拉康研讨班25:结论的时刻

拉康研讨班25:结论的时刻

Jacques Lacan

雅克、拉康

Seminar 1: Wednesday 16 November 1976

There is a kind of notice which sets out…were you able to read it? What did you make of it? L’insu que sait, all the same that’s a bit of blah-de-blah, it equivocates; L’insu que sait, and then I gave a translation of the Unbewusst, I said that there was, in the sense of the use in French of the partitive, that there was de l’une-bévue1. It is just as good a way of translating the Unbewusst as any other, as the unconscious, in particular which, in French – and in German also moreover – equivocates with unconsciousness.

有某种的通知被送出、、、你们能够阅读吗?你们如何来解释它?L’insu que sait,
这仍然是有点胡言乱语,它模糊暧昧,L’insu que sait, 然后我给予翻译这个「Unbewusst」.我说,从法文的区格的意义而言,也有翻译为de l’une-bévue。 这个翻译跟Unbewesst 同样传神。因为「无意识界」跟「无意识状态」有模糊暧昧的地方,特别是在法文,而且在德文。

The unconscious has nothing to do with unconsciousness. So then why not quite calmly translate it by l’une-bévue. All the more so because this has immediately the advantage of highlighting certain things; why do we feel obliged in the analysis of dreams, which constitutes a bévue like anything else, like a parapraxis, except for the fact that there is something in which one recognises oneself. You recognise yourself in the witticism, because the witticism depends on what I called lalangue, you recognise yourself in the witticism, you slip into it and on this Freud made some remarks that are not unimportant.

无意识界跟无意识状态没有丝毫关系。因此为什么不平和地将它翻译为l’une-bévu?这样翻译会更加平和,因为这样会具有强调某些东西的利益。为什么在梦的精神分析,我们觉得被强迫?这就形成一种意识 bévue ,就像任何其他一件东西,就像一种失误。除了这个事实: 有某件东西,你在里面体认出自己。你在机智语里体认出你自己,因为机智语依靠我所谓的语素 lalangue,你们在机智语里,体认出你们自己。你们陷入自己说的机智语里,对于这一点,弗洛伊德有一些并非是不重要的谈论。

I mean that the advantage of the witticism for the unconscious is all the same linked to something specific which involves the acquisition of lalangue. Moreover, should we be saying that to analyse a dream we should stick to what happened the previous day?

我的意思是,对于无意识界,机智语仍然跟某件明确的东西息息相关。这牵涉到语素 lalangue 的获得。而且,我们难道应该说: 为了分析一个梦,我们应该坚持前一天所发生的?

This is not self-evident. Freud made a rule of it, but it would be as well all the same to see that there are many things which, not alone can go further back, but which depend on what could be called the very fabric of the unconscious. Also, is the parapraxis something which ought to be analysed strictly according to what happened, not the previous day, but this time during the day, this is something that really should be questioned.

这并不是自明的。弗洛伊德把它当成一种习惯,我们最好还是要看出,有很多的东西不仅会回溯,而且依靠所谓的无意识界的组织。而且,这个失误难道是某件应该被分析的东西,严格地根据所发生的事情,不是前一天,而是在这天的这个时间,这是某件确实应该被质疑的东西。

This year, let us say that with this L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue, I am trying to introduce something which goes further than the unconscious. What relationship is there between this something which must be admitted, that we have an inside that is called as best one can, psyche for example, we even see Freud writing endo, endo-psychical; it is not self-evident that the psyche should be endo; it is not self-evident that this endo should be endorsed.

今年,让我们说,由于这个L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue,,我正在尝试介绍比无意识界更深入的某件东西。在这个被承认的某件东西,我们拥有尽可能被成为里面的东西,譬如,精神。我们甚至看到弗洛伊德书写「里面」,里面的精神。这并不是自明代,精神应该是「里面」。这并不是自明的,这个「里面」应该被背书。

What relationship is there between this endo, this inside and what we usually call identification? It is this in short that, under this title which is as it were made for this particular occasion, this is what I would like to put under this title. Because it is clear that identification is what is crystallised in an identity. Moreover this fication in French is in German enunciated differently, Identifizierung, says Freud, in a place where I went to rediscover it, because I did not remember that I had done a seminar on Identifizierung. I did not remember, I remembered all the same what was in this chapter, I did not know that I had consecrated a year to it.

在这个「里面」与我们通常所谓的「认同」之间,有怎样的关系?总之,就是这个关系,在这个标题之下,因为这个标题是为了这个特别的场合而定出的。这是我想要放置在这个标题之下的东西。因为显而易见地,认同在一种身份里被具体表现。而且,法文的这个fication,在德文被表述的方式不同。弗洛伊德说是Identifizierung,在我前去重新发现它的地方。因为我并不记得,我曾经发表过一个探讨「认同」的研讨班。我并不记得,我仍然记得,这个章节所讲的东西。 我并不知道,我曾经奉献一年来探讨它。

But I remembered that for Freud there are at least three modes of identification, namely, the identification to which he reserves – I don’t really know why – the qualification of love. Love is the qualification that he gives to the identification to the father. What is it on the other hand that he advances in terms of an identification brought about by participation?

但是我记得,对于弗洛伊德,至少有三种认同的模式。换句话说,他保留给爱的特质的认同—我没有确实知道为什么。爱是他给与认同父亲的特质。在另一方面,他用参加所导致的认同的术语,提出的是什么?

He calls that, he pinpoints that as hysterical identification. And then there is a third identification which is the one that he constructs from a trait, a trait that formerly – I had all the same held onto the memory of it without knowing that I had done a whole seminar on identification – from a trait that I called ‘unary’, this unary trait interests us because, as Freud underlines, it is not something particularly connected to a beloved person. A person can be indifferent and a unary trait chosen as constituting the basis of an identification. It is not indifferent, since this is how Freud believes that he is able to account for the identification to the Führer’s little moustache which everyone knows played an important role.

他称谓那个,他强调那个作为歇斯底里的认同。还有一种第三种认同,那就是他从一个特征建构的这种认同。这个特征,在以前—我仍然坚持对这个特征的记忆,但是并不知道我曾经从事一整个研讨班探究「认同」。从一个我称为「单一特征」,这个单一特征让我们感到興趣。如同弗洛伊德强调的,这并不是某件特别跟一位所爱的人联接。一个人可能是漠不关心的,一个单一的特征被选择,作为形成一种认同的基础。这并不是漠不关心,因为这是弗洛伊德为什么相信,他能够解释对于「父亲」的小胡须的认同。众所周知,这个小胡须扮演一个重要的角色。

It is a very interesting question because it would result in certain remarks that have been advanced that the end of analysis should be to identify oneself to the analyst. For my part, I do not think so. But anyway this is what Balint maintains, and it is very surprising. To what then does one identify oneself at the end of analysis? Is one supposed to identify oneself to one’s unconscious? This is what I do not believe. I do not believe it, because the unconscious remains – I say ‘remains’, I am not saying ‘remains eternally’, because there is no eternity – remains the Other. It is the Other with a capital O that is at stake in the unconscious. I do not see how one could give a sense to the unconscious, except by situating it in this Other, the bearer of signifiers, which pulls the strings of what is imprudently called, imprudently because it is here that there arises the question of what the subject is from the moment that it so entirely depends on the Other.

这是一个非常有趣的问题,因为这会造成曾经被提出的某种的谈论: 精神分析结束时,自己应该认同于分析家。而我而言,我并不这样认为。但是无论如何,这是巴林特主张的观点,令人大为惊奇。 精神分析结束时,我们应该认同于什么? 我们应该认同于自己的无意识吗? 这是我并不相信的东西,我并不相信它,因为无意识始终是大他者–我说‘始终是’ ,我并没有正在说‘永远是’,因为没有什么是永远存在。这个大写字母O的大他者在无意识里岌岌可危。我并不明白,我们如何能够理解无意识的意义,除了就是将无意识定位在大他者,各种能指的载负者。他在背后操控一些不谨慎被称谓的东西,不谨慎是因为在这个地方,主体是什么的问题被产生,从主体如此完全地依赖大他者的时刻开始。

So then in what does this mapping out called analysis consist? Might it be or might it not be, to identify oneself, to identify oneself while taking some insurance, a kind of distance, to identify oneself to one’s symptom? I put forward that the symptom could be – this can be cashed in, it is pretty common – it can be the sexual partner. This is along the line of what I put forward,- put forward without it making you scream like an osprey – it is a fact, I put forward that the symptom taken in this sense is, to employ the term knowing (connaître), is what you know, it is even what you know best, without that going very far.

因此,被称为精神分析的这种描绘主要是什么?这是可能或是不可能,认同自己,当获得某种的保证,某种的距离,认同自己作为自己的病征?我主张,病征可能是—这个病征能够被交换,这是非常普遍的—病征能够是这个性的伴侣。这是沿着我提出的这个脉络—我提出,但是它并没有让你们像鹗鸟般地尖叫—这是一个事实,我提出,以这种意义被接纳的病征,运用「知道」这个术语,这是你们所知道的,这甚至是你们最清楚知道的,但是没有深入探讨。

Knowing has strictly only this sense. It is the only form of knowing taken in the sense in which it has been put forward that it is enough for a man to sleep with a woman for us to be able to say that he knows her, and indeed inversely. Since despite the fact that I strive for it, it is a fact that I am not a woman, I do not know what is involved in terms of what a woman knows about a man.

知道严谨来说,仅有这个意义。这是知道的唯一的形式,以这个意义理解。曾经有人提出,只要男人跟女人睡觉,我们就能够说: 他知道她。的确,这句话也可以颠倒过来说。因为尽管我尝试要知道的这个事实,我不是女人,这是一个事实,我并不知道,用女人知道男人的术语来说,这会牵涉到什么。

It is very possible that it may go, that it may go very far. But it can all the same not go so far as the woman creating man, even when it is a matter of her children, it is a matter of something that presents itself as a parasitism. In the uterus of the woman, the child is a parasite, and everything indicates that, up to and including the fact that things can go very badly between this parasite and this belly. So then what does knowing mean?

很有可能,它会深入,它可能会非常深入。但是它仍然没有深入到,创造男人的这个女人,甚至这个问题是她的小孩,这个问题是,某件东西呈现它自己,作为是一个寄生物。在女人的子宫里,小孩是一个寄生物。每一样东西都指示著,直到并且包括这个事实:在寄生物跟这个肚子之间,事情进行的非常不顺畅。因此,知道意味著什么?

Knowing means being able to deal with the symptom, knowing how to sort it out, knowing how to manipulate it, to know (savoir), this is something that corresponds to what man does with his image, it is to imagine the way in which you can manage this symptom.

知道意味着,能够处理病征,知道如何澄清它,知道如何操控它,「知道」,这是某件对应于人跟自己形象的所为。这是想象你能够处理病征的方式。

What is in question here, of course, is secondary narcissism, radical narcissism the narcissism that is called primary being ruled out on this particular occasion. Knowing how to deal with your symptom, that is the end of analysis. We have to recognise that this is pretty limited. It does not really go very far. How it is practised, this is of course what I am striving to convey in this crowd, with what result I do not know.

当然在此受到质疑的是次级的自恋,被称为原初的激进的自恋,在这个特别的场合被排除。知道如何处理你的病征,那就是精神分析的结束。我们必须体认出,这是非常有限度的。它并没有确实深入。使用我并不知道的结果,这要怎么实践呢?当然这是我正在努力在这个群众中表达的。

I embarked on this navigation like that, because at bottom I was provoked into doing so. It is what resulted from what was published in some special series or other of Ornicar on the split of 1953. I would surely have been much more discreet if the split of ‘53 had not happened.

我像那样从事这个研究航旅,因为追根究底,我受到激励要这样做。这是所被出版的东西的结果,在1953年的分裂时,某种特别系列的「Ornicar」的出版物。

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: