精神分析四個基本觀念 501

Concept 501

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN Book XI
拉康研討班第十一冊

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
精神分析四個基本觀念

5
TUCHE AND AUTOMATON

中斷與自動裝置

Psycho-analysis is not an idealism 精神分析並不是唯心論
The real as trauma 作為創傷的真實界
Theory of the dream and of waking 夢與清醒的理論
Consciousness and representation. 意識與再現
God is unconscious 上帝即無意識
The objet petit a in the fort-da 去回遊戲的小客體

Today I shall continue the examination of the concept of repetition, as it is presented by Freud and the experience of psycho-analysis.

今天,我將繼續檢視重複的觀念,依照佛洛伊德與精神分析經驗對它的呈現。

I wish to stress here that, at first sight, psycho-analysis seems to lead in the direction of idealism.

我希望在此強調,乍然一看,精神分析似乎引導朝向唯心論。

God knows that it has been reproached enough for this—it reduces the experience, some say, that urges us to find in the hard supports of conflict, struggle, even of the exploitation of man by man, the reasons for our deficiencies—it leads to an ontology of the tendencies, which it regards as primitive, internal, already given by the condition of the subject.

天曉得,它因為這樣已經飽受譴責—有些人說,它簡化精神分析經,這個經驗建議我們要在衝突、奮鬥,甚至人對人的剝削利用的艱苦背景,找出我們欠缺的理由。唯心論則是導致一種傾向的本體論,將它們視為是原始與內在,已經由生命主體的情況所給予。

We have only to consider the course of this experience from its first steps to see, on the contrary, that it in no way allows us to accept some such aphorism as life is a dream. No praxis is more orientated towards that which, at the heart of experience,
is the kernel of the real than psycho-analysis.

我們只要從它的前面幾個步驟,考慮這個精神經驗的過程,我們就會看出:相反的,它絲毫沒有容許我們接受「人生如夢」這樣的警語。在精神經驗的核心,沒有一個本體,會比精神分析更加定位朝向真實界的核心。

I
Where do we meet this real? For what we have in the discovery of psycho-analysis is an encounter, an essential encounter—an appointment to which we are always called with a real that eludes us. That is why I have put on the blackboard a few words that are for us, today, a reference-point of what we wish to propose.

我們會在哪里會見真實界呢?在精神分析的發現,我們所擁有的東西是一種邂逅,一種重要的邂逅—我們總是被召喚跟跟我們閃躲的真實界的一種約會。那就是為什麼我在黑板寫上幾個字。今天,這幾個字對於我們是我們建議的指稱點。

First, the tuché, which we have borrowed, as I told you last time, from Aristotle, who uses it in his search for cause. We have translated it as the encounter with the real. The real is beyond the automaton, the return, the coming-back, the insistence of the signs, by which we see ourselves governed by the pleasure principle.

首先,中斷,這個我們從業力斯多德借用的詞,如同我上一次告訴你們,他使用它,在對於原因地追求。我們曾經翻譯它,作為跟真實界的邂逅。真實界超越自動機制,回轉,回來,及跡象的堅持。使用這個術語,我們看到我們自己受到快樂原則的支配。

The real is that which always lies behind the automaton, and it is quite obvious, throughout Freud’s research, that it is this that is the object of his concern.

真實界總是超越於自動機制。這是顯而易見的,在佛洛伊德的整個研究裏,這個才是他的關心的客體。

If you wish to understand what is Freud’s preoccupation as the function of phantasy is revealed to him, remember the development, which is so central for us, of the Wolf Man. He applies himself; in a way that can almost be described as anguish,
to the question—what is the first encounter, the real, that lies behind the phantasy?

假如你們希望瞭解,佛洛伊德的專注於被顯示給他的幻見的功用,請記住「狼人」的發展,這對我們是中心要點。他致力於這個問題,我們幾乎可描述為欲罷不能的程度。位於幻見背後的這個真實界,第一次的邂逅是什麼?

We feel that throughout this analysis, this real brings with it the subject, almost by force, so directing the research that, after all, we can today ask ourselves whether this fever, this presence, this desire of Freud is not that which, in his patient, might have conditioned the belated accident of his psychosis.

我們感覺到,在這整個精神分析過程,真實界帶來生命主體以俱來,幾乎是用強制力。所以引導這個研究,畢竟,我們今天能夠詢問我們自己,是否這個狂熱,佛洛伊德欲望的這個存在,若是發生在他病人身上,難道不是構成他的精神病的晚期發作?

So there is no question of confusing with repetition either the return of the signs, or reproduction, or the modulation by the act of a sort of acted out remembering. Repetition is something which, of its true nature, is always veiled in analysis, because of the identification of with the transference in the conceptualization of an analysis. Now, this really is the point at which a distinction should be made.

所以,問題不是混淆重複跟跡象的回轉,或是複製,或是某種激情演出的記憶的行動的調整。重複在它真實的性質上,是某件在精神分析總是被遮蔽的東西。因為在精神分析的觀念上,對於移情的認同。現在,這才是區別應該做的重點。

The relation to the real that is to be found in the transference was expressed by Freud when he declared that nothing can be apprehended in effigie, in absentia—and yet is not the transference given to us as effigy and as relation to absence? We can succeed
in unravelling this ambiguity of the reality involved in the transference only on the basis of the function of the real in repetition.

在移情時能夠被找到的跟真實界的關係,被佛洛伊德表達,當他宣佈,在人頭像,在代理物,沒有一樣東西能夠被理解—這難道不是移情被給予我們,作為人頭像或代理物?我們能夠成功地解開牽涉到移情的現實界的曖昧,只有根據真實界在重複的功用的基礎。

What is repeated, in fact, is always something that occurs —the expression tells us quite a lot about its relation to the tuché—as if by chance. This is something that we analysts never allow ourselves to be taken in by, on principle. At least, we always point out that we must not be taken in when the subject tells us that something happened to him that day that prevented him from realizing his wish to come to the session.

事實上,重複的東西總是某件發生的事情—這個表達告訴我們很多關於它跟「中斷」的關係—好似它是偶然發生。原則上,這是某件我們精神分析師,永遠不會讓自己被欺騙的東西。至少,我們總是指出,我們一定不要被欺騙,當生命主體告訴我們,某件事情那天發生在他身上,使他無法實現他前來接受諮商的願望。

Things must not be taken at the level at which the subject puts them—in as much as what we are dealing with is precisely this obstacle, this hitch, that we find at every moment. It is this mode of apprehension above all that governs the new deciphering that we have given of the subject’s relations to that which makes his condition.

事情必須被從事,從生命主體擺置它們的層次—我們正在處理的,確實就是這個阻礙,這個障礙,我們隨時會發現的。尤其是這個理解的模式,支配著我們給予的新的詮釋,對於生命主體與構成他的情況內涵的關係•。

The function of the tuché, of the real as encounter—the encounter in so far as it may be missed, in so far as it is essentially the missed encounter—first presented itself in the history of psycho-analysis in a form that was in itself already enough to arouse our attention, that of the trauma.

這個「中斷」,這個真實界作為邂逅的功用—這個邂逅可能會被錯過,因為它基本上是被錯過的邂逅—首先呈現它自己,在精神分析的歷史,採取的形式本身就已經足夠喚醒我們的注意,那是創傷的形式。

Is it not remarkable that, at the origin of the analytic experience, the real should have presented itself in the form of that which is unassimilable in it—in the form of the trauma, determining all that follows, and imposing on it an apparently accidental origin?

這難道不是耐人尋味嗎?在精神分析的起源,真實界本來應該呈現它自己,採取無法被吸收的方式,採取創傷的方式,決定所有一切後來的東西,並且賦加一個顯然是意外的起源在上面?

We are now at the heart of what may enable us to understand the radical character of the conflictual notion introduced by the opposition of the pleasure principle and the reality principle—which is why we cannot conceive the reality principle as having, by virtue of its ascendancy, the last word.

我們現在處於這個核心,讓我們能夠瞭解,由快樂原則與現實原則的對立,介紹的衝突的觀念的積極特性—這就是為什麼我們無法構想現實原則,憑藉它的得勢,就作為最終的定論。

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: