Archive for January, 2011

Anxiety 258 Jacques Lacan

January 31, 2011

Anxiety 258

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK X
雅克、拉康研討會第十冊

ANXIETY 論焦慮

1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

There are absolutely no details about this in Piaget who of course knows well that if there is no pressure, nothing will come out of the tap even if you turn it on, but who believes he is able to omit this because he is placing himself at the level of the so called mind of the child. Let me continue. This seems to be completely stupid, all of this, but you are going to see.

在皮亞傑的身上,絕對沒有關於這個的細節。當然,皮亞傑知道得很清楚,假如沒有壓力,水龍頭不會有任何東西出來,即使你跟它轉開。但是誰相信他能夠忽略這一點,因為他將自己放置於所謂小孩的心靈的層次。讓我繼續說下去。所有這一切,似乎匪夷所思。但是你們將會明白。

The coming into view, the springing forth; the meaning of the whole adventure does not emerge from my speculations, but from
experience. You will see. It emerges all the same from this remark that I have made to you – I who do not claim to have understood exhaustively – that there is one thing that is very certain: it is that the explanation of the tap is not well done, if what is involved is the tap as cause, by saying that it operates sometimes on and sometimes off. A tap is made to be turned off.

整個冒險的暴露,冒出,及意義,並不從我的妄自猜測,而是從精神分析經驗出現。你們將會看出。它仍然是從我跟你們做的這個談論出現。我並沒有宣稱我全面性地瞭解。但是有一件事是非常確定的:水龍頭的這個解釋還不是很貼切,假如牽涉的是把水龍頭當著是原因,然後說,它有時的操作是開,有時的操作是關。水龍頭的設計是用來關上。

It is enough that once, because of a strike, you no longer know when the pressure is going to come back to know that, if you have left it on, there are lots of inconveniences, that it ought therefore to be turned off even when there is no pressure.

假如自來水廠罷工,一但你不知道壓力什麼時候要回來,你就會知道,假如你讓水龍頭開著,會有許多的不方便。因此它應該被關上,即使這時並沒有水壓。

Now what is marked in what happens in the transmission from the explainer to the reproducer? It is something that Piaget
deplores, which is that the so called reproducer child no longer has the slightest interest in anything that is involved
concerning two branches, the operation of the fingers and
everything that follows from it.

從解釋者到復述者的傳遞所發生的事情,現在會標示著什麼?這是某件皮亞傑所哀歎的事情。所謂的復述者的小孩根本不再有任何的興趣,對於任何牽涉到關於兩個分叉的事情:手指頭的運作,以及跟隨運作而來的一切。

Nevertheless, he points out, the other has transmitted a certain part of it to him. The wastage in comprehension seems to be enormous to him; but I assure you, if you read the explanations of the little third party, of the little reproducer, of little Riv in the text in question, you will notice that what he precisely puts the stress on, are two things: namely the effect of the tap as something (13) which can be turned off and the result, namely that thanks to a tap one can fill a basin without it overflowing, the emergence as such of the dimension of the tap as cause.

可是,他指出來,這一切已經傳遞某部份的東西給他。對於他而言,理解的消耗物似乎是巨大的;但是我告訴你們,假如你們閱讀第三者的解釋,這位小小的復述者的解釋,在討論中的文本裏的瑞夫的解釋,你們就會注意到,他確實施加壓力的有兩件東西:換句話說,水龍頭的影響,作為某件能夠被關掉的東西,以及結果。也就是說,由於水龍頭,我們灌滿水盆,而不會讓水滿溢出來。水龍頭的向度的出現本身,作為原因。

Why does Piaget so completely miss the phenomenon which is produced, if not because he totally fails to recognise that what there is for a child in a tap as cause, are the desires that the tap provokes in him, namely that for example it makes him want to have a pee or, like every time one is in the presence of water, that one is with respect to that water a communicating vessel and that it is not for nothing that in order to speak to you about libido I took this metaphor of what happens between the subject and his specular image.

為什麼皮亞傑如此渾然錯過被產生的這個現象?難道不是因為他完全沒有體認出,對於小孩而言,在水龍頭裏面作為原因的東西,是水龍頭在他身上喚起的欲望。換句話說,例如,水龍頭使他想要尿尿,或者像每一次我們在水的面前,我們是一艘溝通的船隻。這並非毫無意義,為了要跟你們談論到力比多,我採取這個比喻,發生在生命的主體跟他的魅影的意像。

If man had a tendency to forget that in the presence of water he is a communicating vessel, there is in the childhood of most the washtub to remind him that effectively, what happens in a child of the age of those that Piaget designates for us, in the presence of a tap, is this irresistible type of acting-out which consists in doing something which runs the greatest risk of upsetting it, and thus the tap finds itself once again in the place of the cause, namely at the level also of the phallic dimension, as that which necessarily introduces the fact that the little tap is something which can have a relationship with the plumber, that one can unscrew, dismantle, replace… etc: it is (-^).

假如人有一個傾向去忘記,在水的面前,他是一艘溝通的船隻。在大部人的童年,常有澡盆提醒他,有效地,發生在這個年紀的小孩身上,皮亞傑跟我們指明出來,在水龍頭的前面,有著這種無法抗拒的演出,在於做某件冒著引起澡盆傾翻的危險。因此,我們再一次發現水龍頭在此代替了原因的位置。換句話說,在陽具向度的這個層次,當著必須要介紹這個事實:水龍頭是某件能夠跟鉛管工,有某種的關係。我們能夠鬆開螺絲,拆解,更換、、、等等。這是一種「負減陽具」。

It is not the fact of omitting these elements of experience – that moreover Piaget, who is very well informed about analytical matters, is not ignorant of – that I intend to underline, it is that he does not see the link between these relationships that we call, for our part, “complexual” and the whole original constitution of what he claims to question, the function of the cause.

我打算強調的,並不是這個事實:他忽略精神分析經驗的這些因素。而且,皮亞傑對於精神分析的事情知之甚詳,不會不知道。我要強調的是,他沒有看出,就我們而言,所謂的「心理情結」的這些關係,以及他宣稱要質疑點整個原初的結構,原因的功用。

We will return to this language of the child. I pointed out to you that the new evidence of original works, which one can only be astonished were not performed up to now, allows us now to grasp in statu nascendi the first operation of the signifier in these hypnopompic monologues of the very small child, almost two years old, and to grasp in them – I will read you these texts at the proper time – in the fascinating form of the Oedipus complex itself here and now; already articulated, giving here the experimental proof of the idea that I always put forward to you that the unconscious is essentially the effect of the signifier.

我們將會回到小孩的這個語言。我跟你們指出,這些原創性的著作的這個新的證據,現在使我們能夠理解意符的第一個運作,原初形式的運作,在小孩身上的睡覺後的自言自語,這個小孩幾乎只有兩歲大。(直到目前,這些原創性的著作還沒有被運用,我們只有感慨萬千。在適當的時刻,我將會跟你們朗讀這些文本。)
我們能夠在這些自言自語裏去理解,此時此地,以伊底普斯情結的本身的迷人的形式。它已經被表達,在此提供試驗性的證據,證明我已經跟你們提出這個觀念:無意識基本上是意符的影響。

(14) I will finish in this connection with the position of the psychologists, for the work that I am speaking to you about is prefaced by a psychologist who is very attractive at first
sight in the sense that he admits that it has never happened that a psychologist has interested himself-in these functions starting from, he tells us – a psychologist’s own admission – from the supposition that nothing interesting is notable about the coming into play of language in the subject, except at the level of education: in effect it is something that is learned.

關於這一點,我將會以討論心理學家的立場作一總結。我正在跟你們談論的這部著作,由一位心理學家跟它寫序言。這位心理學家乍然看起來,非常引人注意,因為他承認:心理學家從來沒有對於起源於這個假設的這些功用感到興趣,(他告訴我們,一位心理學家自己承認。)這個假設是:關於生命主體身上的語言的運作,沒有什麼有趣的事情值得注意,除了在教育的層次上。事實上,這個語言的運作是學習而來的東西。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Anxiety 257 Jacques Lacan

January 31, 2011

Anxiety 257

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK X
雅克、拉康研討會第十冊

ANXIETY 論焦慮

1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

For stories things function differently. But what does Piaget
call stories? I assure you that he has a way of transcribing the story of Niobe which is a pure scandal.

對於故事而言,事情的功用不一樣。但是皮亞傑所謂的故事是什麼呢?我告訴你們,他擁有一種特別的方式,來書寫純粹是醜聞的尼奧比的故事。

Because it does not seem even to occur to him that in speaking about Niobe, one is speaking about a myth and that there is perhaps a dimension of myth which imposes itself, which absolutely clings to the simple term which is put forward under this proper name Niobe, and that to transform it into a sort of emollient hogwash – I would ask you to consult this text which is simply incredible – one is proposing perhaps to the child something within his range, which is simply something which signals a profound deficit in the experimenter, Piaget himself, with regard to what are the functions of language.

他甚至沒有想到,當我們談論到尼奧比時,我們是談論有關一個神話。可能會有一種神話的向度賦加在自己之上。這個神話緊附著這個被提出的術語,以「尼奧比」這個專有名詞。為了要將它轉換成為大家可以接受的通俗作品,我要求你們參照這篇真是匪夷所思的文本。我們或許正在跟小孩建議某件他能夠理解的東西。這個東西僅是某件指明實驗者一個深刻的缺點,皮亞傑自己,關於語言的功用是什麼。

If one is proposing a myth, let it be one, and not this vague little story: “Once upon a time there was a lady called Niobe who had twelve sons and twelve daughters.

假如我們正在建議一個神話,就讓它當著是一個神話,而不是這個模糊的小故事:「從前,有一位女士名叫尼奧比。她有十二個兒子跟十二個女兒」。

She met a fairy who had only one son and no daughter; now the
lady mocked the fairy because she had only one boy; the fairy
then became angry and tied the lady to a rock. The lady cried
for ten years, and then she was changed into a stream, her tears had made a stream which still flows”.

她遇見一位仙女。這位仙女只有一個兒子,沒有女兒。現在這位女士嘲笑這位仙女,因為她只有一位男孩。仙女於是生氣起來,將女士綁到岩石上。女士哭泣了十年,然後她被轉變成為一條溪流,她的眼淚已經成為現在依舊在流的溪流。

This has really no equivalent except the two other stories that Piaget proposes, that of the little black boy who breaks his cake on the way out and melts the pat of butter on the return journey, and the still worse one of children transformed into swans, who remain all their lives separated from their parents because of this curse, but who, when they return, not alone find their (11) parents dead, but regaining their first shape – this is not indicated in the mythical dimension – in regaining their first shape, they have nevertheless aged. I do not know if there is a single myth which allows the aging process to continue during a
transformation.

確實沒有故事可以跟它相比,除了皮亞傑建議的其他兩個的故事。一個是黑人小孩的故事。這個小孩在外出途中掉落蛋糕,回家途中,幾塊奶油融化掉。更糟糕的是,有一位小孩被轉變成為天鵝。這些小孩變成的天鵝終生都跟他們的父母分開,因為這個詛咒。但是當他們回來時,他們發現不但父母死了,而且他們恢復他們原先的形狀。(這並不是這個神話向度所指示的。)當他們恢復他們原有的形狀時,他們已經衰老了。我不知道是否有一個神話,在轉變中,讓衰老的過程繼續下去。

In a word, the invention of these stories of
Piaget have one thing in common with those of Binet in that they reflect the profound wickedness of every pedagogical position. I apologise to you for wandering off into this parenthesis.

總之,皮亞傑杜撰這些故事,跟賓涅特的故事有一個共通的地方。他們都反映出每一個教學立場惡作劇的一面。我跟你們抱歉,因為散漫無章地閒扯。

Let us come back to my explanations. At least you will have
grasped in it this dimension noted by Piaget himself of this sort of wastage, of entropy, as I might put, of comprehension which is going to be necessarily degraded by the very fact of the explanation being necessarily verbal.

讓我們回到我的解釋。至少,你們將已經理解,皮亞傑自己注意到的這個向度,這種消耗物的向度,結果不明的向度,我不妨說,理解的向度。當我們必然是使用文辭來解釋時,這種向度的意涵必然受到侵蝕。

He himself notes to his great surprise that there is an enormous contrast between the explanations, when what is involved is an explanatory one like that, and what happens in his “stories”, “stories”, that I repeat I put in inverted commas. Because it is very probable that if the “stories” confirm his theory regarding the entropy, if I may express myself thus, of comprehension, it is precisely because they are not “stories”, and that, if they were “stories”, the true myth, there could probably be no wastage.

他自己也大吃一驚地注意到,這些解釋之間有一個巨大的對比,因為牽涉到內容是像那樣的一個解釋的內容。我重述的這個「故事」所發生的事情,我用引號所括弧的「故事」。證實他關於理解的結果不明的理論,容我這樣說。這確實是因為它們並不是「故事」,就算將它們歸屬為「故事」,那是真實的神話故事:可能沒有消耗物。

In any case, I for my part propose a little sign to you, it is that, when one of these children, when he has to repeat the story of Niobe, makes emerge, at the point that Piaget tells us that the lady had been tied to a rock – never, in any form, has the myth of Niobe articulated such a moment – of course, it is easy, playing, you will be told, on something misheard and on a pun, but why precisely this one makes emerge the dimension of a rock which has a stain, restoring the dimension that in my previous seminar I made emerge for you as being essential for the victim of sacrifice, that of not having any. But let us leave it.

無論如何,就我而言,我跟你們建議一個小的跡象。當其中一位小孩必須重述尼奧比的故事時,在皮亞傑告訴我們,女士曾經被綁在岩石上,他會使石頭的向度出現。(尼奧比的神話從來沒有在這樣的時刻被表達),當然,要以訛傳訛,或玩弄雙關語也是很容易。但是為什確實這個會使具有污點的岩石的向度出現,恢復這個向度。在我先前的講座,我讓這個向度出現在你們面前,當著對於犧牲奉獻的受害者,最基本的東西,當著述沒有任何受害者的向度。

It is of course not a proof, but simply a suggestion.
I return to my explanation and to the remark of Piaget that,
despite the defects of the explanation, I mean the fact that the explainer explains badly, the one to whom he is explaining
understands much better than the explainer, by his inadequate
explanations, bears witness to having understood. Of course here the explanation always arises: he himself does the work again.

當然,這並不是一個證據,但是確實是一個建議。我回到我的解釋,回到皮亞傑的談論,儘管解釋的缺點,我的意思是,事實上,解釋者解釋得很糟糕。他針對解釋的人,瞭解得比解釋者還要清楚。但是他的不夠充份的解釋,見證到他曾經瞭解。當然,在此,解釋總是會發生。他自己再一次做這件工作。

Because how does he define the rate of understanding between
children? What the reproducer has understood?What the explainer has understood? (12) I do not know if you notice that there is one thing here that is never spoken about, it is what Piaget himself has understood!

因為他如何定義小孩之間的這個瞭解的比率?復述者瞭解多少?解釋者瞭解多少?我不知道是否你們注意到,在此有一件事情從來沒有被談論過,那就是:皮亞傑自己瞭解多少?

It is nevertheless essential, because we do not leave the children to spontaneous language, namely to see what they understand.

可是,這個問題很重要,因為我們讓小孩接受自動自發的語言,並不是為了看出,他們瞭解什麼。

Now it is clear that what Piaget seems not to have seen, is that his own explanation, from the point of view of anyone at all, of some other third person, cannot be understood at all. For as I told you earlier, if this little blocked tube here is switched on, thanks to something that Piaget gives all its importance to, the operation of the fingers which make the tap turn in such a way that the water can flow, does that mean that it flows?

顯而易見的,皮亞傑似乎沒有注意到的是,他自己的解釋,從任何人的觀點,從某個第三者的觀點,都無法被理解。我早先曾經告訴過你們,假如在此這個被阻塞的小水管被轉開,由於皮亞傑賦予它重要性的某件東西,手指頭的運作使水龍頭這樣地轉動,水就能夠流出來。那就意味著水流出來嗎?

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Anxiety 256 Jacques Lacan

January 30, 2011

Anxiety 256

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK X
雅克、拉康研討會第十冊

ANXIETY 論焦慮

1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

The world of suppositions that lies beneath this is, I would not say unfathomable; one can specify them for the greater part: it is an excessively wide-spread supposition, namely that the word is made to communicate.

位於這個底下的這些假設的世界並非深不可測,容我這樣說。我們能夠指明它們的大部份。這是一個過度擴散的假設。換句話說,文字是被用來作為溝通。

That is not true. If Piaget cannot grasp this sort of gap there again which he himself nevertheless designates – and this is really what is important in reading his works, I beg you between now and the time that I return or I do not return, to get hold of The language and thought of the child which is an altogether admirable book; it illustrates at every moment the degree to which what Piaget collects in terms of facts in this approach, which is aberrant in principle, demonstrates something quite different to what he thinks; naturally since he is far from being a fool, it happens that Piaget’s own remarks go along that very path, in any case for example the problem as to
why this language of the subject is essentially made for him,
never happens in a group.

這並非是真實。假如皮亞傑無法理解,他自己所指明的在那裏的這種差距。這確實是我們閱讀他的著作,重要的地方。在現在跟我回來,或沒有回來的時刻之間,我要求你們去找到「兒童的語言跟思想」這本書。這是非常值得讚賞的一本書。它隨時都在舉例說明,皮亞傑以這個方法,收集一些事實,到達什麼程度。它在原理方面是偏離正道。它證明某件完全不同於他所思考的東西。當然,他決非是一個傻瓜。皮亞傑自己的談論恰巧就是沿著那條研究途徑。例如,有關生命主體的這個語言的難題,基本上是為他而設的。這個難題在群體中永遠不會發生。

What he lacks, I would ask you to read these pages because I cannot go through them with you, but at every moment you will see how his thinking slips, clings to a position of the question which is precisely the one which veils the phenomenon which, as a matter of fact, is very clearly displayed, and the essential of it is essentially the fact that it is a different thing to say that the word has essentially for effect to communicate, while (9) the effect of the word, the effect of the signifier is to give rise in the subject to the dimension of the signified essentially.

他所欠缺的,我要求你們閱讀這幾頁,因為我無法陪著你們讀完。但是隨時你們將會看出,他的思想是如何發生失誤,如何堅持這個問題的立場。確實就是這個立場,遮蔽了事實上顯而易見的這個現象。它的重點基本上就是這個事實:它跟文字基本上擁有溝通作為結果的說法,截然不同。文字的結果,意符的結果,基本上,就是要在生命主體的身上,產生意旨真實界的向度

I will return to it again if necessary. That this relationship to the other that is depicted for us here as being the key, under the name of the socialisation of language, the key to the turning point between egocentric language and completed language, this’turning point is not, in its function, a point of effect, of effective impact, it is nameable as a desire to communicate. It is indeed moreover because this desire is disappointed in Piaget – it is quite tangible – that his whole pedagogy here gives rise to systems and ghosts that are, in fact, rather affected.

假如有需要,我將會回頭談論它。生命主體跟大它者的關係,在此跟我們描述的,作為這個關鍵,以語言社會化的名義,作為這個轉捩點的關鍵,處於自我中心的語言跟完成的語言之間。在它的功用上,這個轉捩點並不是一個結果的點,並不是一個具有影響盟約的點。它能夠被命名為想要溝通的欲望。而且,這確實是因為這個欲望對於皮亞傑感到失望。(這是相當具體明白的),他整個的教學法在此產生制度跟鬼魅。事實上,這些制度及鬼魅相當受到影響。

That the child appears to him to only half-understand him, he adds: “They do not even understand one another”. But is that where the question lies?

他覺得兒童對他只是一知半解。他補充說:「他們甚至互相不瞭解。」但是問題出在哪里?

One sees very well in his text how the question is not there.
One sees it in the way that he articulates what he calls
understanding between children. As you know this is how he
proceeds; -he begins by taking for example the following schema which is going to be depicted on an image which is going to be the support of the explanations, the schema of a tap.

我們在他的文本看得很清楚,問題不是出在那裏。我們看出這個問題,從他表達有關他所謂的兒童之間的瞭解的方式。眾所周知,這是他前進的方式。例如,他開始採取以下的基模。這個基模將會根據一個意像被描述。這個意像將作為解釋的支持,一個水龍頭的意像。

That gives us something more or less like that, this being the cross-section of the tap; you say to the child, as often as necessary: “You see the little tube here – it will also be called the door – it is blocked; which means that the water there cannot get through in order to flow here into what will also be called in a certain fashion the outlet, etc”.

我們得到的意像大約是那樣:假如這是水龍頭的交接部份,你經常不斷地對這個小孩說:「你看到這裏的這個小管,它也可以被稱為是門。它被塞住了。這意味著,那裏的水無法流出來,為了流入用某種方式所謂的出口,等等。」

He explains. Here is this schema, if you want to test it. He
thought moreover – I point this out to you in passing – he should complete it himself with the presence of the basin which will absolutely not intervene in the six or nine, seven points of explanation that he gives us.

他解釋,這就是這個基模,假如你想要測試它。而且,他認為,(順便讓我跟你們指出這一點,)他自己應該完成它,用水盆的存在。這個水盆絕對不會介入這六點、或九點,或七點的解釋,他給予我們的解釋。

He will be very struck by the following: the fact is that the
child repeats very well all the terms of the explanation that he, Piaget, has given him. He is going to make use of this child as an explainer for another child, whom he will bizarrely call the reproducer.

他對於以下的事實將會印象深刻:事實上,小孩很仔細地重複所有解釋的術語,皮亞傑所給予的術語。他將使用這個小孩,充當對於另一個小孩的結釋者。他給予另外這個小孩一個古怪的名稱:複製者。

First phase: he notices, not without some astonishment, that what the child has repeated so well, which means for him that he obviously has understood – I am not saying that he is wrong, I am saying that Piaget does not even ask himself the question – that what the child has repeated to him, Piaget, in the test that he carried out with a view to seeing what the child had understood, (10) is not going to be in any way identical to what he is then going to explain. At which Piaget makes this very correct remark, that what he elides in his explanations, is precisely what the child has understood, without seeing that in giving this explanation this would imply that the child for his part would explain nothing if he had really understood everything, as Piaget says.

第一個短語:他注意到,不是沒有大為吃驚,這個小孩重複得很清楚。對於他而言,這意味著,顯而易見,他已經瞭解。我不是說,他搞錯了。我是在說,皮亞傑甚至沒有問他自己這個問題。這個小孩曾經復述,在皮亞傑他執行的考試,為了要看出這個小孩瞭解什麼。小孩所複述的,根本就不同於他當時所要的解釋。在這個時候,皮亞傑做了這個非常正確的談論:他在他的解釋所閃躲的,確實就是這個小孩所瞭解的。但是他沒有看出,當他在給予這個解釋時,這將意味著,就他而言,假如小孩真的瞭解一切,他將什麼也不解釋。皮亞傑如是說。

It is of course not true that he has understood everything
– as you are going to see – any more than anybody else.
With these very insufficient explanations that the explainer
gives to the reproducer, what astonishes Piaget, is that in a field like that of these examples, namely the field that he calls that of explanations – because I am leaving to one side, for lack of time, the field that he describes as that of “stories”.

當然,這並非是真實,你們將會看出,他跟任何其他的人一樣,並沒有什麼都瞭解。皮亞傑所感到驚訝的是,解釋者給予復述者這些不充足的解釋,在像這些例子的解釋的領域,換句話說,他所謂的解釋的領域。因為時間不足,我將要離開這個議題,去談論他描述為「故事」的議題。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Anxiety 255 Jacques Lacan

January 29, 2011

Anxiety 255

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK X
雅克、拉康研討會第十冊

ANXIETY 論焦慮

1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

As regards the cause, let us try to grasp in the very thing which is the common undergrowth of the understandings you have which are bequeathed to you from a certain hubbub of philosophical discussions because of having passed through a class designated by this name, La Philosophie, because it is quite clear that an index of this origin of the function of the cause is very clearly given us in history by the following: the fact is that it is in、 the measure of the critique of this function of cause, of the attempt to remark that it is ungraspable, that what it is necessarily, is always at least a cause behind a cause, and what is necessary for it to be other in order to be equivalent to this
incomprehensible, without which moreover we cannot even begin to articulate anything whatsoever.

關於這個原因,讓我們理解,從你們擁有的共同的一知半解。這些瞭解是因為哲學的討論的喧天價響,而傳遞給你們。顧名思義,「哲學」討論原因,由來已久。
顯而易見,原因的功用的這個起源的一個索引,有以下的歷史淵源:事實上,它是在原因裏面。原因的這個功用的批判,企圖要說,這是無法理解的,它是需要,總是至少是一個原因背後的原因。所以需要讓它成為別的原因,為了要相等於這個不可理解的原因。假如沒有這個原因,我們甚至無法開始表達任何東西。

But of course, this critique has its fecundity and one sees it in history: the more the cause is criticised, the more the exigencies that one can describe as those of determinism impose themselves on thought.

當然,這種批判有它的豐沛的力量。我們在歷史中可以看到:原因越被批判,我們能夠描述的迫切性就越多。決定論的迫切性賦加自己在思想上。

The less the cause is graspable, the more everything appears caused, and up to (7) the final term, the one that has been called the meaning of history.

原因越少被理解,被引起的東西似乎就越多。一直到這個最後的術語,這個術語被稱為歷史的意義。

One can say nothing other than that “everything is caused”,
except for the fact that everything that happens there presides and always begins from a “sufficiently caused”, in the name of which there is reproduced in history a beginning, an un-caused which I would not dare to call absolute, but which was certainly unexpected and which classically leaves lots of work to be done nachträglich by the prophets, which is the daily bread of the aforesaid prophets, who are the professional interpreters of the meaning of history.

我們僅僅只能夠說「每件事情都有原因」,除了這個事實,每一件發生在那裏的事情,都統轄,並且總是從「充份的原因」的開始。以這個「充份的原因」的名義,在歷史中,就有一個開始,一個「沒有原因」被複製。我不敢稱這個開始,或「沒有原因」為「絕對」。但是它確實是出乎預期之外,在分類上,它留下許多可以讓預言家運作的空間。這是前述的預言家們的日常食糧。他們是歷史的意義的專業詮釋者。

Now let us say very simply how we envisage this function of the cause. We envisage it, this function everywhere present in our thinking about the cause, I would say first of all to make myself understood, as the shadow cast, but very precisely and better the metaphor of this primordial cause, substance of this function of the cause which is precisely the o qua anterior to all this phenomenology. We have defined o as the remainder of the constitution of the subject at the locus of the Other in so far as it has to constitute itself as a speaking subject, a barred subject, $.

現在讓我們簡單地說,我們如何構想這個原因的功用。我們構想它,在我們思考有關原因時處處存在的這個功用。首先,為了讓我自己被人瞭解,我會將它當作是陰影的投射。但是更明確,更恰當地說,這個原初的原因的比喻,原因的這個功用的物質,確實就是這個客體,作為早先存在於所有這個現象學。我們曾經定義這個客體,當著是生命主體的形成的殘餘物,在大它者的軌跡。它必須形成它自己,作為一個言說的生命的主體,一個被閹割的生命的主體。

If the symptom is what we are saying, namely entirely
implicatable in this process of the constitution of the subject, in so far as he has to construct himself in the locus of the Other, the implication of the cause in the becoming of the symptom as I defined it for you earlier, is a legitimate part of this becoming.

假如病徵是我們正在說的內涵,換句話說,完全牽涉到生命的主體的形成的過程,他必須建構他自己,在大它者的軌跡。原因的被牽涉到病徵的形成,如我早先跟你們定義的。這是這種形成的合理的部份。

This means that the cause implicated in the question of the symptom is literally, if you wish, a question, but one of which the symptom is not the effect. It is the result of it. The effect is the desire. But it is a unique effect and quite strange in that it is what is going to explain to us, or at the very least make us understand, all the difficulties that arose from linking the common relationship which is imposed on the mind between the cause and the effect. The fact is that the primordial effect of this cause, o, at the level of desire, this effect which is called desire and this effect which I have just qualified as strange since, you should note, since it is precisely desire, it is an effect which has nothing effected about it.

這意味著,牽涉到病徵的問題的這個原因,實質上是一個問題。但是病徵並不是原因這個問題的結果。病徵是原因的結果。這個結果就是欲望。但是這是一個獨特的結果,相當奇怪,因為所有的困難都起源於連接這個共同的關係。這個關係被賦加在原因與結果之間的這個心靈之上。這是我們所被給予的解釋,或至少是讓我們能夠瞭解的解釋。事實上,這個原因的原初的結果,也就是客體,處於欲望的層次,被稱為是欲望的結果。這個結果,我剛剛定義它的特質是奇怪。你們應該注意到,因為它確實是欲望,欲望是一種沒有造成它的原因的結果。

Desire taken in this perspective is situated in effect
essentially as a lack of effect. The cause is thus constituted
as supposing the effects of the fact that primordially the effect is lacking there. And this is rediscovered, you will rediscover it, in every phenomenonology. The gap between cause and effect, in the measure that it is filled – this indeed is what is called in a certain perspective the progress of science – makes the (8) function of the cause vanish, I mean there where it is filled.

以這個觀點被接納的欲望,實際上,它的基本的定位是一種「結果的欠缺」。原因因此被建構成為是假定是這個事實的結果。這個事實是:初始時,結果在那裏就是欠缺的。這個事實在每一個現象學裏,被重新地發現,你們也會重新發現它。在原因跟結果之間會有差距,當這個差距被填補時,原因的功用會消失。(這確實就是所謂科學的進步,從某個觀點來說。)我是指,在這個差距被填補的地方那裏。

Moreover the explanation of anything whatsoever culminates in the measure that it is completed, in leaving only signifying
connections, in volatilising what animated it at its origin, what was pushing to be explained, namely what one does not understand, namely the effective gap. And there is no cause which is constituted in the mind as such, which does not imply this gap.

而且,任何事情的解釋會隨著差距被完成,而達到高潮。當我們只留下意符的連接,當我們揮發掉在起源處所賦予生命的東西,所被逼迫要求被解釋的東西。換句話說,我們所無法瞭解的東西,也就是,這個原因與結果之間的差距。在這樣的心靈裏,沒有一個原因被構成。這個心靈並沒有意涵著這個差距。

All of this may seem to you quite superfluous. Nevertheless this is what allows there to be grasped what I would call the naivety of some of the research done by psychologists and specifically that of Piaget.

你們可能會覺得,所有這一切都是泛泛之論。可是,就是這樣,我所謂的一些異想天開的研究,才有可能被人理解,那些心理學家所做的研究,明確地說,就是皮亞傑的研究。

The paths along which I am leading you this year – you have
already seen it announcing itself – pass by way of a certain
evocation of what Piaget calls “egocentric language”. As Piaget himself recognises – he has written it, I am not interpreting him here – his idea of the egocentricity of a certain childish discourse starts from this supposition: he believes he has demonstrated that children do not understand one another, that they speak for themselves.

我今年正在引導你們探討的這條研究途徑,你們已經看到它自動呈現。這條研究途徑的進行,憑藉召喚皮亞傑所謂的「自我中心的語言」。如同皮亞傑自己承認的,(他已經寫出來,我就不多加詮釋了)。他對於某一種小孩的論述具有的自我中心的觀念,開始於這個假設:他相信,他已經證明,小孩並沒有互相瞭解,他們是在跟自己交談。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Jung handbook 02

January 29, 2011

Jung handbook 02

The Handbook of Jung Psychology
榮格心理學的手冊

Chapter 9 Individuation 197
Individuation
Murray Stein

第九章 個體化
墨菲、史坦因

This question of how far a person has come on the road toward individuation
is different from the usual types of diagnostic question raised in
psychological assessment, although they are not unrelated, as I will try to
show in the following pages.

一個人在朝向個體化的途中,已經進展多遠的問題,不同於通常種類的診斷性的問題,在心理評估時所被提出的,雖然這些問題彼此不是不相關。我在以下幾頁會設法顯現:

In considering individuation, one has in mind something more encompassing than only cognitive development, behavioural adjustment, moral attainment, or the presence or absence of psychopathological features. These are important markers in the complexity that constitutes individuation, but they are not exhaustive. There
are other features that are also determinative.

當我們考慮個體化,我們構想某件涵蓋更廣的東西,不僅是認知的發展,行為的調適,道德的實現,或是心理病理特徵的存在或欠缺。這些都是重要的標示,在形成個體化的複雜中,但是他們並沒有涵蓋一切。還有其他的特徵,也是決定性的。

The assessment of individuation describes a person’s conscious and unconscious assumptions and attitudes: about the basis and sources of identity and sense of self worth, about the quality and meaning of relationships to other people and
to the world at large, about the energy (or the absence of it) poured into personal striving and ambition, about the objects of desire and passions
that lead a person into the highways and byways of life, about the focus of
life’s meaning. What the Jungian therapist is looking for in making an
assessment of individuation is how a person’s chronological age matches
up with the level of development in these conscious and unconscious
assumptions and attitudes.

個體化的評估描述一個人的意識與無意識的假定與態度,關於認同及自我價值的基礎與來源,關於跟別人的關係跟跟一般世界的關係,具有的品質跟意義,關於傾注於個人的奮鬥及企圖心的精力(或欠缺精力),關於欲望跟激情的客體,引導一個人進入人生的公路及旁路,關於生命意義的焦點。當榮格學派的精神治療師正在對於個體化做評估時,他所正在尋求的是,一個人的年齡成長階段,如何跟發展的層次相配,在這些意識與無意識到假定跟態度。

To take the full inventory of them is a large and complex study, which includes transferential and countertransferential sources of information. Of course, cultural factors must also be considered in making a reasonably fair and accurate assessment of a person’s individuation.

要將這些通盤整理的研究,可說是既盤大,又複雜。它包括移情與反移情的資訊來源。當然,文化的因素必須也要被考慮,當我們對於一個人的個體化,從事相當公平及合理地評估時。

Jung himself, who could be considered (Papadopoulos 1992, vol. 2: 97
98) to be the first important full lifespan theorist, wrote about two major
stages of life, the first half of life and the second. Each stage has its typical
developmental tasks, sequences and crises. A later Jungian theorist, Erich
Neumann, conceptualised the lifelong development of personality as falling
into three major eras or phases. Neumann’s paradigm, which does not
contradict Jung’s, adds a useful degree of further differentiation to the first
half of life, and Neumann’s model is widely used by Jungian psychotherapists
today.

榮格自己,可以被認為是第一位重要的理論家,終其一生,致力於寫作,大約可分成兩個重要的生命的階段,前半生及後半生。每一個階段擁有它的典型的發展的工作,事件及危機。艾瑞克、紐曼是榮格學派的晚期理論家,他將人格的終生發展構想成為三個主要的時期或階段。紐曼的典範,並沒有抵觸榮格的典範。他增加一個有用的區別的程度,到前半生。今天,紐曼的模式,廣泛地被榮格學派的心理治療師所採用。

Within the linguistic universe of analytical psychology, the lifelong
development of personality is called individuation. Briefly stated, individuation
refers to the process of becoming the personality that one innately
is potentia//y from the beginning of life. The sequence of developmental
stages in almost every individual’s life has common features, hazards and
breakdowns. The Jungian psychotherapist has a keen awareness of how this
developmental sequence unfolds ideally and how it so often fails to reach
its proper destination due to genetic, circumstantial, social and cultural
obstacles. There are also some important differences between the genders to
be considered.

在分析心理學的語言的宇宙裏,人格的終身發展被稱個體化。簡言之,個體化提到人格形成的過程,這是人從生命的開始,與生俱來的潛在本質。在幾乎每一個人的一生,發展階段的系列,都會有共同點特徵,危險及崩潰。榮格學派的心理治療師,強烈地知覺到,這個發展的系列如何理想地展開,以及它為何無法到達它的適當地目標,由於基因、環境、社會及文化的阻礙。也有一些重要的差異,存在於兩性之間,需要被考慮。

In summary, then, the patient arriving for Jungian psychotherapy is
intuitively and clinically assessed in the mind of the psychotherapist,
generally against the DSM-IV standards of normal and abnormal mental
and psychological states and specifically against the perspectives of the
individuation process as this has been outlined in the Jungian literature (see
the bibliography for a selection of key works on this topic). Most likely this
assessment never becomes apparent to the patient, nor is it discussed
explicitly. It is, however, used by the therapist to guide interpretations, to
make interventions, and to establish and maintain the structure of therapy.
Much of the therapist’s style in a specific case depends on this assessment of
where the patient stands on the road of individuation.

總結來說,當病人到來,尋求榮格學派的心理治療,他會接受心理治療師心目中的直覺與臨床的診斷,通常是依據「DSM-IV」的精神正常與異常精神與心理狀態的標準。明確地說,就是依據個體化過程的觀點,如同在榮格的文獻所描繪的觀點,(請參照有關這個議題重要著作選集的索引)。很有可能的,這個評估從來沒有明顯地讓病人知曉,也沒有明確地被討論。可是,治療師時常使用它來引導解釋,來做介入,並且建立及維持治療的結構。在明確的個案裏,大部份治療師的風格,都依靠這個評估:在個體化的途中,病人的位置在哪里?

In the following pages I will survey the three main stages of the individuation
process, its two major crises periods, and its ultimate goal. The
efforts made in therapy are fundamentally geared toward promoting and
facilitating, or toward unblocking and restarting, the individuation process
in patients. The three stages of individuation are, first, the containment/
nurturance (i.e., the maternal, or in Neumann’s terminology the matriarchal)
stage, second, the adapting/adjusting (i.e., the paternal, or, again in
Neumann’s terminology, the patriarchal) stage, and third, the centring/
integrating (in Neumann’s terminology, the individual) stage. (These can be
coordinated with Erik Erikson’s seven stages of psychological development,
first published in 1950.) The two major crises of individuation fall in the
transitions between these stages, the first in adolescence and early adulthood
and the second at midlife.

在以下的幾頁,我將會測量個體化過程的這三個階段,它的兩個主要危機的時期,及它最後的目標。治療所做的努力基本上是朝向提升及使方便,或是朝向除去障礙跟重新開始病人身上的個體化過程。個體化的三個階段的第一階段是包容與培養階段,(例如,母親的階段,或是按鈕曼的術語,女家長的階段)。第二階段是,適應與調整階段,(例如,父親的階段,或是按鈕曼的術語,父權的階段)。第三階段,中心化及合併階段(按鈕曼的術語,就是個體的階段)。(這三個階段能夠跟艾瑞克、艾瑞遜,在1950年首次出版的心理發展的七個階段,互相調和。)個體化的兩個重要的危機分屬於這些階段之間的過渡,第一個階段在青少年及剛成年;第二個階段的危機在中年。

These three stages should be thought of not as discrete and entirely
separate rooms that are inhabited for a period of time and then left behind
when one enters the next chamber, or as a specific number of miles on life’s
journey never to be trodden again once passed through. Rather, they indicate
emphases and predominant attitudes during the major eras of a
person’s life. They are stages of growth and development that shade
gradually from one into the next, and features of each continue, but in a
less predominant way, as a person makes the passage through a whole
lifetime. The first stage refers to childhood, the second to early and middle
adulthood, and the third to middle and late adulthood and old age. This
view of the lifeline is a tool for psychotherapy, useful if applied with a deft
touch but damaging if handled too concretely and with blunt force. It is a
perspective that gives the Jungian psychotherapist a way of understanding
the psychological qualities and some of the troubling deficits of the patients
who come for treatment.

這三個階段不應該被認為是分離及完全隔開的房間。在這些房間,某一段時期被居住,然後被離開,當他進入另外一個房間時。或是當成在人生的旅途,某個明確的距離,一但越過之後,就永遠不會再回頭跋涉。相反的,它們指示著被強調及佔優勢的態度,在一個人生命中的重要時期。他們是成長及發展的階段,慢慢地從一個階段,轉變成為下一個階段,每一個階段的特徵會繼續下去,但是方式沒有那麼佔優勢,當一個人的整個一生,就這樣通過。第一個階段提到童年,第二個階段提到剛成年及中年,第三個階段提到莊年及老年。這種生命階段的觀點,是心理治療的一個工具。假如靈活運用的話,會很有用。但是假如太拘泥不化,或是蠻橫套用,則是會造成傷害。這個觀點給予榮格學派的心理治療師一種方法,來瞭解心理特質,及前來求診的病人的一些令人困擾的缺點。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Anxiety 254

January 29, 2011

Anxiety 254

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK X
雅克、拉康研討會第十冊

ANXIETY 論焦慮

1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

For after all it is quite clear that whatever critique, whatever effort of reduction, phenomenological or not, that we apply to it, this category functions, and not simply as an archaic stage of our development.

畢竟,這是顯而易見的,無論述什麼批評,無論是怎樣的化簡努力,無論是現象學與否,我們都會應用到它,這個範疇會發生功用,不僅是作為我們精神分析學發展的一個過時的舞臺。

What is indicated by the way in which I intend to refer it here to the original function of the object o as cause of desire, signifies the transference of the question of the category of causality, from what I would call with Kant the transcendental aesthetic, to that which – if you are willing to agree to it – I would call my “transcendental ethics”.

這個方式指示的內涵,指明會有因果的範疇的問題的移情。以這種方式,我在此打算提到客體的原初的功用,作為欲望的原因。這種移情就是從康得哲學所謂的「超驗的美學」,到我所謂的「超驗的倫理學」,假如你們能夠認同的話。

(5) And here I am forced to advance onto a terrain that I am
forced to propose simply, in order to sweep the sides of it with a searchlight.

在此,我被迫要前進到一個平臺,我被迫要建議,為了要用探照燈偏照它的周邊。

Without being able even to insist, it would be well, I would say, for the philosophers to do their work and notice for example, and dare to formulate something which would allow us truly to situate in its place this operation which I am indicating in saying that I extract the function of cause from the field of “the transcendental aesthetic”, from that of Kant, it would be fitting for others to indicate to you that this is only a sort of completely pedagogical extraction, because there are many things, other things, that it would be fitting to extract from this “transcendental aesthetic”.

我不妨說,我甚至無法堅持,我們最好讓哲學家來做他們份內的工作,例如,去注意到,並且敢去說明某件某件東西。這個東西容許我們真實地將這個運作定位在它的位置。我正在指出的這個運作,我抽離原因的功用,從「超驗美學」的領域,從康得的領域。最好有別人跟你們指示,這只是一種完全是教學方便的抽離,因為有許多事情,其他的事情,我們最好從這個「超驗的美學」抽離出來。

Here I have to do, at least by way of indication, what I
succeeded in eluding the last time by a conjuring trick, when I spoke to you about the scopic field of desire. I cannot avoid
it.

在此,我必須要做到,至少作為指示,上一次我憑藉召喚的詭計,成功地閃避。我跟你們談論有關欲望的視覺的領域。我無法逃避它。

It is necessary all the same that I say, that I indicate
here, at the very moment that I am advancing further, what was implied in what I was telling you, namely that space is not at all an a priori category of sensible intuition, that it is very astonishing that at the point of advancement that we are at in science no one has yet attacked directly something that everything encourages us to do:

我仍然有需要說,我在此指示的,在我正在向前進的時刻,我先前我所告訴你們的意涵,換句話說,空間根本不是一個理解直覺得因果範疇。令人驚奇的是,在我們所屬的科學界進步的這個時刻,並沒有人直接攻擊某件東西,種種跡象都鼓勵我們這樣做。

to formulate that space is not a feature of our subjective constitution beyond which the thing in itself would find, as one might say, a free field, namely that space forms part of the real, and that, after all, in what I enounced, articulated, drew here before your eyes last year with all this topology, there is something whose note some of you certainly felt: this topological dimension, in the sense that its symbolic handling transcends space, evoked for many, not only for some, so many shapes which are presentified for us by the schemas of the development of the embryo, shapes that are singular through this common singular Gestalt which is theirs and which carries us very very far from the direction in which the Gestalt has advanced, namely in the direction of the good shape, shows us, on the contrary something which is everywhere reproduced, and regarding which, in an impressionistic notation, I would say that it is tangible in a sort of torsion to which the organisation of life seems to be obligated in order to lodge itself in real space.

種種跡象都鼓勵我們說明:空間並不是我們主觀的構成的一種特徵。我們不妨說,超越我們主觀的構成之外,事物的本身會發現一個自由的領域。換句話說,空間組成真實界的部份。畢竟,我宣佈,我表達,我獲得的內容,去年在你們面前,用所有這個拓樸圖形。有某件東西,它的主調,你們有一些人會感覺到:這個拓朴圖形的向度,它的象徵符號的處理超越了空間,對於許多人,不僅是一些人,召喚這麼多的形狀。這些形狀呈現給予我們,以胚胎的發展的基模。透過這個共同的奇特形態,這些形狀具有奇特形態。這個形態是他們的形態,它引導我們遠離形態前進的這個方向。換句話說,朝著好的形狀的方向。它跟我們顯示,相反的,有某件東西到處被複製。關於這個東西,以一個印象主義的符號,容我這樣說,顯而易見的,生命的組織似乎受制於某種的扭力,為了要在真實的空間,找到自己的住所。

The thing is everywhere present in what I explained to you last year, and also moreover this year, for it is precisely at these points of torsion that there are also produced the points of (6) rupture whose importance I tried to show you in more than one case in a fashion linked to our own topology, that of the S, of the 0 and the of the o, in a fashion which is more efficacious, more true, more conform to the operation of functions than anything that is mapped out in the doctrine of Freud, in the way that the differences, the vacillations are themselves already indicative of the necessity of what I am doing there, which is linked to the ambiguity on his part for example about the relationships between ego/non-ego, container/contained, ego/outside world. It leaps to the eyes that all of these divisions do not overlap. Why?

在我去年及今年跟你們解釋的內容裏,這個東西處處都出現。確實就是在扭力的這些點,斷裂點也被產生。它的重要性,我設法跟你們顯示,在不只一個個案裏,用跟我的拓樸圖形有關的方式,這個生命主體、客體、及大它者的拓樸圖像,以一個更加有效,更加真實,更加符合於功用的運作,超過佛洛伊德的理論的任何被描繪出來到東西。這些差異,這些搖擺,本身已經指示著,我在這裏所做的是有需要。就他而言,這個模糊曖昧有關,例如,自我與非自我,包容者與被包容者,自我與外在的世界。我們觸目所及的是,所有這些區分並沒有重疊。為什麼?

It is necessary to grasp what is involved and to have found other reference points of this subjective topology that we are exploring here. I will finish with it with this indication,
whose import I know that at least some of you know very well from having heard me now, that the reality of space qua three
dimensional space is something essential to grasp in order to define the form taken at the level of the stage that I tried to illuminate in my first lecture, as the function of the scopic
stage, the form taken on there by the presence of desire,
specifically as phantasy, namely that what I tried to define in the structure of the phantasy, namely the function of the frame – understand by that the window – is not a metaphor. If the frame exists, it is because space is real.

我們需要理解裏面牽涉的東西,並且找到其他的指稱點,對於我們正在此探索的這個主觀的拓樸圖形。我將會以這個指示完成它。它的意義,我知道,你們有一些人也知道,既然你們已經聽我演講。空間的現實界,作為「意符界」、「想像界」、「真實界」三個向度的空間,對於理解是很重要的,為了定義我在我的第一次演講,我設法啟明的這個階段的層次所形成的形式。視覺階段的功用,由於欲望的存在所形成的形式,明確地說,作為幻見。換句話說,架構的功用,並不是一個比喻,(我是根據窗戶的架構來理解)。假如架構存在,那是因為空間是真實的。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pcome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Jung handbook 01

January 28, 2011

Jung handbook 01

The Handbook of Jung Psychology
榮格心理學的手冊

Chapter 9 Individuation 197
Individuation
Murray Stein

第九章 個體化
墨菲、史坦因

Introduction 導論

The theme of individuation sounds through Jung’s writings, like a leitmotiv,
from the time of his break with Freud and psychoanalysis onward without
pause to his death. All things considered, it is perhaps his major psychological
idea, a sort of backbone for the rest of the corpus.

在榮格的著作裏,個體化的主題聽起來,像是一個跟佛洛伊德及精神分析學決裂的時候開始的主題,然後一直延續到他死亡。從各方面考量,個體化是他的主要的心理學的觀念,作為其餘著作的一種基礎。

Introducing the term in his esoteric, anonymously published little book
Septem Sermones ad Mortuos (Seven Sermons to the Dead) in 1915, Jung
deepened and expanded the idea in the much revised work, also begun in
the same period, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (CW 7) and in the
summary work of the early period, Psychological Types (CW 6). Later he
added further substance to the notion in his studies of archetypes and
especially in his researches on alchemy. He detailed individuation clinically
in his seminars (Analytical Psychology, Dream Analysis, Visions and
Nietzsche’s ‘Zarathustra’) as well as in several case studies. It also played an
important role in his many writings on religion and culture.

1915年,在他奧秘的匿名出版的小書「對於死者的七場講道」,榮格首次介紹這個術語。他深化並且擴充至個觀念,在同一個時期出版,這部校正多次的著作裏,「分析心理學的兩篇論文」,以及在早期的總結的著作「心理的原型」。後來,他更進一步補充材料到這個觀念,在他對於心理原型的研究,特別是在他對於鍊金術的研究。在他的講座「分析心理學,夢的分析,幻象與尼采的查拉哲斯特拉」,他以臨床方式,以及用好幾個個案,詳舉個體化。在他的許多論述宗教與文化的著作,個體化也扮演重要的地位。

Individuation was taken up as a central theme by nearly all of Jung’s
important students. Major contributions were made to the theory by
Fordham (1969), who studied individuation in children, and by Neumann
(1955), who saw individuation as unfolding in three major stages, each
containing several sub-phases. Hillman, a Jungian deconstructionist, has
vigorously attacked the notion of psychological development in general and
individuation in particular, holding a view that such ideas are nothing but
fantasies used to construct modern psychological myths. More recently,
Jacoby has added refinement and differentiation to the theory of individuation
by introducing data from modern infant research. Samuels has introduced
the feature of political consciousness and involvement. The debate
goes on.

幾乎所有榮格的重要的學生,都將個體化當作是一種中央的主題。在1969年,佛德罕在小孩身上研究個體化,當著是以三個主要的階段展開,每一個階段都包含好幾個次級的階段。希爾曼是榮格學派的解構主義者,曾經不遺餘力地攻擊一般心理發展的觀念,特別是個體化。他的觀點是:這樣的觀念僅僅是被用來建構現代心理學神話的幻見。最近,捷克比憑藉介紹現代的嬰兒研究,使個體化的理論補充得更加精鍊及細微區分。撒姆耳則是介紹政治的意識與參與的特色。爭論繼續下去。

1 n the following pages, I present a distillation and synthesis of the Jungiann
tradition on the central theme of individuation, situating this particular discussion
in the clinical setting of psychotherapy and showing how the working
Jungian psychotherapist may use this developmental idea in practice.

在以下的幾頁,我呈現對於榮格學派的傳統的過濾跟綜合,有關個體化的中央的主題,並且將這個特別論述,定位在心理治療的臨床的背景,然後顯示,正在執業的榮格學派的心理治療師,如何使用這個發展中的觀念在心理諮商中。

When Jungian psychotherapists face patients for the first time, they try to
size them up. One listens to that first outpouring of narrative, of confession
or complaint, with an ear cocked to tone. Does this sound like true suffering,
or is this person blocked in feeling or cranky in thought? Is this
someone who blames others too much, or does she shoulder too much
responsibility for what goes wrong? Is this person too passive? Too active?
Within the texture of even the most innocent first narrative, therapists
will often spot fragility, entitlement, emotional vulnerability and a host
of other telling feelings and attitudes. In the therapist’s own emotional
responses to this narrative, too, one may detect the pull of a raging demand
for help, or the opposite — the pushing away that creates too great a
distance. In the first sessions, and indeed throughout a long therapeutic
treatment, therapists spin an evolving mental assessment of how their
patients are carrying on with life at the particular stage they find themselves
in now, as they attempt to settle their old accounts, open new ones, and
elaborate their stories.

當榮格派的精神分析師第一次面對病人時,他們設法評估他們。他豎耳傾聽,病人首次描述、告白、或抱怨。這聽起來像是真實的痛苦嗎?或是這位病人感情麻痹,或是胡思亂想?這個人老是責怪別人嗎?或是,因為事情出錯時,她承擔太多的責任?這位人過於被動?過於積極?即使是首次單純的陳述的內容,治療師時常覺察出脆弱、權利、情感上的易受傷害,以及無數其他流露的感情跟態度。從治療師自己對於這種陳述的情感的反應,我們也可以偵測出迫切求助的呼喚。或是相反的,那是一種拉開距離的推卻?在前面的幾節諮商,一直到漫長的治療的療程,治療師對於病人如何過他們的生涯,在他們發現自己處於的這個特別的階段,不斷地在進展上從事心智上的評估,當病人企圖對於過去做一總結,重新開展生活,並且構想他們的展望。

Jungian psychotherapists hold a notion of psychological development, of
`stages of life’, and we ask ourselves questions about the levels of psychological
development demonstrated in the narratives offered by the people
who come to us. Does a person’s discourse show a good match, we wonder
for instance, between chronological age and psychological attitudes? The
full clinical impression of a person’s level or degree of psychological
development takes many sessions and much observation to formulate in
depth and detail. It is an estimate of their achieved individuation. Individuation
is a term used to indicate a person’s potential for full psychological
development. In the following, I will describe some of the features of Jung’s
complex vision and estimate of the human potential. In its simplest formula,
individuation is the capacity for wholeness and evolved consciousness.

榮格派的精神分析師心目中擁有一個心理發展及「生命階段」的觀念。我們詢問我們自己這些問題,關於前來跟我們求助的人們,他們提供的陳述,展現出來的心理發展的層次。例如,我們想要知道,一個人的論述顯現出,時間先後的階段跟心理的態度適當相配嗎?一個人的心理發展的層次或階段,需要好幾節的詢商及觀察,來深度及詳細地說明,才能充份地給予診所一個印象。這就是要評估他們完成的個體化。個體化是被用來指示一個人充份心理發展的潛力的術語。在以下,我將會描述一下榮格複雜洞見的特徵,以及人類潛力的評估。就它的最簡單的公式而言,個體化就是統整及意識充份發展的能力

The aim of analysis is to increase and to promote individuation in patients.
The Jungian therapist’s unspoken reflections on achieved individuation
take place within the general context of formulating a diagnosis and
assessment of a patient’s psychological development.

精神分析的目的,是要增加及提升病人身上的個體化。對於完成的個體化,榮格的治療師沒有說出沉思,發生在對於一個病人的心理發展的診斷跟評估,所做的通盤說明的內涵。

What is the patient’s level of everyday functioning? Does physical illness play a role? Is there serious psychopathology? Sometimes these considerations feature prominently in the treatment; in other cases they play no significant role at all.
Determining their importance for guiding treatment is the business of the
early sessions of psychotherapy, even while these concerns remain a consideration
throughout. And just as diagnosis from the clinical perspective of the standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-IV: this was devised by the American Psychiatric Association and
it is now in its fourth edition, revised in 2000) is an ongoing and evolving
consideration which the Jungian psychotherapist, like any other,
makes in such terms as major depression, anxiety, the various character

什麼是病人的日常功用的層次呢?生理上的疾病扮演一個角色嗎?是否有可行的心理病情學?有時候,這些考慮作為在其他並無關緊要的病例,治療的顯著特徵。決定它們的重要性,用來引導治療,心理治療的早期諮商節數的事情。即使當這些關心始終是從頭到尾的一個考慮。從標準的診所的觀點,診斷是一個正在進行及發展中的考慮。榮格派的精神分析師,像任何其他的精神分析師一樣,以這樣的術語,所造成的沮喪、焦慮、及各種各樣的特性,具有同樣的重要性。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Anxiety 253 Jacques Lacan

January 28, 2011

Anxiety 253

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK X
雅克、拉康研討會第十冊

ANXIETY 論焦慮

1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

(3) In order for the symptom to emerge from the state of an as yet unformulated enigma, the step is not that it should be formulated, it is that in the subject something should be
outlined whose character is that it is suggested to him that
there is a cause for that. This is the original dimension taken
on here in the form of the phenomenon, and I will show you
besides where one can rediscover it.

為了要讓病症出現,從目前還沒有被說明的謎團的狀態,這一步並不是它應該被說明,而是在生命的主體身上,某件東西應該被描繪出輪廓。這個東西的特性是,有人跟他建議,病徵有其原因。這是在此被形成的原初的向度,以現象的形式。除外,我將會跟你們顯示,我們能夠在哪里重新發現它。

This dimension – that there is a cause for that – in which simply the implication of the subject in his behaviour is broken, this rupture is the necessary complement for the symptom to be approachable by us. What I intend to say to you and to show you, is that this sign does not constitute a step in what I could call the understanding of the situation, that it is something more, that there is a reason why this step is essential in the treatment of the obsessional.

這個向度,(病徵有其原因,)生命主體的行為的暗示僅是被打破。這個斷裂是必須要的互補,對於我們所能夠接近的這個病徵。我打算跟你們說及顯示給你們的,就是這個符號,並沒有組成一步,在我所謂的對於情境的瞭解。那需要更多的東西。我們有理由相信,這一步對於情感偏執狂患者的治療是很重要的。

This is impossible to articulate if we do not display in an
altogether radical fashion the relationship between the function of o, the cause of desire, and the mental dimension of cause as such. This, I already indicated in what I might call some asides in my discourse, and I wrote it somewhere at a point that I could find again in the article “Kant with Sade” which appeared in the April edition of the journal Critique. It is on this point that I intend today to bring to bear the main part of my discourse.

這是不可能表達,假如我們不以非常積極的方式,展示這個客體的功用,欲望的原因,及原因的精神的向度之間的關係。在我論述的所謂的離題的談論,我已經指示這一點,我在別的地方也寫過,在「康得與薩德」的文章的某一點,也可以找到。這篇文章出現在「批判」雜誌的四月的那一期。關於這一點,今天我打算當著我的論述的要點。

From now on you see the interest in marking, in making it
likely, that this dimension of the cause indicates – and only
indicates – the emergence, the presentification, in the starting data of the analysis of the obsessional, of this o around which -this is in the future of what I am trying for the moment to explain to you – around which there has to turn the whole analysis of the transference in order not to be obliged, required to turn in a circle.

從現在起,你們看出為什麼我有這個興趣來標示,來使它成為可能?(原因的這個向度指示著,只是指示著,)在偏執狂患者的精神分析的開始的資料,這個客體的出現,具體的呈現。環繞這個客體,這是目前我正在設法跟你們解釋。環繞這個客體,我們必須翻轉移情的整個精神分析學,為了不要被迫要求去繞著圓圈打轉。

A circle certainly is not nothinq, the circuit is gone through; but it is clear that there is – and I am not the one who enounced it – a problem about the end of the analysis, one which is enounced as follows: the irreducibility of a transference neurosis. This transference neurosis is or is not the same as the one which was detectable at the beginning.

一個圓圈確實並非是空無。這個圓圈被經過,但是顯而易見的,有一個難題,(這個難題並不是我宣佈的,)關於精神分析學的目標的難題。這個難題被宣佈如下:移情的神經質的不可化簡。這個移情的神經質,跟剛開始所被偵測到神經質,有時相同,有時不相同。

Undoubtedly it is different in being entirely present, it appears to us sometimes in an impasse, that is to say sometimes
culminates in a complete stagnation of the relationships between the analysand and the analyst. Its only difference to everything that is produced in an analogous way, at the beginning of the analysis, is that it is completely collected together.

無可置疑,完全的在場是截然不同。有時候,它以僵局的形態出現在我們面前。換句話說,有時候在被分析者跟精神分析師之間的關係,完全停滯的時候,它達到高潮。在精神分析開始的時候,它跟每一件以類似的方式產生的東西,唯一的差異是,它完全在一起被收集。

(4) One enters analysis through an enigmatic door: for the
transference neurosis is there in each and every one, even in Alcibiades: it is Agathon that he loves. But in a being as free as Alcibiades, the transference is obvious. Even though this love is what is called a real love, what we too often call a lateral transference, this is where the transference is.

我們透過一個謎團的門,進入精神分析學:移情的神經質患者每一個都在那裏,甚至在阿西比底斯:他所愛的是阿甘封。但是這個人跟阿西比底斯同樣自由放任,移情是顯而易見的。即使這種的愛是所謂真實的愛,我們也時常稱為「側面的移情」。這就是移情的本質。

The astonishing thing is that one goes into analysis despite all the things that hold us back in the transference functioning as real.

這個令人驚奇的事情是,我們從事精神分析學,儘管移情具有真實界的功用,會使我們忘而卻步。

The real subject of astonishment as regards the circuit of the analysis, is how, going into it despite the transference
neurosis, one can obtain the transference neurosis itself on the way out. No doubt it is because there is some misunderstanding about the analysis of transference. Without this one would not see there being manifested sometimes, this satisfaction which I have heard expressed, that to have given energy to this transference neurosis is not perhaps perfection, but it is all the same a result; it is true – but it is all the same a result that is itself rather perplexing.

關於精神分析學的這個迴圈,這個令人驚奇的真實界的生命的主體,是我們如何在退出的過程,能夠獲得這個移情的神經質本身。儘管移情的神經質,我們從事精神分析學。無可置疑的,這是因為關於移情的精神分析,有某種的誤解。假如沒有這個誤解,我們將不會看出,有時候會有我曾經聽過被表達的這種滿足顯示出來。將精力給予這種移情的神經質,可能並不是很理想。但是這仍然是一個結果;的確,這仍然是一個結果。這個結果的本身,相當令人困惑。

If I enounce that the path passes through o, the only object to be proposed for analysis, for the analysis of transference, this does not mean that this does not leave open, as you will see, another problem.

假如我宣佈,這條途徑會經過客體,唯一能夠被建議給精神分析學的客體。對於移情的精神分析學而言,這並不意味著,會不會有另外一個難題展開,如你們所看到的。

It is precisely in this subtraction that there can appear this essential dimension, that of a question always posed, in short, but certainly not resolved – for every time it is posed the inadequacy of the answers is really tangible, evident, striking to every eye – that of the desire of the analyst.

確實就是在這種扣減當中,這個基本的向度會出現,總之,有一個問題總是被提出,但是確實沒有被解決。(每一次它被提出,所有的回答都不盡理想,是具體明白,顯而易見。)那就是精神分析師的欲望的難題。

This short reminder to show you the interest of what is presently at stake, this short reminder having been given, let us return to o. o is the cause, the cause of desire. I pointed out to you that to return to the enigma which the functioning of the category of the cause proposes to us is not a bad way of understanding it.

我跟你們做這個簡短的提醒,為了要跟你們顯示,我們對目前岌岌可危的東西感到興趣。當我跟你們提出這個簡短的提醒之後,讓我們回到這個客體。這個客體就是原因,欲望的原因。我跟你們指出,要回到這個謎團,這個原因的範疇的功用跟我們建議的謎團,被用來瞭解它,也是不錯的方式。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Anxiety 252 Jacques Lacan

January 27, 2011

Anxiety 252

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK X
雅克、拉康研討會第十冊

ANXIETY 論焦慮

1962 – 1963

12.6.63 XXII 258
Seminar 22: Wednesday 12 June 1963

Anxiety lies in this fundamental relationship that the subject is in with what I have called up to now the desire of the Other.

焦慮就在於這個基本的關係,生命的主體跟我迄今所謂的大它者的欲望,相處的關係。

Analysis has, has always had and keeps as its object the
discovery of a desire. It is – you will admit – for some
structural reasons that I am led, this year, to disengage, to bring into function as such in a circumscribed, articulated way, and this just as much by what we could call an algebraic
definition, as by an articulation in which the function appears in a sort of gap, of residue of the signifying function as such; but I also did it piece by piece, this is the path that I will take today.

精神分析學總是擁有並且保持一個欲望的發現,作為它的客體。因為結構上的理由,我今年被導向去中斷,去運作這樣一個欲望的功用,以一種被限定,被表達的方式。我同樣是以我們所謂的代數的定義,如同我作為表達。在這種表達裏,功用以一種差距,一種意符化本身的功用的殘渣出現。但是我也按部就班地前進。這就是我今天要採取得途徑。

In every advance, in every becoming of this o as such, anxiety
appears precisely in function of its relationship to the desire of the Other. But what is its relationship to the desire of the subject?

在每一步前進中,在這個客體本身的形成中,焦慮確實會出現,以它跟大它者的欲望的關係的功用。但是它跟生命的主體的關係是什麼呢?

It is absolutely situatable in the form that I already
advanced at the appropriate time: o is not the object of desire,
the one that we search to reveal in analysis, it is its cause.
This feature is essential; for if anxiety marks the dependency of every constitution of the subject – his dependency on the Other – the desire of the subject is thus found appended to this relationship through the mediation of the first, antecedent constitution of o.

這絕對是可以找出位置的,以我提出的形式,在適當的時刻:這個客體並不是欲望的客體,我們設法在精神分析經驗中顯示的這個客體,它是它的原因。這個特徵非常重要,因為假如焦慮標示著生命的主體形成的依賴,他依賴大它者。生命主體的欲望因此被發現是附屬於這個關係,透過客體的組成之前的先決條件。

This is the interest that pushes me to remind you how this
presence of o as cause of desire announces itself. From the
first data of analytic research, it announces itself in a more or less veiled fashion precisely in the function of the cause.

就是這個興趣逼迫著我提醒你們,客體的這個存在,作為欲望的原因,它宣告它自己。從精神分析學的研究的第一批資料,客體就宣告它自己,以一種若隱若現的方式,確實就是在這個原因的功用裏。

This function can be mapped out in the data of our field, the one in which research engages, namely the field of the symptom. In every symptom, in so far as a term of this name is what interests us, this dimension that I am going to try to bring into play today before you manifests itself.

這個功用能夠在我們精神分析領域的資料裏,被描繪出來。我們的研究所從事的這個資料,換句話說,在病徵的領域裏。在每一個病徵裏,這個名字的一個術語,就是我們感到興趣的東西。今天,我在你們面前正在設法運作的這個向度,它展示了它自己。

To make you sense it, I will start from a symptom which it is not for nothing has – as you will see after the event – this exemplary function, namely the symptom of the obsessional. But – I am indicating it right away – if I put it forward, it is because it allows us once again to go into this mapping out of the function of o, in so far as it unveils itself functioning in the first givens of the symptom in the dimension of the cause.

為了讓你們理解它,我將從一個病徵開始。這個病徵具有這個典範的功用,不是沒有道理的,換句話說,感情偏執狂的病徵。(容我立刻指出它),假如我提出它,那是因為它讓我們能夠再一次探討,客體的功用的這個描繪的位置。它以原因的向度,揭露它自己,作為病徵的第一批表徵的功用。

(2) What does the obsessional present to us in the pathognomic
form of his position? The obsession or the compulsion,
articulated or not as a motivation in his inner language: “Do
this or that; check whether the door is closed or not, whether
the tap is on”. As we will see later perhaps, it is the symptom
which takes in its most exemplary form, implies as I might say, that not following the line awakens anxiety. It is this which brings it about that the symptom, I would say, indicates in its very phenomenon that we are at the most favourable level to link the position of o as much to the relationships of anxiety as to the relationships of desire.

這個情感偏執狂,在他的立場的病理的形式,給我們呈現出什麼?這個強迫性地情感的偏執,無論有無被表達,作為他的內在語言的一個動機:「要做這個,或是那個!檢查一下是否門有沒有關好,是否水龍頭一直開著。」或許我們以後會看到,這個病徵採取它最為典範的形式,我不妨說,它暗示著,若是不按照這條途徑前進,就會喚醒焦慮。就是這個導致焦慮,容我這樣說,這個病徵以它自己的現象指示著,我們處於最有利的層次,來連接客體的立場,一方面跟焦慮的關係,另一方面,又是跟欲望的關係。

Anxiety,in fact, appears – because desire, at the beginning,
historically before Freudian research, before the analysis of our praxis, is hidden, and we know the trouble we have to unmask it, if we ever do unmask it!

事實上,焦慮出現。因為剛開始時,在佛洛伊德研究之前的歷史,在我們的現實界有精神分析學之前,欲望是隱藏不見。我們知道這個麻煩,我們必須要揭發它,假如我們曾經揭發過它的話。

But here there deserves to be highlighted this datum of our
experience which appears from the very first observations of
Freud and which, I would say, constitutes, even if it has not
been situated as such, perhaps the most essential step in the
advance into obsessional neurosis, it is that Freud, and we
ourselves every day have recognised, can recognise this fact that the analytic procedure does not begin from the enunciation of the symptom as I have just described it to you, namely according to its classical form, the one which had already been defined much earlier, the compulsion with the anxious struggle which accompanies it, but in the recognition of the following: the fact is that it functions like that.

但是在此,我們精神分析經驗的這個資料應該值得被強調。我們精神分析經驗的出現,是因為佛洛伊德首先從事這種觀察,我不妨這樣說,它並且形成最基本的一個步驟,朝向探討情感偏執狂的神經質患者,即使它並沒有被這樣定位。佛洛伊德能夠體認出這個事實,如同我們自己每一天都會體認出,精神分析的程式,並不是開始於這個病徵的表明,如同我剛剛跟你們描述過它。換句話說,依照它的古典的形式,早先已經被定義的形式,伴隨它而來的焦慮的掙扎的強迫症。但是在以下的體認當中:事實上,它充當類似的功用。

This recognition is not an effect detached from the functioning of this symptom, it is not epiphenomenally that the subject has to perceive that it functions like that.

這個體認,並不是跟這個病徵的功用,隔離的一種影響。這並不一種附帶現象,當生命的主體必須要感覺到,它充當類似的功用。

The symptom is only constituted when the subject becomes aware of it; because we know from experience that there are forms of obsessional behaviour in which the subject, not only has not noticed his obsessions, but has not even constituted them as such.

只有當生命的主體知道這個病徵,病徵才會被形成。因為我們從精神分析經驗中知道,情感偏執狂的行為有好幾種形式。在這些行為的形式裏,生命的主體不但沒有注意到他自己有偏執的情感,而且甚至沒有形成偏執情感的內涵。

And the first step, in this case, of the analysis – the
passages of Freud on this point are celebrated – is that the
symptom is constituted in its classical form. Without this,
there is no means of getting out of it and not simply because
there is no way of speaking about it, but because there is no way of catching it by the ear. What is this ear in question?

在這種情況,精神分析的第一步驟,(對於這一點,佛洛伊德的描述是眾所周知的):病徵以它的古典的形式被形成。假如沒有這個描述,我們就沒有辦法擺脫它,不僅僅是因為我們沒有辦法談論它,而且因為我們沒有辦法跟它提綱攜領。這個受到質疑的要領是什麼呢?

It is this something of the symptom that we can say is unassimilated by the subject.

我們能夠說,病徵的這個某件東西,並沒有被生命的主體所吸收。

陳春雄譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

雄伯手記100127

January 27, 2011

雄伯手記100127

年關將近,盥洗室的浴缸底端卻沒來由地破裂。無可奈何,只好去水電材料行去選擇一個四千元的新浴缸。原以為再花兩三千元的工人費用即可安裝。請人估價的結果是總數一萬一千元。

實際的操作過程是:早上八點半,工人前來用鑽孔機敲開舊的浴缸,不到十一點以前,就已經清理完畢。下午三點,工人再來將新的浴缸裝上,並將七片新的瓷磚用水泥鋪好。六點以前即已完工。

這樣簡單的安裝工程,索取如此高昂的工資,乍聽起來有點匪夷所思。除了年關將近,是水電行的旺季外,整個社會浮誇成習,趁人之危,能夠多賺儘量多賺的貪欲,也是助長的因素。

簡言之,現在老老實實做事,老老實實評估自己價值的人越來越少了。

在這樣的社會中,人與人之間友情、愛情、或是同仁親友等倫理的交往,或是勞力價值,或技術價值的交換,自然會形成虛假、膨脹、仿冒、吹噓,利用、及剝削等歪風。人的生命的自我認同,當然也難逃這樣的命運。

存在主義哲學家海德格,小說家卡繆,跟我們言之敦敦的生命的真誠authenticity ,要在這樣的社會裏實踐,唉!真是戛戛乎難哉!

有時真羡慕美國作家大衛、梭羅當時還有座「華爾騰湖」Walden 可以自立更生地歸隱逃避。被倫理價值系統羈絆的我輩,只好在此隨波逐流,載浮載沉了。