Archive for June, 2011

移情心理學194

June 28, 2011

Ill
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE TRANSFERENCE
移情心理學194

Carl Jung
卡爾 榮格

INTRODUCTION
導論

393
But the negative attitude of the public at large to the Church seems to be less the result of religious convictions than one symptom of the general mental sloth and ignorance of religion.

但是一般大眾對於教堂的負面的態度,似乎並非是宗教信仰的結果,而是一般精神懶散及對宗教無知的病徵。

We can wax indignant over man’s notorious lack of spirituality, but when one is a doctor one does not invariably think that the disease is intractable or the patient morally inferior; instead, one supposes that the negative results may possibly
be due to the remedy applied. Although it may reasonably be doubted whether man has made any marked or even perceptible progress in morality during the known five thousand years of human civilization, it cannot be denied that there has been
a notable development in consciousness and its functions.

我們會日愈感到憤怒,對於人類惡名昭彰地欠缺精神性,但是當這個人是醫生時,我們不要一成不變地認為:疾病是棘手,或是病人道德低劣。代替的,我們認為,這些負面的結果,很可能是由於被使用的治療的關係。雖然我們可以合理地懷疑,在已知的五千年人類文明種,人類在道德方面,是否曾有任何明顯,或甚至可感覺的進步。無可否認的是,在意識及其功用方面,有顯著的發展。

Above all, there has been a tremendous extension of consciousness in the form of knowledge. Not only have the individual functions become differentiated, but to a large extent they have been brought under the control of the ego in other words,
man’s will has developed. This is particularly striking when we compare our mentality with that of primitives.

尤其是,以知識的形態,意識曾經有巨大的延伸,個人的功用不但變得不同,而且有很大程度,他們受到自我的控制。換句話說,人的意志已經發展。這是特別耐人尋味的,當我們比較我們的精神性跟原始人的精神性。

The security of our ego has, in comparison with earlier times, greatly increased and has even taken such a dangerous leap forward that, although we sometimes speak of “God’s will,” we no longer know what we are saying, for in the same breath we assert, “Where there’s a will there’s a way.” And who would ever think of appealing to God’s help rather than to the goodwill, the sense of responsibility and duty, the reason or intelligence, of his fellow men?

跟早先的時代比較起來,我們自我的安全大大地增加,甚至突飛猛進。雖然我們有時談到「上帝的意志」,我們不再知道我們正在說什麼,因為我們同時又主張,「有志者事竟成」。無論是從責任與義務,理智或智慧的意義來說,有誰願意求助於上帝的幫助,而不是求助於他的同胞的善意?

394
Whatever we may think of these changes of outlook, we cannot alter the fact of their existence. Now when there is a marked change in the individual’s state of consciousness, the unconscious contents which are thereby constellated will also
change. And the further the conscious situation moves away from a certain point of equilibrium, the more forceful and accordingly the more dangerous become the unconscious contents that are struggling to re-establish the balance.

不管我們對於外觀的這些改變有何看法,我們無法改變它們存在的這個事實。現在人類的意識的狀態,有著明顯的改變,因此而被彙集到無意識的內容,也將會改變。意識的情境離開平衡的某個點越遠,正在奮鬥要重建平衡的無意識的內容,就變得更加有力,因此也更加危險。

This leads ultimately to a dissociation: on the one hand, ego-consciousness makes convulsive efforts to shake off an invisible opponent (if it does not suspect its next-door neighbour of being the devil!), while on the other hand it increasingly falls victim to the tyrannical will of an internal “Government opposition” which displays
all the characteristics of a daemonic subman and superman combined.

最後,這會導致一種解離:一方面是自我意識驟發性地努力要擺脫隱形的對手(即使它並沒有覺察到隔壁的鄰居是惡魔!)在另一方面,它漸漸會成為內部「反對體制」的暴虐意志的受害者。這種內部的「反對體制」,展現惡魔的次人類與超人集於一身的所有特徵。

395
When a few million people get into this state, it produces the sort of situation which has afforded us such an edifying object-lesson every day for the last ten years. These contemporary events betray their psychological background by their very
singularity.

當好幾百萬人進入這樣的狀態,它會產生這種情況,在過去十年來每一天,這個情況提供我們一個作為教訓的客體教材。這些當代的事件,顯露出他們具有獨特性的心理背景。

The insensate destruction and devastation are a reaction against the deflection of consciousness from the point of equilibrium. For an equilibrium does in fact exist between the psychic ego and non-ego, and that equilibrium is a religio,
a “careful consideration” of ever-present unconscious forces which we neglect at our peril. The present crisis has been brewing for centuries because of this shift in man’s conscious situation.

這種無理性的毀滅與蹂躪,是從平衡作用的觀點,對於意識到一種反動。因為平衡作用事實上確實存在于心靈的自我與非自我之間,平衡作用是永久存在的無意識力量的一種「神聖儀式」,一種「仔細的考慮」,是我們在危機時無哦忽略的力量。目前的危機已經蘊釀理好幾世紀,因為人類的意識的情境的這個改變。

396
Have the Churches adapted themselves to this secular change? Their truth may, with more right than we realize, call itself “eternal,” but its temporal garment must pay tribute to the evanescence of all earthly things and should take account of psychic changes. Eternal truth needs a human language that alters with the spirit of the times.

教堂自己已經適應這種世俗化的改變嗎?它們的真理,擁有比我們體會到的更多的權利,會稱呼它自己為「永恆的真理」,但是它的短暫的外裝,必須對於所有世間事物的無常短暫,表示敬意,並且應該考慮到心靈的變化。永恆的真理需要人類的語言,這個語言隨著時代的精神而改變。

The primordial images undergo ceaseless transformation and yet remain ever the same, but only in a new form can they be understood anew. Always they require a new interpretation if, as each formulation becomes obsolete, they are not to lose their spellbinding power over that fugax Mercurius and allow that useful though dangerous enemy to escape.

原始的意象經歷不停的轉變,可是又仍然保持相同,但是僅是以一種新的形式,它們才能夠重新被人瞭解。它們總是要求一種新的解釋,假如它們在遭遇每個常規都變得過時,但是不想要喪失它們以咒人迷人的力量,對於當時的「莫丘瑞士」神,並且容許那個有用雖然是危險的敵人逃走。

What is that about “new wine in old bottles”? Where are the answers to the spiritual needs and troubles of a new epoch? And where the knowledge to deal with the psychological problems raised by the development of modern consciousness? Never before has “eternal” truth been faced with such a hybris of will and power.

關於「舊瓶裝新酒」,是怎麼一回事?對於精神的需求與一個新時代的困擾的解答是什麼?因為現代意識的發展而提出的心理的問題,要如何處理的知識在哪里?「永恆的真理」從來沒有面臨過這種意志與權力的混雜。

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

精神分析技术的基本原则 p143

June 28, 2011

Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique
精神分析技術的基本原則 p143

BRUCE FINK
布魯斯 芬克

How to Handle Transference
如何處理移情

He indicated, for example, that when the male analyst working with a man whom Gill called “Patient E” made an interpretation to the effect that the patient was worried that there was an intimate, homosexual component to his relationship with the analyst, the patient heard the interpretation “as a homosexual approach” or come-on (p. 1 05).

例如,他指示著,,當男性分析師跟一位吉爾稱為的「病人戊」的男人諮商時,解釋的大意是:病人正在憂慮會有親密的同性戀的成分,在他跟分析師之間,病人聽到解釋為「作為同性戀的途徑」或是「誘拐之計」。

The analyst in that case had apparently been sensed for some time by the patient to be encouraging the patient to form a homoerotic 同性戀 bond with him, and the analyst’s interpretation was taken by the patient as confirmation of his preexisting sense.

在那種情況的分析師明顯地被病人相當時間感覺到,是在鼓勵病人跟他形成同性戀的默契。分析師的解釋,被病人接受作是對於他事先存在的感覺的肯定。

Another analysand, whom Gill referred to as “Patient G,” had obviously felt for some time that he was in competition with his analyst and perpetually losing the contest. When his analyst commented at length on this, the patient “experience[d] every interpretation as an enactment 扮演 of the competition. Even interpretations that [were] about that very thing” for example, the analyst proffered, “My saying that you have experienced it as a competition in which I am besting you is yet another move in this game of besting you”–were “experienced as aloof, one-upmanship” on the analyst’s part (p. 1 70).

另外一種受分析者,吉爾提到作為「病人己」,有相當時間感覺到,他是在跟他的分析師競爭,並且連續地漸漸輸掉這場競賽。當他的分析師詳細地評論這一點,病人「經驗每一個解釋,作為競爭的演出。例如,即使是分析師提出的事情,」當我說,你已經經驗到它作為一種我正在擊敗你的競爭,這個說法又是另外一種策略,在這場擊敗你的遊戲。這些解釋被經驗到當作是分析師這一邊「拉開距離,領先對手的策略」。

When his analyst told him he seemed to be seeking the analyst’s
approval, the patient concluded that this was just one more way he was messed up and failing. When the analyst commented that the patient felt the analyst was putting him down, the patient took the comment as another put-down (pp. 1 62-1 64).

當他的分析師告訴他,他似乎正在尋求分析師的認同,病人斷定說,這又是另外一招讓他搞混而且失誤的方式。當分析師評論,病人感覺分析師正在將他擊敗,病人接受這個評論,作為另外一個擊敗。

The analyst’s speech is heard as coming from the person the analysand imputes the analyst to be, not as coming from the person the analyst
thinks he is or would like to be, or as coming from some objective outside
observer. In this sense, interpretation of the transference, which is allegedly engaged in so as to “resolve” or “liquidate” the transference, ends up merely feeding the transference, making it still more intense and unwieldy. 19

分析師的談話,被聽見作為來自受分析者將分析師歸屬成為的那種人,而不是作為來自分析者認為他的本質,或是想要成為的那種人,或是來自某位客觀的外在觀察者。在這層意義上,據宣稱正在進行的移情的解釋,為了要「解決」或「消除」移情,結果僅是將移情滋長,使移情更加強烈而狼狽。

This is one of the reasons why Lacanians will often proffer very short interpretations that omit the subject of the statement (avoiding, for example, “[ think”) and that consist essentially of the analysand’s own words–perhaps strung together in a slightly different order–such that it is not entirely clear to the analysand who authored them. This makes it more difficult for such interpretations (see Chapter 5) to be experienced and rejected “as coming from the transferential Other.”

這就是其中一個理由,為什麼拉康派精神分析往往提供非常簡短的解釋,省略陳述的主詞(例如,避免「我認為」),基本上,那是由受分析者的自己的話所組成—可能以稍微不同方式擺置—以致於受分析者並不完全清楚,誰是這些話語的作者。這使得諸如其類的解釋更加困難被經驗及被排斥,「作為來自移情的大它者。」

Despite an entire volume of theoretical considerations on the interpretation of transference and a second volume of transcriptions of sessions purporting to show the reader how to detect and interpret transference, Gill provided little if any evidence that the interpretation of transference led to enduring change in the analysands he presented.

儘管對於移情的解釋,理論上的考慮,全部是那麼多,以及在諮商晤談時的錄音稿,又再添加的數量,用來跟讀者顯示,如何覺察及解釋移情,吉爾很少證據,即使是有的話,移情的解釋會導致他呈現的這些受分析者,會有永久的變化。

The possible sources and evolution of Patient E’s fear of intimacy and homophobia were never even broached, nor were the probable causes of Patient G’s competition with authority figures. Both of these
patients made it quite clear that fear and competition characterized many of their relationships with others, yet the reader was never given so much as a glimpse of their connection with the patients’ histories.

病人戊的恐懼親密及恐懼同性戀,可能的來源與進展甚至從來沒有被擴大,病人己跟權威人物的競爭的可能原因也沒有。這兩位病人表達得很清楚:恐懼與競爭表現他們與別人的關係的特性,可是讀者從來沒有給予如此多的東西,得以瞥見他們跟病人歷史的關聯。

As important as it may be for analysts to be attuned to “allusions to the transference” (Gill, 1 982, p. 2 1 ) in stories analysands recount during their sessions, and as important as it may be to get analysands to elaborate on such allusions in detail, virtually every direct interpretation of the transference in the sessions Gill and Hoffman collected led to a quandary, a messy soup that the analysts whose cases they presented extracted themselves from only with the greatest of difficulty.

雖然受分析者於諮商晤談時描述的故事裏,分析師要調適「移情的暗示」,可能非常重要,以及雖然要受分析者詳細地構想這樣的暗示非常重要,吉爾與霍夫曼收集的對於諮商晤談時的移情,幾乎每一個直接的解釋,都導致狼狽不堪的窘境。呈現案例的分析師,僅是千辛萬苦,才置身事外。

Unwittingly, Gill and Hoffman appear to have provided ample evidence that it is ‘ counterproductive to interpret the transference.

不知不覺地,吉爾與霍夫曼似乎已經提供充分的證據:解釋移情會產生不良後果。

Although one cannot see any great benefit accruing to the patients they
presented, one can see that the attempt on the part of some of the analysts
whose sessions were included in the volume to find allusions to the transference everywhere and to systematically interpret the transference led them to overlook the most basic facets of psychoanalytic technique:

雖然我們無法看出,對於他們呈現的病人能夠增加任何大的優點,我們能夠看出:在有些分析師這一邊,他們的諮商晤談被包括在一次性裏,為了從每個地方找出對於移情的暗示,及系統化地解釋移情,這種企圖會導致他們忽略精神分析技巧的最基本的面貌:

• They overlooked slips of the tongue (Patient G said, “my being angry with me” instead of “my being angry with him,” implying something very
different, indeed;

—他們忽略了說錯話的口誤(病人己說,「我對我自己生氣」,而不是「我對他生氣」,的確暗示著某件非常不同的事情。)

• They failed to notice mixed metaphors (Patient G said, referring to the upcoming end of the’ therapy, ”Time is running out. The crystal ball
with the sand ends July 2 1 st,” obviously meaning “hourglass” instead of “crystal ball,” and thus referring quite transparently to his view that his analyst was, or at least believed he was, clairvoyant-if not a fortune
teller; p. 1 56).

—他們沒有注意到混合的比喻(病人己說的,提到這個「治療」的即將結束,「時間快要用完了」,沙的水晶球在七月二十一日結束,顯而易見是指「沙漏」而不是「水晶球」。因此這相當明顯是提到他的觀點:他的分析師是通靈的人,或至少他以為他是—即使不是算命者。

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

可能不是類似 14

June 27, 2011

可能不是類似 14

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
雅克 拉康研討班

BOOK XVIII
第十八冊

On a discourse that might not be a semblance
可能不是類似,而是真理論述

(18) In any case, the statement of our title this year, On a discourse that is not a semblance, concerns something that deals with an economy. Here we will hide (nous tairons) the a semblance from itself, it is not a semblance of something else, it is to be taken in the sense of the objective genitive, what is at stake is the semblance as
proper object by which there is ruled the economy of discourse.

無論如何,今年我們標題的陳述,「論可能不是類似,而是真理論述」關係到某件處理有效使用的東西。在此,我們將會隱藏這個「類似物」不給自己知道,它並不是某件其他東西的一個類似物。它應該從客觀的屬格的意義來理解。岌岌可危的是這個類似物,作為適當的客體,真理論述的有效使用就是被它統治。

Are we going to say that it is also a subjective genitive? Does du semblant concern also what gives the discourse? The word subjective is the only one to be rejected here for the simple reason that the subject only appears once there has been established
somewhere this liaison of signifiers. A subject can only be the product of signifying articulation. A subject as such never masters in any case this articulation but is properly speaking determined by it.

我們將要說,這也是一件主觀性的屬格嗎?「類似物」也關係到是什麼產生真理論述?這個主觀性的字詞,是唯一能夠在此被拒絕,理由很簡單:一旦在某個地方能指的仲介被建立,生命主體才會出現。生命主體僅能是能指化表達的產物。無論如何,生命主體的本身永遠無法精通這個表達,但是適當地說,又受到這個表達所決定。

A discourse, by its nature, appears (fait semblant) as one might say to be a success, or to be light, or to be chic. If what is stated in words is precisely true by always being very authentically what it is, at the level we are at, of the objective and of articulation, it is then very precisely as object of what is only produced in this aforesaid discourse that the semblance is posited.

我們不妨說,根據自己的特性,一個真理論述似乎是成功,或是輕浮,或是時髦。假如用文字陳述的內容確實是真實,總是真實地是其本質的樣子,在我們追求的層次,屬於目標,屬於表達,那麼類似物被提出,確實作為在前述的真理論述所產生的客體。

Hence the properly senseless character of what is articulated and it must be said that it is here indeed that there is revealed what is involved in the richness of language, namely, that it contains a logic that surpasses by far everything that we succeed in crystallising of it, in detaching from it.

在此,這個適當的沒有意義的特性,對於所被表達的東西,我們必須說,在此的確的,語言的豐富性所牽涉的東西,會被顯露出來。換句話說,它包含一種邏輯,遠超過我們成功地將它具體化的一切,當我們跟它保持距離。

I employed the hypothetical form of a discourse which might not be (ne serait pas) a semblance. Everyone knows the developments that logic took on after Aristotle, by putting the emphasis on the hypothetical function. Everything that is articulated by giving the value

我使用可能不是類似物,而是真理論似地這個假設形式。眾所周知,在亞力斯多德之後,邏輯所形成的發展,強調假設性的功用。每一樣被表達的東西,給予價值。

True of False to the articulation of the hypothesis, and combining what results from the implication of a term within this hypothesis, as being signalled as true. This is the inauguration of what is called the modus ponens, and of still many other modes and
everyone knows what was made of them. It is striking, at least as far as I know, that no one has ever formalised the resource involved in the use of this hypothetical in the negative.

對於假設的表達的虛假而言,那也同樣是真實。連接一個術語的暗示在這個假設裏所造成的東西,作為能指化是真實的。這就是所謂「離斷律」的開始儀式。還有許多其他模式,眾所周知,它們由什麼組成。這是耐人尋味的,至少據我所知,沒有人曾經以使用否定假設法,將這種資源正式化

A striking thing, if one refers for example to what is collected about it in my Ecrits, when someone at the epoch, a heroic epoch at which I began to clear up the terrain of analysis, when someone came to contribute to the deciphering of the Verneinung.

這是耐人尋味的,例如,假如我們提到在我的「精神分析論文集」收集的東西,當在這個時代,我開始澄清精神分析平臺的一個英雄時代的某個人,當某個人前來貢獻對於「否認」的詮釋。

Even though in commenting Freud letter by letter, he noticed very clearly – because
Freud says it quite literally – that the Bejahung only involves a judgement of attribution, which means that Freud … shows a finesse (19) and a competence that are quite exceptional at the time he wrote this – because only some logician who is not widely known was able at that time to underline it – the judgement of attribution, in no way prejudges existence.

即使當他以一封又一封信件,評論佛洛伊德時,他清楚地注意到—因為佛洛伊德說的很真實–「Bejahung」僅牽涉屬性的判斷,這意味著,佛洛伊德、、、顯示一種細膩,一種勝任,在他寫作這個的當時,是非常傑出的—因為在當時,只有某一位元無名氣的邏輯家,才能夠這樣強調它—屬性的判斷,絲毫沒有預先判斷生命的實存。

The simple positing of a Verneinung, implies the existence of something which is very precisely what is denied. A discourse which might not be a semblance posits that the discourse, as I have just stated, is a semblance.

簡單的提出「否認」,暗示某件東西的存在。這確實是被否認的東西。可能不是類似的真理論述提出:真理論述是一種類似物,如我剛剛所陳述的。

The great advantage in putting it like that is that one does not say a semblance of what. Now, it is here of course, it is around this that I propose to advance our statements, namely, to get to know what is involved where it might not be a semblance. Naturally, the terrain is prepared by a singular even though timid step, which is the one that
Freud took in Beyond the pleasure principle.

像那樣提出的最大益處是,我們並沒有說是什麼的類似物。當然,在此,就是環繞這一點,我建議提升我們的陳述。換句話說,要漸漸知道,在可能不是類似物的地方,會牽涉的是什麼。當然,這個平臺的準備是獨特的一步,雖然不免膽怯。這是佛洛伊德在「超越快樂原則」,採取的這個步驟。

Here I do not want, because I cannot do any more than indicate the knot formed in this statement, by repetition and enjoyment. It is in function of this that repetition goes against the pleasure principle which, I would say, does not recover from it. Hedonism, in the light of analytic experience, can only go back to what it is, namely, a
philosophical myth. I mean, a myth of a perfectly defined (and clear) class.

在此,我並不想要採取這一步驟,因為我所能做的不過是指出,在這個陳述由於重複與享受而形成的這個環結。就是這個功用,重複對抗快樂原則,使快樂原則無法從它恢復,我不妨說。享樂主義,從精神分析的觀點來看,僅能回到它原來的樣子,換句話說,一種哲學的神話,我的意思是,一種定義完美而清楚的神話。

And I stated last year the help that they have given to a certain process of the master, by permitting the discourse of the master as such to build up a knowledge. This knowledge is the knowledge of the master. This knowledge has supposed, since the philosophical discourse still carries its trace, the existence over against the master
of another knowledge and, thank God, philosophical discourse did not disappear without first pinpointing that there ought to be at the origin a relationship between this knowledge and enjoyment.

去年,我陳述它們曾經給予的這個幫助,對於主人的某個過程,容許主人論述的本身累積某種知識。這種知識就是主人的知識。因為哲學的真理論述依舊還帶有主人知識的痕跡,這種知識曾經認為,對抗另外一種知識的主人的存在,及感謝上帝,哲學的真理論述必定要先明確指出,在起源處,要有這種知識與享樂的關係,它才會消失。

The one who thus closed philosophical discourse, Hegel to give him his name, naturally only sees the way in which, through work, slavery comes to accomplish what? Nothing other than the knowledge of the master.

因此封閉哲學的真理論述的這種論述,黑格爾當仁不讓。當然,他僅是看出:憑藉工作,奴隸漸漸獲得什麼?道道地地就是主人的知識。

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

精神分析技術的基本原則p141

June 27, 2011

Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique
精神分析技術的基本原則 p141

BRUCE FINK
布魯斯 芬克

How to Handle Transference
如何處理移情

Nevertheless, the majority 大多數 of analysts seem to have fallen in with Freud’s ( 19 1 3/ 1 958) point of view that we must interpret the transference whenever it begins to lead to resistance 阻抗:

可是,大多數的分析師似乎已經同意佛洛伊德的觀點:我們必須解釋移情,每當它通往阻抗。

So long as the patients communications 溝通 and ideas run on 進行 without any obstruction 阻礙, the theme of transference should be left untouched 沒有碰觸. One must wait until the transference, [the handling of] which is the most delicate of all procedures 程式, has become a resistance 阻抗. (p. 1 39)

只要病人的溝通及觀念沒有受到阻礙地進行,移情的主體應該留著不要碰觸。我們必須等到移情已經變成阻抗,因為對於移情的處理是最微妙的一種程式。

They seem not to have realized that an interpretation 解釋of the transference that comes from the transferential object herself, the analyst, is not a way out of the transference but simply reproduces 複製 the transference; for, as Lacan (2006, p. 59 1 ) said, ‘The analyst’s speech is [always] heard as coming from the transferential Other.”

分析師似乎沒有體會是,對於移情的解釋,來自移情的客體本身,分析師,並不是解決移情的好方法,而僅是複製移情。如同拉康所說的:「分析師的言談總是被聽見,當作是來自移情的大它者。」

If, for example, the analyst has become associated 聯想 with a critical重要的 parental figure, her interpretation will be heard as critical 重要; if she has become associated with a seductive誘拐 maternal 母親figure, her interpretation will be heard as seductive. We do not achieve some sort ‘of metaposition 形上位置 outside of the transference by interpreting it (the claims of therapists like Levenson, 1 995, p. 88, that we can “metacommunicate” 形上溝通 notwithstanding雖然).

例如,分析師已經跟重要的父母的人物聯想在一塊,她的解釋將會被聽見,當作很重要。假如他已經跟一位誘拐的母親的人物聯想在一塊,她的解釋將會被解釋為誘拐。我們透過解釋移情,並沒有完成某種的移情之外的形上位置。(有些治療師,譬如,李文森,宣稱說:儘管如此,我們能夠「形而上溝通」)

We remain up to our ears 忙碌於 in the transference. As Lacan ( 1967-1968, November 29, 1 967) said, there is “no transference of the transference,” meaning that–just as there is no position outside o f language that allows us to discuss language as a whole without having to rely on language itself in our discussion-there is no way in which we can step completely outside the transference situation in order to discuss what is happening in the transference itself (see also Lacan, 1 998b, p. 428).

我們始終為移情的問題所困。如同拉康所說,「沒有移情的移情」。他的意思是:正如語言之外,沒有立場容許我們討論語言的整體,因為在我們的討論,我們必須依賴語言本身。我們不可能完全跨越到移情情境之外,為了討論移情本身會發生什麼事情。

The interpretation of transference is a vicious cycle 惡性循環! Analysts have tried to get around this vicious cycle by dividing the analysand into two parts: the “experiencing ego” and the “observing 觀察 ego” (Sterba, 1 934).

移情的解釋是一種惡性循環!分析師曾經嘗試將受分析者分成兩個部分,繞過這個惡性循環:「正在經驗的自我」與「正在觀察到自我」。

The trick 竅訣, in their view, is to invite the observing ego, which they consider to be “rational 理性,” to step outside of the transference (which is presumably 假定 engaged in by the experiencing ego alone) into some kind of metaspace 形上空間 , a space outside of the transference where analyst and analysand can meet as “reasonable” observing egos and agree upon what is happening between the irrational, unreasonable, experiencing egos who are caught up in 忙於 the transference/countertransference. 16

依他們之見,這種竅訣是要邀請正在觀察的自我,跨越出移情之外,因為他們認為他是理性的,(這假定移情僅是由正在經驗的自我在進行,)進入某種的形上空間。這種移情之外的空間,在那裏,分析師與受分析者能夠會合,作我「理性的」觀察的自我,並且達成一致看法,對於正在發生於這些非理性,不理智的經驗自我,他們深陷於移情與反移情之中。

It may sound like I am being ironic 反諷here, but many authors 作者speak in precisely 確實these terms, as if “rational 理性,” “irrational,” “reasonable,” and “unreasonable” were simple, serviceable服務 categories1 範疇7 that could be unproblematically associated with one or another of the psychical agencies 代理, and as if–even if an agreement as to what is going on could be reached between reasonable, “dispassionate 冷靜,” observing egos taking a “time out” from the hothouse 溫室 of the transference relationship–it would change anything when they return to the hothouse (apart from encouraging the analysand to suppress 壓抑 any and all transference reactions 反動 in the future) .

聽起來像是我在此冷嘲熱諷。但是許多作者以很明確的這些術語談到,好像「理性」,「非理性」,「理智」「不理智」是簡單,可供服務的分類,能夠毫無棘手地就跟某種心靈的代理互相聯想—即使關於正在進行的事情,能夠獲得一致看法,在理性,「冷靜」的觀察的自我「暫停一段時間」,離開移情關係的溫室—好似這樣,當他們重回溫室時,他們就能一切改觀。(除了就是鼓勵受分析者壓抑未來的任何移情及全部移情。)

The analysand is likely to remain just as hypersensitive 過度敏感 to criticism as he was before, for example, but he may begin to “talk himself down” from his high dudgeon 生氣 when he remembers his discussion with the analyst to the effect that he constantly 不斷地felt criticized批評 by his father as a child, which is the origin 起源of his hypersensitivity to criticism today.

例如,受分析者很可能跟以前一樣,對於批評保持同樣的過度敏感。但是他在老羞成怒中,可能開始「舒解自己」,當他想起他跟分析師的討論,大意是說,他不斷地感到他小時候,受到他的父親的批評。這是他今天對於批評的高度敏感的起因。

The upshot 結局 is that he will still get very angry but will learn how to suppress 壓抑 his anger after the fact instead of acting on it. Or he will still experience women’s comments to him as invariably 一成不變 seductive 誘拐 but will learn how to “reason with himself,” reminding himself on each occasion that he experiences their comments that way because of things that occurred with his mother. Such is the usefulness (or uselessness, as the case may be) of enlisting 徵召 the aid of the analysand’s observing ego!

結局是,他依舊將會憤怒,但是學會如何壓抑他對於這個事實的憤怒,而不是根據這個事實採取行動。或者,他將依舊會經驗到女人對他的評論,作為一定是誘拐,但是學會如何「跟自己講道理」,在每個場合,提醒他自己:他以那種方式,經驗到他們的評論,因為跟他的母親一起發生的事情。徵召受分析者的觀察到自我,來幫忙的這個方法,是如此的有用,(或無用,端看情況而定)!

Gill ( 1 982) is one of the foremost proponents 提議者, in the non-Kleinian analytic world (I will discuss Klein later in this chapter), of the systematic interpretation of transference, yet he acknowledged something (which he appeared to view as a simple anomaly or curiosity, even though he repeated it numerous times in the course of his book) that seems to corroborate Lacan’s view that it is generally pointless to interpret the transference.

在非克萊恩的精神分析界,吉爾是最重要的提倡者之一,(在這個章節,我將會討論克萊恩),關於系統化地解釋移情,可是他承認某件事情(他似乎將它看作是單純的異常或好奇,雖然他在他的書裏,重述這件事好幾次)。這件事情似乎跟拉康的觀點不謀而合:解釋移情通常是沒有意義的。

Gill indicated that in the transcripts of complete sessions he provided in volume 2 of his work, one can see “how regularly the analysis of the transference has its own repercussions on the transference–often repercussions which result in an enactment of the very patterns of interactions to which the interpretations refer”

吉爾指示:在他的著作的第二冊,他提供完整的諮商晤談的錄音稿。我們能夠看出「移情的精神分析,對於移情如何規律地會有它自己的反作用—這些反作用,造成解釋所提到的分析師與受分析者互動模式的扮演。」

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

精神分析的倫理學 09

June 27, 2011

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的倫理學 09

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

XXIV
第24章

The paradoxes of ethics
or Have you acted in conformity with your desire?

倫理學的矛盾
或你曾遵循你的欲望行動嗎?

Religion, Science and Desire
宗教、科學與欲望

4
And now a word in conclusion.

現在,總之作個結論。

The field that is ours by reason of the fact that we are exploring it is going to be in one way or another the object of a science. And, you are going to ask me, will this science of desire belong to the field of the human sciences?

這個領域是我們的領域,根據我們正在探討這個事實,將會以某種方式,成為科學的研究客體。你們將會問我,這個欲望的科學會屬於人文科學的領域嗎?

Before leaving you this year, I would like to make my position on the subject very clear. I do not think, given the way that field is being laid out, and I assure you it is being done carefully, that it will amount to anything else but a systematic and fundamental misunderstanding of everything that has to do with the whole affair that I have been discussing here.

在今年離開你們之前,我想要清楚表達我對於生命主體的立場。我不認為,假如考慮到這個領域被開展的方式,我告訴你們,這個領域正在仔細地被開展。但是它肯定不是一種系統式,而且基本的誤解,對於我一直在討論的整個事情有關的一切。

The fields of inquiry that are being outlined as necessarily belonging to the human sciences have in my eyes no other function than to form a branch of the service of
goods, which is no doubt advantageous though of limited value.

這些正在被描繪出輪廓,作為必然屬於人文科學的研究領域,依我之見,並沒有其他功用,除了就是形成善的服務的一門分科。無可置疑的,這是有利的,雖然僅是對於有限的價值。

Those fields are in other words a branch of the service of those powers that are more than a little precarious. In any case, implied here is a no less systematic misunderstanding of all the violent phenomena that reveal that the path of the triumph of goods in our world is not likely to be a smooth one.

換句話說,那些領域是那些搖搖欲墜的權力的服務的一門分科。無論如何,在此所暗示的一個同樣系統化的誤解,對於整個的激烈的現象。這些現象顯示:在我們的世界,善的勝利的途徑不可能是坦途。

In other words, in the phrase of one of the exceptional politicians who has functioned as a leader of France, Mazarin, politics is politics, but love always remains love.

換句話說,用其中一位傑出政治人物的詞語來說,馬紮瑞曾經充當法國的領導者,政治就是政治,但是愛總是愛。

雄伯雲:類似現代的政客掛在嘴上的一句流行語:政治是一時的,友誼是長久的。信不信則是由你!

As for the kind of science that might be situated in that place I have designated
the place of desire, what can it be? Well, you don’t have to look very far.

至於可能會被定位在那個位置的那種科學,我曾經指明是欲望的位置,不然它還可能是什麼?嗯,你不必到遠處去找。

As far as science is concerned, the kind that is presently occupying the place of desire is quite simply what we commonly call science, the kind that you see cantering gaily along and accomplishing all kinds of so-called physical conquests.

就科學而言,目前明確佔有欲望位置的那種科學,僅僅就是我們所謂的科學,那種你看見正在慢步前進的那種,完成各種的所謂生理上的獲得關注。

I think that throughout this historical period the desire of man, which has been felt, anesthetized, put to sleep by moralists, domesticated by educators, betrayed by the academies, has quite simply taken refuge or been repressed in that most subtle and blindest of passions, as the story of Oedipus shows, the passion for knowledge. That’s the passion that is currently going great guns and is far from having said its last word.

我認為,自古以來,人的欲望曾經被感覺,被麻痹,被道德家催眠,被教育家馴服,被學院學者背叛,但是它們僅就是以知識的激情作為掩護,這是最為微妙而盲目的激情,如同伊底普斯的故事所顯示。那是目前讓人全力以赴的激情,結局如何,尚在未定之天。

雄伯:這段話說我的心坎裏去,不僅是戚戚焉而己。

One of the most amusing features of the history of science is to be found in the propaganda scientists and alchemists have addressed to the powers that be at a time when they were beginning to run out of steam. It went as follows: “Give us money; you don’t realize that if you gave us a little money, we would be able to put all kinds of machines, gadgets and contraptions at your service.”

科學歷史最有趣的其中一個特徵,在科學家及煉金術師對於當時快要失勢的政府當局的建言文宣,能夠被找到。它的內容如下:「給予我們金錢;你會料想不到,假如你們給予我們一點錢,我們將能夠將各種的機器,機件,及機械替你效勞。」

How could the powers let themselves be taken in? The answer to the question is to be found in a certain breakdown of wisdom. It’s a fact that they did let themselves be taken in, that science got its money, as a consequence of which we are left with this vengeance. It’s a fascinating thing, but as far as those who are at the forefront of science are concerned, they are not without a keen consciousness of the fact that they have their backs against a wall of hate.

政府當局怎會讓他們被欺騙呢?這個問題的答案能夠被找到,在智慧的某些分類。事實上,他們確實是讓他們自己被欺騙。科學獲得它的金錢,由於這個結果,我們身遭這個報復。這是一件有趣的事情,但是作為科學的研究者而言,他們並非沒有敏銳的意識,對於這個事實:他們受到人們仇恨,無法自我辯解。

雄伯雲:當時之學術,甘為政治權勢之鷹犬,何以自解?

They are themselves capsized by the turbulent swell of a heavy sense of guilt. But that isn’t very important because it’s not in truth an adventure that Mr. Oppenheimer’s remorse can put an end to overnight. It is moreover there where the problem of desire will lie in the future.

他們本身則由於強烈的罪惡感的波濤滔天而傾覆。但是這並不重要,因為事實上,這種科學的險進,並不是奧本海默的悔恨,一夜之間就可結束。而且,欲望的問題還在未來的發展。

The universal order has to deal with the problem of what it should do with that science in which something is going on whose nature escapes it. Science, which occupies the place of desire, can only be a science of desire in the form of an enormous question mark; and this is doubtless not without a structural cause. In other words, science is animated by some mysterious desire, but it doesn’t know, any more than anything in the unconscious itself, what that desire means.

普遍性的秩序必須處理應該如何跟科學打交道的這個問題。在科學裏,某件逃避普遍性秩序的東西將會進行。科學佔有欲望的位置,僅能夠是一門欲望的科學,以一個巨大問號的形式。無可置疑的,這並非沒有結構性的原因。換句話說,科學被某些神秘的欲望激發,但是它並不知道,如同在無意識本身的任何東西,並不知道那個欲望意味著什麼。

The future will reveal it to us, and perhaps among those who by the grace of God have most recently eaten the book –- I mean those who have written with their labors, indeed with their blood, the book of Western science. It, too, is an edible book.

未來將顯示它給予我們。或許,最近有些人憑藉上帝的恩典,從知識獲得昇華的人—我是指曾經殫精竭力寫作西方科學之書的那些人,他們確實嘔心嚦血。這也是一本可閱讀昇華的書。

I spoke about Mencius earlier. After having made the statements that you would be wrong to consider optimistic about the goodness of man, he explains very well that what we are most ignorant about is the laws that come to us from heaven, the same laws as Antigone’s. His proof is absolutely rigorous, but it is too late for me to repeat it here. The laws of heaven in question are the laws of desire.

我早先提到孟子、他對於人性本善,發表這個我們很難認為是樂觀的陳述,然後清楚地解釋:我們最無知的事情,就是從天上降臨我們身上的這些法則,跟安蒂岡尼的法則一樣。他的證據絕對是精准給力,但是我在此來不及復述。受到置疑的天上的法則,就是欲望的法則。

Of him who ate the book and the mystery within it, one can, in effect, ask
the question: “Is he good, is he bad?” That question now seems unimportant.
The important thing is not knowing whether man is good or bad in the beginning;
the important thing is what will transpire once the book has been eaten.

對於那些以書本及書本裏的奧秘作為昇華的人,實際上,我們能夠詢問這個問題:「始作甬者,善乎?惡乎?」這個問題現在似乎並不重要。重要的事情是,我們並不知道,人之初,性本善乎,性本惡乎?重要的是,一旦書本已經被作為昇華慰籍,什麼事將發生?

雄伯曰:拉康提到孟子對於欲望的取捨,卻又一語帶過,實在是美中不足。還是讓我們引述孟子原文來對照吧!

孟子曰:“魚,我所欲也,熊掌亦我所欲也;二者不可得兼 舍魚而取熊掌者也。生亦我所欲也,義亦我所欲也;二者不可得 兼,舍生而取義者也。生亦我所欲,所欲有甚於生者,故不為苟 得也;死亦我所惡,所惡有甚于死者,故患有所不辟 也。如使人 之所欲莫甚於生,則幾可以得生者,何不用也?使人之所惡莫甚 于死者,則凡可以辟患者,何不為也?由是則生而有不用也,由 是則可以辟患而有不為也。是故所欲有甚於生者,所惡有甚於死 者。非獨賢者有是心也,人皆有之,賢者能勿喪耳。一簞食,一 豆羹,得之則生,弗得則死,呼爾而與之,行道之人弗受;蹴 爾而與之,乞人不屑也。萬鐘則不辨禮義而受之。萬鐘于我何加 焉?為宮室之美、妻妾之奉、所識窮乏者得我與?鄉為身死而 不受,今為宮室之美為之;鄉為身死而不受,今為妻妾之奉為之; 鄉為身死而不受,今為所識窮乏者得我而為之,是亦不可以已乎? 此之謂失其本心。”

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

可能不是類似 13

June 27, 2011

可能不是類似 13

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
雅克 拉康研討班

BOOK XVIII
第十八冊

On a discourse that might not be a semblance
可能不是類似,而是真理論述

If the signifier „your right arm‟ enters the territory of your neighbour to pick up something – these are things that happen all the time – naturally your neighbour grasps your signifier „right arm‟ and throws it back over the dividing wall. This is what you very curiously call projection, do you not, it is the way of understanding one another! It is from a phenomenon like that that we have to start.

假如你的能指「你的右手臂」伸進你的鄰居的鄰土攫取東西—這些事情是司空見慣—當然你的鄰居捉住你的能指「右手臂」,然後將他擲回中間的隔牆。這是你非常好奇地稱為「投射」,你不要這樣稱為,這事互相瞭解的方式。我們必須從這個現象開始。

If your right arm, in your neighbour‟s property, was not entirely occupied in
picking apples, for example, if it had stayed quiet, it is fairly probable that your neighbour would have adored it, it is the origin of the master signifier, a right arm, the sceptre. The master signifier only needs to begin like that, right at the beginning.

假如你的右手臂在你的鄰居的財產那裏,並不是完全是一心一意要採蘋果,譬如說,假如它不要引起騷動,很有可能你的鄰居本來會欣賞它。這就是主人能指的起源,一個右手臂,這個權杖。主人能指僅是需要像這樣開始,就在開始的地方。
13.1.71 I 30
Unfortunately it requires a little bit more, it is an unsatisfactory schema. Going a little further, that gives you the sceptre, right away you see the thing materialising as signifier. The process of history shows itself according to every testimony, in the ones that we have, a little more complicated.

不幸地,它要求稍微更多一點,這是一個令人不滿意的基模。再深入一點,那會給你這個權杖。立刻,你會看出這個作為能指點具體化的東西。歷史的過程顯示它的本身,依照每個證詞,在我們擁有的證詞,稍微更加複雜一點。

It is certain that the little parable, the one with which I first began, the arm that is thrown back from one territory into another, it is not necessarily your arm that comes back to you, because signifiers are not individual, one does not know who owns which.

的確,這個小寓言,我首先開始的寓言,從一個領域擲回到另一個領域的手臂,回到你身上的未必是你的手臂,因為能指並不是屬於個人。我們並不知道誰擁有哪一個能指。

So there you see, here we enter into a different kind of original operation as regards the function of chance and that of myths. You construct a world, on this occasion let us say a schema, a support divided like that into a certain number of territorial cells.

所以你們看,在此我們進入一個不同種類的原創的運作,關於機緣的功用及神話的功用。你建造一個世界,在這個場合,讓我們說一個基模,一個像那樣的支援,分成某些數目的細胞。

This happens at a certain level, the one at which it is a matter of putting forward, where it is a matter of understanding a little what has happened.

這件事發生在某種層次,在事情被提出的層次,問題是要稍微瞭解發生什麼事。

After all, not alone can one get an arm that is not one‟s own, in the process of expulsion that you have called, I do not know why, projection, if it is only that, you are projected, of course, not simply an arm which is not yours, but several other arms, so then from that moment on, it is no longer important whether it is yours or whether it (17) is not yours. But anyway, since after all, inside a territory, one only knows one‟s own frontiers, one does not have to know that on this frontier there are six other territories.

畢竟,我們不僅獲得一個並不屬於我們的手臂,在你所謂的被驅除的過程。我並不知道為什麼,投射。假如僅是這樣,你們被投射,當然,不僅是一隻手臂,而是好幾隻其他的手臂。所以從那時開始,是否是你的手臂或是否不是你的手臂,就不再那麼重要。無論如何,畢竟,在領域裏面,我們僅是知道自己的領域。我們並不需要知道,在這個邊界上,還有六個其他的領域。

You throw it a little bit as you wish, so then it can happen that there is a whole shower of territories. The idea of the relationship that may exist between the rejection of something and the birth of what I earlier called the master signifier, is certainly an idea to remember.

你們如你們所願地稍微知道,所以發生的是,領域之多數不勝數。這個關係的觀念,可能存在於拒絕某事,及我早先所謂的主人能指的誕生。這確實是該記住的觀念。

But for it to have its whole value, it is certainly necessary that there should have been, by a process of chance, at certain points, an accumulation of signifiers.

但是為了讓它擁有它的整個價值,這確定是需要的,在機緣的過程,在某些時刻,本來應該要有能指的累積。

Starting from there it is possible to conceive something that might be the birth of a language. What we see properly speaking being built up as a first way of supporting in writing what serves as language, gives in any case a certain idea. Everyone knows that the letter A is a bull‟s head turned upside down, and that a certain number of
elements like this, movable, still leave their trace.

從那裏開始,我們可能構想某件可能是語言誕生的事情。適當地說,我們所看到的能指,正在被累積,被支持的一種最初的方法,作為在寫作充當語言的功用,無論如何,給予某種的觀念。眾所周知,字母A是一隻公牛的頭顛倒過來,某些像這樣的元素的數目,可移動,依舊留下它們的痕跡。

What is important, is not to go too fast and to see where holes continue to remain. For
example, it is quite obvious that the start of this outline was already linked to something marking the body with a possibility of ectopia and of excursion (d‟ectopie et de balade) that obviously remains problematic. After all here again, everything is still there.

重要的是,不要進行太快就看出,空洞繼續留在哪里。例如,相當顯而易見的,這個輪廓的開始,已經跟某件標示身體的東西連接在一塊,這個東西具有「異位」與「離題」的可能性,那顯而易見始終是棘手的問題。畢竟在這裏,每一樣東西依舊在那裏。

We have finally, this is a very sensitive point, that we can still test every day.

這是一個很敏感的點,我們最後擁有的點,我們每天依舊在測試。

Not too long ago, again this week, something, very pretty photos in the newspaper, that everyone was delighted with, the possibilities of the practice of cutting up a human being on another human being are quite impressive. It is from there that everything started.

不久以前,而且這個星期,某件事情,在報紙上非常美麗的照片,讓每個人都很興奮。對於切割某人的器官,放在另一個人身上的做法的可能性,給人印象深刻。每件事情,就是從那裏開始。

There remains another hole. As you know, people have tormented themselves about it, people have noted that Hegel is all very well, but there is all the same something that he did not explain. He explains the dialectic of the master and the slave, he does not explain how there can be a society of masters.

另外一個空洞在那裏。如你們所知,人們曾經折磨自己關於這個空洞,人們曾經注意到,黑格爾講得很好,但是仍然有某件東西,他沒有解釋。他解釋主人與奴隸的辯證法。他沒有解釋一個主人的社會如何能夠形成。

It is quite clear that what I have just explained to you is certainly interesting in that, by the simple operation of projection, of retort (rétorsion), it is clear that at the end of a certain number of throws, there will certainly be, I would say, a greater average of signifiers in certain territories than in others.

相當顯而易見的,我剛剛跟你們解釋的,確實很有趣,因為根據投射或反射的簡單運作,顯而易見,在某些數目的投擲之後,平均起來,確實是會有更多的能指,在某些的領域,比在其他領域,我不妨這樣說。

Anyway, it still remains to be seen how the signifier is going to be able to construct a society of signifiers in this territory. One should never leave in the shadows what one does not explain, under the pretext that one has succeeded in giving some little beginning of explanation.

無論如何,有待觀察的是,能指將能夠在這個領域,建立一種能指的交往。我們不應該將我們無法解釋的東西都留置在陰影裏,藉口是,我們已經成功地給予解釋的些微開始。

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

巴岱伊論尼采 33

June 26, 2011

Bataille 33

Bataille on Nietzsche
巴岱伊論尼采 33
PART II
Summit and Decline
巔峰與衰微
XIV
You are not eagles. Which is why you haven’t comprehended the blissfulness of terror in your minds. Not being birds, how do you propose to nest on an abyss?
 Zarathustra, “On Illustrious Sages”

你們不是老鷹。這就是為什麼你們不曾瞭解你們心裏的恐懼的幸福。因為你們不是鳥類,你們如何建議在懸崖築巢?
查拉哲斯特拉「論卓越的聖賢」

RAISING THE question like this, I said what I had to say–I have no answers. In working this out, I put aside desires for autonomy and longings for freedom–though these longings seem a human passion and certainly are mine. I’m thinking less of the freedom wrested by individuals from public powers and more of the human autonomy at the heart of a hostile, silent nature. True, the bias that depends on given facts as little as possible implies indifference to the time to come. But it also opposes the satisfying of desire. Still, I regard the summit about which I’ve spoken as freedom.

當我提起像這個問題,我說我必須說—我沒有答案。當我解決這個時,我因為自主權與對於自由的渴望,將欲望擺放一邊—雖然這些渴望似乎是一種人類的激情,確實是我的激情。我不是想到被個人從公共權力強奪的自由,而是更加想到人類的自主權,在敵意的沉默的自然的核心。的確,這個依儘量少依賴某些特定現實的偏見,暗示著對於未來時間的漠視。但是它也反對欲望的滿足。可是,我認為我曾經提到的顛峰,當作是自由。

In an effort to clarify this connection, let me take a detour.
為了努力澄清這個聯接,讓我迂迴一下。

No matter how much care we exercise, our thinking is exhausted without ever embracing the possibilities of totality. At each moment we feel an enigmatic night, in its infinitely great depths, stealing away with the very object of our reflections. The smallest thought should be worked out infinitely. When the desire to grasp the truth takes hold of me–and here I mean the desire to know and to reach out to the light–I am gripped by feelings of desperation. And immediately, I am (forever) lost in a world in which I have no more power than a small child (except there aren’t any adults helping me). In all truthfulness, the more I attempt to reflect on this, the more the outcome I anticipate fails to turn out to be a situation where light is produced, and becomes one where it is extinguished.

無論我們運用怎樣的小心,我們的思想被窮盡,而沒有掌握整體性的可能性。在每個時刻我們感覺一個謎團的夜晚,在它的無限的深度,偷走我們反思的客體。即使是最輕微的思想,也應該無限地被解決。當掌握真理的欲望掌握我—在此我意味著想要知道及想要響往光明的欲望—我被絕望的感覺攫住。立刻,我如同一個小孩,(永遠)迷失在一個我不再掌控的世界。非常真是地,我越是企圖反思這一點,我預期這個結果,越是無法結果成為光明被產生的情境,並且成為它被消滅的情境。

And once again I am in the night like a sick child, like someone dying.
再一次我像一位病人處於夜晚,像某個垂死的人。

If you sincerely longed for the truth, you wouldn’t share this indifference of mine. Your job each time would be to exhaust the infinite working out of possibilities. I’m not against attempts like these which demand youthful boldness.

假如你誠懇地渴望真理,你將不會分享我的冷漠。你每一次的工作將是窮盡這個可能性的無限產生。我並不是反對像要求年輕的大膽的這些企圖。

Still, if, when I have to act, it’s not required of me that I consider objects in the infinite working out of their aspects (I manipulate them–the efficaciousness of my movements corresponding to the value of my ideas), then similarly, when I have to question, naturally I have to go the limit, though “going the limit” means “doing my best”–while if I desired Truth, I’d be called upon to satisfy absolute demands.

可是,假如我必須行動,它並不是對於我的要求,我應該思考這些客體,從它們層面的無限產生,(我操控它們—我回應我的觀念的價值的動作的有效性),然後相同地,當我必須質疑,當然我必須到達極限,雖然「到達極限」意味著「盡我最大能力」。假如我渴望真理,我將會被召喚滿足絕對的要求。
The reason for this is that while I can’t get along without acting or questioning, on the other hand I am able to live–to act or question–without knowing. Perhaps the desire to know has just one meaning–as a motivation for the desire to question. Naturally, knowing is necessary for human autonomy procured through action by which the world is transformed. But beyond any conditions for doing or making, knowledge finally appears as a deception in relation to the questioning that impels it.

因為這樣的原因是,在一方面,我無法沒有行動或質疑就進行,在另一方面,我不能夠沒有知道就生活—行動或質疑。可能想要知道的欲望,僅有一個意義—作為想要質疑的欲望的動機。當然,知道是必須的對於人類透過行動獲得的自主權,憑藉這個行動,世界被轉變。但是超越任何的做或製造的情況,知識最後出現,作為一種欺騙,相對於激勵它的質疑。

When questioning fails, we laugh. Ecstatic raptures and the ardors of love are so many questions–without answers–to which nature and our nature are subjected. If I had the ability to respond to moral questions like the ones I’ve indicated, to be honest, I’d be putting the summit at a distance from myself. By leaving open such questions in me like a wound, I keep my chance, I keep luck, and I maintain a possible access to these questions.

當質疑失敗時,歡欣若狂及愛的熱情造成如此多的問題–無法解答—自然及我們的天性都屈服於這些問題。假如我擁有這個能力,回應道德的質疑,就像我曾經指示的這些問題,坦白說,我將會將顛峰的距離遠遠拉開。我將我內在的這些問題攤開,就像一個傷痕,我保持我的機會,我保持運氣,我維持一個可能的接近這些問題。

If I speak as I do now, it’s basically to recline like a sick man or, to be precise, to recline and die. But this doesn’t mean that I’m not calling for the doctor. I have to apologize for excess irony. The truth is, I never wanted to make fun of anyone. I only wanted to make fun of the world–meaning the incomprehensible nature from which I arose.

假如我如同現在這樣談話,這基本上是衰微,就像一位病人,或是準確地說,是衰微及死亡。但是這並不意味著,我沒有正在召喚醫生。我必須道歉因為過度的反諷。事實上,我從來沒有想要嘲笑任何人。我僅是想要嘲笑這個世界—意思是這個無法讓人理解的產生我的自然。

We’re not used to taking this into account if we reflect and speak–but death will interrupt us. I won’t always be required to continue the servile search for the true. Every question will remain finally unanswered. And I’ll slip off in such a way so as to impose silence. If others begin the job anew, they won’t get any further–and death will cut off their words just as it does mine. Will human existence ever have a more authentic autonomy? Speaking like this, it seems to me that existence breathes the free air of the summit.

我們並沒有習慣於考慮到這一點,假如我沉思及言談—但是死亡將會中斷我們。我將不會總是被要求繼續這個屈從的尋求真理。每個問題將會始終保持沒有回答。我將會以這種方式溜走,為了賦加沉默。假如別人重新開始這項工作,他們將不會有更多進展—死亡將會切除他們的文字如同切除我的文字。人類的存在會有更真誠的自主權嗎?談到像這一點,我覺得生命實存呼吸顛峰的自由空氣。

Existence can’t, at one and the same time, be both autonomous and viable.

同時,生命實存無法既擁有自主權,又能實行。

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

精神分析技术的基本原则 p139

June 26, 2011

Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique
精神分析技术的基本原则p139

BRUCE FINK
布魯斯 芬克

How to Handle Transference
如何處理移情

As Freud ( 1 9 1 6- 1 9 1 7/1 963, p. 443) said, we “need not bother about [the transference] so long as it operates in favour of the joint work of analysis.” According to Gill ( 1 982, p. 8 1 ), Ferenczi, Rank, and Reich all maintained that “a strong positive transference, especially near the beginning of analysis, is only a symptom 病徵of resistance 阻抗which requires unmasking 揭發 ” hence they would presumably 假定argue that it is necessary to intervene 介入 in such a way as to temper 緩和 the analysand’s enthusiasm 熱心. Reich, in fact, believed that positive transference always hides a more fundamental, primordial 原初, negative transference.

如佛洛伊德所說,我們「不需要去煩惱移情,只要它運作有利於精神分析的共同工作。」依照吉爾、菲瑞基、髯客,及瑞奇都主張:「一個強烈的正面移情,特別是靠近精神分析的開始,只是一種阻抗的病徵。它要求揭發出來。」因此,它們假定會主張,以這樣一種方式介入是必須的,這樣才能緩和受分析者的熱心關懷。事實上,瑞奇相信,正面的移情總是隱藏一種更加基本,原始,負面的移情。

Recall that psychoanalysis began with a love story: Anna O. (whose real
name was Bertha Pappenheim) came up with 想出 the “talking cure” out of love for Joseph Breuer, the attentive young doctor who made house calls morning and night to work with her for hours at a time. He was the only person whose presence she would notice and the only person she would speak with during certain phases 時期 of her treatment (Freud & Breuer, 1 893-1 895/1955, pp. 2 1-47).

回憶一下,精神分析是以一個戀愛故事開始。安娜,奧(她的真正名字是波莎、帕平涵),由於對於約塞弗、布魯爾的愛慕構想出這個「談話的治療」。這位專心的年輕醫生,日夜地打電話到家裏,為了要跟她一起工作,連續好幾個小時。他是唯一的人,她會注意到他的存在,也是唯一的人,她願意跟他談話,在她接受治療的某些期間。

In the beginning (of psychoanalysis) was love. And her love was inspired 啟發 by a man who, whether she found him good-looking or not, was a well-respected physician whom she could assume 假定 knew something about her condition and how to heal 治療 her (even though, as history shows, she was the one who had virtually all the knowledge and he was simply smart enough to follow her lead ).

精神分析的開始就是愛。她的愛受到一個人的啟發,不管她任為這個人長得好看與否,他是一位受人尊敬的醫生,她假定這位醫生瞭解她的狀況的某件事情,及知道如何治療她(即使,依照歷史所顯示的,她才是是這個人,擁有幾乎所有的知識,而他僅是足夠聰明跟隨她的引導。)

Even though the parties to the love story from which psychoanalysis was born did not live happily ever after together, the fact remains that love, inspired by a belief that the other party possesses 擁有 knowledge, was the mainspring 主要動機 of the treatment Anna O. invented.

雖然精神分析誕生於這個愛的故事,可是愛的故事的雙方,並沒有從此以後就快樂地生活在一起。這個事實依據存在:靠著信仰對方擁有知識而受到啟發的愛,是安娜、奧發明的治療的原動力。

Many of the graduate students in clinical psychology whom I supervise 督導 are quick to try to dispel 驅散 a patient’s belief that they have considerable 相當 knowledge of what ails 苦惱 him. They often do so in the interest 利益, so they say, of honesty and to assure the patient that he has as much power in the relationship as the clinician 臨床醫生.

接受我督導的許多臨床心理學研究生,很快就驅散一位病人的信仰:他們擁有相當的知識,對於他遭受苦惱的原因。據他們說,他們往往這樣做,由於忠於誠實,為了要讓病人確定,在這層關係上,他擁有同樣的力量跟臨床醫生差不多。

As laudable 讚賞 as their goals may be-and it is indeed the patient who has the lion’s share of the knowledge, the practitioner having very little, especially at the outset of the treatment-they often end up undermining 損壞 the patient’s faith in their ability to help him. Rather than “empowering” him, they end up disempowering 解除力量 him, making him feel dejected 沮喪 and despondent 沮喪. He feels that he has no knowledge that is of any use in this domain; if he did, he would not be in the predicament 困境 in which he finds himself in the first place.

雖然他們誠實的目標值得讚賞,而且確實是病人擁有更多部分有關他病徵的知識,開業治療師知道得並不多,特別是在治療開始時,他們的結果往往是逐漸損壞病人對於他們能夠幫忙他的信心。非但沒有「增強」他的信心,他們結果消除他的信心力量,讓他感覺沮喪及灰心。他感覺他並沒有在這個領域有用途的知識。假如他真的擁有,他就不會陷在這種困境,他發現他首先處於的困境。

It is often very important for him to believe that someone else has the knowledge that can help him; dispelling 驅散 that belief is to take away his last shred 一點 of hope.

相信某個其他的人擁有知識能夠幫忙他,對他而言,往往非常重要。驅散那個信仰等於就是拿掉他最後的一絲希望。

Hence, this attempt to intervene 介入in the patient’s transference of knowledge onto the analyst can lead to despair 絕望.

因此,這個企圖介入病人對於分析師的知識的移情,會導致絕望。

Trying to convince the patient right from the outset 開始that he has as much, if not more, knowledge than the clinician is most likely to succeed when the clinician herself is young and working in a training facility 能力 where all the therapists are either seeing their very first patients or have only a year or two of experience.

嘗試從一開始就讓病人相信:他擁有跟臨床醫生同樣多,甚至更多的知識,很可能會成功,當臨床醫生自己年輕,而且是在訓練單位工作。在那裏,治療師正在觀察他們第一批的病人,要不就是他們僅有一兩年的經驗。

“For in such cases, patients are usually aware that they are getting
what they are paying for, so to speak–that their therapist has comparatively 比較 less “expertise” 專門知識 than other therapists they might seek out in the community who have been practicing for many years.

Nevertheless, in numerous cases the patient simply feels that the clinician “doth protest 抗議 too much” and is just being modest 謙虛 or trying to spare 省掉 his feelings of inferiority.

在這樣的情況,病人通常知道,他們會獲的他們付錢的所得,也就是說,他們的治療師,擁有比較少的「專門知識」,比起他們在社區可能尋找到其他治療師。在無數的情況,病人僅是感覺到,臨床醫生「確實抗議太多」,態度過有謙虛,或是設法避免他的自卑感。

Socrates’s claim 宣稱to know nothing (except about love) never convinced his disciples 門徒 , who continued to believe that he was a veritable 可驗證的 fount 泉源 of knowledge. This points to an extremely important facet of psychoanalytic technique: The attempt to dissipate 驅散 or “liquidate” 消除the analysand’s transference is doomed 駐定 to failure, because the analyst’s disclaimer 拒絕–for example, “I can’t possibly know what the problem is, you’re the one who has the knowledge here”-is heard by the analysand as coming from the person whom he projects her to be: a very knowledgeable person (otherwise, he asks himself, why would she be a clinician in the first place?).

蘇格拉底宣稱什麼都不知道(除了關於愛),但是他的門徒從來不這樣認為。他們繼續相信他,他是知識的可驗證的來源。這指向精神分析技術一個極端重要的面貌:企圖驅散或「消除」受分析者的移情是註定失敗,因為分析師的拒絕承認,例如,「我不可能知道問題是什麼,你才是這裏擁有這個知識的人。」在受分析者聽起來,會當著來自他投射她在上面的這個人:一位非常有知識的人 (否則,他問他自己,為什麼是她首先當臨床醫生?)

The attempt to mitigate 緩和 some of the more cumbersome 麻煩的aspects of the transference by commenting on 評論 or interpreting 解釋it from within the transference (that is, when one is the object of the􀒡 analysand’s transference as opposed to 相對 a third party, such as a friend, colleague同事, or consulting 諮商 physician 醫生) is generally doomed to failure for the very same reason. Should, for example, the analysand have the sense that the analyst is angry at him and the analyst deny 否認 any such anger, her denial will nevertheless be heard by the analysand as coming from someone whom he presumes 假定to be angry; indeed, he may take the denial 否認itself as a sign 跡象 of anger!

同樣的原因,要憑藉從移情內部,來評論或解釋它,以緩和移情的某些麻煩的層面,這種企圖通常註定失敗,(換句話說,當我們成為受分析者的移情,相對于第三者,譬如朋友、同事、或諮商醫生。)例如,受分析者應該感覺,分析師對他生氣,而分析師否認任何這樣的憤怒,她的否認仍然會被受分析者聽見,當著是來自他假定是生氣的某個人;的確,他可能接受這個否認本身,當著是生氣的跡象!

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

精神分析的倫理學 08

June 26, 2011

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的倫理學 08

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康

XXIV
第24章

The paradoxes of ethics
or Have you acted in conformity with your desire?

倫理學的矛盾
或你曾遵循你的欲望行動嗎?

Religion, Science and Desire
宗教、科學與欲望

That’s the object, the good, that one pays for the satisfaction of one’s desire.
And that’s the point I wanted to lead you up to, so as to shed a little light on
something that is essential and that isn’t seen enough.

那就是客體,善,我們償付,為了我們欲望的滿足。那就是我想要引導你前往的那一點,為了要啟明某件很重要,但是沒有被看透的東西。。

It is, in effect, there that the religious operation lies, something that is always interesting for us to consider. That good which is sacrificed for desire – and you will note that that means the same thing as that desire which is lost for the good – that pound of flesh is precisely the thing that religion undertakes to recuperate.

事實上,宗教的運作位在那裏,某件總是讓我們考慮的有趣的東西。那個善,為了欲望而被犧性。你們將會注意到,那是指相同的事情,跟為了善而犧牲的欲望—那一磅肉,確實是宗教從事要恢復的東西。

That’s the single trait which is common to all religions; it is coextensive with all religion, with the whole meaning of religion. I can’t develop this further, but I will give you two applications that are as expressive as they are brief. In a religious service the flesh that is offered to God on the altar, the animal sacrifice or whatever, is consumed by the people of the religious community and usually simply by the priest; they are the ones who stuff themselves with it.

那是所有宗教共有的單一特徵,與所有的宗教共同存在,帶有宗教的完整意義。我無法更深入發展這個,但是我將會給你兩個既生動又簡短的應用。在宗教服務裏,肉身是在祭壇上奉獻給上帝。無論是以動物作為犧牲或是什麼,它會被宗教社團的人們消耗,通常僅是被僧侶。它們是讓自己大飽口腹的人。

The form is an exemplary one; but it is just as true of the saint, whose goal is, in effect, access to sublime desire and not at all his own desire, for the saint lives and pays for others. The essential element in saintliness resides in the fact that the saint consumes the price paid in the form of suffering at two extreme points: the classic point of the
worst ironies relative to religious mystification, such as the priests’ little feast behind the altar, and the point of the last frontier of religious heroism as well. There, too, we find the same phenomenon of recuperation.

這個形式上一個典範的形式,但是對於聖人而言,它同樣是真實的。聖人的目標事實上是接近崇高的欲望,而根本不是他自己的欲望。因為聖人是為了別人而生活及償付。聖賢的基本元素就在於這個事實:聖賢消耗這個被付出的代價,以痛苦的形式,在兩個極端的點:相對於宗教神秘化的最糟糕的反諷的典型點,譬如,僧侶在祭壇背後的小慶典,還有一個是宗教英雄主義的最後開拓界點。在那裏,我們也發現相同的恢復的現象。

It is in this respect that great religious work is distinguished from what goes on in an ethical form of catharsis, which may bring together things as apparently foreign to each other as psychoanalysis and the tragic spectacles of the Greeks.

在這一方面,偉大的宗教的工作,跟以渲泄的倫理形式正在進行的東西區別出來。它可將顯然是互相陌生的事情,諸如精神分析學與希臘的悲劇景象,聚集在一塊。

If we found our measure there, it is not without reason. Catharsis has the sense of purification of desire. Purification cannot be accomplished, as is clear if one simply reads Aristotle’s sentence, unless one has at least established the crossing of its limits that we call fear and pity.

假如我們發現我們的在那裏的方法,那不是沒有理由。渲泄擁有欲望的淨化的感覺。淨化無法被完成,如同顯見的,假如我們僅是閱讀亞力斯多德的句子。除非我們至少已經建立跨越個我們所謂的恐懼與同期的它的限制。

It is because the tragic epos doesn’t leave the spectator in ignorance as to where the pole of desire is and shows that the access to desire necessitates crossing not only all fear but all pity, because the voice of the hero trembles before nothing, and especially not before the good of the other, because all this is experienced in the temporal unfolding of the story, that the subject learns a little more about the deepest level of himself than he knew before.

因為悲劇的原始敍事詩並沒有讓觀眾留在無知當中,關於欲望的極地在那裏,並且顯示,接近欲望不但有必要跨越過恐懼,也需要跨越過所有的同情。因為英雄的聲音在空無面前顫抖。特別不是在大它者善的面前,因為所有這一切在故事的暫時展開時被經驗到。生命主體比他先前,稍微學習到更多有關他自己的深刻層次。

For anyone who goes to the Thetre-Francaiis or the Theater of Athens, it will last as long as it lasts. But if, in the end, Aristotle’s formulations mean anything, it is that. One knows what it costs to go forward in a given direction, and if one doesn’t go that way, one knows why. One can even sense that if, in one’s accounts with one’s desire, one isn’t exactly in the clear, it is because one couldn’t do any better, for that’s not a path one can take without paying a price.

對於任何前往雅典的大劇場的人,戲劇進行時,它就進行。但是最後,假如亞力斯多德的詮釋具有任何意義,那就是:我們知道,朝著某個明確方向,勇往直前的代價是什麼,以及假如我們沒有朝著那個方向,那是為什麼。我們甚至能夠感覺到,我們跟我們的欲望的糾紛,我們無法完全清白。這是因為我們無法做得更好,因為那並不是一條途徑,我們能夠採取而不付出代價。

The spectator has his eyes opened to the fact that even for him who goes to the end of his desire, all is not a bed of roses. But he also has his eyes opened – and this is essential – to the value of prudence which stands in opposition to that, to the wholly relative value of beneficial reasons, attachments or pathological interests, as Mr. Kant says, that might keep him on that risky path.

觀眾讓他們的眼睛張開看見這個事實:即使對於到達他的欲望的目標的人,並不是一切都是甜蜜美好。但是他也讓他的眼睛張開,看到謹慎的價值—這是基本的—謹慎的價值恰恰與悲劇相反,與有利的理由,依附或病理的興趣的完整相對的價值相反,如同康得先生說,那可能會使他走上那條冒險的途徑。

I have given you there an almost prosaic interpretation of tragedy and its effects, and however vital its peaks may be, I am not happy to have reduced it to a level that might lead you to believe that what I take to be essential in catharsis is pacificatory. It may not be pacificatory for everybody.

我已經給予你們一個幾乎是平淡的解釋,對於悲劇與其效用。無論它的顛峰是如何重要,我並沒有很高興將它化減到一個層次,可能會引導你們相信:我認為在渲泄中非常重要的東西,是和解。這並非對於每個人都是和解。

But it was the most direct way of reconciling what some have taken to be the moralizing face of tragedy with the fact that the lesson of tragedy in its essence is not at all moral in the ordinary sense of the word.

但是,這是最直接的方式,將有些人認為的悲劇的道德訓示面,跟這個事實和解:悲劇的教訓在其本質上,根本不是道德這個字的普通意義所指的道德。

Of course, not every catharsis can be reduced to something as external as a topological demonstration. When it is a matter of the practices of those whom the Greeks called fiaipo/xevoty those who go crazy through a trance, through religious experience, through passion or through anything else, the value of the catharsis presupposes that, in a way that is either more-or-less directed or wild, the subject enters into the zone described here, and that his return involves some gain that will be called possession or whatever – Plato doesn’t hesitate to point this out in the cathartic procedures. There is a whole range there, a spectrum of possibilities, that it would take a whole year to catalogue.

當然,並非每一種渲泄作用都能化減成為某件外在的東西,作為一種拓樸圖形的證明。對於希臘人所謂那些瘋狂經歷狂喜的人,經由宗教的經驗,經由激情或經由任何其他東西的人,這種渲泄的價值預先假定:以某種相當直接或是狂野的方式,生命主體進入這裏被描述的地區。他的回轉牽涉到某種被稱為擁有的獲得—柏拉圖在渲泄的過程,毫不猶豫地指出這一點。在那裏,有整個範圍,可能性的範圍,那要花一整年,才分類得清楚。

The important thing is to know where all that is to be located in the field whose limits I have outlined for you this year.

重要的事情是要知道,在這個領域,一切要被找出的位置,它的限制,今年我已經跟你們描繪出輪廓。

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

可能不是類似 12

June 26, 2011

可能不是類似 12

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
雅克 拉康研討班

BOOK XVIII
第十八冊

On a discourse that might not be a semblance
可能不是類似,而是真理論述

Seminar 1:Wednesday 13 January 1971

What do we know about it? Ferdinand de Saussure was like me, he did not say
everything; the proof is that people found in his papers, things that were never said in his classes. People think that the signifier is a nice little thing that has been tamed by structuralism, people think that it is the Other, qua Other, and the battery of signifiers, and everything that I explain, of course. Naturally it comes down from heaven, because from time to time I am an idealist!

我們知道什麼關於它?佛笛南、索緒爾像我一樣,他沒有說盡一切,證據是:人們在他的文件裏找到一些他在課堂上沒有說的東西。人們認為,能指是曾經被結構主義馴服的一件好東西,人們認為,大它者,作為大它者,一連串的能指,當然是每一樣我解釋的東西。當然,能指自天上而降,因為有時我是一位理想主義者。

Artefact, I said initially; naturally, the artefact, it is absolutely certain that it is our everyday fate that we find it at every street corner, within reach of the slightest gestures of our hands.

人為加工品,我最初說,當然,這個人為加工品,絕對是確定:這是我們日常的命運,我們在每個街角發現它,在我們唾手可得的範圍之內。

If there is something that is a sustainable, or at least sustained discourse, specifically that of science, it is perhaps no harm to remember that it started very specially from the consideration of semblances. The start of scientific thinking, I am talking about history, what is it? The observation of the stars, what is it if not the constellation, namely, the very type of a semblance. What do the first steps of modern physics turn around at the start?

假如有某件東西是能夠維持,或至少是被維持的真理論述,明確地說就是科學的真理論述。這可能是無害的,讓我們記住:它明確地是從類似物的考慮開始。科學思想的開始,我正在談論到歷史,那是什麼?對於星辰的觀察,那不是星座,還會是什麼?換句話說,這種的類似物。現代物理學的初步剛開始時,是環繞什麼打轉?

Not, as is believed, elements, because the elements, the four and even if you wish to add a fifth essence, are already discourse, philosophical discourse, and how! They are
(15) atmospheric phenomena (météores). Descartes wrote a Traité des Météores. The decisive step, one of the decisive steps turned around the theory of the rainbow, and when I talk about a meteor, it is something that is defined by being qualified as such as a semblance.

不是大家以為的元素,因為元素是四個,甚至你們想要增加第五個基本元素,那已經是真理論述,哲學的真理論述,怎麼可能!它們是大氣的現象,笛卡爾寫「隕星的特徵」。這個決定性的步驟,環繞著彩虹的理論打轉的決定性步驟。當我談論一顆隕星,那是某件根據它的特質本身被定義為類似物。

No one has ever believed that the rainbow, even among the most primitive people, that the rainbow was something there, set up in a curve. It is questioned as an atmospheric phenomenon. The most characteristic atmospheric phenomenon, the most original one, the one that without any doubt is linked to, has the very structure of
discourse, is thunder.

沒有人曾經相信,甚至最原始的人們:彩虹是某件在那裏的東西,被形成一種曲線方式。彩虹受到質疑,作為一種大氣的現象。最具有特色的大氣現象,最具有原創性的現象,無可置疑地,這個現象跟打雷有關係,擁有真理論述的結構。

If I ended my Rome discourse on the evocation of thunder, it is absolutely not like that, by fantasy, no Name of the Father is tenable without thunder, and everyone knows very well that we do not even know what thunder is the sign of. It is the very figure of the semblance.

假如我結束羅馬的真理論述探討「霹靂」的召喚,這絕對不是那樣,憑藉著幻見。沒有一種「以父親之名義」,沒有「霹靂」而能成一家之言。眾所周知,我們甚至不知道,「霹靂」是什麼的訊息。這就是類似物的人物。

This is why there is no semblance of discourse, everything that is discourse, can only present itself as semblance, and nothing is built on it that is not at the basis of this something that is called signifier, which, in the light in which I put it forward for you
today, is identical to this status as such of the semblance.

這就是為什麼沒有真理論述的類似物,每一樣真理論述的東西,只能夠呈現它自己為類似物,根據它而建立的東西,每一樣都是以所謂的能指的這個東西為基礎。在能指裏,我今天跟你們提出它,這個東西相等於是類似物的這個地位本身。

On a discourse that will not be a semblance; for it to be stated, it is necessary then that this a semblance can in no way be completed by reference to discourse. It is something else that is at stake, the referent no doubt!

「論可能不是類似的真理論述」,為了讓這句話被陳述,這個「一個類似物」絕對不能給真論述的指稱所完成,是有這個必要。它是某件其他岌岌可危的東西,無可置疑的,它是這個指稱。

Restrain yourselves a little bit. This referent is probably not immediately an object, because precisely what that means, is that this referent, is precisely what is walking around. The semblance in which the discourse is identical to itself, is at the level
of the term semblance, it is the semblance in nature.

稍微約束你自己一下。這個指稱可能並不當下的一個客體,因為確實地它的意思是,這個指稱,確實是正在到處走動的東西。這個真理論述認同自己的類似物,是處於「類似物」這個術語的層次,它是自然界的類似物。

It is not for nothing that I reminded you that no discourse that evokes nature ever did anything other than start from what in nature is a semblance. Because nature is full of them. I am not talking about animal nature, which quite obviously superabounds with them. This is even what ensures that there are gentle dreamers who think that the entire animal nature, from fish to birds, sings divine praises, it is self evident.

我提醒你們不是毫無意義的,每一種召喚自然的真理論述,所做的僅是從自然界的一個類似物開始。因為自然充滿了類似物。我並不是正在談論動物的自然,那顯而易見,那是多到不勝枚舉。這甚至是確定,會有些溫和的夢想家認為,整個動物的自然,從魚到鳥,都歌頌對神的讚美,這是自明顯見的。

Every time they open like that, something, a mouth, an operculum, it is a manifest semblance, nothing requires there to be gaps. When we go into something whose efficacy has not been settled, for the simple reason that we do not know how it has come about that there were, as I might say, an accumulation of signifiers, because signifiers, huh, I can tell you, are scattered throughout the world, in nature, they are there by the shovelful.

每一次它們就像那樣展開,某件東西,一個嘴巴,一個鰓蓋,這是明顯的類似物。沒有東西要求它們成為裂口。當我們談論某件東西,它的效力還沒有穩定,理由很簡單,我們並不知道能指的累積是如何發生,我不妨這樣說。因為我能夠告訴你們,能指散佈在全世界,在自然界,它們是成堆地在那裏。

For language to come to birth, it is already something to initiate that, for language to
be born, it was necessary that there should be established somewhere (16) this something that I already indicated to you in connection with the wager, it was Pascal‟s wager, we do not remember it.

為了讓語言誕生,這已經是某件可以開始的東西。為了讓語言誕生,這是需要的,這個某件東西應該被建立在某個地方。我已經跟你們指示,關於這個賭注,那就是巴斯卡的賭注,我們都不記得了。

In presupposing this, the trouble is that this already presupposes the functioning of language because what is at stake is the unconscious.

當我們假定這個,麻煩事,這已經預先假定語言的功用,因為岌岌可危的這個無意識。

The unconscious and its operation, means that among the numerous signifiers that travel the world there is going to be in addition the fragmented body. There are, all the same, things from which one can start by thinking that they already exist. They already exist in a certain functioning in which we would not be forced to consider the
accumulation of the signifier. It is this business about territory.

無意識及其運作,這意味著,在旅行全世界的無數的能指裏,將會有碎片化的身體被增添在那裏。仍然還有一些東西,我們能夠從它們開始,去思考到它們已經存在。它們已經存在在某個功用,在那裏,我們將不會被迫考慮到這個能指點累積。那是關於領域的這個任務。

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