Seminar IX :Identification 28

Seminar IX :Identification 28
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

I am not going to go over again for you on this occasion the articulation of what was involved, of what was at stake in the case of little Hans. These things have been published enough and well enough for you to be able to refer to them.

在这个场合,我将要再一次跟你们温习一下,在小汉斯的这个个案,会牵涉到的,会岌岌可危的这个表达。这些事情曾经充分地被出版,足够充分让你们能够提到它们。

But the function as such at this critical moment – the one determined by his radical suspension on the desire of the mother, in a fashion which, as one might say, has nothing to off-set it, is irretrievable, inescapable – is the function of artifice which I
showed you to be that of the phobia in so far as it introduces a key signifying mainspring which allows the subject to preserve what is in question for him, namely the minimal anchoring, centering of his being, which allows him not to sense himself as a being who is completely adrift at the whim of his mother.

但是在这个关键时刻的本身的功用—对于母亲的欲望,他的强烈的悬置所决定,使用的方式,我们不妨说,根本就没有东西来触发它。它是无法被恢复的,无法被逃避的—这是巧计的功用,我跟你们显示它为恐惧的功用,因为它介绍一个关键的能指化的原动力。这种原动力让主体能够保存对于他是受到质疑的东西。换句话说,最小量的锚定点,集中在他的生命实存。这个生命实存让他能够不将他自己理解为一个生命主体,完全听任他的母亲的幻想而飘荡。

This is what is at stake, but what I want to highlight at this level is the following: it is that in a production which can scarcely be considered unreliable on this occasion – I say it all the more because everything towards which little Hans had previously been
directed (because God knows he was directed as I showed you – (6) nothing of all of this is of a nature to put him into the field of this type of elaboration; little Hans shows us here in a figure which is certainly obscure, but exemplary, the leap, the passage, the tension between what I defined first of all as the two extremes of the subject: the animal subject which represents the mother, but also with its long neck, no one has any doubt about it, the mother in so far as she is this immense phallus of desire ending again in the browsing mouth of this voracious animal, and then on the other something on a paper surface.

这就是岌岌可危的地方,但是我在这个层次想要强调的是以下: 在这个场合,一种很少会被认为是不可靠的产品—我更加要说它,因为小汉斯先前曾经被引导朝向的一切,(因为天晓得,他被引导,如同我跟你们显示的—没有一样是属于将他放置于这种构想的性质),小汉斯在此跟我们显示,以一种确实是模糊的人物,但是作为典范,这种跳跃,这个经过,这种紧张,处于我首先定义为主体的两个极端: 一是动物性的主体,代表母亲,而且用它的长脖子,没有人对它有任何的怀疑。就母亲是欲望的这个阳具而言,再一次的结果是这个贪婪的动物的吸食的嘴巴。然后,在另一方面,某件东西出现在纸的表面上。

We will return to this dimension of surface, something which is not without a subjective accent; because one sees well the whole import of what is involved: the big giraffe, when she sees him playing with the small crumpled one, cries out very loudly until finally she grows weary, her cries are exhausted, and little Hans, sanctioning in a way the taking possession, the Besitzung of what is involved, the mysterious import of the affair, by sitting on top of it (darauf gesetzt).

我们将回到表面的这个维度,某件东西并非没有主体性的意义,因为我们清楚地看到所牵涉到的整个意义:大的长颈鹿,当她看到他玩搞这个被崩塌的小长颈鹿,大声地喊叫,直到最后她变得疲倦,她的喊叫身心俱疲。小汉斯,以某种方式认可这种佔有,所牵涉之物的「拥有」,事情的神秘的意义,以端坐在它的顶端。

This lovely mechanism ought to make us sense what is involved, since indeed it concerns his fundamental identification, the defence of himself against this original capture within the world of the mother, as no one of course doubts, at the point that we are at in elucidating phobia. Here already we see exemplified this function of signifier. It is indeed here that I want to pause again today on the point of departure of what we have to say about identification.

这个可爱的机械结构应该让我们理解,所牵涉的是什么,因为的确,这关系到他的基本的认同,他自己的防卫,对抗在母亲的世界里的原先的捕获,作为是天经地义,在我们处于理解的惊怖。在此我们已经看到能指的这个功能所作的典范。确实是在这里,今天我想要再一次停止,当我们即将开始我们必须说的关于认同。

The function of the signifier in so far as it is the mooring point of something from which the subject constitutes himself, here is something which is going to (7) make me dwell for a moment today on something which, it seems to me, should come quite naturally to mind, not just for reasons of general logic, but also because of something that you should touch on in your experience: I mean the function of the name (nom), not the noun (nom), the noun defined grammatically, what we call the substantive in our schools, but the name in the way that in English – and what is more, in German – the two functions are distinguished. I would like to say a little more about it here, but you well understand the difference: the name, is the proper name.

能指的功能作为主体从那里形成他自己的某件东西的锚定点。在此有某件东西,今天将让我暂时详述某件我觉得应该很自然会想到的东西,不仅因为一般逻辑,而且是因为某件东西在你们的经验里,你们应该触及的。我的意思是「名称」的功用,不是「名词」的功用,文法上被定义的名词,在我们学校我们所谓的「实质名词」,而是这个「名称」在英文里,尤有甚者,在德文里,这两个功用被区别出来。在此,我想要稍微谈论它一下。但是你们清楚地了解这个差异:名称就是这个专有名称。

You know as analysts, the importance that the proper name of the subject has in every analysis. You should always pay attention to what your patient is called. It is never indifferent. And if you ask for names in analysis, it is indeed something much more important than the excuse that you may give for it to the patient, namely that all sorts of things may hide themselves behind this sort of dissimulation or effacing of a
name, concerning the relations that it may bring into play with some other subject.

你们知道,作为精神分析家,主体的专有名称在每个精神分析里具有的重要性。你们应该总是注意你们的病人所被称呼的。那是举足轻重。假如你们在精神分析要求名称,那确实是某件东西,比你们可能给病人的这个藉口更加重要。换句话说,各种的事情可能隐藏它们自己,在名称的这种欺骗或抹除背后,关于它跟某个其他的主体可能运作的各种关系。

It goes much further than that; you should sense it even if you do not know it.
What is a proper name?

名称比那个更加深入。你们应该理解它,即使你们不知道它。专有名称是什么?

Here we should have a lot to say. The fact is that in effect we could bring a lot of material to the name. This material, we analysts, even in supervision, we would have a thousand opportunities to illustrate its importance. I do not believe (8) that we could here precisely give it all its import – this is a further occasion to put your finger on a methodological necessity – without referring to what the linguist has to say in
this respect, not necessarily to submit ourselves to it, but because as regards the function, the definition of this signifier which has its own originality, we should at least find in it a control, if not a complement to what we can say.

在此,我们应该有许多可说。事实是,我们实际上能够给名称带来许多材料。这个材料,我们精神分析家即使在监控时,我们将有上千个机会,说明它的重要性。我并不相信,我们在此确实能够给予它各种它的意义—这是一种更进一步的场合探索方法论的必要性—我们必然要提到语言学家在这方面所必需说的。未必是要我们屈服于它,而是关于这个功用,这个能指的定义具有它的原初性。我们至少应该在它里面找到一种控制,即使不是一种辅助,对于我们能够说的。

In fact, this indeed is what is going to happen. In 1954 there appeared a little factum by Sir Allan H. Gardiner. There are all sorts of works by him and in particular a very good Egyptian grammar – I mean one of antique Egypt – he is therefore an
Egyptologist, but he is also and above all a linguist. Gardiner produced – it was at that time that I acquired it during a short trip to London – a very small little book called The theory of proper names. He produced it in a rather contingent fashion.

事实上,这的确实所正要发生的事情。在1954年,出现一个噶帝那爵士提出的作法。他出版各种的著作,特别是一本优秀的埃及文法书—我指的是原古埃及的文法书—他因此是一位埃及学专家,但是他也是,尤其是一位语言学家。噶帝那出版一本小书,书名是「专有名称的理论」–当我们到伦敦短期旅行时,我获得这本书。

He calls it himself a “controversial essay”, un essai controversiel. One could even say that this is a litotes: a polemical essay. He wrote it because of the extreme exasperation he had felt at a certain number of enunciatings of a philosopher whom I am not indicating to you for the first time: Bertrand Russell whose enormous role in the elaboration of what one could call in our days mathematicised logic or logicised mathematics you know about.

他自己称这本书是一部「具有争议性的论文」。我们甚至能够说,这是一部反讽文,一篇争辩的论文。他写这本书,是因为他曾经感觉到极端的愤怒,对于一位哲学家的某些的表述。这位哲学家,我并不是第一次跟你们提到,布兰、罗素。在我们当代,我们能够所谓的数学逻辑,或众所周知的逻辑化的数学的建构,他具有举足轻重的地位。

In the Principia mathematica with Whitehead, he gave us a general symbolism of logical and mathematical operations which one cannot fail to take into account, once one enters into this field. Russell then, in one of his works, gives (9) a certain definition which is quite paradoxical – the paradox moreover is a dimension in which he is far from reluctant to move about in, on the contrary: he makes use of it more often than it deserves – Mr Russell put forward then certain remarks about the proper name which literally put Mr Gardiner beside himself.

在论「怀德黑的数学原理」时,他给予我们有关逻辑与数学运作的普通象征。我们一定会考虑到这些运作,一旦我们进入这个领域。因此,罗素在他的一本著作里,给予某种相当悖论的的定义—而且,这种悖论是一个维度,他并不会不愿意在这个维度里探索。相反地,他利用这个维度,远超过它的所值。罗素先生因此提出某些的谈论,关于这个专有名称,让噶帝那实质上愤怒不已。

The quarrel is in itself significant enough for me to think that today I should introduce you to it and in this connection hook onto it remarks that I think are important.

这个争吵本身异常重要,足够让我认为,今天我应该跟你们介绍它。在这方面,它牵涉到我认为是很重要的谈论。

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: