The Psychoses 23

The Psychoses 23
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

V
On a god who does not deceive and
one who does
论不欺骗的神与欺骗的神

PSYCHOSIS IS NOT A SIMPLE FACT OF LANGUAGE
精神病不是语言的一个简单的事实

THE DIALECT OF SYMPTOMS
病征的辩证法

IT REALLY MUST BE RATHER PLEASANT TO BE A WOMAN . . .
成为女人真的一定相当愉快

GOD AND SCIENCE
上帝与科学

SCHREBER’S GOD
苏瑞伯的上帝

p63
What is our method concerning President Schreber?

关于首席法官，我们的方法是什么呢？

It’s undeniable that he expressed himself in common discourse to explain to us what had happened and was continuing to happen to him at the time he wrote his work. This testimony bears witness to structural transformations that are undoubtedly to be regarded as real, but here the verbal dominates since it’s through the intermediary of the subject’s written testimony that we have proof of this.

这是无可否认的，他用共同的论述表达他自己，为了跟我们解释曾经发生什么事情，并且正在继续发生在他身上，当他写他的著作时。这个证词见证了结构性的转变，无可置疑地，应该被认为是真实，但是在这里，文辞在支配，因为通过主体的文字证词的仲介，我们拥有这个证词。

Let’s proceed methodically. By setting out from our knowledge of the importance of speech in the structuring of psychoneurotic symptoms we shall make progress in the analysis of this territory, psychosis.

让我们从方法论继续。我们出发，从我们对于在心理神经症病征的结构，言说的重要性的知识开始，我们将朝着精神病的这个领域的分析前景。

We are not saying that psychosis has the same etiology as neurosis. We are not even saying that it is, like neurosis, a pure and simple fact of language – far from it. We are
simply remarking that psychosis is very rich with respect to what it can express
in discourse.

我们并不是说，精神病拥有跟神经症相同的病因。我们甚至并没有说，精神病，就像神经症，是语言的纯粹而简单的事实。根本不是这样。我们仅是谈论：精神病充满了在论述它能够表达的东西。

We have proof of this in the work that President Schreber bequeathed us and which Freud’s almost fascinated attention has recommended to our attention. On the basis of this testimony, by means of an internal analysis, Freud has shown us how this world was structured.

我们拥有这个证据，在苏瑞伯首先法官遗留给我们的著作里。弗洛伊德几乎是沉迷的专注，曾经推荐我们注意它。根据这个证词，凭借一种内部的精神分析，弗洛伊德曾经显示，这个世界是如何被建构。

We shall proceed in the same way, setting out from the subject’s discourse, which
will enable us to approach the constituent mechanisms of psychosis.

我们将以相同的方式继续前进，从主体的论述出发。这将会让我们接近精神病毒组成的结构。

Let it be clearly understood that we shall have to proceed methodically, step by step, not leaving out any detail on the pretext that a superficial analogy with a mechanism of neurosis is apparent. In short, we shall do nothing of what is so often done in the literature.

让我们清楚地了解，我们将必须按部就班地前进，有条不紊地，不要忽略任何细节，根据这个藉口：神经症的机械结构，跟它有表面的类似，是显而易见的。总之，我们将不採用文献所经常被处理的方式来做。

A certain Katan, for example, who has taken a special interest in the Schreber case, takes it for granted that the origin of his psychosis is to be located in his struggle against threatening masturbation provoked by his homosexual erotic investments upon the character who formed the prototype and at the same time the nucleus of his persecutory system, namely, Professor Flechsig.

譬如，有位康田先生，他对苏瑞伯的个案感到特别的興趣。他视为理所当然，他的精神病的起源应该被定位在他的奋斗，对抗这个令人威胁的手淫，由于他的同性恋的色情投注所引起，然后投注在形成这个典型的人物身上，那同时是他的迫害系统的核心，也就是，弗列思格教授。

1 This is supposed to have driven President Schreber so far as to undermine
reality, that is to say, to reconstruct, after a short period of twilight of the world,2 a new, unreal world, in which he didn’t have to give in to this masturbation that was thought to be so threatening.

这本来应该会将苏瑞伯首席法官驱迫到瓦解现实界。换句话说，在他写完「阴阳魔界」后不久，他被驱迫到重新建构一个新的非真实的世界。在那里，他并不需要屈服于这个被认为是具有威胁性的手淫。

Don’t we all feel that a mechanism of this kind, while it’s true that it enters into play in the neuroses at a certain point of their articulation, would here be having altogether di proportionate results?

我们难道不都感觉到，诸如其类的机械结构，虽然它确实在神经症运作，在他们表达的某个时刻，这种机械结构在此将会拥有完全不均称的结果吗？

President Schreber gives a very clear account of the first phases of his psychosis. And when he testifies that between the first psychotic attack, a phase called, not without foundation, prepsychotic, and the progressive establishment of the psychotic phase, at the height of the stabilization of which he wrote his work, he had a fantasy which was expressed in these words, that it really must be rather pleasant to be a woman succumbing to intercourse.*

苏瑞伯首先法官清楚地描述他的精神病的前几个时期。当他证实，在第一次精神病发作，被称为精神病前期，并不是没有基础的。然后精神病时期的逐渐建立，在这个时期的稳定状态的高潮，他写下他的著作。他有个幻见，可以这些字词表达： 成为女人，屈服于性交，一定是相当愉快。

He emphasizes that this thought, which takes him by surprise, has the character of having been imagined, while adding that he greeted it with indignation. There is a sort of moral conflict here.

他强调，这种思想让他大吃一惊，纯然是幻想过度的特性。他又补充说，他愤怒地欢迎这种幻见。在此，有某种的道德的冲突。

We find ourselves in the presence of a phenomenon whose name nobody ever uses anymore, so that nobody knows how to classify things anymore – it’s a preconscious phenomenon.

我们发现我们自己处于一个现象的前面，这个现象的名字，没有人再使用。所以没有知道如何再将事情分类。那就是前意识的现象。

This is the preconscious order at which Freud intervenes in the dynamics of
the dream, and to which he attaches so much importance in the Traumdeutung.

这是前意识的秩序，在那里，弗洛伊德介入梦到动力学。在「梦的解析」，他非常重视这个梦。

One gets the strong impression that this is coming from the ego. The emphasis placed by this It really must be rather pleasant… has the character of a seductive thought, which the ego is far from misrecognizing.

我们获的强烈的印象：这是从自我而来。根据「那确实一定是相当愉快、、、」所做的强调，具有诱拐思想的特性。自我丝毫没有误认这种诱拐的思想。

In a passage in the Traumdeutung dedicated to dreams of punishment Freud
admits that at the same level at which unconscious desires intervene in a dream another mechanism than the one that relies on the conscious-unconscious opposition may be present – The mechanism of dream formation, says Freud, would in general be greatly clarified if instead of the opposition between conscious and unconscious we were to speak of that between the ego and the repressed.4

在「梦的解析」的一个段落，专注于惩罚性的梦，弗洛伊德承认：在相同的层次，在那里，无意识的欲望在梦里，介入另外一个机械结构，不同于依赖意识与无意识对立的这个机械结构可能存在的。弗洛伊德说：「梦形成的机械结构，一般来说，将会非常请楚，假如我们想要谈论到自我与受潜抑者之间的机械结构，而不是意识与无意识之间的那个对立。」

This was written at a time when the notion of the ego was not yet part of Freudian theory, but you still see nevertheless that it was already present in his thought. / will only add that punishment-dreams are not in general subject to the condition that the day’s residue shall be of a distressing hind. On the contrary, they occur most easily where the opposite is the case – where the day’s residues are thoughts of a satisfying nature but the satisfaction which they express is a forbidden one. The only trace of these thoughts that appears in the manifest dream is their diametric opposite. . . . The essential characteristic of punishment-dreams would thus be that in their case the dream-constructing wish is not an unconscious wish derived from the repressed (from the system Ucs.) but a punitive one reacting against it and belonging to the ego, though at the same time an unconscious (that is to say, preconscious) one.5

这段被书写，当自我的观念还尚未是弗洛伊德理论的一部分，但是你们依旧可看出：它确实存在于他的思想里: 「我仅是补充说，惩罚性的梦通常并没有屈服于这个情况：白天残渣属于令人痛苦的后遗症。相反地，它们在相反的情况，最容易发生。譬如在白天的残渣是令人满意的特性的思想，但是他们表达的满意却是被禁止的满意。这些出现在显梦到思想的痕迹，是它们直接的对立、、、惩罚性的梦基本特性因此将是，在它们的情况，建构梦到愿望，并不是从受到潜抑者获得的无意识的愿望，而是回应它及属于自我的一种惩罚的愿望，虽然同时是一种无意识的愿望 （换句话说，前意识的愿望）」。

Anyone who is following the path I am gradually leading you down, by drawing your attention to a mechanism that is distinct from Verneinung and that can be constantly seen emerging in Freud’s discourse, will find here, once again, the need to distinguish between something that has been symbolized and something that hasn’t.

任何人遵照我慢慢引导你们前进度这条途径，我吸引你们注意一种机械结构。这种机械结构不同于「否认」，在弗洛伊德的论述，这种机械结构不断地被看见出现。你们在此再一次发现到这个需要，要区别某件被符号化的东西，跟某件没有被符号化的东西。

What relation is there between the emergence in the ego – and, let me emphasize, free from conflict – of the thought that it must be rather pleasant to be a woman succumbing to intercourse, and the conception which the delusion, achieving a degree of completion, will blossom into, namely that the man must be the permanent woman of God? There is reason, undoubtedly, to compare the two terms – the initial appearance of this thought that crossed Schreber’s mind, who was apparently sane at the time, and the delusion’s final state which, before an all-powerful personality with whom he has permanent erotic relations, situates him as a completely feminized being, a woman – this is what he says.

在自我出现的东西，及幻觉奔驰的观念之间，具有怎样的关系？让我强调一下，免除冲突的自我的出现的东西，这个思想：「成为屈服于性交的女人，一定很愉快。」跟获得某个完整程度的幻觉奔驰。换句话说，男人必须是上帝的永久的女人吗？无可置疑地，我们有理由要比较这两个术语：苏瑞伯的脑海掠过的这个思想的最初出现。他在当时显然是神智清醒的，幻觉的最后的状态定位他，作为一个完全是女性化的人物存在，一位女人，这就是他所说的，当他面临一位万能的上帝的人物，他跟这个上帝的人物有永久的色情关系。

The initial thought legitimately appears to us to give a glimpse of the final theme. Nevertheless, we must not neglect the stages, the crises, that have made him pass from such a fleeting thought to such firmly delusional conduct and discourse.

我们觉得，这个最初的思想似乎瞥见这个最后的主题。可是，我们一定不要忽略这些阶段，这些危机，曾经让他从一个瞬息掠过的思想，成为如此坚定的幻觉的行为跟论述。

We should not assume that the mechanisms in question are homogeneous with the mechanisms we are usually dealing with in the neuroses, and especially not with that of repression. Of course, to appreciate this one has to begin by understanding what repression means, that is, that it’s structured like a linguistic phenomenon.

我们不应该假定，受到质疑的这些机械结构，跟我们通常在神经症处理的机械结构是同质性的。当然，为了重视这一点，我们必须开始了解，潜抑意味着什么。换句话说，它的结构就像一个语言的现象。

The question arises whether we have before us a properly psychotic mechanism,
one that would be imaginary and that would extend from the first hint of identification with and capture by the feminine image, to the blossoming of a world system in which the subject is completely absorbed in his imagination by a feminine identification.

问题就出现，无论我们面前，我们拥有的是一个恰如其分的精神病的机械结构，这将是想象的机械结构，而且，它将会从认同于女性的意象，及被女性的意象所捕获的最初暗示开始，到一个世界的系统的全面展开。在这个世界系统，主体由于认同于女性，完全陶醉于他自己的幻想。

What I am saying, which is almost too artificial, clearly indicates to you in what direction we have to seek a resolution of our question. We shall lack the means to do it unless we can uncover its traces in the one element we do possess, namely the document itself, the subject’s discourse. This is why I introduced you last time to what will orient our investigation, namely the structure of this discourse itself.

我正在说的内容，几乎是太人为造作，清楚地跟你们指示，我们必须朝怎样的方向，去寻找我们问题的解答。我们将会欠缺这些工具来从事，除非我们揭露它的痕迹，在我们确实拥有的这个要素。换句话说，文件的本身，主体的论述。这就是为什么上一次我跟你们介绍，我们研究的方向会定位在哪里。换句话说，这个论述本身的结构。

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

The Psychoses 22

The Psychoses 22
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

V
On a god who does not deceive and
one who does
论不欺骗的神与欺骗的神

PSYCHOSIS IS NOT A SIMPLE FACT OF LANGUAGE
精神病不是语言的一个简单的事实

THE DIALECT OF SYMPTOMS
病征的辩证法

IT REALLY MUST BE RATHER PLEASANT TO BE A WOMAN . . .
成为女人真的一定相当愉快

GOD AND SCIENCE
上帝与科学

SCHREBER’S GOD
苏瑞伯的上帝

The other day at my case presentation we saw a serious case.

前天在我的个案报告时，我们看到一个严重的个案。

It was a clinical case that I had certainly not chosen myself, but it was one
that in a way brought the unconscious out into the open, in the difficulty it
had in passing into the analytic discourse. It brought it out into the open
because, owing to the exceptional circumstances, everything that in another
subject would have passed into repression was found in him to be supported
by another language, this language of quite limited scope known as a dialect.

那是一个确实并不是我自己选择的临床的个案，但是这个个案以某种方式将无意识摊开在阳光下，它遭遇这种困难要进入精神分析的论述。它摊开它在阳光下，因为由于这个特别的情况，在另外一个主体，本来会形成潜抑的一切，在他的身上被找到，受到另外一种语言的支持。这种相当有限范围的语言，是众所周知的辩证法。

As it happens, the Corsican dialect had functioned for this subject in conditions
that accentuated even further the function of particularization belonging to all dialects. He had in fact lived in Paris from childhood, an only child of parents extremely closed in upon their own laws, speaking exclusively the Corsican dialect.

恰巧地，科西肯的辩证法曾经发挥功用，对于主体，因为这些情况强调属于所有的辩证法的参与的进一步功用。事实上，他从童年就一直住在巴黎，他是父母的独生子，在他们自己的法则里，极端地被封闭，专门地说，就是科西肯辩证法。

The perpetual quarreling of these two parental characters, an ambivalent manifestation of their extreme attachment to one another and of the fear of seeing a woman, a foreign object, appear, was carried out quite openly, plunging him directly into their conjugal intimacy.

这两个父母的性格的不断争吵，是暧昧地证明他们彼此之间的极端的情感，以及他们看到一个女人的恐惧，一个外来的客体。这种不断的争吵相当公开地进行，将他直接投入他们婚姻的亲密性。

All this in the Corsican dialect. Nothing of what went on in the house was conceived in anything but the Corsican dialect. There were two worlds, that of the elite, of the Corsican dialect, and then that which went on outside. This separation was still present in the subject’s life and he recounted to us the difference in his relations with the world between when he was with his mother and when he was out in the street.

所有这一切都是用科西肯辩证法。在房屋里进行的一切，没有一样是用科西肯辩证法以外地东西被构想。有两个世界，精英的世界，科西肯辩证法的世界，以及外面进行的世界。这种分裂依旧出现在主体的生活，他跟我们描述这个差距，在他跟这个世界的关系，处于当他跟他的母亲在一块，跟当他外出到街上之间。

What did this result in? This is a most conclusive case. It resulted in two things. The first, apparent when he was questioned, is the difficulty he had in calling to mind anything at all from this former register, that is, in expressing himself in his childhood dialect, the only one he ever spoke with his mother.

这个造成的结果是什么？这是一个非常结论性的个案。它造成两件事情。第一件，当他被质疑时，他遭遇的困难是显而易见的，当他从这个前者的铭记，回想起任何东西。换句话说，当他以童年的辩证法表达他自己，他曾经跟他的母亲言说的唯一的辩证法。

When I asked him to say something in this dialect, to repeat to me words he might have exchanged with his father, for example – / can’tt get it out, he replied. Moreover, one could see a neurosis in him, the traces of behavior that enabled us to divine a mechanism that one may call – this is a term I always use cautiously – regressive. In particular, his unusual way of exercising his genitality tended to get confused on the imaginary level with the regressive activity of his excremental functions.

当我要求他使用这个辩证法说某件事情，要求他跟我重复他本来可能跟他的父亲沟通的字词时，譬如，他回答说：「我无法表达它。」而且，我们能够在他的身上看出一种神经症。行为的这些痕迹使我们能够猜测我们所谓的一种机械结构「倒退」。这是一个我总是谨慎使用的术语。特别，他以不寻常的方式，运用他的性器官，而倾向于在想象的层次，跟他的粪便的功用的倒退活动弄得混淆。

But everything that was of the order of what is usually repressed, all the contents that are commonly expressed through the intermediary of neurotic symptoms, was perfectly limpid here, and I had no trouble in getting him to express it in words. Since it was borne by the language of the others, he expressed it in words all that much more easily.

但是每一样属于通常被潜抑的层次的东西，所有的内容普遍地被表达，通过神经症病征的中介，在此是完全透明的。我并没有遭遇困难，就让他用文字表达它。因为它从其余的人的语言里诞生，他用文字表达它，那是更加容易。

I used the comparison of the censorship of a newspaper that not only has an extremely small circulation but is published in a dialect that is only understood by a minimum number of people.

我使用报纸的检查，作为比喻。这种报纸的流通量非常稀少，但是它被出版所用的辩证法，仅能由极少数的人们了解。

The establishment of a common discourse, of a public discourse I would almost say, is an important factor in the specific functioning of the mechanism of repression. In itself repression stems from the impossibility of granting discourse to a certain past of the subject’s speech which is linked, as Freud stressed, to the specific world of
his infantile relations. It’s precisely this past of speech that continues to function in the primitive language.

一个共同的论述的建立，我几乎要说，那是一种公共的论述的建立。这是一种重要的因素，在潜抑的机械结构的这个明确的功用。在本身，潜抑起源于这种不可能，要给予论述，给予主体的言说的某个过去的部分。依照弗洛伊德的强调，这种主体的言说，跟他的婴儿时代的关系的明确的世界息息相关。确实就是言说的这种过去，继续以原始的语言发挥功用。

Now, for this subject, this language is his Corsican dialect in which he was capable of saying the most extraordinary things, of flinging at his father for example – If you don’t go away, I shall punch you in the hurt. These things, which could have just as easily been said by a neurotic, having had to construct his neurosis in a different manner, were out in the open here in the register of the other language which was not
only dialectal but intrafamilial.

What is repression for a neurotic? It’s a language, another language that he manufactures with his symptoms, that is, if he is a hysteric or an obsessional, with the imaginary dialectic of himself and the other. The neurotic symptom acts as a language that enables repression to be expressed. This is precisely what enables us to grasp the fact that repression and the return of the repressed are one and the same thing, the front and back of a single process.

对于神经症的潜抑是什么？那是一种语言，他使用他的病征制造的另外一种语言。换句话说，假如他说一位歇斯底里症或是一位妄想症，由于有想象界的对于他自己跟大他者的辩证。这确实是使我们能够理解这个事实：潜抑与受潜抑者的回转，是完全相同的一件事，一个单一过程的前面与后面。

These remarks are not irrelevant to our problem.

这些谈论跟我们的问题，并不是不相关的。

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

The Psychoses 21

The Psychoses
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

IV

3
After having looked at speech, we shall now take a quick look at language, to which the triple division of the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real appropriately applies.
Certainly, the care Saussure took to eliminate considerations of motor articulation from his analysis of language clearly shows that he discerns its autonomy.9

已经观看言说之后，我们现在将迅速地观看语言。符号界，想象界，实在界的三重区分可适当地运用到语言上。的确，索绪尔相当费心将动力表达的考虑，从他对于语言的分析减少出去，这种费心清楚地显示：他觉察到语言的自主性。

Concrete discourse is real language, and language speaks [le langage, qa park]. The registers of the symbolic and the imaginary recur in the two other terms in which he expresses the structure of language, namely, the signified and the signifier.

具体的论述是真实的语言，并且语言会言说。符号界与想象界的铭记，重新发生在其他两个述要。他表达语言的结构在这两个其他术语，换句话说：所指与能指。

The signifying material, such as I am always telling you it is, for example on this table, in these books, is the symbolic. If artificial languages are stupid it is because they are constructed on the basis of meaning. Someone recently reminded me of the forms of deduction that rule over Esperanto and which are such that once one knows ax one can deduce caw, heifer, veakr, and whatever else one wants to.

能指化的材料，譬如我总是在告诉你们的，例如，在这个表格，在这些书，都是符号界。假如人为的语言是愚笨的，那是因为它们是根据意义的基础被建构。最近有某人提醒我，规范「万国语」的推论的形式。内容如下：一旦我们知道ox （牛），我们就能推论出cow （母牛），heifer （小牛），vealer（ 小牛肉），以及其他我们想要知道的东西。

And I asked him how one says, Death to the bastards!10 – this must be deducible from Lang live the king! This alone suffices to refute the existence of artificial languages, which attempt to model themselves on meaning, this as a rule being the reason why they are unused.

我就问他我们如何说：「该死的私生子！」–这个一定可从「国王万岁！」推论出来。光是这个就足够反驳人为语言的存在。它们企图自己模拟意义，通常这就是这个理由，为什么它们没有被使用。

And then there is meaning, which always refers to meaning. Of course, the signifier may be caught up therein as soon as you give it a meaning, as soon as you create another signifier as signifier, something in this function of meaning. This is why it’s possible to speak of language.

然后，再有意义的问题。它总是提到意义。当然，能指可能被套限在里面，只要你一给予它意义，只要你一创造另外一个能指充当能指，某件具有意义的功用的东西。这就是为什么言说语言是可能的。

But the signifier-signified division will always reproduce itself. There’s no doubt that meaning is by nature imaginary. Meaning is, like the imaginary, always in the end
evanescent, for it is tightly bound to what interests you, that is, to that in which you are ensnared.

但是能指与所指的区分，总是会复制它自己。无可置疑的，意义的特性是想象。意义，就像想象界，总是最后会处于逐渐消失。因为意义跟你感到興趣的东西息息相关。换句话说，跟你们被套陷的东西息息相关。

You would know that hunger and love are the same thing, you would be like any animal, truly motivated. But owing to the existence of the signifier your personal little meaning – which is also absolutely heart-breakingly generic, human all too human – leads you much further.

你们将会知道，饥饿与爱情被激发的情况是相同的事情，你们就像动物一样。但是由于能指的存在，你们的个人的小意义—那也是绝对是令人伤心地人性化，人性，太过人性地引导你们更加深入。

Since there is this damned system of the signifier, such that you have not yet been able to understand either how it came to be there, how it came to exist, what purpose it serves, or where it is leading you, it is what leads you away.

因为有这个该死的能指的系统，以致于你们还不能够了解能指如何开始存在，它充当什么目的，或是它引导你们去哪里，它引导你们离开。

When he speaks, the subject has the entire material of language at his disposal, and this is where concrete discourse begins to be formed. Firstly, there is a synchronic whole, which is language as a simultaneous system of structured groups of opposition, then there is what occurs diachronically, over time, and which is discourse. One cannot but give discourse a certain direction in time, a direction that is defined in a linear manner, M. de Saussure tells us.11

当他言说时，主体拥有语言的完全材料可使用。这就是具体论述开始被形成的地方。首先，有这个共时性的整体，语言作为对立的结构团体的同时的系统。然后还有历时性发生的语言，随着时间过去，会有论述产生。我们禁不住会给论述某个在时间中的方向，一种方向以直线方式被定义。索绪尔先生告诉我们。

I leave the responsibility for that statement with him. Not that I believe it to be false – it is basically true that there is no discourse without a certain temporal order, and consequently without a certain concrete succession, even if it is a virtual one.

我留下这个责任给对于他的那个陈述。不是因为我相信那是虚假的。基本上这是真实，没有一种论述不是具有某种时间的秩序。结果，一定会带有某种具体的连续性，即使它是虚拟的论述。

If I read this page starting from the bottom reading up, backwards, the effect won’t be the same as if I read it in the right direction, and in certain cases this may give rise to an extremely serious confusion. But it is not quite exact to say that it is a simple line, it is more probably a set of several lines, a stave. It is in this diachronism that discourse is set up.

假如我阅读这一页，从底端往上阅读，倒退着阅读，效果不会是一样，好像我阅读它，朝著正确的方向。在某些的情况，这可能会产生一种极端严重的混淆。但是说语言是一条简单的直线，也未必完全正确。更有可能的，语言是一组好几条直线，像五线谱那样。论述就是以这种历时性被建立。

The signifier as existing synchronically is sufficiently characterized in delusional
talk by a modification I’ve already pointed out here, namely that certain elements become isolated, laden, take on a value, a particular force of inertia, become charged with meaning, with a meaning and nothing more. Schreber’s book is overflowing with them.

能指作为历时性的存在，由在此我已经指出的一个修正的幻觉的谈话，充分地表现特征。换句话说，某些的要素变成孤立，沉重，形成价值，一种特别的墮性力量，载负著意义，载负意义之外，别无他物。首席法官苏瑞伯的书，就是充溢着这些的意义。

Take a word such as Nervenankang, for example, nerve-contact, a word of the fundamental language. Schreber discerns perfectly well which words have come to him through inspiration, precisely by way of the Nervenanhang, which have been repeated to him in their elective meaning which he does not always understand terribly well.

譬如「Nervenankang,」这个字为例。它是脑神经的突触，基本语言的一种字词。苏瑞伯清楚地觉察到，哪些字词是通过灵感来到他那里，确实是凭借脑神经突触。这些字词曾经对他反复陈述，但是他并未必清楚了解这些字词被选择的意义。

Seelenmord, soul murder, for example, is another of these words, which is problematic for him, but which he knows has a particular sense. Nevertheless, he talks about all this in a discourse that is indeed our own, and his book, it must be said, is remarkably written, clear, and natural.

譬如，「灵魂的谋杀」就是另外一个这些字词之一。那对他而言是问题重重。但是他知道这个字词具有特别的意义。可是，谈论所有这一切，在一种确实是我们的论述里。我们必须说，他的书文情并茂，自然通顺。

Moreover, he is as coherent as are many philosophical systems of our time, where we constantly see somebody suddenly get stung, at a detour on the path, by a tarantula that makes him regard Bovaryism and duration as the key to the world and reconstruct the entire world around this notion, without one’s knowing why it is this one that he has gone and picked out.

而且，他跟许多我们当代的哲学系统互相一致。在那里，我们不断看见某个人突然被大蜘蛛刺到，在这个途径的迂回处。这隻大蜘蛛强迫他将世俗享乐及存活期间，当著是世界的关键，并且环绕这个观念，重新建构整个世界，自己却不知道为什么他要走这条途径及挑选这条途径。

I do not see how Schreber’s system is of any less value than those of philosophers
whose general theme I’ve just profiled. And what Freud remarks at the end of his study is that this character has written some amazing things that resemble what I, Freud, have described.

我并不明白，苏瑞伯系统，如何会比我刚刚描绘轮廓的一般主题的哲学家的系统的价值来得低。弗洛伊德在研究苏瑞伯个案后谈论说：这个人物曾经写了某些令人叹为观止的东西，类似我弗洛伊德所描述的。

This book, then, written in ordinary discourse, signals the words that for the subject have taken on such a particular weight. Let’s call this erotization, and let’s avoid explanations that are too simple. When the signifier finds itself charged thus, the subject is perfectly well aware of it.

因此，这本书，以普通的论述书写，指明这些字词给具有特别份量的主体。让我们称这个为色情化，让我们避免过于简单的解释。当这个能指发现它自己载负这些意义，主体很清楚地知道它。

The moment Schreber employs the term instance to define the various forces articulated in the world he is implicated in – he also has his little instances – he says, Instance, that is mine. The others didn’t say it to me, it is my normal discourse.12

当苏瑞伯一开始使用「瞬间」这个术语，来定义他被牵涉在内的世界，所被表达的各种的力量，他也拥有他的微小的瞬间。他说，「瞬间，属于我的瞬间。其他的人没有跟我说到这个瞬间，那是我的正常的论述。」

What happens at the level of meaning? The insult is always a rupture in the system of language, just as words of love are. Whether or not Sow! Is charged with obscure meaning, and probably it is, we already have here an indication of this dissociation.

在意义的层次，发生什么事情？这种侮辱总是语言的系统的一种断裂，正如爱的字词一样。「母猪！」这个字词，无论是否载负下流的意义，可能它载负著，我们在此已经拥有这种分裂的指示。

This meaning, like all meaning worthy of the name, refers to another meaning. It is indeed what here characterizes the allusion. In saying, I’ve just been to the butcher’s, the patient points out to us that it refers to another meaning. Naturally, it is a bit oblique, she would prefer it was I who understand. .

这个意义，就像名符其实的所有的意义，提到另外一个意义。这确实是表现间接暗示的特征。当病人说：「我刚刚去过屠夫的店」，他跟我们指出，它提到另外一个意义。当然，它有一点拐弯抹角，她是希望我了解。

Beware those who say to you – You understand. It is always so as to send you somewhere else than where it is a question of going. That’s what she’s doing. You understand perfectly well, this means that she herself isn’t very sure of the meaning, and that the latter refers not so much to a system of continuous and reconcilable meaning as to meaning as ineffable, to the meaning of’ her own reality, to her own personal fragmentation.

请注意那些跟你谈话的人说：「你了解」。它总是为了送你到某个其他地方，而不是去那里的问题。那就是她所正在做的。「你很清楚地了解」。这意味着，她自己并不确定这个意义。后者与其说是提到一种连续而和谐的意义的系统，不如说是提到无法言喻的意义，提到属于她自己的现实界的意义，提到她自己的个人的碎片。

And then there is the real, the well and truly real articulation, the other’s sleight of hand. Real speech, I mean speech that is expressed, appears at another point of the field, not just at any point, but at that of the other, the puppet, as an element of the external world.

然后，还有这个实在界，这个实实在在的真实表达，小他者灵巧的手腕。真实的言说，我的意思是被表达的言说，出现在这个领域的另外一点，不仅是在任何点，而是在小他者的那个点，木偶，作为这个外在世界的一个要素。

The big S whose medium is speech, analysis warns us, is not what a vain people thinks it is.13 There is the real person who is before you and who takes up space – there is this in the presence of human beings, they take up space, at a pinch you can get ten of you into your office, but not a hundred and fifty- there is he whom you see, who manifestly captivates you and is capable of making you jump up and hug him – an ill-considered act of the imaginary order.

这个大的主体的媒介是言说。精神分析警告我们，这个大的主体并不是一种虚荣的人们以为他的样子。有一个真实的人在你面前，并且佔据空间。在人类的面前，有这么一个真实的人，他们佔据空间。你只要压一下，就有十几个你们这样的人，进入你们的办公室，但不是一百五十。你们看到这个他显而易见地迷住你，并且能够让你跳起来拥抱他，这是想象界的秩序胡思乱想的行径。

And then there is the Other whom we were talking about, who is the subject also, but not the reflection of what you see in front of you, and not simply what takes place insofar as you see yourself seeing yourself.

然后，有我们正在谈论的这个大他者。他也是这个主体，但并不是你们看到在你们面前的主体的反映。那不仅是发生的事情，因为你看到你自己看见你自己。

If what I am saying is not true, then Freud said nothing true, for this is what the unconscious means.

假如我正在谈论的并不真实，那么弗洛伊德说的就没有一样真实。因为这是无意识的意思。

There are several possible othernesses, and we shall see how they manifest themselves in a complete delusion like Schreber’s. First there are day and night, the sun and the moon, those things that always return to the same place, which Schreber calls the natural world order.14

他者可能有好几个，我们将会看到，他们如何展现他们自己，在诸如苏瑞伯的他者的完整幻觉里。首先，有日与夜，太阳与月亮，那些总是回到相同的地方的东西，苏瑞伯称为自然世界的秩序。

There is the otherness of the Other that corresponds to the S, that is, the big Other, the subject who is unknown to us, the Other who is symbolic by nature, the Other one addresses oneself to beyond what one sees. In between there are objects.

还有大他者的他者对应着这个主体，换句话，这个大他者，不被我们认识的主体。这个大他者在本质上说符号象征，我们自己跟他对谈的大他者，超越我们所看见的。在大他者与主体中间，有许多小客体。

And then, at the level of the S, there is something that is of the dimension of the imaginary, the ego and the body, whether fragmented or not, but more fragmented
than not.

然后，在主体的层次，有某件东西属于想象界，自我与身体的维度，它们非常零人，无论它们是否真的零碎。

I shall leave you there for today. This analysis of structure begins what I shall speak to you about next time.

今天我将在那里告一段落。下一次，我将跟你们开始谈论结构的这个分析。

We shall try to understand, on the basis of this little picture, what is happening
to Schreber, the delusional who has arrived at complete fulfillment and, ultimately, at a perfectly adapted delusion.

我们将根据这个小画面的基础，尝试了解苏瑞伯所发生的事情。这位妄想症患者已经到达一个完整的满足，最后到达一个调适的很完美的幻觉。

What is characteristic of Schreber in fact is that he never stopped raving at full bore, but had adapted himself so well that the director of the psychiatric hospital said of him – He is such a nice man.

事实上，作为苏瑞伯的特征是，他对于人生的沉闷无聊，咆哮不停，而且自己调适得天衣无缝，以致于精神科医院的院长说到他：他真是个好人。

We are fortunate in having in him a man who communicates his entire delusional system to us, and at a time when it is full-blown. Before we start wondering how he entered psychosis and giving the history of the prepsychotic phase, before we take things up in the sense of their genesis, as everyone always does, which is the source of inexplicable confusions, we shall convey them such as they are given to us in Freud’s observation, who only ever had this book, who never saw the patient.

我们很幸运在他身上发现这么一个人物，他将他的整个幻觉的系统跟我们沟通，而且是在幻觉登峰造极的时刻。在我们开始惊奇不已之前，对于他如何进入精神病，然后描述精神病发作之前的这段历史，在我们如同一般人所为，从它们的病因的意义去探讨事情之前，这种病因素是匪夷所思的混淆的来源，我们将表达它们，依照从弗洛伊德的观察，所给予我们的东西。弗洛伊德仅是阅读这本书，他从来没有见过病人。

You will see how the different elements of a system are modified when constructed as a function of the coordinates of language. This approach is certainly legitimate, concerning as it does a case that is only given to us through a book, and it is what will enable us to reconstitute its dynamics in an effective way. But we shall start with its dialectics.
7 December 1955

你们将会看出，一个系统的不同要素如何被修改，当它们被建构，作为语言协调的一种功用。这个方法确实是合法的，因为它关系到一个仅是透过一本书给予我们的个案。这使我们能够有效地重新创建它的动力结构。但是我们将以它的辩证法开始。

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

The Psychoses 20

The Psychoses
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

IV
2

In saying to someone, You are my woman, you are implicitly saying to her, / am your man, but you are saying to her first, You are my woman, that is, you are establishing her in the position of being recognized by you, by means of which she will be able to recognize you.

当我们跟某个人说：「你是我的女人」，你正在暗示地对她说：「我是你的男人」，但是你首先正在跟她说：「你是我的女人」。换句话说，你正在建立她处于被你体认的立场，凭借着这个立场，她将能够体认你。

This speech is therefore always beyond language. And such a commitment, like any other utterance, even a lie, conditions all the discourse that follows, and here, what I understand by discourse includes acts, steps, the contortions of puppets, yourselves included, caught up in the game.

这个言说因此总是超越语言。这样一种承诺，就像任何一种其他的表达，甚至是一种谎言，制约了各种随之而来的论述。在此，我所了解到「论述」包括演出，步骤，木偶的奇形怪状，包括你自己，都被套陷在遊戏里。

Beginning with an utterance a game is instituted, entirely comparable to what happens in Alice in Wonderland when the servants and other characters of the Queen’s court start playing cards by dressing themselves up in the cards and themselves becoming the King of Hearts, the Queen of Spades, and the Jack of Diamonds.

由一种表达开始，一个遊戏被形成，完全靠类比于「爱丽丝历险记」所发生的事情，当皇后宫廷的仆人及其他人物开始玩牌戏，以牌戏的人物装扮自己，然后自己就成为红心国王，黑桃皇后，及鑽石方块杰克。

An utterance commits you to maintaining it through your discourse, or to repudiating it, or to objecting to it, or to conforming to it, to refuting it, but, even more, to complying with many things that are within the rules of the game. And even should the Queen change the rules from one moment to the next, this changes nothing essential – once you have entered the play of symbols, you are always forced to act
according to a rule.

一种表达使你承诺要维持它，在你的论述当中，或是排斥它，或是反对它，或是同样它，或是反驳它，尤有甚者，同意许多事情，在遊戏的规则里。甚至皇后改变这些规则，从一个时刻到另外一个时刻，这并没有改变任何基本的东西—一旦你们已经进入符号象征的遊戏，你们总是被迫依照规则来演出。

In other words, whenever a puppet talks it’s not the puppet that talks, but it’s someone behind it. The question is what is the function of the character one encounters on this occasion. What we can say is that for the subject it’s clearly something real that is speaking. Our patient is not saying that there is someone else behind him who is speaking. She receives her own speech from him, but not inverted, her own speech is in the other who is herself, the little other, her reflection in the mirror, her counterpart. Sow! gives tit for tat, and one no longer knows whether the tit or the tat comes first.

换句话说，每当一个木偶谈话，这并不是木偶在谈话，而是木偶背背后的某个人在谈话。问题是，在这个场合，我们遭遇的人物的功用是什么。我们所能说的是，对于这个主体，它显而易见的是某件真实的东西在言说。我们的父母并没有说，有某个其他的人在他背后言说。她从他那里收到她自己的言说，但并不是以倒转的方式，她自己的言说是在作为她自己的他者，这个小他者，她在镜里的反映，她的副本。母猪！以牙还牙，然后我们不再知道是否以牙还牙先来。

That the utterance is expressed in the real means that it is expressed in the puppet. The Other at issue in this situation is not beyond the partner, it is
beyond the subject herself – this is the structure of the allusion, it indicates itself in a beyond of what it says.

表达在真实界被表达意味着，它在木偶身上被表达。在这个情况受到质疑的大他者，并没有超越这个伴侣，它是超越主体的本身。这就是间接暗示的结构，它指示著超越它所说的内容。

Let us try to orientate ourselves by means of this game of four implied by what I said last time.7

让我们尝试凭借着上一次我所说的内容，所暗示的四人一组的牌戏，定位我们自己。

The small o is the gentleman she encounters in the corridor and there is no
big O. It’s small o’ who says, I’ve just been to the butchers. And who is I’ve
just been to the butcher’s said of? Of S. Small o said Sow! to her. The person
who is speaking to us, and who spoke qua delusional, o’, undoubtedly receives
somewhere her own message in an inverted form from the small other, and
what she says affects the beyond which she herself is as subject and which,
by definition, simply because she is a human subject, she can only speak of
by allusion.

这个小客体是她在穿堂遇到的绅士，那里没有大他者。这个小客体说：「我刚刚去过屠夫的店。」谁是被说到「我刚刚去过屠夫的店」？主体被说到。小客体对她说「母猪！」正在跟我们言说的这个人，刚才言说作为幻觉的小客体，无可置疑地在某个地方接收到她自己的讯息，以一个倒转的形式从这个小他者。她所说的内容影响到她自己本身作为主体的这个超越。根据定义，仅是因为他是一位人类的主体，她仅能够根据间接暗示谈论。

There are only two ways one can talk about this S, about this subject that we radically are. These are – either truly to address oneself to the Other, the big Other, and to receive from it the message that concerns you in an inverted form – or to indicate its direction, its existence, in the form of an allusion.

仅有两种方法我们能够谈论关于这个主体，关于作为我们实际存在的这个主体。一个方法是真实地对大他者言说自己，这个大他者，然后从大他者接收以倒转的方式关系到你的这个讯息，另一种方法则是指示它的方向，它的存在，以间接暗示的方式。

The reason that the woman is strictly a paranoiac is that for her the cycle contains an exclusion of the big Other. The circuit closes on the two small others who are the puppet opposite her, which speaks, and in which her own message resonates, and herself who, as an ego, is always an other and speaks by allusion.

这个女人严格来说是一位妄想症的理由是，对她而言，这个循环包括一种大他者的排除。这个循环封闭这两个小他者。他们是她对面的木偶，这个木偶言说。她自己的讯息迴响在木偶那里。她自己，作为一种自我，总是一种他者，凭借着间接暗示言说。

This is the important thing. She speaks by allusion so well that she doesn’t know what she is saying. What does she say? She says – I’ve just been to the butcher’s. Now, who has just been to the butcher’s?

这是这个重要的事情。她凭借间接暗示言说，以致于她并不知道她正在谈论什么。她说了什么？她说：「我曾经去过屠夫的店。」问题是，谁刚刚去过屠夫的店？

A quartered pig. She does not know that she is saying this, but she says it nevertheless. That other to whom she is speaking, she says to him about herself – / , the sow, have just been to the butcher’s, I am already disjointed, a fragmented body, membra disjecta, delusional, and my world is fragmenting, like me. That’s what she’s saying.
That way of expressing it, however understandable it might appear to us, is nevertheless, to put it mildly, a tiny bit amusing.

一个四分之一的猪。她并不知道，她正在说这个，但是她说出这个字词。那个她正在跟他言说的他者，她对她说到关于她自己：「我，这个母猪，刚刚去过屠夫的店，我已经被分解，成为一个碎片的身体，支零破碎，幻觉者，我的世界正在分崩离析，就像我。」那就是她正在说的内容。可是，那种表达它的方式，无论我们听起来多么可了解，有点滑稽，不妨这样说。

There is another thing which concerns temporality. It is clear from the patient’s words that we do not know who spoke first. To all appearances it was not our patient, or at least it was not necessarily her. We will never know since we are not going to time dereal [dtreel\ utterances, but if what I’ve just sketched out is correct, if the response is the allocution – that is, what the patient actually said – then the I’ve just been to the butcher’s presupposes the response, Sow!

还有另外一件事情暂时有关系。从病人的文字可明显看出，我们并不知道谁首先言说。显而易见地，并不是我们的病人先言说，或至少未必是她先言说。我们将永远无法知道，因为我们将不会指定脱离真实的表达。但是假如我刚刚所描绘的是正确，假如这个回应是说服性，换句话说，病人实际所说的—那么这个「我刚刚去过屠夫的店」，就预先假定这个回答：母猪！

In true speech, on the contrary, the allocution is the response. What responds to speech is in effect the consecration of the Other as my woman or as my master, and so here it’s the response that presupposes the allocution. In delusional speech the Other is truly excluded, there is no truth behind, there is so little truth that the subject places none there himself, and in the face of this phenomenon, this ultimately raw phenomenon, his attitude is one of perplexity.

相反地，在真实的言说，这个说服性就是这个回应。对于言说的回应内容，实际上是大他者的奉献，作为「我的女人」或是作为「我的主人」。所以这个回应预先假设是这个说服性。在幻觉的言说，大他者真实地被排除，背后并没有真理，真理是如此的少，以致于主体自己并没有摆放什么真理。当面临这种现象时，这个最后的樸实现象，他的态度是困惑的态度。

It will be a long time before he attempts to restore an order, which we shall call a delusional order, around this. He does not restore it, as is thought, through deduction and construction, but in a way that we shall later see is not unrelated to the primitive phenomenon itself.

将会过来很久的时间后，他才企图恢复一种秩序。环绕这一点，我们将称它为一种幻觉的秩序。他并没有如同所被认为地恢复这个秩序，通过推论与建构，而是以某种的方式，我们后来将看出，这个方式跟这个原始的现象本身并不是不相关。

The Other being truly excluded, what concerns the subject is actually said by the little other, by shadows of others, or, as Schreber will express himself to designate all human beings he encounters, by fabricated, or improvised men. The small other effectively presents an unreal character, tending towards the unreal.

这个大他者确实被排除在外，主体念兹在兹的东西，确实是由这个小他者说出，由其他者的阴影所说出。或是，如同苏瑞伯将会表达他自己，指明他遭遇的所有的人们，凭借建构或临时编造的人们。这个小他者有效地呈现一个非真实的人物，倾向于这个非真实界。

The translation that I’ve just given you is not entirely correct, there are resonances in German that I’ve tried to render with the word fautu, fabricated.

我刚刚给予你们的这个翻译，并不完全正确。在德文有些的迴响，我曾经尝试翻译为这个字词「建构」。

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

The Psychoses 18

The Psychoses 18
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

IV
2
Those of you who attend my presentations will recall that I was dealing with
two people and one single delusion, what is known as a dilire a deux.

你们曾经参加我的研讨班的那些人，请回顾一下，我当时正在处理两个人及一种幻觉。这就是众所周知的「双人幻觉」。

It wasn’t very easy for me to draw out either daughter or mother. I’ve reason to think that the daughter had been examined and presented before I became involved with her and that she had seen the role that patients play in a teaching ward a good dozen times. It does not matter whether or not one is delusional, one gets fed up fairly quickly with these sorts of exercises, and she wasn’t particularly well disposed.

我很难去让女儿或是母亲接受社交来往。我有理由认为，在我对她从事谘商之前，女儿曾经被检查及被解释过。她曾经十几次看见过，在教学的病房，父母扮演的角色。一个人是否是幻觉并不重要，我们很快会厌烦于这些运作的种类。女儿的性情并没特别的适应。

It was nevertheless possible to bring out certain things, and in particular the following. Paranoid delusion, since she is paranoid, is far from presupposing a character base of pride, mistrust, irritability, psychological rigidity, as people say.

可是，这是可能的，展现某些的事情，特别是以下：因为她是妄想症，妄想症的幻觉根本没有预先假设一个人物，如人们所说的，具有骄傲，不信任，易怒，心理的僵化的基础。

At least, alongside the chain of interpretations, difficult to grasp, of which she felt she was the victim, this young girl had, on the contrary, the feeling that a person as good and kind as herself who, into the bargain, was surrounded by the many trials she had undergone, could only benefit from benevolence, from a general sympathy – and indeed the head of her ward, in making his report on her, spoke of her only as a charming woman loved by all.

至少，沿着解释的锁链，难以了解的是，她感觉她是这些解释的锁链的受害者，相反地，这位年轻的女孩拥有这种感觉，一个跟她自己同样善良及仁慈的人，从仁慈，从一般的同情，仅会获得利益。除外，她自己周围环绕许多她曾经经历的考验。的确，她的病房的主管，提出对她的报告，谈论到她仅是当著一个受到大家喜爱的迷人的女人。

In a word, after having had all the difficulty in the world tackling the subject, I approached the center of what was manifestly present there. Of course, her basic concern was to prove to me that no element was subject to reticence, while at the same time not allowing the doctor any room for the wrong interpretation, of which she was certain in advance. All the same she confided to me that one day, as she was leaving her home, she had a run-in in the hallway with an ill-mannered sort of chap, which came as no surprise to her, since this shameful married man was the steady lover of one of her neighbors, someone of loose morals.

总之，我在处理这个主体时，曾经遭遇各种各样的困难。我探讨明显呈现在那里的核心。当然，她的基本关系是要对我证明，没有一种要素是无法解释的，而同时，她又不容许医生任何的空间，从事任何错误的解释。她事先就确定会有这些错误的解释。她仍然对我坦白说，有一天，当她正要离开她的家时，她在穿堂跟一位态度不佳的人争吵。这对她而言，并不是什么大惊小怪的事情。因为这位令人羞愧的已婚男人，就是她的邻居常来往的一位情人，行为放荡的人。

On passing her – she could not hide this from me, it still weighed upon her chest – he had said a dirty word to her, a dirty word that she was disinclined to repeat to me because, as she put it, it devalued her. Nevertheless, a certain gentleness that I had put into approaching her meant that after five minutes of chat we were on good terms with one another, and on that subject she confessed to me with a conceding laugh that she was not completely innocent in this matter for she herself had said something in passing. This something, which she confessed to me more easily than what she had heard, was this – I’ve just been to the butcher’s.

当她遭遇她时，他曾经跟她说了一句脏话—她并没有跟我隐藏这一点，这依旧是她耿耿于怀的事情。这句脏话，她很不愿意跟我重复，因为如她所表达的，这句脏话贬低她的价值。可是，当我接近她时，表现某种的体贴，意味着，经过五分钟的谈话，我们彼此的关系非常好。她纵情大笑地跟我告白那个主题。在那件事情，她并不是完全无辜，因为她自己偶尔曾经说了某件事情。这个某件事情，她比原先听到时更加爽朗地跟我坦诚告白：「我曾经去过屠夫的店」。

Naturally, I’m like everybody else, I make the same mistakes as you, I do everything I tell you that you mustn’t do. I’m no less in the wrong – even when it works. A true opinion remains no less an opinion from the point of view of science, as Spinoza shows. If you understand, so much the better, keep it to yourself.

当然，像每一个其他的人一样，我跟你们犯相同的错误。我犯了每一件我告诉你们一定不要犯的错误。我同样是处于错误，甚至当错误发生时。如同史宾诺莎所说的，从科学的观点，无论再真实的意见，仍然是一种意见。假如你们了解，这样更好，不要到处宣扬。

The important thing is not to understand, but to attain the true. But if you attain it by chance, even if you understand, you don’t understand. Naturally, I understand – which proves that we all have a little something in common with delusionals. I have within myself, as you have within yourselves, what there is that is delusional in the normal man. I’ve just been to the butcher’s – if I am told that there is something there to
understand I may well declare that there is a reference to pig. I didn’t say Pig, I said Pork.6

重要的事情是不要去了解，而要获得真相。但是即使你们偶然地获得真相，即使你们了解，你们并不了解。当然，我了解—这证明，我们对于幻觉患者，多少有些类同的地方。我曾经从我的内心，如同你们曾经从你们的内心，拥有正常人身上属于幻觉的东西。「我曾经去过屠夫的店」。假如我被告诉，在那里有某件东西可以了解，我很有理由宣称：那里提到猪，我并没有猪，我是说猪肉。

She agreed entirely. That was what she wanted me to understand. It was perhaps also what she wanted the other to understand. Except that this is precisely what one must not do. What one has to be interested in is the point of knowing why she wanted the other to understand this, precisely, and why she didn’t say it to him clearly, but by allusion.

她完全同意。那是她想要我了解的。那或许也是她想要大他者了解的。除外，这确实是我们一定不要做的事情。我们必须感到興趣的事情是，要知道为什么她想要大他者确实地了解这个，以及为什么她没有清楚地对他说，而是拐弯抹角地说。

If I understand I continue, I don’t dwell on it, since I’ve already understood. This brings out what it is to enter into the patient’s game – it is to collaborate in his resistance. The patient’s resistance is always your own, and when a resistance succeeds it is because you are in it up to your neck, because you understand. You understand, you are wrong. What it is, precisely, that has to be understood is why there is something there given to be understood. Why did she say, I’ve just been to the butchers and not Pig?

假如我了解，我继续，我并没有详述它，因为我已经了解。这显示从事病人的遊戏是什么。那就是在他的抗拒里，跟他合作。这个病人的抗拒总是你自己的抗拒，因为你了解。你了解，你错误。所必需被了解的是，为什么有某件东西被给予了解。为什么她说：「我曾经去过屠夫的店」，而不是猪肉店？

I limited my commentary, because of insufficient time, to pointing out to you that it contained a gem, and showed you the similarity with the discovery that consisted in observing one day that certain patients who complain of auditory hallucinations were manifestly making movements of the throat, of the lips; in other words, they were articulating them themselves. Here, it’s not the same, it’s similar, and it’s even more interesting because it’s not the same.

我限制我的评论，因为时间不够，我仅是跟你们指出，它包含一粒珍贵宝石，跟你们显示这个类似性，跟有一天观察所获得的发现：某些抱怨具有听力幻觉的病人，显而易见是在从事喉咙，嘴唇的动作。换句话说，他们正在表达他们自己。在此，这并不相同，这是类似，因为这并不相同，甚至会更加有趣。

I said – I’ve just been to the butcher’s, and then she blurts it out to us, what did he say? He said – Sow! This is the final word – thread, needle, my soul, my life, things happen thus in our existence.

我说：「我刚刚去过屠夫的店。」然后她跟我们含糊地说出。他说了什么？他说：母猪! 这是最后的字词–「线、针、我的灵魂、我的生命」，这些事情因此发生在我们的存在里。

Let’s pause here a moment. There he is, all pleased with himself, you are saying to yourselves. This is what he teaches us-in speech the subject receives his message in an inverted form. Disabuse yourselves, this isn’t true. The message in question is not identical with speech, far from it, at least not in the sense in which I describe it to you as the form of mediation where the subject receives his message from the other in an inverted form.

让我们在此暂停一下。「他在那里，意气风发地」，你们跟你们自己说。「这就是他教导我们的—主体以倒转的方式，接受他的讯息。」这个受到质疑的讯息，跟言说并不相一致，根本就不相一致，至少在我跟你们描述它的意义，作为中介的形式。 在那里，主体以一个倒转的形式，从大他者接收他的讯息。

First, who is this character? We have already said he is a married man, the lover of a girl who is herself the friend of our patient and heavily implicated in the desire of which our patient is the victim – she is not its center but, I would say, its main character. Our subject’s relations with this couple are ambiguous. They are no doubt persecutory and hostile characters, but they are not grasped in such a terribly litigious style, which surprised those present at the interview.

首先，这个人物是谁？我们已经说过，他是一位已婚的人，一位少女的情人，这位少女本身是我们的病人的朋友，她深深地介入我们的病人作为受害者的欲望。她并不是这个欲望的核心，而是欲望的主要人物，我不妨说。我们的主体跟这对情人的关系是暧昧的。他们无可置疑地迫害及具有敌意的人物，但是并不是我们理解的那些好争讼的类型。那让那些在面谈现场的那些人感到惊奇。

What characterizes this subject’s relations with the outside is rather her perplexity – how was it possible, through malicious gossip, no doubt through taking legal action, to get them into hospital? The universal interest bestowed on them has a tendency to be repeated. From this there arise these beginnings of erotomaniacal elements that we observed in the presentation. They aren’t properly speaking erotomaniacs, but they’re inhabited by the feeling that one is interested in them.

相反地，这位主体跟外在的关系的特色是她的困惑： 这如何可能，通过恶意的闲谈，无可置疑是通过採取法律的行动，就将他们送进医院？大众给予他们的关怀具有一种会被重复的倾向。从这里，我们在研讨班观察到的色情狂的要素的这些开始就产生。适当来说，他们并不是色情狂，但是他们萦绕著这种感觉：有人对他们感到興趣。

Sow, what is that? It is effectively her message, but is it not rather her message to herself?

母猪！ 那是什么？有效的是她的讯息，但是这难道不是她给予她自己的讯息。

At the beginning of everything that was said, there was the intrusion of the said neighbor into the relationship of these isolated women, who had remained closely bound to one another in their existence, who were unable to separate when the younger married, who suddenly fled the dramatic situation that seems to have been created in the marital relations of the latter by the threats of her husband who, according to the medical certificates, wanted nothing less than to slice her up.

在每一件被说出的东西的开始，有所谓的邻居的闯入这些孤立的女人的关系。在邻居的存在里，这些女人始终密切地息息相关。他们不能够分开，当这位年轻的已婚的男人，他突然逃离这个戏剧的情境：受到她的丈夫的威胁，后者的婚姻关系所形成的情境。依照医学的记载，她的丈夫实实在在想要将她切成碎片。

We get the feeling here that the insult in question – the term insult is quite essential here and has always been stressed in the clinical phenomenology of paranoia – agrees with the process of defense, the pathway of expulsion, to which the two patients felt compelled to proceed in relation to the neighbor who was considered primordially invading.

我们在此获得这种感觉：这个受到质疑的侮辱–「侮辱」这个字眼在此关系重大，总是被强调，在妄想症的临床现象—它跟防卫的过程，驱逐的途径相一致。这两个病人感觉被迫要继续驱除的途径，有关这位被认为原先是要侵犯的邻居。

She would always come and knock at their door while they were at their toilet or just as they were dining or reading. Above all, it was a matter of distancing this person who was essentially taken to be intrusive. Things only started to become problematic when this expulsion, this refusal, this rejection, took full effect, I mean when they actually threw her out.

她总是回来敲他们的门，当他们在盥洗室或正当他们在用餐或阅读时。尤其重要的是，问题是要将这个基本上是被认为是侵犯到人拉开距离。当这个驱逐，这个拒绝，这个排斥，充分运作时，事情才变得问题重重。我的意思是，当它们实际上是把她抛弃出去。

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

The Psychoses 17

The Psychoses 17
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

IV
“I’ve just been to the butcher’s”
我刚刚去过屠夫的店

WHAT RETURNS IN THE REAL
在实在界回转的东西

PUPPETS OF DELUSION
幻觉的木偶

R. S. I. IN LANGUAGE
在语言里的实在界，符号界，与想象界

THE EROTIZATION OF THE SIGNIFIER
能指的色情化

In two articles respectively entitled “The Loss of Reality in Neurosis and Psychosis” and “Neurosis and Psychosis”1 Freud provides us with interesting information on the question of what distinguishes neurosis from psychosis.

有两篇文章，各别的篇名是「神经症与精神疾病的现实界的丧失」与「神经症与精神疾病」。弗洛伊德供应我们有趣的讯息，关于神经症与精神疾病的区别的东西的问题。

I shall try to emphasize what distinguishes them from one another with respect to the disturbances they create in the subject’s relations with reality.

我将尝试强调，是什么区别它们互相不同，关于他们所创造的困扰，在主体跟现实界的关系。

It is also an opportunity to recall, in a precise and structured way, what is meant by repression in neurosis.
这也是一个机会回顾一下，以一个正确的结构方式，在神经症的潜抑是什么意思？

1
Freud stresses the extent to which the subject’s relations with reality are not the same in neurosis and psychosis. In particular, the clinical characteristic of the psychotic is distinguished by this profoundly perverted relation to reality known as a delusion. For this great difference in organization, or disorganization, there must be, Freud tells us, a deep-seated structural reason.

弗洛伊德强调，主体与现实界的关系，在神经症与精神疾病者，程度并不相同。特别，精神疾病患者在临床的特征，可根据众所周知的幻觉的跟现实界的深刻倒错的关系来区别。因为弗洛伊德告诉我们，一定有一个根深砥固的结构的理由，在组织，或是瓦解才会有这个巨大的差距。

How are we to spell out this difference?

我们应该如何解释这个差距呢？

When we speak of neurosis, we ascribe a certain role to flight, to avoidance, in which conflict with reality plays a part. Attempts have been made to designate the function of reality in the onset of neurosis by the notion of traumatism, which is an etiological notion.

当我们谈论神经症，我们归属某个角色给逃避，给避免。在那里，跟现实界的冲突扮演一个角色。企图曾经被做，为了用创伤的观念，指明现实界的功用，在神经症的开始。这种创伤的观念是一种病因的观念。

This is one thing, but another is the moment in a neurosis when a certain rupture with reality occurs in the subject. What is the reality involved? Freud stresses from the outset that the reality sacrificed in neurosis is a part of psychical reality.

这是一件事情。但是另外一件事情是在神经症的这个时刻，当跟现实界的某种的断裂，发生在主体身上。这个现实界牵涉到什么？弗洛伊德从一开头就强调：在神经症被牺牲的现实界，是心理现实界的一部分。

We are already entering here upon a very important distinction – reality is not synonymous with external reality. When he triggers his neurosis the subject elides, scotomizes as it has since been said, a part of his psychical reality, or, in another language, a part of his id.2

我们在此已经正在从事一个非常重要的区别： 现实界并不是跟外在的现实界是同义语。当他他触发他的神经症时，主体闪躲，视而不见他的心理现实界的一部分，依照后来的说法，或是换句话说，闪躲，视而不见他的本我的一部分。

This part is forgotten but continues to make itself heard. How? In a manner that all my teaching emphasizes – in a symbolic manner.

这一部分被忘记，但是继续让它自己被听见。用什么方法？用所有我的教学强调的方法，用符号象征的方式。

In the first article I mentioned Freud evokes a storehouse that the subject sets aside in reality and in which he preserves resources to be used in constructing the external world – this is where psychosis will borrow its material from.

在第一篇文章，我提到弗洛伊德引用一种主在现实界体搁置的仓库。在那里，他保留以后要使用的资源，来建造这个外在的世界。这是精神疾病将会借用它的材料的地方。

Neurosis, Freud says, is something quite different, for the subject attempts to make the reality that he at one time elided re-emerge by lending it a particular meaning, a secret meaning, which we call symbolic.3

弗洛伊德说，神经症是某件完全不同的东西，因为主体企图让他有一度闪躲的这个现实界重新出现。他给予这个现实界一个特别的意义，一个秘密的意义，我们所谓的符号象征的意义。

But Freud does not emphasize this properly. Overall the impressionistic manner in which the term symbolic is used has until now never been made precise in a way that
is really consistent with what is at stake.

但是弗洛伊德并没有适当地强调这个。整体来说，这个印象主义的方式，被使用的符号象征这个术语，直到现在，从来没有被弄得很明确，它的方式跟岌岌可危的东西确实是一致。

I point out, in passing, that I don’t always have the opportunity to provide the textual references that a number of you would like, because they mustn’t interrupt my discourse.

我顺便指出，我未必总是拥有机会，提供你们许多人想要的文本的资料，因为它们将会中断我的论述。

Nevertheless I do give you, it seems to me, quotations where necessary. Many passages in Freud’s work show that he felt the need for a complete articulation of the symbolic order, for this is what was at stake for him in neurosis, to which he opposes psychosis, where at some time there has been a hole, a rupture, a rent, a gap, with respect to external reality.

可是，我觉得我的确给予你们，必需要的引言内容。在弗洛伊德的许多段落显示：他感觉有这个需要，对于符号象征作整体的表达。因为对于他而言，这是在神经症，岌岌可危的东西。他将神经症与精神疾病相提并论。在后者，某个时刻曾经有个空洞，断裂，撕开，差距，关于外在的现实界。

In neurosis, inasmuch as reality is not fully rearticulated symbolically into the external world, it is in a second phase that a partial flight from reality, an incapacity to confront this secretly preserved part of reality, occurs in the subject. In psychosis, on the contrary, reality itself initially contains a hole that the world of fantasy will subsequently fill.

在神经症，因为现实界并没有在符号象征方面，充分地被重新表达成为外在的世界，就在第二个部分，从现实界的部分逃避，没有能力来面临这个秘密被保留的现实界的部分，这个部分逃避会发生在主体身上。相反地，在精神疾病患者，现实界本身最初保留一个空洞，幻想的世界随后会填满。

Can we be satisfied with so simple a definition, so summary an opposition between neurosis and psychosis? Surely not, and Freud himself indicates, subsequent to his reading of Schreber’s text, that it’s not enough just to see how symptoms are made. It is also necessary to discover the mechanism of their formation.

我们能够满足于神经症与精神疾病如此简单的一个定义，如此结论的一种对立吗？ 当然不满足。随着他阅读苏瑞伯的文本，弗洛伊德本人指示：这是不足够的，仅是看出病症如何被形成。也有需要发现这种形成的机制结构。

Let’s start with the idea that a hole, a fault, a point of rupture, in the structure of the external world finds itself patched over by psychotic fantasy. How is this to be explained? We have at our disposal the mechanism of projection.

让我们从这个观念开始：这外在世界的结构，有 一个空洞，一个断层，一个断裂点，发现它自己被精神疾病的幻想所缝满。这要如何被解释？我们可用的工具是投射的机制结构。

I shall start with that today, insisting upon it in particular because a number of you working on the Freudian texts I’ve already commented on have said that, in returning to a passage whose importance I’ve pointed out, you are still hesitant over the meaning to give to a fragment, even though it’s very clear, concerning the episodic hallucination in which the paranoid potentialities of the Wolf Man appear.

我今天将从那里开始，坚持它，特别是因为你们许多人研究我已经评论过的弗洛伊德的文本。他们曾经说，当回到我曾经指出的一个重要的段落，你们依旧犹豫不定，对于给予一个片段的意义，即使这是显而易见，关于这个轶事的幻觉。在轶事的幻觉那里，「狼人」的妄想症的潜力出现。

While what I was stressing when I said that what has been rejected from the symbolic reappears in the real was grasped very well, a discussion arose over the way I translate the patient does not want to know anything about it in the sense of repression.4

虽然我当时正在强调的内容受到清楚地理解，当我说，从符号象征曾经被拒绝的东西，在真实界重新出现，对于我翻译的方式，则是引起讨论：潜抑的意义来说，病人并不想要知道关于它的任何事情。

However, to act on the repressed through the mechanism of repression is to know something about it, for repression and the return of the repressed are one and the same thing, expressed elsewhere than in the subject’s conscious language. The difficulty for some was their failure to grasp that what is involved is of the order of knowledge
[un savoir].

可是，通过潜抑的机制结构，对于这个被潜抑者来行动，那是要知道有关它的某件东西。因为潜抑与被潜抑者的回转，是一模一样的东西，它们在别的地方被表达，而不是在主体的意识语言里。对于某些人的困难是，他们没有办法理解，所牵涉到的是属于知识的秩序。

I shall quote you another passage, taken from the Schreber case. While Freud is explaining to us the mechanism of projection as such, which is supposed to explain the reappearance of fantasy in reality, he pauses to observe that we cannot speak here purely and simply of projection.

我将跟你们引述另外一个段落，从苏瑞伯的个案取来。虽然弗洛伊德跟我们解释投射本身的机制结构，它应该被用来解释幻见的重新出现在现实界，他停下来观察到，我们在此无法仅是单纯地谈论投射。

This is all too self-evident if one thinks of the way this mechanism functions, for example, in the delusion of so-called projective jealousy, which consists in imputing to one’s spouse infidelities of which one imaginatively feels guilty oneself. The
delusion of persecution is quite different and manifests itself through interpretive intuitions in the real.

这是太过于自明，假如我们想到这个机制结构运作的方式。譬如，在所谓的投射性的妒忌的幻觉，它在于归咎于我们配偶的不忠实。对于这个不忠实，我们感觉有罪恶感。迫害的幻觉是完全不同，而且是通过在实在界的解释性的直觉，证明它自己。

Here are the terms in which Freud expresses himself -It is incorrect to say that the internally suppressed sensation – Verdrangung is a symbolization, and Unterdriickung simply indicates that something has fallen underneath – is once again projected outwards – this is the repressed and the return of the repressed – But instead we must say that what is rejected – you perhaps recall the note of insistence that usage has given this word – returns from without?

在此，弗洛伊德用来表达他自己的这些术语—这样说是不正确的：内部受到压抑的感觉—「潜抑」是一种符号象征化，而「压抑」仅是指示，某件东西曾经掉落底下。内部被压抑的感觉再一次被投射到外面—这是受到潜抑及受潜抑者的回转。但是代替的，我们必须说：所被拒绝的东西是从外面回转吗？你们或许回想到给予这个字的用法的这个坚持的语调。

There you have a text to add to the ones that I’ve already quoted in the same vein, and which are pivotal. To be precise, the text Die Vemeinung that M. Hyppolite gave us a commentary on has enabled us to articulate with precision that there is a moment that is, one might say, the point of origin of symbolization.

在那里，你们拥有一个文本，可以增加到我已经以相同的风格，引述的那些作为枢纽的文本。确实地，海普莱特给予我们一个评论的「论否定」这个文本，让我们能够正确地表达，有一个时刻是符号象征的起源点，我们不妨这样说。

Let it be clearly understood that this point of origin is not a point in development but answers to the requirement that symbolization has to have a beginning. Now, at any point in development something may occur 58 that is the contrary of Bejahung – a Vemeinung that is in some way primitive, to which Vemeinung in its clinical consequences is a sequel. The distinction between the two mechanisms, Vemeinung and Bejahung, is absolutely essential.

让我们清楚地了解到，这个起源点并不是一个发展点，而是回应这个要求：符号象征化必须要一个开始。现在，在发展的任何点，某件事情会发生，那是「肯定」的相反。一种「否定」在某方面是原始的，「否定」在它的临床的结构是一个系列。「否定」与「肯定」，这两个机制结构的区别是绝对需要的。

We should be better off to abandon this term projection. What we are concerned with here has nothing to do with the psychological projection that makes us – when for example it concerns those about whom we have nothing but extremely mixed feelings – always greet everything they do with at least a certain amount of confusion as to their intentions.

假如我们放弃「投射」这个术语，我们的情况会更好。我们在此所关心的，跟心理的投射，并没有丝毫关系。心理的投射让我们总是欢迎一切它们做的事情，至少带着某种数量的混淆，关于它们的意义。譬如，它关系到我们仅是极端爱很交加的人物。

Projection in psychosis is not that at all; it’s the mechanism that makes what has got caught up in the Vemerfisng – that is, what has been placed outside the general symbolization structuring the subject – return from without.

精神疾病的投射，根本就不是那个。这个机制结构让在「否定」所被套陷的东西从外面回转。换句话说，所曾经被放置在主体结构的一般符号象征以外的东西。

What is this three-card trick we are all prey to, this strange juggler’s game between the symbolic, the imaginary, and the real? Since we don’t know the juggler we can ask the question. I am putting it on this year’s agenda. It will * enable us to define what is called the relation to reality and at the same time to articulate what the goal of analysis is, without falling into the constant confusions made in analytic theory on this subject. What are we talking about when we talk about adaptation to reality? Nobody knows what reality is, until it has been defined, which is not altogether simple.

我们都成为猎物的这个三张牌戏法是什么？在符号界，想象界，与实在界之间，这种奇特的变戏法？因为我们并不知道这位变戏法者，我们能够询问这个问题。我正将它放置在今年的研讨行事表。它让我们能够定义所谓的跟现实界的关系，同时又能够表达精神分析的目标是什么，而不会掉落到精神分析对于这个主体所造成的不断的混淆。没有人知道现实界是什么，直到它已经被定义，这可不是那么简单。

To introduce the problem I shall begin from a thoroughly up-to-the-minute element. No one can say that this seminar is merely a commentary of texts, in the sense in which it would involve a pure and simple exegesis – these things are alive for us in our daily practice, in our supervisions, in the way we conduct our interpretation, in the way we deal with resistances.

为了介绍这个难题，我将使用最新潮的方式开始。没有人能够说，这个研讨班仅是一种文本的评论。因为它将牵涉到实实在在的诠释。对于我们而言，这些事情在我们精神分析的日常实践里，在我们督导里，都是活生生的。不论是我们从事我们的诠释的方式，或是我们处理抗拒的方式。

So I shall borrow an example from my case presentation of last Friday.

所以我将从上个星期五的个案讨论，借用一个例子。

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

The Psychosis 16

The Psychoses 16
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Ill

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

4
I am not going to answer the first question. Is it true speech? – at the outset we can’t know. On the other hand, what does he talk to you about? About himself no doubt, but first about one object that isn’t like any of the others, about an object that is situated in the prolongation of the dual dialectic – he speaks to you about something that has spoken to him.

我将不会回答第一个问体。这是真实的言说吗？在开始，我们无法知道。在另一方面，他对你谈论什么？无可置疑地，他谈论他自己，但是首先谈论有关一个客体，那个客体并不像任何其他一个客体，关于一个被定位在双重辩证的延长的客体—他跟你言说，关于某件对他言说的东西。

The very basis of the paranoid structure is the fact that the subject has understood something that he formulates, that something has taken the form of speech and speaks to him. No one, of course, is in any doubt that this is a fantasized being, not even he, for he is always in a position to admit the totally ambiguous character of the source of the utterances that have been addressed to him.

偏执狂的结构的基础是这个事实：主体已经了解某件他说明的东西，某件东西曾经形成言说的形态，并且对他言说。当然，没有人会有任何怀疑：这是一个被幻想的存在，甚至他自己，因为他总是处于一个立场要承认，对他言说的这些表达，其来源具完全暧昧的特性。

The paranoiac bears witness to you concerning the structure of this being that speaks to the subject.

偏执狂对你见证，关于这个对着主体言说的这个存在的结构。

You must already be able to tell the difference in level between alienation as the general form of the imaginary and alienation in psychosis. It’s not simply a matter of identification, and of scenery swinging over onto the side of the little other. From the moment the subject speaks, the Other, with a big O, is there. Without this there would be no problem of psychosis. Psychotics would be speaking machines.

你们一定已经能够区别这个差异，处于异化作为想象界的一般形式，跟精神疾病的异化之间。这不仅是认同，及风景摆荡进入小他者的这边的问题。从主体言说的是时刻，大他者拥有一个大写字母O，就在那里。假如没有这个，就不会有精神疾病的问题。精神疾病将会是言说的机器。

It’s precisely insofar as he speaks to you that you take his testimony into account. The question is this. What is the structure of this being that speaks to him, and that everybody agrees is fantasmatic? It’s precisely the S in the sense in which the analyst understands it, but an S with a question mark.

确实是当他跟你言说，你会考虑到他的证词。问题就是这个。跟他言说的这个存在，以及每个人都同意是幻觉的这个存在，其结构是什么？

What part in the subject talks? Analysis says it’s the unconscious. Naturally, for this question to make sense you have to have already admitted that the unconscious is something that speaks within the subject, beyond the subject, and even when the subject doesn’t know it, and that says more about him than he believes.

主体身上什么部分在言说？精神分析说，那是无意识。当然，为了要这个问题有意义，你必须已经承认，无意识是某件在主体之内，超越主体之外的言说，甚至主体并不知道它，而它说出的关于他的事情，超过他所相信的。

Analysis says that in the psychoses this is what speaks. Is this enough? Absolutely not, for the whole question is how it [ga] speaks and what the structure of paranoid discourse is. Freud gave us an altogether gripping dialectic on this point.

精神分析说，在精神疾病，这是他言说的东西。这样就足够吗？绝对不足够。因为整个的问题是它如何言说，偏执狂的论述的结构是什么？对于这一点，弗洛伊德给予我们一个完全迷人的辩证法。

It’s based on the utterance [enonci] of a fundamental tendency that might eventually be recognized in a neurosis, namely – / love him and You love me.

就是以一个基本的倾向的表达作为基础，这个倾向最后可能在神经症身上，被体认为出来。换句话说，那就是：「我爱他而你爱我」

There are three ways of negating this, says Freud. He doesn’t beat about the bush, he doesn’t tell us why the unconscious of psychotics is such a good grammarian and such a bad philologist – from the philologist’s viewpoint all this is in fact extremely suspect. Don’t think that this works like a high school grammar book – there are, depending on the language, many ways of saying / love him. Freud doesn’t stop there, he says there are three ways, and three types of delusion, and it works.

有三个方法来否定这个，弗洛伊德说。他并没有拐弯抹角，他并没有告诉我们
为什么精神疾病的无意识是如此优秀一位文法家，如此差劲的一位语言学家。从语言学的观点，所有这一切事实上都极端可疑。你们不要以为，这种运作就像中学的文法书。凭借着语言，有许多方法说：「我爱他」。弗洛伊德并没有停在那里，他说有三个方法，三种幻觉，它运作。

The first way to negate it is to say – Its not I who love him, its she, my conjoint, my double. The second is to say – Its not him that I love, its her.
第一个否定它的方法是说：「并不是我爱他，而是她，我的共同体，我的双重人。第二的否定的方法是说：「我爱的并不是他，而是她」。

At this level the defense isn’t adequate for the paranoid subject, the disguise is inadequate, he isn’t safe, projection has to enter into play. The third possibility
-I do not love him, I hate him. Here inversion is also inadequate, this at least is what Freud tells us, and the mechanism of projection must also intervene, namely – He hates me. And there we have the delusion of persecution.

在这个层次，防卫并不充分，对于偏执狂的主体，伪装也不充分。他并不安全，投射必须开始运作。第三个可能性是：「我并不爱他，我恨他。」在此，倒转也是不充分，这至少是弗洛伊德告诉我们的。这个投射的机制必须也介入，换句话说：「他恨我」。在那里，我们拥有受到迫害的幻觉。

原注：
10 “Case of Paranoia/’ SE 12:63-65. Freud in fact mentions four kinds of contradiction.
The fourth is: “I do not love him at all – 1 do not love anyone.”

在「偏执狂的个案」，弗洛伊德事实上提到四种矛盾。第四个否定是说：「我根本不爱他—我并不爱任何人。」

The high degree of synthesis that this construction contributes is illuminating for us, but you see the questions that remain open. Projection has to intervene as a supplementary mechanism whenever there is no effacement of the I

这种建构所贡献的高程度的综合，对于我们而言，颇具启发性。但是你们看出这些始终是开放的问题。投射必须介入，作为一种补助的机制，每当没有这个「我」的抹除。

This isn’t totally unacceptable, though we would like more information about it. Furthermore, it’s clear that the not, the negation taken in its most categorical form, definitely doesn’t have, when applied to these different terms, the same value. But on the whole this construction comes close to something, it works, and it situates things at their true level by tackling them from this angle of, I would say, principal logomachy.

这并非完全不可接受，虽然我们想要更多关于它的资讯。而且，显而易见的，这个「并不」，这个否定，以其最分类的方式被接受。当它被运用到这些不同的术语时，它确实并没有拥有相同的价值。但是大体上，这个建构靠近某件东西，它运作，它定位事情在它们的真实的层次，从主要的词语的这个角度来处理它们，我可以这么说。

Perhaps what I have said to you this morning will give you some indication that we can rephrase the question differently. / love him – is this a message, an utterance, a testimony, the brute recognition of a fact in its neutralized state?

或许，今天早上我曾经跟你们说的，将会给予你们某些的指示，我们能够重新以不同方式来诠释这个问题.「我爱他」,这是一个讯息，一种表达，一种证词吗？
这是一种事实处于它的中立状态的严酷体认吗？

Take things in terms of a message. In the first case, Its she that loves him, the subject gets another to carry his message. This alienation surely places us on the level of the little other – the ego speaks through the intermediary of the alter ego, which has meanwhile changed sex. We shall restrict ourselves to observing the inverted alienation. In delusions of jealousy, this identification with the other with a reversal of the sign of sexualization is in the foreground.

以讯息的术语来看待事情。在第一个情况，「是她在爱他」，这个主体要求另外一个主体来载负他的讯息。这个异化，确实将我们摆置在这个小它者的层次，这个「自我」言说，通过这个「超我」的仲介，它同时也改变性别。我们将限制我们自己观察这个倒转的异化。在妒嫉的幻觉，这个认同于小他者，带有性化的讯息的倒转，处在前景。

On the other hand, by analyzing the structure this way, you see that it isn’t, in any case, a question of projection in the sense in which it can be integrated into a mechanism of neurosis. This projection consists in effect of imputing one’s own infidelities to the other – when one is jealous of one’s wife, it’s because one has a few little peccadilloes of one’s own to reproach oneself with.

在另一方面，凭借以这个方式分析结构，你们能够看出，无论如何，这并非是投射的问题，因为它能够被合并成为神经症的机制。这个投射在输入我们自己对小他者的不忠实的影响。当我们妒嫉我们的妻子，那是因为我们有一些我们自己的微小的错误行为，要用来责备我们自己。

The same mechanism can’t be invoked in the delusion of jealousy, probably psychotic, such as it’s presented either in Freud’s case or in the register into which I myself have just tried to insert it, where it’s the person you are identified with through an inverted alienation, namely your own wife, that you make the messenger of your feelings concerning, not even another man, but, as the clinic shows, a more or less indefinite number of men.

相同的机制无法在妒嫉的幻觉里被召唤。在精神疾病的幻觉里，或许可以。譬如，它被呈现在弗洛伊德的个案，要不就是被呈现在这个铭记。我自己刚刚尝试插入它的铭记。在那里，你认同的这个人，通过一个倒转的异化。换句话说，你自己的妻子，你让你的感觉的信差，甚至不是成为另外一个人，而是如同临床所显示的，是一大群的不确定数目的人。

The properly paranoid delusion of jealousy is repeatable indefinitely, it re-emerges at every turning point of experience and may implicate fairly well any subject who appears on the horizon, and even ones that don’t.

妒嫉的适当的偏执狂幻觉，可无穷尽地重复。它重新出现在经验的每一个转捩点，可能会牵连到出现在视野的任何主体，甚至没有出现的主体。

Now, Its not him that I love, its her. This is another type of alienation, no longer inverted, but diverted. The other addressed in erotomania is very special, since the subject doesn’t have any concrete relations with him, so much so that it has been possible to speak in terms of a mystical bond or platonic love.

现在，「我爱的并不是他，而是她。」这又是另外一种异化，不再倒转，而是偏离。在色情狂所被对谈的小他者非常特别。因为主体跟他并没有任何的具体的关系，这样以致于很有可能是以神秘的心灵默契，或是柏拉图式的精神爱的术语来言说。

He is very often a distant object with whom the subject is happy to communicate in writing, without even knowing whether what’s written will get to its destination. The least that can be said is that there is diverted alienation of the message. The accompanying depersonalization of the other is apparent in that heroic perseverance through every trial, as the erotomaniacs will themselves say.

他往往是一个摇远的客体，主体很高兴以书写跟他沟通，而甚至不知道所写的东西，会不会到达它的目的地。至少能够被说的是，这种讯息的异化是一种偏离。小他者伴随而来的除掉人格化，显而易见出现在那种英雄式的坚持，通过每个考验，如同色情狂自己所说的。

The erotomaniacal delusion is addressed to such a neutralized other that he is inflated to the very dimensions of the world, since the universal interest attached to the adventure, as de Clerambault used to say, is an essential part of it.

色情狂的幻觉是针对如此一个中立化的小他者对谈，以致于他自我膨胀到世界的维度，因为对于冒险息息相关的普遍性兴趣，是它的一个基本要素，如同克勒蓝伯特过去常说的。

In the third case we are dealing with something much closer to negation. It’s a converted alienation, in that love has become hatred. The profound deterioration of the entire system of the other, its reduction ratio, the extensive nature of interpretations about the world, shows you here the properly imaginary disturbance at its maximum extension.

在第三个情况，我们正在处理某件更加靠近否定的东西。这是一个倒转的异化，因为爱已经变成恨。小他者的整个系统的深刻恶化，它的沦落速度，关于这个世界的诠释的广泛特性，都给你们显示：在此，这个适当的想象界的困扰，处于它最大量的延伸。

The relations with the Other in delusions now call for investigation. Our terms will help us to reply all the better, through making us distinguish between the subject, he who talks, and the other with whom he is caught in the imaginary relation, the center of gravity of his individual ego, and in which there is no speech. These terms will enable us to characterize psychosis and neurosis in a new way.
30 November 1955

在幻觉里，跟大他者的这些关系，现在需要研究。我们的术语将有助于帮助我们回答得更好，因为它们让我们区别这个主体，会言说的这个主体，跟他被陷住的想象的关系的这个大他者，他的个人自我的引力的中心，在那里，没有言说。这些术语将使我们能够以新的方式，表现精神疾病与神经症的特征。

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

The Psychoses 15

The Psychoses 15
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Ill

PARANOID KNOWLEDGE
偏执狂的知识

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Now, there is another level. She is talking about herself, and she happens to say a little bit more than she would have liked to. This is where we perceive that she is deluding.

现在，还有另外一个层次。她正在谈论她自己，她恰好稍微多说了一下超过她想要说的事情。这就是我们感觉她正在欺骗。

Here she is talking about what is our common object – the other, with a small o. It is indeed still she who is talking, but there is another structure here, which moreover doesn’t reveal itself entirely.

在此，她正在谈论关于我们的公同的客体。这个他者，带有一个小写的o。确实依旧就是她在谈话。但是在此还有另外一个结构。而且，这个结构并没有完全显示它自己。

It’s not quite as if she were talking to me about nothing in particular, she is talking to me about something which to her is very interesting, vital, she is talking about something to which she nevertheless continues to be committed – in short, she bears witness.

这并不完全好像她正在跟我谈论到并没有什么特别的事情。她正在跟我谈论关于某件对她非常有趣而重要的事情。她正在谈论有关某件她仍然继续致力的事情。总之，她作为见证。

Let us try to probe a bit the notion of bearing witness. Is bearing witness purely and simply communication, too? Surely not. It’s clear however that everything we attach value to as communication is of the order of bearing witness.

让我们尝试探索一下作为见证的观念。见证纯粹并且仅仅也是沟通吗？当然不是，可是，显而易见地，每一件我们重视的跟沟通有关的事情，是属于见证的层次。

Disinterested communication is ultimately only failed testimony, that is, something upon which everybody is agreed. Everyone knows that this is the ideal of the transmission of knowledge. The entire system of thought of the scientific community is based on the possibility of a communication that concludes with an experiment that everybody can agree on. The very institution of the experiment is a function of testimony.

客观性的沟通，最后仅是失败的证明。换句话说，人人都同意的事情。众所周知，这是知识传递的理想。科学社团的思想的整个系统，就是以结论是人人都同意的试验的这种沟通的可能性，作为基础。这种试验的体制是一种证明的功用。

Here we are dealing with another sort of otherness. I can’t repeat all I once said about what I have called paranoid knowledge, since I shall also have to take it up again constantly over this year’s discourse, but I am going to give you some idea of it.

在此，我们正在处理另外一种他者。我无法重复所有我曾经说过的关于我所谓的偏执狂的知识。因为我也将必须再一次地不断地从事它，在这一年的论述里。但是我将给予你们有关它的观念。

What I designated thus in my first communication to the group Evolution psychiatrique, which at the time was quite remarkably original, was aimed at the paranoid affinities between all knowledge of objects as such. All human knowledge stems from the dialectic of jealousy, which is a primordial manifestation of communication. It’s a matter of an observable generic notion, behavioristically observable. What takes place between two young children involves this fundamental transitivism expressed by the fact that one child who has beaten another can say – The other beat me. It’s not that he is lying – he is the other, literally.

在我第一次跟「精神分裂进展论」的团体沟通时，我所指明的，在当时是相当原创性，目标朝着偏执狂在各种客体的知识本身之间的密切关联。所有的人类的知识都起源于妒忌的辩证法。这是一种沟通的原初证明。两个小孩之间发送的事情，牵涉到这个基本的转移，根据这个事实表达。有个小孩打到另外一个小孩，却能够说：另外一个小孩打我。这并不是他正在说谎，而是他实质上就是那另一个小孩。

This is the basis of the distinction between the human world and the animal world. Human objects are characterized by their neutrality and indefinite proliferation. They are not dependent on the preparation of any instinctual coaptation of the subject, in the way that there is coaptation, housing, of one chemical valency by another. What makes the human world a world covered with objects derives from the fact that the object of human interest is the object of the other’s desire.

这是人类的世界跟动物的世界之间的区别的基础。人类的客体的特色是它们的中立性及不限定地繁殖。它们并不依靠主体的任何本能的坚持，一个化学原子价会被另外一个原子价所坚持，收容。使人类的世界成为一个被盖满客体的世界的东西，来自于这个事实：人类感到興趣的客体，是大他者的欲望的客体。

How is this possible? It’s possible because the human ego is the other and because in the beginning the subject is closer to the form of the other than to the emergence of his own tendency. He is originally an inchoate collection of desires – there you have the true sense of the expression fragmented body – and the initial synthesis of the ego is essentially an alter ego, it is alienated.

这如何是可能呢？这是可能的，因为人类的自我就是大他者，因为在开始，主体靠近大他者的形式，比靠近他自己的倾向的出现更加接近。他原先就是欲望的不完全的收集。在那里，你拥有「片断的身体」这个词语的真实的意义。自我的最初的综合，基本上是一种「改变的自我」，这个自我是异化的。

The desiring human subject is constructed around a center which is the other insofar as he gives the subject his unity, and the first encounter with the object is with the object as object of the other’s desire.

这个欲望的人类主体，环绕着一个以大他者作为中心被建构。因为他给予主体他的一致性。跟这个客体的第一次遭遇，就是跟客体作为大他者的欲望的客体。

This defines, within the speech relationship, something that originates somewhere else – this is exactly the distinction between the imaginary and the real. A primitive otherness is included in the object, insofar as primitively it’s the object of rivalry and competition. It’s of interest only as the object of the other’s desire.

在言说的关系里，这个定义某件起源于某个其他地方的东西。这确实就是想象界与实在界之间的这个区别。一个原始的大他者被包括在这个客体里。因为它是敌意与競争的客体。它引起興趣，因为它是大他者欲望的客体。

The said paranoid knowledge is knowledge founded on the rivalry of jealousy, over the course of the primary identification I have tried to define by means of the mirror stage.

所说的偏执狂的知识，就是以妒嫉的敌意作为基础的知识，在我曾经尝试凭借镜像阶段，来定义的原初的认同的过程。

This rivalrous and competitive ground for the foundation of the object is precisely what is overcome in speech insofar as this involves a third party. Speech is always a pact, an agreement, people get on with one another, they agree – this is yours, this is mine, this is this, that is that

dudes with an experiment that everybody can agree on. The very institution
of the experiment is a function of testimony.

这个敌意与競争的立场，作为客体的基础，确实就是在言说被克服的东西。因为这牵涉到第三者。言说总是一个盟约，一种协定，人们互相交往，他们同意。这是你的，这是我的，这是这个，那是那个。

But the aggressive character of primitive competition leaves its mark on every type of discourse about the small other, about the Other as third party, about the object. It’s not for nothing that in Latin testimony is called testis and that one testifies on one’s balls. In everything of the order of testimony there is always some commitment by the subject, and a virtual struggle in which the organism is always latent.

但是原始競争的攻击性的特性留下它的记号，在每一种关于这个小他者的论述，关于这个大他者作为第三者，关于这个客体。在拉丁文，证明被称为证词，并不是毫无道理的。我们根据我们的睾丸来证明。在一切属于证明的层次，总是会有主体所做的某个奉献，一个虚拟的奋斗，在那里，有机体总是具有潜能。

This dialectic always carries the possibility that I may be called upon to annul the other, for one simple reason. The beginning of this dialectic being my alienation in the other, there is a moment at which I can be put into the position of being annulled myself because the other doesn’t agree. The dialectic of the unconscious always implies struggle, the impossibility of coexistence with the other, as one of its possibilities.

这个辩证法总是带有这个可能性：我可能会被要求使大他者无能，理由很简单。因为这个辩证的开始成为我的异化，有某个时刻，我会被处于自己成为无能的这个立场，因为大他者不同意。无意识的这个辩证总是暗示着奋斗，跟大他者的共同存在的不可能，作为它的可能性之一。

The master-slave dialectic reappears here. The Phenomenology of Mind probably doesn’t exhaust the whole question, but surely its psychological and psychogenetic value can’t be misrecognized. It’s in a fundamental rivalry, in a primary and essential struggle to the death, that the constitution of the human world as such takes place. Except that at the end one is present when the stakes reappear.

这个主人与奴隶的辩证法在此再一次出现。「精神现象学」可能并没有穷尽全部的问题。但是确定地，它的心理与心因性的价值不可能被误认。在一个基本的敌意里，在一个原初及基本的奋斗到死，人类世界本身的组成会发生。除了，在最后，当赌注重新再出现是，我们在现场。

The master has taken the slave’s enjoyment from him, he has stolen the object of desire as object of the slave’s desire, but at the same time he has lost his own humanity. It was in no way the object of enjoyment that was at issue, but rivalry as such. To whom does he owe his humanity? Solely to the slave’s recognition. However, since he doesn’t recognize the slave, that recognition literally has no value.

主人曾经从奴隶身上获得奴隶的享乐，他曾经偷走欲望的客体，作为奴隶欲望的客体。但是同时，他已经丧失他自己的人性。受到争议，根本不是享乐的客体，而是敌意的本身。他将他的人性归功于谁呢？仅仅是归功于奴隶的承认。可是，因为他并不承认奴隶，那种承认实际上没有价值。

As is habitual in the concrete development of things, the one who has triumphed and conquered the enjoyment becomes a complete idiot, incapable of doing anything other than enjoying, while he who has been deprived of it keeps his humanity intact. The slave recognizes the master, and thus he has the possibility of being recognized by him. Over the centuries he will engage in the struggle to be effectively recognized.

如同事情的具体发展的习性，已经获胜及征服享乐的这个人，成为一个完全的白痴，不能够做任何事情，除了享乐。而被剥夺掉享乐的奴隶，却保持他的人性完整。奴隶承认主人，因此，他拥有可能被主人承认的这个可能性。几个世纪以来，他将从事将会有效地被承认的这个奋斗。

This distinction between the Other with a big O, that is, the Other in so far as it’s not known, and the other with a small o, that is, the other who is me, the source of all knowledge, is fundamental. It’s in this gap, it’s in the angle opened up between these two relations, that the entire dialectic of delusion has to be situated. The question is this – firstly, is the subject talking to you? – secondly, what is he talking about?

大他者带有这个大写字母O，也就是说，这个不为人所知的大他者，和这个小他者，带有一个小写的o，也就是，作为我的这个小他者，所有知识的来源。这种区别是基本的。就在这个差距，在这两个关系之间，被展开的这个角度幻觉的整个辩证法必须被定位。问题首先是，主体跟你谈话吗？其次，他正在谈论什么？

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

The Psychoses 14

The Psychoses 14
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Ill

PARANOID KNOWLEDGE
偏执狂的知识

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

3
What is speech? Does the subject speak or does he not? Speech – let’s dwell
on this fact for a moment.

言说是什么？主体言说或是没有言说？言说—让我们详述这个事实一下子。

What distinguishes speech [une parole] from a registering of language? To
speak is first of all to speak to others. I have on many occasions brought to
the foreground of my teaching this characteristic which at first sight appears
simple – speaking to others.

是什么区别言说跟语言的铭杰？言说首先就是对别人言说。我在好几个场合，曾经将这个特性带到我的教学的前景。乍然一看，这个特性似乎简单，对别人言说。

The notion of what a message is has, for some time, been in the foreground
of the preoccupations of science. For us, the structure of speech, as I have
said to you whenever we have had to use this term in its strict sense here, is
that the subject receives his message from the other in an inverted form. Full
speech, essential, committed speech, is based on this structure. We have two
exemplary forms of this.

讯息是什么的这个观念，有一段时间，曾经处在被科学专注佔有的前景。对于我们而言，言说的结构，如同我曾经跟你们说过，每当我们在此必须以严格的意义使用这个术语。这个语言的结构就是，主体以倒转的形式从他者那里接收它的讯息。完整的言说，基本而奉献的言说，就是以这个结构为基础。我们拥有这个结构的两个典范的形式。

The first is fides, speech that gives itself, the You are my woman or the You are my master, which means – You are what is still within my speech, and this I can only affirm by speaking in your place. This comes from you to find the certainty of what I pledge.9 This speech is speech that commits you. The unity of speech insofar as it founds the position of the two subjects is made apparent here.

第一个典范是「坦诚告白」。言说表达它自己：「你是我的女人」，或是「你是我的主人」，它的意思是：「你是我的言说里面依旧存在的东西。仅有凭借站在你的位置，我才能够肯定这一点。这来自于你，为了要找到这个确定性，对于我宣称的东西。这个言说是奉献于你的言说。言说的一致性在此变得显而易见，因为它找到作为两个主体的位置。

If this doesn’t seem obvious to you, confirmation by its contrary is, as usual, so much more obvious.

假如对于而言，这并非显而易见，跟它相反的肯的，通常是如此更加显而易见。

The sign by which the subject-to-subject relation is recognized, and which distinguishes it from the subject-to-object relationship, is the feint, the reverse
of fides.

主体对于主体的关系被承认讯息，区别它跟主体与主体的关系，就是这个欺骗，这个坦诚告白的倒转。

You are in the presence of a subject insofar as what he says and does – they’re the same thing – can be supposed to have been said and done to deceive you, with all the dialectic that that comprises, up to and including that he should tell the truth so that you believe the contrary.

你们处于一个主体的在现场，因为他所说所为—他们都是相同的事情。他们能够被认为曾经被说被做，为了欺骗你，带着完整的辩证法。这个辩证法组成，甚至包括：他应该说出实话，这样你才会相信相反的东西。

You know the Jewish joke, recounted by Freud, about the character who says – / am going to Cracow. And the other replies – Why are you telling me you are going to
Cracow? You are telling me that to make me believe that you are going somewhere
else.9

你们知道弗洛伊德描述的犹太人的笑话，关于那些人物的说法：「我将要去克拉考。另外一人回说：「为什么你告诉我，你要去克拉考？你正在告诉我，为了让我相信，你正要告诉我你正要去某个其他地方。

What the subject tells me is always fundamentally related to a possible feint, in which he sends me, and I receive, the message in an inverted form.

主体告诉我们的，总是基本上是跟一种可能的欺骗有关。在这个欺骗里，他送给我们，我们接收这个讯息，以倒转的方式。

There you have both sides of the structure, foundational speech and lying 48
speech which is deceptive as such.

你们在那里拥有这个结构的两面，作为基本的言说，及作为谎言的言说，它的本身是欺骗性的。

We have generalized the notion of communication. In the present state of affairs, it’s touch and go whether the entire theory of what goes on in living beings will be revised as a function of communication.

我们曾经概念化沟通的观念。在事情的目前状态，这是非常冒险而不确定的情况，在生物正在进行的整个理论，是否将会被修正作为沟通的功用。

Read anything by Mr. Norbert Wiener; its implications are huge. Among his many paradoxes he presents this strange myth of transmitting a man by telegraph from Paris to New York by sending exhaustive information on everything that constitutes
his individuality.

阅的诺伯特、温奈的任何著作，它给予的暗示非常巨大。在他的众多的悖论当中，他呈现这个奇怪的神话：使用电报从巴黎将一个人传递到纽约，以送出所有的资讯，关于组成他的个人性的一切。

Since there is no limit to the transmission of information, the point-by-point resynthesis, the automatic recreation of his entire true identity at a distant place, is conceivable. Such things are curiously deceptive, and everyone wonders at them.

因为资讯的传递是永无止境的，这个点对点的重新综合，他的完整的真实的身份，在遥远的地方的这个自动的重新创造，是可以构想的。这些事情耐人寻味地具有欺骗性。每个人都想要知道它们。

They are a subjective mirage which collapses as soon as one points out that it would be no greater a miracle to telegraph over two centimeters. And we do nothing less when we move ourselves through the same distance. This extraordinary confusion is sufficient indication that the notion of communication has to be treated cautiously.

它们是主体性的幻觉，这个幻觉将会崩塌，当我们指出，将讯息传递两公分，并不是什么奇迹。我们所做的，充其量是将我们通过相同的空间移动。这个特别的混淆是充分的指示：沟通的观念必须谨慎地被处理。

For my part, within the generalized notion of communication, I state what speech as speaking to the other is. It’s making the other speak as such. We shall, if you like, write that other with a big O. And why with a big O? No doubt for a delusional reason, as is the case whenever one is obliged to provide signs that are supplementary to what
language offers.

就我而言，在沟通的一般的观念里面，我陈述跟他者言说是什么。它让他者作为本身言说。你们若愿意，我们将写下那个大者为大写字母O. 为什么要一个大写字母O呢？无可置疑的，是因为幻觉的理由，如同我们被迫供应讯息，来补充语言所提供的东西。

That delusional reason is the following. You are my woman – after all, what do you know about it? You are my master – in point of fact, are you so sure? Precisely what constitutes the foundational value of this speech is that what is aimed at in the message, as well as what is apparent in the feint, is that the other is there as absolute Other.

那个幻觉的理由如下：「你是我的女人」—毕竟，关于它，你知道多少？「你是我的主人」。事实上，你们如此地确定吗？确实是组成这个言说的基础的价值，是这个讯息所要到达的目标，以及在欺骗里显而易见的东西。那是那里的他者，是一个绝对的大他者。

Absolute, that is to say that he is recognized but that he isn’t known. Similarly, what constitutes the feint is that ultimately you do not know whether it’s a feint or not. It’s essentially this unknown in the otherness of the Other that characterizes the speech relation at the level at which speech is spoken to the other.

绝对，换句话说，他被承认，但是他没有被人知道。同样地，组成这个欺骗的东西是，最后你并不知道，是否它是欺骗。基本上就是大他者的这个另一面的这个未知，表现言说关系的这个特性。言说就是在这个层次，对大他者言说。

I am going to keep you at the level of structural description for a while, because it’s only here that the problems can be raised. Is this all that distinguishes speech? Perhaps, but surely it has other characteristics – it doesn’t speak only to the other, it speaks of the other as an object. And this is what is involved when a subject speaks to you of himself.

我将要保持你们在结构的描述的层次一阵子。因为仅在结构这里，问题能够被提出。这就是区别言说的一切吗？或许，但是的确，它拥有其他的特性。它不仅是对大他者言说。它言说大他者作为一个客体。这就是当主体对你言说他自己，所会牵涉到的东西。

Take the paranoiac of the other day, the one who used the term galopiner. While she talks to you, you know that she is a subject by virtue of the fact that she tries to take you in. This is what you are expressing in saying that you are simply dealing with what you clinically call a partial delusion.

拿前天的那个偏执狂为例。使用「galopiner」这个术语的那个人。当她跟你谈论时，你知道，她是一个主体，是凭借这个事实： 她尝试欺骗你。这是你正在表达的东西，当你说：你仅是在处理你的临床所谓的部分幻觉。

It’s precisely to the extent that it took me an hour and a half the other day to make her produce her galopiner, to the extent that during all that time she held me at bay and showed herself to be of sane mind, that she maintains herself at the limit of what can be clinically perceived as a delusion. What you call, in your jargon, the sane part of the personality derives from the fact that she speaks of the other, is capable of making fun of him. It’s by virtue of this that she exists as a subject.

确实到达那个程度，前天我花费一个半小时，让她言说出「galopiner」这个字词。到达这个程度，在所有的那段时间，他让我陷于困境，并且显示她自己跟我们的心灵相同。她维持她自己，处于临床感觉作为的幻觉的极限。随你们高兴用你们的术语，人格的清醒1部分是来自于这个事实： 她言说大他者，她能够开大他者玩笑。凭借这一点，她存在作为主体。

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

The Psychoses 13

The Psychoses 13
精神病患
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Ill

AUTOMATISM AND ENDOSCOPY
自动机制与内视镜检视

PARANOID KNOWLEDGE
偏执狂的知识

GRAMMAR OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
无意识的文法

I once tried to outline an analysis of psychotic discourse in an article published
in the Annales medico-psychologiques in the thirties.7 It concerned a case of schizophasia where effectively one can, at every level of discourse, semanteme
as well as taxeme, pick out the structure of what is, perhaps not without reason, but no doubt without full awareness of the term’s significance, known as schizophrenic disintegration.

我曾经尝试描绘精神疾病论述的分析轮廓，在三十年代出版的医学心理学的一篇文章。它包含一个精神分裂的个案。在这个案，我们能够有效地，在论述的层次，从语意及语素，挑选出实质内容的结果，或许不是没有道理的。但是无可置疑并没有充分知道这个术语的意义。这就是众所周知的精神分裂症的崩裂。

I’ve been talking about language. You must in this respect touch upon the inadequacy, the undesirable tendency that is betrayed in the expression – One has to speak the patients language.

我一直在谈论语言。在这一方面，你们必须触及到这种不充足，这种不被渴望的倾向，在这个表达里被泄露出来：我们必须用病人的语言谈论。

No doubt those who say such things must be forgiven, like all those who don’t know what they are saying. Evoking so summarily what is at issue is the sign of hasty thoughts, of repentance.

无可质疑的，那些说这样的事情的人，必须被原谅。就像那些不知道他们正在说什么的人。如此结论性地召唤受到争议的东西，是轻率思想及悔恨的迹象。

One absolves oneself, pays one’s debts – except that one only displays condescension
and reveals at what distance one maintains the object in question, namely the patient. Since he, too, is present, well then, let’s speak his language, the language of simpletons and idiots.

我们赦免我们自己，偿付我们的债务，除了我们仅是展示纡尊降贵的态度，并且显示我们将受质疑的客体维持在怎样的距离。换句话说，病人。 因为他也在现场，呵呵，就让我们用他的语言谈论，傻瓜与白痴的语言。

To mark this distance, to make language a pure and simple instrument, a way of making oneself understood by those who understand nothing, is completely to elude what is at issue – the reality of speech.

为了标示这个距离，标识语言是一种纯粹而简单的工具，一种让自己受人了解的方式，受到那些什么都不了解的人的了解。这仅是逃避受到争议的问题—那就是言说的现实界。

Let’s leave analysts to one side for the moment. On whom is the psychiatric discussion of delusion, whether it seeks to be phenomenological, psychogenetic, or organogenetic, centered? What do the extraordinarily penetrating analyses of a de Clerambault signify, for instance? Some people think that it is a matter of discovering whether or not delusion is an organic phenomenon.

让我将分析家暂时搁置一边。幻觉的精神分裂的讨论，无论它尝试成为现象学，心因性，或是器官基因性，都集中在谁的身上？譬如，克勒蓝伯特的这个特别透彻的精神分析意指着什么？有些人认为，问题是要发现，是否幻觉是一种器官的现象。

This, it seems, is supposed to be discernible in its very phenomenology. This
is all very well, but let’s look at the thing a bit more closely.

似乎，这被认为是从它的现象学可觉察到。这没问题，但是让我们更加仔细地观察事情。

45 Does the patient speak? If we did not distinguish language and speech, it’s true, he speaks, but he speaks like those sophisticated dolls that open and close their eyes, drink liquid, etc. When a de Clexambault analyzes the elementary phenomena, he looks for their signature in their mechanical, serpiginous structure, and God only knows what neologisms.

病人在言说吗？假如我们没有区别语言与言说，的确，他是在言说，但是他言说的样子像是那些精致的洋娃娃，他们的眼睛一开一阖，喝饮料等等。但克勒蓝伯特分析这些基本的现象，他寻找它们的意义，在它们的机械的，逐渐恶化的结构。仅有天晓得，那些新的词语是什么。

But even on that analysis personality is never defined but is always assumed, since everything rests on the ideogenic character of a primary comprehensibility, on the link
between affections and their linguistic expression. This is supposed to be self evident, this is where the demonstration starts from. We are told this – the automatic character of what takes place is demonstrable phenomenologically, and this proves that the disorder isn’t psychogenetic.

但是即使在那个精神分析，人格从来没有被定义，而总是被假定。因为每一样东西都依靠原初的可理解性的观念起因的特性，依靠情感与它们的语言的表达之间的连接。这被认为是自明的。这就是证明从那里开始的地方。我们被告诉这一点：所发生的事情的自动的特性，在现象上是可被证明的。这证明，这种混乱并不是心因性。

But it’s in relation to a psychogenetic reference itself that the phenomenon is defined as automatic. It’s assumed that there is a subject who understands by himself and who
observes himself. Otherwise, how would the other phenomena be grasped as foreign?

但是这个现象被定义为自动，是根据跟心因性的指称。有人认为，会有一个主体自己会了解，会观察他自己。否则，其他的现象如何被理解为外来的？

Notice that this isn’t the classical problem that has brought all philosophy since Leibniz to a standstill, that is, at least since consciousness has been emphasized as the foundation of certainty – must a thought, to be a thought, necessarily think of itself thinking? Must all thought necessarily perceive that it’s thinking of what it is thinking?

请注意，将从莱布尼思以来的所有哲学告一停顿，这并不是经典的问题。换句话说，至少从意识被强调作为确定性的基础以来，一定有一个思想，被认为的思想，必须出于自动思想，思想什么呢？所有的思想必须感觉到，这是它思想的内容的思想吗？

This is so far from being straightforward that it immediately leads into an endless play of mirrors – if it’s the nature of thought to think of itself thinking, there will be a third thought that will think of itself thinking thought, and so on.

这根本不是那么清楚，以致于它立即导致一个永无止境的镜子的遊戏—假如这就是思想自己本身的思想的特性，那将会有一个第三者思想，将会出于自动思想什么是思想，等等。

This small problem, which has never been resolved, suffices on its own to demonstrate the insufficiency of the subject’s foundation in the phenomenon of thought as transparent to itself. But this isn’t at all what is at issue here.

这个小问题，从来没有被解决过，它独立自足地证明，在思想作为它自己的透明体的这个现象，主体的基础是不够充分的。但是这根本并是争议所在。

Once we allow that the subject has knowledge as such of the parasitic phenomenon
as such, that is, as subjectively unmotivated, as written into the structure of the mechanism, into the disturbance of the supposed neurological pathways, we cannot avoid the idea that the subject has an endoscopy of what is actually going on within his own mechanisms.

一旦我们承认，主体拥有这个寄生现象本身的知识本身，换句话说，作为主体性没有被引发动机，作为被书写成为机械的结构，成为被认为是神经脉络的扰乱，我们无法避免这个观念：主体拥有这个内视镜检视，对于在他自己的机械结构里面，实际上正在进行的东西。

This is a necessity imposed on any theory that makes intraorganic phenomena the center of what happens in the subject. Freud attacks this problem more subtly than other authors, but he is equally obliged to admit that the subject is somewhere, at
a privileged point where he is able to have an endoscopy of what is going on
inside himself.

这是一个必要性被赋加在任何以器官内部的现象，作为主体身上所发生的任何理论上。弗洛伊德探究这个问题，比起其他作者，态度更加细腻。但是他同样不得不承认：主体是在某个其他地方，在一个具有特权的点。在那里，他能够拥有这个内视镜的检视，对于在他自己内部所正在发生的事情。

This idea doesn’t surprise anybody when it’s a question of more or less delusional endoscopies that the subject has of what is happening inside his stomach or his lungs, but it’s a more difficult matter when intracerebral phenomena are concerned.

这个观念并没有让任何人大吃一惊，因为这个问题是主体拥有的几乎是幻觉的内视镜检视，对于在他的胃肠或肺的内部正在发生的事情。但是这个一个更加棘手的问题，因为它牵涉到脑的内部现象。

The authors are forced to admit, though usually without being aware of it, that the subject has some endoscopy of what goes on inside the system of nerve fibers.

作者们被迫承认，虽然他们通常并不知道它，主体拥有某些的内视镜的检视，对于脑神经组织的系统内部进行的事情。

Take a subject who is the object of a thought-echo. Let’s agree with C1erambault
that this is the effect of a delay produced by a chronaxic deterioration – one of the two intracerebral messages, one of the two telegrams, as it were, is impeded and arrives after the other, thus as its echo.

以这个思想迴响的客体的主体为例。让我们同意克勒蓝伯特的看法：这是脑神经反应的恶化，产生的延迟效应。这两个脑内部的讯息的其中之一，所谓这两个电报之一，受到干扰，然后跟随另外一个到达，因为作为它的迴响。

For this delay to be registered, there must be some privileged reference point at which this can occur, from which the subject notes a possible discordance between one
system and another. However the organogenetic or automatizing theory is constructed, there is no escaping the consequence that some such privileged point exists. In a word, one is more of a psychogeneticist than ever.

为了让这个延迟被铭记，必须要有某种具有特权的指称点，在那里，这件事情能够发生。从那里，主体注意到一个可能的不协调，处于一个系统及另一个系统之间。无论这个器官起源或自动发送的理论如何被建构，不可能逃避这个结果：某个这样的特权点存在。总之，我们比起以前，更加是心因性学家。

What is this privileged point if it’s not the soul? – except that one is even more idolatry than those who confer the crudest reality on the soul by locating it in a fiber or a system, in what President Schreber designates as the unique fiber attached to the personality. It’s what is habitually called the function of synthesis, the nature of a synthesis being to have its point of convergence somewhere – even if ideal, this point exists.

这个特权点难道不就是灵魂？除了，我们甚至更加崇拜偶像，比起赐给灵魂简陋现实界的那些人，他们在脑组织或脑系统里找出灵魂的位置，在苏瑞伯首席法官指明是这个独特性连系到人格的组织。这就是习惯性地所谓综合的功用，一个综合性的生命实存的特性，拥有它在某个地方的汇集点，甚至是理想点，这个点存在。

So whether we are organogeneticists or psychogeneticists, we shall always be forced to assume the existence of a unifying entity somewhere. Does that entity suffice to explain the level of psychotic phenomena? The sterility of these sorts of hypotheses is astounding. If psychoanalysis has revealed anything significant, clarifying, illuminating, fruitful, rich, dynamic, it’s through disturbing the minuscule psychiatric constructions pursued over the decades with the help of purely functional notions of which the ego, which camouflaged them, necessarily formed the essential hub.

所以无论我们是器官起源学家，或是心因性学家，我们将总是被迫假定，一个统一的实体存在于某个地方。那个实体足够解释精神疾病的现象的层次吗？这些种类的假设的贫瘠是令人大吃一惊。假如精神分析曾经显示什么东西，那么重要，清澈，启蒙，有成果，丰富及活力，那就是通过这个微小的精神分裂的建构，这是过去几十年来被寻求，凭借着这些纯粹功用性的观念的帮助：伪装是他们的自我，必然是形成这个基本的枢纽。

But as for what psychoanalysis has contributed that is new, how do we approach it without again falling into the same rut from a different direction, through multiplying egos, themselves variously camouflaged?

至于精神分析曾经贡献的新颖的东西，我们如何探讨它，而不要从不同的方向，重蹈复徹地通过自我的繁殖，它们本身以各种方式被伪装？

The only approach consistent with the Freudian discovery is to raise the issue within
the same register in which the phenomenon appears to us, that is, in the register of speech. It’s the register of speech that creates all the richness of the phenomenology of psychosis, it’s here that we see all its aspects, decompositions, refractions. Verbal hallucination, which is fundamental to it, is precisely one of speech’s most problematic phenomena.

唯一跟弗洛伊德的发现互相一致的方法，是在相同的铭记里，提出这个问题。在这个铭记里，现象出现在我们身上，换句话说，言说的铭记。就是这个言说的铭记创造出精神疾病的现象的丰富性。就在这里，我们看到它所有的各方面，瓦解，反射。文辞的幻觉，这是它的基本，这确实是言说最棘手的现象之一。

Is there no way of dwelling on the phenomenon of speech as such? Simply by taking it into consideration, don’t we see a primary structure emerge, an essential and obvious structure that enables us to make distinctions that are not mythical, that is, that do not assume that the subject is somewhere?

难道没有方法详述语言的现象的本身？仅是凭借着考虑到它，我们难道不是看见一个原初的结构出现? 一个基本而明显的结构让我们能够从事并非是神秘的区别？ 换句话说，这种结构并没有假定，主体是在某个地方？

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