Archive for February, 2011

Desire 018 Jacques Lacan

February 22, 2011

Desire 018

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

(5) When some people say the ego, they are mistaken. Freud certainly affirmed the contrary. And when one says the unconscious, that means nothing. Therefore when I say: the subject of the Wunsch is satisfied, I put this subject in parenthesis, and all that Freud tells us, is that it is a Wunsch which is satisfied.

當一些人說到自我,他們是錯誤的說法。佛洛伊德的肯定,恰恰相反。當我們說到無意識,那並不意味著什麼。因此,當我說,「欲望」的生命主體被滿足,我將生命主體放在括弧裏。佛洛伊德所告訴我們的是,被滿足的是一個「欲望」。

With what is it satisfied? I would say that it is satisfied with being, meaning with being that is satisfied. That is all we can say, because in fact it is quite clear that the dream does not bring with it any other satisfaction than satisfaction at the
level of the Wunsch, namely what one might call a verbal satisfaction.

欲望被用什麼滿足?我的說法是,欲望被用生命實存滿足,意思是用被滿足的生命實存。哪就是我們所能說的,因為事實上,這是顯而易見,夢並沒有帶來任何其他的滿足,除了就是這個「欲望」層次的滿足。換句話說,我們所謂的文詞上的滿足。

The Wunsch is here content with appearances, and it is quite clear if we are dealing with a dream and moreover also the character of this satisfaction is here reflected in the language by which it has expressed it to us, by this “satisfied with being” (satisfait de l’être) as I expressed myself just now, and in which there is betrayed this ambiguity of the word being (être) in so far as it is there, that it slides around everywhere, and that also by formulating itself in this way in the grammatical form of a reference to being, being satisfied, I mean: can it be taken for this substantial aspect?

「欲望」在此滿足於表像。顯而易見的,假如我們正在處理一個夢,而且,這個滿足的特性在此被反映在語言上。憑藉語言,夢跟我們表達滿足,以這個「對於生命實存的滿足」。如我剛才自我表達的,在這種滿足裏,這種文字的生命實存的曖昧被透露出來。就在那裏,它到處滑溜。而且,憑藉著以這種方式說明自己,以提到生命實存,生命實存的滿足的文法形式。我的意思是,它能夠被認為是這種實質上的一面嗎?

There is nothing substantial in being except the word itself, it is satisfied with being, we can take it for what being is, if not literally (au pied de la lettre).

在生命實存裏,並沒有任何實質上的東西,除了就是文字本身。這種對於生們實存的滿足,我們能夠把它當著是生命實存的本質,即使不是實質上。

When all is said and done it is indeed in effect something of the (6) order of being which satisfies the Wunsch. In short it is only in the dream, at least on the plane of being, that the Wunsch can be satisfied.

當一切都說都做了,事實上,確實是生命實存的秩序的東西,滿足了這個「欲望」。總之,那僅是在夢裏,至少是在生命實存的層次,「欲望」才能夠被滿足。

I would almost like to do here something that I often do, give a little preamble if you wish, a backward glance, a remark which would allow you to wake up from something or other which involves nothing less than the whole history of psychological speculation, in so far as it is linked, in so far as modern psychology began by formulating, as you know, in terms of psychological atomism,
here all the ………….

在此,我幾乎想要做某件我時常做的事情,先透露一點端倪,如你們所願,一種往後的回顧,一個談論。這個談論將會使你們清醒過來,從某件事情當中。這件事情牽涉到的道道地地就是心理學思潮的整個歷史。因為它牽連到,如同現代心理學是從說明開始,你們知道,使用心理學到原子論,在此,所有的、、、

Everyone knows that we are no longer at that stage, at associationism at it is called, and that we have made considerable progress since we have begun to consider the demand for totality, the unity of the field, intentionality and other forces. But I would say that the matter is not at all settled, and it is not at all settled precisely because of
Freud’s psychoanalysis, but it is not at all seen how the mainspring of this settling of accounts, which is not really one, has operated in reality, I mean that its essence has been allowed to escape completely, and at the same time also the persistence of what has been supposedly reduced in it.

每個人都知道,我們不再處於那個階段,處於所謂的「聯想主義」。自從我們開始考慮到這個要求,作為整體性,作為這個領域的一致性,意向性,及其它力量,我們已經有了重大的進步。但是我要說的是,這件事情並沒有解決,它絲毫沒有被解決,確實是因為佛洛伊德的精神分析學。但是大家都絲毫沒有看出,說明的這個建立的主要動力,運作在現實界,並不是真實的動力。同時,它也是所被認為的裏面化簡的持續

At the beginning it is true, the associationism of the tradition of the English school of psychology, where we have an articulated game and a vast misunderstanding, if I can express myself thus, (7) where I would say the field of the real is noted, in the sense that what is in question is the psychological apprehension of the real, and where it is a question of explaining in short, not just simply that there are men who think, but that there are men who move around the world apprehending in it in a more or less appropriate fashion the field of objects.

在一開始,這是確實的,心理學的英國學派的傳統的聯想主義,在那裏,我們有一個被表達的遊戲,和大量的誤解,容我自己這樣表達。在那裏,容我說,真實界的領域名聲顯赫,所被質疑的是心理學對於這個真實界的理解。在那裏,問題是要扼要地解釋,不僅僅是,人在思維,而且是人在這個世界到處移動,理解客體的領域,以一個大約合宜的方式。

Where therefore is this field of objects, its fragmented structured character? Where does it come from? Quite simply from the signifying chain, and I will really try to choose an example to try to make you grasp that there is nothing else in question, and that everything that is brought forward in the so called structured theory of associationism to conceptualise the progressiveness of psychological apprehension from the emergence up to the organised constitution of the real is in fact nothing
other than the fact of endowing from the outset these fields of the real with the fragmented and structured character of the signifying chain.

因此,客體的這個領域,它的碎片的結構的特性在哪里?它從何處來?簡單地說,來自意符的鎖鏈。容我真實地設法選擇一個例子,設法使你們理解,沒有別的東西受到質疑。每一樣被提出的東西,在所謂的聯想主義的結構理論,為了要構想心理學理解的進步,從真實界的出現,一直到有組織的形成結構。事實上,它道道地地就是這個事實:從一開始,它就使真實界的這些領域,稟賦著意符鎖鏈的碎片及結構的特性。

From then on of course it is perceived that there is going to be a mistake and that there must be what one might call more original relationships with the real and for that one starts from the notion of proportionality, and one makes one’s way towards all the cases in which this apprehension of the world is in some way more elementary, precisely less structured by the signifying chain, without knowing that this is what is in question, one goes towards animal psychology, one evokes all the stigmatic features (8) thanks to which the animal can manage to structure his world and try to find in it the reference point.

當然,從那時開始,我們會感覺到,將會有一個錯誤,一定會有我們所謂的原先的關係跟真實界。我們從均稱的觀念開始,然後我們朝著各種情境前進。在那些情境裏,對於世界的這種理解,在某方面是更加基本,確實是比較不是被意符的鎖鏈所架構。而且,它並不知道這就是受到質疑的地方。我們朝著動物心理學前進。我們召喚所有的受到污染的特徵。由於這些特徵,動物能夠成功地架構他的世界,並且設法在裏面找的這個指稱點。

One imagines when one has done that one has resolved in a type of theory of animated field, of vector of primordial desire, that one has reabsorbed these famous elements which were a first false apprehension of the grasp of the field of the real by the psychology of the human subject.

我們想像,當我們已經做完,我們已經解決,以一種動物界的理論,一種原初欲望的向量的理論。我們重新吸收這些著名的元素。這些元素是一種最初的虛假的理解,對於真實界的這個領域,被人類的生命主體的心理學所理解。

One has simply done exactly nothing, one has described something else, one has introduced another psychology, but the elements of associationism quite
completely survive the establishment of the more primitive psychology, I mean the one which seeks to grasp the level of the cohabitation of the subject with his Umwelt, with his entourage, in the sensori-motor field.

其實,我們確實什麼也沒做到。我們曾經描述某件其他的東西。我們曾經介紹另外一種心理學。但是聯想主義的這些元素,經歷過更加原始的心理學的建立,還完整地存活下來。我指的是,這種心理學設法去理解,生命主體跟他的「環境」共同居住的這個層次,跟他的周圍的事物,在感官動力的領域。

It nevertheless remains that everything that is related, that all the problems given rise to in connection with associationism survive this perfectly well, that there has been no reduction at all, but a kind of displacement of the field of perspective, and the proof of this is precisely the analytic field in which all the principles of associationism continue to reign, because up to this nothing has stifled the fact that when we began to explore the field of the unconscious, we did it, we re-do it every day following on something which is called in principle free association, and up to the present in principle, even though of course it is an approximate, inexact term for designating analytic discourse, (9) the perspective of free association remains valid and that
the original experiments conceal word associations (des mots induits), and still have, even though of course they do not have any therapeutic or practical value, but they still keep their value in orienting the exploration of the field of the unconscious, and this of itself would be enough to show us we are in a field where the word reigns, where the signifier reigns.

可是,問題仍然是,每一樣相關的東西,所有被給予的難題,都提升到跟聯想主義有關。每一樣東西都存活得很好。這裏根本就沒有化簡,而是觀點領域的一種替代。這種證據確實就是精神分析的領域。所有聯想主義的原則都繼續支配,因為一直到這裏,沒有一樣東西掩蓋這個事實:當我們開始探究無意識的這個領域,我們曾經做過,我們每天重新再做一遍,遵照著某件東西。這個東西原則上被稱為「自由聯想」,原則上一直到目前。當然,即使這是一種適當的,不明確的術語,用來指明精神分析的真理論述,自由聯想到觀點始終是有效的。原初的試驗隱藏文字的聯想、當然,即使它們並沒有任何的治療或是實用的價值,但是他們依舊保持它們的價值,朝向無意識的領域的探索。這個的本身就足夠跟我們顯示,我們處於一個領域,文字支配的領域,意符支配的領域。

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

Desire 017 Jacques Lacan

February 21, 2011

Desire 017

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 2: 19 November 1958
Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

We will see that the next time and therefore you see here two opposed systems: the system here in dots, we have said that it is this that is in question, it is the locus of the unconscious and the locus where the repressed turns round and round up to the
(30) point that it makes itself felt, namely when something of the message at the level of the discourse of being, comes to upset the message at the level of demand, which is the whole problem of the analytic symptom.

下一次,我們將會看到,因此你們會在這裏看到兩個對立的系統:在此點點線的這個系統,我們曾經說過,就是這個受到質疑,就是這個無意識的軌跡,被壓抑的部份一再回轉的軌跡,一直到這一點,它使它自己被感覺到。換句話說,當訊息的某件東西,在生命實存的真理論述的這個層次,前來擾亂這個要求層次的訊息。這是精神分析病徵的整個難題。

There is another system, it is the one which prepares what I call here the little platform, namely the discovery of the avatar, a discovery that because there had already been so much trouble getting used to the first system Freud gave us the fatal benefit of making the following step himself before his death, namely that Freud in his second topology had discovered the register of the other system in dots: a little platform this is precisely what the second topology corresponds to.

還有另外一個系統。這個系統替我在這裏所謂的小平臺做準備。換句話說,靈魂具體顯現的發現。這是個發現,因為我們為了適應第一個系統,就已經遭遇許多麻煩,佛洛伊德給予我們這個致命的利益,在他過世之前,他從事以下的步驟。換句話說,佛洛伊德在他的第二個拓樸圖形,曾經發現另一個系統的點點線的這個銘記。這是一個小平臺,確實就是第二個拓樸圖形所對應的東西。

In other words, it is concerning what happens, it is in the measure that he is interested in what happens, at the level of the pre-discourse subject, but in function of this very fact that the subject who speaks did not know what he was doing when he spoke, namely from the moment that the unconscious is discovered as such, that Freud had, if you wish, to schematise things, sought out here at what level of this original place from where it speaks, at what level and in function of what, precisely in relation to an aim which is that of the culmination of the process in I, at what moment the ego is constituted, namely the ego in so far as it has to locate itself with reference to the first formulation, the first capturing of the Id in demand. It is also there that Freud
(31) discovered this primitive discourse qua purely imposed, and at the same time qua marked by its fundamental arbitrariness, that it continues to speak, namely the super-ego. It is there also of course that he left something open, it is there, namely in this fundamentally metaphorical function of language, that he left us something to discover, to articulate, which completes his second topology, and which permits to restore it, to re-establish it, to re-situate it in the totality of his discovery.

換句話說,這是關於所發生的事情,隨著佛洛伊德對於發生的事情感到興趣,在處於真理論述之前的生命主體,但是在這個事實的功用,言談的生命主體並不知道,當他言談時,他正在做些什麼。換句話說,從這個時刻開始,無意識的本身被發現。佛洛伊德必須將這些事情建立一個基模。在此,以這個原初的位置的層次去尋找。從它言談的位置,在什麼層次及什麼的功用,確實就是跟一個目標相關。這個目標就是在「我」的發展過程的高潮的層次,在什麼時刻,自我被形成。換句話說,自我必須找出它自己,關於第一個說明,受到要求的「本我」的第一次虜獲。也就是在那裏,佛洛伊德發現這個原始的真理論述,作為純粹是外在賦加。同時,被這個基本的獨斷性所標示。它繼續言談,換句話說,超我繼續言談。當然,也就是在那裏,他攤開某件東西。就在那裏,換句話說,以語言這個基本的比喻的功用,他留給我們某件東西來發現,來表達。這個東西完成他的第二個拓樸圖形,並且容許去恢復它,重新建立它,重新定位在他發現的整體性上。

26.11.58 1
Seminar 3 ; 26 November 1958

I begin by keeping my promises. The last time I mentioned to you the article by Sartre called: “La Transcendance de l’ego”, an outline of a phenomenological description.

我先遵照我的諾言開始。上一次,我跟你們提到薩特的這篇文章,篇名是「自我的超驗」。是一篇現象學的描述的輪廓。

This article is found in the sixth volume of Recherches Philosophiques, an excellent review which stopped publication with the outbreak of war and with the death of its editor, Boivin. Pages 85 to 103.

在「哲學研究」第六冊被找到的這篇文章,是一篇優秀的評論、由於戰爭的爆發,以及編者的死亡,這篇評論並沒有出版。

The remark made by Freud that the assertion that “all dreams have a sexual signification”, more exactly “require a sexual interpretation, against which critics rage so incessantly, occurs nowhere in my Traumdeutunq. In the seven editions of this book” – this is naturally written in the seventh – “it contradicts in a particularly striking way the rest of the content of what is found in it.” (Gesammelte Werke II/III, which contain the (2) Traumdeutunq, on page 402, cf SE V 397).

佛洛伊德發表這個談論,「所有的夢都帶有性的意義」這句主張,更確實地說是:「所有的夢都需要性的解釋。」對於這句主張,批評者不斷地暴跳如雷。這句話並沒有出現在我的「夢的解釋」。在這本書的第七版,(這當然是第七次寫的,)「耐人尋味地,它牴觸其餘書本裏發現的內容。」

[The remainder of p.2 and some of p.3 are missing]
第二頁及第三頁其餘部份遺落。
26.11.58 2

(3) Many of you heard last evening the clinical report by one of our friends who is an excellent psychoanalyst, on the subject of the obsessional. You heard him speaking about desire and demand.

昨天晚上,你們許多人聽到我的一位朋友的臨床報告。他是一位優秀的精神分析師,他討論偏執狂的生命主體。你們聽到他談論有關欲望與要求。

We are trying to highlight here, because it is not just a theoretical question, but is linked to the essentials of our practice, this question which is the one around which there is played out the problem of the structure of desire and demand, and which is something immediately applicable no doubt to clinical work, brings it to life, I would say makes it comprehensible.

我們正設法在此強調,因為這不僅是一個理論上的事情,而是跟我們行業的基本原則息息相關。環繞著這個問題,欲望與要求的結構的難題紛至遝來。無可置疑的,這是某件可以馬上運用到臨床工作的事情,使臨床工作蓬勃起來,使它可以讓人理解,我可以這樣說。

I would almost say that it is a sign, that when you see it handled too much at the level of understanding, you experience some feeling of its insufficiency, and it is true moreover, because the level of understanding is far from exhausting the principles
of the structure that we are trying to penetrate, because it is on it that we are trying to work and the key around which we should make this distinction between demand and desire pivot, in (4) so far as it immediately clarifies demand, but that on the contrary it situates in its correct place namely at its strictly enigmatic point, the position of man’s desire.

我幾乎要說,這是一個訊息。當你們看到它在瞭解的層次經常被處理,你們經驗到「它的不夠充份」的某種感覺。而且,確實是如此,因為瞭解的層次根本無法窮盡結構的原則。這些結構的原則,我們正在設法探究。因為我們將根據這個結構來運作。我們應該使要求與欲望之間的這個區別,作為關鍵的樞紐,因為它澄清要求是什麼?但是相反的,它在它的正確的地方找到定位。換句話說,在它的謎團重重的這一點,人的欲望的立場。

The key to all of this is the relationship of the subject to the signifier. What characterises the demand, is not just that it is a relationship of a subject to another subject, it is that this relationship is made through the mediation of language, namely though the mediation of a system of signifiers.

所有這些關鍵是生命主體跟意符的關係。表現這個要求的特性,並不僅僅是。一個生命主體跟另外一個生命主體的關係。而是,這個關係透過語言的仲介而建立。換句話說,透過意符系統的仲介而建立。

Because we are now tackling – as I announced to you – the question of what desire is, in so far as it is the foundation of the dream, and you know that it is not easy to know right away what this desire is, if it is the motor of the dream; you know at least that it is twofold, that this desire is first of all directed towards the maintenance of sleep, Freud articulated it in the most explicit manner, namely of this state in which
reality is suspended for the subject.

如同我跟你們宣佈的,因為我們現在正在克服「欲望是什麼」的這個問題,它是夢的基礎。你們知道,要立刻知道這個欲望是什麼,並不容易。假如它是夢的動力,你們至少知道,它有雙重:首先,這個欲望被引導朝向睡眠的維持。佛洛伊德,以最明確的方式表達它。換句話說,對於生命主體而言,現實界被懸置的狀態。

Desire is the desire for death, it is this also and at the same time, and in a perfectly compatible way, I would say in so far as it is often through the mediation of the second desire that the first is satisfied. The desire being that in which the subject of the Wunsch is satisfied, and this subject, I would like to put in a sort of parenthesis: we do not know what the subject is, and it is a question of knowing who is the subject of the Wunsch, of the dream.

欲望是對於死亡的欲望。也就是這一點,同時,我要以非常和諧的方式說,往往是透過第二欲望的仲介,第一個欲望才會滿足。這個欲望是「欲望」的生命主體被滿足的東西。這個生命主體,我想要將他放置在一種括弧裏 我們不知道這個生命主體是什麼。問題是要知道誰是這個「欲望」,這個夢的生命主體。

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

Desire 016 Jacques Lacan

February 21, 2011

Desire 016

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 2: 19 November 1958

If I take the inaugural dream, the dream of Irma’s injection which we have already spoken about on several occasions, about which I wrote something, and which I will write something about again, and about which we could spend an excessively long time talking; remember what the dream of Irma’s injection is; what does it mean exactly? It remains very uncertain, even in what happens. Freud himself, in the desire of the dream, ……..

拿最先我開始講精神分析學的夢為例。愛瑪的夢,我在好幾個場合已經談論過。關於這個夢,我寫過一些東西,我還想再寫一些。關於這個夢,我們很有理由多花費一些時間談論。請你們記著愛瑪打針注射的夢是什麼,它的確實的意義是什麼?它始終不確定,即使是發生的內容。佛洛伊德本人,在夢的欲望中、、、

19.11.58 12
[p. 25 missing in Master Copy] 原錄音稿中間缺頁

(26) in a way laterally, in a derivative way. It is a question precisely of knowing why, but in order to know why I wish simply for a moment to dwell here at those obvious things which the use and usage of language gives us, namely what does it mean when one says to someone, whether it is a man, or a woman, and which we must choose to be a man and this is going to involve a certain number of contextual references, what does it mean when one says to a woman: “I desire you”? Does that mean, in accordance with the moralising optimism within analysis against which you see me
waging war from time to time, does that mean: “I am ready to grant to your being as much if not more rights than to my own, to anticipate all your needs, to think of your satisfaction: Lord, let your will be done in preference to my own?” Is that what it
means?

從側面及延伸的角度來說,問題確實是要知道為什麼。但是為了要知道為什麼,我希望僅是暫時想詳述那些顯而易見的事情。語言的使用及用途給予我們的事情。換句話說,那是什麼意思?當有個人,無論是男是女,跟某個人說。我們假定是男人,這將會牽涉到某些的情境的內涵。當他對一個女人說:「我欲望你」,那是什麼意思?為了配合精神分析學的道德說教的樂觀主義,你們看到我經常對這種樂觀主義從事批判。那句話意味著,「我同樣準備要奉獻給你生命的實存,即使沒有超過我自己生命的實存,為了期望你所有需要,考慮到你的滿足。我的上帝!我將順從你的意志,而不是我自己的意志?」那句話具有那樣的意思嗎?

I think it is enough to evoke this reference to provoke in you the smiles which happily I see spreading among the audience.

我認為我召喚這個指稱將足夠了,為了博取諸位粲然一笑。我很高興看到聽眾臉上粲發這樣的會心一笑

Moreover no one, when one is using words appropriately, can make any mistake about what the aim of a term like this is, however genital that person may be.
The other response is the following: “I desire”, we can say to use words that are completely unsubtle, “to go to bed with you”.

而且,當我們措辭得體的話,沒有人會有任何誤解,關於像這樣一個術語的目的,無論那個人是多麼欲火難耐。另外一個的回答是:「我欲望!」我們不妨將文詞講的清楚明白,那就是「我欲望跟你們上床作愛!」

…. It is much more true, you must admit, but is it all that (27) true? It is true in what I would call a certain social context, and after all given the extreme difficulty of giving its exact outcome to this formulation: “I desire you”, one cannot find after all any better way to prove it.

這是更加真實的,你們必須承認。但是它真的那麼真實嗎?的確,在我所說的某些社會的內涵裏,畢竟,考慮到這個極端的困難,若是要給予它的確實地結果,對於這個說明:「我欲望你!」畢竟,我們無法找到更好的方式來證明它。

Believe me: it is perhaps enough that this word is not bound to the unmeasurable embarrassment and upset that statements which have a meaning involve, it is enough perhaps for this word to be only spoken within for you to grasp immediately that if this term has a meaning, it is a meaning that is much more difficult to formulate.

請相信我,或許這樣說就足夠了。這個說詞並沒有牽扯到無比的尷尬及懊惱,那個擁有的意義的陳述會牽扯到。或許我們就讓這個說詞僅僅就是說出來,你們就立刻能理解:假如這個術語具有意義,這個意義就比較難於說明。

“I desire you”, articulated within, as I might say, concerning an object, is more or less the following: “You are beautiful”, around which there is fixed, there is condensed
all these enigmatic images whose profusion is called by me my desire, namely: “I desire you because you are the object of my desire”, in other words: “you are the common denominator of my desires”, and God knows, if I can put God into the affair, and why not, God knows what desire brings in its wake, is something which in reality mobilises, orientates in the personality, something quite different than that towards which by convention its precise goal appears to be ordered.

「我欲望你」被表達的內涵,我不妨說,關於一個客體,大約是以下的意思:「你很美麗!」在那裏,所有謎團一般的意像被固定凝聚起來,它的豐富被我稱為是「我的欲望」。換句話說,「我欲望你,因為你是我的欲望的客體。」換句話說,「你是我的欲望的共同起源。」天曉得,假如我能夠將上帝牽扯到這件事情。有何不可呢?上帝知道,隨後欲望將會帶來什麼呢?這是某件實際上會動員,會在人格裏調適某個東西。這個東西相當不同於它的確實目標在傳統習俗裏的秩序。

In other words, to refer to a much less poetically indefinite experience, it also seems that I do not need to be an analyst to evoke how quickly and immediately at this level, in connection (28) with the slightest distortion as it is said of the personality or of images, how quickly and how prominently there emerges in connection with this implication in desire what can, what can most often, what by right appears to be prevalent there, namely the structure of phantasy.

換句話說,我們若是用比較不是那麼浪漫情調的經驗來說,我似乎也不需要是一位元精神分析師,才能迅速而立刻地在這個層次召喚,關於這個人格,或是這些意象被說時,引起的些微扭曲。關於欲望的這個暗示,迅速而顯著地,這裏會出現,時常會招搖出現的,也就是幻見到結構。

To say to someone: “I desire you”, is very precisely to say to her – but this is not always obvious in experience, except for the courageous and instructive little perverts, big and little ones – is to say: “I am implicating you in my fundamental phantasy”.

對某個人說:「我欲望你,」確實等於是對她說,但在精神分析的經驗裏,這並不總是顯而易見,除了這個勇敢而具有教導意義的變態狂,無論嚴重或是輕微的變態狂。那等於是說:「我正將你牽連到我的基本幻見裏。」

This is where, because I decided that this year I would not go beyond a certain time – I hope I will always stick to this – the trial of asking you to listen to me, it is here, namely well before the point where I thought I would conclude today, that I will stop. I will stop in designating this point of the phantasy which is an essential point, which is the key point around which I will show you the next day therefore how to situate the decisive point at which there must appear, if this term of desire has a meaning different to that of wish in the dream, where there must appear the interpretation of desire.

這就是要求你們傾聽我說的考驗所在,就是在這裏,(因為我決定,今年我會花費某些時間探討這個。我希望我總是能堅持這一點。)換句話說,就在我今天要做結論之前的這個位置,我將會停止,當我指明幻見到這一點。這個幻見是一個基本的要點。它是這個關鍵點,明天我將會跟你們顯示有關這個關鍵點,要如何定位這個決定點在可能出現的地方,假如欲望這個術語,擁有不同的意義,跟夢裏的願望的意義不同,那裏必須出現欲望的這個解釋。

This point then is here, and you can see that it forms part of the dotted circuit the one with this sort of little tail which is found at the second stage of the graph.

因此這一點就在這裏。你們能夠看出,它形成這些點點的迴圈。用這種小小的尾巴的這個迴圈。在這個圖形的第二階段,這個尾巴被找到。

I would simply like to tell you, as a way of whetting your (29) appetite a little, that this little dotted line, is nothing other than the circuit within which we can consider that there turn – this is why it is constructed like that – it is because it turns, once it is fed at the beginning it turns within indefinitely – that there turn the elements of the repressed.

我僅僅想要告訴你們,作為一種激發你們的欲望的方式。這條小小點點的線,道道地地就是這個迴圈。在這個迴圈裏,我們能夠考慮到,這裏有一個轉彎,(這就是為什麼它的結構像那樣。)因為它會轉彎,一旦它在開始時被餵飽,它會無窮盡地向內轉彎。被壓抑的部份的這些元素在那裏轉彎。

In other words, it is the locus on the graph of the unconscious as such, it is about this, and about this alone that Freud spoke until 1915 when he concluded with the two articles which are called respectively: “The Unconscious” and “Repression”.

換句話說,無意識本身的圖形的這個軌跡,它是關於這個,僅僅關於這個,佛洛伊德直到1915年才談論到。當他替這兩篇文章作總結。這兩篇文章各別是:「論無意識」及「論壓抑」。

This is where I will take things up again in order to tell you to what degree there is articulated in Freud in a fashion which supports, which is the very substance of what I am trying to make you understand about the signifier, namely that Freud himself
well and truly articulates in the least ambiguous way something which means: nothing is ever, nothing can ever be repressed except signifying elements. It is in Freud, the word signifier is all that is missing. I will show you unambiguously that what
Freud is talking about in his article on the unconscious, concerning what can be repressed, is designated by Freud. It can only be signifiers.

這就是我將要再一次探討的地方,為了要告訴你們到達什麼程度,佛洛伊德以這種方式表達。這個方式支援而且是這個物質,我正在設法讓你們理解關於這個意符。換句話說,佛洛伊德絲毫不曖昧地清楚表達某件東西。這個東西的意思是:沒有一樣東西永遠被壓抑,或會永遠被壓抑,除了就是意符化的元素。就佛洛伊德而言,意符這個字詞,依舊是欠缺的東西。我將毫不曖昧地跟你們顯示:佛洛伊德在他論無意識的文章裏,所談論的,關於什麼能夠被壓抑,所被佛洛伊德指明。那只可能是一些意符。

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

Desire 015 Jacques Lacan

February 20, 2011

Desire 015

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 2: 19 November 1958

This is not the important thing, the important thing is that this is the reason why he cannot have the response because since the only possible response is the signifier which designates the relationships with the signifier, namely if it were already in
question in the very measure that he articulates this response, he, the subject is abolished and disappears. It is precisely this which ensures that the only thing about it that he can be aware of, is this threat directly aimed at the phallus, namely castration or this notion of the lack of the phallus which, in both sexes, is this something at which analysis terminates, as Freud – as I pointed out to you – has articulated it.
But we are not here to repeat these basic truths.

這並不是重要的事情。重要的事情是:這就是為什麼他無法擁有這個回應。因為唯一可能的回應是,指明跟這個意符的關係的這個意符,換句話說,假如隨著他表達這個回應,這個意符已經受到質疑,他作為生命主體,會被廢除,而且消失。確實就是這個在保證,他能夠知道的,關於它的唯一的事情,是這個威脅直接朝向他的陽具。閹割,或是陽具的欠缺的這個觀念。在男女兩性,這個陽具的欠缺是某件精神分析學要終結的東西,如我跟你們指出過,佛洛伊德表達它。但是,我們在此並不是要重複這些基本的真理。

I know that it gets on some people’s nerves that for some time we have been juggling a bit too much with being and having, but they will get over that because this does not mean that on the way we have not harvested something precious, something clinical, something which even allows there to be produced within my teaching something
with all the characteristics of what I would call the medical stamp.

我知道,有些人會因此感到懊惱。有一段時間,我們一直在探討生命實存與擁有的這個議題。但是,人們會克服那種懊惱,因為這並不意味著,在探討途中,我們沒有收穫某件珍貴的東西,某件有臨床效果的東西,某件在我的教學裏,容許我所謂的醫療標誌特色的東西產生。

It is now a question in the midst of all of this of situating what desire means.

現在所有的的問題,最迫切的是要定位,欲望是什麼意思。

We have said that there is therefore at this second stage also (22) a synchronic treasury, there is a battery of unconscious signifiers for each subject, there is a message which announces the response to the Che vuoi? and it announces itself, as you can see, dangerously.

我們曾經說過,在這個第二階段,因此也有一個同時性的財寶。有一個無意識意符的鎖鏈,給每一個生命主體。有一個訊息宣佈對於「你到底想要什麼」的回應。它危險地宣佈它自己,如你們所看到的。

Even, I point this out in passing, as a way of evoking in you some vivid memories, what makes of the story of Abe lard and Heloise the most beautiful of love stories.

我甚至可以順便指出這一點,作為在你們身上召喚一些鮮明的回憶。為什麼亞伯、拉德跟賀露絲的故事,會成為最美麗的愛情故事。

What does desire mean? Where is it situated? You can see that in the completed form of the schema, you have here a dotted line which goes from the code of the second stage to its message through the intermediary of two elements, d signifies the place
from which the subject descends and $ in front of o signifies – I said it already, therefore I repeat it – the phantasy.

欲望意味著什麼?它的位置在哪里?你們能夠看出,在這個基模的完成的形式,你們在此有這個點點的線。這個線從第二階段的這個符碼,穿過兩個元素的仲介,到達它的訊息。欲望的元素指明這個位置,從那裏生命主體降落。被閹割的生命主體,在大它著面前,將幻見意符化。我已經說過了,因此我重複一遍。

This has a form, a disposition homologous to the line which, from 0, includes in the discourse of the ego, the e in the discourse, let us say the person filled out with the image of the other, namely this specular relationship which I posed for you as being
fundamental for the establishment of the ego.

這個有一個形式,一個性情,類同這條線。這條線,從大它者這裏,包括這個人在自我的真理論述裏,真理論述的這個自我裏。我們不妨這樣說,這個人充滿了大它者的這個意象。換句話說,這個魅影的關係,我跟你們提出的,作為自我建立的基本。

There is here in the relationship between the two stages, something which deserves to be more fully articulated. I am not doing it today, not just because I do not have the time, because I am prepared to take all the time necessary to communicate what I have to say to you, but because I prefer to do things in an (23) indirect fashion, because it appears to me to be a likely way of making you experience its import.

在此,有這兩個階段之間的關係;某件東西應該值得更加充份地被表達。我今天沒有這樣做,不僅僅因為我沒有這個時間,因為我準備花費所有必需的時間,來溝通我必須告訴你們的。而且因為我寧願以一個間接的方式來做事情。因為我覺得有一個可能的方式,來使你們經驗到它的意義。

Even at this point you are not incapable of guessing how fruitful is the fact that it
should be a certain reproduction of an imaginary relationship at the level of the field of the gap determined between the two discourses, in so far as this imaginary relationship reproduces homologously the game of prestige which is established in the
relationship with the other. You are not incapable of sensing even now, but of course it is altogether insufficient to sense it. I mean simply before fully articulating it, to make you dwell for a moment on what is involved in the term desire, situated, planted within this economy.

即使是這一點,你們不會不能夠猜測到,這個事實是多麼有成果。這應該是想像界的關係的某種複製,處於兩種真理論述之間的差距的領域的層次。這個想像界的關係同質性地複製這個威望的遊戲。它被建立在跟大它者的關係。即使是現在,你們不會不能夠感覺到,但是當然,僅是感覺到它是不足夠的。在充份表達它之前,我打算讓你們停留一下子,對於欲望這個術語所牽涉的東西。它被定位,被根植於生命活力裏。

You know that Freud introduced this term from the beginning of analysis. He introduced it in connection with dreams and in the form of the Wunsch, namely by right, something which is articulated on this line. The Wunsch is not in itself, all by
itself desire, it is a formulated desire, it is an articulated desire.

你們知道,佛洛伊德介紹這個術語,從精神分析學的開始。他介紹它,有關作夢以及「欲望」的形式。換句話說,在這條線,理所當然會被表達的某件東西。「欲望」並不是它的本身,它單純的欲望本身。而是一種被說明的欲望,它是一種被表達的欲望。

What I would like to make you dwell on for a moment is the distinction which deserves to be drawn between what I am establishing and introducing this year, and which is called desire, and this Wunsch.

我想要讓你們暫時停留在這個區別。在我今年正在建立及介紹之間,應該獲得這樣的區別。這就是所謂的欲望,這個欲望。

You have of course read The interpretation of dreams, and this moment that I am talking to you about it marks the moment that we ourselves are going to begin speaking about it this year. Just as last year we began (24) with the witticism, we are beginning this year with the dream.

當然,你們曾經閱讀過「夢的解析」。我正在跟你們談論有關它的這個時刻,標示著,我們今年自己將要開始談論它。正如去年,我們開始探討機智語,我們今年開始探討夢。

You have not failed to notice from the first pages, and to the very end, that if you think of desire in the form as I might say that you have to deal with it all the time in analytic experience, namely one that gives you a lot of work to do because of its excesses, its deviations, because, after all let us say it, most often because of its deficiencies, I mean sexual desire, that which by turns, even though in the whole analytic field there has always been brought to play on it a quite remarkable
pressure to put it in the shade, a pressure that is increasing in analysis; you must therefore notice the difference, on condition of course that you really read, namely that you do not continue thinking about your own little affairs while your eyes are
glancing through the Traumdeutunq.

你們從前面幾頁,一定已經注意到,一直到最後。假如你們認為欲望,是一種你們在精神分析經驗,必須要處理的形式,我不妨這樣說。換句話說,欲望會給予你們許多事情要做,因為它會超過,會偏離。畢竟,我們不妨這樣說,往往會因為欲望的缺點。我的意思是,性的欲望。即使在整個的精神分析的領域,會有一個相當顯著的壓力,被輪流運用來給予它壓力,讓它被擺放在陰暗地方。這種壓力在精神分析學,越來越增加。因此,你們一定注意到這個差異,當然,只要你們真的閱讀。換句話說,你們沒有繼續思考到你們自己的情事,當你們的眼光透過「夢的解析」瞥見到。

You will see that it is very difficult to grasp this famous desire, which is supposed to be found everywhere in each dream.

你們將會看到,要理解這個著名的欲望,是非常困難。這個欲望被認為在每一個夢的每個地方,都能夠被找到。

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

Desire 014 Jacques Lacan

February 20, 2011

Desire 014

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 2: 19 November 1958

This discourse, the discourse therefore which is formulated at the level of the second stage, and which is the same discourse as always – we only arbitrarily distinguish the two stages – this discourse which as always is the discourse of the other, even when it is the subject who pronounces it, is fundamentally at this second stage an appeal to be that is more or less forceful, (17) it always contains, and here again we have one of the marvellous homophonique equivocations that French contains, it always contains more or less a soit, in other words a fiat, a fiat which is the source and the root of what beginning from the tendency, becomes and is inscribed for the speaking being in the
register of willing, or again of the I, in so far as it is divided into the two terms that have been studied of the one and the other, of the imperative, of the “take up thy bed and walk” which I spoke about above, or in relation to the subject, of the
setting up of his own ego.

因此,這個真理論述,在第二個階段的層次被說明的真理論述,它跟平常的真理論述一樣。我們只是任意地區別這兩個階段。像平常一樣,這個真理論述就是大它者的真理論述。即使當它是宣佈它的生命主體。他基本上是處於這第二階段,一種或多或少訴諸於強迫的力量。它總是包含,在此我們再一次擁有法文包含,一個神奇的同音異義的曖昧詞。它總是包含大約是一個「指令」,換句話說,是「命令」。這個命令是這個來源跟根源,從這個傾向開始,言談的生命主體成為及被銘記的東西,在意志的層次,或是這個「我」的層次。它被區分成為曾經被研究的兩個術語。其中一個是這個命令的術語,「捲起鋪蓋走路」這個術語。當我談論以上的術語,跟生命主體相關,跟他自己的自我的建立相關。

You see now the level at which there must be placed the question, as I might put it, the one which the last time I articulated here in the form of the Che vuoi? This Che vuoi?, which is, as one might say, the response of the other to this act of speech of the
subject, this question responds, I would say that as always this response responds before the question to the following, to the redoubtable question in which my schema articulates this very act of speech. Does the subject, when he is speaking, know what he is doing? This is precisely what we are in the process of asking here, and it is as a reply to this question that Freud said no.

你們現在看出,這個問題必須被擺放的這個層次。我不妨這樣說,上一次,我在此以這個「你到底想要什麼」的形式,表達的問題。我們不妨這樣說,這個「你到底想要什麼」,就是大它者對於生命主體的言談行動的這個回應。這個問題在做回應。我將會說,像平常一樣,這個回應在這個問題之前回應以下,回應著的這個再三重複的問題。以這個問題,我的基模表達言談的這個行動。當生命主體在言談時,他知道他正在做什麼?這確實是我們在此正在詢問的東西。它對於佛洛伊德否定的問題,充當一個回答。

The subject, in the act of speaking, and in so far as this act of speaking of course goes well beyond just his word, because his whole life is captured in acts of speech, because his life as (18) such, namely all his actions, are symbolic actions if only
because they are recorded, they are subject to being recorded, they are often actions to register something, and after all, everything that he does as they say, is contrary to what happens, or more exactly just like everything that happens before the
examining magistrate, everything that he does can be held against him, all his actions will be imposed on a context of language and that his very gestures are gestures which are never anything but gestures chosen in a pre-established ritual, namely in an
articulation of language.

生命主體正在言談的行動中。當然,言談的這個行動完全超越他的文字,因為他整個的生命被套陷於言談的行動,因為他的生命本身,換句話說,所有他的行動,都是符號象徵的行動。只有當它們被記錄,它們隸屬於被記錄,它們往往是記錄某件東西的行動。畢竟,他所做的每一件事,如人們所說,都是跟事實發生的相反,更加確實地說,就像是每一件事情,都發生在檢查的法官之前。每一樣他所做的事情,都被用來對他不利。所有他的行動,都被賦加在一個語言的內涵裏。他的姿態從來不是別的,道道地地就是儀式建立之前,就被選擇的姿態。換句話說,在語言的表達之前。

And Freud, to this; “Does he know what he is doing”? replies no. It is nothing else that is expressed by the second stage of my graph, namely that this second stage only takes on its importance from the question of the other, namely Che vuoi?, what do you
want, that up to the time of that question we remain of course in a state of innocence and foolishness.

對於這個問題:「他知道他在做些什麼嗎?」佛洛伊德的回答是:不知道。我的欲望圖形的第二個階段表達的就是這個。換句話說,這個第二階段,只有從大它者的這個問題,換句話說,就是「你到底想要什麼」的這個問題,它才具有它的重要性。當然,一直到那個問題的時間,我們始終保持著無知跟愚蠢的狀態。

I am trying here to prove that didactics do not necessarily pass by way of foolishness. Obviously I cannot base myself on you to demonstrate this I

在此,我正在設法證明,教導啟發未必要通過愚蠢的階段。顯而易見的,我無法將我自己建立在你們身上,為了證明這個「我」。

It is therefore where the second stage of the schema, with respect to this question and in the responses, articulates where there are placed the points of intersection between the true discourse which is maintained by the subject and what manifests itself as willing (youloir) in the articulation of the word (19) where these points of intersection are placed, this is the whole mystery of this symbol which seems to be so opaque for some of you.

因此,關於這個問題跟這些回應,這個基模的第二個階段,表達這些交會點被放置在哪里,生命主體維持的真理論述,跟以文字的表達,證明它自己是願意之間的交會點。這些交會點被放置在文字那裏。這就是這個符號的整個神秘所在,因為這個符號對於你們一些人而言,是模糊的。

If this discourse which presents itself at this level as an appeal for being, is not what it seems to be, as we know from Freud, and this is what the second stage of the graph tries to show us. At first sight one can only be surprised that you do not recognise it, because what did Freud say, what are we doing every day, if not the following: showing that at this level, at the level of the act of the word, the code is given by something which is not the primitive demand, which is a certain relationship of the subject to this demand in so far as the subject has remained marked by its avatars.

假如這個真理論述呈現它自己在這個層次,作為生命實存的訴求,這並不是它惺惺作態,如同我們從佛洛伊德那裏得知。這就是這個圖形的第二階段設法跟我們顯示的。乍然一看,我們不免大吃一驚,你們並沒有認出它。因為佛洛伊德所說的,我們每一天所正在做的,難道不就是以下的顯示:在這個層次,在文字的行動的這個層次,符碼被某件東西所給予。這個某件東西並不是原始的要求,生命主體跟這個需求有某種的關係。生命主體始終被它的具體顯現所標示。

That is what we call the oral, anal and other forms of unconscious articulation, and this is why it does not seem to me to give rise to much discussion. I am speaking quite simply about the admission of the premises that we situate here at the level of the code.

那就是我們所謂的口腔期、肛門期、以及其他形式的無意識的表達。這就是為什麼我似乎並沒有引起許多的非議。我相當單純地談論到這些假設前提的被承認,我們在此定位在符碼的這個層次。

The formula: the subject qua marked by the signifier in the presence of his demand as giving the material, the code of this true discourse which is the true discourse of being at this level.

這個公式是:生命主體作為被意符所標示,在他的要求之前,給予這個材料,這個真實的真理論述的符碼。這是這個層次的生命實存的真實的真理論述。

As regards the message that he receives, this message – I already alluded to it several times – I gave it many forms, all of them, not without good reason, more or less slippery, since this is the (20) whole problem of the analytic perspective, namely what is this message. I can leave it for today, and at this moment at least of my discourse, at the problematical stage, and symbolize it by a presumed signifier as such. It is a purely hypothetical form, it is an X, a signifier, a signifier of the Other because
it is at the level of the Other that the question is posed of a different mark, of a part which is precisely the problematical element in the question concerning this message.

關於他接收到這個訊息,這個訊息,我已經提到它好幾次。我給予它好幾種形式,所有這些形式多少有點滑溜不定,不是沒有理由。因為這是精神分析學觀點的整個問題所在。換句話說,我今天能夠留下它的這個訊息是什麼?至少,在我的真理論述的這個時候,在這個問題棘手的這個階段,這個未知數的符號X,是一個意符,大它者的一個意符。因為就在大它者的這個層次,一個不同標記,一個部份標記的問題被提出。那確實就是這個問題棘手的因素,在有關這個訊息的這個問題。

Let us sum up. The situation of the subject at the level of the unconscious, as Freud articulates it, it is not I, it is Freud who articulates it, is that he does not know what he speaks with, one has to reveal to him the properly signifying elements of his discourse, and that he does not know either the message which really comes to him at the level of the discourse of being, let us say truly if you like, but I in no way object to really.

讓我們作個總結。處於無意識的層次,生命主體的情況,如佛洛伊德所表達,並不是這個「我」,這是佛洛伊德所表達。生命主體的情況是,他不知道他在用什麼東西言談?我們必須跟他顯示,他的真理論述的適當意符化的因素。他也不知道這個訊息,在生命實存的真理論述的層次,真正來到他那裏的訊息。容我們真實地說,但是我真的一點兒也不反對。

In other words, he does not know the message that comes to him from the response to his demand in the field of what he wants.

換句話說,他並不知道來到他那裏的這個訊息,從對於他的要求的回應,在他所要的那個領域。

You already know the response, the true response: it can be only one, namely the signifier of nothing other, which is specially deputed precisely to designate the relationships of the subject to the signifier.

你們已經知道,這個回應,這個真實的回應:它只能是一個,換句話說,它道道地地就是這個意符,特別被指明,確實是要指明生命主體跟這個意符的關係。

I have told you, I want to express it all the same, why this signifier was the phallus. I would ask even those who are (21) hearing it for the first time, to accept this provisionally.

我曾經告訴你們,我仍然要表達它,為什麼這個意符是陽具。我甚至要求那些人,第一次聽到這種說法的人,暫時接受這樣的說法

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

Desire 013 Jacques Lacan

February 19, 2011

Desire 013

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 2: 19 November 1958

Let us pass on to the second stage of this graph, the one therefore whose presentation the last day seems to have given rise for some of you to some difficulties. This second stage of the graph is something other than the subject in so far as he passes through the defiles of signifying articulation. It is (13) the subject who assumes the act of speaking; it is the subject qua I, although here I must articulate some essential
reservations.

讓我們轉移到這個圖形的第二階段。因此,前一天,這個階段的呈現似乎引起你們一些人的困難。這個圖形的第二階段道道地地就是生命主體通過意符化表達的污染。當這個生命主體扮演起言談的行動,它就是作為「我」的生命主體,雖然在此我必須表達某種基本的保留。

After all, this I, is not something I will delay on, I am going to point out to you at the beginning, this I, although I alluded to it in some development, is not our business, it is nevertheless the I of the “I think therefore I am”.

畢竟,這個「我」並不是某件我要逗留在那裏的東西。從一開始,我將要跟你們指出,這個「我」並不是我們的事情,雖然我在某個發展提到它。可是,這個「我」是「我思故我在」的「我」。

Just realize that this is a parenthesis. All the difficulties that were submitted to me, were made in connection with the “I think therefore I am”, namely that this had no conclusive value because the I had already been put in the “I think” and that after all
there is only a cogitatum, it thinks, and why therefore would it be in that?

請稍微體會一下,這個句子外面有個括弧。我在這裏面臨的所有的困難被形成,關於這個「我思故我在」。換句話說,它並沒有具有結論性的價值,因為我已經被放置在「我思」之內。畢竟,這裏只是一種認知:它會思想、為什麼它會在那裏面?

I think that all the difficulties here have arisen precisely from this non-distinction between two subjects, as I articulated it for you at the beginning, namely that more or less at the beginning I think that more or less wrongly one refers back in this experience which the philosopher confides to us, to the confrontation of a subject with an object, consequently with an imaginary object among which it is not surprising that the I does not prove to be an object among others.

我認為,在此所有的困難確,實是因為兩個生命主體之間的這個沒有區別而產生。如同從一開始,我就跟你們表達過。換句話說,大約在一開始的地方,我認為,在哲學家跟我們坦誠以告的這個經驗裏,我們有點錯誤地回述到,一個生命主體跟一個客體的這個衝突。結果,跟生命主體衝突的是一個想像界的客體。在這些想像界的客體裏,假如我沒有證明是其中一個客體,那沒有什麼好大驚小怪。

If on the contrary we push the question to the level of the subject defined as
speaking, the question is going to take on a quite different import, as the phenomenology which I will simply indicate to you (14) now is going to demonstrate.
For those who want references concerning this whole discussion about the I, the cogito, I remind you that there is an article I already mentioned by M. Sartre in Les Recherches Philosophiques.

相反的,假如我們將這個問題,逼迫到被定義為言談的這個客體的層次,這個問題會形成一個完全不同的意義,作為這個現象學將要證明出來。我將僅僅跟你們指示。對於那些想要指稱的人,關於這整個的討論,關於這個「我」這個認知者,我提醒你們,有一篇我已經提過的文章,這哲學研究的沙特的文章。

The I that is in question is not simply the I articulated in the discourse, the I in so far as it is pronounced in the discourse, and which linguists call at least for some time, a shifter. It is a semanteme which has no use that can be articulated in function of the code, I mean in function purely and simply of the code as lexically articulatable.

這個受到質疑的「我」,不僅僅是我在這個論述表達,這個「我」在這個真理論述中被宣佈。這個「我」,語言學至少有一陣子稱為所一個「轉換者」。它是一種沒有用途的「意義的不可化簡單位」,能夠在符碼的功用中被表達。我的意思是,單純而簡單地,可作為文詞可表達的符碼的功用。

Namely that as the simplest experience shows, the I can never be referred to something which can be defined in function of other elements of the code therefore as a semanteme, but simply in function of the act of the message. The I designates the one who is the support of the message, namely someone who varies from instant to instant.

換句話說,如同這個最簡單的經驗所顯示,這個「我」永遠沒有辦法被提到某件被定義,用符碼的其他因素的功用的定義,因此作為一個「意義的不可化簡單位」。而僅僅是作為訊息的行動的功用。這個「我」指著這個訊息的這個支援。換句話說,作為每個瞬間都在變化的某個人。

It is no more complicated than that, but I would point out that what results from it, is that this I is essentially distinct therefore from this moment, as I will make you see very quickly, from what one can call the true subject of the act of speaking as such, and this is even what gives to the simplest I-discourse, I would say always a presumption of indirect discourse, I mean that this I could very easily be followed in the very discourse by (15) parenthesis: “I who am speaking”, or “I say that”, which
moreover is made very obvious as other people have remarked before me, that a discourse which formulates “I say that”, and which adds on afterwards: “and I repeat it”, does not say in this “I repeat it” something useless because it is precisely to
distinguish the two I’s which are in question, the one who had said that and the one who adheres to what the one who has said something has said. In other words again, I want simply, if other examples are necessary to make you grasp it, to suggest to
you the difference that there is between the I of “I love you”, and the I of “I am here”.

它並沒有那麼複雜,但是我將指出,它的結果是,這個「我」,基本上因此不同於這個時刻,如同我會很快會讓你們明白,不同於我們所謂的作為言談的行動的這個真實的生命主體。這就是這個最簡單的「我」的真理論述,所被給予的東西。容我說,它總是間接真理論述的一種假定。我的意思是,在這個真理論述,我將會很容易被人瞭解,用這個括弧:「正在言談的我」,或是「我那樣說」。而且,這種真理論述變得顯而易見,因為別人曾經在我面前談論過。一個真理論述說明「我那樣說」,後來又補充說:「我重複一遍」。在這個「我重複一遍」中,它並沒有說到某件沒有用的東西,因為它確實是要區別這兩個受到質疑的「我」:曾經說那句話的這個「我」,跟堅持曾經說某件事情的這個「我」。換句話說,假如還有其他的例子需要讓你們理解,我僅是想要跟你們建議這個差別,「我愛你」的這個「我」,跟「我在這裏」的這個「我」的差別。

The I in question is particularly tangible, precisely, because of the structure that I am evoking, where it is fully hidden and where it is fully hidden is in these forms of discourse which realise what I shall call the vocative function, namely those which only cause the addressee to appear in their signifying structure and absolutely not the I.

受到質疑的這個「我」,特別地具體,確實是因為我正在召喚的這個結構。在那裏,它充份地被隱藏;而在它充份地被隱藏那裏,就是以這些真理論述的形式。這些形式體會到,我所謂的稱呼格的功用。換句話說,那些形式只會引起收信者出現在他們意符化的結構,它們絕對不是這個「我」。

It is the I of “Take up thy bed and walk”, it is the same fundamental I which is rediscovered in any form of imperative vocative and a certain number of others. I put them all provisionally under the title of vocative, it is if you wish the evocative I, it is the I that I spoke to you about already during the seminar on President Schreber, because it was essential to show, I do not know if at (16) that time I really achieved it, I did not even take it up again in what I wrote in my resume of my seminar on President Schreber; it is the I underlying the “You are the one who will follow me” (tu es celui qui me suivra), on which I insisted to such an extent, and which you see moreover to be part of the whole problem of a certain future within the vocative properly speaking, the vocatives of vocation.

「捲起你的鋪蓋走路」的這個「我」。這個相同的基本功用的「我」,重新被發現,以任何的命令的稱呼,以及某些數目的別人。我將他們暫時放置在稱呼的這個標題之下。假如你們希望這個稱呼的這個「我」,我在論「蘇瑞伯主席」的講座,已經跟你們談論過的這個「我」。因為我們需要顯示,我不知道在當時,我是否完成這個目標。我甚至沒有再重新探討它,在我所寫的討論蘇瑞伯的講座的概要裏。這個「我」強調:「你們是會聽得懂我的人」。我堅持這句話,到達一個程度,而且,你們看出它會成為未來的整個的難題的一部份,在這個稱呼格裏,適當地說,在召喚稱呼的稱呼格裏。

I recall for those who were not there, the difference that there is in French, it is a refinement which not every tongue allows to demonstrate, between “You are the one who shall follow me” (tu_es celui qui me suivras) and “you are the one who will follow me” (tu es celui qui me suivra).

我替當時沒有在那裏的聽眾提醒這個差異,用法文表達的差異。這是一種細膩差異,並不是每一種語言都能夠證明出來。在「你是將會聽得懂我的人」,跟「你說願意聽得懂的人」之間的差異。

This difference of the performative power of the tu in this case is effectively a real
difference of the I in so far as it operates in this act of speaking which it represents and which is a question of showing once again and at this level that the subject always receives his own message, namely what is here to be avowed, namely the I in an
inverted form, namely through the mediation of the form that it gives to the tu.

在這個情況,這個「你」的表現的力量的差異,有效地是這個「我」的一種真實的差異。因為它以這個言談的這個行動在運作。它代表言談的這個行動。言談的這個行動的問題,在於要再一次在這個層次顯示。生命主體總是接受他自己的層次。換句話說,在此應該被公開表示的,也就是說,處於這個倒轉形式的這個「我」,更可以說是,透過它給予「你」的這個形式的仲介。

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

Desire 012 Jacques Lacan

February 19, 2011

Desire 012

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 2: 19 November 1958

It is from the solidarity of this synchronic system qua established at the locus of the code, that the discourse of (9) demand qua anterior to the code takes on its solidity, in
other words, that in the diachrony, namely in the development of this discourse there appears something which is called the minimal duration necessary for satisfaction, even for what is called a magical satisfaction, at least of refusal, namely the time to speak.

從這個同時性系統的團結,作為建立於符碼的這個軌跡,要求的真理論述,作為早先於這個符碼,形成它的團結。換句話說,在歷時性的過程,也就是說,在這個真理論述的發展那裏,出現了某件東西,被稱為是作為滿足所需的最小量的期間,甚至所謂的神奇的滿足。至少,那種滿足拒絕了言談的時間。

It is because of this relationship that the line of signifying discourse, of the signifying discourse of the demand which of itself, because it is composed of signifiers, must appear here and be represented in the fragmented form that we see subsisting here, namely in the form of a succession of discrete elements, separated therefore by spaces; it is in function of the synchronic solidity of the code from which these successive
elements are borrowed that there is conceived this solidity of diachronic affirmation and the constitution of what is called in the articulation of the demand, the time of the formulation.

因為意符化的真理論述的脈絡的這個關係,要求的意符化真理論述的本身,因為它由意符所組成,必須出現在這裏,以我們看到的存在於此的零碎的形式被代表。換句話說,以一種各色各樣因素的連續性的形式。因此,它被空間所分開,以這個符碼的同時性的功用。從那裏,這些連續性的因素被借用過來。歷史性肯定的這個團結,在那裏被構想,在要求的表達裏,所謂說明的時間被形成。

It is therefore before the code, or on this side of the code, that this line is presented as continuous. On the contrary what is it that this graph represents here by the fragmented line which is that of the intentionality of the subject? Let us observe that already the fact of affirming the context of the demand simplifies the supposed diversity of the subject, namely the thing that presents itself as essentially moving from moments, from variations of this point. You know that the problem of the continuity of the subject has been posed to the (10) psychologists for a long time, namely why a being essentially given over to what one can call intermittency, not
just of the heart as has been said, but of many other things, can pose itself and affirm itself as ego.

因此在這個符碼之前,或是在這個符碼的這一邊,這條線被呈現當著是連續性。相反的,這個圖形在此,用這條零碎的線,生命主體的意向性的這條零碎的線,代表的是什麼?讓我們觀察一下,肯定這個要求的內涵的這個事實,已經簡化了生命主體被認為的多樣性。換句話說,這個東西呈現自己,基本上作為離開這個時刻,離開這一點的變數。你們知道,生命主體的連續性的難題,曾經被提出給心理學家,已經有一段長的時間。換句話說,為什麼一個生命的實存,基本上耽溺於我們所謂的間歇性,不僅僅是所說的心臟跳動的間歇性,而且是許多其他事情的間歇性。它能夠提出它自己,並且肯定它自己作為自我。

This is the problem that is in question, and undoubtedly already the putting into play of a need in the demand is already something which simplifies this subject with respect to the more or less chaotic, more or less random interferences between the different needs.

這就是受到質疑的難題。無可置疑的,在要求裏,一個需求的運作已經是簡化這個生命主體的某件事情,關於這個或多或少的混亂,或多或少的干涉,在不同的需求之間。

What the apparition on this schema of the fragmented form which represents the first part of the line delta – I here up to this 0, is something different, it is the retroactivity on this changableness (mouyance) which is at once continuous and discontinuous, confused no doubt, we must suppose it to be that of the primitive form, of the primitive manifestation of the tendency.

在這個零碎的形式的這個基模裏,這個魅影是某件不同的東西。這個零碎的形式,代表從這個「我」,一直到這個「大它者」的這條三角形的線的部份。這是這個「可變性」的反作用。這個可變性既是連續性,又是非連續性。無可置疑,它是令人混淆的。我們必須認為它是這個原始形式的可變性,這個傾向的原始的證明的可變性。

It is the retroaction on it precisely of the form of discrete elements which discourse imposes on it; it is what it will undergo too actively from discursivity, it is why in this
line, it is on this side not of the code, but of the message itself that the line appears in its fragmented form.

確實就是真理論述,賦加在它上面的各色各樣的因素的這個形式,對於它的反作用,它從真理論述過於積極所經歷的東西。這就是為什麼在這條線,不是在符碼的這一邊,而是在訊息本身的這一邊,這條線以它的零碎的形式出現。

What is produced beyond, is something that I have already sufficiently underlined at other moments to pass quickly over it now, it is the following: it is the identification which results from it of the subject to the other of the demand in so far as she is
(11) all-powerful.

超越所產生的東西,是某件我在其他的時刻已經充份地強調過,現在我迅速回顧一下。就是以下:生命主體從它獲得的認同,認同於要求的大它者,因為她是無所不能。

I do not think that I need to go back over the theme of the omnipotence now of thought, now of the word, in analytic experience, except to say that I pointed out how wrong it was to put it in the depreciated position that the psychologist usually takes in so far as he is always more or less, in the original sense of the term, a pedant, to attribute it to the subject when the omnipotence that is in question, is that of the other in so far as she disposes quite simply of the totality of signifiers.

我不認為,現在我需要重述一下思想的無所不能的這個主題。在精神分析經驗裏,文字的無所不能這個主題。容我僅是這樣說:我曾經指出,將它放置在心理學家通常所採取的被貶低的位置,是多麼一件錯誤的事情。心理學家,顧名思義,是賣弄知識的學究,將文字歸屬於生命主體,而受到質疑的無所不能,則是大它者的無所不能。因為它簡單扼要地處理意符鎖鏈的整體性。

In other words, to give the sense that we are not getting away from the concrete in articulating things in this way, I shall very expressly designate what I mean by that in the evolution, in the development, in the acquisition of language, in the child-mother relationships, to finally come to it, it is very precisely this: that this something that is in question and on which there reposes this primary identification that I designate
by the segment s(0), the signified of 0, and which culminates in the first nucleus, as this is currently expressed in analysis in the writings of Mr. Glover, you will see this articulated: the first nucleus of the formation of the ego, the kernel of the
identification in which this process here culminates, is a question of what is produced in so far as the mother is not simply the one who gives the breast (sein) – as I told you – she (12) is also the one who gives the sign (seing) of signifying articulation, and not only in so far as she speaks to the child as she obviously does, and well before she can presume that he understands anything of it, just as he understands things well
before she imagines he does, but in so far as all sorts of the mother’s games, the games of hide-and-seek for example which so quickly give rise in the infant to a smile, even to a laugh, are properly speaking already a symbolic action in the course of which what she reveals to him, is precisely the function of the symbol qua revelatory.

換句話說,要給予這個意義,當我們以這種方式表達事情,我們並沒有逃離這個具體物。我將會生動地指明我的意思:在語言學習的這個進化,這個發展,在小孩與母親的這個關係,為了最後到達它,確實就是這個,這個某件東西,受到質疑。我用大它者的這個部份,大它者的意旨部份,所指明的這個原初的認同就安置在這裏。它在第一個核心達到高潮,這是目前在精神分析學所被表達的,在格洛伯的著作裏。你們將會看出這個被表達的內涵:自我形成的第一個核心,這個認同的核心。這個過程在那裏達到高潮。這是什麼被產生的問題:母親不僅僅是給予小孩餵奶的人,如我告訴你們的。她也是給予意符化表達的訊息的人。母親不但跟小孩談話,如顯而易見的行為。就在母親能夠假定小孩瞭解她給予的訊息之前,如同小孩清楚瞭解,在母親想像小孩瞭解之前。各種的母親的遊戲,例如,捉迷藏的遊戲。它很快就會引起嬰兒的微笑,甚至是哈哈大笑。適當地說,那已經是符號象徵的活動。在這個活動的過程,母親跟嬰兒顯示,那確實是符號象徵作為啟示的功用。

In these hiding games she reveals to him how to make something disappear and to make it reappear, to make his own face disappear, or to make it reappear, or to hide the face of the child, and to rediscover it; she reveals to him the revelatory function. It is already a second degree function that we are dealing with.

在這些捉迷藏的遊戲,母親對嬰兒顯示,如何使某件東西消失,又使它重新出現,使他自己的臉孔消失,或是使它重新出現,或是隱藏小孩的臉孔,然後重新發現它。母親跟小孩顯示這個具有啟示性的功用。它已經是一個我們正在處理的第二層次的功用。

It is in the midst of this that there are made these first identifications to what is called on this occasion the mother, the mother as all-powerful, and as you see, this has an import other than the pure and simple satisfaction of need.

就在這個中間,形成第一個認同於在這個場合所謂的母親,作為無所不能的母親。你們看得出來,這裏具有一種意義,除了這個單純而簡單的滿足之外。

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

雄伯手记100215

February 18, 2011

雄伯手記100215

當了三十幾年的中學英文教師,第一次對於breakfast一詞感到疑惑,是前年在紐西蘭騎腳踏車自助旅行時。我在下午五點左右到達一家偏遠小鎮的民宿。登記住宿時,櫃檯小姐問我要不要附加早餐breakfast,我順口說好。卻不料大約晚上六點多,breakfast就送到我的房間,內容有麵包、乳酪、麥片、牛奶、水果等。

上星期讀書會,我選的是精神分析師雅克、拉康的論焦慮。裏面引述到奧維德的變形記,描述七年為男性,七年為女性的盲眼預言家泰瑞西厄斯Tiresias,連帶地聯想到英國詩人艾略特 T.S Eliot 的荒原The Waste Land:

在紫色時刻,雙眼與背

都背向辦公桌往上翻,這當兒人的引擎等著

有如一輛空轉的計程車等著,

我泰瑞西厄斯,雖盲,活在兩種生命中間,

有皺癟女性乳房的老漢,在紫色時刻

看得見拖著腳步向家的黃昏時刻,

把那水手帶回家園,飲茶時分

到家的那位打字員,清理她的早餐,

點起爐子,再擺出罐頭食品。

窗戶外面危危如展露

她那套晾在夕陽下的連褲內衣。

At the violet hour, when the eyes and back
Turn upward from the desk, when the human engine waits
Like a taxi throbbing waiting,
I Tiresias, though blind, throbbing between two lives,
Old man with wrinkled female breasts, can see
At the violet hour, the evening hour that strives
Homeward, and brings the sailor home from sea,
The typist home at teatime, clears her breakfast, lights
Her stove, and lays out food in tins.
Out of the window perilously spread
Her drying combinations touched by the sun's last rays,

中譯者杜若洲是詩人兼英美文學權威,信雅達當然沒可質疑。不過上下文明明指著黃昏時刻at the violet hour, the evening hour,夕陽下 the sun’s last rays,怎麼可能「到家的那位打字員,清理她的早餐」?除非這裏的breakfast 指的是簡便料理的「晚餐」?

紫色時刻The Violet Hours ,指的是下班後的休閒時間, when time becomes your own to drink, to read, to craft, to breathe.,直譯對於不熟悉英美文化的人,雖然有點奇怪,尚不會引起誤解。

雙眼與背都背向辦公桌往上翻when the eyes and back Turn upward from the desk,指的是下班時的輕鬆的心情。只是從情境來設想,背如何往上翻?而且還與眼睛同時往上翻?

這當兒,人的引擎等著,

有如一輛空轉的計程車等著,

when the human engine waits

Like a taxi throbbing waiting,

將人的情緒、心情、或生命力的流動,比喻著機器的引擎,有如一輛空轉的計程車,詩人對於人的物化及麻木的機械化,躍然紙上。

我泰瑞西厄斯,雖盲,活在兩種生命中間,

有皺癟女性乳房的老漢,

I Tiresias, though blind, throbbing between two lives,

Old man with wrinkled female breasts,

「活在兩種生命中間,」指的是泰瑞西厄斯七年為男人,七年為女人。「有皺癟女性乳房的老漢,」是他雌雄同體的具體特徵。

有如一輛空轉的計程車等著,

我泰瑞西厄斯,雖盲,活在兩種生命中間

Like a taxi throbbing waiting,

I Tiresias, though blind, throbbing between two lives

第三行跟第四行的英文,都有一個共同的字throbbing(跳動、悸動)。計程車空檔運轉時,引擎跳動throbbing,但是車子並未前進,泰瑞西厄斯活在男性與女性兩種生命之間,也只是如引擎般跳動throbbing,沒有生命力的激情,應該是悲哀的惋歎吧?那麼欠缺真誠生命激情的你與我呢?是不是也有如那位下班回家,帶著一位水手回來的打字員,機械地做愛,麻木地過日子?

艾略特的「荒原」描寫的,可不僅是自然界的荒原,而是經濟富裕社會,中產階級的精神貧瘠的心靈荒原。問題是,被富裕社會的物質欲望所驅使,而被馴服的你和我,回顧這一生,難道不是有幾分神似嗎?

Desire 011 Jacques Lacan

February 17, 2011

Desire 011

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 2: 19 November 1958

In other words, if you think of the process of what happens in the subject, in the subject in so far as the signifier intervenes in his activity, you must think the following, which I had the opportunity of articulating for one of you, to whom I was giving
a little extra explanation after my seminar, and if I underline it for you it is because my interlocutor pointed out to me what he had not perceived; what I am going to tell you, is namely for example the following: what you must consider, is that the
processes in question start at the same time from the four points, delta, 0, d and D, namely – you are going to see that this is the contribution of my lecture today – in this
relationship respectively the intention of the subject, the subject qua speaking, the act of demandingg and this which we will call by a certain name a little later on and which I leave here for the moment in reserve.

換句話說,假如你們認為發生在生命主體身上的這個過程,當這個意符介入他的活動,你們必須思考以下,我有機會跟你們其中一位表達,我在演講之後,稍微多加解釋。假如我跟你們強調它,因為我的對話者跟我指出,他沒有聽懂的東西。
我所要告訴你們的,例如,以下的東西:你們必須要考慮到。這些受到質疑的過程,同時從這四點開始,「鑽石形四方塊<>、大它者、小寫字母的欲望及大寫字母欲望」。你們將會看出,這就是我今天演講的貢獻。在這個關係,各別而言,就是生命主體的意圖,生命主體作為言談者,要求的行動,還有這個我們以後會稱呼某個名字的東西,我在此暫時作一個保留。

The processes therefore are simultaneous along these four paths: d-delta-I-S(,#) . I think that this is well enough supported.

這些過程因此是同時性,沿著這四條途徑:「小寫字母的欲望、鑽石形四方塊
<>、生命主體,括弧裏大它者被禁制」。我認為這已經足夠支持。

There are therefore two stages in the fact that the subject does something which is in relation to the dominant action, the dominant structure of the signifier. At the lower stage he receives, he undergoes this structure. This is particularly obvious. Pay careful attention to everything that I am saying, because there is nothing improvised in it, and that is why those (6) who are taking notes are doing the right thing.

因此這個事實有兩個階段:生命主體做某件跟支配性行動有關的事情,意符的支配結構。在他接受的較低的階段,他經歷這個結構。這確實是顯而易見的。請仔細注意每一樣我正在說的事情,因為裏面沒有一件是我信口開河。這就是為什麼那些記筆記的人,做對了事情。

This takes on its value by being especially – not uniquely but especially – illustrated. I mean that it is there that it is especially comprehensible, but at the same time it is also this which at first may mean that you do not see all its generality, namely that this engenders a certain lack of understanding.

我會用特別的舉例說明,(不是獨特,而是特別,)來顯現它的價值。我的意思是,就在那裏,它特別能夠被理解,但是同時,也就是這個,起初可能意味著,你們沒有看到所有它的通則。換句話說,這會產生某種的欠缺。

You can say to yourselves right away: every time that you understand, that is where the danger begins. It is especially the case that this takes on its value in the context, I say the context of the demand, it is in this context that the subject in so far as he is here at this level, at this stage, the line of the intentionality of the subject, of what we supposed to be the subject, a subject in so far as he has not become the speaking subject, in so far as he is the subject of whom one always speaks, of whom I would say, he is still spoken about, because I do not know that anyone has ever really properly made the distinction as I am trying here to introduce it to you, the subject of knowledge, to speak plainly the subject correlative to the object, the subject around whom turns the eternal question of idealism, and who is himself an ideal subject, has always something problematical namely that after all as has been pointed out, and as his name indicates, he is only supposed.

每一次,你們能夠立刻跟你們自己說,你們瞭解。那是危險開始的地方。特別是這個情形,它在這個內涵裏形成它的價值。我說的是要求的內涵。就在這個內涵裏。生命主體處於這個層次,這個階段,生命主體刻意性的脈絡,我們所認為的生命主體,他並沒有成為言談的生命主體。他是我們總是談到的生命主體。關於他,我會說,他依舊會被談論到。因為我並不知道,是否有任何人適當地做過這個區別。我在此正在設法跟你們介紹這個,知識的生命主體。明白地談論跟這個客體相關的生命主體。理想主義的永恆的問題,就是環繞著生命主體。他自己就是一個理想的生命主體,總是有某件棘手的東西。換句話說,畢竟,如它所被指出的,如他的名字所指出的,他只是被認為。

It is not the same thing, as you will see, for the subject who speaks, who imposes himself with complete necessity.

你們將會看得出來,對於言談的生命主體,對於賦加自己以完全的必須性的生命主體,這並不是相同的事情。

(7) The subject therefore in the context of the demand, is the first and I might say unformed state of the subject we are dealing with, the one whose conditions of existence we are trying to articulate by this graph.

因此,在要求的這個內涵裏的生命主體,是我們正在處理的生命主體,第一個未成形的狀態,我可以這樣說。這個生命主體的實存狀況,我們正在以這個圖形表達。

This subject is nothing other than the subject of need, because this is what he expresses in the demand, and I do not need to go back over this again. My whole
point of departure consists in showing how this demand of the subject is at the same time profoundly modified by the fact that need must pass through the defiles of the signifier.

這個生命主體道道地地就是需要的生命主體,因為這是他在需要中的表達。我就不需要再一次重述了。我整個的偏離點在於顯示,生命主體的這個需求,同時深刻地被這個事實所修正:需求必須通過意符的污染。

I will insist no further on this because I am supposing it known, but in this connection I would simply point out the following to you: that it is precisely in this exchange which is produced between the primitive unconstituted position of the subject of
need and the structural conditions imposed by the signifier, that there resides what is produced and what is represented here on this schema by the fact that the line D – S is unbroken up to 0, while further on it remains fragmented; that inversely it is in
so far as it is anterior to s(0) that the so-called line of intentionality, on this occasion of the subject, is fragmented and that it is only unbroken afterwards, let us say especially in this segment, and even provisionally because it is secondarily that I will have to insist on that in this case, in so far as you do not have to take into account the line O – O ^ d – S ( O ) -s(0).(?)

我不再進一步堅持這個,因為我假定它被大家所知道。但是關於這一點,我僅僅跟你們指出以下:確實就在這個被產生的交換裏,處於需要的生命主體尚未成形的立場,以及被意符所賦加大結構的狀況之間。在此,在這個基模裏,駐紮著被這個事實所產生,所代表的東西。從欲望的D,到生命主體的S,這條線一直到大它者的O,都沒有被中斷。但是較遠的部份,則始終是零碎狀態。相反過來說,它的存在,早先於生命主體具有大它者在括弧裏。這條所謂的意向線,在生命主體的這個場合,是零碎狀態。它後來才沒有被中斷,我們不妨這樣說,特別在這個部份,即使是暫時性的。只是從間接角度,我必須堅持:在這個情形,你們並不需要考慮這條線:O – O ^ d – S ( O ) -s(0)

(8) Why are things this way? All the same I had better not delay forever on this graph, especially since we will have to come back to it. In other words what is represented by this continuity of the line up to this point 0 which you know is the locus of the code, the locus where there lies the treasury of the tongue in its synchrony, I mean the sum of the thematic or taxematic elements, without which there is no means of communication between beings who are submitted to the conditions of language.

為什麼事情是這個樣子?可是,我最好不要一直停留在這個圖形,特別是我們必須回頭談論它。換句話說,這條線的連續性,一直到大它者O的這一點,所代表的,你們都知道,那是符碼的軌跡。在那裏,同時性的語言的財寶就在那裏。我指的是:語法要素的語幹的數目。假如沒有這些,委身於語言狀況的生命主體,就沒有溝通的工具,

What is represented by the continuity of the line D – S up to the point 0 is the following: it is that it is this synchrony of the systematic organisation of the tongue, I mean that synchronically, and it is given here as a system, as a set within which each of these elements has its value qua distinct from the others, from the other signifiers, from the other elements of the system.

這條欲望的D,到生命主體的S,一直到大它者O的這個點,這個連續性線代表的不就是底下?那就是語言的系統組織的這個同時性。它被放在這裏當是一個系統,作為一種集合。在這個集合裏,每一個因素都擁有它的價值,作為跟其他的因素不同,跟其他的意符不同,跟系統的其他因素不同。

Here we have, I repeat it for you, the starting point of everything that we articulate about communication. This is what is always forgotten in theories of communication, it is that what is communicated is not the sign of something else, and it is simply the sign of what is in the place where another signifier is not.

我跟你們重複一遍:在此,我們擁有每一樣東西的這個開始點,關於溝通我們表達的每一樣東西。這就是在溝通理論總是被忘記的東西。所被溝通的的,並不是某件其他東西的符號,而是這個符號:另外一個意符欠缺的位置實存的符號。

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

Desire 010 Jacques Lacan

February 16, 2011

Desire 010

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 2: 19 November 1958

I would like first of all to set out the limits of what I want to do today, I mean in this particular lecture, to state what I will show you today, and first of all by tackling the example of the interpretation of a dream, as well as the use of what we have called conventionally for some time the graph.

首先,我想要畫出我今天想要做的這些限制,在這個特別的講演。我想要陳述我今天要跟你們顯示的。首先,我先處理一個夢的解析的例子,以及有一段時間,我們習慣上所謂的欲望圖形的用途。

Since I am not carrying on this discourse, if I can express myself in this way, simply above your heads, I would like there to be established through it a certain communication, as they say. I had some echo of the difficulties which you yourselves
experienced the last time, namely at a moment which was far from being a novelty, and that the setting out again of this graph still constituted for some of you. For many however it remains, let us not yet say manageable because in truth this graph is not
extraordinary, we constructed it together last year, namely put it together progressively, in a way you saw it being built up from the needs of a certain formulation centred around what I (2) called the formations of the unconscious.

因為我並不是在執行這個真理論述,假如我以這種方式能夠表達我自己,讓你們覺得深奧難懂,我想要在這裏透過它,建立如人們所說的某種的溝通。我曾遭遇到你們上一次經驗到的困難的迴響。換句話說,在某個時刻,困難是屢見不鮮的事情。這個圖形的再一次展現,依舊是為你們而建構。可說,對於許多人而言,它仍然無法讓我們說是可以操控,因為事實上,這個圖形並不是很特別。去年,我們一起建構它,換句話說,我們按部就班地將它聚合起來。你們看到它被建造的方式,是從某些說明的需要。這個說明繞著所謂的無意識的形成。

There is no need to be surprised that you are not able, as some of you have remarked, to perceive that its usage is not yet univocal for you, because precisely a part of what we will have to articulate this year about desire will show us its usefulness, and at the same time will teach us to handle it.

你們不需要大吃一驚,如你們一些人所說的,當你們不能夠感覺到,它的用途對於你們而言,還不是意義明確。因為它確實是我們今年必須表達,關於欲望將會跟我們顯示它的用途。同時,它將會教導我們去處理它。

First of all then it is a question of comprehension. It is even this which seems to create for a certain number in different degrees, perhaps even less than they themselves say, which seems to create difficulties.

首先,這是理解的問題。即使這樣,對於某些人,都會引起某些程度上的困難。也許不是如他們所說的。但似乎會引起困難。

In connection with this term comprehension, I would like to point out – I assure you that there is no irony intended – that it is a problematical term. If there are those among you who always understand in every circumstance and at every moment what they are doing, I congratulate them and I envy them.

關於理解這個術語,我想要指出,我告訴你們,我無意做任何的反諷,這是一個頗為棘手的術語。假如你們中間有些人,無論在任何情境,任何時刻,總是能夠瞭解他們的所做所為,我恭喜他們,我羡慕他們。

This does not correspond, even after twenty five years of practice, to my experience, and in fact it shows us well enough the dangers that it involves in itself, the danger of illusion in all comprehension, so that I do not think there is any doubt that what I am trying to show you, is not so much to comprehend what I am doing, as to know it (le savoir). It is not always the same thing, they may not even go together, and you will see precisely that there are internal reasons why they should not go together, namely that you can in certain cases know what you are doing, know where you are at, without always being able to understand, (3) at least immediately, what is in question.

這跟我的經驗並沒有相符合,即使我經過二十五年的實踐。事實上,它跟我們充份顯示這些危險:它本身會牽涉到自以為理解的幻覺的危險。所以我不認為,有任何的可疑之處,我設法跟你們顯示的,不是要理解我正在說的內容,而是要知道它。這兩者未必是相同的事情。它們甚至沒有聚合在一起。你們確實將會看出,有些內在的理由,為什麼它們竟然沒有聚集在一起。換句話說,在某些的情況,你們能夠知道,你們正在做些什麼,知道你們正在從事什麼,但是未必總是能夠瞭解,至少沒有立刻瞭解,問題出在哪里?

The graph is made precisely in order to be of use in finding your bearings, it is destined to announce something right away. I think today, if I have the time, that I will be able to begin to see for example how this graph, and I think only by this graph or
of course by something analogous – it is not to the uniform in which it may be presented that you must attach yourselves – will appear to you very useful to distinguish – I am saying this to arouse your interest – to distinguish for example three things, in order to distinguish by their positions, their different situations, three things which I should say, one very frequently finds confused to the point that one slips without warning between one and the other: the repressed for example.

這個圖形的製作,確實是為了要能夠是讓你們用來找出你們的關聯。它被預定要立刻跟你們宣佈某件事情。今天,我認為,假如我有時間的話,我將能夠開始看出,例如,我認為,憑藉這個圖形,或當然憑藉某件類似的東西,(不是這個一致性,你們必須要連繫的,當它被呈現的時候,)你們如何會覺得這個圖形是有用,(我這樣說,是為了要引起你們的興趣,)例如,區別這三樣東西,為了要根據它們的位置,它們不同的情況,來區別。這三樣東西,我應該說,我們時常會發現會被混淆到這一個程度。我們在它們彼此之間會失誤,例如,受到壓抑的部份。

We will have things to say, or simply to take the fashion in which Freud himself defines it. The repressed, desire and the unconscious.

我們有些東西要說,或僅是要採取佛洛伊德自己定義的方式:被壓抑的東西,欲望,與無意識。

Let us go over it again in baby steps before applying it, so that there will be no doubt that what is represented at least by what we will call the two stages, even though of course, it is not even that which is the difficulty for many of you, these two stages do not correspond in any way to what habitually is presented to you at the level of what I could call the architectonics of the superior and inferior functions, automatism
(4) and the function of synthesis.

讓我們再一次從頭溫習一下,再運用它們。無可置疑的,所被壓抑的東西,至少根據我們所謂的兩個階段,即使當然,那甚至不是對於你們許多人覺得是困難的東西。這兩個階段根本就沒有對應,習慣上所被呈現給予你們的東西,在我所謂的優秀功用及劣等功用的知識體系,自動現象,及綜合功用的層次。

It is precisely because you do not find it there that these two stages confuse you, and that is why I will try to re-articulate them for you, because it seems that the second stage of the construction, a stage which obviously is defined abstractly, because since this graph is a discourse, one cannot say everything at the same time, this second stage is not necessarily a second phase, creates difficulties for some.

確實是因為你們並沒有在那裏發現它,這兩個階段使你們感到混淆。那就是為什麼,我會設法跟你們重新表達它們。因為這個建構的第二個階段,顯而易見,這個階段是抽象地被定義。因為這個欲望的圖形是一種真理的論述,我們無法同時把一切都講盡。這第二個階段,未必就是第二個部份,它對於某些人會引起困難。

I therefore take things up again. What is the aim of this graph? It is to show the relationships which are essential for us, even though we are analysts, of the speaking subject with the signifier.

我因此再一次探討這些事情。這個欲望圖形的目標是什麼呢?它是要顯示,對於我們而言是基本的這個關係,即使我們是精神分析師,生命主體跟這個意符的關係。

When all is said and done, the question around which these two stages are divided, is the same for the speaking subject – it is a good sign – is the same for him and for us. I was saying just now: do we know what we are doing? Well in his case too does he know or not what he is doing when he speaks? Which means: can he effectively signify for himself his action of signification?

當一切都說都做了,這個問題對於言談的生命主體而言,都是相同的。這兩個階段被區分所環繞的問題,(這是一個好的跡象,)對於他及對於我們,都是相同的。我剛才是在說:我們知道我們自己在做些什麼嗎?以他的情形而論,他知道,或是不知道,當他言談時,他正在做些什麼嗎?我的意思是:他能夠替自己有效地用意符表達,他的意義的行動嗎?

If is precisely around this question that these two stages are apportioned and regarding which I tell you right away, because this seems to have escaped some of you the last time, I tell you right away, in this connection you must realise that both function at the same time in the smallest act of speech, and you (5) will see what I mean, and how far I extend the term act of speech (acte de parole).

確實就是環繞著這個問題,這兩個階段被分配。關於這個問題,我立刻告訴你們,因為上一次你們有些人似乎沒有瞭解這個問題。我立刻告訴你們,關於這一點,你們必須要體會,這兩個階段同時發揮功用,以這個小小的言談的動作。你們將會看出我是什麼意思,以及我將言談的動作這個術語,延伸得有多遠。

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