內視,同理心,及精神健康的半圓 05

Introspection, Empathy, and the Semi-Circle of Mental Health. (1982)
Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 63:395-407 (IJP)
Introspection, Empathy, and the Semi-Circle of Mental Health
Heinz Kohut

內視,同理心,及精神健康的半圓
海因茲、科胡特

195
SUMMARY
綱要

I will not attempt here to support my stance by adducing a series of facts about developments in other sciences that are analogous to those which, in the form of self-psychology, I am advocating for psychoanalysis. I will simply point out that twentieth-century physics, too, has progressed decisively by relegating the relevance of certain constituents of its observational and explanatory framework which up to now had held unlimited sway, such as time, space, and causality, to certain clearly delimited areas. And I also only mention in passing the, for depth-psychology, crucially important point that modern physics has, with regard to certain areas that it investigates, posited a new kind of objectivity, namely a scientific objectivity which includes the subjective.

我在此將不企圖引用一系列的事實,關於在其他科學的發展,來支持我的立場。這些科學類同於我正在以自體心理學的形式,替精神分析學作擁護的科學。我將僅是指出,十九世紀的物理學,也曾經因為放棄它的觀察及解釋的架構的某些相關成分,而獲得突飛猛進。這些架構直到當時曾具有無限的影響力,譬如時間,空間,及因果律,對於某些除掉限制的地區。而且,我僅是偶爾提到對於深度心理學是至關緊要的一點:關於某些它研究的領域,現代物理學提出一種新的客觀性,換句話說,一種包含主觀性的科學的客觀性。

Instead I have decided that it would be appropriate within the framework of this presentation to share with you a personal factor that may have contributed to my partial failure twenty-five years ago to make it harder for the original discussants of my ‘Introspection and empathy’ essay to misunderstand my intent. For reasons that I cannot explain I have, so far as I can judge, ever since my childhood been familiar with the relativity of our perceptions of reality and with the relativity of the framework of ordering concepts that shape our observations and explanations. I had always assumed that everybody else shared this knowledge.

代替的,我已經決定,在這場演講的框架之內,這將是適當的,假如我跟你們分享一個個人的因素。這個個人因素曾經促成我二十五年前部分的失敗,為了使我「內視與同理心」論文的原先參與討論者,更加困難誤解我的意圖。因為我無法解釋的理由,自從我的童年以來,根據我所能判斷的,我對於我們現實界的感覺的相對性,及塑造我們的觀察與解釋的秩序觀念觀念的架構的相對性。我總是假定,每一個其他的人分享他的知識。

And when, later in life, during my adolescence, I studied the work of the great classical investigators of human cognition (from Plato to Kant) and talked with my friends about their writings, I was puzzled about the difficulties they seemed to have in understanding them. And the same was true when, much later, I acquired an, at least superficial, acquaintance with the scientific outlook of modern physics Einstein’s and, par excellence, that of Planck and Heisenberg. While the intricacies of the application of their outlook were beyond my grasp, it was always easy for me to accept their basic stance almost as a matter of course.

後來,在我青少年時期,我研讀那些對於人的認知的偉大經典研究者(從柏拉圖到康得)的著作,並且跟我的朋友談論有關他們的著作。我感到困惑,因為他們似乎很困難來瞭解他們。
用樣的狀況也發生,後來,當我對於現代物理學的觀點,至少獲得粗淺的認識,特別是愛因斯坦,尤其是普蘭克及海森堡的物理學。雖然他們觀點的應用的複雜性,不是我所瞭解,我總是輕易就能接受他們的基本立場,幾乎當著是理所當然。

Twenty-five years ago in my paper on ‘Introspection, empathy and psychoanalysis’ I spelled out the application of this basic stance in the field of depth-psychology ,namely that an objective reality is in principle unreachable and that we can only report the results of specific operations. I simply assumed that I shared this basic stance with all of my scientific colleagues and expected that they would, therefore, in their reactions to what I had to say not question the basic stance itself but only reject, approve, or partially reject and approve some of the detailed conclusions that I had drawn from my consistent application of the aforementioned basic principle.

二十五年前,在我的論文「內省、同理心與精神分析學」,我解釋這個基本立場的應用,在身度心理學。換句話說,一個客觀的現實原則上是可以獲得的。我們只是報導明確運作的結果。我僅是假定我跟我的科學的同事,分享基本的立場,並且期望,在對我必須說的話裏,他們因此將不會質疑基本立場的本身,而僅是拒絕,贊同,或是部分拒絕及贊同有些的細節的結論。這些結論是我從我一貫地應用以上提到的基本原則。

I had never seriously considered the fact that I would have to define or defend my ‘operationalism’, my clearly established knowledge that reality per se, whether extrospective or introspective, is unknowable and that we can only describe what we see within the framework of what we have done to see it.

我從來沒有認真地考慮到這個事實,我將必須定義或是防衛我的「運作主義」,我清楚建立的知識:現實界的本身,無論是外視或是內視,都是未可知的。我們只能在我們曾經做過的部分看到它的架構裏面,描述我們所看見的。

I have paid dearly for my naive assumption that all my colleagues shared this knowledge of the unknowability the unknowability in principle of reality. I was completely unprepared personally for the misunderstanding from the side of my colleagues of the issues the debatable issues that I had presented to them. I was completely unprepared for the fact that the only thing discussed was for me a non-issue, hardly in need to be stated at all.

我已經付出巨大代價,因為我天真地假定:我所有的同事都會分享我的未知論的這個知識:在現實界的原理的未知論。對於從我的同事這一邊會產生的誤解,關於我提供給他們的這些具有爭議性的問題,我個人完全沒有心理準備。對於這個事實:正在討論的唯一的事情,對我而言,根本就不是問題,根本就是無庸陳述,我完全沒有心理準備。

Yet, in retrospect, I have come to see that I could probably have done nothing at that time that would have prevented the storm. I have come to see that indeed the gradual explanation and elucidation of my basic stance, as now undertaken by me and by an increasing number of those among my colleagues who do understand it, constitutes a phase of scientific working through that might ultimately facilitate the thoughtful consideration of the changes in theory and practice in psychoanalysis that self-psychology is proposing.

可是,回顧起來,我已經漸漸看出,當時我本來也可能會是束手無策,即使我想要阻止那場風暴。我已經漸漸看出,的確,對於我的基本立場的解釋跟說明,如同我現在正在從事,以及越來越多的瞭解這個觀點的我的同事,組成一個科學運作的部分。這個科學運作最後會使自體心理學所正在建議的精神分析學,在理論與實踐的改變,會更方便地從事審慎的思考。

But now, finally, into medias res and to some of the concrete issues which twenty-five years ago prompted me to start on the scientific road that I have been following since. For our present purposes I will concentrate on a single issue: the drive concept in psychoanalysis and its consequences. And I will immediately emphasize once again that it is not the presence of the drive concept per se, not the isolated inconsistency of the intrusion of a vague and insipid biological concept into a marvellous system of psychology that would have spurred me toward scientific action and the same can be said with regard to my attitude vis-a-vis the concepts of ‘dependence’, ‘autonomy’, ‘identity’, and ‘adaptation’ imported from social psychology. It was not theoretical inconsistency that prompted my reflections but only my conviction that the drive concept (as well as the aforementioned sociological intruders into depth psychology) has had significant deleterious consequences for psychoanalysis.

但是現在,最後進入從中間階段開始敍述,對於這些具體的問題,二十五年前激發我開始步上我從此一直在追尋的科學的路途。作為我們目前的用途,我將集中在單一的議題:在精神分析學欲望驅力及其結果的觀念。我將立刻再一次強調,並不是欲望驅力觀念的本身的存在,並不是一個模糊而無趣的生物學的觀念闖入心理學的神奇系統,而造成孤立的前後矛盾,當時才激發我從事科學的舉動。關於從社會心理學借用過來的「依賴」「自主」「認同」及「適應等觀念,我面面相覷的態度,道理也是同樣。不但是理論的前後矛盾,激發我的反思,而且激發我的信念:對於精神分析學,欲望驅力的觀念(以及前述的社會學科闖入深度心理學),曾經有過重要的神奇的結果。

Under normal circumstances we do not encounter drives via introspection and empathy. We always experience the not-further-reducable psychological unit of a loving self, a lusting self, an assertive self, a hostile-destructive self. When drives achieve experiential primacy, we are dealing with disintegration products: in the realm of Eros, the fragmenting self watching helplessly as it is being replaced by a feverishly intensified pleasure experience, by the ascendancy of a pleasure-giving erogenic zone, and thus of the drive over the self; or, in the realm of Thanatos, the fragmenting self watching helplessly as it is being replaced by a feverishly intensified rage experience, by the ascendancy of a destructive and/or self-destructive orgy, and thus, again, of the drive over the self.

在正常的情況,我們並沒有經由內視及同理心,來遭遇欲望驅力。我們總是經驗到,一個可愛的自我,一個充滿欲念的自我,一個肯定的自我,一個敵意及毀滅的自我,會有無法再進一步還原的心理的單位。當欲望驅力獲得經驗的最優先地位,我們正在處理在性愛的領域,受到瓦解的產物。這個碎片化的自我無助地觀望,當它正在被激情強化對快樂經驗所取代,被給予快樂的性欲地區的提升所取代,無助地觀望的自我的碎片化,被激情強烈的暴怒經驗所取代,被毀滅性及(或)自我毀滅的狂歡的提升所取代,而且因此也被欲望驅力操控完整自我所取代。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Introspection, Empathy, and the Semi-Circle of Mental Health. (1982)
Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 63:395-407 (IJP)
Introspection, Empathy, and the Semi-Circle of Mental Health
Heinz Kohut

內視,同理心,及精神健康的半圓
海因茲、科胡特

195
SUMMARY
綱要

I will not attempt here to support my stance by adducing a series of facts about developments in other sciences that are analogous to those which, in the form of self-psychology, I am advocating for psychoanalysis. I will simply point out that twentieth-century physics, too, has progressed decisively by relegating the relevance of certain constituents of its observational and explanatory framework which up to now had held unlimited sway, such as time, space, and causality, to certain clearly delimited areas. And I also only mention in passing the, for depth-psychology, crucially important point that modern physics has, with regard to certain areas that it investigates, posited a new kind of objectivity, namely a scientific objectivity which includes the subjective.

我在此將不企圖引用一系列的事實,關於在其他科學的發展,來支持我的立場。這些科學類同於我正在以自體心理學的形式,替精神分析學作擁護的科學。我將僅是指出,十九世紀的物理學,也曾經因為放棄它的觀察及解釋的架構的某些相關成分,而獲得突飛猛進。這些架構直到當時曾具有無限的影響力,譬如時間,空間,及因果律,對於某些除掉限制的地區。而且,我僅是偶爾提到對於深度心理學是至關緊要的一點:關於某些它研究的領域,現代物理學提出一種新的客觀性,換句話說,一種包含主觀性的科學的客觀性。

Instead I have decided that it would be appropriate within the framework of this presentation to share with you a personal factor that may have contributed to my partial failure twenty-five years ago to make it harder for the original discussants of my ‘Introspection and empathy’ essay to misunderstand my intent. For reasons that I cannot explain I have, so far as I can judge, ever since my childhood been familiar with the relativity of our perceptions of reality and with the relativity of the framework of ordering concepts that shape our observations and explanations. I had always assumed that everybody else shared this knowledge.

代替的,我已經決定,在這場演講的框架之內,這將是適當的,假如我跟你們分享一個個人的因素。這個個人因素曾經促成我二十五年前部分的失敗,為了使我「內視與同理心」論文的原先參與討論者,更加困難誤解我的意圖。因為我無法解釋的理由,自從我的童年以來,根據我所能判斷的,我對於我們現實界的感覺的相對性,及塑造我們的觀察與解釋的秩序觀念觀念的架構的相對性。我總是假定,每一個其他的人分享他的知識。

And when, later in life, during my adolescence, I studied the work of the great classical investigators of human cognition (from Plato to Kant) and talked with my friends about their writings, I was puzzled about the difficulties they seemed to have in understanding them. And the same was true when, much later, I acquired an, at least superficial, acquaintance with the scientific outlook of modern physics Einstein’s and, par excellence, that of Planck and Heisenberg. While the intricacies of the application of their outlook were beyond my grasp, it was always easy for me to accept their basic stance almost as a matter of course.

後來,在我青少年時期,我研讀那些對於人的認知的偉大經典研究者(從柏拉圖到康得)的著作,並且跟我的朋友談論有關他們的著作。我感到困惑,因為他們似乎很困難來瞭解他們。
用樣的狀況也發生,後來,當我對於現代物理學的觀點,至少獲得粗淺的認識,特別是愛因斯坦,尤其是普蘭克及海森堡的物理學。雖然他們觀點的應用的複雜性,不是我所瞭解,我總是輕易就能接受他們的基本立場,幾乎當著是理所當然。

Twenty-five years ago in my paper on ‘Introspection, empathy and psychoanalysis’ I spelled out the application of this basic stance in the field of depth-psychology ,namely that an objective reality is in principle unreachable and that we can only report the results of specific operations. I simply assumed that I shared this basic stance with all of my scientific colleagues and expected that they would, therefore, in their reactions to what I had to say not question the basic stance itself but only reject, approve, or partially reject and approve some of the detailed conclusions that I had drawn from my consistent application of the aforementioned basic principle.

二十五年前,在我的論文「內省、同理心與精神分析學」,我解釋這個基本立場的應用,在身度心理學。換句話說,一個客觀的現實原則上是可以獲得的。我們只是報導明確運作的結果。我僅是假定我跟我的科學的同事,分享基本的立場,並且期望,在對我必須說的話裏,他們因此將不會質疑基本立場的本身,而僅是拒絕,贊同,或是部分拒絕及贊同有些的細節的結論。這些結論是我從我一貫地應用以上提到的基本原則。

I had never seriously considered the fact that I would have to define or defend my ‘operationalism’, my clearly established knowledge that reality per se, whether extrospective or introspective, is unknowable and that we can only describe what we see within the framework of what we have done to see it.

我從來沒有認真地考慮到這個事實,我將必須定義或是防衛我的「運作主義」,我清楚建立的知識:現實界的本身,無論是外視或是內視,都是未可知的。我們只能在我們曾經做過的部分看到它的架構裏面,描述我們所看見的。

I have paid dearly for my naive assumption that all my colleagues shared this knowledge of the unknowability the unknowability in principle of reality. I was completely unprepared personally for the misunderstanding from the side of my colleagues of the issues the debatable issues that I had presented to them. I was completely unprepared for the fact that the only thing discussed was for me a non-issue, hardly in need to be stated at all.

我已經付出巨大代價,因為我天真地假定:我所有的同事都會分享我的未知論的這個知識:在現實界的原理的未知論。對於從我的同事這一邊會產生的誤解,關於我提供給他們的這些具有爭議性的問題,我個人完全沒有心理準備。對於這個事實:正在討論的唯一的事情,對我而言,根本就不是問題,根本就是無庸陳述,我完全沒有心理準備。

Yet, in retrospect, I have come to see that I could probably have done nothing at that time that would have prevented the storm. I have come to see that indeed the gradual explanation and elucidation of my basic stance, as now undertaken by me and by an increasing number of those among my colleagues who do understand it, constitutes a phase of scientific working through that might ultimately facilitate the thoughtful consideration of the changes in theory and practice in psychoanalysis that self-psychology is proposing.

可是,回顧起來,我已經漸漸看出,當時我本來也可能會是束手無策,即使我想要阻止那場風暴。我已經漸漸看出,的確,對於我的基本立場的解釋跟說明,如同我現在正在從事,以及越來越多的瞭解這個觀點的我的同事,組成一個科學運作的部分。這個科學運作最後會使自體心理學所正在建議的精神分析學,在理論與實踐的改變,會更方便地從事審慎的思考。

But now, finally, into medias res and to some of the concrete issues which twenty-five years ago prompted me to start on the scientific road that I have been following since. For our present purposes I will concentrate on a single issue: the drive concept in psychoanalysis and its consequences. And I will immediately emphasize once again that it is not the presence of the drive concept per se, not the isolated inconsistency of the intrusion of a vague and insipid biological concept into a marvellous system of psychology that would have spurred me toward scientific action and the same can be said with regard to my attitude vis-a-vis the concepts of ‘dependence’, ‘autonomy’, ‘identity’, and ‘adaptation’ imported from social psychology. It was not theoretical inconsistency that prompted my reflections but only my conviction that the drive concept (as well as the aforementioned sociological intruders into depth psychology) has had significant deleterious consequences for psychoanalysis.

但是現在,最後進入從中間階段開始敍述,對於這些具體的問題,二十五年前激發我開始步上我從此一直在追尋的科學的路途。作為我們目前的用途,我將集中在單一的議題:在精神分析學欲望驅力及其結果的觀念。我將立刻再一次強調,並不是欲望驅力觀念的本身的存在,並不是一個模糊而無趣的生物學的觀念闖入心理學的神奇系統,而造成孤立的前後矛盾,當時才激發我從事科學的舉動。關於從社會心理學借用過來的「依賴」「自主」「認同」及「適應等觀念,我面面相覷的態度,道理也是同樣。不但是理論的前後矛盾,激發我的反思,而且激發我的信念:對於精神分析學,欲望驅力的觀念(以及前述的社會學科闖入深度心理學),曾經有過重要的神奇的結果。

Under normal circumstances we do not encounter drives via introspection and empathy. We always experience the not-further-reducable psychological unit of a loving self, a lusting self, an assertive self, a hostile-destructive self. When drives achieve experiential primacy, we are dealing with disintegration products: in the realm of Eros, the fragmenting self watching helplessly as it is being replaced by a feverishly intensified pleasure experience, by the ascendancy of a pleasure-giving erogenic zone, and thus of the drive over the self; or, in the realm of Thanatos, the fragmenting self watching helplessly as it is being replaced by a feverishly intensified rage experience, by the ascendancy of a destructive and/or self-destructive orgy, and thus, again, of the drive over the self.

在正常的情況,我們並沒有經由內視及同理心,來遭遇欲望驅力。我們總是經驗到,一個可愛的自我,一個充滿欲念的自我,一個肯定的自我,一個敵意及毀滅的自我,會有無法再進一步還原的心理的單位。當欲望驅力獲得經驗的最優先地位,我們正在處理在性愛的領域,受到瓦解的產物。這個碎片化的自我無助地觀望,當它正在被激情強化對快樂經驗所取代,被給予快樂的性欲地區的提升所取代,無助地觀望的自我的碎片化,被激情強烈的暴怒經驗所取代,被毀滅性及(或)自我毀滅的狂歡的提升所取代,而且因此也被欲望驅力操控完整自我所取代。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: