Furrows in the alethosphere 2

Furrows in the alethosphere 2
媒體氛圍的航跡

From The Other Side of Psychoanalysis
精神分析學的另類面貌

By Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡

I mentioned that affect by which the speaking being of a discourse finds itself determined as an object. It has to be said that this object is not nameable. If I try to call it surplus jouissance, this is only a device of nomenclature.

我提到,人作為真理論述的言說主體,發現自己在那個情懷下,被決定成為一個客體。我們還必須說,人作為客體,是無法以命名規範其全部本質。即使我勉為其難稱之為「剩餘歡爽」,那也只是權宜姑妄名之。

What object is it that results from this affect of a certain discourse? We know nothing about this object, except that it is the cause of desire, that is to say that strictly speaking it manifests itself as want-to-be. There is therefore no being that is thereby determined.

人作為某種真理論述的這個情懷,使人成為一個怎樣的客體呢?我們對於這樣一個客體一無所知,除了將它當著是欲望的原因,換句話說,這個客體嚴格來說只是證明自己是始終寄欲望於將來。因此,人的存在無法在現在就被蓋棺論定。

Certainly, what the effect of a given discourse bears upon may well be a being that one may call man, for example, or else a living being to which one ccan add that it is sexed and mortal, and one will fearlessly advance toward thinking that what the discourse of psychoanalysis bears upon is here, under the pretext that sex and death arre constantly at issue here. But from our perspective, if it is true that we start at the level of what reveals itself initially, and as the prime fact, to be structured like a language, we are not yet at this point. It is not a question of beings ( etant) in the effect of language. It is only a question of a speaking Being( etre). At the outset we are not at the level of beings, but at the level of Being.

的確,跟某一個真理論述的情懷息息相關的東西,很有理由就是我們權宜稱之為人的一種生命實存。對於這個生命的實存,我們還可以添加它的特質是:具有性的欲望,以及生命期間有一定限制。我們甚至還可以大膽地進一步說,精神分析學的真理論述念茲在茲的,就是這些特質,因為在這個場域,性跟死亡是爭論不斷的議題。但是容我們坦率以道,即使精神分析學的出發點顯示,這些議題內涵的結構,事實上像語言般可以讓我們解析,我們目前尚未到達能夠解析的階段。這個問題不是一般的生命的實存是否像語言的特質,而是人本質上是一個獨特的言說的生命的實存。剛一開始時,人並不就是屬於一般生命實存的層次,而是屬於一個獨特的生命的實存的層次。

We must, however, beware of the mirage here of thinking that Being is thereby settled, and beware of the error, which lies in wait for us, of assimilating this to everything that has been worked out as the dialectic of an initial position of being and nothingness.

可是,我們必須注意,不要產生幻覺,以為人作為獨特的生命的實存,因此就一勞永逸。我們也必須注意,不要陷入這個請君入甕的錯誤,將人作為獨特的生命的實存,跟一般初始的生命的實存與空無,及其辯證發展的結果混為一談。

The initial affect of this effect, let’s now put this in inverted commas, of “ Being” only appears at the level of what makes itself the cause of desire, that is to say, at the level of what we situate, of this initial effect of the settling, of the analyst—the analyst as the place that I am trying to grasp with these little letters on the blackboard. This is where the analyst positions himself. He positions himself as the cause of desire. This is an eminently unprecedented position, if not a paradoxical one, one that is validated by a practice.

容我們現在用倒轉的括號表達,「獨特的生命的實存」的初始的情懷,只出現在自己成為欲望的原因,自己成為一勞永逸的這個初始效應的原因,自己成為精神分析師的原因,換句話說,出現在我們將精神分析師定位在這個位置,我現在正設法以黑板上的這些小的字母表達。這就是精神分析師定位自己的位置。他定位自己作為欲望的原因。這顯而易見是一個史無前例的位置,即使是一個矛盾的位置。這個位置是否穩定,靠著實踐來驗證。

The importance of this practice can be measured by taking what has been designated as the master’s discourse as a reference point. It is not a question here of a distant relationship, or of an overview, but of a fundamental relationship—the analytic practice is, properly speaking, initiated by this master’s discourse.

這個實踐的重要性,我們能夠從它始終被指明作為主人的真理論述,看出聯想的端倪。這不是一個關係淡薄的問題,或是一個籠統概括的問題。這是一個屬於基本關係的問題:適當地說,精神分析的實踐最初就是主人的真理論述所啟動。

There is something that becomes present by virtue of the fact that all determined of the subject, and therefore of thought, depends on discourse. In this discourse, in effect, there arises the moment at which the master becomes differentiated. It would be quite false to think that this occurs at the level of a risk. This risk is, despite everything, quite mythical. It’s the trace of a myth that still remains in Hegelian phenomenology. Isn’t this master nothing other than the one who is the strongest? This is certainly not what Hegel records. The struggle for pure prestige at the risk of death still belongs to the realm of the imaginary. What does the master do? This is what the articulation I am giving you of discourse shows. He plays upon what I have called, in different terms, the crystal of language.

主體的整個決定,也就是思想的決定,都依靠真理的論述。這個事實透露出某件重要的訊息。事實上,在這個真理的論述中,總是會有某個時刻,主人角色變得舉足輕重。假如你以為,主人角色的舉足輕重只是發生在危機的時刻,那將是大錯特錯。儘管如此,這個危機的時刻還是相當神秘。在黑格爾的「精神現象學」,神話的痕跡一直是斑斑可考。主人難道不就是勝者為王的強者角色嗎?這確實不是黑格爾所描述的。冒著死亡的危險來追求威望虛榮,一般都是保持在想像的場域。那主人到底幹些什麼?這就是我所要表達的主人的真理論述。主人在玩弄我曾經用不同術語所稱為的「語言的水晶玻璃珠」。

Why not use in this respect what can be designated in French by the homonym
m’dtre, m’etre a moi-meme? It’s from this that the m’etre signifier emerges, whose second term I leave to you to write as you will.

在這方面,法文裡的「我即存在」m’dtre, m’etre a moi-meme 跟主人的master一詞同音異詞,用來表達不是非常貼切嗎?就是從這裡,「我即存在」的意符開始出現。至於存在後的第二個術語是什麼,我讓你們去任意發揮書寫。

This unique signifier operates by means of its relation with what is already there, already articulated, in such a way that we can only conceive of it against the presence of a signifier that is already there, that, I would say, has always been there. In effect, if this unique signifier, the signifier “ the master,” write it as you wish, is articulated to some part of a practice that it orders, then this practice is already shot through, woven through, with what, to be sure, does not yet emerge from it, namely, the signifying articulation. The latter is at the heart of all knowledge, even if it could only have been approached through know-how.

這個獨特的意符憑藉著跟自身已經存在、及已經表達的關係運作,其運作的方式,我們只能將它跟其它某個已經存在,甚至總是已經在那裡的意符的互動來構想。事實上,假如這個獨特的意符,或者你也可以隨意書寫成「主人」的意符,被表達到自身規劃的實踐的某個部份,那麼這個實踐就已經被貫徹始終,就已經被徹底交織。當然,它尚未從意符的表達上呈現出來。這個意符的表達就是所有知識的核心,即使要靠近這個核心,只能憑藉某種竅門。

We find the trace of the initial presence of this knowledge where it is already some distance off, by virtue of having been fiddled with for a long time in what is called the philosophical tradition—a judgment about the grip that the signifier of the master has on this knowledge.

我們發現這個知識初始存在的痕跡時,它已經疏隔有某些距離之遠。我們憑藉的竅門,是所謂的哲學的傳統長久已來念茲在茲的命題,主人的意符對於這個知識的理解產生的判斷。

Let’s not forget that when Descartes asserts his “ I am thinking therefore I am,” it’s by virtue of having for sometimes sustained him “ I am thinking” by calling into question, putting in doubt, this knowledge that I am saying is “ fiddled with,” which is the knowledge already elaborated at length through the master’s intervention.

我們不要忘記,當哲學家笛卡爾主張他的「我正在沉思,因此我存在」時,他憑藉的竅門是先質詢、先懷疑我正在說的這個「念茲在茲」的知識,這個知識已經透過主人的介入貫徹始終,然後才能維持他的「我正在沉思」。

We can we say about contemporary science that will give us a reference point? I will mention three stages here because, poor teacher that I am, I am not sure that you are cottoning onto my sentences. Three stages—science—behind, philosophy—and beyond, something of which we have a notion if only through biblical anthemas.

當代的科學將會再繼續發揮下去,問題是我們要怎樣去看待?我在此將提到三個階段,因為我有時辭不達意,我並不確定你們是否明白我的意思。三個階段:科學是最後出現,前面是哲學,再前面我們只能稍微有一點概念,那就是從被逐出教會的異端看出端倪。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
springherohsiung@gmail.com

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: