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 This, re-enacting the most monstrous and supposedly superseded forms of the holocaust, is the drama of Nazism.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

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: