拉康論移情 0201

拉康論移情 0201


Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 10: Wednesday 1 February 1961

I left you the last time, as a kind of staging-post in our account, on the word to which I also told you I would leave until the next occasion all its enigmatic value, the word agalma.


I did not think that what I said would turn out to be so true. For a great number, the enigma was so total that people were asking: “What was that? What did he say? Do you know?”. Well, for those who manifested this unease, one of my own family was able at least to give this response – which proves at least that in my house secondary education has its uses – that means:
“ornament, adornment”.


In any case, this response was only in effect a first level response about something that everyone should know: agalma, from agallo, “to adorn, to ornament”, signifies in effect – at first sight – “ornament, adornment”.

無論如何,這種回答實際上僅是一種初級層次的回答,關於某件每個人應該知道的東西:agalma, 字源從 agallo 衍變而來,意思是「裝飾,增光」,實際上意味著—乍然一看—「裝飾,增光」。

First of all the notion of ornament, of adornment is not that simple; it can be seen immediately that this may take us very far. Why, and with what does one adorn oneself? Or why does one adorn oneself and with what?


It is quite clear that, if we are here at a central point, many avenues should lead us to it. But I finally retained, in order to make of it the pivot of my explanation, this word agalma.


You should not see in it any taste for rarity but rather the fact
that in a text which we suppose to be extremely rigorous, that of
the Symposium, something leads us to this crucial point which is
formally indicated at the moment at which I told you the stage
revolves completely and, after these games of praising regulated
as they had been up to then by this subject of love, there enters
this actor, Alcibiades, who is going to change everything.


As proof I only need the following: he himself changes the rules of
the game by making himself the presiding authority.


From that moment on he tells us, it is no longer a question of praising
love but the other person and specifically each one is to praise his neighbour on the right. You will see that this is important for what follows, that it is already a lot to say about it, that, if it is a question of love, it is in act in the relationship of one to the other that it is here going to have to manifest itself (213e, 214d).


I pointed out to you the last time, it is noteworthy that from the moment that things get started on this terrain, with the experienced producer whom we suppose to be at the source of this dialogue (which is confirmed for us by the incredible mental genealogy which flows from this Symposium, whose second-last echo I highlighted for you the last time in connection with Kierkegaard’s banquet – the last, I already named for you: it is
Eros and Agape by Anders Nygren, all this is still dependent on the framework, the structure of the Symposium) well then, this experienced personage can do nothing else…. once it is a question of bringing the other into play, there is not just one of them, there are two others, in other words there are a minimum (2) of three.


This, Socrates does not allow to escape in his reply to Alcibiades when, after this extraordinary admission, this public confession, this thing which is somewhere between a declaration of love and almost one might say a malediction, a defamation of Socrates, Socrates replies to him: “It was not for me that you were speaking, it was for Agathon” (222c,d).


All of this makes us sense that we are getting into a different register.
The dual relationship of the one who, in the ascent towards love,
proceeds by way of identification (if you wish, moreover by the
production of what we have indicated in the discourse of Diotima)
being helped in it by this marvel of beauty and, coming to see in
this beauty itself identified here at the end with the perfection
of the work of love, finds in this beauty its very term and
identifies it to this perfection.


Something else therefore comes into play here other than this
univocal relationship which gives to the term of the work of love
this goal, this end of identification to what I put in question
here last year, the thematic of the sovereign good, of the
supreme good.


Here we are shown that something else is suddenly substituted in the triplicity, in the complexity, which shows us, presents itself to reveal to us that in which, as you know, I maintain the essential of the analytic discovery is contained, this topology in which fundamentally there results the relationship of the subject to the symbolic in so far as it is esssentially distinct from the imaginary and its capture.


This is our term, this is what we will articulate the next time to
bring to a close what we will have to say about the Symposium.


It is with the help of this that I will make re-emerge old models
which I have given you of the intrasubjective topology in so far
as this is the way that we should understand the whole of Freud’s
second topography.



One Response to “拉康論移情 0201”

  1. free ipad facebook Says:

    apple ipad future…

    Hey mate, thanks 4 sharing but this page isnt vewable when using Chrome it is doubled up….

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: