Object 18

Object 18

The Object of Psychoanalysis
精神分析的对象

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

15.6.66 XXII 49
Seminar 4: Wednesday 22 December 1965

A – The problem of the suture 缝合的问题

Leclaire protested against this suturing inferred by Miller. The question remains: is
there or is there not a suture? Is not what designates the position of the psychoanalyst
with respect to the truth precisely the privilege that he does not have to suture? How
can one deny that there is a suture if there is a concatenation?

雷克莱抗议由米勒推论的这个缝合。这个问题始终是:有或是没有一个缝合?精神分析家的立场关于真理所指明的东西,确实就是他并没有拥有缝合的特权吗?我们如何否认:假如后结合,就会有缝合?

I would take as proof this argument of Freud that is too often forgotten on the
consequences of castration. If it is possible, if the threat has been executed, it does not
simply deprive the subject of masturbatory pleasure, but it has, the henceforth
definitive impossibility for the castrated subject of a union with the mother.

我将会以时常受人忘记的弗洛伊德对于阉割的结果的论点,作为证据。假如可能,假如曾经被执行的威胁,假如可能,它不仅是剥夺主体这个受淫式的快乐,而且它拥有,它拥有从此是明确的不可能,对于跟母亲结合的被阉割的主体。

That castration is seen here as the collapse of the whole system of the signifier by the
rupture of any possibility of concatenation, explains why Freud compares it to a
disaster whose costs are immeasurable. In any case the penis plays here the role of
mediator of the cut and of the suture.

那个阉割在此被视为能指的整个系统的崩塌,由于结合的可能的中断。这解释为什么弗洛伊德将它比喻为一个代价难以估计的灾难。无论如何,男根在此扮演切割与缝合的仲介者的角色。

How can this be sutured? Jacques-Alain Miller, as I have just said, has shown the
assenscion of the number zero its transgression of the bar under the form of one, its
vanishing in the passage from n to n‟ which is n +1. But one would not be wrong
either to highlight the fact that the logic of an unconscious concept has requirements
that are internal to its formation.

这如何能够被缝合呢?如我刚刚说的,雅克、米勒,曾经显示,零这个数字汇集划槓禁制的侵犯在「一」的形式之下,它的消失,在这个过程,从n 到n加1的次方。但是我们假如强调这个事实:无意识的逻辑观念,拥有它的内在形成的这个要件,我们也不算错误。

Here let us quote Freud (with Leclaire): “faeces”, “child”, “penis” thus form a unity, an unconscious concept (sit venia verbo). The concept specifically of a little thing which can be separated from one‟s own body.

在此,我们引述弗洛伊德(跟雷克莱): 「粪便」「小孩」「男根」,因此形成一个统一,这是一种无意识的观念。这个明确是一个小东西的观念,它会跟它自己的身体分开。

To an opposition of a binary type, the one that linguistics offers us, that of phonology
where relationships are always posed in terms of an antagonistic couple and the one
that is put at the basis of all information, there is substituted here an operational
process with three terms (n, +, n‟) with the vanishing of a term as soon as it is
manifested . We find here a sort of paradigm which can give us the path of what may
be involved in the cutting up of the signifier.

对于一种双极种类的对立,语言学提供给予我们的这个「一」,语音学的这个「一」,关系总是被提出,以一种敌意的配对。这个被提出的一,作为所有资讯的基础,在此有一个运作的过程被替代,使用三个术语 (n + n)的次方,由于一种术语的消失,当它被证明。我们在此发现一种典范,能够给予我们这条途径,在能指的切割牵涉的东西。

In effect the linguists show themselves to be extremely embarrassed when it is a
matter of the cutting up of the signified while the cutting up of the signifier does not
present us with any kind of difficulty it seems. If for example I can believe Martinet,
I read: “ As regards semantics, if it has acquired the sense which interests us, it is
nonetheless derived from a root which evokes not at all a psychic reality but rather the
processes of meaning which are implied by the combination of the signifier and of the
signified”. “A seme in any case can be nothing other than a two faced unit.”

事实上,语言学家显示他们自己是极端尴尬,当问题是这个所指的被切割,而能指的切割,并没有呈现给予我们它显示的任何种类的困难。譬如,假如我能够相信马提尼,我阅读为:「关于语言学,假如它曾经获得让我们感到興趣的意义,它仍然是从一个根获得,这个根根本没有召唤一个心理的现实,而是相反地,意义的过程被暗含在能指的与所指的结合里。语素实实在在就是一个两面的单位。

The embarrassment comes here from the fact that any direct reference to the signified
would ruin the structuralist approach, since its accession by way of the signifier
creates the necessary detour for an indirect, relative and correlative apprehension.
Moreover, and above all, the tracing out of relevant traits leaves us here in perplexity.
Definitively, what lacks a consistent support here is the structure of the body. Does
not the assurance of holding as firm the relevant traits in phonology repose
definitively on the functioning of the vocal apparatus?

这种尴尬在此来自这个事实:任何直接提到这个所指,会毁灭这个结构主义的方法,因为它藉由能指的增加创造出这个必须的迂回,为了获得一种间接,相对,与互相的理解。而且,尤其是,相关特征的追踪在此让我们处于困惑中。明确地说,在此欠缺一种一致的支持,就是身体的结构。在语音学,拥有相关的特征作为确定,明确地是依靠这个声音器官的发挥功用。

No doubt it is under the command of the nervous system, which explains the fascination of linguists for cybernetics. The psychoanalyst is here the only one who tries to listen to the sense, at its level, namely to consider, while respecting the same requirement of indirect reference, that the cutting up passes to the level of the signified and that it is this cutting up itself which will imply a cutting up of the signifier which renders the signified intelligible.

无可置疑地,就在神经系统的命令之下,它解释语言学家对于电脑语音的著迷。精神分析家在此是唯一的人,尝试倾听这种意义,在它的层次,换句话说,当它尊重间接指称的要件,它考虑到,这个切割通往所指的层次。就是这种切割本身将会暗示着能指的切割,它使得所指能够被理解。

Here there is located the ambiguity that must be raised between the linguistic concept of the signifier and its psychoanalytic formulation as Lacan conceives of it. But is it the same thing?

在此,在能指的语言的观念,与依照拉康构想它,作为精神分析的说明,它们之间的模糊暧昧被定位。但是这是相同的事情吗?

You have no doubt recognised in this two-faced unity the theorisation of the Moebius
strip by Lacan. But can one not consider that the cutting up of the signified in this
metonymical series of different partial objects is represented by the phallus precisely
in so far as it has appeared in the form of (-phi) in its different partial objects whose
diachronic succession you know well: oral object, anal object, phallic object, etc. these terms only representing their mapping-out with respect to the erogenous zones,
leaving a place for more complex forms.

无可置疑地,在这两面的统一里,你们曾经体认出,拉康所说的莫比斯环带的理论化。但是我们能够不认为:所指的这个切割,在这个换喻的系列,对于不同的客体,它确实由这个阳具所代表,因为它以这个负的(-phi)的方式出现,以它的不同的部分客体。这些部分客体的历时性连续,众所周知:口腔的客体,肛门的客体,阳具的客体,等等。这些术语仅是代表它们的描绘,关于性感的地带,留下一个位置,容纳更复杂的形式。

This could reconcile a choice between a strict binary system which refers to options
which do not allow us ternary mediation, and another system where causality is
developed in a network, a type of reticular system which makes disappear any
functioning of an oppositional type.

这个能够让一种严格的两极的系统之间选择和谐。这个系体提到不容许我们有第三的仲介的选择。另外一个系统,在那里,因果律在网络里被发展,这是一种网络的系统,它让一种对立种类的运作消失。

Finally it clearly appears that the minimal form of this reticular structure is the
triangular structure where the third is vanishing. It is, I believe, the operation
illuminated by Miller‟s commentary.

最后,它清楚地显现,这个网络结构的最小的形式是这个三角形结构,在那里第三个单位逐渐消失。我相信,这就是米勒的评论启明的运作。

This may evoke for us diverse forms of relationships with which we have to deal in
the Oedipus complex where an opposition, that of the difference between the sexes, in
so far as it is supported by the phallus is in fact inserted into a triangular system which
is never apprehended except in two by two relationships; where the phallus constitutes
the standard of exchange, its cause.

这可能跟我们召唤关系的各种的形式。我们必须处理这些关系,在伊底普斯情结里,在那里。一种对立,两性之间的差异的对立。因为它由阳具来支持,它事实上被插入一个三角形的系统。这个系统从来没有被理解,除了以二对二的关系。在那里,阳具形成交换的标准,它的原因。

Saussure had the merit of placing at the beginning of the tongue as system, value,
outlining in this respect the comparison with political economy. But even though he
separated it out here, he scarcely went any further and did not pose himself the
question of what has value for the speaking subject. Thus the suture is accomplished
by allowing value to be seen as a cause without telling us anything about it.

索绪尔拥有这个优点,将「价值」放置在语言的开始,作为系统。在这方面,它描绘跟政治的活动力量相比较。但是即使他在此分开它,他很少更深入探讨,并且并没有跟自己提出这个问题:对于言说的主体,是什么拥有这个价值?因此,这个缝合被完成,由容许价值被视为是一种原因,而没有告诉我们这个原因是什么。

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: