Archive for October, 2011

拉康:RSI 14

October 26, 2011

拉康:RSI 14
真实界,象征界,与想象界

Seminar of February 11, 1975

. . . I have just spent eight days where?–Believe it or not, in London.
Should I say a word about English psychoanalysts? I only know one who is English, and he must be Scottish.

我刚刚在那里度过八天,哪里呢? 信不信由你,在伦敦。关于英国精神分析师,我应该说个建言吗? 我仅是认识一位英国人,他一定是苏格兰人。

It is no doubt the English language (lalangue anglais) that is the obstacle here–which not very promising, since it is becoming universal. Those who read me from time to time may have an idea of the difficulties that there can be in translating me in the English language (lalangue)–one has to force it.

无可置疑的,这种英文的语言在这里是个阻碍—它的展望并不大,因为它渐渐变得普遍化。 那些有时阅读我的人,可能会想到可能会有的这些困难,当他用英文翻译为。 我们必须强迫它。

I am not the first to have noticed the resistance of the English language to the
unconscious. It’s not just English. On returning from a trip to Japan, I believed myself to see a certain duplicity in pronunciation, doubled by the duplicity of the system of writing, a special difficulty of the language (lalangue) to operate (jouer) at the level of the unconscious, and precisely in what would appear to make it easier.

我并不是第一个人,曾经注意到英文语言对于无意识的抗拒。那不仅是英文。当我从旅行到日本回来,我相信我自己看到某种的发音上的欺骗,由于书写的系统的欺骗而加倍。这种语言的一种特别的困难,要在无意识的层次运作,确实看起来是要使它更容易些。

. . . I must today clear the way to a certain number, I would not say of equivalences, but of correspondences. I have encountered them many times in the jottings with which I prepare what I have to say to you, but I look at them twice before I share them with you. I am rather careful and try not to speak at random.

我今天必须澄清某些的,我姑且不说是相等语,而是对应语。我曾经遭遇它们好几次,在我准备我必须跟演讲的内容的匆匆书写中。但是我重新观看它们后,我才跟你们分享。 我相当小心,并且尝试不要随便乱讲。

Is there someone who knows if Lytton Strachey’s Queen Victoria has been translated in French? No? How annoying. It hit the streets in the form of a Penguin Book, which is now “out of print.” 9

是否有人知道。林顿、史塔奇的「维多利亚皇后」已经被翻译成法文?还没有?这是多么令人懊恼的事情!这本书以企鹅丛书的形态普遍发行。现在已经「绝版」。

Me, when I was returning from England, last Saturday and Sunday, I couldn’t put this book down. This does not mean that I’m going to speak about it today, for to make it into something that would enter into my discourse, I would have to squeeze it, to wring it, to get the juice out of it, and I don’t have time for that. However, it would not be without interest.

我,当我从英国回来,上个周六跟周日,我对这本书爱不释手。这并不以味着,我今天将要谈论它。因为假如要将它弄成我的论述的东西, 我将必须压挤它,从它里面压挤出智慧果汁出来。我并没有时间这样做。可是,那并非没有興趣。

It would have perhaps shown you one more origin of this stupifying phenomenon which is the discovery of the unconscious.

这或许本来会跟你们显示,这个令人惊艳的现象,还有另一个起源。这个现象就是无意识的发现。

The 19th century was dominated to an astonishing degree by the action of a woman, Queen Victoria. No doubt it needed this kind of ravage for there to be what I call an awakening.

十九世受到一个女人的行动的支配,到达令人惊骇的程度。维多利亚皇后。无可置疑,就是需要这种浩劫,才会产生所谓的觉醒。

An awakening is a lightening flash. When that happens to me–not often–it situates itself —this is not to say it is like this for everyone—at the moment when I emerge from sleep.

觉醒就像晴天霹雳一样。 当那样的事发生到我身上—并不是时常—它定位它自己—这并不是说,它对于每个人就像这样—当我从睡觉中清醒过来的时刻。

I then have a brief flash of lucidity. It does not last long, to be sure—I return like everyone else into this dream called reality, into the discourses in which I take part, and among which I strive painfully to clear the way to analytic discourse.

我於是有关短暂的清明觉醒。 它确实没有延续很久—我像每一个其它的人一样,回到所谓的现实界的梦里。进入我参与的论述。在这些论述当中,我痛苦地尝试澄清精神分析论述的途径。

I believe Lytton Strachey’s book will render you sensible, with a particular relief, of the fact that love has nothing to do with the sexual rapport, and this begins with a woman.

我相信林顿、史塔奇的书将会让你们清楚明白,带着一种特别的安慰,对于这个事实:爱跟性的亲密关系没有丝毫关系。这从一个女人开始。

Queen Victoria, now there was a woman; not the woman, who does not exist, but a woman among others, certainly very isolated in the English context by that prodigious selection that must not be confused with the master discourse.

维多利亚皇后,现在有一个女人,不是这个女人,她没有拥有生命实存。 而是一位女人中的女人,在英文的文本里,确实是非常孤立的,由于那个惊人的文选,那一定不要跟主人论述混为一谈。

It is not because there is an aristocracy that there is a master discourse. Besides, this aristocracy does not have much to do with a local selection.

这不仅因为有个贵族制度,所以有一个主人论述。除外,这个贵族制度跟当地的文选没有多大的关系。

The true masters are not the people of the world, the good people, the people of good society, the people who know their social standing, or think they do. What fatality made it so that a certain Albert of Saxe-Coburg fell into the paws of the Queen?

真正的主人并不是这个世界的人们,这些好人,好的社会的人们,知道他们社会立场的人们,或是认为他们知道。 怎样的命运捉弄,使得萨克科伯堡的某位阿伯特,会掉入这位皇后的手掌中?

He did not have any leaning toward women. But when one encounters a vagina dentata, if I can say so, of the exceptional stature of Queen Victoria . .

他并没有朝向女人的倾向。但是当我们遭遇一位,假如我能够这样说,对于维多利亚皇后的特殊人物的「有牙齿的阴户」。

A woman who is queen is truly the best vagina dentate one can come up with, it is even an essential condition—Semiramis must have had a vagina dentata, one sees it quite well when Degas draws her. Elizabeth of England too, and that had consequences for Essex.

一个女人作为皇后,确实是我们能够想出的最佳的「有牙齿的阴户」。它甚至是一个基本的条件—「邪米拉米斯」一定曾经具有一个「有牙齿的阴户」。我们很清楚地看到它,当迭伽斯拥抱她。 英国的伊丽莎白皇后也是,对于阿色克,那会有很多的后果。

Why did the above named Albert—when one refers to the museum that subsists in their memory, one does not refer to Victoria and Albert, but . . . hand Albert— why did the hand Albert not suffer the fate of Essex? But are we sure he didn’t?—because he did perish rather early, from a death called natural, but you will want to look at that more closely. Peace to his soul, in any case. This seems to me a marvelous statement, illustration, of this truth I found without it, the truth of the sexual non-rapport.

以上这位名叫阿伯特为什么—-当我们提到存活在他们记忆中的博物馆,我们并没有提到维多利亚与阿伯特,而是汉得、阿伯特—为什么这位汉得、阿伯特没有遭受到跟阿色克同样的命运?但是我们真的确定他没有吗? 因为他确实很年轻就夭折,由有所谓自然的死亡。但是你们将会想要更仔细地观看那件事。 对于他的灵魂的平静,无论如何。我觉得这是一句很惊人的陈述,说明,对于我发现没有亲密关系的这项真理,性的非亲密关系的真理。

By what mysterious encounter did Freud arise after this spectacular exercise of what women have of power?

但是在女人对于权力如此掌握运作之后,佛洛伊德是凭借怎样的神秘的奇遇興起?

I do not know besides if this is a power. We are very fascinated by categories like power, like knowledge. But these are foolishnesses, foolishnesses that give way completely to women, who don’t care about them, but whose power immeasurably surpasses all of the categories of the man. Can women, should women, attempt some kind of integration into the categories of the man? What I say does not at all go in that direction.

除外,我不知道是否这就是一种权力。我们都被诸如权力,诸如知识的这些范畴著迷。但是这些都是愚行,完全屈服于女人的愚行。她们并不关心他们,但是她们的权力无以伦比地超越男人的所有的范畴。女人能够,女人应该企图从事某种的合并,进人男人的范畴吗? 我所说的,根本不是朝着那个方向。

They know so much more simply by virtue of being a woman. It is not so much that they know how to treat of the unconscious—I’m not too sure of that—but their category in regard to the unconscious is without doubt of greater
strength. They are less bogged down in it. They treat it with a savagery, a striking celerity; I think, for example, of Melanie Klein.

她们懂得更多,仅是凭借她们是女人。 倒不是因为她们知道如何处理无意识—对于那一点,我并不太确定—而是因为她们关于无意识的范畴,无可置疑的,力量比较大。 他们比较不会陷溺在里面。她们用野性的方式对待它, 乾净俐落,譬如,我想到的是梅兰妮、克莱恩。

I leave that to the meditation of each of you. Women psychoanalysts are certainly more at ease with the unconscious. But a woman does not occupy herself with it without it being at her expense; in doing so, she loses something of that luck which, from nothing but being one among women, is in some way without measure.

我将这个问题留给你们每个人去沉思。女人的精神分析师对于无意识,确实更加的自在。但是女人并没有从事于它,而不牺牲自己。当这样做时,她丧失某件幸运的东西。 那种幸运从某个方式来说,是没有限制的,因为她仅是女人中的女人。

If I had to incarnate the idea of freedom– something which I obviously cannot even think of doing—I would obviously choose a woman;
not just any woman, since they are not-alls and the just any (n’importe-laquelle) slips toward the alls (toutes).

假如我们必须将自由的这个观念具体表现—这是某件我显而易见甚至无法做到的事情—我会显而易见地选择一位女人—不仅是任何女人,因为她们「并不是全部」,而是「仅是任何」朝向「全部」滑进。

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

純精神分析與心理治療的區別

October 25, 2011

純精神分析與心理治療的區別
Jacques-Alain Miller
雅克-艾倫、米勒

I. THE PSYCHOANALYSIS/PSYCHOTHEREAPY DISTINCTION
Shouldn’t I lift the burden I’ve placed on your shoulders – and on my own? I have in fact placed on us the weight of an insistent return, that of the difference between pure and applied psychoanalysis – applied, I should add, to therapy.

I.純精神分析/心理治療區別
難道我不應該背起我放到你們和我自己肩上的負擔?我事實上已經把迫切回歸的重量轉移到我們身上了。那就是純精神分析和應用精神分析之間的不同,我要補充的是,心理治療上的應用。
雄伯
純精神分析/心理治療的區別
難道我不應該減輕我放到你們和我自己肩上的負擔嗎?我事實上已經把迫切要求回歸到治療學的重量,放置到我們身上了。那是純精神分析和應用精神分析之間的差異的迫切要求,我要補充的是,那是要求回歸應用到治療學。
Lift—Take off or away by decreasing 減輕
lift the pressure 減輕壓力
to therapy 應該是銜接前面的return to therapy
that of the difference between pure and applied psychoanalysis 的that,指的是前面the weight of an insistent return to therapy
1. A RETURN

ENUNCIATION OF A DIAGNOSTIC
This return of ours was motivated by a state of affairs where the distinction appeared to me as unfinished, not fully considered, located, or posed. At the same time, the rapport between two opposing terms which are classical in psychoanalysis and beyond, even though a bit out of date, has produced an impediment, even some pain, and, we might say, a certain feeling of drift.
1.一種回歸
診斷宣言
我們的回歸是因為一些事件的情況,這便是這種區分對我而言是未完成的,沒有完全考慮清楚的,沒有完全定位的。同時,精神分析中兩個相對立的部分——經典的和超越的之間的聯繫,儘管有些過時,產生了些障礙,甚至是痛苦。我也許還是要說,這是一種一脈相承的連續的感覺。

雄伯
2. 我們從純粹精神分析到應用心理治療的這種回歸,動機是由於事情的狀態所引起。在這種狀態中, 這種區別對於我而言,是尚未完成的。沒有充分被考慮,被定位,或被提出。同時,這兩個相對述語之間的相互關係曾經產生一種阻礙,甚至是某種痛苦,以及某種的不穩定感,我們不妨這麼說。這兩個述語在精神分析,以及精神分析以外的領域,都是經典的,雖然有點過時。
3. Beyond 應該是指beyond psychoanalysis
4. This return of ours 的ours 應該是指our insistent return from pure psychoanalysis to applied therapy
5. , the rapport between two opposing terms 是指,這兩個相對述語之間的相互關係,而不是「經典的和超越的之間的聯繫」。Terms 是指pure psychoanalysis 及applied therapy
6.
7.
I have taken this into account. I have very seriously taken it into account.
However determined I’ve been, however I’ve posed it and supported it with evidence from all our classical works, I can only conceive of this return as the first step of a problem to resolve, as the enunciation of a diagnosis.
8. 我會認真嚴肅地考慮這個。
然而我下了一個決定,我提出它,並且從我們的傳統工作中拿出證據來支持它。我沒想到的這個回歸是作為重新解決問題的第一步,作為一個診斷學的宣言。
雄伯
我曾經考慮過這個;我曾經非常嚴肅地考慮這個。 無論我曾經多麼有決心,無論我用什麼方式提出它,並且用我們所有的經典著作找出的證據支援它,我僅能構想這種回歸,作為解決困難的第一步,作為一種診斷的表述。
Have taken this into account 完成式,表示曾經,經驗,而不是「會」
However 在此是連接詞,不是副詞,翻為「無論如何」或「用某種方法」,不是「然而」
Only 是「僅僅」,而不是「沒有」

I’ve made a worthy attempt to capture it. A worthy attempt, to my mind, not institutionally or through classification – this is not how the problem is posed – but by involving what conforms to the dynamic among psychoanalysts.

我做了一些有用的嘗試來捕捉它,一種對我的思想有意義的嘗試,並不是制度上的,也不是通過分類,這些都不是問題形成的原因。而這個原因涉及到適應精神分析中的動力因素。
雄伯
為了表達這種診斷的表述,我曾經做過一個有價值的嘗試。依照我的看法,這是一種有價值的嘗試,因為我不是從制度,或是從學科分類層面來嘗試—這並不是問題要被解決的方式—-而是這種嘗試牽涉到,跟精神分析師的工作動力相一致的東西。
Capture—Succeed in representing or expressing something intangible 成功地呈現或表達某件抽象的東西
Capture an idea, 表達一個觀念,capture the essence of Spring 表達春天的本質
To my mind—-in my opinion 依照我的意見
Classification 指psychoanalysis 與psychotherapy 的學科分類
How 是「方法」不是「原因」
Psychoanalysts 是精神分析師,不是精神分析

My focus was on psychoanalysis as practice. I expected and worked to find a strategy there which, if not the best, would at least have a chance of coping with the issue for a short while. These are the considerations I bring to you today.
我關注的是作為一種實踐的精神分析。我希望並且努力在這兒找到一種策略。如果不是最好的,至少給予一個機會能在短期內得到一個論點。這些思考就是我今天要帶給你們的。
雄伯
if not the best, 這個策略即使不是最好,
if 不完全都是表條件condition,有時是表讓步concessio。例如,
This is a very good car, if not the best. 這是很好的一部汽車,雖然不是最好的汽車。
I have seldom told lies, if ever. 我很少說過謊言,即使是有的話。
If it rains tomorrow,I will still go。即使明天下雨,我依舊要去。

ANCHORING POINT
I will speak a little later from my perspective against the notion of an anchoring point. We are justified in keeping our distance from the constant fixing that we see in what we call, using Lacan’s metaphorical illustration, the anchoring point, which hearkens back to a very precise signifying mechanism.
錨定點
之後將說一些從我錨定點想法中預想。我們有理由保持一種距離——從我們的稱呼中對我們看到的東西進行持續地修正,用拉康的隱喻舉例,那就是錨定點,能通過回到一個非常精確的指代機制。
雄伯
錨定點
稍後,我將從我的觀點談論我反對錨定點的這個觀念。。我們有理由跟這個固定的這個點,敬而遠之。我們看到這個點,讓我們使用拉康的比喻來說,在我們所謂的錨定點。這個錨定點渴望遵照的是一個非常明確的指代機制。
Against 是意思是「反對」。拉康反對錨定典的觀念,把它當作是病徵。
Hearken back to—to desire to follow or reach , listen to 渴望遵照或獲的,傾聽
拉康反對「遵照的是一個非常明確的指代機制。

Nevertheless, what I stirred up here, what I tried to plot simply and definitively, involves something of an anchoring point; that is to say it gave me a point of view that I haven’t quite captured or centered on, even if I see clearly how it developed. Today I am going to try to communicate to you, in the simplest way, leaving what is perhaps on the order of its construction for later.
但是,我這裡要指出的是,我嘗試著簡要而概括性地提出的,涉及到錨定點的問題。就是說它給了我一種觀點,我沒有完全捉住和注意到它,即使我很清楚地看到它是如何發展的。今天我要同你們用最簡單的方式交流,留下一些可能之後建構它的東西。
雄伯
但是,我這裡要鼓動的是,我嘗試著簡要而概括性地規劃的,涉及到錨定點的某件東西。就是說,它給了我一個我沒有完全理解和專注的觀點,即使我很清楚地看到,它是如何發展的。今天我要同你們用最簡單的方式交流,將或許是它的建構部分,留待以後再來處理。
Stir up—to make something more active, 鼓動
Plot– Devise the sequence of events 規劃
Grasp— Get the meaning of something理解
Focus on– Centre upon 專注
leaving what is perhaps on the order of its construction for later.其中的 what is perhaps on the order of its construction 是名詞子句,充當leaving 的受詞,leaving….for later 留待以後處理

The fact that the distinction between pure and applied psychoanalysis in therapy has not been made leads to some confusion, leads us to practical confusions, to the posing of false problems, and especially to false solutions which, briefly outlined, lead us to a certain number of complications in situating what we do in practice.
純精神分析和精神分析在心裡治療中的應用沒有讓我們迷惑,沒有讓我們產生實踐上的困惑,也沒有讓我們提出錯誤的問題,尤其是錯誤的解決方式。簡要地概括,也沒有讓我在實踐中遇到更複雜的情景。雄伯
在治療學,純精神分析與應用精神分析始終並沒有區分得很清楚。這個事實導致某種的混淆,導致我們在實踐時的混淆,導致虛假問題的提出,特別是導致虛假的解決方法。簡要地概括,這些解決方法,導致我們在定位我們實踐時的作為,產生某些的併發症。
that the distinction between pure and applied psychoanalysis in therapy has not been made 是名詞子句,充當the fact的同位語。
這個句子的主詞是the fact ,動詞是 leads
which, briefly outlined, lead us to a certain number of complications in situating what we do in practice.
是形容詞子句,修飾前面的solutions ,which 指的是solutions
briefly outlined 是過去分詞片語,是when they are briefly outlined. 簡要地概括這些解決方法

Again we must situate the truly important confusion in its place. What is it? It is not so much the confusion between pure psychoanalysis and psychoanalysis applied to therapy. This confusion has a limited range, because even if we acknowledge that they are different, they are still part of psychoanalysis. The confusion which is truly important is distinguishing, in the name of therapy, what is psychoanalysis and what is not.
我們再把真正的困惑置於這種情景下。 它是什麼?純精神分析和精神分析在治療中的應用不是太大的困惑。這個困惑是有範圍限制的,因為我們即便承認他們有區別,他們仍然是精神分析的一部分,真正重要困惑是,在各種治療中區分哪些是精神分析,哪些不是。
雄伯
而且,我們必須將這種取代我們在精神分析實踐時的作為的真正很重要的混淆,尋找出來。那個混淆是什麼? 那個混淆甚至不是純精神分析與應用到治療學的精神分析之間的混淆。這種混淆範圍有限。因為即使我們承認,它們並不相同, 它們仍然是精神分析的一部分。真正重要的混淆是,憑藉治療的名義,要區別精神分析的內涵與非精神分析的內涵。
Again—besides 意思是「除外」,而不是「再」。
In its places 是指 in place of what we do in practice 取代我們在精神分析實踐時的作為
Not so much—not even 甚至不是
例句: He cannot so much write his own name. 他甚至連他自己的名字都不會寫。
THE ESSENTIAL STAKE
If we look closely at the objective, it is not necessary for psychoanalysis, in its dimension or its usage or its therapeutic care, to be lured, kicked around, and even mortified by the kind of non-psychoanalysis glorified with the name of psychotherapy. What we need is for psychoanalysis applied to therapy to remain psychoanalytical and be proud of its psychoanalytical identity. In order to fix these ideas, I will write it thus: pure Y / applied Y // Y therapy
如果我們能近距離地客觀地看待精神分析,那麼再他的維度或者他的實用性或者是他的治療關注上,通過對心理治療的名字非精神分析式地美化而使得精神分析成為一種誘惑,被排斥和受屈辱都是不必要的。我需要的是保留精神分析在心理治療中的位置,並為精神分析認同而自豪。
為了修正這些觀點,我寫下如是的:
純精神分析/應用精神分析//精神分析治療
雄伯
基本的重點
假如我們仔細觀看這個目標,精神分析未必需要被這種非精神分析所引誘,到處排斥,甚至被羞辱。這種非精神分析憑藉精神治療學的名義,受到大力推崇。而精神分析在它的治療照顧中,卻受限於它的維度及它的用途。我們所需要的是,讓被應用到治療學的精神分析始終保持是精神分析,並且以它認同精神分析感到自豪。為了修正這些觀念,我寫下如是的:純精神分析/應用精神分析//精神分析治療
If we look closely at the objective 的objective 在這裡是名詞,意思是「目標」,不是副詞「客觀地」
Closely 的意思是「仔細地」carefully ,而不是「近距離地」

I should note that the difference I have signaled between pure and applied psychoanalysis was made to reverberate upon the difference between the two with regard to psychotherapy.
我應該指出我標示出純精神分析和應用精神分析的差異正是這兩者對待心理治療態度相異的反應。
雄伯
我應該提醒,我標示出純精神分析和應用精神分析的區分。這種區分之所以產生,是為了回應關於精神治療學,這兩者之間的區分。
My formula had the goal of demanding too much of psychoanalysis applied to therapy; that is to say it demanded that it be psychoanalysis, that it not give up being psychoanalysis and, under the pretext of therapy, let itself be drawn into overstepping this limit, this difference.
我的公式的目的是對精神分析在治療中的應用要求。就是說要求它是精神分析,不能放棄成為精神分析,在治療的藉口下,讓它自己超出這個限制,這個區別。
雄伯
我的公式的目的,是要嚴格要求被應用到治療學的精神分析。也就是說,它要求它應該是精神分析;它不應該放棄成為精神分析,並且,不應該在治療的藉口下,讓它自己被吸引跨越這個限制,這個區別。
it demanded that it be psychoanalysis,= it demanded that it (should) be psychoanalysis
It demanded that it not give up being psychoanalysis
= it demanded that it (should) not give up being psychoanalysis
and, under the pretext of therapy, let itself be drawn into overstepping this limit, this difference.
= it demanded that it (should) not give up being psychoanalysis
and, under the pretext of therapy, let itself be drawn into overstepping this limit, this difference.
= and, it demanded that it should not, under the pretext of therapy, let itself be drawn into overstepping this limit, this difference.
以上的demanded 句型,帶有假設法的祈使意涵imperative,附屬子句的should,時常被省略,保留原形動詞。翻譯時,應該將「祈使」意涵翻譯出來。

In the same vein, it seems that the essential stake – the essential stake of the part we play today – is to verify that psychoanalysis applied to therapy remains psychoanalysis, that it is the role of the psychoanalyst to ensure that it is psychoanalysis as such when it is applied.
相同的一點是,似乎這種基本的支撐是我們今天要討論的一部分,是為了證實治療應用的精神分析仍然是精神分析。那便是分析家的角色是為了確保精神分析在應用的時候仍然保持不變。
雄伯
相同的性質是,似乎這種基本的重點—我們今天扮演的重點—是為了確認,治療應用的精神分析仍然是精神分析。分析家的角色是要確保,精神分析在應用的時候仍然保持是精神分析。
Vein– A distinctive style or manner 明顯的風格或方式
Stake—an important part or share in a business重點

I imagine the agreement made on these elementary premises. The task is now to reinstate in the profession the difference between psychoanalysis as such, pure or applied, and psychotherapy.
我想像這些基本的前提是公認的。現在的任務是返回到專業的純精神分析,應用精神分析和心理治療間的不同
雄伯。
我想像,這些基本的前提將會成為一種共識。現在的任務是將精神分析本身,無論它是純精神分析,或應用精神分析,它們和心理治療間的差異,應該被恢復到這個專業裡。
I imagine the agreement made on these elementary premises.
=I imagine the agreement on these elementary premises will be made.
=I imagine that we will make an agreement on these elementary premises.
我想像,這些基本的前提將會成為一種共識。

The task is now to reinstate in the profession the difference between psychoanalysis as such, pure or applied, and psychotherapy.
reinstate 的受詞是the difference between psychoanalysis as such, pure or applied, and psychotherapy.
pure or applied,= whether it is pure psychoanalysis or applied psychoanalysis
無論它是純精神分析,或應用精神分析
例句: Rain or shine, I will go. = Whether it rains or shines, I will go.
無論晴雨,我都要去。
Everyone is welcome, rich or poor, young or old, male or female. , young or old。
人人都受歡迎,無論貧富,男女,老幼

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

Jacques-Alain Miller
雅克-艾倫、米勒

I. THE PSYCHOANALYSIS/PSYCHOTHEREAPY DISTINCTION
Shouldn’t I lift the burden I’ve placed on your shoulders – and on my own? I have in fact placed on us the weight of an insistent return, that of the difference between pure and applied psychoanalysis – applied, I should add, to therapy.

I.純精神分析/心理治療區別
難道我不應該背起我放到你們和我自己肩上的負擔?我事實上已經把迫切回歸的重量轉移到我們身上了。那就是純精神分析和應用精神分析之間的不同,我要補充的是,心理治療上的應用。
雄伯
純精神分析/心理治療的區別
難道我不應該減輕我放到你們和我自己肩上的負擔嗎?我事實上已經把迫切要求回歸到治療學的重量,放置到我們身上了。那是純精神分析和應用精神分析之間的差異的迫切要求,我要補充的是,那是要求回歸應用到治療學。
Lift—Take off or away by decreasing 減輕
lift the pressure 減輕壓力
to therapy 應該是銜接前面的return to therapy
that of the difference between pure and applied psychoanalysis 的that,指的是前面the weight of an insistent return to therapy
9. A RETURN

ENUNCIATION OF A DIAGNOSTIC
This return of ours was motivated by a state of affairs where the distinction appeared to me as unfinished, not fully considered, located, or posed. At the same time, the rapport between two opposing terms which are classical in psychoanalysis and beyond, even though a bit out of date, has produced an impediment, even some pain, and, we might say, a certain feeling of drift.
1.一種回歸
診斷宣言
我們的回歸是因為一些事件的情況,這便是這種區分對我而言是未完成的,沒有完全考慮清楚的,沒有完全定位的。同時,精神分析中兩個相對立的部分——經典的和超越的之間的聯繫,儘管有些過時,產生了些障礙,甚至是痛苦。我也許還是要說,這是一種一脈相承的連續的感覺。

雄伯
10. 我們從純粹精神分析到應用心理治療的這種回歸,動機是由於事情的狀態所引起。在這種狀態中, 這種區別對於我而言,是尚未完成的。沒有充分被考慮,被定位,或被提出。同時,這兩個相對述語之間的相互關係曾經產生一種阻礙,甚至是某種痛苦,以及某種的不穩定感,我們不妨這麼說。這兩個述語在精神分析,以及精神分析以外的領域,都是經典的,雖然有點過時。
11. Beyond 應該是指beyond psychoanalysis
12. This return of ours 的ours 應該是指our insistent return from pure psychoanalysis to applied therapy
13. , the rapport between two opposing terms 是指,這兩個相對述語之間的相互關係,而不是「經典的和超越的之間的聯繫」。Terms 是指pure psychoanalysis 及applied therapy
14.
15.
I have taken this into account. I have very seriously taken it into account.
However determined I’ve been, however I’ve posed it and supported it with evidence from all our classical works, I can only conceive of this return as the first step of a problem to resolve, as the enunciation of a diagnosis.
16. 我會認真嚴肅地考慮這個。
然而我下了一個決定,我提出它,並且從我們的傳統工作中拿出證據來支持它。我沒想到的這個回歸是作為重新解決問題的第一步,作為一個診斷學的宣言。
雄伯
我曾經考慮過這個;我曾經非常嚴肅地考慮這個。 無論我曾經多麼有決心,無論我用什麼方式提出它,並且用我們所有的經典著作找出的證據支援它,我僅能構想這種回歸,作為解決困難的第一步,作為一種診斷的表述。
Have taken this into account 完成式,表示曾經,經驗,而不是「會」
However 在此是連接詞,不是副詞,翻為「無論如何」或「用某種方法」,不是「然而」
Only 是「僅僅」,而不是「沒有」

I’ve made a worthy attempt to capture it. A worthy attempt, to my mind, not institutionally or through classification – this is not how the problem is posed – but by involving what conforms to the dynamic among psychoanalysts.

我做了一些有用的嘗試來捕捉它,一種對我的思想有意義的嘗試,並不是制度上的,也不是通過分類,這些都不是問題形成的原因。而這個原因涉及到適應精神分析中的動力因素。
雄伯
為了表達這種診斷的表述,我曾經做過一個有價值的嘗試。依照我的看法,這是一種有價值的嘗試,因為我不是從制度,或是從學科分類層面來嘗試—這並不是問題要被解決的方式—-而是這種嘗試牽涉到,跟精神分析師的工作動力相一致的東西。
Capture—Succeed in representing or expressing something intangible 成功地呈現或表達某件抽象的東西
Capture an idea, 表達一個觀念,capture the essence of Spring 表達春天的本質
To my mind—-in my opinion 依照我的意見
Classification 指psychoanalysis 與psychotherapy 的學科分類
How 是「方法」不是「原因」
Psychoanalysts 是精神分析師,不是精神分析

My focus was on psychoanalysis as practice. I expected and worked to find a strategy there which, if not the best, would at least have a chance of coping with the issue for a short while. These are the considerations I bring to you today.
我關注的是作為一種實踐的精神分析。我希望並且努力在這兒找到一種策略。如果不是最好的,至少給予一個機會能在短期內得到一個論點。這些思考就是我今天要帶給你們的。
雄伯
if not the best, 這個策略即使不是最好,
if 不完全都是表條件condition,有時是表讓步concessio。例如,
This is a very good car, if not the best. 這是很好的一部汽車,雖然不是最好的汽車。
I have seldom told lies, if ever. 我很少說過謊言,即使是有的話。
If it rains tomorrow,I will still go。即使明天下雨,我依舊要去。

ANCHORING POINT
I will speak a little later from my perspective against the notion of an anchoring point. We are justified in keeping our distance from the constant fixing that we see in what we call, using Lacan’s metaphorical illustration, the anchoring point, which hearkens back to a very precise signifying mechanism.
錨定點
之後將說一些從我錨定點想法中預想。我們有理由保持一種距離——從我們的稱呼中對我們看到的東西進行持續地修正,用拉康的隱喻舉例,那就是錨定點,能通過回到一個非常精確的指代機制。
雄伯
錨定點
稍後,我將從我的觀點談論我反對錨定點的這個觀念。。我們有理由跟這個固定的這個點,敬而遠之。我們看到這個點,讓我們使用拉康的比喻來說,在我們所謂的錨定點。這個錨定點渴望遵照的是一個非常明確的指代機制。
Against 是意思是「反對」。拉康反對錨定典的觀念,把它當作是病徵。
Hearken back to—to desire to follow or reach , listen to 渴望遵照或獲的,傾聽
拉康反對「遵照的是一個非常明確的指代機制。

Nevertheless, what I stirred up here, what I tried to plot simply and definitively, involves something of an anchoring point; that is to say it gave me a point of view that I haven’t quite captured or centered on, even if I see clearly how it developed. Today I am going to try to communicate to you, in the simplest way, leaving what is perhaps on the order of its construction for later.
但是,我這裡要指出的是,我嘗試著簡要而概括性地提出的,涉及到錨定點的問題。就是說它給了我一種觀點,我沒有完全捉住和注意到它,即使我很清楚地看到它是如何發展的。今天我要同你們用最簡單的方式交流,留下一些可能之後建構它的東西。
雄伯
但是,我這裡要鼓動的是,我嘗試著簡要而概括性地規劃的,涉及到錨定點的某件東西。就是說,它給了我一個我沒有完全理解和專注的觀點,即使我很清楚地看到,它是如何發展的。今天我要同你們用最簡單的方式交流,將或許是它的建構部分,留待以後再來處理。
Stir up—to make something more active, 鼓動
Plot– Devise the sequence of events 規劃
Grasp— Get the meaning of something理解
Focus on– Centre upon 專注
leaving what is perhaps on the order of its construction for later.其中的 what is perhaps on the order of its construction 是名詞子句,充當leaving 的受詞,leaving….for later 留待以後處理

The fact that the distinction between pure and applied psychoanalysis in therapy has not been made leads to some confusion, leads us to practical confusions, to the posing of false problems, and especially to false solutions which, briefly outlined, lead us to a certain number of complications in situating what we do in practice.
純精神分析和精神分析在心裡治療中的應用沒有讓我們迷惑,沒有讓我們產生實踐上的困惑,也沒有讓我們提出錯誤的問題,尤其是錯誤的解決方式。簡要地概括,也沒有讓我在實踐中遇到更複雜的情景。雄伯
在治療學,純精神分析與應用精神分析始終並沒有區分得很清楚。這個事實導致某種的混淆,導致我們在實踐時的混淆,導致虛假問題的提出,特別是導致虛假的解決方法。簡要地概括,這些解決方法,導致我們在定位我們實踐時的作為,產生某些的併發症。
that the distinction between pure and applied psychoanalysis in therapy has not been made 是名詞子句,充當the fact的同位語。
這個句子的主詞是the fact ,動詞是 leads
which, briefly outlined, lead us to a certain number of complications in situating what we do in practice.
是形容詞子句,修飾前面的solutions ,which 指的是solutions
briefly outlined 是過去分詞片語,是when they are briefly outlined. 簡要地概括這些解決方法

Again we must situate the truly important confusion in its place. What is it? It is not so much the confusion between pure psychoanalysis and psychoanalysis applied to therapy. This confusion has a limited range, because even if we acknowledge that they are different, they are still part of psychoanalysis. The confusion which is truly important is distinguishing, in the name of therapy, what is psychoanalysis and what is not.
我們再把真正的困惑置於這種情景下。 它是什麼?純精神分析和精神分析在治療中的應用不是太大的困惑。這個困惑是有範圍限制的,因為我們即便承認他們有區別,他們仍然是精神分析的一部分,真正重要困惑是,在各種治療中區分哪些是精神分析,哪些不是。
雄伯
而且,我們必須將這種取代我們在精神分析實踐時的作為的真正很重要的混淆,尋找出來。那個混淆是什麼? 那個混淆甚至不是純精神分析與應用到治療學的精神分析之間的混淆。這種混淆範圍有限。因為即使我們承認,它們並不相同, 它們仍然是精神分析的一部分。真正重要的混淆是,憑藉治療的名義,要區別精神分析的內涵與非精神分析的內涵。
Again—besides 意思是「除外」,而不是「再」。
In its places 是指 in place of what we do in practice 取代我們在精神分析實踐時的作為
Not so much—not even 甚至不是
例句: He cannot so much write his own name. 他甚至連他自己的名字都不會寫。
THE ESSENTIAL STAKE
If we look closely at the objective, it is not necessary for psychoanalysis, in its dimension or its usage or its therapeutic care, to be lured, kicked around, and even mortified by the kind of non-psychoanalysis glorified with the name of psychotherapy. What we need is for psychoanalysis applied to therapy to remain psychoanalytical and be proud of its psychoanalytical identity. In order to fix these ideas, I will write it thus: pure Y / applied Y // Y therapy
如果我們能近距離地客觀地看待精神分析,那麼再他的維度或者他的實用性或者是他的治療關注上,通過對心理治療的名字非精神分析式地美化而使得精神分析成為一種誘惑,被排斥和受屈辱都是不必要的。我需要的是保留精神分析在心理治療中的位置,並為精神分析認同而自豪。
為了修正這些觀點,我寫下如是的:
純精神分析/應用精神分析//精神分析治療
雄伯
基本的重點
假如我們仔細觀看這個目標,精神分析未必需要被這種非精神分析所引誘,到處排斥,甚至被羞辱。這種非精神分析憑藉精神治療學的名義,受到大力推崇。而精神分析在它的治療照顧中,卻受限於它的維度及它的用途。我們所需要的是,讓被應用到治療學的精神分析始終保持是精神分析,並且以它認同精神分析感到自豪。為了修正這些觀念,我寫下如是的:純精神分析/應用精神分析//精神分析治療
If we look closely at the objective 的objective 在這裡是名詞,意思是「目標」,不是副詞「客觀地」
Closely 的意思是「仔細地」carefully ,而不是「近距離地」

I should note that the difference I have signaled between pure and applied psychoanalysis was made to reverberate upon the difference between the two with regard to psychotherapy.
我應該指出我標示出純精神分析和應用精神分析的差異正是這兩者對待心理治療態度相異的反應。
雄伯
我應該提醒,我標示出純精神分析和應用精神分析的區分。這種區分之所以產生,是為了回應關於精神治療學,這兩者之間的區分。
My formula had the goal of demanding too much of psychoanalysis applied to therapy; that is to say it demanded that it be psychoanalysis, that it not give up being psychoanalysis and, under the pretext of therapy, let itself be drawn into overstepping this limit, this difference.
我的公式的目的是對精神分析在治療中的應用要求。就是說要求它是精神分析,不能放棄成為精神分析,在治療的藉口下,讓它自己超出這個限制,這個區別。
雄伯
我的公式的目的,是要嚴格要求被應用到治療學的精神分析。也就是說,它要求它應該是精神分析;它不應該放棄成為精神分析,並且,不應該在治療的藉口下,讓它自己被吸引跨越這個限制,這個區別。
it demanded that it be psychoanalysis,= it demanded that it (should) be psychoanalysis
It demanded that it not give up being psychoanalysis
= it demanded that it (should) not give up being psychoanalysis
and, under the pretext of therapy, let itself be drawn into overstepping this limit, this difference.
= it demanded that it (should) not give up being psychoanalysis
and, under the pretext of therapy, let itself be drawn into overstepping this limit, this difference.
= and, it demanded that it should not, under the pretext of therapy, let itself be drawn into overstepping this limit, this difference.
以上的demanded 句型,帶有假設法的祈使意涵imperative,附屬子句的should,時常被省略,保留原形動詞。翻譯時,應該將「祈使」意涵翻譯出來。

In the same vein, it seems that the essential stake – the essential stake of the part we play today – is to verify that psychoanalysis applied to therapy remains psychoanalysis, that it is the role of the psychoanalyst to ensure that it is psychoanalysis as such when it is applied.
相同的一點是,似乎這種基本的支撐是我們今天要討論的一部分,是為了證實治療應用的精神分析仍然是精神分析。那便是分析家的角色是為了確保精神分析在應用的時候仍然保持不變。
雄伯
相同的性質是,似乎這種基本的重點—我們今天扮演的重點—是為了確認,治療應用的精神分析仍然是精神分析。分析家的角色是要確保,精神分析在應用的時候仍然保持是精神分析。
Vein– A distinctive style or manner 明顯的風格或方式
Stake—an important part or share in a business重點

I imagine the agreement made on these elementary premises. The task is now to reinstate in the profession the difference between psychoanalysis as such, pure or applied, and psychotherapy.
我想像這些基本的前提是公認的。現在的任務是返回到專業的純精神分析,應用精神分析和心理治療間的不同
雄伯。
我想像,這些基本的前提將會成為一種共識。現在的任務是將精神分析本身,無論它是純精神分析,或應用精神分析,它們和心理治療間的差異,應該被恢復到這個專業裡。
I imagine the agreement made on these elementary premises.
=I imagine the agreement on these elementary premises will be made.
=I imagine that we will make an agreement on these elementary premises.
我想像,這些基本的前提將會成為一種共識。

The task is now to reinstate in the profession the difference between psychoanalysis as such, pure or applied, and psychotherapy.
reinstate 的受詞是the difference between psychoanalysis as such, pure or applied, and psychotherapy.
pure or applied,= whether it is pure psychoanalysis or applied psychoanalysis
無論它是純精神分析,或應用精神分析
例句: Rain or shine, I will go. = Whether it rains or shines, I will go.
無論晴雨,我都要去。
Everyone is welcome, rich or poor, young or old, male or female. , young or old。
人人都受歡迎,無論貧富,男女,老幼

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

拉康:RSI 13

October 25, 2011

拉康:RSI 13
真实界,象征界,与想象界

Seminar of January 21, 19754

The points of suspension of the symptom are in fact, if I may say so, interrogative points –in the non-rapport. This is what justifies the definition I give you, that what constitutes the symptom, this something that smooches with the unconscious, is that one believes in it.

病征的悬置点事实上,容我这样说,就是质疑点—在这个「非亲密关系」。这就是我给予你们的定义为什么能自圆其说。形成病征的原因,这个拥抱无意识的某件东西,就是我们信仰它。

There is so little sexual rapport that I recommend that you read a very beautiful novel, Ondine. You will see that a woman in the life of a man is something in which he believes.

性的密切关系是如此少,以致我推荐,你们应该阅读一本非常美丽的小说,「奥汀女神」。你们将会看出,在一个男人生命中的一个女人,是某件他信仰的东西。

He believes that there is one, sometimes two or three, which is indeed the interesting thing—he cannot believe in only one; he believes in a type, in the genre of sylphs or ondines.

他相信,有一个「一」,有时是二或三。这确实是有趣的事情—他无法相信唯一的「一」。他信仰一种类型,信仰这种「女精」或「奥汀女神」的艺术/

雄伯借用网络注:
一天,Ondine遇上了一位令她心儀的男人Lawrence。Lawrence自然也對美麗的Ondine著迷,兩人於是墜入了愛河。Lawrence對Ondine女神說:「我醒著的每一個呼吸,都代表著我對妳永無止境的愛 」。
後來,Ondine和Lawrence產下了愛的結晶。可是,Ondine其實是不能生小孩的,因為她是女神。她如果生了小孩,就會失去其長生不老,永遠美麗的神力。
於是Ondine逐漸變老,Lawrence看到Ondine不再美麗,也就漸漸失去了對她的愛意,甚至發生外遇。一天,Ondine行經馬廄,聽到Lawrence的鼾聲,靠近一看,卻看到Lawrence躺在一位陌生女子的懷裡睡覺。Ondine氣憤難平,萬念具灰之餘,決心報復。
她對Lawrence說: 「既然你說你醒的每一個呼吸都代表對我的愛,我姑且接受你的誓言。不過,你最好一直醒著,因為你一旦睡著,你就不能呼吸,就死定了。」
這就是有名的Ondine’s curse(奧汀的詛咒)。

What is it to believe in sylphs or ondines? I remind you that one says “to believe in” (croire á), and that the French language even adds this reinforcement: croire y, believe there (lá).

信仰「女精」或「奥汀女神」意味着什么?我提醒你们,我们说「信仰」,法文语言甚至增加这种强调:信仰在那里。

Y croire? What does this mean? If not to believe in beings inasmuch as they can say something. I ask you to find an exception to this definition. Were it a matter of beings that could not say anything, that could not enounce what could be distinguished as truth and lie, believing in them would mean nothing.

「信仰在那里」? 这是什么意思?难道不就是信仰生命实存,因为它们能够说出某件东西。我要求你们替这个定义找一个例外。 假如它是一件生命实存的事情, 却不能说出任何东西, 不能够表达能够被区别为真理与谎言的东西, 那么信用它们并没有任何意义。

This is to say the fragility of this croire y, to which the fact of the non-rapport is manifestly reduced, which is not to be doubted, seeing how it is confirmed
everywhere. Whoever presents us with a symptom believes in it (y croit).

这等于是说这个「信仰在那里」的脆弱。「非亲密关系」的这个事实明显地被化减,这是不应该被怀疑的,因为我们看到它到处都被证实。 任何呈现给我们具有病征的人,都信仰它。

If he asks our aid, our help, it is because he believes that the symptom is capable of saying something, and that it only has to be deciphered. It is even the same with a woman, except that it happens that one believes that she effectively says something.

假如他要求我们的帮助,我们的帮忙,那是因为他相信:病征能够说出某件东西, 它就是必须被解释。对于女人而言,道理甚至是一样。 除了,我们凑巧相信:她有效地说出某件东西。

There is what pushes in the cork: in believing in her, one believes her. One believes what she says. This is what is called love.

在这个关键有个推动力量:当我们信仰她时,我们相信她。我们相信她所说的话。这是所谓的爱。

And this is how, on occasion, I have qualified the feeling (sentiment) of the comic–it is the well-known comic, the comic of psychosis. That’s why one says currently that love is a madness.

这就是有时候,我给予喜剧的感觉的特质的方式。这就是著名的喜剧,精神疾病的喜剧。那就是为什么我们目前说: 爱是一种疯狂。

However, the difference is manifest between believing in it, in the symptom, and believing it. This is what makes the difference between neurosis and psychosis. In psychosis, the subject not only believes in the voices, but he believes them. It is all there, in this limit.

可是,在「信仰它」,在这个病征,与这个「相信它」之间的这个差异,是显而易见的。这就是为什么神经症与精神疾病造成差异的地方。 在精神疾病, 主体不但信仰这些声音,而且他相信它们。 声音都在那里,在这个极限。

Believing her, a woman, is, thank God, a widespread state–this gives us some company; one is not all alone, and in that love is precious. It is rarely realized, as everyone knows, and only lasts for a time. For of what is it a question in love, if not to fracture this wall where one can only raise a knot (bosse) on one’s forehead, since there is no sexual rapport?

相信她,一个女人,感谢上帝,这是一个普遍的状态—这给予我们某些的陪伴。我们并不完全孤单,因为爱是珍贵的。众所周知,爱很少被实现,爱仅是延续某段时间。 爱情是什么的问题,难道不就是拆解掉这道墙壁?既然没有性的亲密关系,在墙壁那里,我们仅能除掉我们额头上的一个结。

xxx
Love is no doubt classified in a certain number of forms that Stendhal has laid out for us quite well: love-esteem, which is not at all compatible with love-passion, nor with love-taste—but the major love is that which is founded on this: one believes her.

无可置疑地,爱情被分类为某些形式,史坦达尔曾经这些形式跟我们展现得很清楚。 「爱就是尊敬」,这个「爱就是激情」根本就格格不入。 跟「爱就是欣赏品味」也无法相容—但是主要的爱是被创建在这个基础: 我们相信她。

One believes her because one has never found proofs that she is not absolutely authentic.

我们相信她,因为我们从来没有找到证据:她并不是绝对的真诚。

But one is blinded there. This “believe her” would serve as the cork to the “believe in her”—a thing that can be very seriously put in question. Believing that there is One, God know where that will lead you–it will lead you as far as to believe there is a The, a fallacious belief.

但是我们在此是盲目的。这个「相信她」将会充当「信仰她」这个的阻塞—这件事情会受到严重的质疑。相信有个「一」时,天晓得这会引导你到哪里?它会引导你们甚至相信,有一个「这个人」,这是一个错误的信仰。

No one says the sylph or the ondine. There is an ondine, there is a sylph, there is a spirit, there are some spirits for certain, but all that only ever makes a plural.

没有人说「女精」或「奥汀女神」。是有一位「奥汀女神」,是有一位「女精」,有一位精灵,确实有某些的精灵,但是这一切仅是为了让「一」成为复数。

From then on it is a matter of knowing if the fact that for believing in her, there is no better means than believing her, is wholly a necessity.

从那时开始,问题是要知道, 为了要「信仰她」,最好的办法就是「相信她」,这个事实完全是必需要。

I have introduced today, in relation to the story of some points of suspension, that a woman is a symptom. That adheres so well to practice that, as no one has said it up to now, I have believed it my duty to do so.

我今天曾经介绍,相关于某些悬置点的故事,女人是一个病征。这跟精神分析实践密不可分,这个事实, 迄今尚且没有人说过,我相信我责无旁贷要将它说出来。

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

拉康:RSI 12

October 24, 2011

拉康:RSI 12
真实界,象征界,与想象界

Seminar of January 21, 19754

Not long ago, someone I listened to in my practice–and nothing that I say to you comes from anywhere else, which is what creates the difficulty–someone articulated something to me, comparing the symptom to points of suspension [ellipsis].

不久以前,在我的分析实践时,我倾听某个人—我跟你们所说的,全部都是来自那里。 这就是为什么引起困难所在—某个跟我表达某件东西,将病征比喻著悬挂点。(省略)

The important thing here is the reference to writing to situate the repetition of the symptom, as it presents itself in my practice.

在此重要的事情是,参照书写,为了定位病征的重复,因为它呈现它自己,在我的分析实践里。

That the term emerged from elsewhere, from the symptom as Marx defined it in the social, takes away nothing of the well-foundedness of its use, if I may say so, in the private.

这个术语从别的地方出现,从这个病征,如马克思定义它在社会的生活,将在私人生活里,使用它的牢靠基础,原封不动搬过来,容我这样说。

That the symptom in the social is defined by folly (la déraison) does not prevent it from ,for each of us, being signaled by all sorts of rationalizations. Every rationalization is a particular rational fact; which is to say, it does not come from an exception, but from no matter whom.

在社会生活的病征被定义为愚蠢的行为,并没有阻止它,对于我们每一个人而言,不被各种的理性化认可。 每个理性化是一个特别的理性的事实。也就是说,它并不是来自例外,而是来自不管是谁都会这样做。

No matter who must be able to be an exception for the function of the exception to become a model, but the reverse is not true–it is not that no matter who can drag in the exception for it, based on this fact, to constitute a model.

无论是谁必须能够成为一个例外,为了让例外的功用成为一个典范。但是相反的并不是真实—并不是因为,无论是谁替它扯进这个例外,它都基于这个事实,为了形成一个典范。

That is what usually happens (l’ état ordinaire)– no matter who attains to the function of exception that the father has, one knows with what result: in most cases, that of his verwerfung by the filiation he engenders, with the psychotic result I denounce.

那是通常所发生的事情—无论是谁获得父亲拥有的例外的这个功用,我们知道结果会是什么: 在大部分的情况, 他产生的孝顺对于他的「拒绝」,具有我抨击的精神疾病的结果。

xxviii
A father only has a right to respect, if not to love, if this love, this respect, is–you are not going to believe your ears–père-versely oriented; which is to say, makes of a woman an object a that causes his desire.

父亲仅享有尊敬的权利,甚至是爱的权利。假如这个爱,这个尊敬是—你们会觉得匪夷所思—是以父亲为取向。 也就是说,将女人解释为引起他的欲望的小客体。

But what a woman a-ccomodates (a-cueille) of it thus has nothing to do with the question. She is occupied with other objects a, her children, for whom the father nonetheless intervenes–exceptionally, in the best case–to maintain repression, in the happy mi-deum,8 the version proper to him of his père-version.

但是一个女人对于它的接受,因此跟这个问题丝毫没有关系。 她专注于其它的小客体, 她的小孩。对于他们,父亲仍然会介入—即使最好的情况,也会有例外—为了维持他的压抑。在他的「父权」本体的这个媒介。

Père-version, the only guarantee of his function as father, which is the function of a symptom, as I have written it.

「父权」,他作为父亲的唯一保证,这是一种病征的功用,如我所书写它。

It suffices that he be a model of the function. That’s what the father must be, inasmuch as he can only be an exception.

这样说就足够了: 他应该是这个功用的典范。 那就是为什么父亲必须是一个例外,因为他只能够是一个例外。

He can only be a model of the function in realizing the type. It little matters if has symptoms if adds to them that of the paternal père-version, which is to say that its cause is a woman, whom he has acquired to make children for him, and that, whether he wants to or not, he takes paternal care of these children.

他只能够是一个典范,在实现这种例外。是否他有病征,假如父权的病征之外,多填加这些病征,并无关紧要。 也就是说, 它的原因是一个女人。他曾经获得这个女人为他生小孩。无论他要不要有小孩,他会充当父亲照顾这些小孩。

Normality is not the paternal virtue par excellence, but only the happy mi-deum, just said; that is, the right not-said (non-dit). Naturally, on the condition that it is not too obvious, this not said; which is to say that one does not see right away what is in question in what he does not say –which is rare.

正常并不是作为父亲的最高品德。但是只有这个快乐的媒介刚刚说。也就是, 这适当地「没有说」。当然, 根据这个条件: 这个「没有说」并不是太明。也就是说, 我们并没有立刻看出什么受到质疑,对于他没有说出的东西—这是很罕见的。

It is rare that it succeeds, this happy mi-deum. This will renew the subject, when I have time to take it up with you again. But I have already said it in passing in an article on Schreber– there is nothing worse than a father who proffers the law on everything (sur tout)–No father educator above all (surtout), but rather in the background (en retrait sur) of all the schoolmasters.

它成功是很罕见的,这个快乐的媒介。这将会使主体更新。我有时间再一次跟你们探讨这一点。但是我已经说过它,偶尔在一篇讨论苏瑞伯的文章—作为父亲,提供一切事情的法则,是最糟糕不过的事情。 尤其是,不要作为父亲的教育家。相反地,而是在所有作为校长的背景里。

I have been led to speak to you of a woman, since I have told you that the woman does not exist.

我曾经被引导跟你们谈论一个女人,因为我曾经告诉你们,那个女人并不存在。

The woman is perfectly delineable, since she is all the women, as one says. But if the women are not all? Let us say that the woman is all the women, but then, this is also an empty set. Is not the value of set theory that it puts a little seriousness in the usage of the term “all”?

那个女人完全可以描绘出轮廓。因为她是代表所有的女人,如我们所说。但是那个女人难道不是全部的女人吗? 容我们这样说: 那个女人就是所有的女人。但是,这样说,也是一种空洞的集合。集合理论在使用「全体」这个术语时,不是要稍微慎重些?

The question of a woman is only posed from the Other; which is to say, from that for which there is a definable set, definable by what I have inscribed on the board, , the phallus.

一个女人的问题仅是从大它者被提出。换句话说, 从那个能够被描绘为集合开始,根据我铭记在黑板上的这个「阳具」的符号Φ。

The phallus; this is not the phallic jouissance. Is it therefore the jouissance without the organ or the organ without the jouissance? It is in this form that I interrogate you to give sense– alas!–to this figure. And I will jump ahead–for whoever is encumbered by the phallus, what is a woman?

阳具,这并不是阳具的欢爽。因此,这难道不是这种没有器官的欢爽,或是没有欢爽的器官? 就在这种形式里,我质问你们要给予意义—啊—给这个人物。我将向前跃进—对于任何被这个阳具妨碍的人,女人是什么?

She is a symptom. 女人是病征。

She is a symptom, and this is seen from the structure that I am in the process of explaining to you–to wit, that there is no jouissance of the Other as such, that there is no guarantee, encounterable in the jouissance of the body of the Other, which might make enjoying (jouir de) the Other exist.

她是病征。从我正在跟你们解释的这个结构来看, 可以看出这一点。更确实地说, 没有大它者的欢爽本身,没有保证,在大它者的身体的欢爽可反对。 这个保证可能使享受大它者存在。

A manifest example of the hole, of what is only supported by the object a–but always by a misdeal, by confusion.

一个显见的空洞的例子,关于是什么仅是受到小客体的支持—但是总是被一个错误的处理,被混乱所支持。

A woman, in fact, is no more than a man an object a–she has her own, I have just said, with which she is occupied, and they have nothing to do with that by which she is supported in whatever desire. To make her a symptom, this A-woman, is to say that the phallic jouissance is also her affair, contrary to what one hears.

事实上,一个女人仅是一个小客体的男人—她拥有她自己的小客体,我刚刚说过,她专注于她自己的小客体。这些小客体跟她受到任何欲望支持的东西,没有任何关系。让她成为一种病征,这个「一个女人」,等于是说,阳具的欢爽也是她的事情,这跟我们一般听到的相反。

The woman has to undergo neither more nor less castration than the man. In regard to what is at issue in her function as symptom, she is altogether at same point as her man. Still, we must articulate what corresponds for her to this ex-sistence of a real that is the phallus of just now, over which I have left your tongues hanging. It has nothing to do with the little gadget of which Freud speaks.

女人跟男人一样,必须经历道道地地的阉割。 关于受到争议的东西, 她的功用作为病征,她跟男人一样完全处于相同点。 可是,我们必须表达,对于女人,对应于真实界的这个「先前的生命实存」,这个真实界就是刚才的阳具, 我让你们目瞪口呆。 它跟佛洛伊德谈论到的小玩意,没有任何关系。

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

拉康:RSI 11

October 24, 2011

拉康:RSI 11
真实界,象征界,与想象界

Seminar of January 21, 19754

The One of sense is being, the being specified by the unconscious inasmuch as it ex-sists, as it ex-sists to the body at least; for if there is something striking, it is that it ex-sists in discord.

具有洞察力的这个「一」,生命实存。这个生命实存由无意识指明,因为它「先前就存在」,至少它先前存在于身体之前。 这是某件耐人寻味的东西, 它在不和谐中先前存在。

There is nothing in the unconscious that makes an accord with the body. The unconscious is discordant. The unconscious is what, by speaking, determines the subject as being, a being to be struck through with this metonymy with which I support desire as for all impossible ever to say as such.

在无意识里,没有东西跟这个身体和谐。无意识是不和谐体。无意识是靠着言说,决定主体为生命实存。 这一种生命实存会被这种换喻消除掉。我使用这种换喻来支持欲望,作为对于大家是不可能照实言说的东些

If I say that an a is what causes desire, this means that it is not its object. It is not its complement, direct or indirect, but only this cause that–to play on the word as I did in my first Rome Discourse–this cause that chatters on (cause toujours).

假如我说,一个「小客体」就是引起欲望的东西。这意味着,它并不是它的客体。 它并不是它的互补,无论是直接或间接,而仅是这个原因—玩弄文字,如同我在罗马论述里,玩弄文字—这个喋喋不休的原因。

The subject is caused by an object, which is only notable from a writing, by which a step is made in the theory.

主体被客体所引起。这仅是从一种书写可注意到。凭借这种书写,在理论上,我们跨一大步。

What is irreducible in that it is not an effect of language. The effect of language is the patheme, the passion of the body. But from language inasmuch as it has no effect is inscribable this radical abstraction which is the object that I write with the figure of writing a, and of which nothing is thinkable–except that all that is a subject, a thought subject, which one imagines to be a being, is determined by it.

在里所无法被化减的东西是, 它并不是一种语言的效果。 语言的影响就是「身体的激情」。但是它发自语言,因为它根本没有影响, 这个激进的抽取无法被铭记。这个抽取就是我用小写字母「a」的形状书写的小客体。 关于它,没有一样是可思议的。 除了,主体的一切,一个会思想的主体,我们想象是一种生命实存,它受到它所决定。

The One of sense has little to do with this–it is only an effect of the One of a signifier, which in fact only operates in being able to be employed to designate no matter what signified.

具有洞察力的这个「一」,跟这个「一」没有多大关系–这仅是一个能指的这个「一」的影响。事实上, 它仅是运作在能够被使用来指明, 无论它是什么的能指。

What will we say of the imaginary and the real here mingled in the One of the signifier?

对于这个想象界与真实界在此融合在能指的这个「一」里,我们能够说什么呢?

What are we to say of their quality, whether of what Charles Sanders Pierce calls firstness, or of what distinguishes them as different? How are we to distinguish (répartir) on this occasion something like life or death?

我们应该怎么说它们的特质,无论是关于蔡尔斯,皮尔斯所谓的「最初的实存」,或是区别它们作为不同的东西?在这个场合,我们如何区别某件像是生与死的东西?

Who knows where to situate them? –since the One of a signifier chatters (cause) on both the one and the other slopes? Thus one would be wrong to believe that it is the imaginary that is the mortal, and the real the living.

有谁知道,要将它们定位在哪里?因为一个能指点这个「一」喋喋不休,在这个斜坡与另外一个斜坡。因此,我们将是错误,假如我们相信,想象界是有限生命,真实界是在身体的存活。

Only the ordinary usage of the signifier can be called arbitrary. But where does this arbitrary come from, if not from a structured discourse?

这个能指仅有在普通的用法上,才能够被称为是随心所欲。但是这个随心所欲从何而来,难道不是因为从一个结构性的论述?

Am I here evoking the title of a revue, which appeared at Vincennes under my auspices, ORNICAR?7 Is this not an example of what the signifier determines? Here, the fact of being ungrammatical would only figure a category of grammar, but this is how it demonstrates configuration as such; which, from the Iacarian perspective, only decorates.

我在此难道不是在召唤滑稽剧的标题?这个标题出现在我主办的比西尼斯精神分析研讨会。这难道不是能指决定内容的一个例子 ? 在此,没有文法定这个事实,仅是描述文法的一种范畴,但是这是他如何介绍结构的本身,从拉康学派的观点, 这仅是一种装饰。

Language is only a decoration. There is only rhetoric, as Descartes underscores in his tenth rule. Dialectic is only supposable from usage in respect to an ordinary pathematically ordered, which is to say, to a
discourse, which does not associate the phoneme, even understood in the broad sense, but the subject determined by being, which is to say desire.

语言仅是一种装饰。仅有修饰存在。如笛卡尔在他的第十条原则强调。辩证仅是从用法中被假定,关于一个普通的身体的激情的秩序。换句话说, 关于一种论述。这种论述并没有连接到音素,甚至从广义来理解。而是连接到被生命实存决定的主体。也就是跟欲望连接。

What is the affect of ex-sisting? /. . ./. What, of the unconscious, makes ex-sistence?

「先前生命实存」的情意是什么意思? 关于无意识,是什么形成这个「先前的生命实存」?

This is what I underscore with the support of the symptom. I say the function of the symptom, a function to be understood as the f in a mathematical
formulation, f (x). And what is the x? It is what, of the unconscious, can be translated by a letter, inasmuch as it is only in the letter that the identity of self to self is isolated from any quality.

这就是我使用病征的支持所强调的。 我是说病征的这个「功用」。这个功用应该被了解,作为数学的演算公式,f(x) 里的f。那这个未知数「x」是什么?关于无意识,我们可以有一个字母翻译。因为仅有在字母里,自我跟自我的认同,跟任何特质孤立出来。

From the unconscious any One, inasmuch as it sus-tains the signifier by which the unconscious consists, is susceptible of being written with a letter. No doubt there must be a convention.

从无意识,任何的「一」,因为它维持这个能指的基础。无意识就在这个能指里被找到。这个任何的「一」会受到用字母书写的生命实存的影响。无可置疑的是,一定有个传统存在。

But the strange thing is that the symptom operates even this wildly. What does not cease to write itself in the symptom arises from there.

但是奇怪的是, 甚至对于这个传统,病征狂乱地运作。不停地在病征里书写它自己的东西,就起源于那里。

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

拉康:RSI 10

October 24, 2011

拉康:RSI 10
真实界,象征界,与想象界

Seminar of January 21, 19754
…………………………………………………………………………..
The question evoked at this time of my statement (énoncé) is the following, which responds to the notion of consistency inasmuch as this supposes the notion of a demonstration: what can be supposed a demonstration in the real?

在我陈述的这个时候被召唤的问题如下,它对应一致性的观念,因为这假定一个证明的观念: 什么能被假定是这个真实界的证明?

Nothing supposes it other than the consistency of which the cord is here the support. The cord is the foundation of accord. And, to make a leap, I will say that the cord thus becomes the symptom of that by which the symbolic consists.

没有一样东西假定它,除了就是一致性。绳线在此时这个一致性的支持。这个绳线就是一致性的基础。 而且,更进一步说, 我将会说,这个绳线因此成为这个病征,象征界赖以被发现的病征。

A formula that does not go badly with what language testifies to–to wear down to the thread5 (montrer la corde), by which the wearing of the weave is designated. When the cord is shown, it is because the weave no longer is camouflaged in what one calls the fabric. Fabric (Etoffe) is of a permanent metaphoric usage–it is what, for a nothing, would give the image of a
substance. The formula to show the cord tells us that there is no fabric that is not a weave.

对于语言所证实的东西, 有一个公式勉强可以凑合—那就是渐渐缩减成为绳线。根据这些绳线,编织者的编织被指明。 当绳线被显示, 那是因为编织者不再被伪装在所谓的「组织」里。「组织」属于永久的比喻用法—它是平白无目的地给予一种物质的意象的东西。将「绳线显示出来」这个公式,告诉我们,没有一个组织不是编织。

I had prepared for you on a piece of paper a weave made wholly of Borromean knots with which one could cover the surface of the blackboard. It is easy to aperceive that one ends up with a hexagonal weave. Do not believe that that the sectioning of any one network of this weave will free anything whatsoever of what it is knotted to.

我曾经用一张纸,跟你们准备一种全部由波罗米恩结形成的编织。 用这张纸,我们能够盖住黑板的表面。 很容易统觉到,我们结果会有一个六角形的编织。你们不要相信,这种编织袋任何网络的区分,会使任何东西,免除它被连接的东西。

If only one is cut, the six rounds in between, freed by this cut, will be held by the six-times-three–eighteen–other rounds to which
they are knotted in a Borromean fashion.

假如有一角被切割,其间的六个圆圈,由于被这个切割解放,将会被「六乘三等于十八」的其它圆圈掌握,它们以波罗米恩结的方式,跟其它圆圈连结。

If I have, just now, brought forth prematurely–it’s the law of language: something must be brought forth before it can be commented on–the term symptom, it is because the symbolic is indeed what, for consistency, gives the simplest metaphor.

刚才,假如我曾经过早地产生—这是语言的法则: 某件东西必须先被产生,它才能够被评论—「病征」这个术语。那是因为象征界确实是给予最简单的比喻的东西,为了一致性。

Not that the circular figure is not first a figure, which is to say, imaginable, since it is there itself that one has founded the notion of good form. This notion is indeed proper to make us enter into the real what there is of the imaginary.

并不是因为圆形的形状起初并不是一种形状。也就是说,它是被想象出来。因为在那里的本身, 我们创建了美好形式的观念。这个观念确实适合让我们将想象界拥有的东西,融入真实界。

And I would say more–there is a kinship between good form and sense. The order of sense is naturally configured from what the form of the circle designates the consistency supposed to the symbolic. It is in accord with this image, in way that is in some manner primary.

容我再多说一下—美好形式跟辨别力息息相关。 辨别力的秩序的被设定,是由于圆圈指明是被假定为象征界的一致性。 这是要跟这个意象相一致,用某种原初的观念。

One had to await psychoanalysis to aperceive that it is tied to the order of the body in which the imaginary is suspended.

我们必须等待精神分析,为了统觉它跟身体的秩序的关系。在那里,想象界被悬置。

Who doubts–it is even on this thin thread that all that one calls philosophy has lived to this day–who doubts that there is another order than that in which the body is supposed to move?

谁会怀疑—甚至根据这条薄薄的绳线,一切我们所谓的哲学,曾经存活到现在—有谁知道,除了身体被假定运作的秩序外,还有另外一个秩序?

But, for all that, this order of the body does not explain much. Why does the eye see spherically, when it is incontestably perceived as a sphere, while the ear hears a sphere just as much, although it presents itself in the form of a snail’s shell (limaçon)?

但是,尽管那样,身体的秩序并没有解释多少。 为什么眼睛无可争议地是被感觉为圆心,它就以圆形方式观看?而耳朵同样听到圆形,虽然它呈现它自己的方式,确实是以蜗牛的贝壳的形式?

That these two forms so manifestly diffeomorphic, if I can express myself thusly, perceive spherically–is this fact clarified by taking things from the angle of my object a?

这两个形式显而易见是异形同种,假如我能够因此表达我自己,用圆形的感觉—假如我用我的小客体的角度来看待事情,这个事实会被澄清吗?

One can say that the petit a has several forms; except it does not have them, forms, but is in a dominant fashion thinkable orally or shittily. The common factor of the a is its being tied to the orifices of the body. What therefore is the incidence of the fact that eye and ear are orifices on the fact that perception is for both spheroidal?

我们能够说,「小客体」拥有好几种形式,除了它没有它们,没有形式。但是以显著的方式,它们被口耳相传。 共同的因素是,这个「小客体」跟身体的洞口息息相关。 眼睛跟耳朵都是一些洞口,根据的事实是,对于这两者的感觉都是圆形, 这个巧合的事实因此说明什么?

Without the petit a, something is missing from any possible theory of reference, from any appearance of harmony. And why? Because the subject is only ever supposed. Its condition is of only being supposable.

假如没有这个小客体,某件东西将会从可能的指称理论漏示,从任何和谐的外表。 为什么? 因为主体仅是被假定。 它的情况是仅是属于被假定。

If it knows (connait) something, it is only from being itself a subject caused by an object that is not what it knows–what it imagines itself to know. The object that causes it is not the other of knowledge (connaissance). The object strikes it through, this other.

假如它知道某件东西,那仅是由于它本身是由客体引起的一个主体。这个客体并不是它所知道的—它想象它自己是知道的东西。 引起它的这个客体,并不是知识的它者。客体会除掉它,这个它者。

The other is thus the Other, which I write with the big O (le grand A).

这个它者,因此就算大它者。我用这个大写字母O,书写这个大它者。

The Other is thus a matrix with a double entry. The petit a constitutes one of these entries. And the other? What are we going to say of it? Is it the One of the signifier?

大它者因此是一个基础,具有双重的入口。这个小客体组成这些入口的其中之一。还有另外一个入口呢?我们将如何描述它? 它就是这个能指的这个「一」吗?

This is at least thinkable, since it is what permitted me one day to couple the One with my petit a. On this occasion, I had utilized the golden number to introduce what I was led to by experience: that between this One and the petit a, there is no rationally determinable rapport.

这至少是可思议的? 因为它容许我们有一天将这个「一」跟我的「小客体」结合在一块。在这个场合, 我曾经利用这个黄金数字来介绍,精神分析经验引导我获得的东西:在这个「一」跟「小客体」之间,并没有合理决定的密切关系。

Never is there any graspable proportion between the One and the a; in other words, there is no reason that the overlapping (recouvrement)6 of the one by the other might end.

在这个「一」与「小客体」之间,并没有任何可理解的均称。换句话说, 没有理由,这个「一」被另外一个「一」重叠时,会造成结果。

The difference will be as little as one might figure it, there will even be a limit there, but at the interior of this limit, there will never be any conjunction, any copulation whatsoever of the One with the a. Is this to say that the One of sense has something to do with the matrix that strikes the Other through with its double entry? No, for the One of sense is not to be confused with what
makes the one of the signifier.

这个差异就我们想象的是非常小。那里甚至有一个限制, 但是在这个限制的内部,永远不会有这个「一」与这个「小客体」的任何连接,任何交媾。换句话说, 具洞察力的这个「一」,跟用它的入口,除掉大它者的基础,有某种关系吗?没有。 因为具有洞察力的这个「一」,不应该跟能指的这个「一」混淆在一块。

雄伯译

拉康:RSI 10
真实界,象征界,与想象界

Seminar of January 21, 19754
…………………………………………………………………………..
The question evoked at this time of my statement (énoncé) is the following, which responds to the notion of consistency inasmuch as this supposes the notion of a demonstration: what can be supposed a demonstration in the real?

在我陈述的这个时候被召唤的问题如下,它对应一致性的观念,因为这假定一个证明的观念: 什么能被假定是这个真实界的证明?

Nothing supposes it other than the consistency of which the cord is here the support. The cord is the foundation of accord. And, to make a leap, I will say that the cord thus becomes the symptom of that by which the symbolic consists.

没有一样东西假定它,除了就是一致性。绳线在此时这个一致性的支持。这个绳线就是一致性的基础。 而且,更进一步说, 我将会说,这个绳线因此成为这个病征,象征界赖以被发现的病征。

A formula that does not go badly with what language testifies to–to wear down to the thread5 (montrer la corde), by which the wearing of the weave is designated. When the cord is shown, it is because the weave no longer is camouflaged in what one calls the fabric. Fabric (Etoffe) is of a permanent metaphoric usage–it is what, for a nothing, would give the image of a
substance. The formula to show the cord tells us that there is no fabric that is not a weave.

对于语言所证实的东西, 有一个公式勉强可以凑合—那就是渐渐缩减成为绳线。根据这些绳线,编织者的编织被指明。 当绳线被显示, 那是因为编织者不再被伪装在所谓的「组织」里。「组织」属于永久的比喻用法—它是平白无目的地给予一种物质的意象的东西。将「绳线显示出来」这个公式,告诉我们,没有一个组织不是编织。

I had prepared for you on a piece of paper a weave made wholly of Borromean knots with which one could cover the surface of the blackboard. It is easy to aperceive that one ends up with a hexagonal weave. Do not believe that that the sectioning of any one network of this weave will free anything whatsoever of what it is knotted to.

我曾经用一张纸,跟你们准备一种全部由波罗米恩结形成的编织。 用这张纸,我们能够盖住黑板的表面。 很容易统觉到,我们结果会有一个六角形的编织。你们不要相信,这种编织袋任何网络的区分,会使任何东西,免除它被连接的东西。

If only one is cut, the six rounds in between, freed by this cut, will be held by the six-times-three–eighteen–other rounds to which
they are knotted in a Borromean fashion.

假如有一角被切割,其间的六个圆圈,由于被这个切割解放,将会被「六乘三等于十八」的其它圆圈掌握,它们以波罗米恩结的方式,跟其它圆圈连结。

If I have, just now, brought forth prematurely–it’s the law of language: something must be brought forth before it can be commented on–the term symptom, it is because the symbolic is indeed what, for consistency, gives the simplest metaphor.

刚才,假如我曾经过早地产生—这是语言的法则: 某件东西必须先被产生,它才能够被评论—「病征」这个术语。那是因为象征界确实是给予最简单的比喻的东西,为了一致性。

Not that the circular figure is not first a figure, which is to say, imaginable, since it is there itself that one has founded the notion of good form. This notion is indeed proper to make us enter into the real what there is of the imaginary.

并不是因为圆形的形状起初并不是一种形状。也就是说,它是被想象出来。因为在那里的本身, 我们创建了美好形式的观念。这个观念确实适合让我们将想象界拥有的东西,融入真实界。

And I would say more–there is a kinship between good form and sense. The order of sense is naturally configured from what the form of the circle designates the consistency supposed to the symbolic. It is in accord with this image, in way that is in some manner primary.

容我再多说一下—美好形式跟辨别力息息相关。 辨别力的秩序的被设定,是由于圆圈指明是被假定为象征界的一致性。 这是要跟这个意象相一致,用某种原初的观念。

One had to await psychoanalysis to aperceive that it is tied to the order of the body in which the imaginary is suspended.

我们必须等待精神分析,为了统觉它跟身体的秩序的关系。在那里,想象界被悬置。

Who doubts–it is even on this thin thread that all that one calls philosophy has lived to this day–who doubts that there is another order than that in which the body is supposed to move?

谁会怀疑—甚至根据这条薄薄的绳线,一切我们所谓的哲学,曾经存活到现在—有谁知道,除了身体被假定运作的秩序外,还有另外一个秩序?

But, for all that, this order of the body does not explain much. Why does the eye see spherically, when it is incontestably perceived as a sphere, while the ear hears a sphere just as much, although it presents itself in the form of a snail’s shell (limaçon)?

但是,尽管那样,身体的秩序并没有解释多少。 为什么眼睛无可争议地是被感觉为圆心,它就以圆形方式观看?而耳朵同样听到圆形,虽然它呈现它自己的方式,确实是以蜗牛的贝壳的形式?

That these two forms so manifestly diffeomorphic, if I can express myself thusly, perceive spherically–is this fact clarified by taking things from the angle of my object a?

这两个形式显而易见是异形同种,假如我能够因此表达我自己,用圆形的感觉—假如我用我的小客体的角度来看待事情,这个事实会被澄清吗?

One can say that the petit a has several forms; except it does not have them, forms, but is in a dominant fashion thinkable orally or shittily. The common factor of the a is its being tied to the orifices of the body. What therefore is the incidence of the fact that eye and ear are orifices on the fact that perception is for both spheroidal?

我们能够说,「小客体」拥有好几种形式,除了它没有它们,没有形式。但是以显著的方式,它们被口耳相传。 共同的因素是,这个「小客体」跟身体的洞口息息相关。 眼睛跟耳朵都是一些洞口,根据的事实是,对于这两者的感觉都是圆形, 这个巧合的事实因此说明什么?

Without the petit a, something is missing from any possible theory of reference, from any appearance of harmony. And why? Because the subject is only ever supposed. Its condition is of only being supposable.

假如没有这个小客体,某件东西将会从可能的指称理论漏示,从任何和谐的外表。 为什么? 因为主体仅是被假定。 它的情况是仅是属于被假定。

If it knows (connait) something, it is only from being itself a subject caused by an object that is not what it knows–what it imagines itself to know. The object that causes it is not the other of knowledge (connaissance). The object strikes it through, this other.

假如它知道某件东西,那仅是由于它本身是由客体引起的一个主体。这个客体并不是它所知道的—它想象它自己是知道的东西。 引起它的这个客体,并不是知识的它者。客体会除掉它,这个它者。

The other is thus the Other, which I write with the big O (le grand A).

这个它者,因此就算大它者。我用这个大写字母O,书写这个大它者。

The Other is thus a matrix with a double entry. The petit a constitutes one of these entries. And the other? What are we going to say of it? Is it the One of the signifier?

大它者因此是一个基础,具有双重的入口。这个小客体组成这些入口的其中之一。还有另外一个入口呢?我们将如何描述它? 它就是这个能指的这个「一」吗?

This is at least thinkable, since it is what permitted me one day to couple the One with my petit a. On this occasion, I had utilized the golden number to introduce what I was led to by experience: that between this One and the petit a, there is no rationally determinable rapport.

这至少是可思议的? 因为它容许我们有一天将这个「一」跟我的「小客体」结合在一块。在这个场合, 我曾经利用这个黄金数字来介绍,精神分析经验引导我获得的东西:在这个「一」跟「小客体」之间,并没有合理决定的密切关系。

Never is there any graspable proportion between the One and the a; in other words, there is no reason that the overlapping (recouvrement)6 of the one by the other might end.

在这个「一」与「小客体」之间,并没有任何可理解的均称。换句话说, 没有理由,这个「一」被另外一个「一」重叠时,会造成结果。

The difference will be as little as one might figure it, there will even be a limit there, but at the interior of this limit, there will never be any conjunction, any copulation whatsoever of the One with the a. Is this to say that the One of sense has something to do with the matrix that strikes the Other through with its double entry? No, for the One of sense is not to be confused with what
makes the one of the signifier.

这个差异就我们想象的是非常小。那里甚至有一个限制, 但是在这个限制的内部,永远不会有这个「一」与这个「小客体」的任何连接,任何交媾。换句话说, 具洞察力的这个「一」,跟用它的入口,除掉大它者的基础,有某种关系吗?没有。 因为具有洞察力的这个「一」,不应该跟能指的这个「一」混淆在一块。

雄伯译

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

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

分析家的理论与实践

October 23, 2011

• 2011-10-23 21:11:54 弗洛伊德的头像 (无言便是逍遥,嗯~)
多谢LS,受教了。关于分析实践的问题。在我自己的分析经验中,似乎已经完全把分析“虚化”了,原来最初做分析的动机好像也不存在了。现在好像只是为了作分析而作分析,好像是为了弄明白拉康以及拉康派的分析家们他们脑子里到底想了些什么,他们到底是如何看待这个世界,如何听他们的分析者的?今天的分析还差点就忘了……LS可否从理论上谈谈
雄伯
谈拉康的理论,最不能忽略的就是一个「大它者」。「大它者到底欲望我什么?」What does the Other want of me? 用实践的用词来说,就是作为分析家,或諮商师,那是你挣钱谋生的小客体?还是你实践悲天悯人,救人济世的理想的大它者?当你面对个案对象时,你是把他或她当著是对方付费,交换你的时间跟专业知识的的客体?还是你能发自无限之爱limitless love,将个案视为让你产生同理心empahty的生命主体?也是实践你生命意义的理想? 你对于精神分析的理论与技术,是充当职业实践之用就感满足的工具?还是作为探究人生真理的的永恒鹄的?

拉康:RSI 09

October 23, 2011

拉康:RSI 09
真实界,象征界,与想象界

Seminar of January 14, 1975

I add that it is striking that there is a technique–analysis–that one can reduce
it to what it apparently is, to wit, chatter, which forces my hand, forces me to weigh the question of space as such.

我补充说,引人注意的事,有一个精神分析的技巧。我们能够将它还原成为它明显的样子。明确地说,就是不停地说。它强迫我的手,强迫我衡量空间的这个问题本身。

In treating of space in the same fashion as is imposed by the fact of the technique, does not science encounter a paradox? We might have the suspicion–does not matter create a problem at every instant? A problem, as defense against advancing, is something to crush before coming to see what it defends.

当我们以相同的方式处理这个空间,由技术的事实赋加大方式,科学难道不会遭遇到矛盾? 我们本来会有这样的怀疑—物质难道不会随时引起问题? 作为反对前进的防卫,问题是某件崩塌的东西,在逐渐明白它所防卫的东西之前。

Perhaps science has not yet accounted for treating matter as if it had an unconscious if it knew something of what it does.

或许,科学还没有说明为什么对待物质,好像它具有无意识,假如他知道某件它所做的事情。

This truth had a little moment of awakening in the time of Newton. They objected to him–But finally? This space, this gravitation! What are you telling
us? How can each of these particles know how far it is from all of the others? In a word, they evoked the unconscious of the particle.

在牛顿的时间,这个真理具有觉醒的瞬间时刻。 他们反对他—但是最后怎样? 这个空间,这个地心引力! 你在告诉我们什么? 这些分子的每一个如何能够知道, 它距离其余的分子有多远? 总之, 他们召唤分子的无意识。

This truth became extinct very rapidly–they renounced understanding anything in those little formulas, and this is all very well; all of their value is there.

这个真理很快就变得绝迹—在那些小公式里,他们抛弃对于任何事情的了解。 这是行得通道,他们所有的价值都在那里。

Besides, it is in the measure that one returns to them that one has arrived at more complicated formulas, knotting a few more dimensions into the business.

除外,随着我们回到他们,我们已经获得更加复杂的公式,将更多的维度连接成为这个事情。

Analysis, this technique that I have in common with a certain number of the persons who are here, what place does it occupy in regard to what science does?

精神分析的这个技术,我跟在此的某些人们有共通的地方。关于科学的作为,它佔有怎样的位置?

Science counts. It counts the matter, in the matter. But if there were no language that, already, bore the number, what sense would counting have there? Is it that the unconscious has an accountant in it? I’m not saying something that one might count, I am speaking of the accountant, this character whom you know, who scribbles figures, and I ask–is it that there is an accountant in the unconscious? It is completely obvious that–yes.

科学会计算。科学计算物质,在物质上。 但是假如没有负载数目的语言,计算在那里会有什么意义? 难道无意识在里面有位会计师吗?我并不是说我们可能会计算某件东西, 我是谈论到会计师,你们知道的这个人物,他书写下数目字。容我询问—难道是在无意识有位会计师吗?显而易见的,是有。

Every unconscious is an accountant. And an accountant who knows how to do addition. Multiplication, it hasn’t yet gotten to that, and this is what gives it some difficulty. But could I say that it knows how to count the blows? It is extremely maladroit–but it must count in the manner of these knots. It is from there that proceeds this famous sentiment of culpability, which makes counts and does not find itself there again, does not find itself again there ever.

每一个无意识是一位会计师。 一位会计师知道如何做加法与乘法。它还没有到达那个程度,这就是为什么它会遭遇困难。 但是我能够说,无意识知道如何计算遭受的打击吗? 它是极端的笨拙—但是它必须以这些环结的方式计算。这个著名的罪恶感,就是从那里前进。 它会计算而又找不到本身在那里。 它永远再找不它本身在那里。

It loses itself in its counts. But it is there that it is touched upon that there is at minimum a knot.

它在计算中丧失它自己。 但是就在那里, 至少有一个环结被碰触到。

This knot, nature has a horror of it. It is another song than that of the void–nature has a horror of the knot, and especially a Borromean knot.
This is why I take this thing (machin) up for you again, and I advise you to practice manipulating it.

这个环结,自然对它感到害怕。这是除了空无之外的另一首歌。自然恐惧这个环结,特别是一个波罗米恩结。这就是为什么我再一次跟你们探讨这件事情。 我劝告你们练习操控它。

This thing is nothing less than the Urverdrängt, the original, primordial repression. Manipulating this little knot will give you nothing of the repressed, since this repressed is the hole–you will never have it. But en route you will familiarize yourselves—at least your hands–with this which you cannot in any fashion understand.

这件事情道道地地就是「最初的原始潜抑」。操控这个小小的环结,将不会给予你们任何被潜抑的东西。因为这个被压抑的,就是这个空洞—你们将永远不会拥有它。 但是在途中,你们自己将对于这个最初的原初潜抑,会驾轻就熟—至少你们的手。 对于它,你们无法用任何方式理解。

It is in fact completely excluded that you know this knot. This is the reason why, history shows it, geometry has gone through everything, cogitating cubes, pyramids, diverse forms of porcupines, inventing rigor, which means nothing other than solids, while it had within hand’s reach something that was worth as much as the stones, and without which one could not measure the fields– cords.

你们知道这个环结的这个事实,完全被排除。这就是为什么历史显示它, 几何学曾经经历一切,仔细考虑立方体积,金字塔形状, 多样形式的豪猪形状,虚构精确的计算。这意味着,道道地地就是固体。另一方面,几何学在它的范围所及, 具有某件跟石头一样有价值的东西。 假如没有这个东西,我们无法测量场域,绳线。

No one seems to have given these cords the least attention before the modern
époque. ( . . . .).

在现代这个时代之前,似乎没有人曾经给予这些绳线丝毫的注意,

It is getting late. I lead you back to this figure that I have already presented to you (figure 3).

时间渐渐晚了。我引导你们回到我曾经呈现给你们的这个图形。( 图形三)。

I write sense in this joint here of the imaginary and the symbolic. There are two points there, which do not proceed with the same movement relative to the two rounds, but are confused when their wedging is produced.

在想象界与象征界在此的结合,我写下「意义」。在这里有两个点,相对于这两个环圈,这两个点并没有以相同的动作齐头并进。而是当它们的嵌入被产生时, 它们被混淆。

There, I write phallic jouissance. Why? Because there is something called ex-sistence.

在那里,我书写「阳具的欢爽」。为什么? 因为有某件东西被称为「先前的生命实存」。

Existence has a history. This is not a word that one employs so willingly, at least in the philosophical tradition. How did the people of the first centuries speak? We no doubt have some aperceptions concerning the vulgar Latin language such as it was spoken on a considerable surface–the core-language out of which came, by differentation, the romance languages.

生命实存有一段历史。这并不是我们愿意使用的一个字。 至少在哲学的传统。 最初几世纪的人们如何言谈呢? 我们无可置疑地拥有某种的统觉,关于粗俗的拉丁语言,因为它在相当的层面上被说,作为核心语言。 罗曼语系就是从那里衍生出来,虽然有些差异。

But we have no evidence that one employed either existo or existere. This term emerged in the philisophico-religious field. Curious!

但是我们并没有证据,我们使用的是 existo 还是 existere。 这个术语在哲学及宗教的领域出现。真是耐人寻味!

Thus religion had to inhale (hume)–the religious inhaling (humante)– philosophy for a word to come out which seems however to have had, it is the case to say, many reasons for being.

因此宗教必须吸收—宗教吸收哲学,为了产生一个单词。可是,这个单词似乎曾经拥有许多理由存在,从情况来说。

This naïve production, so to say, of the language, had to be untangled. Aristotle is the first to situate existence by the universal, that is, beginning with the dictum of omni and nullo –what is said of all can also be applied to whichever.

所以说,这个语言的天真产品必须被整理一下。亚力斯多德是第一位根据一般性定位生命实存。换句话说, 他从这个原理开始: 适用于整体的话语,也能够适用于任何一个。

Whence the notion that universality mplies existence. What followed consisted in demonstrating to Aristotle, which took a long time, that this was not at all the case.

普偏性意味着生命实存,这个观念从何而来?随后发展的东西在于跟亚力斯多德证明,虽然花费很多时间,情况根本就不是如此。

Of course–we don’t everyday make a clean sweep of the idea that universality does not imply existence. But what is grave is to believe that existence implies universality, that, with existence, we chatter about something participating in the general.

It is there that my little knot intervenes.

当然,我们并不是每一天都在清理这个观念: 普偏性并没有暗涵生命实存。但是严重的是要相信,生命实存意味着普偏性。由于这个生命实存,我们闲聊到参与一般性。

This Borromean knot is destined to show you that existence is of its nature ex-sistence, that which is ex. It is what turns around the consistent and makes an interval. But in this interval, that has twenty-six ways of being knotted. I say twenty-six ways in the measure that we have no familiarity with these knots, neither manual, nor mental–which is the same thing.

波罗米恩结被注定要跟你们显示,生命实存属于它自己「先前实存」的特质。 这种实存是「先前」。这就是倒转这个一致性,形成一种中场时间。 这个中场时间,拥有二十六个方法被连结。我说二十六个方法,因为我们对这些环结,根本就不熟悉。既不是手工,也不是精神。 这是同样的事情。

A lot of people have had the suspicion that man is no more than a hand. If he only were a hand! But there is his whole body. He thinks with his feet also–at least he ought to.

许多人们曾经怀疑: 人仅是一隻手。但愿他仅是一隻手!但是还有他整个的身体。 他也用他的脚在思考—至少他应该用脚思考。

I now pose the question: what is it that resists the proof of ex-sistence, to be taken as what is wedged in the knot? We must here follow the path of Freud.

我现在提出这个问题: 是什么抗拒「先前生命实存」的证据,被认为是环结嵌入的东西?我们在此必须遵照佛洛伊德的途径。

Freud did not have of the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real the notion that I have– which is the minimum; for call them what you like, provided that there are three consistencies, you will have the knot.

佛洛伊德并没有像我拥有想象界,象征界,及真实界的观念—这是最少量的东西。 因为无论你们怎么称会它们, 只要三个具有一致性,你将拥有这个环结。

However, if he did not have the idea of R.S.I., he nonetheless had a suspicion. And what he did does not go without relating itself to ex-sistence, and departing, to approach the knot.

可是,假如他并没有真实界,象征界,与想象界的观念, 他仍然拥有这个怀疑。 他的作为,并没有免除不将自己与「先前生命实存」牵涉关系,然后出发去接近这个环结。

Besides, the fact is that I could have extracted my three from his discourse,
with time and patience. I began with the imaginary, I had to chew on the history of the symbolic, with this linguistic reference for which I have not found all that would have arranged things for me, and I have finished by bringing out this famous real in the form itself of the knot.

除外, 事实上, 我本来能够从他的论述那里,花点时间跟耐心, 抽取我的三个环圈。我从想象界开始。我必须用这个语言的指称,再三考量象征界的历史。对于这个指称,我还没有找到所有本来可以替我按排事情的人。我以环结的形式本身,显现这个著名的真实界,作为结束。

Freud, therefore, contrary to a prodigious number of persons, from Plato to Tolstoy, was not a Lacanian. But nothing prevents me from supposing my three, R.S.I., to him–a banana skin slipped under his foot–to see how he untangles himself from it. For Freud, the three do not hold, they are only posed the one over the other.

因此,佛洛伊德,跟从柏拉图到托尔斯泰以降的无数人物相反。他并非是一位拉康主义的人。但是没有一样东西阻止我不假定,跟他提出我的三个环圈:真实界,象征界,与想象界。我面临一个困难的情境。 我要明白他如何替他自己挣脱它。 对于佛洛伊德而言, 这三个环圈并没结合在一起,它们仅是一个又一个地被提出。

Also, what did he do? He added a round (fig. 4), knotting with a fourth the three consistencies set adrift (. . . .). He calls this fourth consistency psychic reality.
What is psychic reality for Freud? It is the Oedipus complex.

他做了什么事? 他增加一个圆圈,用一个第四环圈替这三个飘浮的环圈的一致性结合(…)。他称这第四个环圈的一致性为「心理的现实界」。对于佛洛伊德,什么是心理的现实界? 那就是伊底普斯情结。

The Oedipus complex is not for all that to be rejected. It is implicit in the knot as I figure it, and it ties the three, but at a minimum. To dispense with a fourth, to obtain the Borromean knot, it suffices to make, at two points, pass above what was below. In other words, the real must surmount the symbolic.

无论如何,伊底普斯情结不应该被拒绝。 在这个情结暗示的是,如我描绘它, 它将这三个环结绑住,但是以最小量的程度。为了免除不用第四个, 为了获得波罗米恩结,在底下的东西,由两点从上面通过,这样就足够了。 换句话说,真实界必须克服象征界。

The surmounting of the symbolic by the real at two points is quite precisely what analysis is about.

象征界被真实界在两点的地方克服,这确实是精神分析所以处理的事情。

Be careful not to take this term surmount in the imaginary sense, believing that the real has to dominate here. Besides, it suffices that you turn this thing around to see that, in the contrary direction (sens), this does not work. Turned around, the knot still has the same appearance–you do not have its mirror image; it is still levogyre.

请小心,不要将「克服」这个术语,用想象界。因为你相信,真实界必须在此统治。除外, 你只要将事情倒转过来,就足够让你看出, 在相反的方向, 这个并行不通。 当这个环结被倒转时, 它依旧拥有相同的外表—你们并没有它的镜子影象。它依旧是向左旋转。

It is not a matter, between the symbolic and the real, of a changing of the order of the layout (plan)–it is simply a matter of their being knotted otherwise. For being knotted otherwise is what is essential to the Oedipus complex, and it is how analysis operates.

于象征界与真实界之间,想象界并不是佈局秩序改变的物质。它仅是三个环圈被结合的另类的物质。 以另类方式被结合就是伊底普斯情结最重要的东西。 这就是精神分析运作的方式。

It is in entering the niceties (finesse) of these fields of ex-sistence that we will proceed this year. (. . . .).

就在进入「先前生命实存」的这些领域的微妙之处,今年我们将继续前进。

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

禪子:成都精神分析

October 23, 2011

禪子
成都精神分析,或者說拉康精神分析演變成一種哲學了,變成了思辨的學問了,或許更容易造成強迫性的思維?!

精神分析不是學文,也不是學術,儘管他還是需要學習。但是,真正的精神分析不是用大腦思維的,而是用心理來感知的,並且進一步的通過無限的互動來呈現的,也在互動中人於是存在了、治療了……

或者這樣說也不厚道,精神分析存在兩種方式:一種是學院性的精神分析,另一種是操作性的精神分析。真正的精神分析不可言說,而一言說便可能誤以為是理論性的、邏輯性的學問了,實際上操作過程與言說的精神分析是不一樣的……

雄伯:
我對你的觀點有三種理解。一種是理論與實踐的疏離問題。另一種是理論者與實踐者疏離的問題。猶如研究佛學的學者,不同于正在修行或信仰虔誠的佛教徒。還有一種更棘手的問題是,以無意識為主體的真理,能否通過語言來理解及溝通,甚至能否實踐,實踐之後,如何回歸想像界及象徵界?

「真正的精神分析不可言說,而一言說便可能誤以為是理論性的、邏輯性的學問了。」這句話確實有它本質上相當程度的真實性,不過,拉康晚年的研討班,如「聖征」sinthome,「再來一次」Encore,「精神分析的另一面」The Other Side of Psychoanalysis,「可能不是類似的論述」One Discourse that Might not be a Semblance. 以及將波羅米恩結變出十幾種形狀的「真實界,象徵界與想像界」R.S.I。雖然他仍然強調作為真實界的無意識的不可言說性質,猶如禪宗的「言行道斷」,那最後一切歸零的結局必然類似佛教的「斷滅空」,也會形成自己一生孜孜不倦的研討班幻滅成空,而成為一種反諷。

他晚年的研討班,重點逐漸從真實界的不可言說,轉向強調通過「想像界」的建構,回到「象徵界」,作嘗試的努力,將「言說」的「不可能」,化減為「困難」,甚至成為「可能」。他後來建立自己的精神分析協會,並成立督導的「通過制度」the pass,雖然遭受有些弟子反對,最後解散。他將精神分析的論述psychoanalysis discourse,從主人論述master discourse,歇斯底里論述hysteric discourse,甚至從大學論述 university discourse, 抽離出來,自成一個真理論述,並且希望那是「可能不是類似(真理)的論述」,而是道道地地就是真理的論述。也就是他希望能化解精神分析理論與實踐之間的疏離與矛盾。

猶如大乘佛教力斥小乘的「往上迴向」會導致自了漢的斷滅空。華嚴經再三強調「我悉勸請莫入涅槃」,而要以大悲心,迴向人間,能於煩惱大苦海中拔濟眾生,令其出離,皆得往生。

拉康在「精神分析的四個基本觀念」的結束時,強調「精神分析的欲望並不是一個純粹的欲望。 它是想要獲得絕對差異性的欲望。當這一種欲望面臨原初的能指時,它會介入。 主體第一次處於一個立場,要將自己屈服於這個欲望。只有在那裡, 永恆的愛的意義才會出現, 因為那是在法則的限制外面,只有在那裡, 這個欲望才能存活。」

帶著這種類似大悲心的「無限的愛」limitless love,精神分析的欲望通過「想像界」的運作建構,回歸「象徵界」作嘗試溝通的努力, 人作為波羅米恩結的能指,獲得真理啟蒙的「大歡爽」jouissance,並非不可能。

後續的努力,大家加油啦!

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

2011-10-23 16:16:46 佛洛德的頭像 (無言便是逍遙,嗯~)

LS說的是,但何以說無意識在真實界?難道不是象徵秩序捕獲主體之後,被原始壓抑的能指通過隱喻形成的嗎?人所獲得的真理難道不僅僅是自己的真理?說出自己的欲望?

雄伯

你質疑得有道理。這其中有個辯證法的轉折。早先研討班,拉康一直強調真實界處於無意識,那時的辯證重點,要我們不要把小客體運作的象徵界的現實界reality,當著真實界the real,而要向無意識界尋找真實界。有時甚至暗示大它者的歡爽就在無意識的真實界,而不是在象徵界。 中期以後的拉康則是比較強調想像界及象徵界的重要,把真理的歡爽擺在真實界,象徵界,想像界的三個環圈交會的核心。猶如佛教的上迴向之後的往下迴向。我的說法,忽略了時間與轉折的差異,確實容易引起誤解。

「人所獲得的真理難道不僅僅是自己的真理?說出自己的欲望?」這句話,我想拉康不會贊同的。在「康得即/反薩德」裡,他認為個人的純粹狀態的欲望,進入象徵界時,會將受到經驗沾染的客體pathological object,當成犧性的客體,形成虐待狂及受虐狂的病徵。 精神分析的真理歡爽,是要脫離象徵界的客體之愛,轉而介入真實界的「無限之愛」,再通過想像界的創造建構,回到象徵界。 這應該不僅是自己的真理,或自己的欲望。而是與人類普遍性命運融為一體的大它者欲望。

「難道不是象徵秩序捕獲主體之後,被原始壓抑的能指通過隱喻形成的嗎?」這句話,我想拉康應該不會贊同。無意識不是因為這樣而形成。相反地,而是先於它們而存在。

拉康:RSI 08

October 23, 2011

拉康:RSI 08
真实界,象征界,与想象界

Seminar of January 14, 1975

What I say interests–you are the proof of it–everyone. It interests me, but not as it does everyone, and this is felt in what I say–which is why it interests everyone.

我说的内容让每个人感到興趣—你们就是感到興趣的证明。 它让我感到興趣,但是跟让每个感到興趣不一样。这是我说的内容被感觉的东西—这就是为什么它让每个人感到興趣。

Why is this felt? Because what I say is a clearing of the way concerning my practice, and it takes its departure from this question–which I would not ask if I did not have the answer in my practice–what implies that psychoanalysis works?

为什么这个被感觉到?因为我所说的是,一种关于我的精神分析实践的方法的澄清。它会脱离这个问题—我将不会问我是否在我的精神分析实践里拥有答案—精神分析的运用暗示着什么?

You see here (fig. 1) a nice little four-looped Borromean knot. It is Borromean since it suffices to cut any one of these three rounds of thread for the other three to be freed.

你们在此看到(第一图形)一个小小的四个环圈的波罗米恩结。这是波罗米恩结,因为它充分地切割绳线这三个环圈,为了让其它的三个环圈释放开。

Nothing prevents you from making a Borromean knot as long as you like. Notice however that as it is drawn here the number of rounds is not homogeneous, and that one can distinguish a first and a last.

没有一样东西阻止你们不要随自己高兴,制造一个波罗米恩结。可是,请注意,当它在这里被画,环圈的数目并不是同质性。我们能够区别第一个跟最后一个。

The last–let us say that it is the round to the extreme right–is that which holds together the whole chain, and makes it so that we have four there. If I proceed by the same model to make a five-looped knot, I will have to give this last round another way of being knotted, since it will hold one more.

最后一个—让我们说,就是靠近极端右边的这个环圈—是将整个锁链聚会在一起的东西, 它制作这个结,所以我们在那里有四个环圈。假如我继续用相同的模式,制作一个五个圈套的结,我将必须给有这个最后的环圈,另外一种被连接成结的方式,因为它将再多聚会一个环圈。

In making use of rounds of thread in composing these Borromean chains, I illustrate something that is not without relation to the sequence of numbers.

当我在利用绳线环圈制作这些波罗米恩结,我举例说明某件东西,它个跟数目的系列并非没有关系。

You know how, by means of some axioms, Peano articulates it. It is the function of the successor, of the n + 1, that he stresses as structuring the whole number–which supposes nonetheless to start with one that is not the successor of any, which he designates by zero.

你们知道,品阿诺如何凭借某些的原理表达它。这就是后继者的功用,有限数目外加一。 他强调这点,作为整个数目的结构—可是,这个数目要从一开始。这并不是任何数目的后继者,他指明这个数目为「零」。

All that these axioms produce will be from then on, conforming to the arithmetic requirement, homologous to the series of whole numbers.

这些原理产生的一切,从那时开始,要跟算术的要求相一致,跟整个数目的系列具有同质性。

The knot is something else. Here in fact the function of the plus-one is specified as such.

这个结是某件别的东西。 事实上,在此,「加一」的功用被明确地指明本身。

Suppress the plus-one, and there is no more series–by the sole fact of the sectioning of this one among- others, the others are liberated, each as one.

This could be a wholly material way of making you feel that One is not a number, although the sequence of numbers is made of ones.

压制这个「加一」,就不再有系列—仅是因为这个事实:处于其它之中的这个一,一旦被区分, 其它将会被解放, 每一个作为一个。

It must be admitted that there is in this sequence of numbers a consistency such that one has the greatest of difficulties not holding it as constituant of the real. All approach to the real is woven for us by the number. But to what is owed this consistency that there is in the number?

我们必须承认, 在数目的这个系列里,有一个这样的一致性,我们遭遇最大的困难,不将它视为真实界的组成成分之一。所有接近真实界的方法,被我们用这个数目编织。但是,在这个数目里的一贯性,要归功于什么?

It is not natural at all, and it is indeed this that makes me approach the category of the real as knotted to what I am also lead to give a consistency, the imaginary and the symbolic.

这根本就不自然。确实就是这个,使我接近真实界的范畴,作为被连接成结,跟我也是被引导给予一个一致性,想象界与象征界。

If I make use of the knot, it is because in these three something that I originate of the symbolic, of the imaginary, and of the real, has the same consistency. It is on this basis that I produce the Borromean knot, and this to justify my practice.

我利用这个结,因为在这三个环圈里,有某件东西,我创始作为象征界,想象界,及真实界。 这个东西拥有相同的一致性。 就是根据这个基础,我产生波罗米恩结。 我这样做,是为了让我精神分析实践自圆其说。

Isolating consistency as such, one has never done this. Me, I isolate it, and to illustrate it I give you the cord.

孤立一致性的本身,我们从来没有这样做过。 我,我孤立它, 并且为了说明它,我给予你们这条绳线。

This is to make an image. For I do not deprive myself of making images. What do we have there on the board if not images?–the most astonishing thing about which is that you find your bearings there. That these lines are continuous or broken, depending on whether they pass above or below, is already miraculous. But how far do you see into this? Would you know to
say that this knot here (fig. 1) is the same as this (fig. 2)?

这就是要制作一个意象。因为我并没有剥夺我自己,不制作意象。 在这个黑板上,我们所拥有的,难道不都是意象?最令人惊奇的事,你们发现它在这里有关系。 这些线条是连续或是中断,依靠着它们是否通过上面或是底下。这已经是奇迹。 但是你们看待它有多深入? 你们想要说,这个结(图形一) 跟这个结(图形二)相同?

Take it upon yourselves to fiddle with the thing. With a chain of three, it is impossible to pass from one disposition to the other. This could work however–but beginning with how many rounds? I will leave it to you to search for the rule.

请将这个视为你们的义务,玩弄这个东西。 用一条三个环圈组成的锁链,这是不可能的,从一个性情,通过到另一个性情。 可是,这仅能运作—但是从多少环圈开始? 我将它留给你们去寻找规则。

And I will return to consistency. Consistency is subjacent to all that we say. Is it because of what one calls non-contradiction? I say no, and I illustrate it with these figures. They have a consistency that I am indeed forced to call real, and which is that of the cord. It is supposed that a cord . . . that holds.

我将回答一致性。一致性是我们所说的一切都基础。 这难道不是因为我们所称为的「非矛盾」?我说不是,我用这些图形来说明它。它们具有我不得不称为的「真实界」的一致性。这是绳线的一致性。我们认为是一条绳线连接它们。

A metaphor? One never thinks of what there is of metaphor in the term consistency. And what is still stronger is that I communicate this real consistency by way of an intuition that I can call imaginary, since I make use of images.

这是一个比喻? 我们永远不会想到,在这个一致性的术语的比喻里,具有什么。 更加强烈的是,我沟通这个真实界的一致性,是凭借我称为想象界的直觉,因为我利用意象。

We have here in, in our hands, with this cord, a supposed foundation of consistency, which is indeed something other than the line.

我们在此,在我们的手中,拥有一个被认为的一致性的基础。这确实是某件不同于这条绳线的东西。

This distinction does not however go by itself. How do we detach ourselves from the idea that the geometric line is not without some thickness? By what could its continuity be supported?–if not by some consistency, that is, by something that would make a cord. This idea is at the basis of the mirages mathematicians have been fighting over for a long time.

可是,这个区别并不是自己进展。 我们如何能够将我们自己跟这个观念分开: 几何的线并不是没有某些厚度? 它的连续性被什么所支持? —难道不就是靠着某种的一致性。 换句话说, 靠着某件组成绳线的东西。 这个观念是数学家很长一段时间来,奋斗的幻觉的基础。

For example, in the first dust in the eyes that the functions called continuous have been given. It seemed that one could not construct a line which does not have somewhere a tangent, straight line or curve. And it took time for mathematicians to awaken to this: that one could make a perfectly continuous line which had no tangent. This is to say the importance, the pregnancy of
the image of the cord.

例如, 这眼睛的第一个灰尘里,被称为连续性的涵数曾经被给予。 似乎,我们不能够建构一条绳线,而不在某个地方拥有切线,直线或曲线。 数学家花了很1时间才醒悟这一点。 我们能够制造一条非常完美的连续线,这条连续线没有切线。 这也是说,绳线的意象具有的重要性及丰富性。

But is this indeed an image? It is not for nothing that I say to you: Hold well to the cord.

但是这确实是一个意象吗? 我跟你们这样说: 紧握住这条绳线,并非没有意义。

In fact, when the other end of a cord is knotted, on can hold on to it. This has to do with the real.

事实上, 当绳线的另外一端被连接,我们能够紧握它。 这必须跟真实界有关系。

It is here that I have chosen to remind you that in the tenth of those good Rules for the Direction of the Spirit, Descartes did not believe it superfluous to remark,

就在这里,我曾经选择提醒你们,在「精神提升的那些良好准则」的第十条, 笛卡尔这样说,不算是词费。

“As all spirits are not equally carried to spontaneous discovery by their own powers . . . we should not immediately occupy ourselves with more difficult and arduous things, but we must first delve into the less important and more simple arts; those above all where order reigns more, like those of the artisans who make canvas and carpets, or those of the women who embroider or make lace, as well as all the combinations of numbers and all the operations that relate to arithmetic and other similar things.”

当所有的精神并不是凭借它们自己的力量,平等地被引导到自动自发的发现。我们不应该立刻从事这些更加困难,更加艰辛的事情。但是我们必须首先探讨这些比较不重要,更加简单的艺术。 尤其是 那些由秩序统辖的艺术。 譬如,那些制作帆布及地毯的艺匠的艺术,或是刺绣或制作镶边的女人,以及数目与那些运作的结合。 那些跟算术与诸如其类的事情有关的运算。

There is not the least suspicion that Descartes, in saying this, had the feeling that there is a relation between arithmetic and the fact that women make lace, even that carpet makers make knots.

根本没有人怀疑,当笛卡尔正在说这个时,他会拥有这种感觉:在算术与女人制作镶边,甚至地毯制作者制作环结,会有关联。

Never, in any case, is he in the least occupied with knots. We already had to be quite far into the 20th century for something to be outlined that could be called knot theory.

无论如何, 他从来就没有从事环结的编织。我们已经必须发展到二十世纪,才能找出某件被描绘为能够被称为「环结」的理论。

Knot theory is in its infancy. There are cases where it does not at all permit us to prove whether, yes or no, the tangle you have traced is a knot. And this despite the conventions that you might be given in advance to account for the knot as such.

环结理论还在初期发展阶段。有些情况,它完全没有办法容许我们证明,无论对或错,你们追踪的这个纠缠,是否是一个环结。尽管传统上,你们可能事先给予说明这个环结的本身。

To what is our maladresse with knots owed? Is it to intuition? Is it because vision always more or less makes a surface? I demonstrate to you, these knots render tangible, that this goes much farther than that. It is that, fundamentally, the being who speaks (and what can you say of the others? Not much. We must wait until we have advanced farther into their sounds)– the being who speaks is always somewhere, badly situated, between two and three dimensions.

我们处理环结时的笨拙,原因出在哪里?由于直觉吗? 因为视觉总是会相当程度形成一种表面吗?我跟你们证明,这些环结变得更加具体,这可以运用得比那个更深远。 基本上, 人作为言谈的生物 ( 对于其它的生物,你能够说些什么? 并不多。 我们必须等到我们深入前进到听得见它们的声音)—人作为言说的生物,总是在某处,处于两个及三个维度的某个地方,位置很糟糕。

This is why you have heard me produce this, which is the same thing as my knot: an equivoke on the word dimension, which I write dit-mension, mension [lying] of the dit [said].

这就是为什么你们曾经听见我产生这个东西,它跟我的环结是相同的事情:对于「维度」这个字的召唤。这个字我书写为:被说出的两者的两个维度及谎言的维度。

One doesn’t know very well if we indeed have three dimensions in the dire, if we find it so easy to move around there. –assuredly we are ϖthere, we walk. But we must not imagine that walking has the least relation with space in three dimensions.

我们并没有清楚地知道,是否我们确实拥有三个维度,在这个「」,假如我们发现它很容易在那四周移动。我们确实是在那里, 我们走路。 但是我们一定不要想象,走路跟三个维度的空间,有丝毫的关系。

There is little doubt that our body has three dimensions, however much we mash it up (créve la boudouille), but this does not prevent what we call space from always being more or less flat.

无可置疑地,我们的身体有三个维度,无论我们如何混淆它们,但是这并没有阻止我们所谓的空间,不会总是变成偏平。

All space is flat–there are mathematicians who have made this very explicit (l’avoir écrit en toutes lettres). All manipulation of a real is situated from there on in a space of which it is a fact that we know very badly how to manage it outside of techniques that impose giving it three dimensions.

所有的空间都是偏平—有些数学家曾经将这个表达很清楚。 一个真实界的所有的操作,从那里的空间被定位。事实上,我们迫切地知道, 如何来处理它,外在于给予它三个维度所赋加的技巧。

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