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