Archive for June, 2010

Furrows in the alethosphere 3

June 17, 2010

Furrows in the alethosphere 3
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

This year I have given a large place to the text Hosea, with reference to what Freud extracts from it, according to Sellin. The greatest benefit of it is perhaps not, though it does exist on this level, calling the Oedipus complex into question, which I have called this “ residue of myth,” in psychoanalytic theory. Surely, if there were something necessary here to make present some ocean of mythical knowledge regulating the life of men—and how do we now whether it was harmonious or not? –the best reference could well be what Yahwch condemns, with what I called his ferocious ignorance, with the term” prostitution.”

今年,我花費相當多的時間探索何希亞的本文,依據謝林的說法,佛洛伊德的有些引文來自那裡。可是,它最大的利益可能並不是質疑伊底普斯情結,雖然這個質疑的層面確實存在那裡,因為在精神分析理論,那是我曾經稱之為「神話的殘餘」。的確,即使在此仍然有某種需要,來呈現那規範人類生活的浩瀚的神秘知識,我們又如何知道,那知識與現在和諧與否?猶如耶穌譴責眾人,自己內心充滿淫邪之念,卻還殘酷而無知地想置偶爾犯奸淫之過的婦女於死地。

This is enough of a foothold ( bias), to my mind, and surely a better one than the common reference to the fruits of ethnography. Ethnography conceals all kinds of confusion within itself, through adhering to what it gathers as if it were natural. And how is it gathered? It is gathered in writing, that is to say, detailed, extracted, distorted forever from the supposed terrain on which one is supposedly uncovering it.

依我之見,這種「殘酷而無知」是一個可以讓我們細加探索的平台,比一般種族偏見的「殘酷而無知」的平台來得更為合宜。種族偏見隱藏自己內部的各種混亂,透過我族中心匯聚自以為的正義與真理,把它們當著是天經地義。問題是,這種正義與真理是如何匯聚的?他們在書寫中被匯聚,換句話說,在他們所認為的平台,他們應該揭櫫正義與真理的平台,不斷地加以羅列、吸取、然後加以扭曲。

This is certainly not to say that mythical knowledge could inform us at greater length, or inform us better, about the essence of the sexual relation.

當然,這並不是說,神秘的知識能夠更詳細、更明確地告訴我們有關性關係的本質。

If psychoanalysis makes sex and, as a dependency, death present for us—even though here nothing is certain, except a general apprehension of a link between sexual difference and death, it’s by demonstrating, in a way that I wouldn’t call lively but merely articulated, that concerning the capture of this being—whatever it may be, which is to say that it is not even a being—in discourse the articulation in which the sexual relation is expressed only ever appears in a complex manner. This complex manner is one that cannot even be said to be mediated, even though there are medii-media, if you prefer—one of which is this real effect that I am calling surplus pleasure, which is the little a.

即使精神分析學實話實說,不耍花竅,使我們觀看到性,及跟性互相依存的死亡,我們只是攏統地理解到性的差異與死亡之間的關係,但又無法確定。我們只能顯示,關於這個生命的實存的掌握,是若存若亡,我們實在無以名之。就精神分析學而言,性關係的表達只能以迂迴曲折的方式。這個迂迴曲折的方式甚至也無法名之為中間的媒介,儘量實際上並不乏有媒介存在。它的真實效果,我現在稱之為剩餘歡爽,也就是小客體。

What does experience indicate to us,, in point of fact? That it is only when this little a is substituted for woman that man desires her. That, inversely, what a woman has to deal with insofar as we are able to speak about this, is this jouissance that is her own and is represented somewhere by a man’s omnipotence, which is precisely where man, when he speaks, when he speaks as master, discover that he is a failure.

事實上,精神分析經驗給我們什麼啟示?那就是,只有當這個小客體被用來替代女人時,男人才渴望它。反過來說,當我們對於這個問題能夠侃侃而談時,女人所必須處理的,是她自己的這個歡爽,而這個歡爽有時是以男人的無所不能來代表。就在這個地方,當男人正在言說,當男人作為一個主人在言說,他發現他自己心有餘而力不足。

This is where one has to start from in analytic experience—what could be called man, that is to say that the male as speaking being, disappears, vanishes through the very effect of the master’s discourse—spell it as you will—through being inscribed solely in castration, which, by this very fact, is properly to be defined as being deprived of woman—woman insofar as she would be realized in a suitably congruent signifier.

這就是我們精神分析經驗必須要開始介入的地方。我們能夠認為的男人,換句話說,作為言說存在主體的男人,此時消失無蹤,在主人的真理論述中,或在主人的真理迷霧中消失,因為男人在此是以被閹割的狀態被銘記,事實上,就是被剝奪女人的狀態被定義,因為女人的實現自我,也是要以旗鼓相當的意符。

Being deprived of woman—this, expressed in terms of the failure of discourse, is what castration means. It is indeed because this is not thinkable that the speaking order institutes this desire, constituted as impossible, as an intermediary and that makes the mother, insofar as she is prohibited, the privileged feminine object.

被閹割的意思就是,男人被剝奪女人,由於作為主人的真理論述力有不逮。確實就是因為這個不可思議的閹割,男人作為言說的存在主體,開始這個本質上是不可能的欲望,是需要有媒介的欲望。這使得母親成為一個具有特權的女性客體,因為她是被禁制的。

This is the wrapping established by the fundamental fact that in a mythical union between man and woman there is no possible place that could be defined as sexual.

這就是由基本的事實所建立的外表面貌。男人與女人之間的神秘的結合,沒有一個位置能夠被定義為是性關係。

This is, indeed, where what we grasp in the psychoanalytic discourse—the unifying One, the whole One—is not what is involved in identification. The pivotal identification, the major identification, is the unary trait. It is Being, marked one.

的確,這是我們精神分析學的真理論述所理解的內涵。人所參與的自我認同,並不是一個統一的主體,完整的主體。關鍵的自我們認同,主要的自我認同,是這個部份的小客體。那就是獨特的主體的生命實存,被標明為一個人的主體。

Prior to the promotion of any being, by virtue of a singular one, of what bears the mark from this moment forward, the effect of language arises, as does the first affect. This is what the formulas I wrote on the blackboard are saying.

憑藉作為一個獨特的主體,語言的效果隨之而來,如同第一個情懷隨之來。這個語言的效果與情懷,從出生的時刻開始,早於任何其它生命主體的出現。這就是我書寫在黑板上的公式的內涵。

Somewhere this something that the cogito only marks is isolated, also with the unary trait, that one can suppose the “ I am thinking” has in order to say, “ Therefore, I am.’ Here the effect of division is already marked by an “ I am” which elides the “ I am marked by the one”—for Descartes is, to be sure, inscribed in a scholastic tradition, which he wriggles out of acrobatically, which is not at all to be disdained as a means of escape.

在某一個地方,「我思故我在」所標示的部份被孤立起來,而且是用「我正在思想」所擁有的小客體的特徵孤立起來,為了要能夠表達「因此,我存在」。在此,分割的效果已經由「我存在」來表示,而「我存在」卻閃避了「我是一個獨特的主體」。的確,儘管笛卡爾如何千方百計要掙脫學術傳統,他是被銘記在這個學術傳統裡,這個事實絲毫不應該被藐視為是他的脫逃之計。

Moreover, it is as a function of this initial position of the “ I am” that the ‘ I am thinking” can be even so much as written. You will recall how I have been writing it for a long time now—“ I am thinking, ‘Therefore I am.’” This ‘ Therefore I am” is a thought.

而且,「我正在思想」之所以能夠被這樣書寫,正是它作為「我存在」初始的地位的功用。你們不妨回想一下,長久以來,我一直在書寫:「我正在思想,【因此我存在】」。這個【因此我存在】是一個思想。

It supports itself infinitely better by carrying its characteristic of knowledge, which does not go beyond the “ I am marked by the one,” by the singular, by the unique, by what?—by this effect which is, ‘ I am thinking.”

【因此我存在】這個命題能夠成立,是因為它具有知識的特徵。它並沒有超越「我是由一個獨特的主體來表示」,由這個獨特,由這個獨一無二,由這個「我正在思想」的這個結果來表示。

But here again, there is an error in the punctuation, which a long time ago I expressed this—the “ ergo,” which is nothing other than the “ ego” in play, should be put alongside the “ cogito.” The “ I am thinking, therefore, ‘I am’ ” gives the formula its real significance. The cause, the “ ergo,” is thought. The point of departure to take is the effect of what is involved in the simplest order, from which the language effect comes into play at the level of the emergence of the unary trait.

但是在這裡,標點符號有一點錯誤。很久以前,我曾這樣表達過:這個「因此ergo」,跟正在演示的「自我ego」,道道地地是異詞同音,應該跟「我思故我在」平行並列。「我正在思想,【因此我存在】」使上面的那道公式意義深遠。這個原因,這個「因此」,是一種思想。

To be sure, the unary trait is never alone. Therefore, the fact that it repeats itself—that it repeats itself in never being the same—is properly speaking the order itself, the order in question because language is present and already there, already efficacious.

的確,這個小客體的特徵從來就不是孤立存在。因此,小客體會一再重覆,它會一再重覆,卻又永遠不相同。適當地說,這就是小客體的條理,因為語言的奧妙存在這裡,已經在這裡,已經發揮功用。

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

Furrows in the alethosphere 2

June 15, 2010

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

Furrows in the alethosphere 1

June 4, 2010

Furrows in the alethosphere 1

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

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since our meeting, I am speaking of the one in April, and not the most recent one, which took place elsewhere, and only with some of you.

自從我們上次會面,真是逝者如斯夫不捨晝夜。我說的是四月的那次會面,不是最近在別處舉行的那一次,當時你們參加的人數較少。

The exchange of remarks on the steps of the pantheon was not of a bad level, since it enabled me to go over a number of points that deserved to be made precise, in response to questions that were not at all inept. That is what I think with the lapse of a week. But my first reaction immediately after when I was with someone who was accompanying me was, however, of a certain inadequacy.

在萬神廟的台階,我們交換的論述層次並不差,因為它使我們能夠溫習一下必須弄得更明確的幾個觀點,以便回應那些並非信口開河的問題。這就是一星期過後我沉思的感想。但是,我跟我當時的同伴的最初的反應確實是不夠沉著。

Even the best of those who spoke, and who were not unjustified in their questions, seemed to me, except at the start, to be lagging behind a bit. This seems to me to have been reflected in the fact that, at least in this friendly interpellation that was still not a questioning, they situated me within a number of references.

雖然當時提出問題的人振振有詞地單刀直入,我覺得除了開頭的氣勢外,後面的問題其實也是老生常談。不過這個事實倒是值得我一再思維,他友善的質詢依舊不是問題,但是質詢的情境卻使我陷入諸多的聯想。。

These references are not all to be rejected, certainty. I recall that the first was to Georgias, of whom I am supposed to be conducting some sort of repetition. Why not? But what was inappropriate is that in the mouth of the person who evoked this character whose effectiveness we, in our days, cannot evaluate very well it was about someone from the history of thought. This is the distancing that seems disturbing to me—this term enables a sort of sampling of views from a distance concerning this person and that person whom one has bracketed together under “ function of thought.”

的確,這些諸多聯想不完全是空穴來風。我回憶起,我首先聯想到的人是喬治亞斯,我被認為是重覆他所提出的某些問題。那有何不可呢?有所不適宜的地方是,質詢者召喚這個人物的名字,而他的貢獻卻很難從我們這個時代去評估,因為他屬於思想史的功用。我所感到的困擾就是這種差距感,關於這個人,跟我們已經給他歸類為「思想的功用」的這個人,是有所差距的。

It seems to me that there is nothing less homogeneous here—if I can put it like that—nothing that would enable one to define a species. It is not legitimate to give some people, in whatever capacity one might imagine them, the function of a species representing thought. Thought is not a category. I would almost say it is an affect. Although, this is not to say that it is at its most fundamental under the aspect of affect.

我覺得,他們彼此之間的異質性在此是蠻大的。容我這樣說,沒有絲毫東西可以讓我們將某一種人下一個定義。無論我們想像某個人稟賦有怎樣的才能,我們很難合宜地將某些人定義為是代表思想的功用的人物。思想不是一種範疇的歸類。我甚至要說,思想只是一種情懷。儘管如此,我並不是說,思想的最基本的功能就是情懷。

There is only one affect—this constitutes a certain position, a new one to be introduced into the world, which, I am saying, is to be referred to what I am giving you a schema of, transcribed onto the blackboard, when I speak of the psychoanalytic discourse.

情懷只有一種,那就是組成某一個人的情懷,一種被介紹到這個世界的新的情懷。我要說的是,當我提到精神分析學的真理論述時,這種新的情懷應該給予我正在跟你們描述的基模,應該被書寫到黑板上。

As a matter of fact, transcribing it into the blackboard is distinct from talking about it. I remember that at Vincennes, when I appeared there for the first time which hasn’t been repeated since, but which will be repeated. It occurred to someone to call out to me that there were real things that were truly preoccupying the assembly. Namely, that there was a brawl going on at a place at some distance from where we were gathered, that this was what we should be thinking about, that the blackboard had nothing to do with this real. That’s where the error is.

事實上,將情懷書寫到黑板上,跟談論情懷是顯然不同的事。我記得有一次在敏西尼演講,我首次去那裡後,就沒有再去,將來也許會再去。當時,有人突然大聲跟我喊叫,演講廳裡有某件真實的事件正在上演。換句話說,在距離我們集會所在不遠的地方,有人正在爭吵,那是我們無法視若無睹的事件,而那個真實的事件跟黑板上所書寫的內容絲毫沒有關係。這就是陰錯陽差的地方。

I would say that, if there is any chance of grasping something called the real, it is nowhere other than on the blackboard. And even, whatever commentary I am able to give it, which will take the form of speech, relates only to what is written on the blackboard.

我要說的是,假如有任何可能來理解什麼叫著真實的事件,那個地方道道地地就是在黑板上所書寫的。問題是,不管我能夠對著黑板詳加評述,不管我採用怎樣的巧辯,相關的真實的事件就是黑板上所書寫的。

That’s a fact. And it is demonstrated by this fact, by this artifice that is science, whose emergence one would be completely wrong to inscribe as arising solely out of a philosophical concoction. Metaphysical, rather than physical, science, perhaps. Does our scientific physics deserve to be called metaphysical? This is what would need to be spelled out.

那是一個事實。這個事實,這個所謂科學的奧妙,證明了真實的事件。我們常將科學的出現僅僅歸功於是哲學沉思的結果,其實是完全是錯誤的。科學可能只是一種形上學,而不是一種物理學。我們科學物理學難道不應該被稱之為形上學嗎?這一點將需要我們詳加解釋。

Spelling it out seems possible to me, namely on the basis of the psychoanalytic discourse. In effect, from the perspective of this discourse, there is only one affect, which is, namely, the product of the speaking being’s capture in a discourse, where this discourse determines its status as object.

詳加解釋對我而言並不困難,換句話說,我可以運用精神分析學的真理論述當基礎。事實上,從這個真理論述的觀點,情懷只有一種,換句話說,那就是人作為言說的主體,在真理的論述中所捕獲的產物,而這種真理的論述決定了言說的主體作為客體的地位。

This is where the Cartesian cogito derives its exemplary value from, provided that one examine it and revise it, as I will do once again, today, to start with.

這就是笛卡爾的「我思故我在」博得典範價值的地方,只要我們檢視它、修正它,如同我今天一開始的反覆作為。

雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

springherohsiung@gmail.com

Knowledge and truth 4

June 3, 2010

Knowledge and truth 4
知識與真理
Encore by Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉岡:再來

I am going to tell you a little secret about those beings from which the letter is wrought. Despite everything people have said, for example, about Lenin, I don’t think either hate or love, hainamoration, has ever really killed anyone. Don’t tell me stories about Mrs. Freud! On that score, I have Jung’s testimony. He told the truth. Indeed, that was his flow—he told nothing but that.

我想要告訴你們一個小秘密,關於那些字母意符構成的主體。例如,不管人們對於列寧的愛恨如何毀譽交加,我不認為愛恨情結真的會如此使人喪心病狂。更別告訴我有關佛洛伊德跟她的妻子的愛恨糾纏。在那種愛恨糾纏的情結,榮格的告白,更是令人心力交瘁。他說的是實話。的確,那是榮格的真情流露,他說的就是實話。

Those who still manage to make those kinds of rejections of being are really the ones who partake of scorn. I will make you write it this time, since today I’m having fun, meprix. That makes uniprix. We live in the age of supermarkets, so one must know what one is capable of producing, even by way of being.

那些依舊能夠悍然拒絕生命的實存的人,確實是睥睨群倫的人。這一次,我要你們寫下來,因為我今天心情很好,靈感泉湧。我們現在生活在超級市場的時代,所以我們必須要知道,自己能夠生產什麼,即使是以生命的實存作為生產。

That hitch is that the Other, the locus, knows nothing. One can no longer hate God if he himself knows nothing—in particular, of what is going on. When one could hate him, one could believe he loved us, since he didn’t hate us in return. This is not apparent, despite the fact, in certain cases, people went at its full speed ahead.

關鍵所在是,大他者,這位生命的樞紐,一無所知。即使上帝本身一無所知,特別是對於正在發生的事一無所知,我們也不再因此而痛恨他。若是我們能痛恨他,我們就能相信他依舊愛我們,因為他並不以痛恨來報復我們。這種心理並不顯而易見,儘管在某些狀況,人們痛恨時會盲目地奮不顧身。

Lastly, as I come to the end of these discourses that I have the strength to pursue before you, I would like to tell you an idea that came to me, about which I have reflected just a little bit. The misfortune of Christ is explained to us by the idea of saving men. I find, rather, that the idea was to save God by giving a little presence and actuality back to that hatred of God regarding which we are, and for good reason, rather indecisive.

最後,當我膽敢在你們面前,將這這些真理的論述不厭其煩地闡明的末了,我想要告訴你們一個我曾經沉思良久的想法。耶穌被釘上十字架的不幸,被用來解釋是上帝為了拯救世人,而犧牲他的獨生子。相反地,我發現到,這種解釋是為了拯救上帝,因為它將上帝的痛恨稍微賦予具體的存在,而我們人類對於上帝的痛恨始終猶豫不決,不是沒有理由的。

That is why I say that the imputation of the unconscious is an incredible act of charity. The subjects know, they know. But all the same, they don’t know everything. At the level of this not-everything ( pas-tout), only the Other doesn’t know. It is the Other who constitutes the not-everything, precisely in that the Other is the part of the not-at-all-knowledgeable ( pas-savant-tout) in the not-everything.

這就是為什麼我說上帝造人時,賦予無意識是一件無與倫比的慈善行為。主體知道,他們知道。但是自始至終,他們只是一知半解。而在主體一知半解的相形之下,上帝卻是一無所知。問題是,主體的一知半解是由於上帝的一無所知組成,因為主體的一知半解,必須以上帝的一無所知為先決條件。

Thus, it may momentarily be convenient to make the Other responsible for this, to which analysis leads in the most avowed manner, though no one realizes it: if libido is only masculine, it is only from where the dear woman is whole, in other words, from the place from which man sees her, that the dear woman can have an unconscious.

因此,容我們姑且讓大他者來負責這件事罷!精神分析學信誓旦旦地引導我們尋求大他者,雖然沒有人體會到:假如生命力的力比多只是男性,那是因為他出發的立場,是將他喜愛的女性視為生命整體的地方,換句話說,從男性看待女性的立場,從他喜愛的女性也有無意識的地方來看。

And what does it help her do? It helps her, as everyone knows, make the speaking being, who is reduced her to man, speak, in other words—I don’t know if you have noticed this in analytic theory—it helps her exist only as mother. She has unconscious effects, but her unconscious—at the limit point at which she is not responsible for everyone’s unconscious, in other words, at the point at which the Other she deals with, the Other with a capital O, works in such a way that she knows nothing, because the Other knows even less, given how difficult it is to even maintain its existence—this unconscious, what can we say of it, if not to sustain with Freud that it doesn’t leave her sitting pretty?

女性有無意識對她有何幫助?如眾所周知,女性有無意識幫助她使言說的存在主體言說,換句話說,使存在主體的男性言說。我不知道你們在理解精神分析理論時,是否注意到這一點:女性有無意識只是幫助她的存在成為一位母親。她是有無意識的效應,但是她的無意識的極限是,她並不負責其它每個人的無意識,換句話說,她的無意識的極限是,跟她打交道的大他者,那個大寫字母O開頭的大他者,運作的狀況是,她一無所知,因為大他者知道得更少,假如我們考慮到,即使要維持無意識的存在都不是一件容易的事。這個無意識,我們要怎麼說它呢?它不就是証明佛洛伊德所說的:女性不光是玲瓏剔透的模特兒而已。

The last time, I played ( joue), as I allow myself to do, on the equivocation, a bit farfetched, between il hait ( he hates) and il est ( he is). I enjoy ( jouis) that equivocation only insofar as I ask whether it is worthy of a pair of scissors. That is precisely what is at stake in castration.

上一次,我一時興起,運用「他恨」跟「他存在」之間的弔詭,條分縷析「歡爽」一詞的雙關語。我對於「歡爽」一詞的雙關語樂此不疲,因為我一直在探問,是否它值得我們用剪刀將它一切為二。那確實是談到閹割時最危險的地方。

That being as such may provoke hatred cannot be ruled out. Certainly, Aristotle’s whole concern was, on the contrary, to conceive of being as that by which beings with less being participate in the highest of beings. And Saint Thomas succeeded in reintroducing that into the Christian tradition—which is not surprising given that, having spread among the Gentiles, the Christian tradition had necessarily been thoroughly shaped thereby, the upshot being that one had but to pull the strings to work again. But do people realize that everything in the Jewish tradition goes against that? The dividing line ( coupure) there does not run from the most perfect to the least perfect. The least perfect there is quite simply what it is, namely, radically imperfect, and one must but obey with the finger and the eye, if I dare to boot. The latter chose his people and one cannot go against that.

作為被閹割的存在主體可能會激發痛恨之感,這個可能是無可排除的。的確,在另一方面,亞里斯多德的全部關注點,是天機不可洩露,只有較少的存在主體能夠參與最高層次的生命存在。聖湯姆士成功地重新介紹這個觀點到基督教的傳統信仰,並不令人驚訝,因為在異教徒當中早就散播這樣的觀念,基督教的傳統信仰就是如此根深柢固地被形成,追根究底就是只有基督教徒才是上帝的選民。但是有人體認到嗎?所有猶太教的傳統信仰都跟這一點恰恰背道而馳。那裡分歧點並不是從最完美的選民,一直延續到最不完美的選民。最不完美的選民原先就存在那裡,換句話說,他們蒙昧無知,他們只必須頂禮膜拜耶和華之名,容我膽敢如此表達,另外,他還有許多其他的名號。耶和華選擇他的子民,我們不能違背他的意旨。

Isn’t it revealed therein that it is far better to betray him occasionally than to “ be-thrate’ ( l’etre-hair) him, the former being what the Jews obviously did not deprive themselves of doing. They couldn’t work it out (en sortir) any other way.

這裡難道不是透露出,有時候違背一下上帝,比一味地盲目服從好?因為違背上帝去痛恨是猶太人顯而易見的所做所為。他們不這樣痛恨,就無法解決問題。

On the subject of hatred, we’re so deadened that no one realizes that a hatred, a solid hatred, is addressed to being, to the very being of someone who is not necessarily God.

談到痛恨這個議題,我們已經是如此的麻木不仁,以致以沒有人體認到,每一個痛恨,每一個具體的痛恨,目標是朝著生命的主體存在,朝著活生生的某個人,而對方未必就是上帝

We remain stuck—and that is why I said that a is a semblance of being—at the level—and it is in that respect that analysis, as always, is a little bit lame—of the notion of jealous hatred, the hatred that springs forth from “ jealoussance,” the hatred that ‘ sprimages forth” from a third party. He observes the little guy and, pallidus, the latter pales in observing the conlactaneum suum hanging on the nipple. Fortunately, this ( jealousissance) is the first substitute jouissance, according to Freud—the desire evoked on the basis of a metonymy that is inscribed on the basis of a presumed demand, addressed to the Other, that is, on the basis of the kernel of what I called Ding, in my seminar, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, namely, the Freudian Thing, in other words, the very neighbor ( prochain) Freud refuses to love beyond certain limits.

在那個層次上,我們始終進退維谷,那是為什麼我會說,小客體只是主體存在的酷似冒充。在談論到妒嫉之恨那一方面,精神分析學如往常一樣,總是有一點力不從心,因為妒嫉之恨起源於「妒嫉的歡爽」。聖奧古斯丁曾經觀察到,卑微小人物的眼神凝視會煥發出那種「妒嫉的歡爽」。奧古斯丁在那裡是充當一位旁觀者。他觀察到,卑微小人物妒慕交加地凝視懸垂在女性乳房上的罩飾。依照佛洛伊德的說法,幸好,這種「痛恨的歡爽」只是最初的替代的歡爽,根據假定的需求的換喻的基礎,所召喚出來的慾望,目標是朝著大他者,換句話說,基礎是我的講座「精神分析學的倫理學」所說的「真實界」的存在核心。也就是佛洛伊德所說的「真實生命」,更貼切些,就是佛洛伊德超過某個限度,無法像愛自己一般去愛的「鄰居」。

The child who is gazed at has it—he has the a. Is having the a the same as being it? That is the question with which I will leave you today.

被凝視的小孩擁有這樣的「妒嫉的歡爽」,因為他擁有小客體。擁有小客體跟成為小客體是相同的一件事嗎?那個問題,我今天暫且讓你們自己去思索。

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

雄伯遊記990604

June 2, 2010

雄伯遊記990604

「這真是可遇而不可求的雪景!」

我的內心不斷地泉湧出讚嘆,當觸目皆是的雪白的山頂、山溝、岩壁、斜坡、及綿延的山巒,一幕一幕地撲上我的眼簾,讓我目不暇給。

從格爾木搭乘長途汽車到敦煌,原非我的盤算,但是直闖拉薩已經是不可能的事,我因為沒有事先申請入藏證及健康卡,無法買到青康藏鐵路的火車票,而回西寧的長途汽車跟火車都是晚上發車。我前一天睡臥中摸黑而來,不想再睡臥中摸黑回去。就像人生的旅途一樣,目的地沒有什麼好嚮往,途中至少要讓人有些好留戀的東西。

隔著汽車的玻璃窗觀看窗外的雪景,美固然還是美,終究是隔了一層。問題是,就算是長途汽車的司機慈悲心大發,讓我下去走一走,跑一跑,我也沒有帶足夠禦寒的衣服。你瞧!正如人為環境的層層保護,汽車的外壳阻隔我無法直接跟大自然接觸,盡情享受美景的薰陶沐浴,但是車內較暖和的空氣,卻也使穿著單薄衣服的我,能夠撐得過這段高海拔的嚴寒酷冷。

「到了敦煌,想辦法租一部汽車或摩托車,明天單獨再來!」我心裡這樣喃喃自語。但是這樣的構想,隨著汽車在泥濘中顛簸前進,越來越顯得是不切實際。我的慢速駕駛絕對無法在一天之內來回,更何況,雪地泥濘的打滑,恐怕也不是我生疏的駕駛技術所能勝任。

「正如人生的諸般美好,只能驚鴻一瞥般保留在心頭回味!」我最後只好這樣地安慰著自己。

雄伯遊記990603

June 1, 2010

雄伯遊記990603

100元青海環湖一日遊確實是很引誘人的招徠。不過,遊覽車才一開動,口才犀利的男導遊就開門見山地要再收取門票費200元。

到達紀念文成公主的松贊寺,我們立刻被一位景點的女導遊接引過去。她倒是很用心,而且很專業地講解松贊寺的歷史淵源:「你們要專心地聽,不要上車睡覺,下車尿尿,回去一問,什麼都不知道!」

頂樓供奉著過去佛燃燈佛,現在佛釋迦牟尼佛,及未來佛阿彌陀佛。佛像前擺著一個透明的功德箱,旁邊垂掛著10元 20元 30 元40元 50元不等的紅藍綠紫等彩帶。我旁邊的一位中年婦人立刻掏出50元,投入功德箱,然後披上紅色彩帶,被引導進入在附近的密室裏,接受修行喇嘛的加持祝福。

當她回到遊覽車裡時,我問她:「喇嘛怎樣為你加持?」

「他要我點999元的祈福燈!」

「你點了沒有?」

「我說我身上的旅費沒有那麼多,100元還差不多。」

遊覽車司機也感到興趣地回頭問:「他怎麼不說刷卡也可以?」

經過日月山及文成公主的塑像時,因為時間關係,導遊並沒有買門票讓我們進入,而只讓我們下來休息十分鐘,站在山頭前後左右地瀏覽一下。沒有人抗議,畢竟所謂的日月山,其實就是兩座亭台,而文成公主像,遊覽車上坡時,我們遠遠都看得見。

午餐昂貴得離譜。每人收費30元,八個人一桌,卻只有六盤青菜。導遊預先為餐廳的高價作心理準備:「青海湖的魚已經被列為國家保護的稀有魚類!縱使是有,也都是按兩計算!」

比較有看頭的景點是鷓鴣島的觀鳥。名為島,其實是個半島,遊覽車停在管理站的外面,遊客買門票後,轉搭十人左右的小型車。第一站是現代化建築的人工長廊,表層較地面突出些,但保持跟周遭相似的形態。遊客由地道的玻璃窗往外觀望,有好幾千隻的鷓鴣島密集地停在沙灘上覓食。第二站是露天的小碼頭,旁邊的岩礁嶙峋斷落,幾百隻鷓鴣飛上飛下地覓食,對於遊客的靠近並不畏懼。

「鷓鴣鳥原先有十幾萬隻,不過,最近由於禽流感的關係,少了很多!」導遊的說明引起我無限的感喟:「有朝一日,鷓鴣鳥的群集壯觀若是消失,那麼跟隨它們而建造的這些人為建築,將形同廢墟!」

環湖一周後,回到市區已是晚上十點,遊覽車讓所有遊客在夜市附近下車後,就揚長而去。相較於早上到各家賓館旅社一一接客的殷勤,商業的現實功利顯露無餘。

我在街頭揮手攔計程車,過了幾十分鐘,沒有一部肯停下來。無可奈何中,我只好逢人就問,終於在附近搭乘到一部公車回到賓館。

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

雄伯遊記990602

June 1, 2010

雄伯遊記990602

從張家口南站到呼和浩特,第二天再從呼和浩特到包頭,我採取白日乘車的方式,以便觀賞車窗兩旁的景色。內蒙古的曠野都是一些黃土高原,樹木跟農作物極為少見,沿途一片光禿禿的童山濯濯,偶爾才見到一些人工栽培的稀疏林區。

從包頭到銀川是凌晨兩點多,當我踏出車門時,一時腳軟,整個人摔倒在地下。抬頭一看,四周圍觀著一大堆閒言閒語的計程車司機及掮客,我索性坐在地上,好整以暇地穿好襪子跟鞋子,再站起來拍拍身上灰塵,朝著燈火明亮的地區,逕自走過去,找了一家賓館,住進80元一晚的房間。

早上八點多醒來,找出前兩年前四川包車之旅認識的Scarlet的手機號碼,嘗試撥打一下。沒想到接聽的真是她熟稔的聲音。

Scarlet進入旅館的房間時,立刻撲過來,給我一個熱烈的擁抱。虛擬幻想中,我應該像「烈火情人」的電影情節般,立刻回以激情的擁抱,然後激情地擁吻,然後彼此脫衣傾倒在床上、、、

但是那樣的情節純屬虛構!真實的情況是,我回以禮貌性的擁抱,然後就跟她交談起旅遊景點的問題。她聽了,難掩失望的表情:「我以為那一年我們在四川包車旅遊,你很懷念我們相處的快樂!」

不過,她還是立刻回轉過來,振作起精神,盡地主之誼。她先帶我到電腦販賣場,讓我花10元買手機充電器,然後我們再搭乘計程車到最近才開幕的寧夏歷史博物館,觀看回族原住民在西北地區,遷移奮鬥的歷史文物及壁畫。然後再請我到回族餐廳,吃泡膜麵條。

談到她丈夫因為練法輪功被判刑四年,釋放後工作沒有著落,她一人必須單獨負擔家計,Scarlet不免辛酸地哽咽起來:「陳老師,你無法體會我心裡多麼痛苦!他去年又被關起來,被判刑四年。我真想跟他離婚,可是現在連人都見不到,無法讓他簽字!」

「可是,夫妻不是有共患難的義務?」我莫名其妙問。

「共什麼患難?我的同事個個都買車買屋了!假如我現在有車,我就可以帶你到處遊覽,那該多方便!」

我一時不知道要如何勸慰她,只有默默地聆聽。Scarlet下午還要上班,明天還有一個報告要交,這使我想到,我們雖然有緣再相見,但是往後的行程及交往的模式,卻是不知道要如何安排或發展。一時之間,我的心情陷入不知所措的迷惘的天人交戰中。

揮手告別時,Scarlet回頭說:「晚上再用手機連繫!」

然而,我始終沒有勇氣再撥打她的手機號碼。第二天,我直接搭乘前往青海西寧的臥舖火車,在舒適的軟臥下舖裡輾轉反側,心中卻始終無法自解。

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

雄伯遊記990601

June 1, 2010

雄伯遊記990601

北京南站的出口緊連地鐵,而我唯一較為眼熟的地鐵的站名只有天安門廣場。不過,當我走出地鐵出口,還來不及觀賞它是如何的威武震懾,就被一位迎面而來的掮客說動參加100元包含午餐的長城一日遊。

我進入遊覽車內跟其他遊客等候良久,口才犀利的女導遊打開天窗說亮話:「等一下還要加收影劇場門票費45元。很抱歉讓大家等待那麼久,不過我們必須等到人數足夠才能出發,因為光是遊覽車的一日租金就是1500元,外加司機跟我導遊的薪資。我們不可能做虧本的生意。」

我的旁邊坐位原先放置我的小背包,最後一位旅客上來要坐下時,突然篤定地對我說:「你是台灣來的,不是嗎?」

我大吃一驚,回問道:「你怎麼看得出來?」

「你臉上輪廓沒有本地人那種緊張急迫的神色!」

「不登長城不足以稱好漢」,碑上鐫刻的毛主席的草書寫得私毫沒有錯。仗著以前常爬山的自信,我不自量力地跟大家一同攀登。還好,八達嶺的長城雖然一眼望去綿延雄偉,令人歎為觀止,台階倒是和緩地逐級而上。若不是受到導遊規定的時間的限制,我應該是有能力充當攀登到最高峰口的好漢。

離開長城後,遊覽車立刻馳向附近的玉石大販賣場。這時我恍然大悟,為什麼沿途女導遊不厭其煩地為我們詳細解說「貔貅」的由來及典故,以及為什麼它作為銀行及商家最愛的守護門神,因為貔貅沒有肛門,象徵著錢財的有進無出,是致富的不二法門。而現在,大販賣場的玉石琳瑯滿目,貔貅則是人人必買的基本價位。

跟玉石的龐大商機比較來,免費午餐的供應算是商家簡樸的回饋。更出人意料之外的是下一站的中醫研究中心。導遊又口燦蓮花地介紹,「文化大革命期間,許多有學問的中醫師被送到這裡思想改造,其實是保護他們可以專心研究醫學。現在這些專家的精湛醫術已經是全國聞名,前來求治的患者每天絡繹不絕。」

果然,走近中醫研究中心,觸目所及都是專業權威的圖片及標誌。大家被引導到診療室聆聽專業導遊的介紹後,立即從門外陸續進來幾位穿著醫師白袍的「某某博士」,要義務為大家免費把脈看診。立刻,遊客蜂擁而上,沒隔幾分鐘,七百元,八百元的藥材費的聲音不絕於耳,大家掏錢卻絲毫不猶豫。

相形之下,45元門票的影劇城,內容就相當乏善可陳。那原先是北京人尋花問柳的風月場所,現在則已經頹圮沒落,舊日的劇場、歌舞場、及青樓破舊地保持原來形態,幾位老鴇及妓女穿著昔日的服飾,拉著遊客進洞房依偎照相,胡琴、相聲及雜耍卻遲遲不表演。

從遊覽車下來後,來自台灣台中的徐邀請我去跟他同住168元的一房兩床,反正他已經付了全部的房錢。我們先坐地鐵到火車站購買車票後,在站前問正在聊天的計程車司機,到旅館的價碼。

「150元!」

我們一聽大吃一驚,趕緊離開,卻依舊有一位司機尾隨過來說,「我50元就好!」我們依舊拒絕,決定步行到下一條馬路攔過往的計程車。不料,下一條馬路的方向與旅館方向相反,計程車司機不知道是無法左轉,還是搞不清旅館所在,我們連續攔了十幾部,竟然沒有一位司機肯接納。

無所奈何中,我們再步行走回車站前馬路,看到一台由摩托車改裝的簡陋三輪車,索價30元。我們如大旱之望雲霓般地欣然接受。

翌日,我們從旅館出來,搭計程車到車站卻只花了跳表的17元。我先在車站附近租一間120元的房間,放置行李。然後,跟徐搭乘地鐵到雍和宮參觀雍正皇帝的舊日寢居,後來改成喇嘛教的圓通寺院,裡面的碑詞都是藏文、滿文、及漢文三種文字並列。

然後再搭2元一票到底的地鐵,轉到圓明園的遺址。由於園區廣闊,我們從中間穿插迷途,走到迷宮及西洋樓的遺跡時,已經是精疲力盡。不料,從後門出來,再轉回到地鐵時,拖著疼痛的腳步緩慢前行,竟然還要多繞了一個小時,進入地鐵時已經搖搖欲墜,幸好有位年輕人起而讓座。徐的狀況也差不多,他體力不支地蹲在地下,終於也獲得另一位年輕人的讓座。

隔日,我搭乘火車前往內蒙古的張家口觀看大境門的長城。沿途看到的是群巒起伏,火車幾乎都是貫穿隧道前進。心中不禁無限地感喟:「從八達嶺、居庸關、到張家口這一帶的山巒綿延的地勢,要構築道路來交往,就已經是困難重重,何以還需要構築長城來加強阻礙?」再一轉念,「唉!在文明世界裡,人與人之間的心靈交會所構築的長城阻隔,何嘗不也是有過之而無不及?」

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