered always and everywhere, in the movement of the transference? I do not have much time today, but I will make use, by way of illustration, of a short fable, an apologue, which I happened to embark on the other day, with a smaller group of listeners. I will provide an end for it, so that if I apologize to them for repeating myself; they will see that what follows at least is new.

我要怎樣跟你們描述小客體存在的影響？它總是在移情的時刻一再出現，無所不在。今天，我沒有足夠時間，但是我會使用一篇短寓言，或道德寓意，作為說明。那是前幾天，我剛好聽到，跟一小群聽眾。我會給這篇寓言畫蛇添足，這樣他們若怪罪我拾人牙慧，他們會看出，以下我說的內容，其實是我匠心獨具。

What happens when the subject begins to speak to the analyst?—to the analyst, that is to say, to the subject who is supposed to know, but of whom it is certain that he still knows nothing. It is to him that is offered something that will first, necessarily, take the form of demand. Everyone knows that it is this that has orientated all thinking on analysis in the direction of a recognition of the function of frustration. But what does the subject demand? That is the whole question, for the subject knows very well that, whatever his appetites may be, whatever his needs may be, none of them will find satisfaction in analysis, and that the most he can expect of it is to organize his menu.

當主體開始跟精神分析師交談時，那是什麼情況？對於精神分析師，換言之，對於應該知道的主體，但是確實依舊是一無所知的主體。對於這個主體，病人呈現他的問題，必然是用要求對方解答的方式。大家都知道，就是這種方式，將所有的思維都導向精神分析，朝向自己遭受挫折的功能能夠獲得承認。但是病人要求什麼？這是整個問題所在，因為病人很清楚地知道，不管他的企圖是什麼，不管他的需要是什麼，沒有一樣能夠在精神分析這裡得到滿足。充其量，他所能期待的是組織他需求菜單。

In the fable I read, when I was a child, in these early forms of strip cartoon, the poor beggar at the restaurant door feasted himself on the smell of the roasting meat. On this occasion, the smell is the menu, that is to say, signifiers, since we are concerned with speech only. Well! There is this complication— and this is my fable—that the menu is written in Chinese, so the first step is to order a translation from the patronne. She translates—imperial pâté, spring rolls, etc. etc. It may well be, if it is the first time that you have come to a Chinese restaurant, that the translation does not tell you much more than the original, and in the end you say to the patronne—Recommend something. This means: you should know what I desire in all this.

在我小時候讀的這個寓言中，以連環漫畫的樣式，在餐廳門口的這位可憐乞丐，藉由聞到烤肉的香味，嚥下簡陋的食物。在這個場合，香味就是需求菜單。換言之，意符，因為我們關心的只是言說。我提到的這個寓言，是用中文寫成，會有理解的障礙。所以，第一步就是先從餐聽老板娘那裡，請她翻譯一下。她翻譯成「帝王蟹」「春捲」等等。假如你第一次光顧一家中國餐廳，你很有可能發現，翻譯菜單跟原文菜單其實幫助不了多少。最後你跟餐廳老板娘說：「請推薦幾樣令人垂涎的菜。」這意味著，「老板娘，你應該知道我垂涎什麼。」

But is so paradoxical a situation supposed, in the final resort, to end there? At this point, when you abdicate your choice to some divination of the patronne, whose importance you have exaggerated out of all proportion, would it not be more appropriate, if you felt like it, and if the opportunity presented itself, to tickle her tits a bit? For one goes to a Chinese restaurant not only to eat, but to eat in the dimensions of the exotic. If my fable means anything, it is in as much as alimentary desire has
another meaning than alimentation. It is here the support and symbol of the sexual dimension, which is the only one to be rejected by the psyche. The drive in its relation to the part object is subjacent here.

但是，情況最後應該如此弄巧成拙嗎？在此時，當你放棄你的選擇，聽憑餐廳老板娘的推薦，他的重要性，你實在過於高估。假如你真想要的話，假如你有機可乘的話，還不如跟老板娘打情罵俏一番。因為我們到那家中國餐廳，是醉翁之意不在酒。假如我的寓言有什麼可發人深省的，那就是飲食男女的欲望，絕非單純就是食物而已。性的意涵在此是支撐跟象徵，內心垂涎，卻始終言不及義。欲望驅力與部份客體的關係是它的基礎。

Well! Paradoxical, not to say free and easy, as this little apologue may seem, it is nevertheless precisely what is at issue in the reality of analysis. It is not enough that the analyst should support the function of Tiresias. He must also, as Apollinaire tells us, have breasts. I mean that the operation and manipulation
of the transference are to be regulated in a way that maintains a distance between the point at which the subject sees himself as lovable—and that other point where the subject sees himself caused as a lack by a, and where a fills the gap constituted by the inaugural division of the subject.

雖然這個小小的寓言聽起來矛盾，而且有點輕浮，那確實是我們精神分析領域受到爭議的地方。一位精神分析師應該扮演預言家提瑞西亞斯的功能還不夠，他還必須如詩人阿保里耐爾所說的嫵媚動人。我的意思是，移情的運作與操控應該被規範，才能夠保持距離。一方面，主體看待自己為可愛，另一方面，主體看待自己為客體的欠缺。中間的罅隙則由主體開始時的分裂所造成。

The petit a never crosses this gap. Recollect what we learned about the gaze, the most characteristic term for apprehending the proper function of the objet a. This a is presented precisely, in the field of the mirage of the narcissistic function of desire, as the object that cannot be swallowed, as it were, which remains stuck in the gullet of the signifier. It is at this point of lack that the subject has to recognize

小客體永遠無法跨越這個罅隙。回想一下，我們探討凝視時的心得，那是最具特色的術語，用來理解小客體的適當功用。這個小客體，確實出現在欲望的自戀功用的幻想那裡，作為無法吞嚥的客體，換言之，被卡在意符的食道，動彈不得。主體必須認出欠缺的這個點。

It is for this reason that the function of the transference may be topologized in the form that I have already produced in-my seminar on Identification—namely, the form that I have called on occasion the internal object, that double curve that you see on the blackboard folding back upon itself, and whose essential property is that each of its halves, following one another, comes back to back at each point with the preceding half. Just suppose that a particular half of the curve is unfolded, then you will see
it cover up the other.

因為這個理由，移情的功用，可以被定位在我「論認同」的講座時產生的形式。換言之，這個形式，我有時候稱之為「內部的客體」，你們看到黑板上畫的那個雙重曲線的折疊。它的基本屬性是兩邊的各一半，互相迴轉回來支撐前面一半的每一個點。假設這條曲線的特別的一半沒有展開迴轉，那麼你們看到它會蓋滿另外一半。

That is not all. As it is a question here of a plane defined by the cut, you need only take a sheet of paper to get, with the help of a few small collages, an exact idea of the way in which what I am going to tell you may be conceived. It is very easy to imagine that, in short, the lobe constituted by this surface at its
point of return covers another lobe, the two constituting themselves by a form of rim. Note that this in no way implies any contradiction, even in the most ordinary space—except that, in order to grasp its extent, one must abstract oneself from three-dimensional space, since it is a question here only of a
topological reality that is limited to the function of a surface. You can thus conceive quite easily in the three dimensions that one of the parts of the plane, at the moment at which the other, by its rim, returns upon it, determines there a sort of intersection.

不僅如此。因為這是一個由切割來定義平面的問題，你們只要拿一張紙，外加幾個拼貼的幫助，你們就會確實理解到，我告訴你們如何被構想的方式。總而言之，我們很容易想像，迴轉點蓋滿另一半的這個表面組成的一半。兩半都是以邊緣的方式組成自己。請注意，這樣絲毫不意味著任何矛盾，即使是在最普通的空間。除了，為了要了解它的程度，我們必須從三度空間，將自己抽離出來，因為這是一個地形的真實界被限制於表面的功用的問題。因此，你們能夠輕易地用三度空間來構想，平面的一部份，在另一部份繞著邊緣迴轉的時候，在那裡形成一種交會。

This intersection has a meaning outside our space. It is structurally definable, without reference to the three dimensions, by a certain relation of the surface to itself; in so far as, returning upon itself; it crosses itself at a point no doubt to be determined. Well! This line of intersection is for us what may
symbolize the function of identification.

這個交會有一個在我們的空間之外的意義。它在結構上的定義，不必運用到第三度空間，只要平面跟本身的某種關係。當它迴轉到自身的時候，它在無可置疑的可決定點，跨越過自身。嗯！這條交會線，對於我們而言，可能象徵著認同的功用。

In effect, by the very work that leads the subject, while telling himself in analysis, to orientate what he says in the direction of the resistance of the transference, of deception, deception of love as well as of aggression—something like closing up occurs and its value is marked in the very form of this spiral developing towards a centre.

事實上，在精神分析時，告白自己，作為引導主體將自己所說的話，朝向移情的抗拒，欺騙的抗拒、愛的欺騙的抗拒、及攻擊性的抗拒，某件像是封閉的東西發生，它的價值的形式就是這種迴旋的向中心發展。
，
What I have depicted here by means of the rim comes back on to the plane constituted by the locus of the Other, from the place where the subject, realizing himself in his speech, is instituted at the level of the subject who is supposed to know. Any conception of analysis that is articulated—innocently or not, God only knows—to defining the end of the analysis as identification with the analyst, by that very fact makes an admission of its limits. Any analysis that one teaches as having to be terminated by identification with the analyst reveals, by the same token, that its true motive force is elided. There is a beyond to this identification, and this beyond is defined by the relation and the distance of the objet petit a to the idealizing capital I of identification.

我在此用邊緣方式所描述的，回到由大它者的軌跡所組成的平面，從應該知道的主體的層次，主體在言說中體認到自己。任何精神分析的觀念的表達，純真與否，只有天曉得，若是將精神分析的目的，定義為對於精神分析師的認同，這是劃地自限。我們所教導的任何精神分析，若是必須以認同於精神分析師為終極目標，同樣顯示出來，真正的動機的力量被視而不見。還有超越這個認同的力量，這個超越，是由小客體跟認同的理想話的大寫字母的「我」的關係及距離來界定。

I cannot enter into the details of what such an affirmation implies in the structure of practice. I will refer here to Freud’s chapter on Hypnosis and the State of being in Love, which I mentioned earlier. In this chapter Freud makes an excellent distinction between hypnosis and the state of being in love, even
in its most extreme forms, what he calls Verliebiheit. Here he provides the clearest doctrinal account to be read anywhere, if only one knows how to read it.

我無法詳述在精神分析實際運作時，這種肯定意味著什麼。我在此參考我早先提到佛洛伊德「論催眠及戀愛狀態」的章節。在這個章節，佛洛伊德將催眠及戀愛狀態區別得很清楚，即使他所稱為「神昏顛倒」的極端狀態。在此，他提供清楚的學術描述，讓我們閱讀，只要我們費心去讀它們。

There is an essential difference between the object defined as narcissistic, the i (a), and the function of the a. Things are such that the only view of the schema that Freud gives of hypnosis, gives by the same token the formula of collective fascination, which was an increasing reality at the time when he wrote that article. He draws this schema exactly as I have represented it for you on the blackboard.

被描述為自戀的理想的自我的客體，與小客體的功用，有一個顯著的不同。事情的狀態，只有從佛洛伊德給予催眠的基型，我們才能看出集體著迷的公式。當他在寫那篇文章時，集體著迷的現象越來越真實。他畫出這個基型，如同我在黑板上所繪製的。

In it he designates what he calls the object—in which you must recognize what I call the a—the ego and the ego ideal. As for the curves, they are made to mark the conjunction of the a with the ego ideal. In this way Freud gives its status to hypnosis by superposing at the same place the objet a as such
and this signifying mapping that is called the ego ideal. I have given you the elements in order to understand it, adding that the objet a may be identical with the gaze.

在那裡，他指明他所謂的客體，從那裡，你們一定認出我所謂的小客體、自我、及自我的理想。至於那些曲線，它們被用來標明小客體與自我的理想的聯接。以這個方式，佛洛伊德疊放小客體，作為自我的理想的意符，給予它在催眠中的地位。我已經給予你們可供了解的因素，要補充的是：小客體可能跟凝視合而為一。

Well, Freud precisely indicates the nodal point of hypnosis when he formulates that the object is certainly an element that is difficult to grasp in it, but an incontestable one, namely, the gaze of the hypnotizer. Remember what I articulated for you about the function of the gaze, of its fundamental relations to the ink-blot, of the fact that there is already in the world something that looks before there is a view for it to see, that the ocellus of animal mimicry is indispensable as a presupposition to the fact that a subject may see and be fascinated, that the fascination of the ink-blot is anterior to the view that discovers it. You apprehend by the same token the function of the gaze in hypnosis, which may be fulfilled in fact by a crystal stopper, or anything, so long as it shines.

佛洛伊德準確地指出催眠的節點，當他說明，這個客體在凝視中，確實是一個難於掌握的因素，但又是無可置疑的因素，換言之，在催眠師的凝視中。請記住我曾經跟你們表達過的有關凝視的功用，有關凝視跟墨跡的基本關係，有關世界上先有東西觀看，才有東西被觀看的事實，以及主體觀看，然後著迷，對於墨跡的著迷，早先於墨跡的景象，這些都是跟動物模擬的單眼現象密不可分。你們可樣可理解到凝視在催眠中的功用，使用水晶球，或任何只要能發亮的東西，都可以達成催眠的功用。

To define hypnosis as the confusion, at one point, of the ideal signifier in which the subject is mapped with the a, is the most assured structural definition that has been advanced. Now, as everyone knows, it was by distinguishing itself from hypnosis that analysis became established. For the fundamental
mainspring of the analytic operation is the maintenance of the distance between the I— identification—and the a.

將催眠定義為理想的意符在某個時刻，主體被小客體所混淆，是曾經被提出的最明確的結構定義。現在，大家都知道，精神分析學將自己跟催眠區隔開來，自成一家之言。精神分析運作的基本泉源就是要在自我的認同跟小客體之間，保持一段距離。

In order to give you formulae-reference points, I will say—if the transference is that which separates demand from the drive, the analyst’s desire is that which brings it back. And in this way, it isolates the a, places it at the greatest possible distance from the I that he, the analyst, is called upon by the subject to embody. It is from this idealization that the analyst has to fail in order to be the support of the separating a, in so far as his desire allows him, in an upside-down hypnosis, to embody the hypnotized patient.

為了給你們公式及符號，容我這樣說，假如移情是分開需求跟欲望驅力的東西，精神分析師的欲望就是將移情扭轉回來。以這種方式，移情將小客體孤立出來，盡可能將它跟自我的認同保持距離，因為精神分析師被主體召喚來充當自我的認同。就是因為這個理想，精神分析師必然無法達成，為了要成為這個分開的小客體的支撐，儘管精神分析師的欲望，在病人神智昏迷的催眠中，容許他去具體表現被催眠的病人。

This crossing of the plane of identification is possible. Anyone who has lived through the analytic experience with me to the end of the training analysis knows that what I am saying is true. It is beyond the function of the a that the curve closes back upon itself at a point where nothing is ever said as to the
outcome of the analysis, that is, after the mapping of the subject in relation to the a, the experience of the fundamental phantasy becomes the drive. What, then, does he who has passed through the experience of this opaque relation to the origin, to the drive, become? How can a subject who has traversed the radical phantasy experience the drive? This is the beyond of analysis, and has never been approached. Up to now, it has been approachable only at the level of the analyst, in as much as it would be required of him to have specifically traversed the cycle of the analytic experience in its totality.

跨越這個認同的平面是可能的。你們只要從始至終，參加這個精神分析的經驗，你們就會知道，我所說的話是事實。就在超越這個小客體的功用，這條曲線自己封閉起來，因為關於精神分析的結果，我們無法明說，換言之，在我們找出主體跟小客體的關係之後，基本的幻想的經驗會成為欲望驅力。因此，那些曾經參與精神分析經驗，探索跟起源、跟欲望驅力的那層朦朧關係的人，他們會變得如何呢？這就超越了精神分析的範疇，從來沒有人到達過。直到現在，只有到達精神分析師的層次，因為他被要求曾經對於精神分析的經驗，完完整整地經歷一遍。

There is only one kind of psycho-analysis, the training analysis—which means a psycho-analysis that has looped this loop to its end. The loop must be run through several times. There is in effect no other way of accounting for the term durcharbeiten, of the necessity of elaboration, except to conceive
how the loop must be run through more than once. I will not deal with this here because it introduces new difficulties, and because I cannot say everything, since I am dealing here only with the fundamentals of psycho-analysis.

只有一種精神分析學，那就是精神分析訓練。那意味著，這種精神分析一直在自己的圈內不斷地翻筋斗。這個筋斗必須被翻轉好幾次。事實上，我們沒有其它方法來說明「精益求精」這個術語，除了就是構想如何將筋斗多翻轉幾次。我將不在此處理這個筋斗，因為它那沒有呈現什麼新的困難。我在此只處理精神分析學的基本原理，無法涉及技巧等其它問題。

The schema that I leave you, as a guide both to experience and to reading, shows you that the transference operates in the direction of bringing demand back to identification. It is in as much as the analyst’s desire, which remains an x, tends in a direction that is the exact opposite of identification, that
the crossing of the plane of identification is possible, through the mediation of the separation of the subject in experience.

我留給你們這個基型，可作為經驗及閱讀的引導。它告訴你們，移情運作的方向，是要將需求帶回到認同。精神分析師的欲望，始終是一個謎團，傾向於朝著認同的正相反方向。所以，透過精神分析經驗的主體的分裂的媒介，跨越認同的平面是可能的。

The experience of the subject is thus brought back to the plane at which, from the reality of the unconscious, the drive may be made present.

因此，主體的精神分析經驗被帶回這個平面，讓欲望驅力從無意識的真實界，可能會被顯現出來。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

拉岡講座254

拉岡講座254

20
IN YOU MORE THAN YOU
不僅是你的肉身

I love you, but, because inexplicably I love in you something more than you—
我愛你，但是微妙的是 我愛的不僅是你的肉身

It now remains for me to conclude, for this year, the series of seminars that I was forced to hold here owing to certain circumstances that have introduced into the course of my teaching something which, after all, is accounted for by one of the fundamental notions that I have been examining here—that of
dustuchia, misfortune.

現在我剩下要做的是，替今年這一系列的講座做個總結。由於某種因緣，我不得不在此舉行這一系列講座，介紹我的教學課程。這個處境正是印證了我一直在探討的基本主題：身不逢時。

So I had to postpone dealing with a subject that I was preparing to embark on with those who were following my course on the Names-of-the-father, and to return here, before a rather different audience, to the question that has been at issue from the outset of the teaching, my teaching, namely, what is the order of the truth that our praixis engenders?

所以我必須對那些已經聽過我的「以父之名」課程的人，延遲我準備要開講的主題，因為現在聽眾不同，我先回到自從我開講以來，一直受到爭議的問題，換言之，「人作為本體，產生的真理，定位在哪裡？」

What makes us certain of our practice is something whose basic concepts I think I have outlined for you here, under the four headings of the unconscious, repetition, the transference and the drive—a sketch of which, as you have seen, I was led to Include in my exploration of the transference.

我們對於精神分析深具信心，一些基本的概念，我在此已經為你們揭曉，分成四個標題：無意識、重復、移情、及驅力。如你們所看到，我不得不將它們的描述涵蓋在我對於移情的探討。

Has that which our praxis engenders the right to map out for itself necessities, even contradictory ones, from the standpoint of truth? This question may be transposed in the esoteric formula: how can we be sure that we are not imposters?

人作為主體所產生的東西，有權利從真理的觀點，替自己定位為必要條件，甚至是彼此矛盾的必要條件嗎？這個問題可以換一個奧妙的公式來調適：我們如何能確定我們不是騙子？

I
It would not be too much to say that, in the putting in question of analysis, in so far as it is always in suspense, not only in the popular mind, but still more in the most private feelings of each psycho-analyst, imposture looms overhead—as a contained, excluded, ambiguous presence against which the psychoanalyst barricades himself with a number of ceremonies, forms and rituals.

我不是危言聳聽，不僅是一般人，而且每一位精神分析師私底下的感覺， 都對精神分析有所質疑，總是持保留態度。騙子的形象隱約在望，像是自以為是，枉顧事實的可疑人物。精神分析用一大堆儀式、規矩、及架式，替自己裝模作樣。

If I am stressing the term imposture in my talk today, it is because it is certainly the first step by which one might approach the relation of psycho-analysis with religion and, through this, with science.

假如我今天在我的談話中，強調騙子這個術語，那是因為那確實是第一步，我們可能能到達精神分析學跟宗教的關係，然後透過這層關係，到達跟科學的關係。

I would draw your attention here to a formula that had considerable historical value in the eighteenth century, when enlightenment man, who was also the man of pleasure, put in question religion as a fundamental imposture. I do not need to point out to you the road we have travelled since then. Who,
nowadays, would dream of reducing the concerns of religion to such simplistic terms? It can be said that, throughout the world, and even where the struggle against it may be at its sharpest, religion nowadays enjoys universal respect.

我在此吸引你們注意一個被被認為是具有歷史價質的十八世紀的慣例。當時，開明人士也是懂得尋求歡樂的人士，質疑宗教是一種根本的欺騙。從那時起，我們知識進展的歷程，就無庸我再一一枚舉了。今天，還有誰會將對於宗教的關懷，化約到如此簡單的術語？我們能夠說，在全世界，即使在宗教被排斥得最激烈的地方，宗教今天還是到處受到尊敬。

This question also involves that of belief, which is presented by us in terms that are no doubt less simplistic. We have the practice of the fundamental alienation in which all belief is sustained, in that double subjective term by which, at the very moment when the signification of belief seems most profoundly to vanish, the being of the subject is revealed from what was strictly speaking the reality of that belief. It is not enough to overcome superstition, as one says, for its effects in the human being to be attenuated.

這個問題牽涉到信仰的問題，只是無可置疑的，我們用比較複雜的術語來呈現。我們維持所有的信仰的做法，基本上是疏離的雙重主體的術語，也就是在信仰的意義似乎蕩然無存的時刻，主體的存在才從嚴謹來說，是信仰的真實中顯現出來。如俗話說，為了減弱迷信對於人的影響，光是消除迷信還不夠。

It is certainly this that makes it difficult for us to recognize what, in the sixteenth century, could have been the status of what was, strictly speaking, disbelief. In this sphere, we know that we are, in our time, incomparably and paradoxically disarmed. Our bulwark, the only one we have, and the religious
have felt this in a quite admirable way, is, as Lamennais remarked on the subject of religion, that indifference that takes as its status precisely the position of science.

確實就是因為這樣，我們很難去認出，在十六世紀，嚴謹來說，沒有信仰的狀況本來會是什麼樣子。就沒有信仰而言，我們知道在我們的時代，我們喪失信仰的程度，已經是無可倫比，而且矛盾重重。我們僅有一個自圓其說的堡壘，這一點，宗教界感受得特別刻骨銘心。如拉眠納思論宗教時所說的：科學的立場讓我們振振有詞，拒絕迷信。

It is in as much as science elides, eludes, divides up a field determined in the dialectic of the alienation of the subject, it is in as much as science is situated at the precise point that I have defined as the point of separation, that it may also sustain the mode of existence of the scientist, of the man of science. This
man of science could be approached in his style, his morals, his mode of discourse, in the way in which, through a series of precautions, he protects himself from a number of questions concerning the very status of the science of which he is the servant. This is one of the most important problems from the
social point of view—less important, however, than that of the status to be given to the corpus of acquired scientific knowledge.

主體的疏離的辯證法運作的領域，受到科學的刪除、閃躲、及分裂。科學的位置，確實就是我曾定義的分開點，這樣，科學家及科學人士存在的地位才能屹立不搖。這種科學人士有自己一套風格、規範、及論述的模式。憑藉一系列的嚴謹慎重，他們保護自己免於受到質疑，他們作為科學奴僕的地位。從社會的觀點，這形成一個最重要的問題之一，僅次於我們學習而來的知識應置於何等地位的問題。

We will not appreciate the full implication of this corpus of science if we do not recognize that it is, in the subjective relation, the equivalent of what I have called here the objet petit a. The ambiguity that persists in the question as to what in psycho-analysis is or is not reducible to science can be explained
if we realize to what extent analysis implies, in effect, a beyond of science—in the modern sense of Science itself, whose status in the Cartesian departure I have tried to demonstrate. If measured against science understood in this sense, psycho-analysis might be reduced to the rank of something with whose forms and history it so often suggests an analogy—namely, a church and, therefore, a religion.

假如我們沒有認出，在主體的關係上，我在此所稱為的小客體的相等物，我們就無法欣賞這個科學綜合體的完整的意涵。假如我們體會到，精神分析學實際上超越了科學的範疇到什麼程度，我們才能夠解釋，精神分析學是否是一門科學的問題，為何會那樣模稜兩可。我曾經設法證明，現代科學的意涵，在笛卡爾那裡，就己經偏離。假如以這層意涵的科學來衡量，精神分析學，在形態上及歷史上，差可比擬的地位是教堂。因此，精神分析學淪於宗教的地位。

The only way to approach this problem is on the basis of the following—that, among the modes at man’s disposal for posing the question of his existence in the world, and beyond, religion, as a mode of subsistence of the subject who interrogates himself; is to be distinguished by a dimension that is proper to it, and which is struck by a kind of oblivion. In every religion that deserves the name, there is in fact an essential dimension reserved for something operational, known as a sacrament.

解決這個問題的唯一方法，是根據以下的基礎：人類提出自己存在於世界的問題的可用模式，跟宗教是主體質疑自身的生存模式，區別的分法要根據世界本身的特色，因為這個特色日久就被人習而不察。在聲名顯著的各個宗教，事實上都保留一種基本的特色，那就是眾所周知的功用性的聖典。

Ask the faithful, or even the priests, what differentiates confirmation from baptism—for, indeed, if it is a sacrament, if it operates, it operates on something. Where it washes away sins, where it renews a certain pact—I would put a question-mark here— Is it a pact? Is it something else? What passes through this dimension ?—in all the answers we get, we will always find this mark, by which is invoked the beyond of religion, operational and magical. We cannot evoke this operational dimension
without realizing that within religion, and for strictly defined reasons—the separation and impotence of our reason, our finitude —it is this that is marked with oblivion.

問問那些信徒，或那些牧師，堅信禮與洗禮都是一種聖典，都根據信仰來運作，那它們的差別在哪裡？就洗刷我們的原罪，及更新跟上帝的契約而言，我在此提出一個問號：那是一個契約嗎？或那是某件其它的東西？這些儀式所顯現的是什麼？在我們所得到的答案，我們總是發現這個問號：宗教的超越都召喚既是功用性，又是魔術般的神秘存在。每當我們召喚這功用性的神秘存在時，我們就會體會到，在宗教裡面，為了振振有詞的理由，理性被隔開，而且無能為力。就是這一點，我們習而不察。

It is in as much as psycho-analysis, in relation to the foundation of its status, finds itself in some way struck by a similar oblivion, that it manages to rediscover itself marked, in ceremony, with what I will call the same empty face.

就自身的地位的關係而言，精神分析學發現自己在某方面，也同樣遭遇到這樣的習而不察。它在儀式中，設法重新發現自己成為我所說裝模作樣的虛有其表。

But psycho-analysis is not a religion. It proceeds from the same status as Science itself It is engaged in the central lack in which the subject experiences himself as desire. It even has a medial, chance status, in the gap opened up at the centre of the dialectic of the subject and the Other. It has nothing to forget, for it implies no recognition of any substance on which it claims to operate, even that of sexuality.

但是精神分析學不是宗教。它從科學本身一樣的地位發展。它從事於中心立場的欠缺，因為在欠缺中主體經驗到自己作為欲望。它甚至擁有中間的際遇的地位，處於主體與大它者的辯證的中心，所展開的分裂。它沒有什麼可遺忘，因為它並沒有要承認任何它宣稱要運作的物質，甚至是性的物質。

On sexuality, in fact, it operates very little. It teaches us nothing new about the operation of sex. Not even a tiny piece of erotological technique has emerged from it, and there is more of this kind of thing to be found in any of the books that are constantly being reprinted, and which come to us from the
depths of an Arab, Hindu, or Chinese tradition, even sometimes from our own. Psycho-analysis touches on sexuality only in as much as, in the form of the drive, it manifests itself in the defile of the signifier, in which is constituted the dialectic of the subject in the double stage of alienation and separation.
Analysis has not kept, on the field of sexuality, what one might, mistakenly, have expected of it by way of promises—it has not kept such promises because it does not have to keep them. This is not its terrain.

事實上，精神分析學罕見以性的物質運作。關於性的運作，它並沒有教導任何新的東西。甚至連一點兒性愛的技巧都沒有。而從阿拉伯、印度、或中國傳統，甚至我們自己的傳統，不斷出版的書籍中，卻可以找到越來越多的性愛寶鑑。精神分析學只有以欲望驅力的形式，談論到性。性在意符的褻瀆中彰顯自己，因為主體的辯證法在那裡組成，分成疏離與分開兩個階段。在性的領域，精神分析學並沒有承諾，或實踐大眾錯誤的期許。他沒有實踐這樣的承諾，因為它不需要做這樣的承諾。性並不是它的領域。

On the other hand, in its own terrain, it is distinguished by such an extraordinary capacity for inconsequence and confusion that, sometime in the not too distant future, its entire literature will, I assure you, be classified among the works of what are known as the bus littéraires.

在另一方面，在它自己的領域，精神分析學的特色，是它擁有特別的能力來處理矛盾及混亂。我可以預測，在不久的將來，精神分析學的全部研究，將會被歸類為眾所周知「異端邪說」。

Certainly, one cannot but be struck by the extent to which an analyst may err in the correct interpretation of the very facts he advances—and recently I was struck once again on reading a book like Basic Neurosis, a book that is nevertheless so winning in the smart way it gathers together a number of very different observations that can certainly be borne out in practice. The particular fact that Bergler contributes concerning the function of the breast is truly wasted in a pointless discussion, of a rather fashionable kind, concerning the superiority of man over woman, and of woman over man, that is to say, concerning things which, by arousing the greatest possible emotion, are also, as far as the main question is concerned, what is of least interest.

的確，對於精神分析師解釋自己提供的事實，牽強附會可能犯錯的程度，我們不免大吃一驚。最近，我閱讀一本「精神官能症入門」，再次大吃一驚。可是，這本書文筆生動，還真引人入勝。它收集了許多確實可以在診療時驗證的不同的觀察。作者波格勒提供這個特別的事實，有關乳房的功用，實在是無稽之談，關於男人與女人，孰優孰劣的論調，也是追隨時髦流行，換言之，關於那些問題本身乏善可陳的事情，他故作危言聳聽。

Today, I must stress what, in the psycho-analytic movement, is to be referred to the function of what I isolate as the objet a —and it is not for nothing that I referred here to Bergler’s book, which, because it lacks an adequate mapping of the proper function of the part-object, and of what is signified, for example, by the breast, which he deals with at length, is doomed although interesting in itself, to an aimless development that leads nowhere.

今天，我必須強調，在精神分析的運動，我突顯出來的小客體的功用。我在此提到波格勒的書，不是沒有用意的。因為對於這個部份客體的適當功用，他沒有充份的發揮，對於他詳細描繪的成為意符的東西，例如，乳房，雖然本身生動有趣，卻是天馬行空，漫無邊際。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw