拉康論移情 0322g

拉康論移情 0322g


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 15:Wednesday 22 March 1961

What does he not have, and in what sense? It is not towards the
phallus (even though one could make the dialectic of being and
having revolve around it) that you ought to direct your gaze to
understand properly what is the new dimension that the entry into
the phallic drama introduces.

他沒有什麼?從那個意義說? 這並不是朝向陽具, (即使我們能夠讓實存於擁有的辯證法環繞它旋轉),你們應該引導你們的眼光,適當地瞭解,這個新的維度是什麼? 進入陽具戲碼介紹的維度。

What he does not have, what he does not dispose of at this point of birth, of revelation of genital desire, is nothing other than his act. He has nothing but a draft on the future. He establishes the act in the field
of project.

在出生的時刻,在性器官的欲望的啟示,他所沒有的東西,他沒有處理的東西, 道道地地就是他的行動。 他僅有以未來作為構想。 他建立他的行動,在計畫的領域。

I would ask you to notice here the force of linguistic determinants through which, just as desire took on in the conjunction of Romance languages this connotation of desiderium, of mourning and of regret, it is not nothing that the primitive forms of the future should have been abandoned in favour of a reference to having. Je chanterai, is exactly what you see written: je chanter-ai, effectively this comes from cantare habeo.

我將要求你們在此注意語言學的決定因素的力量。通過語言學決定因素, 正如欲望在羅馬語系的連接裡,具有哀傷與後悔的內涵,未來的原始形式本來應該被放棄,以贊同擁有的指稱, 並不是徒勞無益。 這確實是你們看到被書寫的東西: 擁有的指稱, 有效地,這來自「antare habeo先前擁有」。

The decadent Romance tongue found the surest path the true sense of the future: I shall make love later, I have making love as a draft on the future, je desirer’ai. And moreover this habeo leads on to the debeo of the symbolic debt, to a habeo that is deprived. And it is in the future that this debt is conjugated when it takes the form of commandment: “Thou shalt
honour thy father and thy mother”, etc.

頹廢的羅馬語言找到確實的途徑,作為未來的真實意義:我以後將要做愛,我將做愛,作為將來的一種構想。 而且, 這個「habeo 擁有」導致「debeo擁有」這個詞在符號的歸功,由於「habeo」這個詞被剝奪。就在未來,這個歸功被結合,當它形成這個命令的形式:「你應該尊敬你的父親與你的母親」,等等。

But – and it is here that I want today only to keep you on the verge of what results from this articulation, which no doubt is slow, but done precisely so that you will not rush too quickly into it – the object in question, separated from desire, the object phallus, it is not the simple specification, the homologue, the homonym of the imaginary little o into which there collapses the fullness of the Other, of the big 0.

但是—就在這裡, 我今天僅是想要保持你們,在這個表達的結果的邊緣。這個表達無疑是緩慢,但是確實會被表達, 這樣你們才不會太匆促就掉進去—受到質疑的這個客體, 跟欲望分開, 這個陽具的客體, 這並不是簡單的指明, 這個想像的小客體的相同之物, 同音異義。 大它者的充實, 這個大寫字母O的充實, 在那裡崩塌成為這個小客體。

It is not a specification which has finally come to light of what had
previously been the oral object, the anal object. It is something – as I indicated to you from the start, at the beginning of this discourse today, when I marked out for you the first encounter of the subject with the phallus – it is a privileged object in the field of the Other.

最後啟明先前是口腔客體,肛門客體的東西, 並不是一個明確的指稱。這是某件東西—如同我從一開始就跟你們指示的, 在今天論述的開始, 當我跟你們標示生命主體的第一次邂逅陽具—這是一個具有特權的客體,在大它者的領域。

It is an object which comes by way of deduction from the status of the Other, of the big Other as such. In other words, the little o, at the
level of genital desire and of the castration phase, whose precise articulation all of this as you clearly perceive is constructed in order to introduce you to, the little o is the 0 minus phi, o = 0 – J> .

這是一個客體,經由大它者的地位扣除而來,經由這個大它者的本身。 換句話說,這個小客體, 在性器官欲望層次,在閹割部分的層次,它的確實的表達, 所有這一切,如你們清楚感覺到的,它們被建構,為了介紹你們到,這個小客體, 就是大它者扣減陽具,, o = 0 – J>。

In others words it is from this angle that the © (phi) comes to symbolise what is lacking to the 0 in order to be the noetic 0, the 0 in full exercise, the Other in so far as one can trust its response to the demand.

換句話說, 就是從這個角度, 這個(phi) 漸漸象徵大它者欠缺的東西, 為了成為這個純粹知性的大它者, 這個充分運作的大它者, 我們能夠信任它的回應這個要求的大它者。

The desire of this noetic Other is an enigma, and this enigma is tied into the(9) structural foundation of its castration. It is here that there is going to be inaugurated the whole dialectic of castration.

這個純粹知性的大它者的欲望是一個謎團。這個謎團跟它的被閹割的結構的基礎緊密相連。就在這裡, 閹割的整個辯證法將會被開始運作。

Pay attention now not to confuse either this phallic object with
this same sign which would be the sign at the level of the Other
of its lack of response, the lack of which there is question here
is the lack of the desire of the Other.

現在請注意,不要將這個陽具的客體,跟這個相同的訊息混淆。後者是大它者層層的訊息, 是它的回應的欠缺的訊息。對於這個回應的欠缺, 在此有一個問題。那就是大它者的欲望的欠缺。

The function that this phallus is going to take on in so far as it is encountered in the field of the imaginary, is not to be identical to the Other, as designated by the lack of a signifier, but to be the root of this lack.

這個陽具將會具有這樣的功用,當它在想像界的領域被邂逅時。 它不應該等同於就是大它者,如同一個能指點欠缺所指明的, 而是要等同於這個欠缺的根源。

It is the Other who is constituted in what is certainly a
privileged relationship to this object (phi), but a complex
relationship. It is here that we are going to find the point of
what constituted the impasse and the problem of love which is
that the subject cannot satisfy the demand of the Other except by
lowering it again, by making of him, this other, the object of
his desire.

這個大它者被組成,跟陽具這個客體確實具有特權的關係。 就在這裡, 我們將要找到形成愛的這個僵局及難題的這個點。這個僵局與難題就是:生命主體無法滿足大它者的要求,除了再一次降低它,將它解釋為,這個大它者,就是他的欲望的客體。


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: