Archive for February, 2011

Desire 027 Jacques Lacan

February 25, 2011

Desire 027

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋

3.12.58 52
Seminar 4: 3 December 1958

“My youngest daughter” – this is Anna Freud – “then nineteen months old, had an attack of vomiting one morning and had consequently been kept without food all day. During the night after this day of starvation she was heard calling out excitedly in her sleep: “Anna F-eud Erdbeer” – (which is the childish way of pronouncing strawberries) -” Hochbeer” – (which also means strawberries) – “Eir(s)peis” – which corresponds more or less to the word omelette – and finally “Papp” – (pudding). And Freud tell us: “At that time she was in the habit of using her own name to express the idea of taking possession of something.

「我的小女兒」,這是安娜、佛洛伊德,當時十九個月大。有一天早上遭遇一陣的嘔吐,結果一整天沒有給予食物。經過一天饑餓,在晚上,她被聽見在睡覺中興奮地大叫「安娜、佛洛伊德草莓」(這個小孩稱呼草莓的方式),「草莓!」「蛋蛋」這個字有點跟荷包蛋這個字相一致。最後是喊的是「布丁」。佛洛伊德告訴我們:「在當時,她習慣於使用她自己的名字,來表達擁有東西的觀念。」

The menu included pretty well everything that must have seemed to her to make up a desirable meal. The fact that strawberries appeared in it in two varieties” – Erdbeer and Hochbeer – I have not succeeded in placing Hochbeer, but Freud’s commentary indicates two varieties – “was a demonstration against the domestic health regulations.

功能表包括對於她而言,幾乎是組成一頓欲望的餐食的內容。草莓出現在裏面,還有兩種不同。紅草莓與鵝莓。我沒有辦法找出鵝莓的意義,但是佛洛伊德的評論指示,有兩種不同是「一種證明,抗拒家內的建康規定。」

It was based upon the circumstance, which she had no doubt observed, that her nurse had attributed her indisposition to a surfeit of strawberries. She was thus retaliating in her dream against this unwelcome verdict.” (SE j[ 130;GW 2/3 135). I leave to one side the dream of his nephew, (6) Hermann, which poses different problems. But on the contrary I am happy to draw attention to a little note which is not in the
first edition because it was elaborated in the course of discussions, namely feedback from his pupils, to which Ferenczi contributed by bringing to the rescue the proverb which says the following: “Pigs dream of acorns and geese dream of maize”, and
in the text also Freud had then at that time also drawn attention to a proverb which, I believe, is not so much taken from the German context given the way maize is written: “What do geese dream of? – Of maize.”; and finally the Jewish proverb: “What do
hens dream of? – Of millet”.

這個夢以環境為基礎,無可置疑的,她曾經遵守環境的規定。她的奶媽將她的嘔吐歸咎於草莓吃得過量。她因此在她的夢中報復抗議這種令了討厭的規定。我將他的侄兒赫曼的夢放置一邊。這個夢形成不同的問題。但是相反的,我很高興吸引大家注意一個小紙條。這個紙條沒有在第一版裏,因為它被在討論的過程才被建構。換句話說,是他的學生的回饋。費瑞奇提供這個紙條,來解救底下這個格言的尷尬:「豬夢到橡食,鵝夢到玉米。」在文本中,佛洛伊德當時也提醒我們注意一個格言,我相信,這個格言不是從德文的內容得來。這個內容給予玉米被描述的方式:「鵝夢到什麼?夢到玉米。」最後還有這個猶太人的格言:「母雞夢到什麼?夢到小米。」

We are going to dwell on this, we are even going to begin by making a little parenthesis, because when all is said and done it is at this level that there must be taken the problem which I evoked last night in connection with Granoff’s communication on the essential problem, namely the difference between the directive of pleasure and the directive of desire.

我們將要詳細描述這個,我們甚至要以一個小括弧開始。因為當一切都說都做了,就在這個層次,我們必須處理昨天晚上我召喚的這個難題,關於格蘭諾夫對於這個基本難題的溝通。換句話說,快樂的命令與欲望的命令之間的差別。

Let us go back a little on the directive of pleasure, and once and for all, as rapidly as possible let us dot the i’s. Obviously, this has also the closest relationship with the
questions which are posed to me or which are posed in connection with the function which I give, in what Freud called the primary processes, to the Vorstellunq.

讓我們稍微回到快樂的命令,一勞永逸地,讓我們一絲不苟地儘量快速。顯而易見地,這跟這些問題也有最密切的關係。我被提出這些問題,這些問題被提出,關於我所給予的這個功用,以佛洛伊德所謂的原初的過程,給予這個「表像」。

To state it quickly, this is only a detour, you must have a clear idea of this: the fact is that (7) in a way by entering into this problem of the function of the Vorstellunq, into the pleasure principle, Freud cuts things short, in short we could say that he is lacking an element to reconstruct what he perceived in his intuition. Indeed it must be said that what is proper to intuitions of genius is to introduce into thought something which up to then had absolutely not been perceived; we do not perceive at all what is original in this distinction of the primary process as being something’ separate from the secondary process. We can always go on thinking like that that it is something which is in a way comparable through the idea that it is in the internal agency in so far as in their synthesis, in their composition this has absolutely no role to play.

為了很快地陳述它,這僅是一個迂迴。你們一定很清楚地瞭解,在某方面,我們探討到這個「表像」的功用的難題,探討到快樂原則,佛洛伊德簡單扼要地處理,總之,我們能夠說,他欠缺一種元素來重建他在直覺裏感覺到的東西。的確,我們必須說,天才的直覺的本體,要將某件東西介紹到思想裏。直到當時,這個東西絕對不曾被感覺過。我們根本就沒有感覺到,原初過程的這個區別,有什麼原創之處?他將原初過程視為是某件跟二次過程分開的東西。我們總是繼續像這樣認為:在某方面,這是某件可以透過觀念來比較的東西。在內部的代理。因為在它們的綜合理,在它們的組合理,這絕對沒有角色可以扮演。

The primary process signifies the presence of desire, but not just any desire, of desire where it presents itself as most fragmented, and the perceptual element that is in question, this is how Freud is going to explain things, is going to make us understand what is in question.

這個原初的過程意指著欲望的存在,但是不僅僅是任何欲望,它呈現它自己作為最零碎的欲望。受到質疑的被感覺的元素,這是佛洛伊德解釋事情的方式,他將會使我們瞭解,受到質疑的是什麼?

In sum remember the first schemas that Freud gives us about what happens when the primary process alone is in operation. The primary process, when it alone is in operation, culminates in hallucination, and this hallucination is something which is
produced by a process of regression, of regression which he calls very precisely topical regression.

總之,請記住佛洛伊德給予我們的第一個基模,關於發生什麼事情,當僅是原初過程在運作的時候。當這個原初過程單獨運作時,它在幻覺中達到高潮。這個幻覺是某件由倒退的過程產生的東西。他非常明確地稱呼這個倒退,為「局部的倒退」。

Freud constructed several (8) schemas of what motivates, of what structures the primary process. But they all have the following in common that they presuppose as their foundation, something which is for him the circuit of the reflex arc, a way of receiving and discharging something which is called sensation; a way of receiving and
discharging something which is called motor activity.

對於是什麼啟動及架構這個原初過程,佛洛伊德建構好幾個基模。但是所有這些基模,跟某件東西,有以下的共同點,他們預先假定作為它們的基礎的共同點。對於他而言,這個某件東西是這個反射弧形的迴圈,一種接收及排泄某件東西的方式。這個某件東西被稱為知覺,一種接收及排泄某件被稱為動力活動的東西。

On this path, in what I would call a terribly questionable way, perception is placed as something which accumulates, which accumulates somewhere on the side of the sensorial part, of the influx of excitation, of the stimulus from the external milieu,
and being placed at this origin of what happens in the act, all sorts of other things are supposed to come afterwards, and namely it is there that he would insert the whole series of super – imposed layers which go from the unconscious passing through the
preconscious and the rest, to end up here at something which passes or which does not pass towards motor activity.

在這條探討途徑,以我所謂非常可質疑的方式,感覺的位置被認為是某件達到高潮的東西,在感官部份這一邊的某個地方,達到高潮,在興奮的內流,從外在環境的刺激這一邊。感覺的位置被放在行動時,發生的事情的起源處。所有各種的其他事情都被認為隨後才來。換句話說,就在那裏,他將會插入整個系列的超級賦加的層級。這個超級賦加的層級,從無意識通過到前意識及其餘的部份。結果在此結束為某件通過,或是沒有通過,朝向動力活動的東西,

Let us see clearly what is in question every time he speaks to us about what is happening in the primary process. A regressive movement occurs. It is always when the door towards the motor activity of the excitation is for some reason or other barred, that there is produced something which is of the regressive order and that there appears a Vorstellung, something which is found to give to the excitation in question a properly speaking hallucinatory satisfaction.

讓我們清楚地看出,什麼受到質疑,每一次當他跟我們談論,有關原初過程所發生的東西。一個倒退的動作會發生,總是當朝向這個興奮的動力活動的門,為了某種理由被閂住。某件東西在那裏被產生,這個東西屬於倒退的秩序,「理念」就出現在那裏。「表像」這個東西被發現是給予適當來說是幻覺的滿足,給予受到質疑的興奮。

Here is the novelty that is introduced by Freud. (9) This is worthwhile literally above all if one thinks of the order, of the quality of articulation of the schemas that are in
question, they are schemas which are put forward because of their functional value, I mean to establish – Freud states it expressly – a sequence, a succession which he underlines is still more important moreover to consider as a temporal sequence than as a spatial sequence.

這就是佛洛伊德介紹的新奇處。實質上,這非常有價值,尤其當我們想到受到質疑的這個基模,被表達的秩序及品質。它們是因為它們的功用的價值,而被提出的基模。我打算要建立一個順序,一個連續性,(佛洛伊德陳述得很生動。)而且,他強調,這個順序及連續性依舊更加重要,考慮作為一個時間段順序,比作為一個空間的順序。

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

Desire 026 Jacques Lacan

February 24, 2011

Desire 026

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋

3.12.58 52
Seminar 4: 3 December 1958

I left you the last day with a dream, this extremely simple dream, at least in appearance. I told you that we would work on it or in connection with it, in order to articulate the proper meaning that we give to this term of dream-desire, and the
meaning of what an interpretation is. We are going to take this up again. I think that on the theoretical plane it also has its value.

上一次我一個夢告一段落。那是一個極端簡單的夢,至少在外表上。我告訴你們,我們將會探討有關夢的東西,為了表表達這個適當的意義,我們給予欲望之夢的這個術語,以及解釋是什麼的意義。我們再一次探討這個。我認為在這個理論的層次,它也有它的價值。

These days I have become immersed in re-reading, after having done it so many times, this Interpretation of dreams which I told you was the first thing we were going to query this year in connection with desire and its interpretation, and I must say
that up to a certain point I found myself making this reproach that it is a book, and this is well known, whose ins-and-outs are (2) very badly known in the analytic community. I would say that this reproach, indeed like any reproach, has a kind of other aspect which is an aspect of excuse, because to tell the truth it is still not enough to have gone over it hundreds and hundreds of times in order to retain it, and I think that there is here a phenomenon – this has struck me more especially these days – that
we are very familiar with.

這些日子,我轉注于重新閱讀這個「夢的解析」,雖然我已經閱讀過好幾篇。我告訴過你們,這本夢的解析將是我們今年將要探討的問題,關於欲望與它的解釋。我必須說,直到某個時期,我發現我自己一直在做這個譴責:這是一本名聲卓著的書,它的內容在精神分析學的社會,卻是惡名昭彰。容我這樣說,這個譴責,確實跟其他的譴責一樣,擁有某種其他的方面,作為藉口。因為坦白說,這依舊不是充份的理由,我們溫習它好幾百遍,為了保留它。我認為在此有一個現象。特別是這些日子,我對於這個現象感到印象深刻,這是我們非常熟悉的現象。

In fact every one knows the way in which everything which concerns the unconscious is forgotten, I mean for example that it is very tangible, in a very significant way, and really inexplicable, without the Freudian perspective, how one forgets funny stories, good jokes, what are called witticisms. You are meeting some friends and someone makes a witty remark, or even tells a funny story, makes a pun at the beginning of the meeting or at the end of lunch, and then when you are having your coffee you say to yourself: what did that person on my right say just now that was so funny? And you cannot get hold of it. It is almost a stamp that what is precisely a witticism escapes to the unconscious.

事實上,每個人都知道,跟無意識有關的一切事情被忘記的方式。我的意思是,例如,我們如何會忘記好笑的故事,幽默的笑話,以及所謂的機智俏皮話。這是非常可觸知的,非常重要,而且真的無法解釋,假如沒有佛洛伊德的觀點。你們正在會見一些朋友,某一個人發表一句機智的談話,甚至說了一個好笑的故事,在聚會開始時,或午餐結束時,講了一句雙關語。然後,當你們正在喝咖啡時,你自言自語:剛才我右邊那個人說了什麼那麼好笑?你無法擺脫這句雙關語。這幾乎是個標記,確實是機智語,卻逃避無意識的理解。

When one reads or re-reads The interpretation of dreams, one has the impression I would say of a magical book, if the word magical did not unfortunately lend itself in our vocabulary to so much ambiguity, or even error. One really goes through The
interpretation of dreams like a book of the unconscious, and that is why one has so much trouble, in holding together something (3) which is so articulated. I think that there is here a phenomenon which deserves to be pointed out at this point, and
especially the fact is that there is added to this the really almost senseless deformation of the French translation, and the more I go on the more I find that all the same one cannot really excuse its blatant inexactitudes.

當我們閱讀或重新閱讀「夢的解析」,我們擁有一本魔術書的這個印象,容我這樣說。假如魔術這個字詞在我們的辭彙裏,不幸地,並沒有增添如此多的曖昧,或甚至是錯誤。我們確實閱讀完「夢的解析」,就像一本無意識的書。那就是為什麼我們遭遇那麽多的麻煩,當我們將如此被表達的某件東西聚攏在一起。我認為,在此有一個現象,在這一點應該值得被提出。特別事實是,法文翻譯時,其實沒有意義的扭曲,被增添到裏面。我越是進行閱讀,我就越發現,我們真的無法原諒法文譯本,顯而易見的不確實。

Some of you are asking me for explanations, and I refer immediately to the texts. There is in the fourth part of the chapter on dream-work, a section entitled “Considerations of representability” whose French translation from the first page is more than a tissue of inexactitudes, and has no relationship with the German text. That is confusing and upsetting. I will not go on about it.

你們有一些人要求我解釋。我立刻推薦這些文本。在這個章節的第四部份,論夢的運作。有一部份的標題是:「可再現內容的考慮」。它的法文翻譯,從第一頁開始,就是一套不確實,而且跟德文版毫無關係。那是令人混淆而懊惱的。但是我不繼續討論它。

Obviously all of this does not make the access of French readers to The interpretation of dreams especially easy.

顯而易見地,所有這些並沒有讓法文讀者理解「夢的解析」,變得更加容易。

To return to our dream of the last day which we began to decipher in a fashion which did not perhaps appear very easy to you, but was all the same intelligible, at least I hope so. To see clearly what is in question, to articulate it in function of our graph, we are going to begin with a few remarks.

讓我們回到前一次我們的夢。我們開始解釋它,以一個你們似乎不太能理解的方式。但是它仍然是可以理解的,至少我如此希望。為了清楚地看出什麼受到質疑,為了表達它,以我們的欲望圖形的功用,我們將以一些談話開始。

It is a question therefore of knowing if a dream interests us in the sense that it interested Freud, in the sense of the fulfilment of desire. Here desire and its interpretation is first of all desire in its function in the dream, in so far as
the dream is its fulfilment. How are we going to be able to (4) articulate it?

因此,問題是要知道,我們是否對於一個夢感到興趣,如同佛洛伊德感到興趣的意義,以欲望被實現的意義。在此,欲望及其解釋,首先就是對於夢的功用的欲望。因為夢就是欲望的實現。在此,我們將能夠表達這個欲望嗎?

I am going first of all to put forward another dream, a first dream which I gave you and whose exemplary value you will see.

首先,我將提出另外一個夢,我給予你們的一個最初的夢。你們將會看出它具有典範的價值。

It is really not well known, you have to go looking for it in a corner. There is there a dream whose existence is known to everybody: it is at the beginning of Chapter III which is entitled “A dream is the fulfilment of a wish”, and it deals with the dreams of children in so far as they are put forward as what I would call a first state of desire in the dream.

這並不是一個很有名的夢,你們必須到角落去尋找它。這裏有一個夢,每一個人都知道它的存在。那就是在第三章的開始,標題是:「夢是一個願望的實現」。它處理小孩的夢,因為它們被提出,作為我所謂的夢裏欲望的狀態。

The dream that is in question is here, from the first edition of the Traumdeutung, and it is given to us at the beginning of his appellation before his then readers, Freud tells us, as the question of the dream. One must also see this aspect of exposition, of development in the Traumdeutung, which explains a lot of things for us, in particular that things may be put forward first of all in a sort of massive way, which involves a
certain approximation.

在此,受到質疑的這個夢,從「夢的解析」的第一版,佛洛伊德在他當時的讀者面前,如此稱呼的開始,它就被給予我們。佛洛伊德告訴我們,當著是夢的問題。我們也必須看到在「夢的解析」裏,它的發展及表述的這一面。這可以跟我們解釋許多事情,特別是,事情首先被提出,以一種令人印象深刻的方式。那給予我們某種逼真的感覺。

When one does not examine this passage very attentively, one remains at what he says about the direct, undeformed, non-Enstellunq’d character of the dream; this simply
designating the general form which ensures that the dream appears in an aspect which is profoundly modified with respect to its deeper content, its thought content, while in the case of the child it is supposed to be simple: here desire is supposed to go (5) directly in the most direct fashion to what it desires, and Freud gives us several examples of it, and the first one of course naturally is worth retaining because it really gives us its formula.

當我們並沒有很仔細檢視這個段落,我們會一直相信,關於他所說的關於夢的這個直接,尚未成形,非調控的特性。這僅僅是指們這個一般的形式,保證這個夢會出現在一個深刻被修正過的一面,關於它的較深的內涵,它的思想的內涵。在小孩的情況,那被認為很簡單。在此,欲望被認為以最直接的方式,直接到達它的欲望所在。佛洛伊德給予我們好幾個有關它的例子。第一個例子當然是值得保留,因為它真的給予我們它的公式。

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

Desire 025 Jacques Lacan

February 24, 2011

Desire 025

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋

1958 – 1959
Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

But this is not enough, we must also distinguish how and why the dream here makes use of these elements which without any doubt are repressed, but precisely there at a level at which they are not, namely where the immediately antecedent experience brought them into play as such, as clausulae, and where far from being repressed, the dream elides them; why?

但是這樣是不夠的。我們必須也要區別,在此的這個夢如何以及為什麼會利用這些元素?無可置疑的,這些元素被壓抑,但是確實在那裏,處於一個它們並不實存的層次。換句話說,在那裏,先前的經驗會立刻運作它們,如它們實質的樣子,作為多聲喧嘩。在那裏,它們沒有絲毫受到壓抑,夢將它們省略掉。為什麼?

To produce a certain effect of what? I would say of something which is not so simple
either because in short it is to produce a signification, there is no doubt, and we see that the same elision of the same wish may have according to different structures, quite different effects. In order simply to awaken a little, to stimulate your curiosity, I would like simply to remark to you that there is perhaps a relationship between the same elision and the same (35) clausula, “in consequence of his wish” and the fact that in other contexts which are not those of the dream, but of psychosis for example, this can culminate at the méconnaissance of death.

為了要產生什麼的某種結果?我不妨說,為了要產生某件東西,這個東西並不那麼簡單,因為它總之就是要產生某種的意義,無可置疑的。我們看到,相同的願望的相同的省略,依照不同的結構,可能會有相當不同的結構。僅僅為了稍微喚醒,為了刺激你們的好奇心,我僅僅想要跟你們談論的是:在相同的省略與相同的多聲喧嘩之間,可能有一層關係,「由於這個欲望的結果」。在其他的內容,不是夢的內容,而是精神變態狂患者的內容,例如來說,它會在死亡的「誤識」中,達到高潮。

The “he did not know”, or “he did not want to know anything about it” being articulated simply differently with the “he had died”, or even in a still different context, have perhaps the interest of being distinguished at first sight, as the Verwerfung is distinguished from the Verneinunq.

這個「他不知道他已經死亡」,或是「他並不想要知道任何關於他已經死亡的訊息」,這句話被表達,僅僅不同於「他已經死亡」。或者,在一個更加不同的內涵裏,它可能擁有這個利益,乍然一看,就會被區別出來。因為這個「排斥」跟這個「否定」被區別出來。

In this instance this can culminate at so – called feelings of invasion, of eruption, or at these fruitful moments of psychosis where the subject thinks that he has before him effectively something much closer again to the dream image than we can even expect, namely that he has before him someone who is dead, that he is living with a dead person, and simply that he is living with a dead person who does not know that he is dead, and we could even say perhaps up to a certain point, that in quite normal life, the one that we live every day, it can happen perhaps more often than we believe, that we have in our presence someone who while having all the appearances of a socially satisfying behaviour, is someone who at the same time desires for example from the point of view of interest, from the point of view of what permits us to be in accord with a human being, is well and truly, we know more than one of them, from the moment that I point it out to you seek it out in your relationships, someone who is well and truly dead, and a long (36) time dead, dead and mummified, who is only waiting for a little tip of something or other like it, to be reduced to that sort of woodenness which will bring about his end.

在這個例子,這個事情達到高潮,在所謂的侵犯、爆發的感覺,或是在精神變態狂患者這些具有成就的時刻。在那裏,生命主體認為,在他面前,他有效地擁有某件東西,這個東西再一次更加靠近這個夢的意象,超過我們所能期望。換句話說,在他面前,他擁有某一個已經死亡的人。他正在跟某一個死亡的人一起生活。他僅是正在跟一個已經死亡的人一起生活,而那個人並不知道他已經死亡。我們甚至能夠說,可能一直到某一個時刻,在相當正常的生活裏,我們每天生活的日子裏,這樣的事情可能時常會發生,令我們不敢置信。在我們的面前,我們擁有某一個人,這個人雖然擁有一個在社會上令人滿意的行為的表現,他是某一個同時也是充滿欲望的人,例如,從興趣的觀點來說,從容許我們成為跟一個人的實存相一致的觀點來說,實實在在地,我們知道,他不僅是其中之一。從我跟你們指出的這個時刻,為了要在你們的關係中,尋找出來,某個人實實在在就是已經死亡,而且已經死亡很久,已經死亡,而且被製作成為木乃伊。這個人僅是在等待一點點的某件類似它的東西,這樣他才能夠被化簡成為那種木料,導致他的死亡的木料。

Is it not also true that in the presence of this something which after all is perhaps much more diffusely present than one thinks in subject-to-subject relationships, namely that there is also this aspect of half-death, and that what is half-dead in all
sorts of living beings, is also something which leaves our conscience quite tranquil, and that a large part of our behaviour with our neighbours is something perhaps which we must take into account when we take on the charge of listening to the discourses, the confidences, the free discourse of a subject in the analytic experience, it produces perhaps in us a reaction much more important to measure, always much more present,
effective, essential which in ourselves corresponds to this sort of precaution that we must take in order not to remark to the half-dead person that where he is, where he is in the process of speaking to us, he is half the prey of death, and this also because in our case intervening on this subject or taking such an audacious approach would also have some consequences for us, which are very precisely those against which we are defending ourselves the most, namely what is most fictitious, most repeated
in us, namely also half death.

這難道不也是真實的?在這個某件東西的面前,畢竟,在生命主體與生命主體之間的關係,這個東西更加瀰漫地存在,遠超過我們的想像。換句話說,這裏也有「死掉一半」的這一面。在各色各樣的人類當中,這種「死掉一半」的人,是某件讓我們良心安息的東西。我們跟鄰居相處的行為的一大部份,是某件可能我們必須要考慮到的東西,當我們從事對於傾聽真理論述的指控,這些真實的告白,一個生命主體在精神分析經驗的自由的論述。在我們身上,它可能產生一種反應,重要性難於衡量,總是更加實存,更加有效,更加基本。在我們自己身上,它對應這種的警戒。我們必須採取這種警戒,為了不要跟這個「死掉一半」的人談論,在他生命實存的地方,在他正在跟我們談話的地方,他有一半是死亡的獵物。這也是因為在我們的情況,對於生命主體的這種介入,或是採取這種大膽的方法,對於我們而言,也會有某些結果。這些結果確實地說,是我們正在防衛自己,設法避免的結果。換句話說,在我們身上,那些最被虛構的東西,那些最被重複的東西,也就是死亡一半的東西。

(37) In short, you see, that rather than being answered the questions are multiplying, to the point that we arrive at the end of this discourse today, and without any doubt if this dream should bring you something about the question of the relationships of the subject to desire, it is because it has a value which should not surprise us, given that its protagonists, namely a father, a son, the presence of death, and as you will see, the relationship to desire. It is not by chance then that we have chosen this example and that we will have to exploit it again next time.

總之,你們看出,這些問題非但沒有被回答,而且還變本加厲,到達今天這個真理論述的結束,我們抵達的這一點。無可置疑的,假如這個夢應該帶給你們某件東西,關於生命主體跟欲望的關係,那是因為它擁有一個價值。我們對於這個價值不應該大吃一驚,假如我們考慮到它的主角,換句話說,父親、兒子、死亡的存在,你們就會看出跟欲望的這個關係。我們挑選這個例子,不是沒有來由的,下一次,我們還必須再一次解釋它。

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

The Hollow Man
By T.S. Eliot

空洞的人
T.S. 艾略特

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

我們是空洞的人
我們是稻草填塞的人
互相依靠在一起
腦袋填塞著稻草,啊!
我們不帶感情的聲音,
安詳而沒有意義
當我們在一起竊竊私語,
如輕風吹拂乾草,或是
如老鼠的腳越過破裂的玻璃杯
在我們乾燥的地下室

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

沒有形體的形狀,沒有血色的幽魂,
力量被麻痹,徒有姿態,沒有動作;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us — if at all — not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

那些人跨越到死亡的另一國土
眼睛直接注視著,假如可能
請記得我,但不是當著迷失
漂泊的靈魂,而僅是
作為空洞的人
稻草填塞的人

Desire 024 Jacques Lacan

February 24, 2011

Desire 024

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋

1958 – 1959
Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

This is linked to all sorts of experiments which have been carried on with great
(30) perseverance by a school called the Wurzburg school, called the school of imageless thought, and a kind of intuition that in the work of this school which was carried out in a completely closed little circle of psychologists, they were led to think
without images these kinds of forms which are different to just signifying forms without a context and at the nascent state, to the notion of Vorstellunq, and very specially in connection with the problems which we are facing here make it worth while remembering that for two years Freud, and we have unambiguous proof of this, attended Brentano’s classes, and that Brentano’s psychology, in so far as it gives a certain conception of the Vorstellunqs is indeed there to indicate the exact weight that
the term Vorstellunq could have taken on in Freud’s mind, and not simply in my interpretation.

這跟各種的試驗息息相關。這些試驗曾經非常堅持地被執行,被所謂的「吳伯格學派」執行。它們被稱為「無意象思想的學派」。那是一種直覺,在這個學派的著作裏,在一個完全是封閉的心理學家小圈子執行。他們被引導沒有意象地思考這些種類的形式。這些形式不同於僅僅是意符化的形式,沒有內涵,而且處於初期的狀態,不同於「理念」的觀念,特別是關於我們正在面臨的這些問題。很值得我們記住的是,經過兩年,佛洛伊德,就讀布冷坦諾的課程,(我們擁有確實的證據,)因為它給予這個「理念」的觀念。它在這裏確實指示著:這個「理念」的術語的確是重要性,在佛洛伊德的心中本來會具有的,不僅僅是在我的解釋中。

The problem is precisely of the relationship that there is between repression, if repression is said to apply exactly and as such to something that is of the order of the Vorstellunq, and on the other hand this fact of something which is nothing other than
the appearance of a new meaning which is different for us at the point that we are progressing to, which is different from the fact of repression, which is what we can call in the context, in the context of the preconscious, the elision of two clausulae. Is (31) this elision the same thing as repression? Is it exactly its counterpart, its contrary?

這個難題確實是屬於關係的難題,處於壓抑跟道道地地是一個新意義的出現之間的關係。假如壓抑據說可以確實地運用,本身能夠被運用到某件屬於「理念」的秩序。在另一方面,這件事實,某件東西道道地地就是新的意義的出現。 對於我們而言,這個意義在這一點上不同,我們逐漸進步的這一點。這是不同於壓抑的這個事實。後者就是我們所謂的內涵,在前意識到內涵, 兩個「多聲喧嘩」的省略。 這個省略跟壓抑是同一件事嗎?它確實是它的副本,或是它的相反?

What is the effect of this elision? It is clear that it is an effect of meaning, I mean
that in order for us to explain ourselves on the most formal plane, we should consider this elision, and I say elision and not allusion, it is not, to use everyday language, a representation (une figuration), this dream does not make allusions, far from
it, to what has gone before it, namely to the relationships of the son to the father, it introduces something which sounds absurd, which has its import as signification on the manifest, quite original plane. It is indeed a question of a figura verborum, of a figure of speech, of terms, to use the same term which is the counterpart of the first, it is a question of an elision, and this elision produces a signified effect; this elision is equivalent to a substitution for the missing terms of a plane, of a zero, but a zero is not nothing and the effect in question could be qualified as a metaphorical effect.

這個省略的結果是什麼?顯而易見的,這是一種意義的結果。我的意思是,為了讓我們解釋我們自己,在最正式的層次上,我們應該考慮這個省略。我說是省略,而不是說是提到,那是不是一種符號再現,用日常的語言來說。這個夢並沒有給予提到先前所經歷的東西,絲毫沒有。換句話是,它沒有提到兒子跟父親的關係。它介紹某件聽起來是荒謬的東西,它擁有它的意義,作為明顯的相當原初的層次的意義。這確實是詞類變化,及術語的問題,使用相同的術語,作為前者的副本。這是一種省略掉問題。這種省略產生一個被意符化的結果。這種省略相等於是一種漏失的術語的替代,一種零度的替代。但是一種零度並不是什麼都沒有。受到質疑的結果,能夠被給予特質,作為比喻的結果。

The dream is a metaphor. In this metaphor something new arises which is a meaning, a signified, a signified which is no doubt enigmatic, but which is all the same something that we have to take into account as being I would say one of the most essential forms of human experience, because it is this very image which for
centuries put human beings, at one or other turn in their grief at their existence, on the more or less hidden paths which led (32) them to the necromancer and what he gave rise to in the circle of incantation was this something called a shade, before which there happened nothing other than what happened in this dream, namely this being which exists there without one knowing how he exists, and before whom literally one can say nothing, because he of course speaks. But it does not matter, I would say that up to a certain point what he says is also what he does not say.

夢是一種比喻。在這個比喻當中,產生某件新的東西,那是一個意義,一個意旨,無可置疑的,謎團一般的意旨。但是它仍然是某件東西,我們必須要考慮到,當著是生命的實存。容我這樣說,它是人類經驗最基本的的形式之一。因為就是這個意象,幾世紀以來,使人類在某個轉折,處於他們生命實存的痛苦當中,在這些隱藏的途徑。這些途徑引導他們求助於巫師。在符咒招魂氛圍中,巫師所產生的是某件被稱為幽魂的東西。在幽魂面前,所發生的道道地地就是夢中發生的東西。換句話說,存在於那裏的生命的實存,我們卻不知道他如何實存。在幽魂面前,實質上我們無話可說,因為他當然會說話。但是這個並不重要,我不妨這樣說,直到某個時間之前,他所說的話,也是他沒有說的話。

We are not even told it in the dream, this word only takes on its value from the fact that the one who has called the beloved being from the kingdom of shades can tell him literally nothing of what is truly in his heart.

在夢中,我們甚至沒有被告訴,這個話語只有從這個事實,才形成它的價質。從幽魂的王國,曾經召喚這個珍愛的生命實存的人,實質上無法告訴他,,他心中的真實的內涵是什麼。

This confrontation, this structured scene, this scenario, does it not suggest to us in itself that we should try to situate its import? What is it? Has it this fundamental structured and structuring value that I am trying to define for you this year
under the name of phantasy? Is it a phantasy? Are there a certain number of characteristics required in order that in such a presentation, in such a scenario, that in this scenario we should recognise the characteristics of phantasy?

這個面對,這個結構的場景,這個戲碼,本身有跟我們建議,我們應該設法定位它的意義嗎?那是什麼?它擁有這個基本的被建構及結構的價值嗎?這是我今年跟你們定義的,以幻見到名義。它是個幻見嗎?有某些的特性被要求嗎?為了要在這樣一個符號再現,這樣一個戲碼當中,我們應該體認出幻見的特性?

This is a first question which unfortunately we can only begin to articulate the next time. You should understand that we will give it quite precise replies, which will allow us to approach (33) the way in which effectively it is a phantasy, and the way
it is a dream-phantasy, namely, I articulate it for you right away, a phantasy which has very particular forms, I mean that a dream-phantasy, in the sense that we can give a precise sense to this word phantasy, has not the same import as a waking phantasy,
whether it is unconscious or not.

這是第一個問題,不幸地,我們只能夠在下一次開始表達。你們應該瞭解,我們將會給予它相當明確的回答。這些回答將會使我們能夠接近幻見有效運作的方式。這個幻見擁有特別的形式。我的意思是:一個夢的幻見,我們能夠給予一個明確的意義,給幻見這個字詞。它跟清醒時的幻見,並不具有相同的意義,無論它是無意識與否。

Here is a first point on which I will give a reply the next time, to the question that is posed here.

這是第一點,下一次我將給予回答,回答在這裏被提出的問題。

The second point, is in connection with and beginning from this, namely from this articulation of the function of phantasy, how we should conceive where there lies the incidence of what one can call, of what Freud called the mechanisms of the dream-work, namely its relationships on the one hand with the supposedly
antecedent repression, and the relationship of this repression with the signifiers regarding which I have shown you the degree to which Freud isolated them and articulated the incidence of their absence in terms of pure signifying relationship.

第二點,關於這一點,以及從這裏開始,換句話說,從幻見的功用的表達開始,我們如何應該構想我們所謂的意外在哪里?佛洛伊德所謂的夢的運作的機械學是什麼?換句話說,在一方面,它跟所被認為是先前的壓抑的關係,以及這個壓抑跟意符的關係。關於這一點,我已經跟你們顯示過,佛洛伊德將它孤立到什麼程度,並且表達它們欠缺的這個意外,使用意符化的關係。

These signifiers, I mean the relationships there exist between the signifiers of the narrative: “He had died”, on the one hand; “he did not know it” on the other hand; “in consequence of his wish” in the third place. We will try to position them to place
them, to make them function on the lines, the paths of the chains which are called respectively the chain of the subject and signifying chain, as they are here posed, repeated, insisting (34) before us in the form of our graph, and you will see both
the use that can be made of this which is nothing other than the topological position of elements and of relationships without which there is no possible functioning of discourse, and how only the notion of structures which allow this functioning of
discourse can also allow us to give a meaning to the fact that the two clausulae in question can be said up to a certain point, to be really the content, as Freud says, the reality, the “real verdranqten” , what is really repressed.

這些意符,我指的是存在於描述的意符之間的這些關係。在一方面,「他已經死亡」;在另一方面,「他並不知道他已經死亡。」第三個角度是,「由於他的願望的結果。」我們將會找出它們的位置,為了定位它們,使它們根據這幾行運作。各別被稱為生命主體的鎖鏈及意符化的鎖鏈,這些鎖鏈的途徑,如它們在此被提出的,會在我們面前,以我們這個欲望圖形的形式,不斷地重複。你們將會看出,一方面是,我們會利用道道地地是元素及關係的拓樸圖形的位置。假如沒有這些元素及關係,真理論述將不可能運作。另一方面,結構的觀念能夠容許真理論述的運作,如何也容許我們給予意義,給這個事實:受到質疑的這兩個「多聲喧嘩」,直到某個時刻之前,可以被說是這個內容,如佛洛伊德所說的,是這個現實界,這個「真實界的被壓抑」,真實被壓抑的地方。

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

Desire 023 Jacques Lacan

February 23, 2011

Desire 023

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋

1958 – 1959
Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

They are given as such, and as the fact that putting them in place, their adaptation in the text, gives the meaning of this text.

這些增添本身被給予。當它們被放置在位,它們適應于這個文本,這個事實賦予這個文本的意義。

Please understand what I am saying. I am not saying that this is interpretation, and in effect it is perhaps interpretation, but I (26) am not saying it yet, I am suspending you at this moment where a certain signifier is designated as being produced by its lack.

請瞭解我正在說些什麼。我並不是說,這是解釋。實際上,它可能是解釋,但是我還沒有這樣說。我是正在將你們懸置在這個時刻,此時某一個意符被指明充當是它的欠缺所產生。

What is the phenomenon of the dream that is in question?

這個受到質疑的夢的現象是什麼?

It is by replacing it in the context of the dream that we accede right away to something which is given as being the understanding of the dream, namely that the subject finds himself in the familiar case, this reproach by which one reproaches oneself about someone who is loved, and this reproach leads us back in this example to the infantile signification of the death wish.

在這個夢的內容裏,以替代夢,我們立刻同意某件被給予的東西,作為對於這個夢的瞭解。換句話說,生命主體發現自己處於熟悉的情況。這個譴責,我們譴責我們自己,關於某一位被愛的人。在這個例子裏,這個譴責引導我們回到這個死亡的願望,對於嬰兒具有的意義。

We are here therefore before a typical case where the term transference, Übertragung, is employed in the primitive sense that it is first used in the Interpretation of dreams. It is a question of carrying forward something which is an original situation, the original death-wish on this occasion, into some different, current thing, which is an analogous, homologous, parallel wish which is similar in some fashion or other, and
introduces itself to revive this archaic wish that is in question.

因此在此我們面對一個典型的情況,「移情」這個術語被運用在這個原始的意義,它首次被運用在「夢的解析」的意義。問題是要將某件原初情境的東西,帶領向前,在這個場合,那就是原初的死亡,進入某個不同的目前的事物裏。這個事物是一種類同、類似、對比的願望。這個願望在某些方面是相似。它並且介紹它自己,為了要復活這個受到質疑的過時的願望。

It is naturally worthwhile dwelling on this, because it is starting from there simply that we can first try to elaborate what interpretation means, because we have left to one side the interpretation of “wishful”.

詳細描述這個當然是值得的,因為僅是從那裏開始,我們首先能夠設法建構解釋是什麼意思。因為我們曾經將「一廂情願」的解釋放置一旁。

To complete this interpretation there is only one remark to be made. If we are unable to translate wishful thinking by “pensée désireuse, pensée désirante” it is for a very simple reason: (27) It is that if “wishful thinking” has a meaning, of course it has a meaning, but it is employed in a context in which this meaning is not valid. If you wish to test every time that this term is employed, the suitability, the pertinence of the term “wishful thinking”, you only have to make the distinction that “wishful thinking” does not mean taking one’s desire for reality, as it is put, it is the meaning that thinking in so far as it slides, as it bends, therefore one should not attribute to this
term the signification: taking one’s desires for reality, as it is usually expressed, but taking one’s dream for reality, on this one condition precisely that it is quite inapplicable to the interpretation of the dream, because this simply means on this
occasion if my dream, is to this type of understanding of the dream, this simply means in this case that one has dreamed, in other words that one dreams because one dreams, and this indeed is the reason why this interpretation at this level is in no way
applicable at any time to a dream.

為了完成這個解釋,只有一個談論應該被從事。假如我們不能夠將「pensée désireuse, pensée désirante」,翻譯「一廂情願」,理由很簡單:假如「一廂情願」有一個意義,當然它就有一個意義。但是它被運用在某一個內容裏。在這個內容,這個意義並沒有根據。假如你們希望測試一下,每當這個術語被運用,「一廂情願」這個術語是否適合,是否中肯。你們所需要的,就是做這個區別,「一廂情願」並不意味著,將我們的欲望充當是現實界,如一般所說的。它的意思是:因為思想會滑溜,會彎曲,因此我們不應該將這個意義:將我們的欲望充當是現實界,如通常所表達的,歸屬於這個術語。而是要將我們的夢,充當是現實界。這確實是根據這個條件:它完全無法被運用到夢的解釋。因為在這個場合,這僅是意味著,假如我的夢,適用於這種夢的瞭解,這僅僅意味著,在我們作夢的這個情況,換句話說,我們作夢,是因為我們作夢。這確實是這個理由,為什麼這個層次的這個解釋,根本無法應用到任何其他時間的夢。

We must then come to the procedure described as the adding on of signifiers, which presupposes the previous subtraction of the signifier; I am speaking about what is presupposed in Freud’s text, subtraction being at that moment exactly the meaning of the term that he makes use of to designate the operation of repression in its pure form, I would say in its Unterdranqunq (28) effect.

因此,我們必須來到被描述為「意符的增添」的這個程式。這個程式預先假定這個意符的先前的扣減。我正在談論關於在佛洛伊德的文本裏,預先被假定的東西。在當時,扣減確實就是這個術語的意義。他使用這個術語,指明這個在純粹狀態的壓抑的運作。我不妨說,在它的「瞭解」的效應。

It is then that we find ourselves brought to a halt by something which as such, presented for us an objection and an obstacle, which if we had not decided in advance to find everything good, namely if we had not decided in advance to believe, to believe as Monsieur Prevert says, one should all the same dwell on the following: that the pure and simple restoration of these two terms: “nach seinem Wunsch” and
“dass er es wunschte”, namely that the son wished for this death of his father, the simple restoration of two clausulae from the point of view of what Freud himself designates to us as the final goal of interpretation, namely the re-establishment of unconscious desire, gives us strictly nothing because in that case what is restored?

因此,我們發現我們自己被某件東西擋住。這個的東西的本身被呈現給予我們,作為一種反對,及一種阻礙。假如我們沒有事先決定,要找出每一樣好的東西,換句話說,假如我們沒有事先決定要相信,要相信,如變態狂先生所說的,我們仍然應該詳述以下的內容:這兩個術語,「nach seinem Wunsch」及「dass er es wunschte」,純粹而簡單地恢復。換句話說,兒子希望他的父親的死亡。從佛洛伊德自己跟我們指明,作為解釋的最後目標,這個觀點具有的兩個多聲喧嘩,簡單地被恢復。換句話說,無意識欲望的重新被建立,根本沒有給予我們任何東西。因為在那種情況,什麼東西被恢復?

It is something that the subject knows perfectly well. During the extremely painful illness, the subject had effectively wished for his father’s death as being the solution and the end of his torment and his pain, and effectively of course he did not show
him, he did everything to hide from him, the desire, the wish which was in its context, in its recent experienced context, perfectly accessible to him. There is no need even in this connection to speak about preconsciousness but of conscious memory, perfectly accessible to the continued text of awareness.

這是某件生命主體心知肚明的事。在極端令人痛苦的疾病當中,生命主體很實際地希望他的父親的死亡,作為對他的折磨及他的痛苦的解決及結束。當然是很實際地,他並沒有顯露給他知道。他盡其能力隱藏不給他知道這個欲望,這個在其內涵裏的願望,在其最近被經驗到底內涵裏,他完全可以接觸得到。關於這一點,我們甚至沒有需要談論到前意識,而是要談論到意識的記憶,那是完全可以接觸得到,從已經知曉的繼續的文本。

Therefore if the dream subtracts from the text something which is (29) in no way removed from the consciousness of the subject, if it subtracts it, it is, as I might say, this phenomenon of subtraction which takes on a positive value, I mean that this is
the problem, it is the relationship of repression, in so far as without any doubt it is a question here of Vorstellungs – reprasentanz, and even a quite typical one, because if anything merits this term, it is precisely something which is, I would say in itself, a form empty of meaning “as he wished”, isolated in itself. This means nothing, this means “as he wished”, that we have previously spoken about, that he wished what?

因此,假如這個夢從文本扣減某件東西,這個東西絲毫沒有從生命主體的意識移除掉。假如他扣減它,我不妨這樣說,這個扣減的現象就具有正面的價值。我的意思是,這就是這個難題,這就是壓抑的關係。無可置疑的,在此,這是「表徵的觀念」的問題。它甚至是一個相當典型的問題,因為假如任何東西值得上這個術語,那確實是某件東西。我不妨說,這個東西本身,是一種意義被掏空的形式,「如他所願」這句話本身被孤立起來。這並不意味著什麼。這意味著,「如他所願」。我們先前已經談論過,他希望實現什麼?

This also depends on the sentence which comes before, and this is the direction in which I want to lead you to show you the irreducible character of what we are dealing with compared to any conception which arises out of the sort of imaginary elaboration, even the abstraction of the objectal data of a field, when it is a question of the signifier and what is supposed to be the originality of the field which, in the psyche, in experience, in the human subject, is established by it and by the action of the
signifier.

這也依靠在它前面的句子。這就是我希望引導你們的這個方向,為了跟你們顯示,我們正在處理的東西,具有這個無可化簡的特性,跟任何的觀念比較起來,任何起源於想像的建構,甚至是一個領域的客體資料的抽離。這是一個意符的問題,被認為是這個領域的原初的東西。在心理,在經驗,在人類的生命主體,這個領域被它所建立,被這個意符的這個行動。

This is what we have, these signifying forms which in themselves cannot be conceived of, cannot be sustained excepted in so far as they are articulated with other signifiers, and this in fact is what is in question. I know that I am here getting into something which would suppose a much longer articulation than anything we are dealing with.

這就是我們所擁有的東西,這些意符化的形式,它們本身無法被構想,無法被維持,除了它們用其他的意符來表達。事實上,這是受到質疑的地方。我知道,我在此探討到某件東西。這個東西假定會有一個更加漫長的表達,比任何我們正在處理的東西。

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

Desire 022 Jacques Lacan

February 23, 2011

Desire 022

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋

1958 – 1959
Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

What can be extracted from the totality of Freud’s work concerning the relationships of this Vorstellunqsreprasentanz (22) with the primary process, is not open to any kind of doubt. If the primary process is entitled in so far as it is subject to the first principle, which is called the pleasure principle, there is no other way of conceiving the opposition which is marked in Freud between the pleasure principle and the reality
principle, except by perceiving that what is given to us as the hallucinatory arousal in which the primary process, namely desire at the level of the primary process, finds its satisfaction, does not simply concern an image, but something which is a signifier,
it is moreover a surprising thing that this was not noticed in other ways, I mean starting from clinical observation.

從全部的佛洛伊德的著作,關於這個「表徵理念」跟原初過程的關係,所能夠抽取出來的東西,無法承受任何種類的懷疑。假如原初的過程能夠自圓其說,因為它隸屬於所謂的「快樂原則」的第一原則。那就沒有辦法來構想佛洛伊德標明的這種的對立:快樂原則與現實原則的對立。除了就是讓我們感覺到:我們被給予的這種幻覺的喚起。在裏面,原初的過程,換句話說,欲望處於原初過程的層次,找到它自己的滿足。它不僅關係到一個形象,而且是某件屬於一個意符的東西。而且,令人驚奇的是,在許多方式,它都沒有被注意到。我的意思是,從臨床的觀察開始。

One It was never noticed in other ways, it seems, precisely to the degree that the notion of signifier was something which was not elaborated at the time of the great expansion of classical psychiatry, because after all in the massiveness of clinical
experience, under what forms are there presented to us the major, problematic, most insistant forms in which there are posed for us the question of hallucination, if not in verbal hallucinations or in verbal structures, namely in the intrusion, the immixtion in
the field of the real not of something indifferent, not of an image, not of a phantasy, not of what is often simply supposed to support hallucinatory processes?

第一種是:在許多方式,它沒有被注意到,似乎到達這個程度:意符的觀念,並不是被建構在古典的精神病學的大量擴展的時代。因為畢竟,在大量的臨床經驗,在我們所被給予的形式,最主要、最棘手、最持續的形式,幻覺的問題會在那裏,跟我們提出。它難道不就是以文辭的幻覺,或是以文辭的結構。換句話說,在真實界的這個闖入,這個混合,它難道不是某件漠不關心的東西?不是一個意像,不是一個幻見,不是時常所被認為是支持幻覺的過程?

But if an hallucination poses us problems which are proper to (23) itself, it is because it is a question of signifiers and not of images, not of causes, not of perceptions, indeed of false perceptions of the real as people say it is. But at Freud’s level there is no doubt about this and precisely at the end of this article,- to illustrate what he calls der neurotischen Wahrung (SE 12 225;GW Q 238), namely – it is a term to retain,
the word Wahrung means to last; it is not very common in German, it is linked to the verb wahren which is a durative form of the verb wahren, and this idea of duration, of valorisation, because it is its most common usage: if the word Wahrung refers to
duration, the most common usage which is made up of it, is value, valorisation – to talk to us about a properly neurotic valorisation, namely in so far as the primary process erupts into it, Freud takes as an example a dream, and here is this dream.

但是假如幻覺跟我們提出這些難題,屬於幻覺本體的難題,那是因為問題是在於這些意符,而不是在於這些意象,不是在於原因,也不是在於感覺。的確,不是在於真實界的這些虛假的感覺,如人們所說的。但是在佛洛伊德的層次,關於這一點上無可置疑的。確實是在這篇文章的末尾,為了舉例說明他所謂的「神經質患者的執著」。換句話是,這是一個「保留」的術語。「執著」這個字詞意思是「持續下去」。這種用法在德文並不很普遍,它跟「持續」這個動詞有關。它是「持續」這個動詞的延續的期間。這個期間的觀念,「給予價值」的觀念,因為這是最普遍的用法,假如「持續」這個字詞提到的期間。由它所組成的最普遍的用法,就是價值,給予價值。為了跟我們談論,有關一個神經質患者的適當地給予價值,換句話說,原初的過程爆發進入裏面,佛洛伊德拿夢當一個例子。在此就是這個夢。

It is the dream of a subject who is mourning for his father, who had, he tells us, nursed him through a long and painful mortal illness.

一個生命主體的夢是對於父親的哀悼。他告訴我們,他的父親曾經養育他,度過一段漫長而痛苦的致命疾病。

This dream is presented as follows: “His father was alive once more and he was talking to him in his usual way. But he felt it exceedingly painful that his father had really died, only without knowing it.” (SE 12 225) It is a short dream, it is a dream
which as always, Freud tackles at the level of its transcription, because the essential of Freudian analysis is always based on the (24) narrative of the dream, first of all in so far as it is articulated.

這個夢呈現如下:「他的父親再一次活著,他正在跟他談話,以他平常的方式。但是他覺得他的父親的真正的死亡,極端令人痛苦,只是自己並不知曉。」這是一個簡短的夢,但是像平常一樣,佛洛伊德處理這個夢,以它的記錄的層次。因我佛洛伊德精神分析學的重點,總是建立在對於夢的描述的基礎上。首先,就是以夢被表達的方式。

This dream then was repeated insistently in the months which followed the death of his father, and how is Freud going to tackle it?

這個夢因此不斷地被重複,從那些遭遇父親死亡的人的嘴中。佛洛伊德如何來處理這個夢呢?

There is no doubt of course that Freud never thought at any time that a dream, if only because of this distinction that he always made between the manifest content and the latent content, in referring himself immediately to what can be called and which one
does not fail to call at every instant in analysis by this term which has not, I think, an equivalent, of wishful thinking.

當然,這是無可置疑的,佛洛伊德從來沒有一次想過,一個夢,因為他總是從事的這個區別,處於明顯的內容及潛在的內容之間的區別,當他自己立刻提到,所能稱呼的內容。這個夢,我們在精神分析學根據這個術語,一定會稱呼的內容。
我認為,這個術語並沒有相等於是一廂情願。

It is this that I would almost like to give back some sound of equivalence with alarm. This just by itself should make an analyst suspicious, even defensive, and persuade him that he is taking the wrong road.

就是這個,我想要令人大吃一驚地,回饋某種相等語的聲音。這個夢的本身,應該使一位精神分析師感到懷疑,甚至是防衛。這個夢的本身應該使他相信,他的探究的途徑是錯誤。

There is no doubt that for a moment Freud teases this “wishful”,, and tells us that it is simply because he needs to see his father and that that makes him happy, because it is not at all enough, for the simple reason that it does not seem at all to be a satisfaction, and that this happens with the elements and in a context whose painful character is sufficiently marked, to make us avoid this sort of precipitous step which I mention here to show that at the limit it is possible.

無可置疑的,佛洛伊德曾經有一陣子揶揄過這個「一廂情願」,並且告訴我們,不僅是因為他需要看見他的父親,這會使他感到快樂,因為這根本就不足夠。理由很簡單,它似乎根本就不是一種滿足。這個夢發生,擁有這些元素,在一個內容裏。這個內容的令人痛苦的特性,充份地被標示出來,為了讓我們避免這種的突如其來的步驟,我在此提到,為了要顯示,推到極端,這個令人痛苦的特性是可能的。

When all is said and done I do not think that a single analyst could go that far when
it is a question of a dream. But it is precisely because one (25) cannot go so far when it is a question of a dream, that psychoanalysts are no longer interested in dreams.
How does Freud tackle things? We will stay with his text:

當一切都說都做了,我不認為,單是一位精神分析師就能夠進展那麼遠,就夢的問題而言。但是確實是因為我們無法進展那麼遠,就夢的問題。精神分析師不再對於夢感到興趣。佛洛伊德如何處理這些事情?讓我們追蹤他的文本。

“The only way,” he writes in this article, right at the end, “the only way of understanding this apparently nonsensical dream is by adding as the dreamer wished’ or in consequence of his wish’ after the words that his father had really died’, and by further adding that he (the dreamer) wished it’ to the last words. The dream-thought then runs: it was a painful memory for him that he had been obliged to wish for his father’s death ……. and how terrible it would have been if his father had had any suspicion of it !”

「唯一的方式,」他在他的文章中寫到,就在文章末尾,「唯一可以瞭解這個顯然是無意義的夢的方法,是將他的父親已經真正死亡之後的這些話語,增添當著作夢者的願望,或是作為他的願望的結果。而且增添為,作夢者希望這個夢是最後的話語。這個夢與思想因此這樣運轉:對於他而言,這是一個令人痛苦的記憶,他不得不希望他的父親的死亡、、、假如他的父親當時懷疑到這種想法,那會是一件多麽可怕的事情!」

This leads you to give its weight to the fashion that Freud treats the problem. It is a signifier. These are things which are clausulae (?) and we are going to try to articulate on the linguistic plane what they are, the exact value of what is given here as permitting access to the understanding of the dream.

這會引導你們重視這個方式,佛洛伊德處理這個難題的方式。這是一個意符。有些事情在此是多聲喧嘩。根據語言的層次,我們將設法表達它們是什麼,在此所被給予的內容的確實的價值,作為容許我們接近這個夢的瞭解,

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

Desire 021 Jacques Lacan

February 23, 2011

Desire 021

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋
1958 – 1959

Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

This is articulated in Freud. It is not enough for him to articulate it once, he articulates it a hundred times, and in every connection he comes back to it. It is precisely here that there enters in the enigma of what is called the transformation (18) of this affect, of what proves in this connection to be particularly plastic, and that by which all the authors moreover once they approach this question of affect, namely every time they see it, have been struck, I mean to the extent that no one dares to touch the question, because what is altogether striking is that I who practice an intellectualist psychoanalysis, am going to spend the year talking about it, but that on the
contrary you can count on the fingers of one hand the articles in analysis devoted to the question of affect, even though psychoanalysts are always full of it when they are talking about a clinical observation, because of course they always have recourse to affect.

佛洛伊德曾經表達這一點。他表達一次還不夠,他表達它好幾百次,而且每次回頭談論。確實在這裏,所謂這個情意的轉變的這個謎團進來。在這一方面,它證明是特別有彈性的。而且,所有的作者,一旦他們碰觸到情意這個問題,換句話說,每一次他們看到它,他們都印象深刻。我的意思是,他們甚至不敢碰觸這個問題。因為耐人尋味的地方是,我,作為一個從事知識探索的精神分析師,我將要花費這一年多時間談論它。但是恰恰相反的,你們能夠找到精神分析學的文章,專注於探討情意的問題,大約只有五篇。即使精神分析學總是充滿情意,當他們談論有關臨床的觀察。當然,因為他們總是訴諸於情意。

There is to my knowledge a single worthwhile article on this question of affect, it is an article by Glover which is spoken about a good deal in the writings of Marjorie Brierley. There is in this article an attempt to take a step forward in the exploration of this notion of affect which leaves something to be desired in what Freud said on the subject.

據我所知,有一篇很有價值的文章,討論情意的問題。那是格羅勃的文章。在這篇文章裏,他企圖向前跨進一步,探索情意的這個觀念。佛洛伊德對於這個議題的論述,有某些值得被批評的地方。

This article is moreover detestable, like the whole of this book which, devoting itself to what are called the tendencies of psychoanalysis, gives a rather nice illustration of all the really impossible places that psychoanalysis is trying to lodge itself, in passing by morality, personalism, and other such eminently practical perspectives around which the blah of our epoch likes to spend itself.

而且,這篇文章令人厭惡,就像這整本書。它專注於所謂的精神分析學的傾向,給予一個很好的舉例說明,對於所有真正不可能的地方。精神分析學正在設法將自己定位在那些地方,有時用道德、人格主義、及其它諸如顯見是實用的觀點。環繞這些,我們這個時代最喜歡耗費時間喋喋不休。

On the contrary if we come back here to the things which concern us, namely to serious things, what do we read in Freud? We read the following: the affect; the problem is to know what becomes of it, in so far as it is disconnected from the repressed representation, and it thenceforth depends only on the substitutive representation which it is able to become attached to.

相反的,假日我們在此回頭談論跟我們有關的這些事情,換句話說,談論嚴肅的事情,我們在佛洛伊德那裏讀到什麼呢?我們閱讀以下:有關情意的難題,是要知道它發生什麼事情,當它跟被壓抑的表徵中斷。因此,它只是依靠這個替代的表徵,它才能夠跟它相連繫。

To what is disconnected there corresponds this possibility of annexation which is its property, and which is the way the affect presents itself in analytic experience as something problematic, which ensures for example that in the living experience of a hysteric, it is from this that analysis starts, it is from this that Freud starts when he begins to articulate analytic truths; it is that an affect arises in the ordinary,
comprehensible, communicable text of the everyday experience of a hysteric and the fact that this affect is there, which moreover seems to fit in with the totality of the text, except to a more exigent eye, this affect which is there is the transformation of
something else, and it is something which deserves that we should dwell on it; of something which is not another affect, which might be supposed to be in the unconscious.

合併的這個可能性,跟那裏中斷的東西相一致。這個合併是它的特性,是情意呈現自己的方式,在精神分析經驗裏,作為某件棘手的東西。例如,它確保,在一位歇斯底里症患者的生活經驗裏,精神分析學就是從那裏開始。佛洛伊德從那個地方開始,當他開始表達精神分析的真理。一個情意起源於一位歇斯底里症患者,他的日常經驗的可理解及可溝通的普通文本。而且,這個情意在那裏的這個事實,似乎跟文本的整體性相配合,除了在一個更加危急的眼光裏。在那裏的這個情意,是某件其他的東西的轉變。這個東西應該值得我們詳述它。這個某件東西,並不是另外一個情意。它可以被認為是在無意識界那裏。

This Freud denies absolutely. There is absolutely nothing like that, it is the
transformation of the purely quantitative factor; there is absolutely nothing which at that moment is really in the (20) unconscious this quantitative factor in a transformed form, and the whole question is to know how these transformations in the affect are possible, namely for example how an affect which is in the depths is conceivable in the restored unconscious text as being such and such, presents itself in a different form when it appears in the preconscious context.

佛洛伊德絕對否認這個。絕對沒有一樣東西像那樣,這是純粹數量因素的轉變。在那個時刻,絕對沒有一樣東西,真的處於無意識界,處於被轉變的狀態。整個問題是要知道,在情意的這些轉變是可能的。換句話說,例如,處於深度位置的一個情意,如何能夠被構想,在被恢復到無意識文本裏,作為如此的東西?它如何以不同的形式,呈現它自己,在這個前意識到內涵裏?

What does Freud tell us?

佛洛伊德告訴我們什麼?

First text: “The whole difference arises from the fact that ideas (Vorstellungs) are cathexis – basically of memory traces – whilst affects and emotions correspond to processes of discharge, the final manifestations of which are perceived as feeling.” (SE 14 178;GW 10 277) Such is the rule for the formation of affects.

第一個文本是:「整個的差異起源於這個事實:觀念是精神集中,基本上是記憶痕跡的精神集中。當情意與情感對應發洩的這些過程,發洩的這些最後的證明被認為是感覺。這就是情意被形成的規則。」

It is also indeed the fact that as I told you, the affect refers to the quantitative factor of the drive, the one in which he understands that it is not just movable, mobile, but subject to the variable which constitutes this factor, and he again articulates it precisely in saying that its fate can be threefold: “Either the affect remains, wholly or in part, as it is; or it is transformed into a qualitatively different quota of affect, above all into anxiety;” – this is what he writes in 1915, and one sees there the beginnings of a position which the article Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety will articulate in the
topology – “or it is suppressed, i.e. it is prevented from (21) developing at all.”

如我告訴你們的,也確實是這個事實,情意提到欲望驅力的數量的因素。在這裏,他瞭解到,欲望驅力不僅可以移動,可以活動,而且隸屬於這個變數。這個變數組成這個因素。然後,他再一次確實地表達它,當他說,欲望驅力的命運可能有三重:「一是、情意始終保持原來的樣子,完整或是部份的樣子;二是、欲望驅力被轉變成為,情意的數量不同的各種配額;尤其是轉變成為焦慮。」這是在1915年,他所寫的內容。我們在那裏看出一個立場的開始。「壓抑、病徵、與焦慮」這篇文章,將會表達的一個立場,在這個拓樸圖形:「三是、欲望驅力被壓抑,也就是,它被阻擋根本無法發展。」

“But in comparison with unconscious ideas (Vorstellunqsreprasentanz),” he tells us,” there is the important difference that unconscious ideas continue to exist after repression as actual structures in the system Ucs, whereas all that corresponds
in that system to unconscious affects is a potential beginning which is prevented from developing”, writes Freud.

「但是跟無意識的理念比較起來,」他告訴我們,「這個重要的差別是,無意識的理念在壓抑之後,會繼續存在,作為實際的結構,在無意識界的系統裏。而這那個系統裏,一切對應於無意識的情意,是一種潛力的開始。這個潛力的開始被阻擋,無法發展。」佛洛伊德這樣寫著。

This is an altogether inevitable preamble before entering into the mode in which I intend here to pose the question connected with the interpretation of desire in the dream. I told you that for that I would take a dream from Freud’s text, because after
all it is still the best guide to be sure about what he intends to say when he speaks about the desire of the dream.

這是一個完全無可避免的前奏,在我們進入這個模式之前。在這個模式裏,我打算在此提出,在夢裏跟欲望的解釋有關的這個問題。我告訴你們,我將從佛洛伊德的文本,取一個夢當例子。因為畢竟,這依舊是最好的引導,讓我們確定,當他談論有關夢的欲望,他打算要說些什麼?

We are going to take a dream which I will borrow from this article which is called “Formulierungen”, “Formulations on the two principles of mental functioning”, from 1911, which appeared just before the Schreber case.

我們將取一個夢。這個夢,我將從被稱為「說明」的這篇文章借用過來。從1911年,在討論精神功用的兩個原理的這些說明,它們出現,就在蘇瑞伯病例之前。

I take this dream and the fashion in which Freud speaks of it and treats it, from this article, because it is articulated there in a simple, exemplary, significant, unambiguous fashion and to show how Freud understand the manipulation of these Vorstellungsreprasentanz, in so far as it is a question of the formulation of
unconscious desire.

我取這個夢,以及佛洛伊德談論它及處理它的方式,從這篇文章裏。因為它在那裏被表達,以一個簡單、典範、重要、及毫無曖昧的方式。為了要顯示,佛洛伊德是如何瞭解這些「表徵的理念」的操控,因為這是無意識的欲望的說明的問題。

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

雄伯政論01

February 22, 2011

雄伯政論01

議題一:陳雲林來台訪問,民進党地方首長該不該跟他會面?

雄伯之見:當然應該,而且要公開表示歡迎,而且要承諾保護其行程的安全,不受羞辱。臺灣既然是主權獨立的國家,就應該有風度接受任何國家的要人來訪,更何況兩國互訪,還可能有商機互惠的利益。

現在的問題,不是你要不要會晤人家,而是人家要不要來訪問。陳雲林前來臺灣訪問,身上帶著豐厚的經濟籌碼,必然會有招待規格的要求。簡言之,就是中國只有一個,臺灣是中國不可分割的一部份。他所到之處,不能有青天白日的國旗飄揚,最好也不要有茉莉花惹他懊惱。

民進党地方首長當然不可能正式而公開地答應這樣的要求。他們所能做到的,大慨就是學馬英九那樣,尋找模糊的空間,一方面能夠獲得實質的經濟利益,另一方面,又能夠自圓其說地滿足自己的主權自尊。

折衷的辦法大慨是:讓中間的商人去當主人,民進党地方首長只是去參加宴席的來賓。將場面佈置的責任讓中間的商人去承擔,宣稱自己僅是受邀的客人。

Desire 020 Jacques Lacan

February 22, 2011

Desire 020

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋
1958 – 1959

Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

I think that this is sufficient to show you this agency of the signifier, in so far as it is at the basis of the very structuring of a certain psychological field which is not the
totality of the psychological field, which is precisely this part of the psychological field which to a certain degree is by convention within what we can call psychology, to the degree that psychology is constituted on the basis of what I would call a
sort of unitary intentional or appetitive theory of the field.

我認為,跟你們顯示意符的這個代理,就很足夠了。因為它是某種心理學的領域的結構的基礎。它並不是心理學領域的整體性。確實就是這個心理學領域的這個部份,根據傳統,在某個程度,它屬於我們所謂的心理學。心理學組成的基礎,在某個程度是根據我所我的一種單一的意向及食欲的領域。

This presence of the signifier, is articulated, is articulated in an infinitely more insistent, infinitely more powerful, infinitely more efficacious way in the Freudian experience, and this is what Freud reminds us of at every instant, it is also (14) what tends to be forgotten in the most exceptional way, in so far as you want to make of analysis something which would go in the same direction, in the same sense as the one in which psychology has come to situate its interest, I mean in the sense of the clinical field, of an intentional field where the unconscious is supposed to be something like a kind of well, a borehole as one might say, parallel to the general evolution of psychology and which is also supposed to go by another way to the
level of these most elementary tensions, to the level of the depths, in so far as there occurs something more reduced to the vital, to the elementary aspect of what we see at the surface which is supposed to be the so-called field of the preconscious or the conscious.

意符的存在被表達,以一種更加持續、更加有力量,更加有效率的方式,在佛洛伊德的精神分析經驗裏。這就是為什麼佛洛伊德隨時提醒我們,那也是它會傾向於被忘記,以最特殊的方式。你們想要解釋精神分析學為某件會朝著相同方向的東西,以相同的意義,如同心理學定位它的興趣所在。我的意思是,臨床領域的所在,屬於意圖性的領域。在那裏,無意識被認為是某件像是一種井,一種鑽孔,我們不妨這樣說。跟心理學的一般進化相提並論。心理學也被認為要遵照某種的途徑,到達這些基本緊張的層次,到達這些深度的層次。有額外某件事情發生,被化簡成為我們看到的這個重要的,基本的方面,在這個被認為是所謂的意識的前意識到領域。

This, I repeat, is an error. It is very precisely in this sense that everything that we are saying takes on its value and its importance, and if some of you were able the last time to follow my advice and refer to the two articles which appeared in 1915,
what were you able to read there? You were able to read and to see the following: that if you refer for example to the article “Das Unbewusste”, the point which is most tangible in it, to the point I would say against which in a superficial description in
which it would be a question of something other than signifying elements, of things which those who understand absolutely nothing about what I am saying here, articulate and call every day an (15) intellectualist theory.

我重複一遍,這是個錯誤。確實就是以這種意義,每一件我們正在說的事情,形成它的價值及它的重要性。假如上一次你們有些人能夠遵照我的勸告,去參考出現在1915年的這兩篇文章,你們在那裏會閱讀到什麼?你們能夠閱讀而且看出以下:例如,假如你們參考這篇文章「無意識」,在裏面最具體的一點,到達我會說,以一個膚淺的描述,問題是某件不是意符因素的東西,對於我在此正在談論一無所知的那些人,會稱呼每一個,是一個知識份子的理論。

We will therefore go and put ourselves at the level of unconscious emotions, since Freud speaks about them, because of course it is naturally objected to all of this that instead of speaking about the signifier, this is not emotional life, this is not dynamic. I am of course far from wanting to contest this because it is to explain it in a clear
fashion that I take this route to the level of the Unbewusste.

因此,我們將會去將我們自己放置在無意識情感的層次,因為佛洛伊德談論有關它們。因為當然我們自然會反對所有以下的說法:非但沒有談論到意符,這並不是情感的生活,這也不是動力活動。當然,我絲毫並不想要爭辯,因為我想要解釋它,以一個清楚的方式。我採取這條途徑,到達無意識的層次。

What do you see Freud articulating for us? He articulates for us very exactly the following: it is the third part of “Das Unbewusste”; Freud explains the following very clearly, that the only thing that can be repressed, he tells us, is what is called
Vorstellunqsrepr’asentanz.

你們看到佛洛伊德跟我們表達什麼?他非常確實地跟我們表達以下:在「無意識」的第三部份,佛洛伊德非常清楚地解釋以下:他告訴我們,唯一能夠被壓抑的東西,就是所謂的「自由」。

It is only this, he tells us which can properly speaking be repressed. This therefore means a representative, in the representation of what? Of the instinctual movement which is called here Triebrequng. There is no ambiguity possible in the text at this point. He tells us explicitly that the Triebrequng, itself in any case, is a concept
and as such aims at what can even be called more precisely the unity of instinctual motion, and in this case there is no question of considering this Triebrequng, as either unconscious or as conscious.

他告訴我們,適當地說,只有這個能夠被壓抑。因此這意味著是一種表徵,什麼東西的表徵?本能活動的表徵,在此被稱為「無意識」。在這個文本裏的這一點,沒有任何可能模糊曖昧的東西。他清楚地告訴我們,這個無意識本身,無論如何,是一個概念。作為概念的本身,它目標朝著可以更加明確稱為是「本能動作的一致性」。在這個情形,要將這個「Triebrequng」認為是無意識,或是意識,這個問題就不言而喻。

This is what is said in the text. What does that mean? That simply means that we should take what we call Triebrequng as an (16) objective concept. It is an objective unity in so far as we look at it, and it is neither conscious nor unconscious, it is
simply what it is, an isolated fragment of reality which we will conceive of as having an incidence from its own action.

這就是文本裏所說的。那是什麼意思?那僅是意味著:我們應該將我們所謂的「無意識」,認為是一種客體的觀念。這是一個客體的一致性,當我們觀看它。它既不是意識,也不是無意識,它僅僅就是那樣。現實界的一個被孤立的碎片。我們將會構想它,當著是從它自己的活動發生的一個意外。

It is only all the more remarkable in my opinion that it should be its representative in the representation. This is the exact value of the German term, and only this representative of the drive that is in question, Trieb, can be said to belong to the
unconscious in so far as it precisely implies what I set out above with a question mark, namely an unconscious subject. I do not have to go much further here, I mean that you should begin to sense, it is precisely to specify what is this representative in the representation, and of course you see already, not where I want to get to, but where we necessarily get to, namely that the Vorstellunqsreprasentanz, even though Freud in his time and at the point that things could be said in scientific discourse this Vorstellunqsreprasentanz is strictly equivalent to the notion and to the term of signifier.

依我之見,這僅是更加引人注意,它應該是它自己在表徵中的表徵。這確實就是德文術語的價值。只有這個受到質疑的欲望驅力的表徵能夠說是屬於無意識。它確實暗示著,以上我用一個問號開始的東西,換句話說,一個無意識的生命主體。在此,我不需要再探索更遠。我的意思是:你們應該開始感覺到,這確實是要指明這個表徵裏的表徵是什麼?當然,你們已經看到,不是在我想要到達的地方,而是我們必須到達到地方。換句話說,這個「自由」,即使佛洛伊德在他的時代,事情能夠使用科學的真理論述來說時代,這個「自由」嚴格來說,相等於這個觀念,相等于意符的這個術語。

It is nothing else, even though it is only being introduced, and of course the demonstration has, it seems to me, already been introduced, because otherwise what is
the use of everything that I said above. This of course will always be further demonstrated, this is precisely what is in question.

那不是別的,即使它僅是正在被介紹,當然,我覺得,這個證明已經被介紹。否則我以上所說的一切,就沒有什麼用途。當然,這總是還需要更進一步證明。這確實就是受到質疑的地方。

That Freud on the contrary is opposed to this, is also articulated in the most precise fashion by himself. What does Freud say about everything that can be connoted under the terms of feelings, emotion, affect, which he himself reunites? He says that it is by a carelessness of expression which has, or which cannot, or which is not according to the context, some difficulties, like every carelessness, but there is a certain looseness when one says that it is unconscious. In principle, he says, it never can be, he formally denies it any possibility of an unconscious incidence.

相反的,佛洛伊德反對這種說法。他自己也以最確實的方式表達。佛洛伊德所說,關於能夠被意涵的一切,在感覺、情感、情意等,這些術語下,他自己想要重新結合什麼呢?他說,這是由於表達的粗心,沒有依照文本,才遭遇某些的困難,就像每一種粗心一樣。但是有某種的鬆散,當我們說,它就是無意識。在原則上,他說,它永遠不會是無意識。他正式地拒絕給予它,任何無意識意外的可能性。

This is expressed and repeated in a way which involves no doubt, no kind of ambiguity. Affect, as in talking about an unconscious affect, this means that it is perceived, but known; but known in what way? In its attachments, but not that it is unconscious, because it is always perceived, he tells us, simply it has gone and attached itself to another representation, which is not repressed. In other words, it had to accommodate itself to the context existing in the preconsciousness, which allows it to be considered by consciousness, which on occasion is not difficult, as a manifestation of its last context.

這件事情用某種方式被表達,被重複。無可置疑的,它並沒有牽涉到任何的模糊曖昧。情意,當我們談論到無意識的情意時,這意味著:情意被感覺,但是沒有被知道。在哪一方面,沒有被知道?在它的連繫,但是不是因為它是無意識,而是因為它總是被感覺到。他告訴我們,情意已經前往跟另外一個並沒有被壓抑的表徵,連繫在一起。換句話說,情意必須要接納自己,到存在於前意識的這個內涵。這個前意識使它能夠被意識所考慮。有時候,這並不困難,作為一種它自己最後的內涵的證明。

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

Desire 019 Jacques Lacan

February 22, 2011

Desire 019

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK VI
Desire and its Interpretation
欲望及其解釋
1958 – 1959

Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

But if this is still not enough for you, I will complete this parenthesis because I want to do it to recall to you on what the associationist theory is founded, and on the basis of this experience, what happens afterwards, what is coordinated in the mind of a subject at such a level, where to take up again the exploration as it is carried on in this first experimental relationship, the elements, the atoms, the ideas as they say, no
doubt approximately, inadequately, this first relationship, presents itself, not without reason, in this form.

但是假如你們覺得這樣還不足夠,我將完成這個括弧,因為我想要做它,為了提醒你們,有關聯想主義的理論建立在什麼基礎之上。在這個經驗的基礎,後來發生什麼事?一個生命主體的心靈,在這樣的層次,是什麼被協調?當它被執行,在這個第一次的試驗性地關係,要到哪里去重新從事這樣的探索?這些元素,這些原子,如他們所說的,這些觀念,無可置疑的,只是大約,而且不充份。這個關係,以這個形式呈現它自己,不是沒有理由。

How, we are told, do these ideas make their entry at the origin?

我們被告知,這些觀念是如何進入到這個起源?

It is a question of relationships of continuity. Go and see, follow the texts, see what is spoken about, the examples on which it is based, and you will recognise perfectly that the continuity is nothing other than this discursive Combination on which there is based the effect that we call here metonymy. Continuity no doubt between two things which have arisen in so far as they are (10) evoked in memory on the plane of laws of association.

問題是連續性的關係。前去瞧一瞧,遵照這些文本,去瞧一瞧,他們談論些什麼?以它作為基礎的這些例子,你們就會清楚地體會到:這個連續性道道地地就是「推論性的結合」。在裏面,我們所謂的「換喻」的效果,就被建立在那裏。無可置疑,處於兩件東西之間的繼續性。這兩樣東西的出現,因為它們在記憶中被召喚,在聯想到法則的層次。

What does that mean? This signifies how an event has been lived in a context which we could broadly speaking call a random context. A part of the event having been evoked, the other will come to mind constituting an association of continuity, which is
nothing other than an encounter. What does that mean? That means in sum that it is broken up, that its elements are caught up in the same narrative text. It is in so far as the event evoked in memory is a narrated event, that the narration forms its text, that we can speak at this level about continuity.

那是什麼意思?這指示著:一個事件如何在一個情境裏被經歷,廣義地說,這個情境我們能夠稱為所任意的情境。事件的一部分曾經被召喚,我們將會聯想到另外一個事件,組成一種繼續性的聯想。這道道地地就是邂逅。那是什麼意思?總之,那意味著:它被中斷,它的元素被套陷在相同的描述的文本裏。當這個事件在記憶中被召喚,它是一個被描述的事件。但是這種描述組成它的文本,我們能夠在這個層次談論有關連續性。

A continuity moreover which we distinguish for example in a word-association experiment. One word will come with another:

而且,這個連續性,例如,我們在文字的聯想的試驗中所區別的連續性。一個字會跟隨一個字而來。

If in connection with the word “cherry” I evoke obviously the word “table”, this will be a relationship of continuity because on such a day there were cherries on the table.

假如關於「櫻桃」這個字,顯而易見地,我召喚「桌子」這個字。這會形成一種連續性的關係,因為在這樣的一天,有櫻桃放在桌子上。

But a relationship of continuity if we speak of something which is nothing other than a relationship of similarity. Even a relationship of similarity, is also always a relationship of signifiers in so far as the similarity is the passage from one to the other by a similarity which is a similarity of being, which is a similarity of one to the other, between one and the other in so far as one being different to the other, there is some subject (11) of being which makes them alike.

但是這是一種連續性,假如我們談論到某件道道地地就是類似的關係。即使它是一種類似的關係,它也總是一種意符的關係。因為這個類似,就是從一個意符到另外一個意符的傳遞過程,由於一種類似,那是生命實存的一種類似。那是一個意符到另外一個意符的類似,處於彼此之間。一個生命的實存不同於另外一個生命的實存,有某個生命實存的主體,使他們看起來相同。

I am not going to go into the whole dialectic of the same and the other, with all its difficulties and the infinitely greater richness than there appears there at first glance. I refer those who are interested in this to Parmenides, and they will see that they will spend some time there before exhausting the question.

我不想要進入相同與不同的整套辯證法,由於它的困難重重,以及它遠比我們乍看之下,來得更加複雜萬分。我推薦那些對此感到興趣的人,去閱讀巴門尼底斯。他們將會看出,他們會花費一些時間,在窮盡這個問題之前。

What I am simply saying here and what I want you to experience, is, because I spoke above about cherries, that in connection with this word there are other usages besides the metonymical usage, I would say precisely to serve a metaphorical usage, I can use it to speak about lips saying that these lips are like cherries, and give the word “cherry” as a word-association in connection with the word “lip”.

我在此僅要說的,以及我想要你們經驗到的是:因為我以上談論到櫻桃,關於這個字,除了換喻的用法外,還有其他用法。我確實地說,為了服務一個比喻的用法。我能夠使用它,談論到嘴唇:這些嘴唇看起來像櫻桃,然後給予「櫻桃」這個字,當著是一種字的聯想,關於「嘴唇」這個字。

Why are they linked here? Because they are both red, alike in some of their attributes. It is not just this, or because they both have the same form analogically, but
what is quite clear, is that whatever is happening, we are immediately, and this can be sensed, in the quite substantial effect which is called the metaphorical effect. There is no kind of ambiguity whatsoever when I speak in a word-association experiment of cherries in connection with lips.

在此,為什麼它們有關聯?因為它們兩個都是紅色,在它們的某些屬性,它們相同。不僅是如此,或者是因為它們兩者都有相同的類似形狀。而且顯而易見的,無論發生什麼事,我們能夠感覺到,我們立刻處於這個相當實質的結果,所謂比喻的結果。這中間根本沒有模糊曖昧,當我用一個字的聯想的試驗談論櫻桃跟嘴唇的關係。

We are on the plane of the metaphor in the most substantial sense that is included in this effect, this term, and on the most formal plane, (12) this always presents itself as I have reduced it for you to a metaphorical effect, to an effect of substitution in the
signifying chain.

我們處於比喻的層次,以最實質的意涵。這個意涵被包括在這個效果,這個術語。在最正式的層次,這個總是會呈現它自己,當我替你們將它化簡到比喻的效果,在意符鎖鏈的代替的效果。

It is in so far as the cherry can be put into a structural context or not in connection with the lip, that the cherry is there. At which point, you could say to me: the cherry can come into connection with the lips in a function of continuity; the cherry has disappeared between the lips, or she has given me a cherry to take on my lips. Yes, of course it can also present itself like that, but what is in question? It is a question here
of a continuity which precisely is that of the narrative that I spoke about above, because the event in which this continuity is integrated, and which brings it about that the cherry is in fact for a short time in contact with the lips, is something which of
course from the real point of view, should not deceive us. It is not that the cherry has touched the lips which is important, it is that it is swallowed; in the same way it is not the fact that it is held between the lips in the erotic gesture I evoked, it is that it is offered to us in this erotic movement itself which counts.

當櫻桃能夠被放進一個結構的內涵,關於跟嘴唇的關係,櫻桃就在那裏。在哪一點,你們能夠跟我說,櫻桃能夠進入跟嘴唇的關聯,以連續性的功用?櫻桃已經消失在兩片嘴唇中間?或是她給我一粒櫻桃,為了瞧瞧我的嘴唇?是的,當然,它也能夠呈現它自己像那樣,但是什麼受到質疑?在此,這是一個連續性的問題,確實就是描述性的問題,我以上所提到的。因為這個事件,連續性被合併在裏面的這個事件,並且導致它的發生。事實上,這個櫻桃跟這兩個嘴唇有段短時間的接觸,當然從真實的觀點來說,這是不應該有任何欺騙的事。重要的,倒不是櫻桃碰觸到嘴唇,而是櫻桃被吞下去。如同在我召喚的這個情欲的姿態,重要的,不是它被含在兩片嘴唇的中間這個事實,重要的是,它被提供給予我們,以這樣情欲挑逗的動作。

If for an instant we stop this cherry in contact with the lips it is in function of a flash which is precisely a short exposure of the narrative, in which it is the sentence, or it is
the words which for an instant suspend this cherry between the lips, and it is moreover precisely because this dimension of (13) narrative exists in so far as it establishes this flash, that inversely this image in so far as it is created by the suspension of the narrative, effectively becomes on this occasion one of the stimulants of desire to the degree that in imposing a tone which is only here the implication of the language of the act, language introduces retrospectively into the act this stimulation, this stimulating element properly speaking which is arrested as such and which comes on this occasion to nourish the act itself through this suspension which takes on the value of the phantasy, which has an erotic signification in the detour of the act.

假如我們停止這個櫻桃跟嘴唇接觸的瞬間,它就具有閃現的功用。這個閃現的功用,確實就是描述的短暫的曝露。在描述裏,這個句子,或這些文字,有那麼一瞬間,懸置這粒櫻桃在兩片嘴唇之間。而且,確實是因為這個描述的向度存在,它建立了這個閃現。逆轉過來說,當這個意象被描述的懸置所創造,在這個場合,它有效地變成欲望的一種刺激,到達這個程度,當我們賦加一種語調,這個語調在此暗示著,這個行動的語言。語言會反動地介紹這個刺激到行動裏。適當地說,這種刺激的元素本身會被擄獲,在這個場合,會前來滋養這個行動的本身,透過這層懸置。這層懸置具有幻見的價值,而幻見具有一個情欲的意義,在這個行動的迂迴裏。

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