Archive for August, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 49 Jacques Lacan

August 26, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 49
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 12
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 12: Wednesday, February 22, 1967

It is curious that it is necessary to recall these things which constitute the very soul of what I proposed to you to see in analytic experience.

耐人寻味的是,为了在精神分析经验看出这一点,我们必须先回顾一下,组成我跟你们建议的灵魂的内涵是什麽。

That it can be the establishment of something that offers no way back for the subject, is what certain privileged sexual acts, which are precisely the ones that we call incestuous, make us literally put our finger on. I have enough analytic experience to affirm to you that a boy who has slept with his mother is not at all, in analysis, a subject like the others! And even if he himself knows nothing about it, this changes nothing in the fact that it is analytically as tangible as this table here! His personal Verleugnung, fact that this has the value of a decisive break-through, changes nothing in it.

对於生命的主体而言,灵魂的建立有时是没有回归的途径。某些具有特权的性的行为,明确地说,就是我们所谓的乱伦,这确实是精神分析经验所理解的。我有足够的精神分析的经验跟你们肯定,在精神分析的诊所里,一个曾经跟母亲睡过觉的男孩,跟别的男孩根本就不一样。即使他自己渾然不知道,从精神分析角度看,那种行为跟这张桌子一样的具体,是无法改变的事实。他个人的「否认」,並没有改变这个事实具有突破性的价值。

(9) Naturally, all of this would deserve to be supported. My guarantee is that here I have listeners who have analytic experience and that, if I said something too gross, would be able, I think, to protest loudly. But, believe me, they will not say the contrary, because they know it as well as I do. Quite simply, that does not mean that people know how to draw out the consequences, for want of knowing how to articulate them.

(第九)当然,所有这些都应该值得进一步探讨。我的保证是,我的听众就有人曾经有过这种精神分析的经验。假如我说的事情太过伤人,你们可以起来抗议。但是请相信我,他们说的会刚好是相反,因为他们跟我一样是心知肚明。道理很简单,那並不意味着,人们知道如何去承受这些结果,因为他们不知道,要如何来表达这样的事情。

In any case, this leads us to try perhaps, to introduce into it a little logical rigour.

无论如何,这会导致我们可能要设法在里面介绍一点逻辑的运作。

The act is founded on repetition. What at first approach, could be more welcoming for what is involved in the sexual act. Let us remember the teachings of our Holy Mother the Church, huh! The principle: you do not do that together, you do not have it off, huh!, except in order to bring into the world a new little soul!

行动被建立在重复的基础上。在第一次接近时,还有什麽比性的行动所牵涉的更加受到欢迎?让我们记得教堂聖母的教诲!原则是:你没有一起去做,你摆开它!除了你要带一个新的灵魂进入这个世界。

There must be people who think about it while they are doing it (laughter)! In any case, it is a supposition! It is not established. It could be that, however much in conformity this thinking may be with dogma – the Catholic one, I mean – it may be, where it happens, only a symptom.

一定会有人想到它,当他们正在做的时候(笑声)!无论如何,这只是一个假设!它没有被证实。它不可能被证实,无论这样的想法,跟教堂的信仰是多麽的一致,我的意思是,在发生这样的事情的地方,天主教的信仰,是一个病癥。

This is obviously designed to suggest to us that there is perhaps room to try to circumscribe more closely – to see through what aspect there is admitted – the function of reproduction which is there behind the sexual act. Because when we are dealing with the subject of repetition, we are dealing with signifiers, in so far as they are the precondition of a thinking.

显而易见,这个信仰被设计来跟我们建议,可能还有些空间,需要更仔细规划范围,看看哪些方面可以被容许。性行为的背后,有繁殖后代作为支撑。因为当我们正在处理作为重复的生命主体,我们处理的是意符,而意符是思想的先决条件。

At the rate that this biology, that we leave so well to its own resources, is going, it is curious to see that the signifier is showing the wip of its note, there, right at the root, At the level of chromosomes, at the moment, there is a swarm of signifiers – convoying quite specified characters. We are told that the chains – of DNA or of RNA – are constituted like well ordered messages which come, of course, after being brewed in a certain fashion, is that not so, in a big urn, to make there emerge the new kind of eccentric that everyone in the family is waiting to acclaim.

我们以它作为资源的这种生物学,就是以这样的速度在进行。耐人寻味的是,这个意符就在根源的地方,正在显示它的诠释的悖论。在染色体的层次,在这个时刻,有一大堆的意符,护送着相当明确的特性。生物学家说,由脱氧核糖核酸,或核糖核酸的锁链,组成井井有条的讯息,经过某个方式酝酿之后,就像在大酿缸里,会出现新的怪诞的东西,家庭中的每一个人都在等待着。

Is this the level at which the problem is posed?

这就是问题被提出的层次吗?

Well then, it is here that I would like to introduce something that, naturally, I did not invent for you today. There is somewhere, in a volume called my Ecrits, an article which is called “The meaning of the phallus” on page 693, on line 10 (I had some difficulty, this morning, in finding it), I write: the phallus as signifier gives the ratio of desire (in the sense that the term – I mean: “ratio” – is used as the “mean and extreme” ratio of harmonic division). This in order to indicate to you that, huh, obviously, it was necessary for time to pass, for me to be able to introduce what I am going to say to you today. I simply marked there the little white stone intended to tell you that it was already from this that the meaning of the phallus was taking its bearings.

就在这里,我想要介绍某件东西,当然我並不是今天刻意为你们杜撰的。在我那本「精神分析论文集」,有一篇文章题目是:「阳具的意义」。在693页,第10行,(今天早上,我花了一番功夫才找到)。我写到:阳具作为一种意符,给予欲望的比率(我所谓的「比率」这个术语,被用来当着和谐分裂的「黄金比率」比率)。显而易见的,这需要花费一点时间来说明,这样我才能够介绍我今天要讲的。我仅仅在那里标示这个「小小的白色石头」。我的用意是要告诉你们,从这里开始,阳具的意义,就要发挥功用。

In effect, let us try to put an order, a measure, into what is involved in the sexual act in so far as it has a relation with the function of repetition.

事实上,让我将性的行动所牵涉到的内容,整理出一个秩序,这样它才能跟重复的功用,扯上关系。

Well then, it leaps to the eye, not that it is not known, since the Oedipus complex is known from the beginning, but that people are not able to recognise what that means, namely, that the product of repetition, in the sexual act qua act, namely, in so far as we participate in it as subjected to what is signifying in it, has its impact, in other words, in the fact that the subject that we are is opaque, that it has an unconscious.

然后,它突然扑到我们的眼前,倒不是因为它不为人所知,因为伊底普斯情结,从一开始,大家就知道。而是人们不能够认出那是什麽意思,换句话说,以性的行为,作为真实界无意识的「行动」,一再重复的成果是什麽意思。换句话说,我们参与它,作为隶属於意符化的内容,有它的影响,也就是说,人作为生命的主体,是模糊不明的,因为它是真实界的无意识。

Well then, it should be pointed out that the fruit of biological repetition, of reproduction, is already there in this space, well defined for the accomplishment of the act, which is called the bed.

我们应该指明的是,「生物重复」的结果,繁殖的结果,已经存在於这个空间,完成性行为标示得很清楚的地方:那就是所谓的「床上」。

The agent of the sexual act knows very well that he is a son. And that is why the sexual act, in so far as it
concerns us psychoanalysts, has been referred to the Oedipus complex.

性的行动的代理者知道得很清楚,他是一个儿子。那就是为什麽,这个性的行动,一直被认为是伊底普斯情结,我们精神分析师关心的就是这个。

So let us try to see, in these signifying terms that define what I called just now “mean and extreme”, what results from it.

所以,让我们设法瞧一瞧,以这些意符化的术语,定义我刚才所谓的「黄金比率」,它的结果会是什麽?

Let us suppose that we are going to have this signifying relation supported by the simplest support, the one that we have already given to the double loop of repetition: a simple line. And, for still greater ease, let us lay it out, quite simply as follows: (diagram)

让我们假定,我们将用最简单的支持,来支撑这个意符的关系。那就是我们已经给予重复的双重圈套的支持:一条简单的线。为了让你们更明白些,我将它画出来,简单如下:
图表:

A line to which we can give two ends. We can cut this double loop anywhere at all, and once we have cut it, we are going to try to make use of it.

这一条线,我们给予两个末端。我们将这个双重的圈套,从任何地方切割。一旦我们已经切割它,我们将会运用到它。

Let us place on it the four points (points of origin), of two other cuts that define the mean and extreme ratio: (diagram) -(11)

small o; the agreeable product of a previous copulation, which, since it happened to be a sexual act, created the subject, who is here in the process of reproducing it – the sexual act. – capital O. What is capital O? If the sexual act is what we are taught, as signifier, it is the mother. We are going to give her …

让我们在这条线上,摆上四个点(起源点),两个其它的切割,定义出这个黄金比率:
第十一图:

小客体是一个早先交媾的得意结果,因为它发生在一个性的行动,它創造了生命的主体。这里的这个主体正在繁殖它,这个性的行动,大写字母O。这个大写字母O,是什麽呢?假如这个性的行动,依照我们所被教导的,作为意符,它是母亲。我们将要给她、、、

(because we find her trace everywhere in analytic thinking itself, everything that this signifying term of the mother carries with it in terms of thoughts of fusion, of a falsification of unity – in so far as she only interests us, namely, a countable unit – of a passage from this countable unit to a unifying unit), we are going to give her the value One.

(因为我们在精神分析思想的本身,处处都发现她的痕迹,母亲的意符化术语所带有的意涵,作为融合的思想,及作为虚假的一致性。我们只对她感到興趣,作为一个可数的单位,从这个可数的单位,到一个一致化的单位),我们将给予她作为这个「一」的价值。

What does the value One mean as a unifying unit? We are dealing with the signifier and its consequences for thinking. The mother as subject is the thought of the One of the couple. “The two shall be one flesh”, is a thought of the order of the maternal capital O.

这个「一」的价值,作为一个一致化的单位,是什麽意思?我们现在要处理的,就是这个意符及其对於思想的结果。母亲作为生命的主体,是夫妻的这个「一」的思想。聖经上说:「我要你们两个肉身,结合成一体」。这就是以母亲作为大写字母O 的大它者的思想脉络。

雄伯译:法文版附有图表,可是我无法复制,又不懂法文。现另上传档案,让大家参照图表,应该是有助于理解。当然,若有懂法文者,帮我对照订正,那就更功德无量了!
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 48 Jacques Lacan

August 26, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 48
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

Lacan Seminar 14:
TheLogic of Fantasy 12
Seminar 12: Wednesday, February 22, 1967

I pronounce the term at the very moment that it is going to be a matter taking our bearings about what is involved in this sublimation.

我宣布「昇华」这个术语,就在它的内涵将会影响到我们的动见瞻观。

Freud, even though he in no way developed it, for the same reasons which render the developments that I added to it necessary, Freud affirmed, in accordance with the mode of procedure which is that of his thinking, which consists – as someone else said, Bossuet, first name Jacques-Benigne – which consists in holding firmly to the two ends of the chain. Firstly, sublimation, is zielgehemnt, and, naturally, he does not explain to us what that means! I already tried to mark for you the distinction already inherent in this term of zielgehemmt. I took my references in english, as being more accessible: the difference between the aim and the goal. Say it in French.

佛洛伊德根本没有探讨它,这正是我非得要从事这样的探讨的理由。不过他做过这样的肯定,当他要调和他的思想模式。这个思想的模式,如另一个人,亚克、边尼拿所说的,在於坚定地掌握这个锁链的两端。第一、昇华是一种「压抑的满足」,当然,他並没有解释那是什麽意思!我已经替你们将「压抑的满足」这个术语本质上的区别标示出来。我採用英语的指称,这样它比较能让人接受:「目的」跟「目标」有所不同。你们用法语说看看。

It is less clear because we are forced to take words already in use in philosophy. We can, all the same, try to say la fin, it is the weakest word, because it is necessary to re-integrate into it the whole journeying which is what is involved in the aim, the target. There is the same distance between aim and goal as there is in German between Zweck and Ziel. We are not told that Zweckmassigleit, sexual finality, is in any way gehemmt, inhibited, in sublimation. Zielgehemmt, and it is precisely here that the word is well made to detain us … what we gargle with this so called “object” of the blessed genital drive, is precisely what can without any inconvenience be extracted, totally inhibited, absent, in what nevertheless belongs to the sexual drive, without it losing anything of its capacity as Befriedigung, in terms of satisfaction.

法文则比较难於区分,因为我们不得不接纳哲学里的习惯用法。我们仍然会说「目的」,那个语气最弱,因为我们必须将它合并到为了「目标」所牵涉到的旅途。「目的」与「目标」之间的差異,就像德语的「Zweck」
「Ziel.」的差異。他们不会告诉我们,「性的最高境界」,有任何的「压抑的昇华」。确实就在这里,这个字让我们困惑,当我们说出这个幸福的性器官欲望驱力的所谓「客体」,会口词含混不清,但是确实没有什麽难於啟口,完全地压抑,或避而不谈。儘管它属於性的欲望驱力,它仍然保持它的「满足」一词的崇高的能力。

You will see in the second of these articles – (there are three texts here, but what I am (7) calling the second, is the second that I named earlier, that of Heinz Hartmann. The first that I named being that of Fenichel, and Alexander is only a reference by Fenichel) – I mean the point designated by Fenichel, the major point of the introduction of the term acting-out in psychoanalytic articulation. Consult the article by Heinz Hartmann on sublimation. It is examplary. It is examplary of what, in our eyes, is not in any way obsolete in the position of the psychoanalyst.

你们在第而篇文章中可以看出(总共有三篇,但我正在说的第二篇,是我早先说过的第二篇,海因、哈特门的文章。第一篇是费尼奇的文章,亚里山大的文章只是费尼奇提到它)。我的意思是,费尼奇指明的那一点,精神分析表的「积极行动」引论的主要点。请参照海因、哈特门的论昇华。那是一篇典范的文章。依我们的看法,从精神分析师的立场,它的典范没有丝毫过时。

The fact is that the approach to what he is dealing with, taking responsibility for a thinking, always drives him back in some respect to one of these two terms that I will designate in the most temperate way as platitude. And everyone knows that for a long time, I designated as its the most eminent representative, Mr. Fenichel. May he rest in peace! His writings have for us the very great value of being undoubtedly the very scrupulous gathering together of everything that can emerge as holes in experience. All that is lacking at the place of these holes is the necessary question mark. As regards Heinz Hartmann and the fashion in which he sustains – for some fourteen or fifteen pages, if I remember correctly – with an interrogative accent the problem of sublimation, I think that it cannot escape anyone who comes to it with a fresh mind, that such a discourse, the one I am asking you to consult in the text, designating for you where it is, where you can easily and it, is properly speaking a lying discourse.

事实是,接近他正在处理的内涵,替一种思想负起责任,总是会驱使他肃然起敬地回到这两个术语之一,容我冒昧地说,那两个术语已经是陈腔滥调。大家都知道长久以来,我指明费尼奇先生,充当它最杰出的代表。但愿他欣慰安息!对於我们而言,他的着作的价值,无可置疑地,在於他小心翼翼地收集精神分析学所谓的「空洞」出现的内容。这些「空洞」位置的欠缺处,必然会是一个问号。关於海因、哈特门及他研究的方式,大约有十四或十五页。假如我记得没有错,他对於「昇华」的问题,保持置疑的语调。我认为,带着好奇心理接近「昇华」的人,无法逃避这个问题。这样的论述,我要求你们去参照的文本,会跟你们指出问题在哪里。你们很容易发现出来,严格来说,那是一篇不诚实的论述。

The whole apparatus of a so-called “energetics”, around which there is proposed to us something which consists precisely in inverting the approach to the problem, by questioning sublimation – in so far as it is first proposed to us as being identical, and not displaced, with respect to something which is, properly, (with the quotation marks that the use of the word drive imposes at this level) all the same: the “sexual drive” – overturning this and questioning in the most punctuated manner what is involved in sublimation, as being linked to what is proposed to us.

一个所谓「生命精力学」的整个仪器,环绕这个仪器,展现出某件确实就是「翻转」问题的方法,它先置疑「昇华」,因为它首先被提出当着「性的欲望驱力」的相等物,但是没有替代它(欲望驱力这个用词,在这个层次,用问号保留),推翻这一点,然后以誇张的方式置疑「昇华」牵涉到的内涵,当着是跟我们提出的内涵有关。

Namely, that the functions of the ego – which in the most improper manner has been posited as being autonomous, even as coming from a different source to what is called, in this confused language, an “instinctual” source, as if there had ever been in Freud a question of that! – to know, then, how these completely pure functions of the ego, related to the measure of reality, and providing it, as such, in an essential fashion – re-establishing here then at the heart of analytic thinking, what the whole of analytic thinking rejects – that there is this isolated, direct, autonomous, identifiable relation, a relation of pure thinking to a world that it is supposed to be able to approach, without itself being completely shot through by the function of desire – how can it happen that there can come from what is then elsewhere, the instinctual focus, some reflection or other, some painting or other, some colouring or other, that is called, textually, “the sexualisation of the ego functions”!

换句话说,自我的功用,曾经以最不适当的方式被提出,当着是具有自主权,甚至当着来自一个不同的来源,语义含混不清的所谓的「本能的」来源,好像在佛洛伊德里,曾经有过那样的问题!自我的这些完全纯净的功用,跟现实界有几分相关,供应它基本的东西,然后在精神分析思想的核心重建,整个精神分析思想所拒绝的架构:这个孤立、直接、具有自主权、可辨认的关系,其实是纯净思想跟一个世界的关系,那个世界,应该是能够接近某种的反映、某种的画面、某种的彩色,以文本来说,就是「自我功用的性化」!这种关系没有透过欲望的功用发生,就能完全展开,问题是,从别的地方,从本能的轨迹,怎麽可能会发生这样的反映、这样的画面、这样的颜色?

(8) Once introduced like this the question becomes literally insoluble, or, in any case, excluded forever from everything that is proposed to the praxis of analysis.

(第八)一旦以这个方式被介绍,这个问题变成实质上难於解决,要不然就是永久被排除在精神分析学本体的现象之外。

To approach what is involved in sublimation, it is necessary for us to introduce this first term without which (moyennant quoi) it is impossible for us to find our bearings in the problem, which is the one from which I started the last time in defining the act: the act is signifying. It is a signifier which is repeated, even though it happens in a single gesture, for topological reasons which make possible the existence of the double loop created by a single cut. It is the establishment of the subject as such. Namely, that, from a true act, the subject emerges different.

为了接近昇华的内涵,我们需要介绍这第一个术语「回报」。假如没有这个术语,我们不可能在问题中,找到立场。上一次我从这个问题开始定义「行动」:行动正在意符化。这是一个被重复的意符,即使它发生在一个单一的姿态,地形上的理由,使得单一切割的双重圈套的存在成为可能。生命的主体就是这样被建立。换句话说,从一个真实的行动,生命的主体出现的面目完全不同。

Because of the cut, its structure is modified. And, fourthly, the correlate of misrecognition, or if you wish again, his Reprasentanz in the Vorstellung, to this act, is the Verleugnung. Namely, that the subject never recognises it in its truly inaugural report, even when the subject is, as I might say, capable of having committed this act.

因为这个切割,它的结构被修改。然后,第四个动作,相关的误认,在「交往」中,误认这个行动的「代表」是「否认」。换句话说,生命的主体从来没有在它真正的开始的报告中,认出这个交往,即使当主体能够从事这个行动,我不妨这样说。

Well then, it is here that it would be well for us to notice the following – which is essential for any comprehension of the role that Freud gives to sexuality in the unconscious – for us to remember something that the tongue already gives us, namely, that people speak about the sexual act.

就在这里,我们最好注意:佛洛伊德给予无意识中的性扮演的角色,我们若是要了解,这是很重要,我们要记住语言所带给我们的某件东西:人们谈论性的行动。

The sexual act, this could at least suggest to us – something moreover that is obvious – since, once one thinks about it … in any case, you touch on it right away … the fact is that it is obviously not pure and simple copulation.

这至少给我们一点啟示,这个性的行动是显而易见的,因为一旦你想到它,你立刻就碰触到它。显而易见的,性並不是单纯的生理上的交媾。

The act has all the characteristics of the act as I have just recalled them, as we manipulate it, as it has presented itself to us, with its symptomatic sediments and everything that makes it more or less stick and stumble. The sexual act clearly presents itself as a signifier, firstly, and as a signifier which repeats something. Because it is the first thing that was introduced to it in psychoanalysis.

这个行动拥有我刚刚提醒过的所有的特癥,当我在处理它,因为它呈现在我们面前,带着它病癥的痕迹,及比较不那麽难缠的东西。性的行动清楚地呈现它自己,首先当着是一种意符,当着是重复某件东西的意符。精神分析学首先介绍的东西就是性。

It repeats what? The oedipal scene, of course!

它重复什麽呢?那当然就是伊底普斯情结!

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 47 Jacques Lacan

August 25, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 47
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

Lacan Seminar 14:
TheLogic of Fantasy 12
Seminar 12: Wednesday, February 22, 1967

(4) This does not mean, of course, that we reject either the data or the experience. But that we submit what we are contributing in terms of new formulae to this test of seeing whether it is not precisely our formulae that will allow there to be defined not only the well-foundedness but also the sense of what has already been initiated.

(第四)当然,这並不意味着,我们拒绝资料或经验。而是我们使用新的公式,提供我们的贡献作这个测试,看看我们的公式是否能将耳熟能详的命题,以及刚被創议的命题,一一予於定义。

The acting-out, then, that I am putting forward – you already sense perhaps the relevance of putting it forward in this situation of the field of the Other, which it is a matter for us of restructuring, as I might say, if only because of the following. That history, like experience as it is being pursued, indicates to us, at the very least, a certain global correspondence between this term and what analytic experience establishes. I am not saying that an acting-out occurs only during analysis. I am saying that it is from analysis and from what was produced in it, that the problem emerged. That there arose the fundamental distinction which lead acting-out to be isolated, to be distinguished, from the act, and from the passage a l’acte as it can pose us problems, as psychiatrists, and be established as an autonomous category. I have only put forward a correlate, then, the one that makes it like the symptom qua manifestation of truth. It is certainly not the only one and other conditions are necessary.

因此,我现在提出这个「积极行动」,你们已经感觉到,我在大它者的领域的这个情境中提出,是有它的道理。我不妨这样说,这个问题是,它需要重新架构,即使是因为下列的原因。我们研究的精神分析经验跟历史,都告诉我们,在这个术语与精神分析经验的内涵之间,至少有某种全球性的一贯相连。我並不是说,只有在精神分析的期间,才有这样的「诉诸行动」。我是说,这个问题从精神分析经验及其过程出现。导致「积极行动」,从这个「行动」,从「诉诸行动」被孤立出来,被区别出来,是因为彼此有基本的不同。它对於我们精神分裂症的治疗医师,会形成问题,因为它被归类为自动自发的领域。我只能提出一个相关的命题:病癥本身,是作为真理的显示。那当然不是唯一的显示,还需要其它的条件。

I hope then that at least some of you know – parallel to these statements that I am going to be led to put at your disposition – will be able to glance through at least what, at a certain date – which is more or less 1947 or 1948 – the Yearbook of psychoanalysis began to be published after the last war – and the formula that Otto Fenichel gave of it: “Neurotic acting-out”.

我希望,至少你们有一些人会知道,等同於是我将提出让你们来做决定的陈述,你们将能够瞥见,在某个时间,大约在1947年,跟1948年之间,「精神分析学的年鑑」开始在战后出版,奥特、费尼奇提出一个公式,称之为「精神病患的积极行动」。

I continue … What is the term that you are going to see being inscribed at the fourth meeting-point of these operational functions that determine what we are articulating on the basis of repetition? Even if this surprises you – and I think I will be able to sustain it as broadly as possible for your appreciation – it is something which, singularly, has remained in a certain suspense in analytic theory and is undoubtedly the conceptual point around which most clouds and false appearances have accumulated. To name it, and moreover it is already written on this board (since it is to this note by Heinz Hartmann that I would ask you to refer to grasp a typical fruit of the analytic situation as such) it is, sublimation.

我继续下去、、、你们将看到的那个术语是什麽?那个术语被记载在这些运作功用的第四个交会点,我们正在表达的内容,就是根据「重复」的基础。即使你们因此大吃一惊,我认为我还是可以盡可能详加解释,让你们理解。在精神分析学的理论里,那始终是很奇特地处於悬疑状态的东西,无可置疑是朦胧假象的概念点。姑且名之,它已经被书写在这个黑板上,那就是:昇华。(我想要你们参照海因、哈特门对於这一点的评注,这样你们才能理解精神分析情境的具体成果)。

(5) Sublimation is the term – that I would not call mediating, for it is not that at all – is the term that allows us to inscribe the basis and the conjunction of what is involved in subjective stability, in so far as repetition is its fundamental structure aid that it involves this essential dimension about which there remains the greatest obscurity, in everything that has been formulated up to the present in analysis, and which is called satisfaction.

(第五)昇华是这个术语,我很不愿意称之为「仲介」,因为它根本不是那样。这个术语让我们能够当着基础,连接生命主体的稳定性所牵涉到的内涵。重复是它的基本的结构,它牵涉到这个重要的向度,里面始终是模糊不清,包括精神分析学迄今所诠释的一切,以及所谓的满足。

Befriedigung, says Freud. You should sense there the presence of the term Friede, whose usual sense is peace. I think that we live in a time in which this word, at least, will not appear to be obvious to you.
What is the satisfaction that Freud conjugates for us as essential for repetition in its most radical form?

佛洛伊德说:「满足」。你在那里应感觉到这个术语「详和」的存在,它通常的意义是「和平」。我认为,在我们生活的时代,这个字至少对你们是显而易见的。佛洛伊德所列举的「重复」的基本发挥到极点,那样的满足是什麽?

Since, in fact, this is the mode in which he produces before you the function of the Wiederholungszang, in so far as it encompasses not alone a particular functioning of life, for its part quite locatable under the term of the pleasure principle, but that it sustains this life itself about which we can now admit everything, even up to the point, which has become a tangible truth, that there is nothing in the material that it stirs up which, in the final analysis, is not dead (I am saying of its nature inanimate). But which it is nevertheless clear will not surrender this material that it collects together to its domain of the inanimate, “except in its own way”, Freud tells us. Namely, everything being in this satisfaction which means that it has to repass and retrace, the same paths that it has – how? – constructed, and that undoubtedly it testifies to us that its essence is to retrace them. There is – let us be very modest! – a world between this theoretical illumination and its verification.

事实上,这是他憑藉的模式,用来对你们介绍「重复驱力」的功用,因为它不仅涵盖一个生命的特别的功用,就本身而言,在快乐原则的术语下,它可以被找到。但是快乐原则维持这个生命本身,使得我们能够承认里面的一切,直到现在。这已经成为一个可触知的真理:它所激动的材料,最后分析起来,没有一样不是已经是行尸走肉(我是说它的没有生命的特性)。显而易见的,它不会屈服於它所收集到无生命力的领域的这个材料,除了用它自己的方式,佛洛伊德这样告诉我们。换句话说,在这个满足中的一切,意味着,它必须重新通过,重新追踪,它曾经建造的相同途径。无可置疑地,它跟我们证明,它的本质就是重新追踪它们。让我们坦诚面对吧!在这个理论的啟明跟它的证实之间,存在着一个世界。

Freud is not a biologist and one of the most striking things – which might be disappointing if we believe that it is enough to give the chief place in his thinking to the powers of life, that it is enough to do anything whatsoever which resembles the construction of a science which might be called biology – we analysts have contributed nothing to anything whatsoever that resembles biology. It is all the same very striking!
But why, nevertheless, do we hold so firmly to the assurance that, behind the satisfaction that we have to deal with when it is a matter of repetition, there is something that we designate – with all the awkwardness, with all the imprudence that can be involved, at the point that we are at in biological research – this term that we designate …

佛洛伊德並不是生物学家,最耐人寻味的事情是,我们精神分析师对於类似生物学的东西,並没有丝毫贡献。这可能会令人失望,假如我们相信,佛洛伊德的主要思想,是要对於人的生命力有所贡献,也曾花费心力去从事类似所谓生物科学的建立。这仍然是引人深思的事情。可是,我们为什麽如此坚定地相信,我们必须探讨的满足背后,除了重复的特性外,还有某件我们指明的东西,儘管我们笨手笨脚,或小心翼翼,在生物学的研究的这一点,我们所指明的术语、、、

(this is the sense, the attachment point that I would go so far as to call fideist in Freud) – that we call sexual satisfaction. And this for the reason that Freud advanced before an astonished Jung, to stave off the “black tide of mud”, which is how Freud judges it with respect to the thinking that he designates by the term to which one will not fail to come if one does not hold fast, that he designates as the recourse to occultism.

(容我冒昧地称呼这种情感,叫佛洛伊德的「信仰主义」)这种术语,我们称之为「性的满足」。这就是佛洛伊德提出的理由,当着目瞪口呆的荣格面前,为了阻挡那堆「黑色的泥泞」。佛洛伊德的判断方式,就是採取他所指明的诉诸於神秘主义。假如我们的立场不够坚定的话,这个术语必然是会来到我们的口中。

Does this mean that everything happens so simply, I mean that these affirmations (6) are enough to give an acceptable articulation? This is the question that I am trying to advance today before you and which makes me push forward sublimation as the locus which, since it has been up to the present left fallow or covered with common scribblings, is nevertheless the one which is going to allow us to understand what is at stake in this fundamental satisfaction, which is the one that Freud articulates as a subjective opaqueness, as the satisfaction of repetition.

这难道意味着,每件事情都单纯地发生吗?我的意思是这些肯定,足够给我们一个可接受的表达吗?这就是我今天要在你们面前提出的问题,这个问题将会逼使我提出「昇华」当着轨迹。迄今,「昇华」这个问题始终乏人问津,只充斥一些零碎的闲论。可是,这个问题将使我们能够了解,在这个基本的满足背后,岌岌可危的是什麽。佛洛伊德表达这个昇华的问题,当着是主体的晦涩难懂,当着是重复的满足。

This conjunction of a basic point for the whole of logic, because what we bring with us into this marginal place of thinking, which is the one – a place of penumbra, a twilight zone – in which there is developed analytic action, if we bring with us there the requirements of logic, which is something that we are lead to make a merit of so that we will be able to pinpoint it with what I think must be its best name: sub-logic.

整个逻辑的基本要点的连接,因为我们现在所提出的,会引导我们进入思想的边缘地带、曖昧地带、混沌地带。假如我们顺着逻辑的要求推进,精神分析学的行动就在那里发展。因此,我们不得不把它当着是优点,这样我们才能够将它定位为,我认为是最好的名称:次层逻辑。

This is what in this very place, this year, we are trying to inaugurate.

这是今年在这个地方,我们正要设法开展的命题。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 46 Jacques Lacan

August 24, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 46
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

1967-02-22 Lacan Seminar 14: The
Logic of Fantasy 12
Seminar 12: Wednesday, February 22, 1967

We continue, by recalling what we are starting from – alienation.

我们继续下去,回头谈论我们开始的地方:疏离。

Let us summarise, for those who have already heard us and especially for the others. Alienation – in so far as we have taken it as a start for this logical path that we are trying to trace out this year – is the e-limination, to be taken in the proper sense: a rejection beyond the threshold, the ordinary elimination from the Other. Beyond what threshold? The threshold in question, is the one determined by the cut in which the essence of language consists.

让我们温习一下,对於那些已经听过我的讲演的人,特别是还没有听过的人。今年我们正在设法追踪的这条逻辑的途径,我们就是以疏离作为一个出发点。疏离,顾名思义,就是疏远跟离开:一种跨越门槛的拒绝,普通是疏运跟离开大它者。跨越什麽门槛?受到置疑的门槛,就是语言本质所在的这个切割,所造成的门槛。

Linguistics is of service to us essentially in this, that it has provided us with the model of this cut.

对於这一点,语言学为我们提供基本的服务,它供应我们这个切割的模式。

This is why we find ourselves put on the side – approximately qualified as structuralist – of linguistics. And that all the developments of linguistics, specifically, curiously, what can be called semiology – what is described in this way, what designates itself, and what proclaims itself as such recently – does not interest us to the same degree.

这就是为什麽,我们发现我们自己所处的立场,大约有资格被称为是语言学的结构主义。耐人寻味地,所有语言学的发展,明确地说,可以被称之为记号学。我们对於它的描述、它的细节、以及它的宣称本身,興趣並不一样。

Which may, at first approach, seem surprising.

乍然看起来,这似乎有点令人驚呀。

Elimination then from the Other. From the Other. What does that mean, the Other, with a capital O, in so far as here it is eliminated? It is eliminated qua closed and unified field. This means that we affirm, with the best reasons for doing so, that there is no universe of discourse, that there is nothing that can be assumed under this term.

疏运跟离开大它者。脱离大它者。那是什麽意思?大它者,有一个大写字母O,在这里被疏离跟离开。我们所疏运离开的是作为一个封闭跟统一的场域。这意味着,我们肯定,理由充分地肯定,没有真理论述的宇宙,在真理论述的这个术语里,没有任何东西被假设。

Language is nevertheless solitary, in its radical practice, which is what psychoanalysis is … (note that I could also say its medical practice. Someone that I am surprised not to see here today, in his usual place, asked me for this sign that I left as a riddle of the term that I could have given, more strictly, in Latin of the “I think”. If no one has found it, I am giving it today. I had indicated that this could only be conceived of by a (2) verb in the middle voice.

可是,语言是孤独的,运用到极致,就是精神分析学的本质、、、(请注意,语言在医学方面的运用,也可以如此说)。某个人,我很驚呀今天没有见到他,他通常会问我,我留下「我思想」这个符号,当着是一个术语的谜团,严格来说,我本来可以用拉丁文表达。假如没有人记得,我今天会再讲一遍。我曾经指明,我们只能用中间语态的动词,来构想它。

It is medeor, from which there comes both medicine that I am evoking just now and meditation.)
Language, in its radical practice is solidary with something that we now are going to have to reintegrate, to conceive of in some fashion under the mode of an emanation from this field of the Other, from the moment that we have had to consider it as disconnected (disjoint). But this something is not difficult to name. Its is what this field of the Other precariously authorises itself by and this is called – a proper dimension of language – the truth.

To situate psychoanalysis, one could say that it has been constituted everywhere the truth makes itself known only in the fact that it surprises us and imposes itself on us. An example, to illustrate what I have just said. There is no other jouissance given to me, or giveable, than that of my body. This does not impose itself immediately, but no one has any doubt about it and there is established, around this jouissance, which is indeed henceforth my only good, this protective grill of a law described as universal and which is called “Human rights”. No one can prevent me from disposing as I wish of my own body. The result, at the limit – we put our finger, our foot on it, we analysts – is that jouissance has dried up for everyone!

为了找到精神分析学的定位,我们能够说,它在每个地方所建立的真理,为人所周知,只是在於这个事实:它令我们驚奇,它赋加在我们身上。让我举一个例子,说明我刚刚所说的。並没有其它的大欢爽给予我,或能够被给予,除了我的身体的大欢爽。这个大欢爽並没有当下就出现,但是没有人对它有任何的怀疑,环绕着这个大欢爽,那是我唯一享有的好处,存在着这个保护性的法则,被描述为每个人普遍都有,也被称之为「人权」。没有人能够阻止我对于我自己的身体恣情享受。推到极端的结果是,我们精神分析师要去理解及掌握它的是:对於每一个人,大欢爽已经乾涸。

This is the other side of a little article that I produced under the title of “Kant with Sade”. Obviously this is not said there up front – it is at the back. It was not for all that less dangerous to say it as Sade said it. Sade is indeed the proof of that. But since all I was doing there was explaining Sade, it is less dangerous for me!

这就是我发表的一篇文章,标题是「康德与萨德」的另外一面。显而易见的,这一面不是摆在正面来说,而是摆在后面。即使引用萨德本人的说词,都仍然是危险重重。萨德确实是这种危险的证明。只是我在文章里所处理的,只是解释萨德,这样我冒的危险会少些!

The truth is manifested in an enigmatic fashion in the symptom. Which is what? A subjective opaqueness, Let us leave to one side what is clear. The fact is that the enigma has already this much resolved, that it is only a rebus.

真理会在病癥里,以谜团一般地显现。什麽是那个真理?一个生命主体的模糊不清。让我们将清晰的部分摆在一边。事实是,这个谜团已经就这样解决。那是一个图画之谜。

And let us base ourselves for a moment on the fact – which by going too quickly one may leave to one side – that the subject therefore can be non-transparent. The fact is also that what is obvious may be hollow, and that it would be better henceforth, no doubt, to make the word agree with the past participle, emptied (evide).

让我们暂时以这个事实作依据。进行得太快,我们可能会漏失一边,生命主体因此会显得晦暗不明。这个事实也是:明显的部分可能是空洞的部分,无可置疑的,我们最好表达空洞这个字词,跟过去分词「清空掉」相一致。

The subject is perfectly thingly (chosique. And is the worst kind of thing! The Freudian thing, precisely.
As regards the facts, we know that it is a bubble and that it can be burst. We have experience of it already on several occasions. Such is the plane on which modern thinking makes its way, Karl Marx, first of all gave it its tone, then Freud. If the status of what Freud contributed is less evidently triumphant, it is perhaps, precisely, that he went further. You pay for that.

生命主体完美地物化,成为最糟糕的一种物,準确地说,就是佛洛伊德的物。关於这些事实,我们知道,那是一个泡沫,它会爆裂开。我们在好几个场合,已经有过这样的经验。现代思想发展的层次,如卡尔、 马克思,首先表达对它的论述,接下来是是佛洛伊德。即使佛洛伊德贡献的地位,比较不那麽显而易见地空前胜利,确实地,他探讨的问题还比较深入。可是,付出的代价也不少。

You pay for that, for example, in the thematic you will find developed in the two articles that I am proposing for your attention, for your study if you have enough leisure for that. Because they ought here to form the foundation on which there will find its place what I am going to advance, to take things up again at the point I left them the last time, to complete, in this quadrangle that I began to trace out as having (3) to be articulated fundamentally around repetition.

你付出代价,例如,我建议的这两篇文章,曾经探讨这个这个主题,你们有空闲的话,要注意及研究它。因为它们应该形成这个物的基础,它的位置,我将要提出,再一次从事这个物的讨论,在我上一次停顿的地方。我用这个四角形的表格来完成,那是我开始追踪时,将它当着是必须被表达,基本上,是环绕「重复」。

Repetition. A temporal locus, in which there comes to act what I first left suspended around the purely logical terms of alienation, at the four poles that I punctuated of the alienating choice on the one hand, of the establishment on the other hand at two of these poles, of the Es, of the Id, of the unconscious, on the other hand, in order to put at the fourth of these poles, castration. These four terms, which may have left you in suspense, have their English correspondents in what I began, the last time, to articulate by showing you the fundamental structure of repetition on the one hand (by situating it on the right of the quadrangle), of the function, on the other hand, on the right-hand pole, of this privileged and exemplary mode of the establishment of the subject which is the passage a l’acte is.

重复是一个时间的轨迹。运作其间的,是环绕疏离的这个纯粹逻辑的术语,我首次将它悬置在那里。在这四个极端,在这一边,我强调为体制的「疏离的选择」,在另外一边,这两个极端,是「本我」、是「无意识」,为了摆置这些极端的第四个,「阉割」。这四个术语,可能会让你们狐疑不解,在英文里,有类同的说法。上一次,我开始表达时,我告诉你们,在一边是,重复的基本结构(我将它定位在这个四方图形的右边),在另外一边,在右手边这一边,是主体在体制中,所具有的特权及典范的模式,那就是「诉诸行动」。

What are the two other poles that I have to deal with now? One of them was already indicated to you the last time: acting-out, that I am going to have to articulate in so far as it is situated – at this place – in an elided way, in which something of the field of the eliminated Other, that I have just recalled, is manifested in the form of a truthful manifestation. Such is, fundamentally, the sense off acting-out. I am asking you, simply, to have the patience to follow me, since, moreover, I can only introduce these terms – what they refer to, the structure – without preliminaries (bille en tete), as I might say. By wanting to make our way by a progression, or indeed a critique, of what has already been outlined about such a formulation in the theories already expressed in analysis, we would, literally, only lose ourselves in the same labyrinth that thing theory constitutes.

我现在必须要处理的其它两个极端是什麽?其中有一个,我已经跟你们指明出来,「诉诸行动」。我将必须表达它的位置,在这个地方,以一个省略的方式。我刚刚回想到,大它者被疏远离开的领域,有某件东西被显示出来,真实地被显示。基本上,诉诸行动的意义就是这样。我仅仅要求你们稍安毋躁地听我说,我只能介绍这些术语,单刀直入地谈到它们的内涵及结构,我不妨这样说。我想要用渐进,或批判的方式,描绘出轮廓,关於精神分析学已经发表的这些理论的说明。实质上,在物的理论所形成的迷宫里,我们只会让自己迷失。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 45 Jacques Lacan

August 24, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 45
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

There is repetition intrinsic in every act, which is only permitted by the effect of retroaction – which is exercised because of the fact of the signifying incidence which is put at its heart – and the retroaction of this signifying incidence on what is called “the case” in question, whatever it may be.

在每一个行动,都有内在的重复,只有反动的效应,才容许这样。会发生反动的效应,是因为意符化的偶然,被摆置在它的核心。这个意符化的偶然产生的反动,就是我们所谓的受到置疑的「个案」,不管它的名称是什麽。

Naturally, it is not enough for me to proclaim that I am walking! All the same it is already a beginning of action. It is an operetta action: “Marchons, marchons…” It is also what is called, in a certain ideology, commitment, which is what gives it its well known comic character.

当然,我宣称「我正在走路」,光是这样还不够!它仍然只是一个行动的开始。它是一个轻鬆歌剧的行动:「前进!前进!」在某些意识形态里,它也被称之为「献身」,这个特性,众所皆知,有点滑稽。

The important thing to detect about what is involved in an act, is to search where the logical structure gives us – and gives us qua logical structure – the possibility of transforming into an act what, at first approach, could be nothing other than a pure and simple passion. “I fall to the ground” or “I stumble”, for example. Reflect on this, that the fact of this signifying duplication, namely, that in my “I fall on the ground” there is the affirmation that I fall on the ground: “I fall to the ground” becomes, transforms by fall, into something signifying. I fall to the ground and by this I perform the act in which I demonstrate that I am, as they say, utterly crushed (atterre).

要侦查出一个行动会牵涉到什麽,重要的是要寻找出,这个逻辑结构,或作为逻辑结构的本身,在哪里让我们将道道地地是一个纯净而简单的激情,一接近时,有可能将它转变成为一个行动。例如,「我摔倒地上」,或「我绊倒」。你们反思一下,这个意符化的复制,换句话说,从「我摔倒地上」,我肯定了「我摔倒地上」的意义:由由摔倒这个动作,「我摔倒地上」变成为某件意符化的东西。我摔倒地上,是憑藉这个「我」来执行这个行动,在此,我证明了我完全被压倒,不妨这样说。

(14) In the same way,” I stumble” – even “I stumble” which bears in itself so manifestly the passivity of missing something – can be, if it is taken up and reduplicated by the affirmation, “I stumble”, the indication of an act in so far as I myself assume the sense, as such, of this stumbling.

(第十四)同样地,「我绊倒」,即使「我绊倒」的本身,如此显而易见地,具有身不由己的漏失跟被动,它有时也会是一个行动的指示,假如它从「我绊倒」的这个肯定,获得从事及复制,因为是我自己承受这个绊倒的意义本身。

There is nothing here which goes against the inspiration of Freud, if you remember that at a particular page of the Traumdeutung and very precisely on the one where he designates for us the first lineaments of his research on identification, he underlines very clearly himself – legitimating in advance the intrusions that I make of the Cartesian formula into the theory of the unconscious – the remark that Ich has two different senses in the same sentence, when one says “Ich denke was gesundes Kind Ich war” “I think” – or: Ich bedenke, as he said exactly: I meditate, I reflect, I gargle – “at the thought of what a healthy child – Ich bin … Ich war – I was”.

在此,没有一样东西牴触到佛洛伊德的啟发,假如你们记得,在「梦的解析」的特别的一页,确实就在他跟我们指明为「认同的研究」的初始轮廓的那一页,他自己非常清楚地强调,预先认可,我使用笛卡尔的「我思故我在」的公式,闯入无意识的理论。「我」在同一个句子里,具有两个不同的意义,当他说:「我思故我在」,如他明确地说:我沉思、我反思、我漱口,一想到我是一位多麽健康的小孩。

The essentially signifying character as such, is reduplicated by the act. The repetitive and intrinsic insistence of repetition in the act, is what allows us to connect up in an original fashion – and in such a fashion that it can subsequently satisfy in the analysis of all its varieties – the definition of the act.

这个基本上是意符化的特性,本身是由行动来复制。这个在行动中,重复的一再地及本质上的坚持,就是使我们能够以一个原创性的方式来连接。这样一种方式,随后在各种各样的精神分析经验,可以满足行动的定义。

Here I can only indicate in passing – for we will have to come back to it – that the important thing is not so much in the definition of the act, as in its consequences. I mean, what results from the act in terms of change of surface.

在此,我只能顺便指明出来,因为我们将必须回到它。重要的不是这个行动的「定义」,而是在「它的结果」。我的意思是,从表面的术语来说,这个行动的结果是什麽?

For if I spoke earlier about the incidence of the cut on the topological surface – that I designate as that of the Moebius strip – if after the act, the surface is of a different structure in such a case, if it is of a still different structure in another one or even if in certain cases it may not change, here is something that is going to propose for us models (if you wish) to distinguish what is involved in terms of the incidence of the act, not so much in the determination as in the mutations of the subject.

假如我早先曾提到,在这个地形的表面,这个切割的偶然性,我指明它作为摩比斯带状的偶然切割,假如在「切割」的行动之后,这个表面在这种情形之下,属於不同的结构,假如它属於一个更加不同的结构,或即使在某些情形里,它可能不会改变,还是会有某件东西,将会跟我们提出一个模式,用来区别在偶然的行动中所牵涉的东西,关键不是在於这个「决定」,而是在於生命主体的「转变」。

Now, there is a term which for some time I have left to the testing and the tasting of those who surround me, without ever frankly responding to the objection made to me – and which has been made to me for a long time – that Verleugnung – since this is the term in question – is the term to which there should be referred the effects that I reserve for Verwerfung. I spoke enough about the latter, since today’s discourse, not to have to go back on it. I simply highlight here that what is of the order of Verleugnung is always what is concerned with the ambiguity that results from the effects of the act as such.

现在,有一段时间,我使用一个术语,来测试及试探我周遭的人,是否坦白回应对我的批评,长久以来我就曾经遭受这样的批评。「否认」是一个颇受到置疑的术语,因为它牵涉到我保留给「拒绝」的效应。对於后者,我曾经不厌其烦地谈论,今天的真理论述,就不再去谈论它。在此,我仅仅强调,「否认」的层次,总是会牵涉到行动的本身的影响,造成的结果往往是模糊不清。

I cross the Rubicon. That can be done … all by itself. It is enough to take the train at Cesena in the right direction, once you are on the train, you can do nothing more about it, you cross the Rubicon. But this is not an act. It is not an act either when you cross the Rubicon thinking about Caesar, it is an imitation of Caesar’s act. But you already see that imitation takes on in the dimension of the act, a quite different structure to the one that is usually supposed for it. It is not an act, but it can all the same be one! And there is even no other possible definition for the suggestions, otherwise so excessive, as those entitled the Imitation of Jesus Christ, for example.

「我越过鲁比康河」。这个动作本身就可以完成。我们只要在西塞拿搭乘火车,朝着正确的方向,一但你在火车上,你什麽事都不用做,你就会越过鲁比康河。但是这个並不算是一个行动。就算是你越过鲁比康河时,你缅怀凯撒,也不算是一个行动。那是对於凯撒的行动的模仿。但是你们已经看出,在这个行动的向度上,「模仿」具有完全不同於通常大家认为的结构。模仿並不是一个行动,但是它有时可能会成为一个行动!这里甚至没有其它可能的定义能够被建议,就算是轰轰烈烈的模仿,例如,「模仿耶稣基督」这样的名目。

Around this act – whether it is imitation or not – whether it is the original act itself, the one that the historians of Caesar tell us clearly the sense of is indicated by the dream, which precedes this crossing of the Rubicon – which is none other than the sense of incest – it is a matter of knowing, at each of these levels, what is the effect of the act.

环绕这个行动,无论是模仿与否,无论它本身是否是一个具有原创性的行动,研究凯撒的历史学家清楚地告诉我们,在越过鲁比康河之前,凯撒所做的这个梦,所指示的意义,那道道地地就是乱伦的意义,在这个行动的影响,在每一个意义的层次上。

It is the labyrinth proper to the recognition of these effects by a subject who cannot recognise it, because he is entirely – as subject – transformed by the act, it is these effects that are designated, wherever the term is correctly employed, by the rubric of Verleugnung.

对於无法体认出这个梦的生命的主体,体认出这些影响,就是一道迷宫的本体,因为作为一位生命的主体,他完全被这个行动所改变。就是这些影响,被「否认」的架构指明出来,不管这个术语在哪里被正确地运用。

The act then is the only locus where the signifier has the appearance – the function in any case – of signifying itself. Namely, to function outside its possibilities. the subject, in the act, is represented as pure division. The division, we will say, is his Reprasentanz. The true sense of the term Reprasentanz is to be taken at this level for it is starting from this representance of the subject as essentially divided, that one can sense how this function of Reprasentanz may effect what is called representation; which makes the Vorstallung depend on an effect of the Reprasentanz.

这个行动因此是唯一的轨迹,在那里,意符具有本身被意符化的表象,或功用。换句话说,要在它的可能性的外面,行使功用。在行动中,生命的主体,被呈现当着是分裂的主体。我们不妨这样说,这种分裂就是他的「符号再现」。「符号再现」这个术语的真实意义,要从生命的主体,充当基本上是分裂的「符号代表」,开始的这个层次来看待。我们能够感觉出来,这个「符号再现」的功用,可能会影响到所谓的「符号」。这使的符号的「观念」要依靠「符号再现」的影响而定。

We are stopped by the time.. There is going to be question for us the next time of how it is possible for there to be presentified the impossible-to-choose element of alienation. The matter is well worth the trouble of being put off for a discourse reserved to it, since it is a matter of nothing other than the status of the Other, where it is evoked for us in the most urgent fashion, so as not to lead to precipitation and error, namely, the analytic situation. But this model that is given to us by the act as division and final support of the subject, a point of truth which – let us say it in parenthesis before separating – is the one which justifies the rise to the summit of philosophy of the function of existence, which undoubtedly is nothing other than the veiled form in which there is presented, for thinking, the original character of the act in the function of the subject.

因为时间关系,我们只能告一段落。下一次我们将面临的问题,是如何将难於选择的疏离的因素,具体呈现出来。这个问题很值得让我们延迟到一个专门讨论它的论述,因为这个问题道道地地就是大它者的地位。在那里,我们会迫不及待地引述疏离,这样我们才不会犯下严重错误,换句话说,就是在精神分析的情境里。但是,行动所给予我们的模式,作为生命主体的分裂及最后的支持,是一个真理的点,(在分开之前,让我们用括弧方式保留它),它让我们很有理由,提升到「实存功用的哲学」的鼎盛。无可置疑的,它道道地地就是被遮蔽的形式,在那里,生命主体的功用,产生的这个行动的原创特性,以思想的方式,被呈现出来。

Why has this act, in its agency, remained veiled, and this for those who knew best how to mark its autonomy – against Aristotle who had not and for good reason the slightest idea of this – I mean, St. Thomas?

为什麽这个行动,在其代理的状态,始终被遮蔽呢?这个问题,对於那些懂得如何去标示行动的自动自发的人,例如,亚里斯多德,他对於这一点根本就没有概念,不是没有道理的。我的意思是,聖、汤姆士,也是一样。

(16) It is no doubt because the other possibility of cutting is given us, in the impossible-to-choose part of
alienation (put within our reach, nevertheless, from the angle of analysis) – the same cut intervening at the other vertex, the one designated here, which corresponds to the unconscious-I am not conjunction – this is what is called acting-out and its status is what we will try to define the next time.

(第十六)无可置疑的,在疏离的不可能选择的部分,切割给我们另一个可能性,(可是,从精神分析学的角度来看,我们还是能掌握得到)。相同的切割,在另外一个顶点介入,在这里所指明的这一个顶点介入。它对应於这个「无意识的我没有实存」的连接。这就是我们所谓的「积极行动」,它的地位,我们下一次,将会设法给它下个定义。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 44 Jacques Lacan

August 24, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 44
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

The important thing is, what is the structure of the surfaces thus instaured.

重要的事是,这些因此而被建立的表面的结构是什麽?

The images on the left – and that I introduced the last time so that you could copy the drawing – represent for you what constitutes the most characteristic surface to image for us the function that we give of the double loop. It is (on the top left) the Moebius strip whose edge – namely, everything that is in this drawing (except this, which is a profile which is only inscribed there in a way to give rise in your imagination to the image of the support of the surface itself, namely, that here the surface turns the other side, but this does not form part, of course, of any edge) – there only remains then the double loop, which is the edge – the single edge of the surface in question.

左边的这些意象,我上一次介绍过,你们可以抄画下来,代表最具有特色的内涵,标示我们给予这个双重圈套的功用。左上角的这个摩比斯带状,它的边缘,换句话说,每一样在图画里的东西(除了它是一个轮廓,被铭记在那里,为了在你们的想像里,产生支持表面的意象,换句话说,表面变成里面,但是这样並没有形成任何的边缘),这个双重圈套始终是在那里,是一个边缘,受到置疑的表面的单一边缘。

We can take this surface as symbolic of the subject, on condition that you consider, of course, that the edge alone constitutes this surface. This is easy to demonstrate by the fact that if you make a cut through the middle of this surface, this cut itself concentrates in itself the essence of the double loop. Being a cut, which, as I might say, “turns back” onto itself, it is itself – this single cut – just by itself, the whole Moebius surface. And the proof is that in fact, when you have made this median cut there is no longer any Moebius surface at all! What I might call the “median cut”, removed it from what you think you are seeing, here, in the form of a surface.

我们可以将这个表面,当着是主体的象征,条件是,当然,你们必须认为,只有边缘才能构成表面。这个很容易证明,假如你们穿过这个表面的中间,做一个切割,这个切割的本身会集中於这个双重圈套的本质上。我不妨这样说,成为一种切割,会「翻转」回自己,这个单一的切割,仅是由自己造成,这整个的摩比斯带状的表面。证据是,事实上,当你使这个中间线被切割时,摩比斯带状的表面,就完全不存在了!我所谓的「中间线切割」,废除了它,从你们认为你们看得见的地方,以一个表面的形状。

This is what the figure on the right shows you. It shows you that once it is cut through the middle, this surface, which previously had neither a front nor a back, had only a single face, as it had only a single edge, now has a front and a back, which you see marked here in two different colors. It is enough, of course, for you to imagine that each one of these colours goes to the back of the other, where because of the cut they are continued. In other words, after the cut there is no longer a Moebius surface, but, on (12) the contrary, something which is applicable onto a torus.

这就是右边这个图形所显示给你们的。它显示,一旦它从中间被切割,先前既没有正面,也没有背后的这个表面,现在只有一个单一的前面,因为它只有一个单一的边缘,它会有一个正面跟一个背后。你们看到它们在这里用不同的颜色标示。当然,这已经足够让你们想像,每一种颜色都会到达另一种颜色的背后。因为被切割,它们继续存在那里。换句话说,那里的切割已经不再是一个摩比斯带状的表面,而是,相反的,它是一个可以应用到一个突出形状的东西。

Which is what the two other figures show you. Namely, that if in a certain way you make this surface – the one obtained after the cut – slide behind (a l’envers) itself, if I can express myself in that way, which is quite well imaged in the present figure – you can by sewing – as I might say – in a different way the edges in question, constitute in this way a new surface which is the surface of the torus, on which there is still marked the same cut, constituted by the fundamental double loop of repetition.

这就是其它两个图形所显示给你们的。换句话说,假如你们确定要制作这个表面,这个切割以后的表面,会滑溜到自己的背后,容我用那种方式表达,它是目前的图形里,意象相当鲜明。我不妨这样说,你们能够用不同的方式,将这个受到置疑的边缘,缝接起来,以这种方式,组成一个新的表面,那就是突出形状的表面。相同的切割依旧会被标示在上面,由「重复」的这基本的双重圈套组成。

These topological facts are for us extremely favourable to image something, which is what is at stake.

对於我们而言,这些地形学的事实,相当有利於用来描绘,某件岌岌可危的东西。

Namely, that just as alienation is imaged in two senses by different operations – where one represents the necessary choice between the curtailed I am not thinking of the Es of the logical structure, the other – an element that one cannot choose, of the alternative – which opposes, which connects the kernel of the unconscious, as being this something in which it is not a matter of a thinking that is in any way attributable to the instaured I of subjective unity, and which connects it to an I am not, clearly marked by what I defined in the structure of the dream as the inmixing of subjects, namely, as the unfixable, indeterminate, character of the subject assuming the thinking of the unconscious – repetition allows us to put in correlation, in correspondence, two modes in which the subject may appear different – may manifest itself, in its temporal conditioning – in a way that corresponds to the two statuses defined as that of the I of alienation and as that which reveals the position of the unconscious in specific conditions, which are none other than those of analysis.

换句话说,就像「疏离」,有两种意义,形成不同的运作。一种是,将逻辑结构的辩证法,简缩为「我没有正在思想」,另外一种是,有一种我们无法选择的因素,代替的因素,将无意识的核心,对立或连接起来,当着这个问题,並不是一个被归属於主体的一致性「我」的建立,而是将它连接到「我没有存在」,后者的清楚的标示,就是我所定义的梦的结构,作为生命的主体的「内部融合」,换句话说,作为具有无意识的思想的的主体,不可修复及无法确定的特性。「重复」让我们能够把主体不同表现的这两个模式,联系成一贯,让它可以显示它自己,在自身的时间的制约里,採用对应於这两种地位的方式。其中一种是,作为疏离的「我」的地位,另一种是,显现在明确状态下的无意识的地位。后者道道地地是我们精神分析的地位。

Corresponding to the level of the temporal schema, we have the following: that the passage a l’acte is what is allowed in the operation of alienation; that, corresponding to the other term – a term, in principle, impossible to choose in the alienating alternative – there corresponds acting-out.

当我们要对应於时间的模式的层次,我们得到以下的结果:「诉诸行动」在疏离的运作里,被允许出现。另外还有一个我们要对应的术语是「积极行动」。原则上,在疏离的代替中,很不可能选择它。

What does that mean? The act, I mean the act and not some manifestation of movement. Movement, motor discharge (as it is put at the level of theory) is something that in no way is enough to constitute an act. If you will allow me a crude image, a reflex is not an act.

那是什麽意思?「行动」,我的意思是指行动,而不是动作的某些证明。动作,也就是发出的动力(从理论的层次来说),是某件根本就不足够组成一个「行动」的东西。容我粗略地做一个比喻,反射性的动作,並不算是「行动」。

But after all, this arena of not-an-act (ne pas-acte) must be extended far beyond. What is being solicited in the study of the intelligence of a higher animal, conduite de detour for example – the fact that a monkey sees what he has to do to get at a banana when he is separated from it by a plate of glass – has absolutely nothing to do with an act. And in truth, a very great number of your movements, as you can well imagine – those that you will carry out between now and the end of the day – have nothing to do of course with an act.

但是,畢竟,「不是一个行动」的这个鬥技场,必须做更广义的诠释。当我们研究较高级的动物的智商时,我们所引用的内容,绝对跟一个「行动」没有关系。例如,一隻猴子看出他必须怎麽做,才能得到一根香蕉,当中间隔着一道玻璃。事实上,你们可以想像,在目前跟晚上之间,你们能够执行许多你们的动作,当然都是跟「一个行动」没有关系。

(13) But how define what an act is?

(第十三)但是我们如何来定义一个行动是什麽?

It is impossible to define it otherwise than on the foundation of the double loop, in other words, of repetition. And it is precisely in this that the act is foundational for the subject.

我们不可能定义这个行动,除了以这个双重圈套作为基础。换句话说,「重复」的双重圈套。确实是在这里,对於生命的主体而言,「行动」才有基础。

The act is, precisely, the equivalent of repetition, by itself. It is this repetition in a single line (trait) that I designated earlier by this cut that it is possible to make in the centre of the Moebius strip. It is in itself the double loop of the signifier.

确实地说,这个行动的本身,相当等於是「重复」。行动就是一条单一的线条特癥里的「重复」,我早先曾经指明过,在摩比斯带状的中间,我们可能予以切割。它本身就是意符的双重圈套。

One could say, but this would be to deceive oneself, that in its case the signifier signifies itself. Because we know that it is impossible. It is nevertheless true that it is as close as possible to this operation.

我们能够说,但是这样只是自欺欺人,意符在自己的情况里,使自己被意符化。因为我们知道这是不可能的,这也是真实的,它相当地接近意符使自己被意符化的运作。

The subject – let us say, in the act – is equivalent to its signifier. It remains nonetheless divided.
Let us try to clarify this a little and let us put ourselves at the level of this alienation at which the I is founded on an I am not thinking which is all the more favourable for leaving the whole field to the Es of logical structure.

容我们这样说,在行动中的生命的主体,相当等於是它的意符,只是它仍然是分裂的状态。让我们设法稍微澄清这一点,让我们将我们自己摆置在这个疏离的层次,在疏离里,这个「我」的基础是「我没有正在思想」。使用「我没有正在思想」,来脱离逻辑结构的这个辩证法的整个领域,是非常有利的。

“I am not thinking” … if I am, all the more in that I am not thinking (I mean: if I am only the I that the logical
structure instaures), the medium, the line, where there can be connected these two terms, is the : I act; this I act which is not, as I told you, a motor performance. In order that “I walk” should become an act, it is necessary for the fact that I am walking to signify that I walk in fact and that I am saying it as such.

「我没有正在思想」、、、「假如我生命实存」就在「我没有正在思想」里,显得更加真实。(我的意思是:「假如我只是生命的实存」,那是这个逻辑的结构所建立的),这个中间,这条线,可以连接这两个术语,那就是:「我诉诸行动」。我曾经告诉过你们,这个「我诉诸行动」,並不是一个动作的演出。为了让「我走路」成为一种「行动」,必须要有这个事实存在:我正在走路,是为了使「我走路」及「我正在说这句话」,具有意义地意符化。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 43 Jacques Lacan

August 24, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 43
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑
Seminar 11: Wednesday, February 15, 1967

The Other as such – I am saying, this locus of the Other, in so far as the need for the assuring of a truth evokes it – the Other as such is, as I might say, if you will permit this word that I have improvised: fractured. In the same way as we grasp it in the subject itself – very precisely in the way in which the double topological loop of repetition marks it – the Other also finds itself under the impact of this finiteness.

大它者的本身,我是说,大它者的轨迹,为了确定一项真理,必须召唤它。我不妨这样说,大它者的本身,恕我临时编撰这个字眼,骨折断裂。就像我们在生命的主体身上,掌握到它,的确,就像重复的双重的地形的圈套所标示,大它者也发现它自己处与这个有限性的影响。

(8) Thus division is found to be posited at the heart of the conditions of truth. A complication, let us say, brought to any exigency, of the Leibnizian type – of reservation of the aforesaid, I mean, of the truth. The salva veritate, essential to any order of philosophical thinking, is for us – and not simply because of psychoanalysis – manifest at all points of this development which is carried out at the level of mathematical logic – is for us a little bit more complicated. It completely excludes in any case, any form of intuitive absoluteness; the attribution, for example, to the field of the Other, of the dimension – described in as Spinozian a way as you wish – of the Eternal, for example.

(第八)因此,在真理的状况的核心,分裂的情况被发现。容我们这样说,一种莱布尼斯哲学的併发症,一种前述的真理「保存状态」,成为一种紧急状态。这个「保存真相」,对於哲学的思想的条理非常重要,不仅是因为精神分析学,对於我们,它显现在数学逻辑发展的每一个时段,对於我们,显得更加复杂。无论如何,它完全排除任何直觉绝对化的形式,例如,它被归属於大它者的领域,像史宾诺莎哲学有关「永恒」的向度。

This permanent downfall of the Other is ineradicable from the given of subjective experience. It is what puts at the heart of this experience the phenomenon of belief in its ambiguity, constituted by the fact that it is not by accident, by ignorance, that the truth is presented in the dimension of the contestable. A phenomenon, then, which is not to be considered as a happening due to a defect, but as a fact of structure, and that here, for us, is the point of prudence. The point that we are solicited to advance towards with the most discrete steps, I mean in the most discerning way, to designate the substantial point of this structure, in order not to lend to the confusion into which people precipitate themselves, not innocently no doubt, by suggesting here a renewed form of positivism.

大它者永久的墜落,无法从生命主体的经验的符号里抹除掉。它将信仰自身的模糊不清的现象,摆置在这个经验的核心。这种模糊不清的构成,在於真理的呈现在具有争议性的向度,並非是偶然,或无知。这一个现象因此不应该被认为是因为有缺陷而发生,而是作为一种结构的事实,我们必须谨慎从事。为了要指明这个结构的实质的内涵,我们被要求要多管齐下,我的意思,要步步为营,以免增加人们猛然遭遇的困扰,但是带着无可置疑的纯真,我们建议,这里存在者一种实证主义的复兴。

We should much more rather find our motels in what remains so misunderstood and nevertheless so alive in the fragmentary things tradition has bequeathed us in terms of exercises of scepticism, in so far as they are not simply these brilliant jugglings between opposed doctrines, but on the contrary veritable spiritual exercises, which corresponded certainly to an ethical praxis, which gives its veritable density to the theory that remains to us under this heading and under this rubric.

相反地,我们应该从如此受到误解,可是又充满传统遗留给我们的断简残篇,书名为「怀疑主义的沉思」,找到我们的棲息之所。因为他们不仅仅在互相对立的主义信条之间,也在各自主张的真实精神思维里,来回穿梭。这些信条及精神思维,确实相当等於是一个伦理学的本体,它们强而有力地验证我们目前要讨论的这个标题的理论。

Let us say that it is now a question for us of accounting, in terms of our logic, for the necessary emergence of this locus of the Other in so far as it is thus divided. Because, for us, it is here that we are asked to situate not simply this locus of the Other, the perfect correspondent of the fact that the truth is not deceitful, but much more precisely, at the different levels of subjective experience that the clinic imposes on us, how it is possible for there to be inserted into it – into this experience – agencies which cannot be articulated other than as demands of the Other – and this is neurosis …

让我们说,这个问题是要我们使用我们的逻辑,解释大它者的轨迹,既然如此分歧,为何必然会出现。因为,我们被要求不仅仅要找到大它者的轨迹的位置,完善地对应真理不会是欺骗这个事实,而且更加确实地,要在精神分析诊所带给我们主观性的经验的不同的层次找到。我们如何可能在这种经验之间,插入无法表达的代理,除了就是大它者的代理?那就是精神病患。

And here we cannot fail to denounce how excessive is the use of such terms that we have introduced,
highlighted, like for example that of demand, when we see it taken up under the pen of some novice or other exercising himself on the plane of analytic theory and marking the degree to which it is essential (the youngster shows his perspicacity here) to put at the centre and at the start of the adventure a demand – he says – a “current requirement”. This is what has always been put forward, by making (9) analysis turn around “frustration and gratification”. The use here of the term of demand, which is borrowed from me, is only there to put us off the track of what is essential in it, which is that the subject comes to analysis not to demand anything whatsoever in terms of a current requirement, but in order to know what he is demanding. Which leads him, very precisely, to this path of demanding that the Other should demand something of him.

在此,我们一定会抨击,我们所介绍及强调的这些术语,例如,需求的术语,多麽遭到滥用。当我们看到它们引述发挥,在一些新手或从事精神分析的理论家。他们必须(特别是一位年轻学者表现他的颖慧聪明)他将一种需求,社会「现状的需求」,摆置在精神分析探讨的中心跟开始。这个观点时常被提出,使得精神分析所遭遇的「挫折跟满足」,为之逆转。「需求」这个术语,原先是从我这里借用,被使用在那里,只是使大家脱离重要的途径。那就是,主体前来精神分析,不是要求任何符合社会的「现状的需求」,而是为了要「知道」他自己正在需求什麽。的确,这样的需求会导致最后会要求:「大它者应该对於他,有所需求」。

The problem of the demand is situated at the level of the Other. The desire of the neurotic turns around the demand of the Other and the logical problem is to know how we can situate this function of the demand of the Other, on this support: that the Other pure and simple, as such, is the O barred.

需求的问题,被定位在大它者的层次。精神官能症患的欲望,倒转大它者的需求。逻辑的问题是要先知道,我们如何定位大它者的需求的功用,这样我们才能支持:纯净而单纯的大它者的本身,是被禁制的大它者。

Many other terms are also to be evoked as having to find their place in the Other. The anxiety of the Other is the true root of the position of the subject as a masochistic position. Let us say again how we ought to conceive of the fact that a point of jouissance is essentially locatable as jouissance of the Other; a point without which it is impossible to understand what is at stake in perversion. A point, nevertheless, which is the only structural referent that can account for what in the tradition is grasped as Selbstbewusstsein. Nothing else in the subject really traverses itself, perforates itself, as I might say, as such – I will try to sketch out for you, one day, some childish model of it – nothing else, except this point which makes of jouissance, the jouissance of the Other.

还有许多其它的术语也必须被引用,这样我们才能在大它者那里找到它们的位置。大它者的「焦虑」,是主体的立场,处於受虐狂的立场的真实的根源。让我们再说一遍,我们应该如何构想这个事实:「大欢爽」点的位置,基本上,被发现是「大它者的大欢爽」。假如缺乏这一点,我们不可能了解,偏执狂岌岌可危的地方在哪里。可是,这一点是唯一的结构指称,能够用来说明传统上我们所理解的「自我意识」。主体身上没有别的东西,能如此来回穿梭,如此出入自如,我不妨这样说。有朝一日,我将会跟你们描述这个大欢爽的大略模式。除了这个点,没有别的东西,能够解释「大欢爽」,大它者的大欢爽。

We are not going to go into these problems immediately. We have today to trace the consequences to be drawn from the relationship of this graph of repetition, to what we have punctuated as the fundamental choice of alienation.

我们马上就探讨这个问题。今天我们必须追踪,从「重复的图表」的的关系,所能够获得的结论。我们必须追踪到我们所强调的「疏离」的基本选择

It is easy to see, from this double loop, that the more it sticks to itself, the more it will tend to be divided. By supposing that here (figure 1) the distance from one edge to the other is reduced, it is easy to see that it will be two rings (rondelles) that will come to be isolated.

从这个双重圈套,我们很容易看出,它越是坚持它自己,它就越会倾向於被分裂。我们假定,在此(图表一),从一个边缘到另一个边缘的距离,我们很容易看出,有两个圈套将会渐渐被孤立出来。

What relationship is there between this passage a l’acte of alienation and repetition itself? Well then, very
precisely, what can and what ought to be called: the act.

疏离的这个「付诸行动」跟「重复」的本身之间,有怎样的关系?确实地,我们能够或应该怎麽称呼这个「行动」?

Today, I want to put forward the premises of a logical situation of the act as such.

今天,我要提这个「行动」本身的逻辑状况,会有哪些的假设。

If this double loop of the drawing of repetition imposes a topology on us, it is because it cannot have its function as edge on just any surface whatsoever. Try to draw it on the surface of a sphere I showed it a long time ago – you can tell me how you get on! – (Figure 2). Bring it back here and try to close it in such a way that it is an edge, namely, that it does not cut itself. This is impossible. These things are not possible – I (11) already pointed out a long time ago – except on a certain type of surface (those which are drawn here, for example) such as the torus that I called on at one time, the cross-cap or the projective plane, or again the third (tierce) Klein bottle which you know, I think, if you still remember, the little drawing in which it can be imaged (it being clearly understood that the Klein bottle has nothing which especially links it to this particular representation.) The important thing is to know what, in each one of these surfaces, results from the cut constituted by the double loop.

假如「重复」赋加在我们身上,画出这个双重的圈套,那是因为「它不可能仅仅就在任何的表面,充当边缘的功用」。假如你们设法在我不久以前给你们看的一个球形物的表面,画出这个双重的圈套,你们能否告诉我,你们对於身处圈套里的感受如何?假如你们将它带回到这里,设法封闭它,让它成为一个边缘,让它不要切割到自己。那时不可能的事。不可能有这样的事,我在不久以前就已经告诉过你们,除了在某种的表面(例如,我在这里所画的那些表面),例如有一次我跟你们提过的「突出形状」,这个投射平面的「交叉帽盖」,或是你们知道的第三个内外两个向度交织的「克来因瓶形」。假如你们依旧记得,那个我们想像出来的小图形(显而易见的,克来因瓶形,没有东西可以特别连接到这个特别的符号)。重要的是要知道,在每一个这些表面,这个双重圈套所造成的切割,结果会是如何?

On the torus, this cut will give a surface with two edges. On the cross-cap, it will give a cut with a single edge.

在这突出形状,这个切割造成一个表面,拥有两个边缘。在交叉帽盖那里,它造成一个切割,只有一个边缘。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 42 Jacques Lacan

August 23, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 42
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 11: Wednesday, February 15, 1967

A situation which is repeated, as a failure situation, for example, implies co-ordinates not of the greater or lesser tension, but of signifying identity of the plus or minus as sign of what must be repeated. But this sign was not carried as such by the first situation. You should clearly understand that this was not marked by the sign of repetition, otherwise, it would not have been the first! Much more, it must be said that it becomes – that it becomes – the repeated situation and that, by that fact, it is lost as originating situation: that there is something lost by the fact of repetition. And this is not alone perfectly articulated in Freud, but he articulated in Freud, but he articulated it well before having been brought to this statement of the “Beyond of the pleasure principle”.

一个被重复的情况,例如,作为一个失败的情况,意味着,並不是有或多或少的紧张的共同座标,而是有意符的认同,以增加跟减少作为必须被重复的符号。但是这个符号本身並没有被标示为第一层次的情况。你们应该清楚地了解,这个並非被重复的符号所标示,否则,它本来不会是第一层次。而且,我们必须说,它成为,它变成,被重复的情况。因为这个事实,它作为原初的情况是「迷失」:「重复的事实,表明有某件东西迷失」。这一点,佛洛伊德不仅表达得很清楚,而且以自己的生命作为验证,而且在他陈述「超越快乐原则」之前,就已经表达。

From the Three essays on sexuality on, we see there arising, arising as impossible, the principle of rediscovery.

从「性学三论文」开始,我们看到,重新发现的原则出现在那里,出现当着是「不可能界」。

The simple approach of clinical experience had already suggested to Freud the discovery and the function of the fact that there is, in the metabolism of drives, this function of the lost object as such. It gives the very sense (6) of what emerges under the rubric of Urverdrangung. That is why it has to be clearly recognised that far from there being here, in Freud’s thinking, a jump or rupture, there is rather the preparation – through a meaning that has been glimpsed – the preparation of something which at last finds its final logical structure in the form of a law constitutive – even though again it is not reflexive – constitutive of the subject himself and which is repetition.

从精神分析经验的简单途径,佛洛伊德已经感受到这个发现和功用。这个迷失客体本身的功用,存在於欲望驱力的新陈代谢里。它给我们的感觉是,它出现在「重复」的架构里,那就是为什麽它必须清楚地被认出,佛洛伊德认为,在那里发生的根本不是一个跳越或一个断裂,而是一种準备,透过我们瞥见的一种意义,某件东西的準备,找到它最后的逻辑结构,以一个组织的法则的形式,即使那个法则並不是反身性质,运用到主体自身的组织,具有重复性质。

The graph – as one might say – of this function, I think that you all have seen passing the shape that I gave as an intuitive, imaginative support of this topology of return, for it to solidarise the part – which is just as important as its direct effect, as this effect that is itself imaged – namely, its retroactive effect, what I called, just now, what happens when by the effect of the repeating, what was to be repeated becomes the repeated.

我不妨说,这个功用的图形,我想你们都已经看见,它通过我给予的形状,直觉及富有想像力地,作为支持退转的这个地形,这样它才能团结这个部分。这个部分作为它直接的影响,作为它本身被想像的影响,它的反动的影响,我刚才所称呼的,所发生的,由於这个重复的影响,将来会被重复的东西,变成已经被重复的东西。

The line (trait) by which there is sustained what is repeated, qua repeating, must close, must rediscover itself at the origin: the one (this line) which, because of it, henceforth marks the repeated as such.

这条被维持,被重复的线,作为重复,必须关闭,必须重新发现它自己,在起源的地方。因为这样,这条线标示着被重复者的本身。

This, this outline, is nothing other than that of the double loop, or again of what I called, the first time that I
introduced it, the “inverted eight” and that we write like this. Here it returns onto what it repeats and it is this which – in the first, fundamental, initiatory operation as such of repetition -gives this retroactive effect that cannot be detached from it, which forces us to think out the third relation, which – from the One to the Two which constitutes the return – comes back in closing itself towards this One in order to give this non-numeral element that I am calling the additional One (Un-en-plus), and which precisely – since it is not reducible to the series of natural numbers, succeed one another – still deserves this title of the additional One, which I designated as essential for any signifying determination and which is always ready, moreover, not simply to appear, but to be grasped, fleeting, detectable, in lived experience, once the counting (comptant) subject has to count himself among the others.

这个轮廓,道道地地是双重的圈套,我所谓的圈套,我第一次介绍它,作为「八的倒转形状」,我们书写如下。在此,它退转到它重复的地方。就是这个地方,这个最初,基本,及起头的运作,作为重复的本身,产生反射性的效应,无法跟它脱离。这使得我们不得不思考有第三个关系,从这个「一」到这个「二」,组成这个退转。这个第三关系回来封闭它自己,朝向这个「一」,为了给予这个非数字的元素,我称之为「额外的一」,因为它没有被化简成为自然数字的系列,它们一个接续一个。它应该获得「额外的一」这个头衔。我指明它作为任何决定任何意符的基本要素,而且,它总是準备,不仅仅要出现,而且要能够被掌握,在我们的生活的经验中,它虽然瞬息消失,仍然可觉察得到,一但善於算计的生命的主体,必须将自己也算计在其余的人当中。

Let us observe that this is the most radical topological form and that it is necessary to introduce what, in Freud, is put forward in these polymorphous forms that are known under the term of regression – whether they are topical, temporal or formal, this is not a homogenous regression – their common root is to be found in this return, in the return effect of repetition.

让我们观察一下,这个最激进的地形形态。我必须要介绍佛洛伊德所提出的,关於这个多样态的形状,这是众所皆知的倒退的术语,无论它是局部性、暂时性、或正常性,这並不一个同质性的倒退。它们的共同根源,应该在这个退转处被找到,在这个重复的退转效应。

Certainly, it is not for nothing that I delayed for so long the examination of these functions of regression. It would be enough to refer to a recent article, published somewhere on a neutral, medical terrain – an article on regression – to see the veritable gap it leaves open, when a thinking, used to not too much light, tries to connect the (7) theory with what analytic practice suggests to it. The sort of curious promotion that regression receives in certain of these most recent theoretical studies responds, no doubt, to something in the experience of analysis, through which, in effect, there deserves to be questioned the progressive effect that can be involved in regression, which, as everyone knows, is essential for the very process of the treatment as such.

的确,我拖延那麽久的时间,才来审查倒退的这些功用,並不是毫无理由。我不妨先提到最近的一篇文章, 某个地方出版的开放性的医学论坛,一篇有关倒退的论文。我们看到它所开展的真正的裂口,当一个默默无闻的思想,设法连接这个理论跟精神分析学的做法,发现到这个裂口。在某些最近的理论的研究,倒退的问题受到这种特别的关注,无可置疑地,回应精神分析经验的需求。事实上,应该被置疑的问题是进步的效应,它会牵涉到倒退的问题。众所皆知,这个进步的效应,在精神分析治疗的过程,是非常重要的。

But it is enough to see, to put your finger on, the distance, which in a way leaves veritably open everything that in this connection is re-evoked from Freud’s formulae, and what is deduced from it as regards practical use (you should consult this article which is in the last number of Evolution Psychiatrique) for one to sense the point to which the regression that is involved here is of a nature to suggest to us the question of whether it is anything more than a theoretical regression.

但是我们要先看到,或理解到这个距离,我们才能感受到这一点,在这里牵涉到的倒退,在性质上,对我们而言,等於是意味着这个问题:它不仅仅是一种理论的倒退。佛洛伊德的公式,一再召唤的每一样东西,都在这个距离里,真实地摊开。我们从那里可以推论出有关它的实际做法(你们应该去看看这篇文章,刊登在「进化精神分裂学」的最近一期)。

In truth, this indeed is the major mode of this rejection that I am designating as essential to one or other present position of the psychoanalyst.

事实上,它确实是这个「拒绝」的主要模式,我现在正指明它,当着是精神分析师的目前的立场,最基本的东西。

By taking up such questions anew, at their origin, as if they had not already been settled somewhere, one makes the pleasure last! It is certainly not the business of those for whom I take responsibility. I will come back to this at the appropriate time, for if, of course, there is in all that to remove every possible reference to something of the order of dishonesty, if from such formulae there is connected and legitimated a finality of the treatment which finds itself covering the crudest illusions of the ego, namely, what is most opposed to analytical renewal.

当我们重新从事这样的问题,在它们的起源处,好像它们在某个地方,还没有稳定下了,我们使得这种乐趣一直延续下去!这确实跟我演讲对象的的听众没有关系。我将在适当时机,回头来谈论这个问题。当然,假如我们将每一个可能的病癥,都以不诚实的态度来处理,假如从这样的公式,发展及造就一个终极的治疗,这种治疗会i发现它自己替个案的「自我」,充斥各种原初的幻想,换句话说,充斥着跟精神分析的觉醒完全相反的东西。

What is meant by what we have contributed under the term of alienation, when we begin to clarify it by this system of signifying involution (if I can call it that) of repetition?

当我们开始澄清「疏离」这个术语,将它视为是身体意符的退转,我们所提出的贡献,那是什麽意思?

We have put forward at first that alienation, is the signifier of the Other, in so far as it makes of the Other (with a capital O) a field marked by the same finiteness as the subject himself: the S (O), S, open bracelets: O barred.

我们首先提出,疏离是大它者的意符,因为它构成大它者(大写字母的大它者)的领域,标示的特性是,人作为生命的主体,是有限性:人作为生命的主体,被禁制大它者被括弧在里面。

What finiteness is at stake? The one which defines in the subject the fact of depending on the effects of the signifier.

怎样的有限性岌岌可危?那就是在主体身上,定义意符的效用,仅具有限的期限。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 41 Jacques Lacan

August 22, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 41
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 11: Wednesday, February 15, 1967

What the Wiederholungszwang introduces is clearly in contradiction with this primitive law, the one stated in the pleasure principle. And it is as such that Freud presents it to us.

这个「强迫性重复」所介绍的,显而易见,是跟原始的法则互相牴触,也就是跟快乐原则的所陈述的法则互相牴触。佛洛伊德所呈现给我们的就是这样。

Immediately, we who – I suppose – have read this text, can go to its most extreme point, that Freud formulates as what is called the “death drive” (a translation of Todestrieb). Namely, that he cannot stop extending this Zwang – this constraint of repetition – into a field which not alone envelopes that of living manifestation, but overflows it, by including it in the parenthesis of a return to the inanimate. He solicits us then to make there subsist as living – and we really have to put this term in inverted commas – a tendency that extends its law beyond the duration of the living.

立刻,我想,阅读过这个文本的我们,会将它推演到极端,也就是佛洛伊德的说明,作为所谓的「死亡的欲望驱力」。换句话说,他无法抑制自己,不将这个「重复的强制力」,扩大到不仅仅涵盖生命展示的领域,而且瀰漫这个领域,将它纳入退回到无生命的括弧领域。然后,他恳求我们就在那个地方,存活当着是「生命」。我们真的必须将这个术语,用引号涵盖起来,因为这个生之倾向延伸它的法则,超越了我们生活於世间的期限。

Let us look closely at it, because this is what constitutes the objection and the obstacle before which there rebels – as long, of course, as the thing is not understood – there rebels, first of all, a thinking that is used to giving a certain support to the term tendency. A support, precisely, which is the one that I have just evoked in putting the word “living” in quotation marks. Life, then, in this thinking, is no longer “the totality of forces which resist death”, to quote Bichat. It is the totality of forces in which there is signified that death will be for life its rail (rail).

让我们仔细地观看它,因为这是构成它遭受反对跟阻碍的地方。首先,习惯於支持「生之倾向」这个术语的思想,会不明就理地起而反抗。它确实是一种支持,我刚刚召唤的这个支持,当我将「生命」这个字词,用引号涵盖起来。引用生物学家畢查的话来说,在这样的思想里,生命不再是「抗拒死亡的全部力量」。在生命的全部力量那里,死亡是追求生命的一种阻碍。

In truth, this would not take us very far, if it were not a matter of something other than the being of life, but what we can, in a first approach, call its sense. Namely, something that we can read in signs which come from an apparent vital spontaneity – since the subject does not recognize himself in it – but where it is necessary that there should be a subject – since what is in question could not be a simple effect of the … fall-out, (as one might say), of the vital bubble which bursts, leaving the place in the (4) state in which it was previously – but of something which, everywhere we follow it, is formulated not as this simple return, but as a thinking of return, as repetition thinking.

事实上,假如它不是道道地地就是生命的实存,而只是我们刚开始接触时,所谓的它的意义,我们也不用那麽费心来探讨。换句话说,它是从显而易见的生命力的自动自发性,展现出来的符号,我们能够阅读出来的东西,而人作为生命的主体,並没有在符号的东西里面,体现他自己。在那里,我们所需要的是,应该要有一个生命的主体,生命力洋溢飽满,将这个地方,保持在原先的状态(因为受到置疑的部分,不可能仅仅是生命力外泄的影响)。这个生命的主体,无论我们在哪里看到,都应该被解释,不是当着这个单纯的退转到死亡,而是当着是生命力回转的思想,当着是重复生命力的思想。

Everything that Freud grasped on its trace in clinical experience, is – where he is going to seek it, where for him the problem is highlighted, namely, in what he calls “the negative therapeutic reaction”, or again what he tackles at this level as an effect (question mark) of primordial masochism, as that which, in a life, insists on remaining in a certain medium, (let us dot our i’s), let us say of sickness of failure – this is what we ought to grasp as repetition thinking.

佛洛伊德在精神分析诊所的经验,追踪这个问题所理解的一切是,在他将要寻找它的地方,对於他,这个问题被强调的地方,换句话说,在他所谓的「负面的治疗的反应」,或是他在这个层次,处理当着是原始受虐狂的影响(?),当着是在生活中,坚持要停留在某个媒介里,例如,失败的伤痛里。这就是我们应该理解的作为「重复的思想」。

Repetition thinking is a different domain to that of memory.

重复的思想,跟记忆的思想,是一个截然不同的领域。

Memory no doubt also evokes the trace, but by what do we recognise the memory trace? It has precisely as an effect non-repetition.

无可置疑的,记忆也会召唤这个痕迹,但是我们憑藉怎样的方法,来辨认出这是记忆的痕迹呢?记忆的痕迹的效应,确实就在於它不会一再地重复。

(If we seek to determine in experience, the way in which a micro-organism is endowed with memory, we will see it from the fact that it will not react to a stimulus the second time, the way it did the first time. And after all, this will sometimes make us speak about memory, with prudence, with interest, with indecision, at the level of certain inanimate organisations…)

(假如我们设法从精神分析经验,决定一个微小器官,如何禀赋有记忆的能力,我们会从这个事实看出,这个器官对於一个刺激,第二次,不会有跟第一次,有同样的反应。畢竟,我们有时候谈论到记忆时,要谨慎、好奇、不要武断,特别是在某些奄奄一息的机构单位。)

But repetition is something quite different! If we make of repetition in the directive principle of a field, in so far as it is properly subjective, we cannot fail to formulate what unites in material – in the style of a copula – the identical and the different.

但是重复是完全不同的东西!假如我们使用一个领域的强制原则,来解释重复,因为适当地说,重复是主观性的,我们一定会阐述材料的连接,以连系动词的方式:相同与相異。

This imposes on us again, to this end, the use of this unary trait, whose elective function we have recognised in connection with identification.

为了这个目的,我们会再一次被要求使用这个「单一特癥」。它具有选择性的功用,我们谈论到「认同」时,会认得出来。

I will recall what is essential to it in simple terms, having been able to experience that such a simple function appears astonishing in the context of philosophers – or supposed ones, as I recently happen to have had experience of – and that people found obscure, even opaque, this very simple remark that the unary trait plays the role of symbolic reference point, precisely by ruling out that it should be either similarity or difference, which are posited at the principle of differentiation.

我将会用简单的术语回顾一下它的重点,因为我们一直能够经验到,这样一个简单的功用,套在哲学家,或所谓的哲学家的情境,似乎会令人大吃一惊。因为我最近恰巧曾经有过这样的经验,人们发现这个简单的词语,语义模糊,甚至晦涩难懂。「单一的特癥」在符号的指称点,扮演的角色,确实就是排除「若非相同,就是有差異」的二者选一律,这个定律被提出当着是区别差異的法则。

I already, here, sufficiently underlined that the use of the One – which is this One that I distinguish from the unifying-One, because of being the countable-One – is to be able to function, to designate as so much “One” such heteroclite objects as a thought, a veil or another object that is here within our reach – and since I enumerated three, to count that, three. Namely, to hold as null even their most extreme difference of a nature in instauring their differentiation from something else.

在此,我已经充分地强调,这个「一」的用途。我区别这个「一」,跟「统一的一」有所不同,因为作为可以数的「一」,应该能够发挥功用,将像一个思想、一个面纱、或另外一个我们掌握得到的客体,这样的多变万化的客体,指明为一个「一」。既然我列举了三个,那我就数到三。换句话说,当我们建立它们彼此之间的差異时,我们将它们本质最根本的差異,认为是零。

Here is what gives us the function of number and everything that is instaured upon the operation of recurrence, whose proof, as you know, is based on this unique (5) module: that everything having been proved to be true … for n … that what … It being proved as true that what is true for n + 1 is so for (, it is enough for us to know what is involved so that n = 1, for the truth of a theorem to be assured. This grounds a being of truth which is entirely slippery. This sort of truth is, as I might say, the shadow of the number, it remains without grasp on any real.

这就是我们对於数字的功用的理解,每一样根据重复发生的演算,你们知道,它的证据,就是基於这个独特的模式:如果每一样东西被证明是真实,那就可以演算到无穷,都会被证明是真实,无穷次加一,也会是真实。(我们只要知道,这个无穷次加一,会牵涉到的东西,就足够成立一个定理的真理。)这使得真理的存在的基础,完全溜滑不定。我不妨这样说,这种真理,是数字的阴影,它始终没有掌控到任何的真实界。

But if we descend, as I might say, into time, which is … what is demanded of you today, in order to take up the identificatory schema of alienation and see how it functions: we will remark that the basic One of the operation of recurrence is not already there, that it is only instaured from repetition itself.

但是我不妨这样说,假如我们进入时间的领域,你们今天也有时间的压力,为了从事「疏离」这个辨识的基模,然后看看它是如何的运作:我们将会说,一再发生的运作的这个基本的「一」,不是原先已经在那里,它只是从重复的本身,被建立起来。

Let us take things up again. We do not have to remark here that repetition could not, dynamically, be deduced from the pleasure principle. We are only doing it to make you sense the relief of what is in question. Namely, that the maintenance of the least tension, as pleasure principle, in no way implies repetition.

让我们再一次从事这个问题。在此,我们並不需要说,重复不能够从快乐原则,意气风发地推论出来。
我们在此这样推论,只是为了使您们感觉到,我们所置疑的东西,是多麽令人欣慰。换句话说,作为快乐原则,只是维持在宁静安详的状态,根本就没有涵盖到「重复」的发生。

On the contrary, the rediscovery of a pleasure situation in its sameness can only be the source of operations that are always more costly, than simply following the angle of the least tension. By following it like an isothermic line, if I can express myself in this way, it will finish up indeed by leading, from pleasure situation to pleasure situation, to the desired maintenance of the least tension. If it implies some buckling or some return, this can only be along the path, as I might say, of an external structure, which is not at all unthinkable, since I evoked earlier the existence of an isothermic line. It is not at all in this way and from outside that the existence of the Zwang is implicated in the Freudian Wiederholung, in repetition.

相反地,快乐情境一模一样的重新再现,比起仅仅过着宁静安详的生活的角度,有时候只是代价更加昂贵的运作的来源。我们就像等温线一样地平稳生活,假如我能这样地表达我自己,那结果将会是,从一个快乐的情境,到另一个快乐的情境,最后到达我们所渴望的宁静安详的维护。假如它意味着某种的退却,或某种的退转,那仅能够是从一个外在结构的途径,我不妨这样说。那根本是匪夷所思,因为我早先就用一个等温线的存在比喻过。佛洛伊德所谓的「重复」,牵涉到的强制性的存在,根本就不是以这种方式,从外面切入。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com

Logic of Phantasy 40 Jacques Lacan

August 22, 2010

Logic of Phantasy 40
Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉岡

Lacan Seminar 14:
The Logic of Fantasy 11
幻见的逻辑

Seminar 11: Wednesday, February 15, 1967

I have to advance and to demonstrate in its movement what the nature of analytic knowledge is; very exactly how this knowledge comes to pass into the real.

我必须前进,在部分客体的活动中证明,精神分析师的知识的特性的什麽?确实地说,就是这个知识如何传递进入真实界。

We posit that this – the fact that it passes into the real – happens all the more in accordance with the ever growing pretension of the I affirming itself as fons et origo of being. This is what we have posited. But this does not elucidate anything of course about what I have just called the passage of this knowledge into the real.

我们提出,「它进入真实界」,若能揭发这个「我」肯定它自己,作为生命实存的「来源跟起源」,是一种越来越多的伪装,它就越能够发生。这就是我们曾经提出的观点。但是,这並没有阐明任何过程的东西,关於我刚刚称为的「精神分析师进入真实界的知识」。

I am here alluding to nothing other that the formula that I gave of Verwerfung of rejection, which is that everything that is rejected in the symbolic reappears in the real.

我在此提到的,道道地地就是我提供「拒绝」这个公式:每一样在符号界被拒绝的东西,会在真实界重新再出现。

This prevalence of the I, at the high point of something which is quite difficult to grasp without giving rise to misunderstandings … (to say “the epoch”, to say even as we have said “the era of science”, always means opening up some bias towards a note that one could pinpoint well enough by the term of “Spenglerism”, for example. The idea of “human phases” is not here, certainly, something that can satisfy us, and lends itself to many misunderstandings) … Let us start simply from the fact that it is true that discourse has its empire and that I believe I have demonstrated to you that psychoanalysis is only thinkable by putting among its predecessors the discourse of science.

这个「我」若是过於招摇,匪夷所思地意气风发,常会自以为是地产生误解而不自知。(当我们说「这个时代」,甚至当我们曾经说「这个科学的时代」,那总是意味着,这样的语调会产生某种的偏见,例如,「史宾格勒」在「西方的没落」一书里,使用时代观的牵强附会。「人类的时代」这样的观念,确实无法令人满意,因为它会产生很多的误解。)让我们就从这个事实开始,精神分析的真理论述,确实有它自己的国度。我相信,我已经跟你们证明,精神分析学只有以科学的真理论述,充当它的理论前辈,它才能成为一家之言。

It is a matter of knowing where it is placed in the effects of this discourse. Inside? Outside? It is there, as you know, that we are trying to grasp it as a sort of fringe which trembles, something analogous to these most tangible forms in which the organism reveals itself. I am speaking about what is a fringe.

问题是要知道,在这个科学真理论述的影响里,它被定位在哪里?在科学里面?还是科学外面?你们知道,就在那里,我们正在设法理解它,作为一种摇摆不定的边缘状态,类似於有机器官显露它自己时,会有具体可础知的形状。我现在谈论的是,边缘的状态是什麽样子。

There is nevertheless a step to be taken before recognising in it the trait of the animated, for thinking, as we understand it, is not animated. It is the effect of the signifier, namely, in the last resort, of the trace.

可是,这个一个必须被採取的步骤,这样,我们才能从里面,认出被赋予生命力的特色。据我们所知,思想並没有被赋予这个生命力的特色。这是意符的效应,换句话说,追根究底,这是「痕迹」的效应。

What is called structure, is that. We follow thinking by its trace (a la trace) and by (2) nothing else. Because the trace has always caused thinking.

所谓的结构,就是这个。我们所跟随的,就是思想的痕迹,不是别的痕迹,因为痕迹总是会引起我们去思想。

The relation of this procedure to psychoanalysis can be sensed immediately provided one can imagine it, or indeed has experience of it.

对於精神分析学,这个程序的关系,马上可以被感觉出来,只要我们能够想像它,或是我们曾经经验过它。

That Freud, inventing psychoanalysis, is the introduction of a method of detecting a trace of thinking, where thinking itself masks it by recognising itself differently in it – differently to the way that the trace designates it – this is what I have promoted. This is something against which no deployment of Freudianism as an ideology will prevail. A naturalist ideology, for example. That this point of view, which is a point of view of the history of philosophy, is put forward in these times, by people who authorise themselves as having the quality of psychoanalyst, shows what is going to give more precision to the response that the question I first posed requires.

佛洛伊德創立精神分析学时,介绍一种方法来侦测思想的痕迹,当思想本身在痕迹里,若无其事地认出它自己,却又刻意予以掩饰。痕迹指明出思想,思想却装着是若无其事,这就是我所揭橥的。面对这样的佯装,佛洛伊德的理论,作为一种意识形态,再怎样地发挥,也是一筹莫展。拿自然主义的意识形态当例子。自然主义的这个观点,是哲学史的一种观点。在这些时代,有一些自认为是具有精神分析师资格的人,提出这个观点来显示,它可以更精确地回应,我先前所提出的问题。

Namely, how does it happen that analytic knowledge comes to pass into the real.

换句话说,精神分析学的知识,是如何渐渐进入这个真实界?

The path through which what I am teaching passes into the real is none other, bizarrely, that Verwerfung, than the effective rejection – that we see happening in a certain generation – of the position of the psychoanalyst, in so far as it wants to know nothing about what is nevertheless his one and only knowledge.

我正在引导你们的这条途径,进入真实界,不可思议地,那道道地地就是「拒绝」,斩钉截铁地拒绝。我们看到,在某一时代的精神分析师的立场,常会有拒绝的现象发生,因为符号界的知识,对他们已经不再具有吸引力,他们要知道的是生命的实存。

What is rejected in the symbolic ought to be focused in the subjective field, somewhere, in order to reappear at a correlative level in the real. Where? Here, no doubt. What does that mean? It is what touches you here, namely, this point which is the one to which witness is borne by what the journalists have already located under the label of “structuralism” and which is nothing other than your interest; the interest that you take is what is said here, an interest which is real.

在符号界被拒绝的东西,应该被集中在人作为生命主体的领域,这样,它才能在真实界,以同等的份量,重新出现。在哪里?无可置疑的,就是在这里。那是什麽意思?那就是在这里,你们的内心被触动到的地方,换句话说,新闻记者已经使用「结构主义」的标签找到定位,作为它的见证。那道道地地就是你们的興趣,你们对於我所说的内容感到興趣,你们对於真实界怀着好奇的興趣。

Naturally, among you, there are psychoanalysts. There is – it is already here – a generation of psychoanalysts in which there will be incarnated the correct position off the subject, in so far as it is required by the analytic act.

当然,你们现场在座,也有一些是精神分析师。就在这里,这一代的精神分析师,他们会具体表现出,他们作为生命的主体的正确立场,因为这是精神分析的行为所要求的。

When this generation has come to maturity, you will measure the distance travelled – by reading the unthinkable things, printed luckily, so that they will be able to bear witness, for anyone who knows how to read – the prejudices from which it will have been necessary to extract the plan that this realisation of analysis requires.

当这一代的精神分析师逐渐成熟时,你们将会看出这一段行程的进展。由於印刷术的进步,他们能够阅读到以前难於获得的书籍,透过这些阅读,他们也能够亲身见证到各种的偏见。由於这些偏见,对於精神分析学的计划的实践,往往窒碍难行。

Among these prejudices and these unthinkable things, there will be … there will also be structuralism, I mean: what is now entitled under this title to a certain value, quoted on the stock market of cogitation.

在这些偏见跟这些不可思议的事情当中,也还有结构主义。我的意思是,有一些价值的理念,挟结构主义的这个名义,大张旗鼓,牵强附会,引以为自重。

If those among you who have lived through what characterised the middle of this century, (or let us say its first part), the trials that we have gone through in terms of strange manifestations in civilisation – if you had not been put to sleep, subsequently, (3) by a philosophy which quite simply continued its noisy chatter, I would now be taking less time, to try to mark the necessary traits, for you not to be completely lost, for the phase of this century which is going to follow immediately.

假如你们有些人,曾经经历过本世纪中业的这个特征,(我们不妨说是前半世纪,)我们曾经经历过的这个考验,在文明世界的天方夜谭,假如你们随后並没有被这种结构主义哲学的喋喋不休催眠,那麽就不劳我花费那麽多时间,作必须要的澄清和解释,以免让你们完全迷失歧途,因为这个世纪的后面一半,旋踵即将来到。

When Freud introduced for the first time – in his Jenseits, Beyond the pleasure principle – the concept of repetition, as a forcing, Zwang – repetition, Wiederholung, this repetition is forced, Wiederholungszwang – when he introduces it in order to give its definitive state to the status of the subject of the unconscious, do we properly measure the import of this conceptual intrusion?

当佛洛伊德在他的「超越快乐原则」一书,第一次介绍「重复」的观念,作为一种强迫性的重复,「重复」就身不由己般地去而复来。当他介绍它,为了给予作为无意识的生命主体的地位,一个明确的状态,我们是否要适当地衡量一下,这个观念的闯入,带给我们的意义吗?

If it is called “beyond the pleasure principle”, it is precisely because it broke with what up to then gave him the module of a psychic function, namely, this homeostasis, which echoes the one that the substance of the organism requires, which reduplicates it and repeats it, and which is the one that, in the nervous system isolated as such, he defines by the law of least tension.

它之所以被称为「超越快乐原则」,确实是因为它中断直到当时一直盛行的心理模式,换句话说,这种的体内平衡,回应有机体的物质所要求的体内平衡,它会一再复制,一再重复。若是将神经系统的本身孤立出来,他给予的定义就是:宁静安详的法则。

雄伯译
springherohsiung@gmail.com