Archive for October, 2011

Encore

October 31, 2011

Encore
繼續再來
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康
I
On jouissance
論歡爽

It so happened that I did not publish The Ethics of Psychoanalysis.1 At the time, it was a form of politeness on my part – after you, be my guest, be my worst. . . .2 With the passage of time, I learned that I could say a little more about it. And then I realized that what constituted my course was a sort of “I don’t want to know anything about it.”

因為偶然因緣,我並沒有出版「精神分析倫理學」。在當時,在我這邊是出於禮貌—你們先請,請你們不用客氣,替我當先鋒。隨著時間過去,我學習到關於它,我能夠說更多的話。 然後我體會到,組成我的論述的內容,是一種「我不想要知道關於它。」

That is no doubt why, with the passage of time, I am still (encore) here, and you are too. I never cease to be amazed by it. . . ?

無可置疑地,隨著時間過去,為什麼我依舊還在這裡(繼續再來),你們也是。對於它,我永遠不會停止感到驚奇…?

What has worked in my favor for a while is that there is also on your part, in the great mass of you who are here, an “I don’t want to know anything about it.” But – the all important question – is it the same one?

有一陣子,對於我運作有利的東西,在你們那邊也會運作有利。你們在此地大多數人, 這一句「對於它,我不想要知道什麼。」但是,這個非常重要的問題是: 這是相同的問題嗎?

Is your “I don’t want to know anything about it” regarding a certain knowledge that is transmitted to you bit by bit what is at work in me? I don’t think so, and it is precisely because you suppose that I begin from a different place than you in this “I don’t want to know anything about it” that you find yourselves attached (lies) to me. Such that, while it is true that with respect to you I can only be here in the position of an analysand due to my “I don’t want to know anything about it,” it’ll be quite some time before you reach the same point.

在你們的「對於它,我不想要知道什麼」,關於某種的知識。這個知識一點一滴地傳遞給予你們,在我身上運作的是什麼? 我不這樣認為。 確實是因為你們認為,我從跟你們不同的地方開始,在這個「對於它,我不想要知道什麼。」你們發現你們自己跟我連繫在一塊。 由於那樣,雖然關於你們,我確實僅是能夠在這裡,處於一位分析者的立場,由於我的「關於它,我不想要知道任何事情。」要過一段相當長的時間後,你們才會到達這個相同點。

That is why it is only when yours seems adequate to you that you can, if you are one of my analysands, normally detach yourself from your analysis.

那就是為什麼,當你們的立場對於而言,似乎是勝任,你們才會正常地將你們自己,跟你們的精神分析區隔開了,假如你們是我的分析者的話。

The conclusion I draw from this is that, contrary to what people have been saying, there is no contradiction between my position as an analyst and what I do here.

我從這裡獲得的結論是: 跟人們一直在說的相反, 在我作為分析師的立場,跟我在此地的作為之間,並沒有矛盾。

1
Last year I entitled what I thought I could say to you, . . . ou pire (. . . or Worse), and then, Ça s’oupire.4 That has nothing to do with “I” or “y°u ” ~ je ne t’oupire pas, ni tu ne m’oupires. Our path, that of analytic discourse, 10 progresses only due to this narrow limit, this cutting edge of the knife,
which is such that elsewhere it can only get worse (s’oupirer).

去年,我將我認為要跟你演說的標題是「每況愈下」,然後是「令自己歎息」。那跟這個「我」或「你」絲毫沒有關係。我們的途徑,精神分析論述的途徑,僅是順著這個狹窄的限制前進,這把刀子的鋒利邊緣前進。情況是如此,以致於在別的地方,它僅會每況愈下。

That is the discourse that underpins (supporte)5 my work, and to begin it anew this year, I am first of all going to assume that you are in bed, a bed employed to its fullest, there being two of you in it.

那就是這個論述作為我的研究的基礎。然後,今年重新開始它。我首先將要認為你們躺在床上, 一種被善為利用的床。你們兩個人躺在床上。

To someone, a jurist, who had been kind enough to inquire about my discourse, I felt I could respond – in order to give him a sense of its foundation, namely, that language6 is not the speaking being – that I did not feel out of place having to speak in a law school, since it is the school in which the existence of codes makes it clear that language consists therein and is separate, having been constituted over the ages, whereas speaking beings, known as men, are something else altogether. Thus, to begin by assuming that you are in bed requires that I apologize to him.

對於某個人, 一位陪審員,他曾經好心地詢問到我的論述。我感覺我能夠回應,為了給他感覺到我的論述的基礎。 換句話說, 語言並不是這個言說的主體。 我並不覺得我有什麼不合適,必須要在法律的學校演說。 因為在這所學校,法規的存在表達很清楚: 語言存在於那裡, 而且分開,因為語言是經歷好幾百年累積形成。而言說的主體,眾所周知就是人, 卻是完全不同的另一回事。因此,我開始就假定你們躺在床上,禮貌要求,我應該跟他道歉。

I won’t leave this bed today, and I will remind the jurist that law basically talks about what I am going to talk to you about – jouissance.

今天我將不會離開這個床,我將會提醒這個陪審員,法律基本上是談論到我正要跟你們談論的東西—歡爽。

Law does not ignore the bed. Take, for example, the fine common law on which the practice of concubinage, which means to sleep together, is based. What I am going to do is begin with what remains veiled in law, namely, what we do in that bed – squeeze each other tight (s’étreindre). I
begin with the limit, a limit with which one must indeed begin if one is to be serious, in other words, to establish the series of that which approaches it.

法律並沒於忽略這個床。 例如,根據明細的普通法,同居關係,意思是以共同居住為基礎。我現在將要做的,是從被法律遮蔽的剩餘的部分開始。 換句話說, 我們在那個床上所做的—互相緊抱在一塊。我從這個限制開始。假如我們想要認真談論,我們確實必須從那個限制開始。換句話說,為了建立這個系列,對於接近這個限制的方法。

A word here to shed light on the relationship between law (droit) and jouissance. “Usufruct” – that’s a legal notion, isn’t it? – brings together in one word what I already mentioned in my seminar on ethics, namely, the difference between utility7 and jouissance. What purpose does utility serve?

在此有一個字,讓法律與歡爽之間的關係,清楚顯現。 那是一個法律的觀念,不是嗎? 它以一個字,將我在討論倫理學的研討班所提到的內容貫穿起來。換句話說,在實用性與歡爽之間的差異。 實用性充當什麼目的?

That has never been well defined owing to the prodigious respect speaking beings have, due to language, for means. “Usufruct” means that you can enjoy (jouir de)8 your means, but must not waste them. When you have the usufruct of an inheritance, you can enjoy the inheritance (en jouir) as long
as you don’t use up too much of it. That is clearly the essence of law – to divide up, distribute, or reattribute everything that counts as jouissance.

實用性從來沒有清楚地被定義,由於言說的主體擁有這個巨大的尊敬,對於語言。 因為就工具而言,「共有權」意味著,你能夠享受你的工具,但是一定不要浪費它們。當你享有某個遺產的共有權,你能享受這個遺產,只要你不要過分消耗它。 那很清楚地就是法律的本質—區分,分配,或是重新再分配每一樣被認為是「歡爽」的東西。

What is jouissance? Here it amounts to no more than a negative instance (instance),9 Jouissance is what serves no purpose (ne sert à rien).

歡爽是什麼? 在此,它等於就僅僅是一個負面的例子。歡爽就是充當沒有任何目的之用。

I am pointing here to the reservation implied by the field of the right-to-jouissance. Right (droit) is not duty. Nothing forces anyone to enjoy (jouir) except the superego. The superego is the imperative of jouissance – Enjoy!

我正在此指向由這個歡爽的權利的領域暗示的保留。權利並不是義務。沒有一樣東西會強迫任何人享受,除了超我。 超我是歡爽的命令—享受吧!

Here we see the turning point investigated by analytic discourse. Along this pathway, during the “after you” period of time I let go by, I tried to show that analysis does not allow us to remain at the level of what I began with, respectfully of course – namely, Aristotle’s ethics.

在此我們看到由精神分析論述研究的這個轉捩點。沿著這條途徑,在我讓它過去的這個「你們先行」的這段時期後,我嘗試顯示: 精神分析並不容許我們保持在我開始的那個層次,當然表示尊敬地說—也就是說,亞力斯多德的倫理學。

A kind of slippage occurred in the course of time that did not constitute progress but rather a skirting of the problem, slipping from Aristotle’s view of being to Bentham’s utilitarianism, in other words, to the theory of fictions,10 demonstrating the use value – that is, the instrumental status – of language. It is from that standpoint that I return to question the status of being,1 J from the sovereign 11 good as an object of contemplation, on the basis of which people formerly believed they could edify an ethics.

隨著時間過去,有某種的漏失發生。時間的過去並沒有形成進步,反而是問題的逃避,避開從亞力斯多德的生命實存的觀點,到邊沁的功利主義。 換句話說,到證明語言的使用價值,也就是工具性的地位的幻想的理論。就是從那個觀點,我回到生命實存的地位的問題,從統治的善,作為沉思的客體,根據這個基礎, 人們以前相信,他們能夠建立倫理學的華夏。

Thus, I am leaving you to your own devices on this bed. I am going out and once again I will write on the door so that, as you exit, you may perhaps recall the dreams you will have pursued on this bed. I will write the following sentence: “Jouissance of the Other,” of the Other with a capital O, “of the body of the Other who symbolizes the Other, is not the sign of love.”12

因此,我將你們留置在你們在這個床上的設計。我將出去,然後再一次地,我將在門上書寫以下的句子:「大彼者的歡爽」。這個大彼者有一個大寫字母O,「象徵大彼者的大彼者的身體,並不是愛的訊息。」

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

拉康:RSI 20

October 31, 2011

拉康:RSI 20
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of March 11, 1975

There must be a tie between that and sense, whereby the1 is applied so well to the 0. It was Frege who made the discovery, and I have blathered on occasion about the difference between Sinn and Bedeutung, where the difference between 0 and 1 is seen, all in suggesting to you that this is not a difference, for there is nothing better than the empty set to suggest the 1.

在那個跟意義之間,一定有一個聯繫,在那裡,這個「一」被運用到這個「零」恰到好處。那是佛瑞吉做的發現。我有時喋喋不休,關於「意思」與「意義」之間的不同,在那裡,「零」與「一」之間的差異被看出。當我跟你們建議,這並不是一種差異。因為建議這個「一」,充其量也就是這個「零」的空洞集合。

There it is. How then does the symbolic, ordinarily called the bla-bla, or the word—how does it cause sense?

就在那裡。 這個象徵,普通被稱為無聊話,或是字詞—它是如何產生意義的?

That is a question I do not ask you without having the answer. Is it in the idea of the unconscious? Is it what I have said since the first Rome discourse?

每當我詢問你們那個問題,我自己就有解答。答案就在無意識的這個觀念嗎? 答案是我從第一次的羅馬論述以來,我曾經說過度話嗎?

Question mark. No, it is not in the idea of the unconscious; it is in the idea that the unconscious ex-sists, which is to say, it conditions the real, the real of this being I designate the speakingbeing.

這是個疑問號。不,答案並不是無意識的這個觀念。答案是無意識先前實存的這個觀念。換句話說,它制約實在界。我指明是人作為言說實存的這個實存的實在界。

It names things, as I have just evoked apropos of the first flirtation of the Bible with an earthly paradise. It names things for the speakingbeing, a being that, although a species of animal, differs singularly. What does this mean, “animal”? An animal is what reproduces.

它命名事情,如同我剛剛召喚,關於基督教聖經媚弄世間的天堂。 它替言說的主體命名事情。這個主體,雖然是動物的一種,卻有顯著地差異。這是什麼意思,「動物」?動物就是會繁殖的東西。

Only, how is this animal parasited by the symbolic, the bla-bla? There, it seems to me—it seems to me, but it is not very probable–I am distinguished from people of my species of animal, who since time immemorial, it must be said, know that they speak, but do not explicitly make much of it.

只是,這個動物如何受到象徵界的寄生,那些無聊話的寄生?在那裡,我覺得—我覺得,但是並不是很有可能—我是跟我同種的動物的人們顯著不同。自從遠古以來, 我們必須說,他們言說,但是沒有明確地重視它。

And what shows that they do not explicitly make much of it is not that they haven’t said it, since everything is said in the bla-bla, but that they dream of not being the only ones (les seuls). This has them by the guts. Let us write laisseuls to evoke let them alone, in this parlance.

是什麼顯示,他們並沒有明確地重視它?這並不是因為他們沒有說過它,因為在這些無聊話裡,每一件事情都被說。 但是他們夢想他們並是唯一的言說者。這讓他們鼓起勇氣。 讓我們書寫「任憑自由」,以這種語調「隨他們自己」吧。

These days, this is manifested in the frenetic need to discover the language of the dolphins and of the bees. Why not? This has always been a dream.

這些日子,這樣的事情被展示出來,在對於海豚與蜜蜂的語言,大家狂熱地需要去發現。有何不可呢? 這始終是一個夢想。

Formerly, this dream had other forms: one dreamed that there was at-least-one God who spoke, and who, above all, did not speak without it
having some effects. What you don’t hear about is the tangled feet with which the sub-speakers, the angels–the commentators?–approach him.

以前,這個夢想擁有其它的形式: 我們夢想,至少有一個言說的上帝。特別重要的是,上帝每次說話,總有某些效果。 你們沒有聽到的是那些交叉前進的腳,次要的言說者,天使,評論者,他們用腳走路去接近上帝。

Finally something more serious comes, a very small advance– not a progress, to be sure, for there is no reason for us not to continue tangling up our feet. In linguistics we have nonetheless distinguished naming,10giving a name, consecrating a thing with a speaking name.

最後某件更嚴重的事情來臨,一個非常小的進展,不算是進步。確實地,因為我們沒有理由不繼續雙腳交叉前進。在語言學,我們仍然區別,「命名」,給予一個名字,用一個言說的名字讓一件事情神聖化。

Naming (nomination) is not communication. It is in naming that the parlotte is knotted to something of the real.

命名並不是溝通。就在命名時,這個「對話」跟實在界的某件東西連接成結。

What is the relation of this naming, as the title of a book says, with necessity? Long ago, the person named Plato accounted for having to have the idea, the , s as a third. The s is a very good translation for what I call the imaginary, since it means the image.

如這本書的書名所說的,這個「命名」跟需要的關係是是什麼?很久以前,有一位名叫柏拉圖的人解釋必有擁有這個觀念「想像」,作為第三個。這個「想像」,是一個非常好的翻譯,對於我所說的想像界,因為它意味著這個意象。

Plato saw very well that without the s there was no chance that words would stick to a thing. That did not bring him to the point of speaking of the Boromean knot ,but only because chance had not furnished him with it. The idea was for him the consistency of the real. Nonetheless, the idea being in his time nothing without something namable, one deduced with university discourse the realism of the name.

柏拉圖看得很清楚,假如沒有這個「想像」,文字就沒有機會跟一件東西緊連在一塊。那並沒有帶他來到這一點,談論波羅米恩結。但是那僅是因為他沒有機會接觸到這個結。對於他而言,這個觀念就是實在界的一致性。 可是,由於在他的時代,假如沒有可命名的東西,這個觀念就沒有價值。我們可用大學的論述方式推論出這個命名的現實主義。

It must be said, the realism of the name is better than the nominalism of the
real–believing that one can use just any name to designate the real. Not that I am marking a preference, I am simply underscoring that nominalism is an enigma paying homage to the effect of the name on the real, to what is added to it when one names it. In the realism of the name, itself founded on the imaginary, a dire is missing–one is interdicted from admitting this homage.

我們必須說,命名的現實主義比實在界的正授權較好—相信我們能夠僅是使用任何名字來指明實在界。 倒不是因為我正在標示某種偏好。我僅是在強調,這個授權是一種謎團,對於實在界的命名的影響表示致敬,對於當我們命名它時,所被增添的東西表示致敬。 在命名的現實主義,它本身的基礎上想像界,有一種「災難」正在漏失—我們被禁止不能承認這種致敬。

This is found again in the prestige of the university. But it does not appear to us, us other analysts, to constitute an advantage. We remain in thought.

在大學的威望那裡,這種狀況再一次被發現到。但是對於我們,我們其它的精神分析師而言,這並沒有形成一種優勢。 我們始終是在思想裡面。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http;//springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:RSI 19

October 31, 2011

拉康:RSI 19
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of March 11, 1975

. . . R.S.I, these are just letters, as such supposing an equivalence. What results from my speaking them, making them serve me as initials, speaking them as real, symbolic, and imaginary? This takes on a sense. The question of sense is what I am trying to situate this year.

實在界,象徵界,想像界,這些僅是字母,它們本身假定是平起平坐。從我談論它們,讓它們替我服務充當字首,談論它們作為實在界,象徵界,與想像界,獲致的結果是什麼?這具有一種意義。意義的問題就是我今年要定位的東西。

The property of sense is that one names something in it, which gives rise to the dimension of what one calls “things,” which only take their seating (assise) from the real.

意義的屬性是,我們在裡面命名某件東西。這個東西產生我們所謂「無意識物」的維度。這些無意識物從實在界獲得它們的位置。

I have been led to the showing (monstration) of the knot, although I sought to do a demonstration of analytic discourse. Now Freud’s work makes no use at all of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real. But it implies them, for it revolves around the Name-of-the-Father.

我曾經被引導從事這個環結的展示,雖然我嘗試替精神分析論述從事一個展示。現在,佛洛伊德的著作根本就不使用象徵界,想像界,與實在界。但是它暗示它們,因為它環繞「以父親之名」運轉。

The Names-of -the-Father are that: the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real. These are the first names insofar as they name something. As the Bible indicates apropos of this extraordinary thing it calls the Father, the first time of this human imagining (imagination) that is God is consecrated to giving a name to what?–to each of the animals.

「以父親之名」的內涵是: 象徵界,想像界,與真實界。這些是最初的名稱,因為它們命名某件東西。 如同基督教聖經,適當地指示它所謂「父親」的這件特別的東西。那是人類第一次想像: 上帝被奉為神聖,給予一個名稱給予什麼?—給予每一種動物。

The Bible did not come from nothing, but from a tradition. A tradition is always stupid (conne). This is even why one has devotion–there is no other manner to be reattached to it than devotion. All that one can hope from a tradition is that it be less stupid than another.

聖經並不是來自於空無,而是來自于傳統。傳統總是愚蠢的。這甚至就是為什麼我們擁有這種虔誠—除了虔誠,沒有別的辦法跟傳統重新銜接。從傳統,我們所能希望的是,它不像另外一個傳統那樣愚蠢。

How is this judged? There we reenter the more and the less. This is judged by the plusde-jouir as production. The plus-de-jouir is all that we can get our teeth into. It is because it is a matter of the jouir that one believes in it. The jouir is at the horizon of this more and this less.

這如何被判斷呢?我們重新進入那裡,帶著較多及較少虔誠。這個由「剩餘歡爽」,作為產物來判斷。這個「剩餘歡爽」就是我們所能夠努力以赴的東西。因為這個歡爽的問題是我們要相信它。 這個歡爽處於這個較多及這個較少的虔誠的地平線。

It is an ideal point, which one calls what one can. One says: the phallus.

這是一個理想點,隨我們怎麼稱呼它。 我們不妨說:這個陽具。

I have already stressed, in its time, that for the speakingbeing it is the essence of the comic. As soon as one speaks of something that has a relation to the phallus, it is the comic– which has nothing to do with the joke. The phallus is a comic like all comics–sad. Reread Lysistrata. You may laugh; you will find it bitter.

我已經強調過,在陽具的時刻。人作為言說的生命實存,陽具是這個喜劇的本質。 當我們談論到某件跟陽具有關的東西,陽具是喜劇—這個喜劇跟笑話沒有絲毫關係。 陽具是一種喜劇,像所有的喜劇一樣,它是悲傷的。請重新閱讀古希臘喜劇「性擺工」,你可能會笑,你可能發現笑得苦澀。

It must also be said that the phallus is what gives body to the imaginary. A little film brought me by Mme Aubry as an illustration of what I called then the Mirror Stage struck me a lot.

我們也必須說,陽具就是讓身體被給予想像界的東西。奧布瑞夫人帶給我一部小影片,可用來說明我所謂的「舞臺鏡像」給予我的印象。

You know how, on some not very assured foundations, I account for the jubilation connoting this moment for the child. I suppose that this jubilation is due to the prematured body, uncoordinated until then, feeling reassembled, its unity seized by way of the image, its mastery assumed. For animals born ripe, it does not seem–without our being able to confirm it–that this is produced to the same degree. There is not for them this jubilation.

你們知道,在某種並不是很確定點基金會,我如何說明指明給小孩的這個時刻的歡慶。我假定這個歡慶是由於這個早熟的身體,直到當時還不協調,感覺到重新裝配,身體的一致性通過意象來掌握,擔負起對身體的掌控。對於生來就成熟的動物—我們沒有辦法證實它—這個掌控似乎沒有到達相同的程度。 這個歡慶並不是為了他們。

Well, there is a tie between this and a gesture I was able to grasp in this film. The child before the mirror–I don’t know if it was a little girl or a little boy; it little matters, the gesture has the same value–the child passed its hand before what was perhaps a phallus or perhaps its absence, and pulled it back sharply from the image.

嗯,在這個跟我在影片裡瞭解到一種姿態之間,有一層關係。 在鏡子前面的這個小孩—我不知道是否是女孩還是男孩,這並不重要,這個姿態擁有相同的價值—這個小孩用他的手放在可能是一個陽具或是陽具的欠缺之處,然後突然從鏡子那裡縮回他的手。

This ellipsis appeared to me the correlate of the prematuration, and the announcement of what will later be called modesty.

我覺得,這種壓抑跟這種早熟,以及後來所謂的羞澀的宣告息息相關。

The phallus, thus, is above all the real insofar as one elides it. If you return to what I have cleared the way to this year in trying to make consonate consistency, ex-sistence, and hole with the imaginary, real, and symbolic, I will say that the phallus is not the ex-sistence of the real.

因此,這個陽具尤其是這個實在界, 因為我們壓抑它。假如你們回答我今年曾經澄清的途徑,當我嘗試用想像界,實在界,與象徵界,讓一致性,先前實存,與空洞互相共鳴。我將會說,陽具並不是實在界的先前實存。

There is a real that ex-sists to this phallus, which is called jouissance, but rather this is its consistency. It is the concept, if I may say so, of the phallus. With “concept,” I echo the word Begriff, which doesn’t go so badly, since in sum the phallus is what is taken in the hand.

有一個實在界在這個陽具先前實存。它被稱為歡爽。但是相反地,這是它的一致性。 它是這個陽具的觀念,容我這樣說。使用「觀念」一詞,我回應「概念」這個字詞。它應用得還不錯,因為在數量上,陽具就是被掌握在手中的東西。

The concept is not without relation with this announcement, this prefiguration of an organ that is not yet taken as a consistency, but as an appendix. The ape also masturbates, and this is how he resembles man. In the concept, there is always something of the order of apishness.

這個觀念跟這個宣告,並非沒有關聯,跟這個器官的預兆。這個器官還沒有被接受作為一致性,而是作為一種附加物。這個人猿也手淫。這就是他類似人的樣子。
在這個觀念裡,總是有某件東西屬於猴子般地秩序。

The only difference between the ape and the man is that the phallus consists no less for him in what he has of the female than in what he has of the male–a phallus worth the same as its absence

在人猿與人之間的唯一差異是,陽具對於他而言,道道地地是他所擁有的女性,如同他擁有的男性—陽具的價值跟它作為欠缺相同。

Whence the special accent that the speakingbeing puts on the phallus, in the sense that jouissance ex-sists to it. This is the accent proper to the real, the real inasmuch as it ex-sists, which is to say the real as real, a real at the power of 2. All that he knows of the two is power, a semblance (semblant) whereby he remains the one-alone. This is what one calls being–beginning with 12 =
1.
言說主體對於陽具的這個特別強調,其意義是:歡爽先前實存於它。 這就是實在界本體的強調,它是實在界,因為它先前實存。 換句話說,實在界,作為實在界,實在界處於「2」的次方。他對於這個「2」所知道的是次方,是一個類似物,在那裡,他始終是這個「一」。這就是我們所謂的「實存」—開始於一的二次方等於一。

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

拉康:RSI 18

October 30, 2011

拉康:RSI 18
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of February 18, 1975

It is the order explored beginning with my experience, I remind you, that has led me to this infernal trinity. I am not thinking here of bringing a cord into play that is not Freudian.

我提醒你們,就是從我的精神分析經驗開始的被探索的秩序,曾經引導我到這個內部隊三位一體。我在此想到的,並不是要運作一個不是屬於佛洛伊德的秩序/

Flectere si nequeo superos Archerontes movebo–here is illustrated what I have called the truth of a certain religion. It is not completely by chance that it arrives at a divine trinity, and this, contrarily to the tradition to which it is connected. I will confide in you in saying that the desire of man is Hell, because Hell is what he lacks.

「Flectere si nequeo superos Archerontes movebo」—在此被說明的,是我所謂的某種宗教的真理。這個真理到達一種神聖的三位一體,完全不是偶然。而且這個結論與它所相關的傳統,恰恰相反。我將會跟你們坦白承認,人的欲望是地獄,因為地獄是人的欠缺。

Thenceforth, it is what he aspires to. We have the testimony for this in neurosis. The neurotic is someone who has not attained to what for him is the mirage where he would find himself satisfied, to wit, a perversion. A neurosis is a failed (ratée) perversion.

因此,地獄就是人所渴望的東西。 我們在神經症患者身上,擁有這個地獄的證詞。 神經症患者是某個還沒有獲得對他而言是幻境的人。在幻境那裡,他將會發現他自己的滿足,更確實地說,他是一位倒錯狂。神經症患者是一位失敗的倒錯狂。

It is because you are a lot more interested than you suppose in this nodalization of the imaginary, of the symbolic, and of the real that you are there, it seems to me; why else would you take this strange satisfaction in hearing these stammerings? For me, I can no more than clear the way for the consequences of what I say.

因為對於想像界,象徵界,及實在界的這個環結化,你們比你們實際的狀況更加感到興趣。我覺得,要不然你們為什麼聽到這些結結巴巴的話語,你們會有這種奇怪的滿足?對我而言,我僅能對於我言談的內容的結果,先清理途徑。

We have established that the ex-sistence of the knot was supported by this field, and that it was of the order of the real. On the other hand, what supports a body? The body only has an appearance for you by being what resists, what consists before dissolving.

我們曾經證明: 這個環結的「先前實存」是由這個領域支持。那是屬於實在界的秩序。 在另一方面, 是什麼在支持身體?對於你們而言, 身體僅是根據它所抗拒的東西,在瓦解之前組成的東西,擁有一種外表。

There is a consistency of the body, just as there is a consistency of the line, and consistency is of the order of the imaginary. As a consequence, by elimination, we are led to pose that the hole is of the order of the symbolic, which I have founded by the signifier.

身體有一種一致性,正如這條線有一種一致性。一致性是屬於想像界的秩序。 結果,由於化減,我們被引導提出: 這個空洞是屬於象徵界的秩序。根據我的生命作為能指,我創建這個象徵界的秩序。。

This is what we have to now interrogate. Is the symbolic the hole? The real, existence? The imaginary, consistency?

這就是我們現在必須要質疑的東西。 象徵界是這個空洞嗎?實在界是生命實存嗎?想像界是一致性嗎?

These categories are not easily manageable. They have, however, left some traces in history. It was by a traditional philosophical extenuation, of which Hegel gave the summit, that something sprang forth under the name of someone named Kierkegaard.

這些範疇並被很容易管理。可是,它們在歷史上曾經留下一些痕跡。憑藉傳統哲學的偏袒的辯護,黑格爾讓它們登峰造極。 在某位名叫齊克果的這個人的名義之下,某件東西開花結果。

You know that I have exposed his promotion of existence as such as convergent with an experience appearing much later in Freud. Think of his stressing of repetition as more fundamental in experience than the
resolution called thesis-antithesis-synthesis on which a Hegel threaded history.

你們知道,我曾經揭露他對於生命實存本身的提升,作為跟稍晚出現在佛洛伊德的精神分析經驗的彙集。想想看,他對於重複的強調,作為精神分析更加基本的東西, 遠超過黑格爾貫穿歷史的「正反合」的解決方式。

The standard unit (étalon) of this function is found in jouissance. The relations lived by the Kierkegaard in question are those of a knot never avowed, which is that of a faulty father (pére à la faute).

這個功用的這個標準的單位,在「歡爽」裡面被找到。 受到質疑的齊克果體驗過的那些關係, 是一個從來沒有承認的一個環結的關係。 那就是一個「有過失的父親」的關係。

It is not a matter of his own experience, but of that of he who in relation to him is found to occupy the place of the father. At the same time, this place of the father is found problematic . . .

問題並不是齊克果自己的經驗,而是跟他的關係,被發現到佔有父親這個位置的他的關係。同時,父親的這個位置被發現是問題重重。

It is only on this date that existence is promoted as such. No doubt it does not have the same accent as I give it by fragmenting it with a dash. If it is in this époque that existence emerges, emerges for me, and that I write it otherwise, and that it becomes tangible in the knot, I do not believe that this puts me in continuity with a philosophical interrogation. Rather, there is a rupture.

生命實存本身被提升,僅是根據這個時代。無可質疑的,它並沒有擁有相同的強調,如同我給予它,用一個破折斜槓,將它們切成碎片。生命實存就出現在這樣的情境裡,為了我而出現。 我用不同方式書寫它。它在這個環結變得很具體。我不相信,這會讓我處於跟一個哲學的質疑處於連續性的關係。相反地,這是一個斷裂。

The emergence of the unconscious as a knowledge, a knowledge proper to each particular person, is of a nature to change completely the notion of knowledge that has dominated since Antiquity. In fact, if knowledge depends on relations of the sequence of generations with the symbolic, with this hole of which I have just spoken, how can we not interrogate its status?

無意識的出現,作為一種知識,作為每個特別的人的本體知識。它屬於的特質會完全改變從古以來盛行的知識的觀念。事實上,假如知識依靠對於這個象徵界的好幾代的系列的關係, 以我剛剛談論的這個空洞,我們如何能夠把質疑它的狀態呢?

Is there a knowledge in the real? The supposition always made, a supposition not avowed, is that by all appearances there is, since the real walked (ça marchait), turned in a circle.

有一種在實在界的知識嗎?這個假定總是被提出,這是一個沒有被承認的知識。從各種外表看起來,既然實在界在運作, 會有一種迴圈的知識。

We, in the real, we touch on a knowledge in a wholly other form . . .

在實在界,我們觸及的一種完全不一樣的另類知識。

When one poses knowledge as immanent to the real, one puts it in the form of the s, thanks to which the real knows what it has to do. And when it is not the s, it is the All- Power, the wisdom, of God. The Newtonian world is not thinkable without God, for how would each of these masses know its distance from all of the others?

當我們提出知識,作為實在界的內在本質,我們將它以這個「道」表達。由於這個表達,實在界知道它必須做些什麼。當它不是這種「道」時,它是上帝的萬能,上帝的智慧。牛頓的世界,假如沒有上帝,是不可思議的。因為每一個這些品質如何會知道它跟其它品質的距離。

Voltaire believed in the Supreme Being: I have not received his confidences; I do not know what idea he had of it. That could hardly be far from the idea of the All-Science, the idea that it is He who makes the machine work. It’s the old story of the knowledge in the real that has sustained all the old metaphors of the potter. Aristotle was a populist–it was the artisan who gave him the model for his causes.

伏爾泰相信最崇高的存在: 我還有獲得他那樣的信心,我不知道他對於這個最崇高的存在,有什麼看法。 那個看法大約就是全知全能的觀點。這個觀念是:上帝讓這台機器運轉。實在界的知識的古老觀念,曾經維持陶壺的古老比喻。亞力斯多德是一位民粹主義者—這位藝匠給予他,作為目標的模式。

Everything superb about the s reduces itself to that, which makes it so his theory has been welcomed with open arms wherever the metaphor of the potter is primary. A divine hand made the pot. But is God always busy making it turn? Does he let it turn by itself? Refinements of knowledge.

關於這個「道」,每一樣優秀的東西都化減自己到那樣。它非常成功,所以他的理論廣受大眾的張臂歡迎,在陶壺的比喻作為基本的地方。 神祗的手製作這個陶壺。但是上帝總是忙著讓它運轉嗎? 上帝讓陶壺自行運轉嗎? 這是知識精鍊的部分。

The question is to be taken up again beginning with this: knowledge is only supposed from a relation to the symbolic, which is incarnated by a material as signifier. But what is a signifying material? We only have the tip of its nose in Aristotle, when he speaks of the . It is certain that the idea itself of matter is only thinkable as an issue of the signifying material, where this idea finds its first examples.

這個問題應該再一次被探討,從這裡開始: 知識僅是從跟象徵界的關係被假定。這個象徵界由作為能指的材料具體表現。但是一個能指化的材料是什麼? 我們在亞力斯多德著作對於它,僅是略知一二,當他談論這個「能指化材料」。物質的這個觀念的本身確實是僅是可思議,只有作為能指化材料的問題。在那裡,這個觀念找到它最初的例子。

Our own experience is that of the symptom. The symptom reflects in the real the fact that there is something that does not work (marche) where?–not in the real to be sure, but in the field of the real. This is owed to what?

我們自己的經驗是病徵的經驗。 病徵在實在界反映出這個事實: 有某件東西沒有在哪裡運作?確實是沒有在實在界運作,但是在實在界的這個領域運作。 這要歸功於什麼?

To what I support in my language by the speaking being–if it did not speak, there would not be the word being . . . There is a coherence, a consistency,
between the symptom and the unconscious. I define the symptom by the fashion in which each jouit from the unconscious insofar as the unconscious determines him.

要歸功於在我的語言,根據作為言說的生命實存,所支持的東西—生命實存若是不言說,將不會有「生命實存」這個字…有一個一貫性,一致性,在病徵與無意識之間。我根據這個方式定義這個病徵。在這個方式裡, 每一個「歡爽」來自無意識,因為無意識決定他。

The origin of the notion of the symptom is not to be sought in Hippocrates, but in Marx, in the liaison that he makes the first between capitalism and what?–the good old days, what one calls the feudal time.

病徵的觀念的起源,不應該從希坡克瑞提斯,而應該從馬克思那裡尋找。他在資本主義與什麼之間,從事最早的溝通。那是美好的過往時代,我們所謂的封建時代。

Capitalism is considered to have some quite beneficial effects, since it has the advantage of reducing to nothing the proletarian man, thanks to which he realizes the essence of the man, of being stripped of everything, and of being the Messiah of the future.

資本主義被認為擁有某些相當有利的影響,因為它擁有這個利益,將普羅階級貶低到一文不值。由於這樣,他體會到,作為人被剝除掉一切後的本質,以及成為未來救世主的本質。

This is how Marx analyzes the notion of the symptom. He gives lots of other symptoms, to be sure, but the relation of this one with a faith in man is incontestable.

這就是馬克思如何分析病徵的觀念。的確,他給予許多其它的病徵,但是對於人的一種信仰的這個病徵的關係,是無可爭議。

If we do not make of man anything whatsoever carrying an ideal future, if we determine him by the particularity in every case of his unconscious and of the fashion in which he jouit from it, the symptom remains at the same place Marx put it, but it takes another sense.

假如我們將人解釋為帶有理想未來的任何東西, 假如我們根據人的無意識,及他形成的方式的個案的特殊性,來決定人,病徵會始終保留在馬克思說明他的相同的地方。但是意義將不會一樣。

Not a social symptom, but a particular symptom. No doubt particular symptoms have types: the symptom of the obsessional is not the symptom of the hysteric.
For the obsessional, there is a very particular symptom, which I’m going to tell you about.

這並不是一個社會的病徵,而是一個特別的病徵。無可置疑的,特別的病徵擁有這些類型: 妄想症的病徵並不是歇斯底里症的病徵。對於強迫症患者,有一個特別的病徵,我將要告訴你們的。

No one has the least apprehension of death; if this were not so, you would not be so tranquil there. For the obsessional, death is a failed act. This is not so stupid, for death is only approachable by an act. Still, for it to succeed, someone must commit suicide knowing that it is an act, which only happens very rarely.

對於死亡,沒有人有絲毫的理解。假如不是這樣,你本來不會那麼安詳在那裡。 對於強迫症患者,死亡是一個失敗的演出。這並不是那麼愚蠢,因為僅有靠著演出,我們才能接近死亡。可是, 為了讓這個演出成功,某個人必須自殺,他才能知道,這是一場演出。這種情況倒是罕見。

This was however very widespread when philosophy had a certain aim–an aim other than to sustain the social edifice. There were then persons who came to group themselves in schools in a way that had some consequences.

可是,這是非常普遍的,當哲學有某個目標—除了維持社會的大架構以外的目標。因此會有一些人前來聚集在學校裡,採用的方式具有某些的結果。

But what is of the nature to make you suspect the authenticity of the engagement in these schools, is that there is no need to have attained to any wisdom whatsoever, that it suffices to be a good obsessional, to know from a sure source that death is a failed act.

但是讓你們懷疑到在這些學校,他們參與的真誠性的這些特質是,根本沒有需要去獲得任何的智慧。只要成為一位完全的強迫症患者,就足夠讓他們根據某個確定來源知道: 死亡是一個失敗的演出。

I will stop there today. I have not even been able to get to the bone of what I wanted to say to you. Someone has objected to me that by dint of saying that the woman does not exist, I have made her (la) exist. Don’t you believe any of it.

今天我就講到這裡。對於我想要跟你們說的東西,我還沒有能夠講到要點。某個人曾經跟我提出異議說,憑藉著說那個女人不存在,我已經使她(不)存在。你們相信任何這樣的話嗎?

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

拉康:RSI 17

October 30, 2011

拉康:RSI 17
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of February 18, 1975
Last time, disappointed that Mardi Gras had not rarefied the plenitude of this room, I let myself slip into telling you what I think. Today, I would like it a lot if someone would ask me a question.

上一次,我因為感到失望,對於馬蒂、格拉斯沒有對這個講壇的過多人數過濾,我讓自己不知不覺的告訴你們我的想法。今天,如果有人想要問我問題,我會很樂意回答。

A certain Spinoza endeavored to spin, to deduce, according to the model given by the Ancients. This more geometrico defined a mode of properly mathematical intuition that does not at all go by itself.

有某一位名叫史賓諾莎的人嘗試編織,推論,依照古代人給予的模式。他的「幾何人生哲學」這本書,描繪適當來說,是一種並非是自動自發的數學的直覺的模式。

The point, the line, are fomented by a fiction; and also the surface, which is only supported by the split, a break specified as being of two dimensions–but since the line, properly speaking, is a dimension without consistency, it isn’t saying much to add a dimension to it.

這個點,這條線,都是由一種幻想激起,而且表面也是,表明僅是由分裂所引起,一種被指明為兩個維度的生命實存標明的分裂—但是因為這條線,適當來說,是一個沒有一致性的維度。給它增加一個謂度,並沒有多大幫助。

And the third dimension, built from a perpendicular to the surface, is also very strange. It is nothing but an abstraction, founded on the cut of a saw. How, without finding the cord again, can we make this abstraction hold?

第三個維度,從垂直被建造到表面,也是非常奇怪的。這僅是一種抽取過程,建立的基礎上鋸形狀的切割。假如沒有再一次找到在條線索,我們如何能夠讓這個抽取維繫下去?

On the other hand, it is no doubt not by chance that things are produced in this way. No doubt there is a necessity here arising from the weakness of a manual being, homo faber, as they say.

在另一方面,事情以這種方式被產生,並不是偶然。無可置疑的,在此有一個必要性,起源于有關作為肉身的生命的弱點,如他們所說。

But why has this homo faber who manipulates, who toils (tisse) and spins, passed to the point, to the surface, without stopping at the knot? Perhaps this has some relation with a repression. Is this repressed the primordial one, the Urverdrängt, which Freud designates as what is inaccessible in the unconscious?

但是為什麼這個肉身的生命,會操弄,會勞苦運作,被傳遞到這一點,被傳遞到表明,而沒有停在這個結點?或許,這跟潛抑有點關係。這個被潛抑的東西,就是原始的潛抑嗎?佛羅伊德指明這個原始的潛抑,作為無意識不可接近的東西?

The Borromean knot, I have told you, remains a knot if we open one of its loops and transform it into a straight line. But we must extend it to infinity (Figure 1).

波羅米恩結,我曾經告訴過你嗎,始終是一個結,假如我們打開其中一個圈套,並且將它轉移成為一條直線。但是我們必須將它延伸到無限(圖形一)。

This is why I say that the straight line is hardly consistent. We have glossed over this from the moment that a geometry called spherical made of this infinite straight line a new round, without grasping that this round is implied beginning with the position of the Borromean knot. We perhaps didn’t have to make this detour.

這是為什麼我說,直線幾乎是一致的。我們曾經掩飾這個,從所謂的圓形幾何學,用一個新的圓圈解釋這條無限的直線開始, 而沒有瞭解到,這個圓圈被暗示,從波羅米恩結的立場。我們或許並不需要從事這個迂迴。

Whatever the case, you saw me, last time, extend the geometry of the Borromean knot from three to four. This was to make you experience the difficulty of what I have called the mental knot.

無論情況是什麼,你們上一次看到我,延伸波羅米恩結從三個到四個的幾何圖形。這是要讓你們經驗到這個困難,我所謂的精神的結的困難。

Flattening it out, as I have attempted, is to submit it to so-called thought, to which in fact extension is stuck. Far from being distinct, as Descartes supposes, thought is nothing but extension.

擺平它,如我曾經嘗試的,是將它屈服於所謂的思想。事實上,延伸就是受限於這個思想。 思想根本不是如同笛卡爾所假定的那麼清楚。思想僅是延伸。

Let us remark that for this there has to be an extension that is not just any, but an extension of two dimensions, which can be daubed on a surface. Thus, it would not be out of place to define the surface I just showed you in geometry, that which is imagined, that which is essentially supported by the imaginary– the surface is what gives us something to daub on.

讓我們談論一下。為了這個精神的結,必須要有一種不僅是任何種類的延伸,而是兩個維度的延伸。這種延伸能夠被塗寫在表面上。因此,這並非是不合適,將我剛剛用幾何學跟你們顯示的表面下個定義。所被想像的東西,基本上是由想像界支持的東西—這個表面就是讓我們可以在上面塗寫的東西。

It is singular that the only way anyone has succeeded in reproducing this ideal surface is precisely the one from which everybody recoils: the braiding of a canvas. The painter daubs on a canvas, since it is all he has found for taming the gaze (dompter le regard).

奇特的是, 任何人曾經成功地複製這個理想表面的唯一方法,確實就是每個人為之望而卻步的方法。 帆布的鑲邊。畫家在帆布上塗畫, 因為它是他找到的一切,作為馴服「凝視」。

As for me, I find myself flattening out what I have to communicate to you of the knot on the surface of a blackboard.

至於我,我發現我自己擺平我必須跟你們溝通的,關於黑板的表面的這個結。

How can we draw the fourth round so that three independent rounds of thread make a knot with it? I have figured it by a flattening out that brings in perspective, and which I give you again here in a little different form (Figure 2).

我們如何畫這第四個圓圈,這樣三個獨立的繩線的環圈,才能跟它形成一個環結呢? 我曾經用一種擺平顯現它的方式描繪它。我在此再給予你們,以一個稍微不同的形式。(圖形二)。

I then wanted to flatten the figure out in a way that reproduces it while modifying it, and there I have found that I have made an error. More exactly, I have slipped up (raté), explicitly, out of laziness, and also to give you an example of the unnaturalness of representing the knot.
Here is the correct figure (Figure 3).

我曾經要擺平這個圖形,以複製它的方式,一方面修飾它。 在那裡我發現,我曾經發現,我犯了一個錯誤。更確實地說,我曾經犯了粗心之過,確實是由於自己的懶惰,而且也是為了給予你們一個例子,對於代表這個結的人為造作。這裡才是正確的圖形 (圖形三)。

Why has the failed act (acte manqué) functioned here?–if not to show that no analysis avoids something that resists in this theory of the knot. I have made you feel it, and in a somewhat experimental fashion.

為什麼會有這個失敗的行動在此運作?—它難道不是要顯現:沒有一個精神分析,會避免某件在環結理論裡抗拒的東西。我曾經讓你們感覺到它,而且以相對試驗性的方式。

. . . What is the essential thing about the round of thread? If one responds that it is the hole in the middle, one is induced to make consistency, ex-sistence, and the hole correspond to the imaginary, to the real, and to the symbolic respectively. Is this right? (Figure 4).

關於這個繩線的環結,最重要的的事情是什麼? 假如我們回應,是中間的這個空洞, 我們被引誘將這個「先前實存」,及個別對應於想像界,實在界,與象徵界的這個空洞,使成一致性。 這個圖不是才正確嗎?( 圖形四)

Saying that the hole is the essential thing about the round does not entirely satisfy me. In fact, what is a hole if nothing surrounds it?

我並不滿意說,這個空洞是這個圓環最重要的東西。事實上,空洞若是沒有東西環繞它,這個空洞算是什麼?

Consistency nonetheless indeed seems to be of the order of the imaginary, since the cord goes off toward the vanishing point of the mathematical line. Ex-sistence, in regard to the opening of the round and in regard to the hole, indeed belongs to the field supposed, if I may say so, by the rupture itself.

可是,一致性確實是在想像界的層次,因為這個條繩線離開朝向這條數學的線的消失點。「先前實存」,關於圓形的展開,及關於這個空洞, 確實屬於被斷裂本身假定的領域,我不妨這樣說。

It is within, in-there, that the fate of the knot plays itself out. If the knot has an ex-sistence, it is by belonging to this field. Whence my formulation that, in regard to this correspondence, ex-sistence is of the order of the real. The ex-sistence of the knot is real, to the point that I could have thought that the mental knot, it (ça) ex-sists,whether or not the mens figures it. It has still to explore the ex-sistence of the knot, and it does not mentalize it without
difficulty.

就在那裡面,這個環結的命運扮演它自己。假如這個環結擁有一個「先前實存」,那是屬於這個領域。關於這個一致性, 「先前實存」屬於真實界的層次,我的說明來自那裡。環結的「先前實存」屬於真實界的程度,我本來能夠構想,這個精神的環結,它「先前實存」,無論是否是這個「善良心靈」描繪它。它依舊必須探究環結的這個「先前實存」,並且沒有困難地擬想它。

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

谵妄

October 30, 2011

2011-10-30 01:04:52 pollus (拉康事業)
關於死亡,精神分析直面死亡與實在的問題,但並非認為死亡是個好的出路,而是面對那個創傷性(有時確實如此嚴酷)精神應該如何打結;如Joyce創造出的文學昇華其嚴酷的實在。
而如果無法處置這個實在,過於接近物件a,那麼將產生極度焦慮,passage a l•acte,付諸行動來舒緩,極端情況就是自殺或者傷害他人;這是焦慮討論班(S10)九格圖處理的核心(之後是在S12中);因此拉康從未認為這是一個好的解決方案,而是解決的失敗,因為精神分析的好壞僅僅是否合適地在處理無意識主體,處理欲望;拉康在Louven堅定地吼出:“人是很堅強的,死支持著生。”是站在那嚴酷實在上的堅定,那裡常常生髮出驚異的花朵,留給後世。
故而,英雄們稱為英雄,通過passage a l•acte,以便獲得實在上不停書寫下去之符號(見拉康後期討論班),獲得一個命名,也算打上一個結,還上家族寄託在肉身上那無限重量無法負載的符號債務。我們不能否認其價值,但精神分析處理的是倫理位置的主體(我不禁想起雄伯在自己譯本總是加上個“生命”的首碼,如果死了,作為能指的無頭主體繼續傳遞,但更多被人利用為客體——表像而存在,但生命之主體是有區別的,這也是認為自己是國王的瘋子和國王本身的區別,拉康說:前者一直是國王{——就是說:命令別人,趾高氣昂}但國王不總是國王!{他還有作為人而非固化的能指特質的別種畫面})。沒有所謂的好壞之分。所以在格雷碼斯四邊形中,英雄是在倫理的另一邊。

對於譫妄,本身就是一種痊癒,至於由於譫妄內容與現實的背反,導致的後果,仍然定位在實在,那片外部現實和精神現實相悖留下的創傷之所。
為此,我寫,寫給一個OTHER來看,如同是跟父母親說:啊,你們看我做的多好(phallus)。知識背後是享樂,因為這是佛洛德之表像,拉康之能指。受衝動所支撐,然而真理(Truth)和存在(Being)有一半在實在(Real)之中,正是因此拉康說知識或者科學,就是譫妄。通過這些譫妄——如佛洛德所說,譫妄本身實際已經是一種治癒了。——我們耗去自己的能量:去找,去外部找尋自己焦慮觸發的問題的答案。

雄伯
若是將譫妄delirium定位在實在界the real,以拉康晚期的RSI來看,應該不算是痊癒,而應該是病症。拉康強調實在界,象徵界,想像界的三結的連接,透過病徵的第四的結,具有交會的核心時,始算是痊癒。

至於譫妄內容與現實的背反,依拉康在「幻見到邏輯」Logic of Fantasy,強調邏輯的矛盾律或背反律paradox,強調antimony 的對立,也就是真理Truth與存在Being,潛在於象徵界的背反,矛盾,與對立的現象當中。我們可透過想像界的創造,將其顯現與實踐於象徵界,而不僅是在實在界。

基督教與佛教也有類似的教義。如梅爾威爾Herman Melville在「白鯨記」Moby Dick,透過牧師傳道約拿從背反上帝到認識上帝的轉折歷程:

「上帝叫我們做的一切事情,都是我們難以辦到的。如果遵從上帝,我們就必須違抗自己;遵從上帝的難處,就在於違抗自己。」

「每一種不幸的反面,必定有一種喜悅,喜悅的頂之高,超過了不幸的底之低。」

「願永恆的喜悅與吉祥臨到的人,他臨死時,能夠用最後一口氣這樣說: 天父啊!我主要是從你的責罰來認識你的。」

梅爾威爾使用鯨魚的眼睛建議自然界的某種雙重性,跟人的單一性相反。 也就是說,鯨魚的眼睛分開於頭的左右兩邊,而不是前面。它隨時會看到兩個不同或是相反的意象。相反地,人雖然有兩個眼睛,卻是同一焦點,僅專注於一件事情。因此,人常用單一的觀念理解事實。而自然與宇宙卻是以多重意象或意義在運作。因此,人要跟宇宙調和,才能理解宇宙,他必須放棄以單一的觀點,來理解宇宙的多重性。

能夠從這個背反律的宏觀,我們才能夠理解大乘佛教的「金剛經」的那些似非而是的矛盾箴言:

「須菩提,說法者無法可說,是名說法。」
「如來說諸心,皆為非心,是名為心」
「如來說人身長大,即為非大身,是名大身。」
「須菩提,菩薩亦如是。若作是言,我當滅度無量眾生,即不名菩薩。何以故,須菩提,實無有法,名為菩薩。是故佛說,一切法無我,無人,無眾生,無壽者。」
「須菩提,若菩薩作是言,我當莊嚴佛土,是不名菩薩。何以故,如來說莊嚴佛土者,即非莊嚴,是名莊嚴。須菩提,若菩薩通達無我法者,如來說名真是菩薩。」

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

Pure Psychoanalysis, Applied Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy

October 27, 2011

Pure Psychoanalysis, Applied Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy
纯精神分析,应用精神分析与心理治疗

Jacques-Alain Miller
雅克-艾伦、米勒

2. A QUESTION POSED FOR LACAN

“THE RIGHT WAY TO REASON”
Today we can perceive that what motivates the apparatus of formal rules and of traditional, institutional validation which was inserted into psychoanalytic practice by its early practitioners is probably the defense against this semblance.
2.向拉康提出的一个问题
朝向理性的正确之路
今天我们发现那些被更早期的精神分析从业者们插入到精神分析实践中的礼仪性的,或者是传统制度,规则设置,促使它们形成的也许就是对精神分析镜像的一种防范。
2.向拉康提出的一个问题
朝向理性的正确之路
今天我们能够发现,那些早期的精神分析从业者们,将正式的规则,传统的,制度的确认程序的设置,插入到精神分析实践里,促使他们的动机,也许就是要防范产生这种类似物。

To their credit, given the nature of psychoanalysis, the premonition that it would produce its semblance didn’t escape them, even in a situation quite different from our own.
即使在一个与我们现在完全不同的情景下,它们预感到了精神分析将产生这种镜像而且无法逃避它们
雄伯
考虑到精神分析的特质,对这种预感:精神分析会产生它的类似物,他们具有这种先见之明,是令人赞赏的,特别是他们所处的情境,跟我们自己的情境完全不同。
, the premonition that it would produce its semblance didn’t escape them, 的
that it would produce its semblance 是形容词子句,修饰 主词 the premonition,动词是escape,
escape 的意思是「无法理解」Be incomprehensible to; escape understanding by,不是「逃避」。例句: What they did escaped me。( 我无法理解他们的作为。)
them 是指 its early practitioners (早期的精神分析从业们),
given —considering 考虑到
to their credit 他们令人赞赏

One can give them credit for anticipating this semblance – and those who are faithful to the apparatus were the first to say so – but today we see the impotence of the apparatus quite well.
,为了保证一个纯粹的精神分析,一个可以给他们抢先于镜像的保证第一个就被提了出来。但是我们今天能清楚地看到设置是多么重要,
雄伯
我们能够赞赏他们,因为他们对于这个类似物有先见之明—那些忠实于精神分析规则设置的人,是最早这样说的人—但是今天我们清楚地看出,这种规则设置是软弱无力。
Impotence 是「软弱无力」,the quality of lacking strength or power
Importance 才是「重要」

It is perhaps because they touched bottom on this anti-semblance apparatus that they have also been the first to alert us to the weakness of the apparatus in regard to the semblance.
也许是因为他们按下了这个反镜像的按钮,他们首先就告诉我们在对待镜像的时候设置的脆弱性。
雄伯
或许正因为他们对于这种预防类似物的规则设置,经历过最糟糕的处境,他们也是最早的人,跟我们警告: 关于预防这个类似物,这种规则设置,其实是软弱无力。
Touch bottom 的意思是「经历最糟糕处境」live through the worst,跟「按钮」无关。Weakness 跟前面的impotence (软弱无能)对应,
We can say today that to make the distinction between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy through rule and tradition leads only to establishing psychoanalysis in a difficult position, that of a besieged fortress. When one is in a besieged fortress, everything indicates that it is already on the way to being taken from within.
我们可以说现今通过规则和传统来区分精神分析和心理治疗的这种方式只是把精神分析推向了一个艰难的位置,那就是一个被包围的堡垒。当一个人深陷一个被包围的堡垒时,一切事物都指出他应该准备好逃离它了。
雄伯
我们今天可以说,通过规则和传统,来区分精神分析和心理治疗,只是导致精神分析的基础处于一个艰难的处境,如同一个被包围的堡垒的处境。当一个人深陷一个被包围的堡垒时,一切事物都指出,这个堡垒即将从内部被人接管了。
today 是修饰we can say, 不是修饰「通过规则」
being taken from within 从内部被接管,而不是「逃离」
Well! Let’s try to keep our heads in this turmoil, which in a short while will become a tempest and, according to Rouletabille’s formula, let’s “take things by the good end of reason.”
很好!让我们保持我们的头脑处在这种混乱当中,不一会儿这混乱将变为暴风雨。根据Rouletabille的公式,让我把事物带向合理的好结局。
雄伯
呵呵!在这种混乱当中,让我们保持镇静。 不一会儿,这混乱将变为暴风雨。根据Rouletabille的公式,让我们期望事情会有合理的好结局。
Keep our heads—remain calm 保持镇静,
We should say first that there is no regulatory, institutional disposition that can hold where the orientation is lacking. We cannot turn to the institution to find some type of filter which would keep the chaff and deliver the grain. We need to trace our path toward an orientation of structure.
我们应当说首先在方向缺失的地方,规章上的或者制度上的倾向不能稳定下来。我们不能再制度上找到可以将糟糠从谷物中分离出来的过滤器。我们需要跟着我们的步伐向结构的方向上走去。
雄伯
我们应当首先说,在方向是缺失的地方,没有规章上的或者制度上的倾向,能够稳定下来。我们不能求助于制度,来找到可以将糟糠从谷物中分离出来的过滤器。我们需要跟着我们的途径,向结构的方向走去。
First 修饰say,不是修饰「在方向缺失的地方」
In this detour, whom can we ask for this orientation? Surely our customary reasoning, but this reasoning has the habit of turning – even if just a little, even if it’s a mistake, even if it is contradictory – toward what Lacan left.
在这条迂回的路上,我们能向谁询问方向?当然我们习惯的理由是向拉康留下的东西里面询问,即便只是一点点,即便是一个错误,即便是矛盾的。
雄伯
在这条迂回的路上,我们能向谁询问方向?当然是向我们习惯的推理能力,但是这个推理能够拥有这个习惯—-朝向拉康留下的东西里面询问,即便只是一点点,即便是一个错误,即便是矛盾的。

In this detour, whom can we ask for this orientation? Surely our customary reasoning, but this reasoning has the habit of turning – even if just a little, even if it’s a mistake, even if it is contradictory – toward what Lacan left.
在这条迂回的路上,我们能向谁询问方向?当然我们习惯的理由是向拉康留下的东西里面询问,即便只是一点点,即便是一个错误,即便是矛盾的。
雄伯
在这条迂回的路上,我们能向谁询问方向?当然是向我们习惯的推理能力,但是这个推理能够拥有这个习惯—-朝向拉康留下的东西里面询问,即便只是一点点,即便是一个错误,即便是矛盾的。

On occasion, these are arguments and not indications. It is there that in terms of orientation we have the custom of looking for our thread, noting that the situation has changed but giving him credit for a certain capacity of anticipation we think we’ve perceived up to the present.
在这个场合,这些争论没有必要提起。在寻找方向的过程中,我们习惯于寻找我们的思路,这个情景没有任何改变,只是给他的发现一个确切的预先的地位,我们可以现在把它发觉出来。
雄伯
在这个场合,具有各种争论,但是没有指示。就在那里,使用定向的术语,我们习惯于寻找我们的线索,注意到,这个情景没有任何改变。我们只是推崇拉康,因为他具有这种能力预期到,我们认为迄今所感觉到的问题。

The small point of support I have is that the question was posed to him – by myself (see Television). 1 The question involved the difference between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, understanding by psychotherapy that which is supported by speech, that is founded on listening and speaking. So we can see, even then, the trace of the phenomenon of semblance which is later inflated, and with which we are grappling.
我有一个小小的观点,一个由我自己向拉康提出的问题。1 这个问题涉及到精神分析和心理治疗的不同之处,通过心理治疗而理解是由言说支持的,是基于倾听和言说的。我们能指导,镜像现象的踪迹之后已经膨胀到了我们正在抓紧的东西那里。
雄伯
我拥有的这个小小的支持点是,这个问题由我自己向他提出 (参照拉康电视访谈)。在精神分析和心理治疗的不同之处,牵涉到的问题,是通过心理治疗而理解由言说支持的内涵,是以倾听和言说为基础。所以,我们能看见,甚至在那个时候就能看见,类似物的现象的踪迹。这个类似物后来被膨胀,我们正在努力跟它搏斗。
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:RSI 16

October 27, 2011

拉康:RSI 16
真实界,象征界,与想象界


Seminar of February 11, 1975


As for the symbolic, it is not to be taken in the everyday sense of the word, as everything in analytic technique indicates. It is not only bla-bla-bla. The real is that there is something common to the three in consistency. Now, this consistency resides only in the fact of being able to make a knot. Is a mental knot real? That is the question.


至于象征界,它不应该按照字词的意义去理解,按照精神分析技术所指示的一切去理解。它不但是无聊话。真实界是,对于一致性的三个有某件共同的东西。现在,这个一致性,仅是在于这个事实:能够形成一个环结。一个精神的环结会是真实的吗?那就是问题。


The mental knot has the real of the ex-sistence, as I write it, of these equivalences which I just told you that it was my aim to produce today. I have spoken prudently of correspondences.


如我所书写,精神的环结拥有相等物的这个「先前实存」的真实界。我刚刚告诉过你们,这是我今天要研讨的目标。 我已经谨慎地谈论到一致性。


I speak now of functions, and this is how I advance the word “equivalence.”
We are forced not to put the real in consistency. Consistency, to designate it by its name, I mean by its correspondence, if of the imaginary order.


我现在谈论到功用,这就是我如何提出「相等物」这个字。我们被迫不将真实界处于一致性。一致性,为了顾名思义,我意指它在想象层次的一致性。


What is demonstrated at length in human history and should inspire in us a singular prudence, is that all the consistency that has proved itself is pure imagination. I make the imaginary return here in its accent of sense.


在人类历史上详细被证明,而且应该在我们身上啟发一种独特的谨慎,就是:所有证实它自己的一致性,都是纯粹的想象。 我以强调想象界的意义,让想象界回到这里。


Consistency, for the speaking being, is what is fabricated and invented. In this occasion, it is the knot, inasmuch as one has woven it. But precisely—”woven” is just the word we’re looking for in this business—it is not because one has woven it that it ex-sists.


一致性,对于这个言说的生命而言,是被建构及杜撰出来的东西。在这个场合, 就是这个环结,我们已经编织它的环结。但是确实地说—「编织」就是我们寻找适用于这件事的字词—但并不是因为我们已经编织它,它才「先前实存」。


Even if I do not draw the figure of my Borromean knot on the board, it ex-sists, for as soon as it is drawn, anyone can clearly see that it is impossible that it does not remain what it is in the real: a knot.


即使我并没有将我的波罗米恩结的图形,画在黑板上,它是「先前实存」。因为当它一被画出,任何人都清楚地看出,它不可能不维持它在真实界的样子:一个环结。


And this is why what I advance can be useful in their practice to analysts who listen to me–if they know that what they weave of the imaginary doesn’t any less ex-sist. This existence is what responds to the real.


这就是为什么我提出的内容,对于分析师在他们的实践中,有时不无帮助。他们倾听我—假如他们知道,他们使用想象界编织的东西,道道地地就是「先前实存」。这个「先前实存」是回应真实界的东西。
What we have introduced to the notion of ex-sistence is the inscription, ! x. f (x)— there exists an x that can be carried into a function, whether this be a function in the general sense of the term, or simply an equation. In the case of an equation, it happens that there is no root.


我们曾经介绍到「先前实存」的观念,是这个铭记 ㊣x.f (x). —这里存在一个x数,能够被带进一个函数,无论它是这个术语通俗意义的函数,或仅是一个方程式。在方程式的情况,它恰巧是没有根数。


This leaves us neither hot nor cold—we make it exist; we invent, for example, the imaginary root, and that gives us some results.


这让我们觉得既不热也不冷—我们让它存在,譬如,我们杜撰这个想象界的根数,那样会给予我们一些结果。


One sees here that the term imaginary is not a synonym for pure imagination. If we can make the imaginary exist, it is because it is a matter of another real. I say that the effect of sense exists, and that in this, it is real.


我们在此看到,想象界这个术语并不是纯粹想象的一个同义字。假如我们能够让想象界先前存在,那是因为这是另外一个真实界的事情。 我说,意义的效果存在,而且在这个存在中,那就是真实。


This is not an apologetic; it is a consistency, an imaginary consistency, no doubt, but there is indeed, it seems, a wholly everyday domain of the imaginary function that endures and holds.


这并不是强词夺理。这是一个一致性,无可置疑地,一个想象的一致性。但是,似乎持续而且成立的想象界的功用,确实有一个完全是日常的领域。


I can only enter into dialogue with someone whom I have fabricated to understand me at the level where I speak. It is indeed because of this that I am astonished that you are so numerous. I cannot believe that I have fabricated each of you to understand me. In analysis, it is not a question of that.


我仅能够进入跟某个人的对话。我曾经构想他从我言说的层次了解我。 这确实是因为这个, 我感到大吃一惊,当你们的人数是如此众多。我无法相信,我曾经构想你们每个人都了解我。在精神分析,问题不是那个。


It is a question only of accounting for what ex-sists as interpretation. The astonishing thing is that in working on the three functions of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real, I have at a distance fabricated enough people who have had only to open my books—there is not an Englishman who has done more than that—to find something which allows them to respond to me.


问题仅是要说明「先前实存」的东西,作为解释。 令人惊奇的是, 当我们研究象征界,想象界,及真实界的这三个功用,我曾经遥远地构想,会有足够的人们只需要打开我的书—没有一个英国人曾经做的更进一步—那就是找出某件东西,让他们能够回应我。


How can a construction be made to ex-sist of which the consistence is indeed not imaginary? For that, there has to be a hole. And this is what leads us to the topology of the torus. I do not see why a theory of knots needs to pass through the function of filter, for example, or requires consideration of open and closed sets, when these terms open and closed take on an imaginary consistency always different from that required by the practice of knots.


确实并非想象界的一致性的这个建构如何被建立,让它「先前实存」?为了那个目标,必须要有一个空洞。 而是,这是导致我们为什么会获得这个「突出形状」的拓扑图形。我不明白为什么环结的一个理论,譬如,需要通过过滤的这个功用,或是要求开放集合与封闭集合的考虑。 当这些术语开放与封闭具有想象界的一致性,总是不同于环结实践所要求的一致性。


The hole of which I speak detaches itself from the thought that makes a circle, from the thought that flattens out, and which on this basis distinguishes inside and outside.


我谈论的这个空洞,将自己跟形成环圈的这个思想隔离,跟这个摆平的思想。根据这个基础,它区别里面跟外面。


It suffices to imagine the circle as a consistent cord to see that the inside and outside are exactly the same thing. There is only one inside, which the one that we imagine at the interior of the torus. But the introduction of the figuration of the torus consists precisely in not taking that into account.


让我们想象这个圆圈作为一条一致性的绳线,就足够明白,里面跟外面确实是相同的事情。 只有一个里面,我们想象在这个「突出形状」的内部的这个里面。 但是这个「突出形状」的图形的介绍,确实就在于不要考虑到那件事情。


I showed you last time how to make a four-looped Borromean knot. One begins with three independent torii, and knots them with a fourth (Figure 3).


上一次我跟你们显示如何形成一个四个圈套的波罗米恩环结。我们从三个独立的「突出形状」开始,然后用一个第四环结结合它们( 图形三)。


I figured for you last time how, by a figure of a fourth torus, these three figured here as independent can be knotted. Freud, I said, elides my reduction to the imaginary, symbolic, and real knotted together.


上一次我跟你们描绘,如何使用一个第四「突出形状」,这三个被描绘在这里,作为独立,它们能够被结合。 我说过,我并无法将佛洛伊德还原成为想象界,象征界,与真实界被结合在一起。


It is by his Name-of-the-Father, identical to what he calls psychic reality, and which is nothing other than the religious reality–it is by this function of the dream that Freud installs the tie between the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real. Well then, let us transform figure 2 so that the third circle does not knot anything (Figure 4). The three rounds are disjoined.


由于他的「以父亲之名」,认同与他所谓的精神现实界。那道道地地就是宗教的现实界—那是根据这个梦的功用,佛洛伊德安置想象界,象征界,与真实界之间的关系。 呵呵,让我们转换图形二,这样第三个环圈并没有结合任何东西 ( 图形四)。 这三个环圈都是分离的。


How can we draw the fourth that would knot them?


我们如何画出将会结合它们的第四环圈呢?


You will easily conceive of the figure that I am going to sketch if you think of the form of the astrolabe, materialized dozens of times (trente-six fois) in the course of the ages—it must be said that we are only capable of doing geometry with solids.


你们将很容易构想我正在跟你们描绘的这个图形,假如你们想到星盘的形状,在几世纪的过程中,好几十次被具体呈现出来—我们必须说, 我们仅能够用固体的形状来从事几何学。


Here is a circle seen from the front. The equatorial circle that I am drawing now is seen flat, and it is for this that I feign drawing it in perspective. Let us now make a third, sagittal circle.


在此有一个圆圈从前面被看见。 我现在跟你们画的这个赤道附近的圆圈,被看见是平坦的。因为这样,我构想用透视法画它。让我们现在形成一个第三种的箭头形状的圆圈。


Let us sketch the little dotted line to give the notion of how you should see it in perspective. It suffices to sketch this fourth line for the three disjoined rounds of the symbolic, imaginary, and real to be found knotted (Figure 5).


让我们描绘这个小小的点点的线,为了给予你们应该如何用透视法看它的方式。 为了让象征界,想象界,与真实界,这三个分开的环圈,被发现结合在一块,我们只需要描绘这第四条线就足够了。


For these three to be knotted must there necessarily be one more, of which the consistency would be referred to the function of the father? The Borromean knot demonstrates the contrary.


为了让这三个环结被结合,必须还有多增添一个环圈。这第四环圈的一致性将会被提到父亲的功用吗? 波罗米恩结证明是恰恰相反。


It is indeed this question that made me begin my seminar on The Names of the Father. I had not yet found the figuration I introduce here, but there is not just one fashion to illustrate how Freud makes the conjunction of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real hold for me, by the Names-of-the-Father—as is patent in his text.


确实是这个问题,让我开始我的研讨班,探讨「以父亲之名」。我还没有找到我在这里介绍的这个图形。但是不仅只有一个方法来说明,佛洛伊德如何使用「以父亲之名」,跟我形成象征界,想象界,与真实界的结合。这是他的文本里的特征。


Is this supplementary function of the Father indispensable? I show you that this could be disputed. It is not because it is indispensable in theory that it always is in fact.


以「父亲之名」的这个补充的功用一定不可免除吗? 我跟你们显示: 这是具有争议性。 倒不是因为它在理论是可以免除,它事实上就总是会存在。


If I titled this seminar the Names and not the Name of the Father, it was because I already had certain ideas about the filling-in-for (suppléance) the Name-of-the-Father. But it is not because this filling-in for is not indispensable that it does not take place.


假如我将这次的研讨班标题为「名称」,而不是「以父亲之名」,那是因为我已经拥有某些的观念,关于这个「以父亲之名」的「填塞作用」。但是这并不是因为这种「填塞作用」并不是不可免除,它就不会发生。


Perhaps it is because our imaginary, our symbolic, and our real, for each of us, are still disassociated that there has to be the Name-of-the-Father to knot them.


或许,这是因为我们的想象界,我们的象征界,及我们的真实界,对于我们每一个人,都依旧是分离的。所以必须要有「以父亲之名」,来结合它们。


But do not imagine—this would not be my style (dans mon ton)—that I prophecy that, in analysis and elsewhere, we could dispense with the Name-of-the-Father without each of the three would going its own way.


但是不要想象—这将不是我的风格—-我在预言,在精神分析及其它地方,我们能够免除这个「以父亲之名」,而不会导致这三个环结的每一个各行其事。


Besides, how would the reduction of a knot to its minimum constitute a progress?


除外,一个环结还原成为它的最小量时,它如何形成一种进展?


It would be a progress in the imaginary, which is to say, in consistency. In the current state of things, you are as inconsistent as your fathers, and it is precisely from being entirely suspended in them that you are in your present state.


这将是想象界的一种进展。换句话说,在一致性的进展。在目前的事情的状态,你们跟你们的父亲一样的不一致。你们处于你们目前的状态,确实是因为你们完全被悬置在他们身上。


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

心理治療不存在

October 26, 2011

心理治療不存在

Jacques-Alain Miller
雅克-艾倫、米勒

PSYCHOTHERAPY DOES NOT EXIST
This is a theme already covered, a theme which, ten or so years ago, was the subject of a congress, the product of which was then distributed at different events. But we did not then have the view of the situation that we have now.
心理治療不存在
這個主題在10年或是更多年前就被涵蓋了,是國際大會的主題。是這個主題的結果後來分散成了幾個不同事件。但是在現在這個情景下,我們依然沒有任何看法。
雄伯
心理治療不存在
這是一個已經被探討過的主題。大約十年前左右,這個主題是精神分析會議的議題。這個會議的議題的結果,後來在幾個不同事件分別被顯現出來。但是我們當時對於這種情境的觀點,跟現在不一樣。
Or so— more or less, about 大約
Cover—to report the details of 報導,探討

To situate this difference shouldn’t be difficult if we understand things from the perspective that psychotherapy does not exist, that it’s a convenient label which covers very diverse practices, extending even to gymnastics.
把這種不同放在某些情景下應該不是很困難,如果我們能從心理治療不存在的前提瞭解一些事物。這是一個方便地標籤並涵蓋了不同的實踐活動,甚至延伸到各種技術。
雄伯
假如我們從心理治療並不存在的這個觀點來看待事情,要定位這個差異,並不會很困難。心理治療並不存在這個觀點是一個方便的標籤,它包含各種不同的精神分析實踐活動,甚至延伸到各種知性活動。
Gymnastics–Complex intellectual or artistic activity, 知性或藝術的活動,
Cover—include,consists of 包含,組成

These practices are not in themselves detrimental. Gymnastics is even a highly recommendable exercise. If I just reflect on the question and ponder where we are led seriously, there might be more in the body than in our philosophy.
這些實踐他們自己並不是有害的,這些技術甚至是高度被推薦的實踐。如果要我對問題作出回應並且嚴肅地思考我們將被帶入何方,那裡更有可能是在身體上而不是思想上。
雄伯
這些實踐的本身並不是有害的。這些知性活動甚至是高度被推薦的活動。我只要反思一下這個問題,思考我們是在哪裡嚴重地被掌控,更有可能是在身體,而不是在我們的哲學被掌控。
Seriously 這裡是修飾led,若是修飾ponder,它應該被擺置在ponder 前面
Lead—to direct,control ,or govern 指導,掌控,統治
心理治療不存在,是因為我們的身體是會死亡mortal的身體,這個生物事實無法改變。哲學講得天花亂墜,身體還是會死,怎樣的心理治療也無濟於事,故謂心理治療不存在。

In any case, the forms which can pretend to have psychotherapeutic effects are no problem for us. Those which are a problem are the ones which are close to analysis, which welcome the demand of the sufferer who wants to know and which treat this demand with speaking and listening, and further, as we say, as one has said for a long time, which draw inspiration from psychoanalysis – a sacramental and regulated formula to some of us.
在任何情況下,假裝心理治療有效的形式對我們來說都不成問題。有問題的是那些接近於分析的形式,它們迎合了患者想要弄清楚的需求並通過說和聽來應對這種需求。進一步說,像我們說的那樣,也像很久以前有人說的那樣,它們從精神分析中得到靈感——對某些人來說這是一種聖典和規範的方法。
雄伯
在任何情況下,假裝具有心理治療效果的形式,對我們來說,都不成問題。有問題的是,那些接近於分析的形式。它們迎合了患者想要弄清楚的需求,並通過說和聽來應對這種需求。而且,像我們說的那樣,也像很久以來有人說的那樣,它們從精神分析中得到靈感—對於我們的某些人來說,這是一種聖典和規範的方法。

If we proceed further, there are forms which say they conform to psychoanalysis and, if we go all the way to the end of the spectrum, those which call themselves psychoanalysis.
如果我們更進一步,可以發現有些形式聲稱符合精神分析;倘若我們將這類形式追溯到底,則有人把這些形式本身叫做精神分析。
雄伯
如果我們更進一步,可以發現有些形式聲稱,它們符合精神分析;而且,倘若我們將這類形式追溯到底,它們稱呼它們自己叫做精神分析。

A SEMBLANCE OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
It is not excessive, at least in an exploratory way, to formulate the problem in these terms: that psychoanalysis produced, nourished, encouraged its own semblance, and that this semblance thereafter enveloped it, passed over it, vampirized it.
the rubbish, eliminated.
精神分析的一個鏡像
至少在一條探究的道路上,用這些術語把問題形式化是不過分的。精神分析產生,擁有,且鼓勵它自身的相似者。這些鏡像此後卻封閉它,超越它,吸它的血。
雄伯
精神分析的類似物
這不算是過分,至少以探究的方式來說,說明這個問題,卻使用這些術語: 精神分析產生,滋養,並鼓勵它自己的類似物。而且,這個類似物從此涵蓋它,超越它,並且吸乾它的血液。

I say vampirized because one could give to this history a Gothic style in the manner of Edgar Allan Poe, something like “Psychoanalysis and its Double.”
我說吸血,因為一個人可以給這段歷史用艾倫•坡風格給它一種哥特式的風格,比如“精神分析和它的鏡像”。
雄伯
我說吸血,因為一個人可以給這段歷史,用艾倫•坡風格,給它一種鬼魂式的風格,比如,“精神分析和它的魅影”。
Once we display the resemblances, the intermittent confusions of person, the interchangeable character of the original and the double, the story would conclude with the substitution of the double for the original, the original ending up expropriated, exiled, in the rubbish, eliminated.
我們曾經展示出這種相似,這就是在原始的和相似者之間可替換的特點。艾倫•坡的故事以一個原初的複製場景結束,而原初的結尾卻被放逐,扔到了垃圾,淘汰品裡面。
雄伯
一旦我們展示出這種類似物,人的間歇性混淆,本尊與魅影的互換特性,故事的結局將會是魅影取代本尊,本尊的下場是被剝除,被放逐,扔到了垃圾,被抹除。
Once 當連接詞時,意思是「一旦」,當時間副詞時,才是「曾經」

Unbelievable! To read what is widely written by psychoanalysts of various stripes, one could state that we are confronted with what I termed the expropriation of psychoanalysis.

難以置信!有人說我們為了面對那些我稱之為“精神分析徵用”的東西,要去閱讀被各個分析家廣泛書寫的東西。
雄伯
真是難以置信!假如我們閱讀到各色各樣的精神分析師廣泛書寫的東西,我們能夠陳述說:我們面臨著我所謂的精神分析被篡奪的狀態。
To read what is widely written by psychoanalysts of various stripes, one could state that we are confronted with what I termed the expropriation of psychoanalysis.
= If one read what is widely written by psychoanalysts of various stripes, one could state that we are confronted with what I termed the expropriation of psychoanalysis.
To read what is widely written by psychoanalysts of various stripes, 是不定詞片語,副詞用法,表條件。
例句:
To hear him speak English, you would think him an American.
= If you heard him speak English, you would think him an American.
假如你聽他講英語,你會以為他是美國人。

If we can dream it, it is logical, and it even seems necessary that psychoanalysis has produced its semblance.
如果我們能夢到它,它一定是邏輯的,而且精神分析產生其鏡像似乎是必然的。
雄伯
假如我們能夠想像它,那是順理成章,甚至似乎是必然。因為精神分析已經產生它自己的類似物。

This has also happened to philosophy, which, as it advanced through Socrates, produced its double under the Sophists. It is what motivates the constant Platonic polemic against the Sophists as doubles,這同樣發生在哲學領域裡,可以追溯到蘇格拉底,他的哲學在詭辯家那裡也產生了一個鏡像。這也就激發了柏拉圖對哲學的鏡像——詭辯術的持續抨擊。這是一個古老的故事了。
雄伯
這種事也發生在哲學那裡。哲學由蘇格拉底一路發展下來,在詭辯學派那裡,產生它自己的類似物。這也就是為什麼會激發柏拉圖不斷地大聲疾呼,反對詭辯學派成為類似物。

In order to begin to speak of the difficulty of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, one need only to see this imagery of the original and its double developing, only here it is situated with even more difficulty.
為了開始講述精神分析和治療的困難,一個人只需要看看原始物和其鏡像發展過程的比喻。
雄伯
為了開始講述精神分析和心理治療的困難,一個人所需做的,就是要看看,這個原始本尊及其類似物的意象如何發展出來。只是在這個地方定位它,會遭遇甚至的更多的困難。

There is the Gothic element; there is the Platonic element in the psychoanalyst’s torment at seeing the growing extension of psychotherapy in the adjacent form of analysis, this derivative form, which it does not seem excessive to me to qualify as a semblance of psychoanalysis
.精神分析家的折磨是看到心理治療在分析形式相近的地方延伸,這其中有哥特式的基本元素,也有柏拉圖哲學的隱喻。這種衍生物的形式,要讓我把它看做合格的精神分析鏡像,實在太過分了。
雄伯
這裡存在著這種鬼魂式的因素。在精神分析的苦難裡,有著這種柏拉圖式的因素,當它看到心理治療學以類似精神分析的形態,逐漸地在擴展。這種衍生的形態,我若是將它的特質,定位為精神分析的類似物,似乎不算是過分之舉。

The sociological enquiry can be used here, but it will not give us the secret of this impasse and the means to surmount it. The secret of this semblance is no doubt in psychoanalysis itself, if it is true that psychoanalysis has produced this semblance which devours it.
社會學的提問可以被用在這兒,但是它不能告訴我們這個死路的秘密和克服它的方法。如果精神分析已經產生了一個吞噬了它自己的鏡像是事實的話,那麼這個鏡像的秘密也就是精神分析自身的秘密。
雄伯
社會學的研究可以被用在這兒,但是它不能告訴我們這個僵局的秘密和克服它的方法。無可置疑的,這個類似物的秘密就是精神分析的本身,假如精神分析確實產生吞噬它的這個類似物。

I’m saying all this in quotation marks. Let’s not panic. We have a mise en place here and I am trying to assemble some notes which may effectively develop some fragments and a symphony. There is work to do.
我正在說的一切都是在引用。讓我們不要驚慌。我們在這兒有一個約定,我正在試圖聚集一些要點,可以有效地把一些碎片合成一首交響曲。這就是要做的工作。
雄伯
我正在說這一切時,我使用引用號標點。讓我們不要驚慌。我們在這兒有一個「恰如其分」,我正在試圖聚集一些要點,這些要點可以有效地把一些碎片,發展成為一首交響曲。這就是要做的工作。
雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:RSI 15

October 26, 2011

拉康:RSI 15
真實界,象徵界,與想像界

Seminar of February 11, 1975

Let’s leave that aside, because it is a subject where, finally, like Freud himself, I lose my Latin. I will say again that this Queen Victoria is a reading that no one should miss, if it has a little touch, a little vibration of what I am saying—and I will move on to another subject.

讓我們擱置那個問題,因為這是一個主體,在那裡,最後,像佛洛伊德一樣,我拉丁文想不起來。我再說一遍: 這本「維多利亞皇后」是一本不可錯過的讀物。它跟我正在演說的內容,稍有碰觸,稍有悸動。—讓我轉換到另一個主題。

The art itself that has dealt with subjects called geometrical because an interdiction of a religious nature is placed on human representation, Arab art to call it by its name, produces freizes and braids, but not a Borromean knot, although the Borromean knot offers itself to an abundant wealth of figurations.

藝術的的本身曾經從事所謂幾何學的各項主題。因為一個宗教性質的禁制被施用在人類的再現符號上。 阿拉伯的藝術就直稱其名,產生壁畫及鑲邊,但是沒有產生波羅米恩結,雖然波羅米恩結提供它自己,給豐富數量的比喻。

There is no trace of it in any art. This is a very surprising thing, which is not easy to explain. Why hasn’t anyone felt the importance of this knot? Perhaps it is because it needed the emergence of certain consistencies, which are precisely those I give to the symbolic, to the imaginary, and to the real.

在任何藝術裡,並沒有任何它的痕跡。 這是一件非常令人驚訝的事情,這並不容易解釋。 為什麼沒有任何人感覺這個結的重要性?或許,它是因為它需要某些一致性的出現。這些一致性確實是我給予象徵界,想像界,然後進入真實界的東西。

If I give them this consistency, it is to homogenize them. To homogenize them is to bring them back to the value of what is commonly–one asks oneself in the name of what—considered the most low: it is to give them the consistency of the imaginary. And because there is something that needs to be put right.

假如我給予他們這個一致性,那是要讓它們類同。 讓它們類同,就是將它們帶回共認識最低物到價值—我們詢問自己,以它的名義。 那是要給予它們這個想像界的一致性。因為有某件東西需要被修正。

The consistency of the imaginary is strictly equivalent to that of the symbolic and that of the real. Each is in the same relation with the two others. And it is indeed there that it is a matter of making an effort that is of the order of the effect of sense.

想像界的一致性,嚴格相等於象徵界的一致性,及真實界的一致性。每一個都跟其它兩個有相同的關係。 確實就是在那裡,問題是要做屬於具有意義的影響的層次的努力。

Analytic interpretation in fact implies a see-sawing in the bearing (portée) of this effect of sense. It carries (porte) in a way that goes a lot farther than speech. Speech is an object of elaboration for the analysand, but what are some of the effects of what the analyst says?—for he does say.

事實上,精神分析的解釋暗示一種「上下互動」,在意義的這個影響到關聯。它向前推進的方式,遠超過言說。 對於分析者,言說是一種建構的客體。但是分析師所說的內容的影響是什麼呢?因他確實是在說。

It is not nothing to formulate that the transference plays a role there, but it doesn’t clarify anything. It would be a matter of explaining how the interpretation carries, and that it does not necessarily imply an enunciation.

這並非徒勞無益,說明移情在那裡扮演的角色。但是它並沒有澄清任何事情。問題是要如何解釋,詮釋進行的方式。這未必意味著表達。

Too many analysts are in the habit of not opening it —I am speaking of the mouth. I dare believe that their silence is not just out of bad habit, but out of a sufficient apprehension of the bearing of a silent dire. I dare believe it, but I’m not sure of it.

太多的分析師習慣於並不打開它—我正在談論到這個嘴巴。我敢相信,他們的沉默不僅是由於不良習慣,而是由於一種充分的理解一個「言說」的關係。我敢相信它,但是我並不確定它。

Beginning when we enter this field, there is no proof, if not in this: that an opportune silence does not always succeed. What I am trying to do here—alas, I babble a lot—is destined to change the perspective on what there is of the effect of sense.

當我們進入這個領域時,它就開始。證據難道不就是這個: 一個合宜的沉默未必總是接連而來。我在這裡嘗試正在做的事情—啊,我閒話太多—註定會改正整個觀點,對於意義的影響具有的觀點。

It is a matter of gripping this effect of sense, and with a knot that is the right one for it.

問題是要理解意義的這個影響,並且以一個適合於它的結。

I am myself very astonished at succeeding in substituting this effect of sense inasmuch as it makes a knot, and in the right way, for what I will call the effect of fascination, which is produced at a point designatable in this knot itself.

我自己非常驚奇,對於接續用來取代意義的這個影響,因為它成為一個結,而且以合適的方式, 替我所謂的著迷的影響。這個著迷的影響被產生,在這個結的本身能夠被指明的這個點。

It is on this cord that are borne most of the effects of art, and this is the only criterion that one might find to separate art from what science comes to coordinate. A man of letters, like Valéry, for example, remains in effects of fascination, although there is room for analyzing them.

在這個繩線上,大部分的影響被產生。這是唯一的標準,我們可能找到的,為了區分藝術跟科學所漸漸協調的東西。一位文學家,譬如,像梵樂希,始終保持在著迷的影響裡,雖然這些影響可以讓我們有分析的餘地。

The effect of sense required by analytic discourse is not imaginary. Nor is it symbolic. It has to be real. What I am occupying myself with this year, is a thinking of what might be the real of an effect of sense. One is habituated to the effect of sense being carried by words, and not being without reflection, without an imaginary undulation.

精神分析論述要求的意義的影響,並不是想像界。它也不是象徵界。 它必須是真實界。 今年我自己正在專注的東西,是思索意義的影響的真實界會是什麼?我們都習慣于意義被文字所扱帶的影響,而不是毫無沉思,沒有經過想像衝擊的意義的影響。

On my little schema (Figure 1), the effect of sense is at the joint of the symbolic and the imaginary. With the consistent circle of the real, it has, in principle, only a relation of exteriority. I say in principle, because this exteriority
supposes the knot flattened out. It is flattened out because we only think flat—but one can also figure it otherwise (figure 2).

在我小小的基模(圖形一),意義的影響處於象徵界與想像界的會合處。 由於真實界的一致的迴圈,它在原則上, 僅擁有一種外在的關係。 我說「原則上」,因為這個外在性, 假定這個結被擺平。 這個結被擺平,因為我們僅是擺平地思考—但是我們也能夠以不同方式描繪它。( 圖形二)。

What we pose with the Borromean knot already goes against the image of a
concatenation. The discourse in question does not make a chain. There is no reciprocity in the passage of one of these consistencies into the hole offered it by the other, which is to say that no one of these consistencies links itself to another, so as to make a chain with it.

我們用這個波羅米恩結所提出的,已經是違背連鎖性的意象。 受到質疑的論述並沒有成為一種連鎖性。在這些一致性的其中一個,通過進入由大它者提供的這個空洞,並沒有互相作用存在。 也就是說, 這些一致性並沒有任何一個跟另外一個互相連繫。為了跟它連接成為一個鎖鏈。

And this is how the relation of the symbolic, the real, and the imaginary is specified.

這就是象徵界,真實界,與想像界的關係被指明的關係。

From then on the question is posed of knowing whether the effect of sense in the real is owed to the usage of words or to their ejaculation.

從那時開始,這個問題被提出,要如何知道,在真實界的意義的影響,是歸功於文字的用法?或歸功於文字的噴射?

A lot of things have always been given to be thought, but one does not make the distinction between this usage and this ejaculation. One believed that it was words that carried.

為了要成為思想,許多東西總是被給予。但是我們並沒有區別這個用法與這個噴射。 我們相信,是文字在扱帶。

While if we give ourselves the trouble to isolate the category of the signifier, we see clearly that ejaculation retains an isolable sense.

假如我們願意費心去將這個能指的範疇孤立出來,我們會清楚地看出, 噴射保留一種可被孤立的意義。

Is this to say that we must trust in that for the dire to make a knot? Speech (La parole) very often slips, lets slip. It is asked of the analysand to furnish all that passes through his head, which does not at all imply that there is nothing there but bla-bla-bla, for there is an unconscious.

這難道是說, 我們必須信任那個意義,為了讓這個「言說」成為一個結? 「言說」往往會有漏失,說漏的部分。分析者會被要求供應所有經過他的腦海的東西, 這根本並不意味著: 除了一大堆無聊話語外,什麼都沒有。因為無意識在那裡。

Based on the fact that there is an unconscious, there are in his speech already things that make a knot; there is already the dire, if we specify the dire as being what makes a knot.

根據無意識在那裡的這個事實作為基礎,在他的言說裡,已經會有一些東西形成一個結。 已經有著這個「言說」,假如我們明確指出這個「言說」,就是形成一個結點東西。

It does not suffice to call this knot real. The imaginary is not an imaginary round. If the knot holds, it is because the imaginary is taken in its consistency proper.

光是稱這個結為真實,是不足夠的。想像界並不是一個想像的圓圈。這是因為想像界在它的一致性本土裡被接納。

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