Object 19

Object 19

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

This is where we encounter the function of cause developed by Jacques Lacan. If,
with Frege, the identity to oneself has allowed the passage from the thing to the
object, may we not think that what we have just shown may function as a relationship
of the object to the cause?

这就是我们遭遇拉康所发展的原因的功用,假如就弗瑞吉而言,对于自己的认同已经容许从这个物通过到这个客体,我们难道不能认为,我们刚刚显示的,可能发挥功用,作为一种客体跟原因的关系?

One might conclude that the object is the signifying relationship which can link the two terms of the thing and of the cause. We would here perhaps have one of the examples spoken about in this still contested article by Freud on the antithetical sense of primitive words since we know that chose (thing ) and cause (cause) have a common root, the mediation here being found to pass through the object.

我们可能认为,这个客体是能指化的关系,它能够连接物与原因的两个术语。我们在此或许拥有其中一个例子,被弗洛伊德以这篇具有争议性的文章谈论,根据原初的文字的强烈对比的意义。因为我们知道,无意识的物与原因拥有一个共同的根,在此仲介被发现通过这个客体。

In short, we would be present at the passage from “the indeterminate” to “the state of
what is or works”, from “what is in fact” to “what is of the order of reason, of the
subject, or of the motive” through the intermediary of the object in so far as its
definition is: “what presents itself to sight or affects the senses” (Littré).

总之,在这个通过过程,我们将会在现场,从这个「不确定」到「运作的状态」,从「事实上实存」到「理性,主体,或动机的秩序的实存」,通过客体的仲介,因为它的定义是:「呈现它自己给视觉或情感。」

B – The problem of representation

B. 符号再现的问题

Here there is posed then our second problem, namely that of representation. It seems
to me that Miller paid little attention to all the references to representation used by
Frege. Nevertheless he preserved in the passage quoted above the notion of an
alternative movement of a representation and of an exclusion. The function of
gathering together, of subsumption is solidary with the notion of a power which puts
things together and which at the cost of a cut (that of the power of gathering together
presented to the thing, represented). It is the cut which allows the representation.

在此,我们的第二个问题被提出,也就是符号再现的问题。我觉得,米勒几乎很少注意弗瑞吉所使用的符号再现的所有指称。可是,他在以上被引述的段落里,保存符号再现与排除的替代运动。内涵的汇集的功用,跟将东西聚集一块的力量的观念息息相关,并且以切割作为代价(聚集在一块的力量,呈现给事情,然后符号再现)。就是这个切割,容许符号再现。

Now here the number zero figures as object under which there falls no representation.
It is by the very operation of the cut that there comes, that there is accomplished the
subject I would say on the back of, at the expense of the object. As if one could say:
what does the cut (of the subject) matter since there remains the suture (of the oobject).

现在,在此的这个零的数字,充当没有符号再现掉落在底下的客体的图形。凭借着出现那里的这个切割的运作,我所谓的依靠客体及以客体作为代价的这个主体,就在那里被完成。好像我们能够说,既然客体的缝合始终在那里,主体的这个切割有何重要之处?

This is what the sacrifice of the object by desire in a way realises. What
matter the loss of the object if the desire survives and outlasts it. Something also
which would be of the order of: the object is dead, long live the desire (of the Other).
The demand becomes what assures the renewed resurrection of desire in the case
where it might happen to be lacking; it is formulated through the o- object.

这就是客体被欲望所牺牲,以某种方式实现的东西。假如欲望存活而且比客体存活的更久,那客体的丧失,又有什么关系?也将是属于客体的秩序的某件东西,已经是死亡,但愿大他者个的欲望万岁长存!这种要求变成为保证欲望的重新复活的东西,假如它恰巧是欠缺的话,它是通过这个客体来说明。

The demand which is sustained by no cause, a cause whose effect is the hole, through
which the remainder is confused with the demand, is this not the way that the fool –
the buffoon, Polonius – sees the fool – Hamlet in love with his daughter and an
uncertain avenger of the dead Father – which will make another father perish, that of
the object of his desire (Polonius) after a tragic mistake.

受到没有缘由所维持的要求,一种影响的是这个空洞的缘由,通过这个空洞,剩余物跟要求混淆一块。这难道不是傻瓜,这个笨蛋,普洛尼斯,看到傻瓜的方式?哈姆雷特爱上他的女儿,这是死去的父亲的不确定的复仇者。他让另外一位父亲消灭,他的欲望(普洛尼斯)的客体的父亲,由于悲剧性的错误.

“That I have found
the very cause of Hamlet‟s lunacy
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad
mad call I it; for to define true madness
what is it but to be nothing else but mad.”

「我已经发现
哈姆雷特的疯狂的缘由,
我间短地说。你高贵的儿子疯了,
我称它为疯狂,因为要定义真实的疯狂
是什么?难道不就是没有别的,就是疯狂。」

And further on:

然后,他继续说:

“That we find out the cause of this effect,
or rather say the cause of this defect,
for this effect defective comes by cause
thus it remains, and the remainder thus.
Perpend”.

「我们发现这个影响的缘由,
或者说是这个缺点的缘由,
因为缺点的这个影响是从缘由而来
它始终是这样,剩余物是这样
请沉思一下。」

Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2.

哈姆雷特,第二幕,第二场景

III – THE RELATION o TO i(o) AND THE PROBLEM OF
REPRESENTATION AND SPECULARISATION.

III.客体跟自我理想到魅影的关系,与符号再现于自我理想魅影化的问题

Lacan insists forcibly on the fact that the o-object is not specularisable, the reference
to the specular image is neither the image of the object nor that of representation, it is,
says Lacan in his seminar on Identification (1962) another object which is not the
same. It is caught up in the framework of a relationship where there comes into play
the narcissistic dialectic whose limit is the phallus which operates there under the
form of a lack.

拉康强烈地坚持这个事实:这个客体并无法被自我理想魅影化。提到这个自我理想的魅影意象,既不是客体的意象,也不是符号再现的意象。拉康在他的「论认同」的研讨班说到,这是另外一个并不是相同的客体。它被套陷在一种关系的架构里。在那里,这个自恋的辩证运作。这个自恋的辩证的限制就是这个阳具。这个阳具以一种欠缺的形态在那里运作。

Now we have just seen the non-depictable object represented by the number zero.
What does Freud have to say about it? By considering the problem uniquely from the
angle of the narcissistic dialectic one short-circuits in my opinion the problem of
representation which refers to the object of the drive. Freud designates it as eminently
substitutable and interchangeable, which might perhaps appear to be a compensation
for the impossibility of flight before internal stimuli, an intermediary procedure, I
would say between a limited exchange and a generalised exchange.

现在,我们刚刚看见这个无法被描述的客体,被用零这个数字来符号再现。对于这个零的数字,弗洛伊德必须说些什么呢?当我们独特地从自恋的辩证的角度,来考虑这个问题,依我之见,我们会将提到冲动驱力的客体的符号再现的问题短路中断。弗洛伊德指明它,作为显而易见是可替代与可互相交换的。或许它似乎是一种不可能逃离内部刺激的补偿,我不妨说,那是处于有限的交换与一般性的交换之间的一种仲介的过程。

It is necessary that there should participate in this exchange as an exchanged term an
object of the drive, thereforee it is not any object whatsoever that is involved in the
substitution.

在这个交换当中,必须有有一个冲动驱力的客体,参与作为一个被交换的东西。因此,牵涉到这种替代的,并不是任何客体。

Two problems here present themselves before us. The first is that of the distinction
between the representative of the drive and affect, the second is that of the differential
distribution of the mode of representation.

在此,两个问题呈现在我们面前。第一个问题是,冲动驱力符号再现与情感之间的区别,第二个问题是,符号再现的模式的不同的分配。

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: