Seminar IX :Identification 27

Seminar IX :Identification 27
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar IX :Identification 11
第九研讨班 :认同

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar 6: Wednesday 20 December 1961

The last time I left you on a remark designed to give you the sense that my discourse is not losing its moorings, namely that the importance, for us, of this research this year depends on the fact that the paradox of the automatism of repetition is that you
see arising a cycle of behaviour inscribable as such in terms of a resolution of tension, therefore of the need-satisfaction couple, and that nevertheless whatever may be the function involved in this cycle, however carnal you may suppose it to be, it nevertheless remains that what it means qua automatism of repetition is that it is there in order to make emerge, to recall, to make insist something which is nothing other in its essence than a signifier which can be designated by its function, and especially under this aspect that it introduces into the cycle of its repetitions – always the same in their essence and therefore concerning something which is always the same thing –
difference, distinctiveness, unicity, and that it is because something happened at the origin which is the whole system of the trauma, namely that at one time there was produced something which took on from that time the form A, that in the repetition
the behaviour however complex, engaged you may suppose it to be in the animal individuality, is only there in order to make (2) re-emerge this sign A.

上一次我留给你们一个评论,被设计要让你们理解,我的论述并没有失去它的停锚点。换句话说,对于我们而言,今年这个研究的重要性,依靠这个事实: 重复的自动机制的矛盾是,你们看到行为的循环出现,本身无法用张力的舒解的术语来铭记。因此,需要与满足的术语,也无法铭记。可是,不管牵涉到这个循环的功能是什么,你们可能认为它是肉体的激情,问题仍然是,作为重复的自动机制所意味的是,它存在那里,为了让某件东西出现,为了提醒某件东西,让它持续下去。这个东西,在它的本质而言,实实在在就是一个能够被它的功能指明的能指。特别是在这个层面,它介绍这个在它们的本质仍然是相同的东西,进入它的重复的循环。因此关于这个某件东西,它总是相同的—差异,区别,独特性。这是因为某件东西发生在起源,那是创伤的整个系统。换句话说,有一次,某件东西被产生,从那时开始,它具有A的这个形式。在重复里,这个行为,无论如何复杂,你可能认为它从事于动物的个别性。它在那里,仅是为了让A这个符号重新出现。

Let us say that the behaviour from then on is expressible as behaviour number such and such; it is this behaviour number such and such, let us say it, the hysterical access for example: one of the forms in the case of a particular subject are his hysterical accesses, and it is this which emerges as behaviour number such and such.

让我们说,从那时起,这个行为能够被表达,作为行为的数字等等。就是这个行为数字等等,让我们说它,譬如,这个歇斯底里的接近,在特别主体的情况,这些形式之一是他的歇斯底里的接近。就是这种形式的出现,作为行为的数字,等等。

Only the number is lost for the subject. It is precisely in so far as the number is lost that there emerges this behaviour masked in this function of giving rise to the number behind what will be called the psychology of his access, behind the apparent motivations; and you know that in this regard no one will find it difficult to find an apparent reason for it: it is proper to psychology always to make a shadow of motivation appear.

对于主体,仅有这个数字丧失。确实是因为这个数字丧失,这个行为才出现。这个行为被遮蔽在这个功用里,它产生这个数字,在所谓的他接近的心理学背后,在明显的动机背后。你们知道,关于这一点,没有人将会发现,替它找到一个明显的理由是非常困难。心理学总是让动机的一个阴影出现,是理所当然。

It is therefore with this structural sticking together of something radically inserted into this vital individuality with this signifying function, that we are in analytic experience
(Vorstellungsrepr’asentanz): this is what is repressed, it is the lost number of behaviour such and such.

因此,用这个结构性的凝聚某件东西,强烈地插入这个具有这种能指化的功能的重要的个别性,我们处于精神分析的经验当中。这是所被潜抑的东西,这是某某行为的丧失的数字。

Where is the subject in all of that? It is in the radical, real individuality, in the pure sufferer of this capture, in the organism which henceforward is sucked in by
the effects of the “it speaks” (9a parle) by the fact that one living being among the others was summoned to become what Mr Heidegger calls the shepherd of being, having been caught up in the mechanisms of the signifier. Is it at the other extreme
identifiable to the very operation of the signifier?

在这一切中,主体在哪里?主体在这个强烈的,真实的个别性里,在这个捕捉的这个纯粹的痛苦者身上,在从此以后,被这个「它言说」的这些影响所吸收的有机体里。根据这个事实: 除了其余的生命实存外,这个生命实存被召唤来成为海德格所谓的生命实存的牧羊人。因为它已经被套陷在能指的机械结构里。它难道不是在另外一个极端被认同是能指的这个运作?

And is not the subject only the subject of discourse who is in some way torn away from his vital immanence, condemned to fly on high, to live (3) in this sort of mirage which flows from this redoubling which ensures that he not only speaks everything he lives, but that he experiences living being by speaking it and that already what he
is living is inscribed in an epos, a Saga woven right throughout his very act.

这个主体难道不仅就是论述的主体,他在某方面被从他的生命的永恒性撕裂开,被注定要高高翱翔,要生活在某种的幻觉里?这种幻觉从这种双重张力流露出来,这种双重张力保证,他不但言说他生活的一切,而且他凭借言说它,来经验生命的实存。他正在生活的东西已经被铭记在史诗里,通过他的行为编织而成冒险故事。

Our effort this year if it has a meaning, is precisely to show how the function of the subject is articulated elsewhere than in one or other of these poles, that it operates between the two. It is after all – I for my part imagine – what your cogitation – at least I like to think so – after these few years of seminars may give you, even if only implicitly, as a reference point at every instant. Is it enough to know that the function of the
subject is in the between-the-two, between the idealising effects of the signifying function and this vital immanence which you may too readily confuse, I still think, despite all my warnings, with the function of the drive? It is precisely what we are engaged in and what we are trying to push further, and the reason why also I thought I should begin with the Cartesian cogito in order to make tangible the field in which we are going to try to give more precise articulations about identification.

今年,我们的努力具有一种意义,确实就是要显示,主体的功用在别的地方被表达,除了就是它运作于这两个极端之间的这些极端。毕竟—就我而言,我想象—你们的深思熟虑—至少我喜欢这样认为—在这几年的研讨班给予你们的教导,即使仅是间接暗示,作为每个时刻的一个指称点。这难道不足以知道,主体的功能是处于这两者之间?处于能指化的功能的理型上的影响,与你们可能很容易将生命的永恒性与冲动驱力的功能混淆之间? 我依旧认为,尽管我的各种警告。这确实是我们正在从事的,以及我们正在尝试更深入探索的,以及为什么我也认为,我应该从笛卡尔的「我思故我在」开始,为了让这个领域具体显现。在这个领域,我们正在尝试要给予更加确实的表达,关于认同。

I spoke to you, a few years ago, about little Hans; there is in the story of little Hans – I think that you have kept the memory of it somewhere – the story of the dream which one can pinpoint with title of the crumpled (verwurzelte) giraffe. This verb verwurzeln which has been translated by to crumple, is not a very (4) common verb in the usual German lexicon.

几年前,我跟你们言说,关于小汉斯。在小汉斯的故事里—我认为你们在某个地方还保留对它的记忆—这个梦的故事,我们能够固定给个标题:被崩塌的长颈鹿。「被崩塌」的这个动词,曾经被翻译为「崩塌」,在通俗的德文的词汇,并不是一个通用的动词。

Though wurzeln is found there, verwurzeln is not. Verwurzeln means: to make a
ball. It is indicated in the text of the dream of the crumpled giraffe that it is a giraffe which is there next to the big living giraffe, a paper giraffe and that as such one can make a ball of it.

虽然「崩塌」在那里被发现,「被崩塌」并没有。「被崩塌」意思是要制作成为一个球团。它在被崩塌的长颈鹿的梦里被指明,它是放置于这隻大的活生生的长颈鹿的旁边,它是纸制的长颈鹿,因为这样,我们能够将它揉成一个球团。

You know the whole symbolism which is unfolded right through this observation, of the relationship between the big giraffe and the little giraffe, the crumpled giraffe under one of its aspects, conceivable under the other as the reduced giraffe,
as the second giraffe, as the giraffe which can symbolise many things. If the big giraffe symbolises the mother, the other giraffe symbolises the daughter; and the relationship of little Hans to the giraffe, at the point that we are at at that moment
of his analysis, will tend to be incarnated rather readily in the living interplay of family rivalries.

你们知道整个的象征系统,通过这样的观察立即被展开,关于大的长颈鹿与小的长颈鹿之间的关系,被崩塌的长颈鹿,在它的其中的一个层面之下,能够被构想,在另外一个层面之下,作为是被还原的长颈鹿,作为是第二个长颈鹿,作为能够象征许多东西的长颈鹿。假如这隻大的长颈鹿象征着母亲,另外一隻长颈鹿象征女儿,那么小汉斯跟长颈鹿的关系,在对他精神分析的时刻,我们处于的这个点,这个关系将会倾向于很快地被具体化身,在家庭敌意的活生生的互相作用里。

I remember the astonishment – it would no longer be appropriate today – that I provoked at that time by designating at that very moment in the case of little Hans as such, the dimension of the symbolic in act in the psychical productions of the young subject in connection with this crumpled giraffe. What could be more indicative of the radical difference of the symbolic as such, than to see appearing in the production, certainly not suggested on this point – because there is no trace at that moment of any
such articulation concerning the indirect function of the symbol – than to see in the observation something which really incarnates for us and images the advent of the symbolic as such in the psychical dialectic. “Really, where did you find it” one
of you kindly said to me after that session?

我记得那个惊奇—今天这种惊奇将不再是合适—在当时我被激怒,在小汉斯的个案本身的那个时刻,我指明行动在符号界的维度,在年轻的主体跟这个被崩塌的长颈鹿产生的心理上的影响。还有什么更能指示符号界本身的这个强烈的差异?除了就是看出有某件东西出现在这个产生里,的确,在这一点,它并没有被暗示—因为在当时,并没有任何如此表述的痕迹,关于这个符号象征的间接的功用—除了就是在观察里,看出某件东西,确实跟我们具体显现,并且构想符号象征界本身的来临,在心灵的辩证法。「的确,你们在哪里找到它?」有一次在演讲结束后,你们有一位善意地询问我..

(5) The surprising thing is not that I saw it because it would be difficult to have it indicated more crudely in the material itself, it is that at that place one could say that Freud himself does not dwell on it, I mean does not give at all the stress that
would be appropriate to this phenomenon, to what materialises it, as one might say, to our eyes. This indeed is what proves the essential character of these structural delineations, it is by not making them, by not highlighting them, by not articulating
them with all the energy of which we are capable, it is a certain aspect, a certain dimension of the phenomena themselves that we condemn ourselves in a way to overlook.

令人惊奇的事情,并不是我看出它,因为要在材料的本身,让它更加粗略地被指明将是有困难的。令人惊奇的事情是,在那个位置,我们能够说,弗洛伊德自己并没有对它详加说明。我的意思是,他根本就没有给予这个现象合适的强调,对于在我们眼前让它具体化的东西,我们不妨说。这确实是这些结构性的描绘的基本特性被证明的原因。凭借着不去描绘,凭借着不去强调它们,凭借着不去表述它们,尽管我们能够有各种的能源力量。这是各种现象本身的某个层面,某个维度,我们以某种方式注定会忽略的。

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: