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

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: