Archive for August, 2012

精神分析的行动 33

August 30, 2012

精神分析的行动 33

Psychoanalytic Act

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar9: Wednesday 7 February 1968

我们将要採取得这些笔画特征,为了作为述词补语的主体的功用,所牵涉的东西的典范。当我们要铭记这些特征,它们没有一样不是已经被这个述词指明。环绕这个述词,我们将要让我们的命题的陈述旋转,换句话说,这个「垂直的」的述词。

1、 在第一个格子,在左上方,这些特征对应这个述词,它们的垂直的笔画特征。
2、 然后,在左下方的格子,还有其他笔画特征,有一些不是这样。
3、 在右下方的格子这里,没有一个是垂直笔画特征。
4、 在此,你们看见,根本就没有笔画特征。这就是主体所在。

这就是主体所在,因为根本就没有笔画特征。每个其他地方,这些笔画特征被述词的存在与欠缺所遮蔽。但是为了让你们清楚地理解,为什么这个「没有笔画特征」是基本的,有好几个方法,即使仅是凭借着开创这个普遍性肯定的陈述,譬如,如下。没有一个笔画特征不是垂直的。

你们将会看出,将是在这个「垂直的」笔画特征之上,制作这个「没有」的功用,或是凭借移除它,你们才能够从事这个肯定或是否定的双元区隔。凭借压制这个「没有」,在笔画之前,以及凭借离开,是垂直或不是垂直的笔画特征,你们进入特殊性。换句话说,在主体完全隶属于垂直或不是垂直的变化。有些变数是垂直,还有些变数并不是垂直。但是普遍性的地位仅是在此被开创,譬如,凭借两个格子的结合。换句话说,仅有垂直笔画特征的这个格子,但是有两种笔画特征的这个格子。对于普遍性的陈述,它说,所有的笔画特征都是垂直的,它仅是被实质化,合情合理地。从这两个格子及它们的结合。

这也是真实,这更加地基本地真实,在这个空洞的格子。没有笔画特征,除了垂直的笔画特征。这意味着,没有垂直特征的地方,就没有笔画特征。主体的被接纳的定义是这样,因为在每个述词的陈述底下,基本上就是这个某件东西,仅是由一个能指针对另外一个能指所代表。

我仅能快速提到,因为我们将不会耗费我们整个的谈论详述我们所能够获得的东西,从皮尔斯的基模。显而易见地,它是相同于这两个格子的结合(右手边的括弧),这个陈述是:没有笔画特征是垂直的,获得它的支持,为什么?这确实是为什么我有必要强调它如何地被证明—假如我们以适当的方式阅读亚里斯多德的文本,普遍性的肯定及普遍性的否定互相之间没有悖论,它们两者都被接受,只要我们处于这个右边顶端的格子。这也是真实的,在这个格子的层次,所有个笔画特征都是垂直,或是没有笔画特征是垂直。这两件东西同时是真实的。某件东西,耐人寻味地,亚里斯多德并没有体认出来,假如我的知识正确的话。

在这个重要的区分的其他的点,你们拥有特殊性的这个开创。在这两个格子里(左边的那些)有垂直的笔画特征。而在这两个底下的格子的连接,仅有不是垂直笔画特征,没有别的。

你们因此看出,在普遍性的基础的层次,事情被定位,用牵涉到排除的方式,这个多样性的方式,在左下方的笔画特征的这个排除。同样地,在特殊性的差异的层次,有一种排除:在右上方的格子的排除。

这就是幻觉给予的原因:这个特殊性是一种生命实存的肯定。它足够在「某些」的层次言说,譬如,黄颜色的某些,这就足够暗示:从这个事实,请容我这样表达,从陈述的这个事实,这也是这个特殊性的生命实存的肯定。这确实是某件东西,环绕着它,无数的辩论曾经专注于这个特殊性的命题的逻辑地位的主体。这确实是让它成为反讽的原因。因为这是不足够的,让一个命题被陈述,在特殊性的层次,为了以任何方式暗示主体的生命实存。除了以一个能指化的安排,换句话说,作为辞说的影响。

精神分析的興趣是,它将逻辑的这些问题绑在一块,如同迄今所能够被做的。总之,凭借贡献它们,以逻辑的历史所发展的所有这些模糊暧昧的来源的东西,凭借在主体身上暗示一种的生命实存。主体能够充当是没有生命实存—我曾经表达过它,从今年的开始我曾经坚持它—适当来说,这是带给我们这个启蒙的机会。由于这个机会,逻辑的发展的检视重新被展开。这个工作依旧未完成—天晓得,或许凭借在此陈述它,为将激发一个工作—跟我们显示绕这么大的这些迂回,这么多的尴尬,真正的用意是什么,有时是如此的耐人寻味,如此矛盾,在历史的过程被证明。这些是曾经标示逻辑辩论的东西,变得如此无法理解,在几世纪以来,并且假如从某个时代来看,至少从我们的时代来看,它们有时从事的时代。长久以来,我们觉得曾经形成各种停滞,甚至环绕这些停滞的激情。它们的意义,我们几乎无法理解,只要我们没有看出,它们背后确实岌岌可危的东西。

换句话说,实实在在就是,欲望的这个地位,譬如,它跟政治的关联,因为它是秘密的,在转捩点,它是完全具体显现。这个转捩点在一种哲学,构成这个开创。明确地说,那就是某个命名主义的英国哲学。我们无法用政治来理解这种逻辑的一贯性,而没有注意到,逻辑的本身暗示着有关主体的地位,以及有关在政治的关系,提到欲望的有效性。

对于我们,主体的地位由询问而获得说明—我再次注意到,所有这一切都发生在一个有限的,确实很短暂的环境。这个环境藉由对主体形成的讨论所标示—它的迫切的特性,我不妨说,参与这些古代的支撑。那就是为什么,在这个情况,我们拿我们能够表达的东西,作为例子。这就是为什么它不得不发生一种意外,在更大的领域。如同它确实不仅仅是在环绕欲望的功用旋转的这个实践。因为精神分析发现它,这不仅是在此,有关它的问题被扮演出来。

因此,精神分析者与精神分析家由我们摆放在这个位置,各别来说,就是什么将会是精神分析辞说定义的主体的地位。我上次告诉过你吗,这个精神分析辞说根据这个规则建立,特别是因为这个事实:主体被要求跟它废除。这就是这个规则的目的。凭借奉献他自己于语言的漂浮,在极限处,他将企图根据它的纯粹的影响到当下经验,企图跟它已经被建立的影响连接一块。

这样一个主体,被定义为精神分析辞说的主体,到达他从事迷失他自己在里面的考验的程度,为了找到他自己。这样一个主体的运作在某方面考验他自己是否顺服。当对于一个被应用的述词,我们能够置喙什么?换句话说,我们能够陈述在普遍性的架构下失败的某件东西吗? 假如这个普遍性并没有在它的结构里已经显示:在主体身上,它找到它的来源,它的基础。因为他仅能够根据他的不在现场而被代表,换句话说,他从来没有被代表。我们确实拥有这个权利提出这个问题,假如任何东西能够被陈述,譬如,有关「每个精神分析者所抗拒」的这个秩序。

可是,我将还不会要诀定,是否任何的普遍性能够被提出,关于这个精神分析者。我们将不会将它摆置一边,尽管这个表象。当我们提出精神分析者作为选择将自己跟其他东西异化的主体,我们不妨说,为了全神贯注于这个事实:仅有某个未经选择的辞说的迂回,换句话说,这个某件跟现在存在的本质最对立的东西—在这个基模里—在开始。换句话说,这当然是根据一种选择,但是被遮蔽,被逃避的旋择,因为它早先就被形成。我们曾经根据这个笔画特征选择代表这个主体,根据这个不再被看见的笔画特征,因为它因此被给予特质。在表象,没有比精神分析者建构自己的东西更加对立。它仍然是根据某种的选择,我早先称为是废除的选择,这个选择要考验自己对抗语言的影响。确实就是在这里,我们将要找到我们相关的东西。

实际上,假如我们遵照这个脉络,这个网络,三段论法的使用跟我们建议的,当然是我们应该到达的,就是这个某件东西。这个东西将会连接这个主体,跟在此被提出作为述词,精神分析家—假如精神分析家存在的话。啊!这就是我们欠缺的东西,为了支持这个逻辑的表达。假如我们精神分析家存在,每件事情就确定。会有一大群其他的精神分析家存在。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

精神错乱319

August 28, 2012

精神错乱319
The Psychosis

雅克、拉康
Jacques Lacan

XXV
The phallus and the meteor
第22章: 阳具与流星
INSERTED IN THE FATHER 被插入于父权里

3
So fundamental is this that if we try to situate on a schema what it is that
makes the Freudian conception of the Oedipus complex cohere, it is not a
question of a father-mother-child triangle, but of a triangle (father)-phallusmother-child. Where is the father in this? He is in the ring that holds all this together.

这是如此的基本,以致假如我们尝试根据一个基模定位,是什么让弗洛伊德的伊狄浦斯情结凝聚。那并不是父亲-母亲-小孩的三角的问题。而是(父亲)-阳具母亲-小孩的三角问题。在这个三角里,父亲在哪里?他在将所有这些凝聚一块的环圈里。

The notion of father can only be supposed as provided with an entire series
of signifying connotations which give it existence and consistency and which
are a very long way indeed from merging with those of the genital, from
which it is semantically different across all the linguistic traditions.
I shan’t start quoting Homer and Saint Paul to tell you that invoking the
father, whether it be Zeus or someone else, is entirely different from purely
and simply referring to the generative function.

父亲的观念仅能够被认为是,由一个完整的能指化内涵的系列供应。这些内涵给予它存在与一致性,确实根本没有跟性器官的内涵融合,在所有语言学的传统,它在语意上跟它不同。我将不会开始引述荷马及圣保罗,来告诉你们,召唤父亲,无论是宙斯天神,或某位其他的人,那是完全不同于单纯地提到世代的功用。

An indefinite number of beings
can issue from a woman. They could all be women —moreover, we shall soon
reach this point, since every day the newspapers tell us that parthenogenesis
is on the way and that soon women will beget daughters without anyone’s
assistance. Well then, notice that if any masculine elements intervene here,
they will play a role of fecundation without being anything other than an
indispensable lateral circuit, as in animals. There will be the begetting of
women by women, with the aid of lateral abortees that can be used to set the
process off again but will not structure it. It’s only when we seek to inscribe
descendence as a function of males that any innovation in the structure intervenes.

从一个女人身上能够生出无限数目的人类。他们都是女人—而且,我们不久将会到达这点,因为每一天,新闻告诉我们,无性繁殖正在发展当中,不久女人将会生下女儿,不需要任何人的帮忙。呵呵,请注意,假如任何男性的因素在此介入,他们将会扮演授精的角色,实实在在就是一个不可免除的单边的迴圈,如同在各种动物的情况。将会有女人生出女人的情况,靠着单边的堕胎器的帮助,它们能够被使用来再次触发这个过程,但是不会架构它。仅有当我们尝试要铭记后代,作为男性的功用,这个结构的革新才会介入。

It’s only when we speak of descendence from male to male that a cut
intervenes, which is the difference between generations. The introduction of
the signifier of the father introduces henceforth an ordering in the descendants,
the series of generations.

只有当我们谈到从男性到男性的传递后代,一种切割才会介入。那就是两代之间的差异。父亲的能指的介绍,因此介绍一种后代的秩序,世代的系列。

We’re not here to develop all the facets of this function of the father, but I
am pointing out one of the most striking of them, which is the introduction
of an order, of a mathematical order, whose structure is different from the
natural order.

我们在这里,并不是要发展父亲的这个功用的所有刻面,但是我正在指出其中一个最引人注意的东西。那就是一个秩序的介绍,一个数学的秩序,它的结构不同于自然的结构。

We’ve been trained in analysis through the experience of the neuroses. The
imaginary dialectic may suffice if, within the framework of this dialectic that
we have sketched out, there already exists this implied signifying relation for
the practical use one wants to put it to. In two or three generations no doubt
no one will understand it at all anymore, a cat won’t be able to find its kittens,
but for the moment, on the whole, the continued presence of the theme of
the Oedipus complex preserves the notion of signifying structure, which is
so essential for finding one’s way about the neuroses.

我们在精神分析曾经通过神经症的分析经验接受训练。想象界的辩证法可能足够,假如,在我们曾经描绘的这个辩证法的架构里面,已经存在着这个被暗示的能指化的关系,作为我们想要付诸实践的用途。在两三代之后,无可置疑地,根本没有人将会怀疑它,猫将无法找出它的小猫,但是目前大体上,伊狄浦斯情结的主体的继续存在,保存能指化的结构的观念。这个能指化的结构是如此的重要,作为找到我们的方法,关于这些神经症。

But where the psychoses are concerned, things are different. It’s not a
question of the subject’s relation to a link signified within existing signifying
structures, but of his encounter under elective conditions with the signifier
as such, which marks the onset of psychosis.

但是就精神错乱而言,事情并不一样。这并不是主体跟被能指化的关联的问题,在现存的能指化的结构。而是他在选择性的情况下,跟这个能指本身的遭遇的问题。这标示着精神错乱的开始。

Look at the point in his life at which President Schreber’s psychosis declares
itself. On more than one occasion he was in the situation of expecting to
become a father. Here he is, all of a sudden, invested with a socially eminent
function, one that has great value for him – he becomes President of the
Court of Appeal. I should say that within the administrative structure in
question it is something like the Conseil d’Etat.* Here he is admitted to the
top of the legislative hierarchy, among men who make laws and are all twenty
years older than he is – a disturbance in the order of generations. Following
what?

请观看他的一生的这个时刻,苏瑞伯庭长的精神错乱在那个时刻宣布它自己。在不仅一个场合,他处于期望成为父亲的的情况。他在那里,突然地,被投注一个社会显达的功用,这个功用对他具有很大的价值。他担任上诉法庭的庭长。我应该说,在受到质疑的行政结构里面,这是像是最高法院的职位。在此,他被准许进入法院阶层体系的高位。他的同事都是制定法律的人,而且都比他年长二十岁。在世代的秩序,这是一种困扰。遵照着什么?

Following an explicit call from the ministers. This promotion of his
nominal existence solicits a renewing integration from him. Ultimately the
question is whether or not the subject will become a father. The question of
the father centers all Freud’s research, all the points of view he has introduced
into subjective experience.

遵照著来自部长们的一个明确的呼吁。他的名分的存在的这个提升,从他那里恳求一种更新的合并。最后,问题是主体是否将成为父亲。父亲的这个问题集中弗洛伊德的所有的研究。他曾经介绍所有的观点进入主体的精神分析经验。

This is entirely forgotten, I’m well aware. Recent analytic technique is
clouded by the object relation. The supreme experience that is described,
this famous distance taken in the object relation, ultimately consists in fanx
tasizing the sexual organ of the analyst and imaginarily absorbing it. Make
filiation the equivalent of fellatio? Indeed there is an etymological relationship
between these two terms, but this isn’t a sufficient reason for deciding
that analytic experience is a sort of obscene chain that consists in the imaginary
absorption of an object that has finally been extracted from fantasies.

这是完全地被遗忘。我充分知道。最近的精神分析技巧被客体关系笼罩。被描述的崇高的经验,在客体关系被採取得这个著名的距离,最后由幻想分析家的性的器官所组成,并且想象地吸收它。将孝顺等同于是阳具?的确,在这两个术语之间,有词源学的关联。但是这并不是一个充分的理由来决定精神分析经验是一种淫秽的锁链,在于是对于一种客体的精神分析的吸收。这个客体是从幻见里抽取出来。

In any case, it is impossible in the phenomenology of psychosis to misunderstand
the originality of the signifier as such. What is perceptible in the
phenomenon of everything that takes place in psychosis is that it is a question
of the subject’s access to a signifier as such and of the impossibility of that
access. I shan’t go back over the notion of Verwerfmg I began with, and for
which, having thought it through, I propose to you definitively to adopt this
translation which I believe is the best -foreclosure.

无论如何,在精神错乱的现象学,不可能误解能指本身的起源。在精神错乱所发生的一切都现象,所能够被感觉的东西是,这是主体接近一个能指的问题,以及那种接近的不可能的问题。我将不会回头探讨我开始谈论的「verwerfung」的观念。对于这个观念,我曾经彻底想过,我明确地跟你们建议,为了採用这个翻译,我相信最好的翻译是「除权弃绝」。

There follows a process whose first stage we have called an imaginary cataclysm,
namely that no longer can anything in the mortal relation, which is
in itself the relation with the imaginary other, be held on lease. Then there
is the separate deployment and bringing into play of the entire signifying
apparatus – dissociation, fragmentation, mobilization of the signifier as speech,
ejaculatory speech that is insignificant or too significant, laden with nonmeaningfulness, the decomposition of internal discourse, which marks the
entire structure of psychosis. After the encounter, the collision, with the inassimilable signifier, it has to be reconstituted, since this father cannot be simply a father, a rounded-out father, the ring of just before, the father who is
the father for everybody. And President Schreber does in fact reconstitute
him.

随之而来的是一个过程,这个过程的第一阶段,我们曾经称为是想象的撞击。换句话说,在有限生命期限的关系,它的本身是跟想象的他者的关系,现在
不再有任何东西被认为是有押租期限。因此,整个的能指化的工具会有分开的操作与运作—能指作为言说,会有脱离,碎片化,及动员。这个射精般的言说并不重要,或是太过重要,充满无意义,内部辞说的瓦解。它标示着精神错乱的整个结构。在跟这个无法被吸收的能指的这个遭遇,这个撞击之后,它必须重新被建构,因为这个父亲无法仅是父亲,一位圆融的父亲,仅是以前的环圈,凡夫俗子的父亲。苏瑞伯庭长事实上确实是在重新建构他。

Nobody is aware of being inserted into the father. Nevertheless, I would
like to point out to you before leaving you this year that to be doctors you
may be innocent, but that to be psychoanalysts you should nevertheless meditate
from time to time on a theme such as this, even though neither the sun
nor death can look itself in the face. I shan’t say that the slightest little gesture
to arouse an evil creates possibilities for a greater evil, it always entails a
greater evil. This is something that a psychoanalyst should become accustomed
to, because I believe that he is absolutely incapable in all conscience
of conducting his professional life without it. Having said this, it won’t take
you very far. The newspapers are always saying that God only knows whether
the progress of science is dangerous, etc., but for us this is neither here nor
there. Why not? Because you are all, myself included, inserted into this major
signifier called Father Christmas. With Father Christmas things always work
out and, I would add, they work out well.

没有人知道被插入到这个父亲里面。可是,我想要跟你们指出,在今年离开你们之前,作为医生,你们可以视若无睹。但是作为精神分析家,你们应该时常沉思像这样的一个主题,即使既不是太阳,也不是死亡能够直视它自己。我将不会说,即使最轻微的动作来唤起一件恶行,都会创造一件更大恶行的各种可能性。但是它总是包含一件更大的恶行。这是一位精神分析家应该司空见惯的事情,因为我相信,他在良心上绝对是没有办法从事他的专业生涯,而不发生这样的事情。当这样的事情发生,它将会让你束手无策。报纸总是在说,只有上帝知道科学的进步是否是危险的,等等。但是对于我们,重要并不是在那里。为什么不是在那里?因为你们大家,包括我在内,都被插入这个主要的能指,这个能指被称为是耶稣诞生的父亲。就耶稣诞生的父亲而言,事情总是会有结果,我将补充一下,事情总是有美满结果。

What is at issue in the psychotic? Suppose someone unthinkable for us,
one of these gentlemen who, we are told – if indeed any have ever existed,
don’t believe I attribute any importance to such hearsay – was capable of
such self-discipline that he no longer believed in Father Christmas and was
able to convince himself that everything good that one does entails an equivalent
evil and that consequently one mustn’t do it. Admitting this, even for
an instant, is sufficient for you to understand that all sorts of things which
are fundamental at the level of the signifier may depend on it.

在精神错乱,岌岌可危的是什么?假如对于我们,有某位匪夷所思的人,其中一位绅士,我们被告诉,(假如确实有任何这样的人存在,请不要相信,我对这样的道听途说认真看待),他能够从事这样的自律,以致他不再相信耶稣诞生的父亲,并且能够说服他自己,他所做到每件善行,都包含一件同等的恶行。结果,他一定不要一意孤行。承认这点,即使是片刻,都足够让你们了解:在能指的层次,各种各样的基本的事情,可能都依赖它。

Well then, compared to you the psychotic has this disadvantage, but also
this privilege, of finding himself a little bit at odds with, askew in relation to,
the signifier. Once he is summoned to harmonize with these signifiers, he has
to make a considerable effort of retrospection, which culminates in these
extraordinarily bizarre things that constitute what is called the development
of a psychosis. This development is quite particularly rich and exemplary in
the case of President Schreber, but I have shown you in my case presentations
that things become a bit clearer once one possesses this point of view,
even in the most common illnesses. The most recent case I have shown you
was of someone who was very, very strange, on the verge of mental automatism,
though not quite there.

呵呵,跟你们比较起来,精神错乱不但拥有这个不利,而且拥有这个特权。那就是发现他自己跟这个能指的关系,稍微会有冲突,有点歪扭。一旦他被召唤跟这些能指和谐,他必须尽相当多的努力作为回顾反省。这些回顾反省达到巅峰,在这些特别古怪的事情,它们被称为是精神错乱的发展。在苏瑞伯庭长这个个案,这种发展特别的丰富,足为典范。但是,在我的各种个案的呈现,我曾经跟你们显示,事情变得稍微更加明朗,一旦我们拥有这个观点,即使是在最普通的疾病。最近我曾经跟你们显示的个案,是关于某位奇特的人,他濒临精神的自动机制,虽然并不完全是那样。

For him everyone was suspended in an artificial
state whose coordinates he defined well. He had observed that the signifier
dominates the existence of beings, and his own existence appeared to him to
be much less certain than anything that presented itself with a certain signifying
structure. He stated it quite crudely. You noticed that I put this question
to him – When did all this begin? During your wife’s pregnancy? He was a
bit astonished for a moment, then answered me – Yes, that’s true – adding
that it had never occurred to him.

对于他而言,每个人都被悬置在一种人为的状态,他清楚地定义他们的座标。他曾经观察,这个能指支配人类的生命实存。而他自己的生命实存,对于他而言,则是更加不确定,比起任何呈现它自己,以某种的能指化的结构。他相当简陋地陈述它。你们注意到,我对他提出这个问题:「所有这一切何时开始?在你的妻子的怀孕期间吗?」他稍微惊诧了一阵子,然后回答我:「是对,那是真实的」,又补充说:「他从来没有想到是这样。」

From the imaginary point of view, what we say in passing, in analysis, has
strictly no importance, since it’s solely a question of frustration or of no frustration.

从想象的观点,在精神分析,我们偶然所说的东西,绝对是无足轻重,因为这仅是一件挫折或是没有挫折的问题。

One frustrates him, he is aggressive, he regresses, and we continue
like that until the most primordial fantasies emerge. Unfortunately, this isn’t
the correct theory. One has to know what one’s saying. It isn’t sufficient to
bring signifiers into play in this way – I tap you an the shoulder . . . You‘re
really a nice person . . . You had a bad daddy . . . Things will work out. One
has to use them in full knowledge, make them resonate otherwise, and at
least know how not to employ certain of them. The negative indications
concerning certain contents of interpretation are highlighted by such a point of
view.

我们让他感到挫折,他具有侵凌性,他倒退。我们像那样地进行,直到最原初的那些幻见出现。不幸地,这并不是正确的理论。我们必须知道,我们正在说什么。以这种方式运作能指是不足够的:「我轻敲你的肩膀、、、你真是一位好人、、、你的老爸不好、、、事情自然会解决、、、」我们必须充分地了解来使用它们,让它们有不同的迴响。至少我们必须知道,如何不去运作某些的东西。关于解释的某些内容的这些负面的指示,被这样一种观点强调。

I leave these questions open. The year ends in dialect, why should it end
in any other way?

我摊开这些问题。这一年在辩证中结束,为什么它不是以任何别的方式结束呢?

In conclusion I would like to move to a different genre of style from my own.
Several weeks back I promised myself to end on a very pretty page by an
admirable poet called Guillaume Apollinaire. It comes from the Enchanteur
pourrissant.

总而言之,我想要转移到一个跟我自己的风格不同的样式。好几个星期之前,我替自己承诺,要引用一位令人崇敬的诗人的美丽篇章来作为结束,他的名字是阿保里奈儿。这个篇章来自「逐渐腐烂的魔法师Enchanteur pourrissant」。

At the end of one of the chapters there is the enchanter who is rotting away
in his tomb, and who, like any good cadaver, I won’t say speaks drivel, as
Barris would say, but enchants and speaks very well. There is also the Lady
of the Lake seated on her tomb – it was she who had got him to enter the
tomb by telling him that he could get out again easily, but she, too, had her
tricks, and the enchanter is there, rotting away, and from time to time speaks.
This is where we are when a number of madmen appear in the middle of
various funeral processions, along with a monster whom I hope you are going
to recognize. This monster is the one who found the analytic key, the active
force of men, and especially in the relation of the father-child to the mother.

在其中一个章节的结束,这位魔法师在他的坟墓里逐渐腐烂,他就像任何尸体一样,估且不说,他言说垂涎,如同Barris过去常说,而是施展魔法,言说得天花乱坠。也还有一位湖边女士端坐她的坟墓上—就是她曾经让他进入坟墓,她告诉他说,他能够再次轻易地出去,但是她也有她的魔法。这位魔法师就在那里,逐渐腐烂,有时言说一下。这就是我们所在的地方,当许多的疯子出现在各种送葬行列,伴随一位怪物,我希望你们将会认出他是谁。这位怪物就是找到精神分析的钥匙的人,人们的活动力量,特别是父亲-小孩跟母亲的关系。

/ mewed, I mewed, said the monster, I encountered only owls who assured me that he was dead. I shall never be prolific. However, those who are have qualities. I confess that I do not recognize any in me. I am alone. I am hungry, I am hungry. Here I discover a quality of my own; I am famished. Let’s look for something to eat. He who eats is no longer alone.9
4 July 1956

我像猫叫,我像猫叫,这位怪物说,我仅是遭遇猫头鹰,它们告诉我,他死了。我将永远不再创作。可是,那些创作的人们具有某些特质。我坦白承认,我在自己身上没有体认出任何特质。我孤独,我饥饿,我饥饿。在此,我发现我自己的一个特质。我饿昏了。让我们寻找某件东西来吃。有东西吃的人不再孤独。

1956年7月4日

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

精神错乱316

August 28, 2012

精神错乱316
The Psychosis

雅克、拉康
Jacques Lacan

XXV
The phallus and the meteor
第22章: 阳具与流星
NATURAL SYMBOLIZATION AND SUBLIMATION 自然的符号化与昇华
THE RAINBOW 彩虹
INSERTED IN THE FATHER 被插入于父权里

2
I’m not saying that the Name of the Father is the only one of which we can
say this.

我并不是说,以父亲之名是我们能够说的唯一重点。

We can uncover this element whenever we apprehend something that is of
the symbolic order properly so-called. On this subject I reread, once again,
Ernest Jones’s article on symbolism.51 shall take up one of the most notorious
examples in which this master’s brat tries to grasp the phenomenon of
the symbol. It concerns the ring.

我们能够揭发这个元素,每当我们理解某件适当地所谓符号象征的秩序。对于这个主体,我重新阅读,再一次阅读奥尼斯、琼斯的论符号象征主义的文章。我将从事其中一个最恶名昭彰的例子。在这里例子里,主人的小孩尝试要理解符号象征的现象。它关系到这个环圈。

A ring, he tells us, doesn’t enter into play as an analytic symbol insofar as
it represents marriage, with all that is cultural and developed, even sublimated
– since this is how he expresses himself – that this conveys The ring
as a symbol of marriage is to be sought somewhere in sublimation – we couldn’t
care less about all that, it drives us up the wall, we’re not people to speak to
about analogies. If a ring signifies something it’s because it is a symbol of the
female sexual organ.

他告诉我们,一个环圈并没有进入运作,作为一个精神分析的符号象征,因为它代表婚姻,及一切文化与发展的东西,甚至被昇华。因为这是他表达他自己的方式,这表达「这个环圈」,作为婚姻的一个符号象征,能够被寻求,在昇华的某个地方—我们根本就不在乎所有这一切,它逼使我们面对墙壁,我们并不是能够谈论到类比的人们。假如一个环圈意味着某件东西,那是因为那是一个女性的性器官的符号象征。

Doesn’t this kind of declaration give you cause to wonder, when we know
that the putting into play of the signifier in the symptom has no link with
anything of the order of a tendency? You would really have to have the oddest
idea of natural symbolization to believe that a ring is the natural symbolization
of the female sexual organ.

这种宣告难道不会让你惊奇不已,当我们知道,能指在病征的运作,跟一种倾向的秩序的任何东西没有关联?你们确实必须拥有最古老的观念,对于自然的符号象征,假如你们想要相信,一个环圈是女性性器官的自然的符号象征。

You are all familiar with the theme of the Ring of Hans Carvel, a fine story
from the Middle Ages of which La Fontaine made a tale and which Balzac
used again in his Comes drolatiques. This fellow, who is colorfully depicted
and is sometimes said to be a priest, dreams that he has a ring on his finger
and on waking finds that he has his finger inside the vagina of his companion.
To put this in a way that dots the is and crosses the ts – how could the
experience of penetrating this orifice, since it is an orifice that is in question,
resemble in any way at all that of putting on a ring, if one didn’t already
know in advance what a ring is?

对于「汉斯、卡维尔的环圈」的主题,你们大家都耳熟能详。这是中世纪流传下来的美好故事,拉、范丰曾经将它编成小说,巴尔扎克再次将它运用在他的 comes drolatiques 故事集。这个被生动描写的人物,有时被说是一位僧侣,他梦见,他拥有一个环圈在他的手指上。当清醒时,他发现他的手指放置在他的伴侣的阴户里。以如此钜细无遗的方式来表达它,贯穿这个阴户的这个经验如何能够有任何方式类似戴上环指的经验,因为这个阴户受到质疑,假如我们没有已经事先知道一个环圈是什么?

A ring isn’t an object one encounters in nature. If there is anything in the
order of penetration that resembles the more or less tight-fitting penetration
of a finger inside a ring, it is certainly not – I appeal, as Marie-Antoinette
used to say, not to all mothers, but to all those who have ever put their finger
n a certain place – it’s certainly not penetrating this place which is, my God,
more like a mollusk than anything else. If something in nature is designed to
suggest certain of the properties of a ring [anneau] to us, it is restricted to
what language has dedicated the term anus to, which in Latin is spelt with
one n, and which in their modesty ancient dictionaries designated as the ring
that can be found behind.

环圈并不是我们在自然界遭遇的一个客体。假如在贯穿到这个秩序,没有任何东西类似手指在环圈里的紧密配合的贯穿,那确实并不是如马丽亚、安东尼特过去常说的,我不是诉诸于所有的母亲,而是诉诸于所有曾经将他们的手指放进某个位置的那些人。我的上帝,确实并不是贯穿这个位置,它更酷似一种软体动物。假如自然界有某件东西,被设计跟我们建议一个环圈的某些特性,那是被限制于语言所曾经专用的「杠门」这个术语。在拉丁文,它被拼字,用一个n。非常谦虚地,古代的字典被设计作为能够从背后扎到的环圈。

But to confuse one with the other on the basis of the fact that it may be a
question of natural symbolization, one must really have had in the order of
these cogitative perceptions. . . . Freud himself must have really despaired
of you not to have taught you the difference between the two, and regarded
you as irredeemable little idiots.

但是为了混淆一种环圈跟另外一种,根据这个事实:它可能是自然的符号象征的问题,我们必须确实曾经拥有这两者的差异,在这些认知的感觉的秩序、、、弗洛伊德本人一定曾经对于你们感到绝望,因为他没有教导过你们这两者之间的差异,并且认为你们,当著是无可救药的小白痴。

Mr. Jones’s lucubration is designed to show us that a ring is introduced
into a dream, indeed a dream that culminates in a sexual action, only because
we thereby signify something primitive. Cultural connotations frighten him
and this is where he is mistaken. He doesn’t imagine that the ring already
exists as a signifier, independently of its connotations, that it’s already one of
the essential signifiers by which man in his presence in the world is capable
of crystallizing many things other than marriage. A ring isn’t a hole with
something around it, as Mr. Jones seems to think, in the manner of these
people who think that to make macaroni one takes a hole and surrounds it
with flour. A ring above all has a signifying value.

琼斯先生的润色被设计跟我们显示:一个环圈被介绍到一个梦里,的确,一个以性的行动作为高潮的梦,仅是因为们因此指示著某件原始的东西,文化的外延惊吓到他,这是他被误解的地方。他没有想象,这个环圈已经存在作为一个能指,独立于它的内涵意义。那已经是其中一个基本的能指。凭借这些能指,存在于世界中的人能够具体表现许多东西,除了婚姻以外。一个环圈并不是空洞,拥有某件东西环绕它,如同琼斯先生似乎认为,如同这些人们认为,为了制作通心麵,我们弄一个空洞,然后用麵粉环绕它。一个环圈尤其重要的是拥有一个能指化的价值。

How else can we explain that a man is able to understand something, what
is called understanding, of the simplest formulation to be inscribed in language,
the most elementary utterance – Thafs it [c*est cela]? For a man, this
expression nevertheless has an explanatory sense. He has seen something,
anything, which is there, and thafs it. Whatever the thing is he is in the
presence of, whether it be a question of the most unusual, the most bizarre,
or even the most ambiguous, thafs it. It is now located somewhere other than
where it was beforehand, which was nowhere, now it’s – thafs it.

除外,我们能够用什么方法解释,一个人能够了解某件在语言被铭记为最简单的说明的东西,也就是所谓的了解?这个最基本的表达–「就是它」。可是,对于一个人而言,这个表达拥有一个解释的意义。他曾经看见过某件东西,任何东西,它就在那里,「就是它」。不管这个东西是什么,他存在于「就是它」之前,无论问题是否是最古怪,或甚至是最模糊暧昧的东西。 它现在被定位在某个其他地方,并非是它预先所在的地方。原先所在的地方是乌何有之乡,现在它存在—就是它。

I would for a moment like deliberately to take a phenomenon that is exemplary
because it’s the most inconsistent of that which can present itself to
man – the meteor.7

我丝毫没有片刻刻意想要接受一个典范的现象,因为那是最不一贯的东西,对于能够呈现自己在人的面前—那就是流星。

By definition the meteor is that [cela], it’s real and at the same time it’s
illusory. It would be quite wrong to say that it’s imaginary. The rainbow,
thafs it. You say that the rainbow is that, and then you search. People racked
their brains for some time until M. Descartes came along and completely
reduced the whole affair. There is a region that becomes iridized in little
drops of water in suspension, etc. Fine. And so what? There is the ray on
one side and the condensed drops on the other. That’s it. It was only an
appearance – that’s it.

根据定义,流星就是「那就是」。它是真实的,同时它是幻觉。假如我们说它是想象的,那我们将是错误。彩虹,就是它。你们说,彩虹就是「那就是」。然后你们寻找。人们绞尽他们的脑筋,经过一段时间,直到笛卡尔先生过来,完全还原整个事情。在悬置空中的水滴,有一个地区变成虹彩。很好,然后呢?有这个光线在一边,有凝结的水滴在另外一边。「那是它」。那仅是一种表象—「那是它」。

Notice that the question is not at all settled. A ray of light is, as you know,
a wave or a corpuscle and a little drop of water is a curious thing, since
ultimately it’s not really in gaseous form, it’s condensation which is falling in
a liquid state, but in a suspended fall, between the two, in the state of an
expansive pool, as water.

请注意,这个问题根本就没有解决。众所周知,阳光的光,一种光波或是或是细微东西,一个小水滴是一件耐人寻味的东西。因为最后,它并不真正是处于气体的状态,它是凝结物,以液体的状态掉落。但是这是被悬置的掉落,处于两者之间,处于扩散的水池,作为水份。

When we say, then, Thafs it, we imply that that’s all it is, or that that’s
not what it is, namely, the appearance that we had stopped at. But this proves
to us that everything that has subsequently emerged, the thafs all it is as well
as the thafs not what it is, was already implied in the thafs it at the beginning.

因此,当我们说,「就是它」,我们暗示着,那就是它所有的一切,或是那并不是它的本质。换句话说,我们对它望而却步的这个表象。但是这跟我们证明,每样东西随后出现的东西,这个「就是它」,以及「那并不是它的本质」,这一切已经被暗示,在开始时的「就是它」。

A rainbow is a phenomenon that has no kind of imaginary interest, you
will have never seen an animal pay one any attention, and as a matter of fact
man pays no attention to an incredible number of related manifestations.
Various iridizations are exceedingly widespread in nature and, gifts of observation or some special research aside, nobody pauses at them. If on the contrary rainbows exist, it’s precisely in relation to the thafs it.

彩虹是一种现象,没有想象方面的興趣。你们将永远不会看见过动物去注意它。事实上,人类并没有注意难以数计的相关的证明。各种的虹彩在自然界是极度广泛地存在,是观察的各种天赐对象。除了某些特别的研究外,没有人停下来注意它们。假如相反地,彩虹存在,那确实是跟这个「就是它」有关。

That’s why we have named them rainbows and why when one speaks of them to someone who hasn’t yet seen one there is a point at which one says to him – Thafs
what a rainbow is. And this thafs what it is presupposes the implication that
we are going to carry on until we have run out of breath, to discover what
lies hidden behind it, what its cause is, to which we shall be able to reduce
it. Notice that what has characterized the rainbow and the meteor from the
beginning – and everybody knows this since this is why it’s called a meteor
– is precisely that nothing is hidden behind it. It exists entirely in this appearance.

那就是为什么我们曾经命名它们为彩虹,以及为什么当我们谈论它们,跟某位还不曾见过彩虹的人,有个时刻我们跟他说:「就是它,那就是彩虹的本质」。这个「就是它的本质」预先假定这个暗示:我们将要贯彻直到我们上气不接下气,为了发现隐藏在彩虹背后是什么,造成它的原因是什么,我们将能够将它还原。请注意,从一开始,所曾经表现彩虹跟流星的特性的东西—众所周知,因为这是为什么它被称为流星—那确实是,没有东西被隐藏在它的背后。它完全存在于这个表象里。

What makes it nevertheless subsist for us, to the point where we do not
stop asking ourselves questions about it, stems uniquely from the original
thafs it, that is, the naming as such of the rainbow. There is nothing besides
this name.

可是,对于我们而言,让它存在的原因,到达这个点,我们持续地询问我们关于它的一些问题,它很独特地就是从这个原初的「就是它」。换句话说,彩虹的这个命名的本身。除了这个命名之外,没有别的东西。

In other words, to pursue this further, this rainbow doesn’t speak, but one
could speak in its place. Nobody ever speaks to it, this is quite striking. The
aurora is interpellated, and so are all sorts of other things. The rainbow retains
the privilege, along with a number of other manifestations of the same kind,
that nobody speaks to it.

换句话说,更深入地追寻这个,这个彩虹没有言说,但是我们代替它的立场言说。没有人曾经对它言说,这是相当引人注意到。这个虹彩受到质疑,各种的其他东西也受到质疑。彩虹保持这个特权,跟许多其他相同种类的证明,没有人对它言说。

No doubt there are reasons for this, namely that it
is quite particularly insubstantial. But let’s say that one speaks to it. If one
speaks to it, one can make it speak. One can make it speak to whomever one
wants. This could be to the lake. If the rainbow has no name, or if it doesn’t
want to hear anything of its name, if it doesn’t know that it’s called the
rainbow, the only resource this lake has is to show it the thousand little mirages
of the sunshine upon its waves and the rising vapor.

无可置疑,这样是有许多理由。换句话说,彩虹相当特别地无法实质化。但是让我们说,我们对它言说。假如我们对它言说,我们能够让它言说。我们能够让它言说,对任何我们想要的人。这可能是对这座湖言说。假如彩虹没有名字,或是假如它并不想要听到它的名字的任何东西,假如它并不知道它被称为是彩虹,这座湖拥有的唯一的资源就是显示它,用上千的小海市蜃楼,阳光照耀着它的波浪及上升的蒸汽。

It may well attempt to
join up with the rainbow, but it will never join up with it, for the simple
reason that the little fragments of sun that dance on the surface of the lake,
like the vapor that wafts away, have nothing to do with producing the rainbow
which begins at a certain angle of inclination of the sun and at a certain
density of the droplets in question. There is no reason to search for either the
inclination of the sun or for any of the indices that determine the phenomenon
of the rainbow, so long as it is not named as such.

它很有理由尝试跟彩虹结合一块,但是它永远不会跟它结合。理由很简单,太阳的这些小碎片,在湖的表面跳舞,就像吹走的水蒸汽,它们跟彩虹的产生没有丝毫的关系。彩虹开始于太阳的倾斜的某个角度,在受到质疑的水滴的某个密度。我们没有理由去寻找,在太阳的这个倾斜处,或是寻找任何决定彩虹岛现象的索引,只要它并没有依照本身被命名。

If I’ve just carried out this lengthy study concerning something that has
the characteristic of a spherical belt, able to be unfolded and refolded, it’s
because the imaginary dialectic in psychoanalysis is of exactly the same kind.
Why are the mother-child relationships, to which there is a tendency to limit
it more and more, inadequate? There is really no reason.

假如我刚刚从是这个冗长的研究,关于某件具有一个球形腰带的特性,这个腰带能够被解开,然后重新再被折叠,那是因为在精神分析的想象的辩证法,是属于确实相同的种类。为什么母亲与小孩的关系会不充分?因为有一个倾向要越来越限制它。确实是没有什么道理的。

We’re told that a mother’s requirement is to equip herself with an imaginary
phallus, and it’s very clearly explained to us how she uses her child as
a quite adequate real support for this imaginary prolongation. As to the child,
there’s not a shadow of doubt – whether male or female, it locates the phallus
very early on and, we’re told, generously grants it to the mother, whether or not in a mirror image, or in a double mirror image. The couple should harmonize symmetrically very well around this common illusion of reciprocal
phallicization.

我们被告诉,母亲的要求是要装备她自己用一个想象的阳具。它非常清楚地跟我们解释,她如何使用她的小孩,作为一种相当充分的真实的支持,对于想象的延长。至于这个小孩,完全无可置疑地,无论是男生或是女生,从非常早年开始,它就定位这个阳具。我们被告诉,慷慨地将它给予母亲,无论是以镜子意象,或是以双重的镜子意象。这一对应该均称地和谐,环绕互惠阳具化的这个共同幻觉。

Everything should take place at the level of a mediating function
of the phallus. Now, the couple finds itself on the contrary in a situation
of conflict, even of respective internal alienation. Why? Because the phallus
is, as it were, a wanderer. It is elsewhere. Everyone knows where analytic
theory places it – it’s the father who is supposed to be its vehicle. It’s around
him that in the child the fear of the loss of the phallus and, in the mother,
the claim for, the privation of, or the worry over, the nostalgia for, the phallus
is established.

每样东西应该发生在阳具作为仲介的功能的层次。现在,这一对发现它们自己,相反地,处于一种冲突的情境,甚至是各别的内在的异化。为什么?因为阳具是所谓流浪者。它在别的地方。众所周知,精神分析理论将它放置在哪里。那就是父亲才应该是使用阳具的工具。就是环绕父亲,这个阳具被建立,在小孩身上,阳具的丧失的恐惧,在母亲身上,这种对阳具的宣称,被剥夺,或焦虑,或怀念。

Now, if affective, imaginary exchanges between mother and child are
established around the imaginary lack of the phallus, then that which makes
it the essential element of intersubjective coaptation in the Freudian dialectic,
the father, has his own and that’s that, he neither exchanges it nor gives it.
There is no circulation. The father has no function in the trio, except to
represent the vehicle, the holder, of the phallus. The father, as father, has
the phallus – full stop.

现在,假如母亲与小孩之间的情意的,想象的交换被建立,环绕着阳具的这个想象的欠缺,那么在弗洛伊德的辩证法,让它成为互为主体间性的紧密关系的基本元素,父亲,拥有他自己的,那就是,他既没有交换它,也没有给予它。它并没有流通。父亲并没有功用,在这个三角关系,除了代表阳具的这个工具,拥有者。父亲,作为父亲,拥有这个阳具,仅此而已。

In other words, he is that which in the imaginary dialectic must exist in
order for the phallus to be something other than a meteor.

换句话是,父亲是在想象的辩证法里,必须存在,为了让阳具成为某件不是流星的东西。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

精神错乱313

August 28, 2012

精神错乱313
The Psychosis

雅克、拉康
Jacques Lacan

XXV
The phallus and the meteor
第22章: 阳具与流星
IDA MACALPINE 艾达、马克派恩
NATURAL SYMBOLIZATION AND SUBLIMATION 自然的符号化与昇华
THE RAINBOW 彩虹
INSERTED IN THE FATHER 被插入于父权里

Ida Macalpine, after others, but in a much more coherent way than others,
objects that nothing permits us to think that this delusion presupposes the
genital maturity, if I may call it that, that would explain the fear of castration.
The homosexual tendency is far from manifesting itself as primary. What we
see from the start are symptoms, initially hypochondriacal, which are psychotic
symptoms.

艾达、马克派恩,跟随别人之后,但是用比别人更加一贯的方式,反对说: 没有一样东西让我们能够认为,这个谵妄预先假设性器官的成熟,假如我可以那样称它,那种性器官的成熟将会解释阉割的恐惧。同性恋的倾向根本没有证明它自己作为原初。从一开始,我们所看见的就是病征,最初的忧郁症状。那些都是精神错乱的病症。

At the outset one finds this particular something which is at the heart of
the psychotic relation, such as the psychosomatic phenomena that this clinician
has especially worked on, and which certainly for her are the means of
access to the phenomenology of this case. It is here that die might have directly
apprehended phenomena that are structured quite differently from what takes
place in the neuroses, namely, where there is some sort of direct imprint or
inscription of a characteristic and even, in certain cases, of a conflict upon
what may be called the material picture that the subject presents as a corpo- 353
real being. A symptom such as a facial eruption, which can be variously
characterized dennatologically, will be mobilized in response to a given anniversary
for example, directly, without any intermediary, without any dialectic,
without any interpretation’s being able to indicate any correspondence
with anything from the subject’s past.

在一开头,我们发现这个特别的某件东西,它处于这个精神错乱的关系,诸如这位临床医生曾经特别研究的神经症状的现象。对于她而言,这些现象确实是接近这个个案的现象学的工具。就在这里,她本来很有可能直接理解到一些现象,这些现象在结构方面完全不同于发生在神经症患者的身上。换句话说,在那里,有某个特征的某种的直接印记或刷铭记,甚至在某些的情况,是一种跟所谓的物质画面的冲突的印记或铭记。主体呈现这种物质的画面,作为一个具有肉体的生命实存。诸如脸部的发作这样的病征,它能够用表层皮肤的方式表现各种特征,它将会被动员起来,用以回应某个特定的周期,譬如,直接地,没有任何仲介地,没有任何辩证法,没有任何理解能够指示任何对应,跟主体的过去的任何东西的对应。

This is no doubt what drove Ida Macalpine to raise the most unusual problem
of direct correspondences between the symbol and the symptom. The
apparatus of the symbol is so absent from the mental categories of the contemporary
psychoanalyst that the sole way such relations can be conceived is
through the intermediary of a fantasy. Furthermore, her entire argument
consists in relating the development of the delusion to a fantasmatic theme,
to an originary – original [originelle] according to the usual word today – preoedipal fixation, emphasizing that what sustains desire is essentially a theme
of procreation, but one that is pursued for its own sake, is asexual in form,
and only induces conditions of devirilization, of feminization, as a sort of a
posteriori consequence of the requirement in question. The subject is conceived
as born into the sole child-mother relation, prior to any constitution
of a triangular situation. This is when he would have seen a fantasy of desire
born within himself, a desire to equal the mother in her ability to create a child.

无可置疑地,驱使艾达、马克派恩提出这个最不寻常的问题,有关符号象征与病征之间的直接的对应。符号象征的仪器,在当代的精神分析家的精神范畴里,是如此的欠缺,以致于诸如这些关系能够被构想的唯一的方式,就是通过幻见的仲介。而且,她整个的主张在于将谵妄动发展,跟幻见的主题,跟一直原初物连接一块—这是原初物,依照今天这个寻常字词—这是前伊狄浦斯的固著,强调所剩余的欲望基本上是一个繁殖的主题,但是一个仅为自己本身的目的而被追求的欲望,是一种非性化的形式,仅会引起废除男性精力,女性特征的各种情况,作为一种受到质疑的要求的根据影响推理原因结果。主体给构想作为是诞生进入这个唯一的孩子与母亲的关系,在三角的情况的任何形成之前。这是当他本来会看到一则欲望被诞生在他自己之内的幻见,一种想要跟母亲相等的欲望,因为母亲有能力创造小孩。

This is Mrs. Macalpine’s entire argument, which I have no reason to pursue
here in all the richness of its detail, since it is within your reach in the
substantial preface and postface to the English edition of Schreber’s text she
has done. It is important to see that this construction is connected with a
certain reorientation of the entire analytic dialectic which tends to make the
imaginary economy of fantasy, the various fantasmatic reorganizations, disorganizations,
restructurations, and destructurations, the hub of all comprehensive
progress as well as of all therapeutic progress. The schema that is
currently so widely accepted, frustration-aggressiveness-regression, is at the
base of everything in this delusion that Mrs. Macalpine thinks she can explain.

这就是马克派恩女士的全部主张,我在此没有理由追寻这种主张,尽管其细节的丰富。因为在她曾经研究的苏瑞伯的文本的英文版的前言跟后记里,你们能够找到。重要的是要看出,这种建构跟整个的精神分析的辩证法的某种重新定向息息相关。这个辩证法倾向于形成幻见的想象活动力,各种的幻见的重新组织,解散,重新结构化,及除掉结构化,以及全部的进展及所有治疗的进展的枢纽。目前如此广泛地被接纳的这个基模,挫折-侵凌性-退化,处于这个谵妄动一切的基础。马克派恩女士认为她能够解释。

She goes a long way in this direction. There is, she says, a decline, a twilight
of the world, and at one point a quasi-confusional disorder of the apprehensions
of reality, only because the world has to be recreated.5 She thus
introduces, at the most profound stage of the mental confusion, a sort of
teleology. The entire myth was only constructed because it is the only way
for the subject Schreber to satisfy himself in his imaginary requirement of
childbirth.

她朝着这个方向深入研究。她说,有一种衰微,世界的黄昏地带,在某个时刻,有一种类似混淆的混乱,对于现实界的理解,仅是因为这个世界必须被重新创造。她因此介绍,在精神混淆的最深入的阶段,一种的目的论。这整个的神话仅是被建构,因为它是唯一的方式,让苏瑞伯这个主体满足他自己,在他对于诞生小孩的想象的要求。

Ida Macalpine’s point of view can no doubt enable us to understand the
putting into play, the imaginary impregnation, of the subject to be reborn –
I’m copying here one of Schreber’s themes which is, as you know, the picturing.

无可置疑,艾达、马克派恩的观点让我们能够了解这种运作,想象的怀孕,主体被重新诞生。我在此抄袭苏瑞伯的其中一个主题,你们知道,那就是这个「绘图」。

But from such a point of view, in which only imaginary fantasies are involved,
what enables us to understand the prevalence that Freud gives to the function
of the father?

但是从这样一个观点,仅有想象的幻见被牵涉在里面,是什么让我们能够了解这种优先性,弗洛伊德给予父亲的功能的优先性?

Whatever certain of the weaknesses in Freud’s argument concerning psychosis
may be, it is undeniable that the function of the father is so exalted in
Schreber that nothing less than God the father – in a subject for whom up to
this point this has had no sense – is necessary for the delusion to attain its
culminating point, its point of equilibrium. The prevalence, in the entire
evolution of Schreber’s psychosis, of paternal characters who replace one
another, grow larger and larger and envelop one another to the point of
becoming identified with the divine Father himself, a divinity marked by the
properly paternal accent, is undeniable, unshakable, and destined to make
us raise the question once again – how come something that confirms that
Freud is so right is only investigated by him in certain modes that leave a lot
to be desired?

在弗洛伊德关于精神错乱的主张的那些弱点,无论我们确定是什么,这是不可否认的,在苏瑞伯身上,父亲的这个功能是如此的崇高,以致于实实在在就是上帝,这位父亲是需要的的,为了让这个谵妄获得它巅峰,它的平衡点。(直到这个点,对于这个主体,父亲的这个功能并没有发挥意义)。在苏瑞伯的精神错乱的整个进化,父亲的各种特性的优先性互相替代,变得越来越强烈,并且互相涵盖,到达成为认同神圣的父亲本身的程度。这是由于适当强调父亲所标示的一种神性。这是无可否认的,不可动摇的,并且注定要让我们再一次提出这个问题—为什么某件肯定弗洛伊德是正确的东西,仅是被他使用某些模式研究,而这些模式留下许多让人有挑剔的地方。

In reality, everything in him is balanced, and everything remains inadequate
in Mrs. Macalpine’s rectification. It’s not only the vastness of the fantasmatic
character of the father that prevents us from being in any way satisfied
with a dynamics founded on the irruption of a pre-oedipal fantasy.

实际上,在弗洛伊德身上,每样东西都是平衡的。而在马克派恩女士的修正方面,每样东西始终是不足够的。这不仅是父亲的幻见到特性,广大无边,让我们根本无法满足于根据前伊狄浦斯的幻见建立的动力活动。

There are many more things, including what in both cases remains enigmatic. Freud,
much more than Mrs. Macalpine, comes close to the preponderant, crushing,
proliferating aspect of the phenomena of verbal auditivation, the formidable
captivation of the subject in the world of speech, which is not only copresent
with his existence, which constitutes not only what last time I called a spoken
accompaniment of acts, but also a perpetual intimation, solicitation, summation
even, to manifest itself on this plane.

还有更多的东西,包括在他们两者的情况,始终是谜团的东西。弗洛伊德,比起马克派恩女士,更加靠近文辞的言说差异的各种现象,它们所具有优越的,压倒性的,快速增加的一面。主体对于言说的世界的强烈的著迷。这种著迷跟他的生命实存共同存在,它不但组成我上次所谓的各种演出行动的言说伴随,而且组成一种永久的间接暗示,恳求,甚至总汇在这个层次证明它自己。

Not for one instant must the subject cease testifying, at the constant inducement
of the speech that accompanies him, that he is there present, capable of responding – or of not
responding, because perhaps, he says, one wants to compel him to say something
silly. By his response, as by his nonresponse, he has to testify that he
is always awake to this internal dialogue. Not to be so any longer would be
the signal of what he calls a Verwemng, that is, as it has been correctly translated,
a decomposition.

这个主体没有一瞬间停止来证明,它出现在那里,在伴随他的这个言说的不断诱拐。他能够回应,或能够不回应,因为或许,他说,我们想要逼迫他说出某件愚蠢的东西。凭借他的回应,如同凭借他的不回应,他必须证明,他对于这个内部的对话,总是清醒明白。假如他不再是清醒明白,那将会是他所谓的Verwesung的讯号,换句话说,如同这个词语曾经正确被翻译的,那是一种瓦解。

This is what we have drawn attention to this year and what we have insisted
upon, in order to say that it’s what gives the pure Freudian position its value.
Despite the paradox presented by certain manifestations of psychosis if one
refers them to the dynamics that Freud recognized in neurosis, psychosis
nevertheless happens to be explored in a more satisfactory manner from his
point of view.

这就是我们今年曾经提醒注意到,我们曾经坚持的东西,为了说,那是给予弗洛伊德的立场,赋予它的价值。尽管精神错乱的某些证明呈现这个悖论,假如我们提大它们,作为是弗洛伊德在神经症所承认的动力结构。可是,从他的观点,精神错乱恰巧被探究,以更加令人满意的方式。

His point of view. Freud never completely elucidated it, but it’s what makes
his position tenable in relation to this kind of leveling-off, as it were, of
instinctual signs that psychoanalytic dynamics have tended to be reduced to
since Freud. I am speaking of the terms that he never abandoned, that he
requires for any possible analytic understanding, even where it hangs together
only approximately, for it hangs together all the better in this way – namely,
the function of the father and the castration complex.

他的观点。弗洛伊德从来没有完整地说明它,但是这让他的立场能自圆其说的原因,跟这种适可而止息息相关。自从弗洛伊德以降,精神分析的动力结构,始终倾向于被还原成为本能的迹。我正在谈论到他从来没有放弃的这些术语,他要求任何可能的精神分析的了解,甚至在它仅是大约聚合在一块的地方,因为它以这种方式聚合得更好,换句话说,他要求父亲的功能及阉割情结。

It can’t be a question purely and simply of imaginary elements. What one
finds in the imaginary in the form of the phallic mother isn’t homogeneous,
as you are all aware, with the castration complex, insofar as the latter is integrated
into the triangular situation of the Oedipus complex. This situation is
not completely elucidated by Freud, but by virtue of the sole fact that it is
always maintained it is there ready to lend itself to elucidation, which is only
possible if we recognize that the third element, central for Freud, which is
the father, has a signifying element that is irreducible to any type of imaginary
conditioning.

这不可能单纯是想象元素的问题。我们以阳具的母亲的形式,在想象所发现的东西,跟这个阉割情结,并不具有同质性。如同你们众所周知。因为后者被合并进入伊狄浦斯情结的三角情境。这个情境,弗洛伊德并没有完整地说明。但是凭借这个仅有的事实,它总是被维持,它总是在那里,准备借助于说明。那是可能的,只要我们承认,这第三个元素,对于弗洛伊德具有中心地位,那就是父亲。这第三元素具有能指化的元素,无法被还原成为任何种类的想象的制约。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

自闭症与童年精神错乱 03

August 27, 2012

自闭症与童年精神错乱 03

Conceptual foundations for diagnosis

A minimum of four terms is needed to map and describe any clinical phenomenon:

Sv the master signifier, or signifier of the subject (although originated in the field of the Other);

S2, the signifier of the Other, or signifying chain less the Sx;

$, the subject, necessarily divided, an effect of the signifying chain: that which is represented by a signifier for another signifier; and

a, the object cause of desire, which represents the function of plus-de-jouir (surplus enjoyment) and a localization of jouissance.

 

诊断的观念的基础

最小量需要有四个术语,来描绘及描述任何临床的现象:

S1是主人能指,或主体的能指指,(虽然是起源于大他者的领域),

S2是大他者的能指,或小于主人能指S1的能指的锁链,

$ 这个必然是分裂的主体,能指锁链的一种情意,作为一个能指对于另外一个能指,所被代表的情意,

a 是欲望客体的原因,代表过剩享乐的这个功能,及欢爽的局部化。

These are the four constitutive terms of what Lacan called discourse, or social bond, that defines the position of the subject even before he utters any statement. Each of the four discourses posited by Lacan represents a particular combination of these four terms, which occupy places that are invariant:

Agent               other

     —————-

truth              production

 

有四种的建构的术语,拉康称为是辞说,或是社会契约。它定义主体的位置,甚至在他发表任何的陈述之前。这四个辞说的每一个,由拉康提出,代表这四个术语的一个特别的组合。这些术语佔据一成不变的位置。

 

              代理者                他者

                      ——————

               真理                 产物

 

 

In this sense of the term, discourse, Lacan says that the psychotic is outside discourse (hors discours); but the psychotic is not outside language. In addition – and this is particularly relevant to a discussion of the psychoses and autism – any diagnostic account must consider the vicissitudes of the specular relation, for which three more terms, that are not directly represented in the matheme of the discourse, are necessary: i(o), the image of the specular other, or small other; i'(o), the ego; and I, the ego-ideal. The Schema L of Lacan, as presented in his seminar on the psychoses, is the basis of subsequent elaborations on these terms:

(Es)S ———-(o’i)other

(ego)————- @ Other

Figure 2: Schema L Source: Lacan (1993), Book III, p. 14.

这个术语的这个意义,辞说,拉康说,这个精神错乱者是在辞说外面。但是这个精神错乱者并没有在语言外面。除外,这是特别关系到精神错乱及自闭症的讨论。任何诊断的描述必须考虑到这个魅影关系的起伏变化。对于它们,还有三个术语。这些术语并不是直接被代表,在辞说的数学公式里。它们是需要的理想自我i(o),魅影的他者的意象,或是小他者i’o , 这个自我ego,及这个I, 自我理想。拉康的这个L的基模,在他的论精神错乱的研讨班被呈现,是有关这些术语的随后的建构的基础。

The imaginary axis is improperly constituted in psychosis, and virtually absent in the case of autism. While the symbolic order is the support of the imaginary, there is no proper access to the symbolic without the intermediation of the imaginary. The subject’s encounter with a ‘bare’ signifier without an imaginary cover (a signifier reduced to being something real) has the uncanny, enigmatic effect that the psychotic subject typically reports.

在精神错乱里,想象界的枢纽不适当地被形成。在自闭症的案例,它几乎是欠缺的。虽然符号象征的秩序是这个想象界的支持,它并没有适当的接近这个符号象征,而不受到想象界的仲介。主体跟一个「赤裸的」的能指的邂逅,必然会涵盖想象界 (一个能指被还原成为某件实在界的东西)。这种邂逅拥有神秘的谜团一般的效应,精神错乱的主体典型报导有这样的效应。

雄伯说

拉康的精神错乱的L模式,我无法张贴图形,希望有人能帮忙!

是一个实线三角形跟一个虚线三角形的倒转,而形成四角形。

The subject is constituted as such through the two operations of alienation and separation. The concept of alienation refers not so much to the fact that the subject is already determined in the field of the Other, even before his birth, through his name, position in the kinship system and the family, the family myths and the whole symbolic universe that precedes him, but rather to his determination by the binary structure of the signifier. A signifier represents the subject, but for another signifier:

主体本身被构成,通过异化与分离的这两个运作。异化的观念并不是提到这个事实:主体已经被决定,在大他者的领域,,甚至在他出生以前,通过他的名字,他在亲属关系及家庭的地位,这个家庭神话及在他之前存在的符号象征宇宙。相反地,而是提到他受到能指的二元结构的决定。能指代表这个主体,但是对于另外一个能指。

S1 ——— S2

—-

$

 

The operation of alienation constitutes the subject as subject of language. The operation of separation is necessary for the constitution of the subject as subject of discourse:

异化的这个运作组成这个主体作为语言的主体。分离的这个运作是必须的,对于主体的形成作为辞说的主体。

S1———S2

—-    —–

$       a

The object a effects the separation (hence its designation as a ‘separator’ or ‘separating object’). As Colette Soler has argued, the separation in question does not separate the subject from the object, but from the signifying chain – from the Other, in so far as the Other represents the signifying chain (Soler, 1990, pp. 9-24):

客体a 造成分离的结果 (因此指明它作为一种「分离者」或「分离的客体」。如同科雷特、索勒曾经主张,受到质疑的这个分离,并没有将主体跟客体分离,而是跟能指化的锁链分离—跟大他者分离。因为大他者代表这个能指化的锁链。

$ alienated 被划杠的主体异化

$ separated 被划杠的主体分离

The object falls from the other

客体从大他者掉落

Figure 3: The object falls from the Other Source: Soler (1990), pp. 9-24.

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

精神错乱310a

August 27, 2012

精神错乱310a
The Psychosis

雅克、拉康
Jacques Lacan

XXV
The phallus and the meteor
第22章: 阳具与流星

PREVALENCE OF CASTRATION 阉割的盛行
IDA MACALPINE 艾达、马克派恩
NATURAL SYMBOLIZATION AND SUBLIMATION 自然的符号化与昇华
THE RAINBOW 彩虹
INSERTED IN THE FATHER 被插入于父权里

I’m not sure what to begin with to end this course. On the off chance, I’ve
put two small schemas on the board for you.

我不确定应该怎么开始,为了结束这个课程。尽我可能,我已经在黑板上跟你们提出两个基模。

The first is an old one. It’s a sort of grid which I used at the start of this
year to try to show you how the problem of delusion is raised if we want to
structure it insofar as it appears to be a relation in some way linked to speech.
The second of these schemas is entirely new and I will have occasion to refer
to it shortly.

第一个是旧的基模。这是一种框格,我在今年开始时使用,为了跟你们显示谵妄的问题如何被提出,假如我们想要架构它,因为它似乎是一种关系,在某方面,跟言说息息相关。这些基模的第二个完全是新颖的。我不久将有机会提到它。

1
What I have put forward this year has been centraUy concerned with placing
the emphasis back upon the structure of delusion. Delusion may be regarded
as a disturbance of the object relation and is therefore linked to a transference
mechanism. But I wanted to show you that all its phenomena, and I even
think I can say its dynamics, would be clarified in reference to the functions
and structure of speech. This will also free this transference mechanism from
all kinds of confused and diffuse object relations.

今年我曾经提出的,主要始终是关心将这个强调点,放置回到谵妄的结构。谵妄可能被认为是对客体关系的一种扰乱,因此跟移情的机械结构息息相关。但是我想要跟你们显示:所有它的现象将会被澄清,关于跟言说的这些功能与结构,我甚至能够说出它的动力学。

By hypothesis, whenever one deals with a disturbance regarded overall as
immature, one refers to a linear developmental series derived from the immaturity
of the object relation. Now, experience shows that this unilinearity
leads to impasses, to inadequate, unmotivated explanations that superimpose
themselves on one another in a way that does not enable cases to be differentiated
and, first and foremost, obliterates the difference between neurosis
and psychosis. The mere experience of partial delusion mitigates against
speaking of immaturity, or even of regression or simple modification of the
object relation.

根据假设,每当我们处理一种扰乱,全面性被认为是不成熟,我们提到一种直线的发展系列。这个发展系列从客体关系的不成熟获得。现在,精神分析经验显示: 这个单一直线性导致各种僵局,导致不充分,没有动机的各种解释。这些解释彼此预先涵盖,其方式并不能够让各种个案被区别。尤其重要的,它们抹除掉神经症与精神错乱的差异。光是客体谵妄动精神分析经验,就让不成熟之说难以成立,遑论倒退说或是客体的单纯修正说。

The same thing goes if one refers to the neuroses alone. Next year we shall
see that the notion of object relation isn’t univocal, when I begin by contrast-
ing the object of phobias with the object of perversions. This will be to take
up again, at the level of the category of object, the problem of the relations
between the subject and the other, two terms which, regarding the psychoses,
are opposed.

假如我们光是提到神经症的功能,相同的情况会发生。明年,我们将会看出,客体关系的这个观念并不是不容质疑的,当我开始对照恐惧的客体,跟各种倒错的客体。这将要再一次从事,在客体的这个范畴的层次,在主体与大他者之间的各种关系的问题,这两个互相对立的术语,关于精神错乱。

I left you last time with two opposed descriptions, Freud’s and that of a
psychoanalyst who is far from being without merit and, while representing
the most modern tendencies, has at least the advantage of doing so very intelligently.

我上次结束时,留下两个对立的描述,弗洛伊德的描述跟一位精神分析家的描述。这位精神分析并非乏善可陈。虽然他代表最现代的流行趋势,他至少拥有这个优势:表现得聪慧杰出。

Let’s briefly summarize Freud’s position on the subject of Schreber’s delusion
and the objections brought against him, and let’s see if anything like a
better solution has even begun to be outlined.

让我们简短总结弗洛伊德对于苏瑞伯的谵妄动这个主体的立场,以及被提出的对他的反对意见。让我们看出,是否有一个像是比较好的解决的东西,甚至已经开始被描绘轮廓。

For Freud, we’re told, Schreber’s delusion is linked to the irruption of a
homosexual tendency. The subject negates it, defends himself against it. In
his case, which isn’t the case of a neurotic, this negation ends in what we
might call divine erotomania.

我们听说,对于弗洛伊德,苏瑞伯的谵妄跟同性恋的倾向的发作息息相关。主体否定它,自己採取防卫,对抗同性恋的倾向。若是神经症的个案,则不会这样。这种否定结果会形成我们所谓的神圣的色情狂。

You know how Freud divides up the various denials [delegations] of the
homosexual tendency. He starts from a sentence that symbolizes the situation
– / love him, a man.1 There is more than one way of introducing denial into
this sentence. One may say for example, Its not I who love him or, Its not
him I love or again, For me there is no question of love, I hate him. Moreover,
he tells us, the situation is never simple and isn’t limited to a simple symbolic
reversal.

你们知道弗洛伊德如何区分对于同性恋倾向的各种各样的否认。他从一个象征这个情况的句子开始:「 我爱他,一位男人」。有不仅一种的方式来介绍否认,进入这个句子。我们可以说,譬如,「并不是我爱他」,或是「我爱的并不是他」,或是「对于我而言,无所谓爱的问题,我恨他」。而且,他告诉我,这个情况从来就不是单纯的,它并不限制于一种单纯的符号象征的倒转。

For reasons that he takes to be implied sufficiently, but upon which
as a matter of fact he doesn’t insist, an imaginary reversal of the situation
occurs in only a part of the three terms, namely / hate him is for example
transformed through projection into He hates me. In our case, Ifs not him I
love, its someone eke, a big He, God himself, is inverted into He loves me, as
in all erotomania. It is clear that Freud is indicating that the final result of
defense against the homosexual tendency can’t be understood in the absence
of a very advanced reversal of the symbolic apparatus.

为了他认为是充分被暗示的理由,但是事实上,他并没有坚持这些理由。一种想象的情况的倒转发送,在这三个术语的仅是早先的部分。换句话说,譬若,「我恨他」,通过投射被转换成为「他恨我」。 在我们苏瑞伯这个个案,「我爱的并不是他,而是某个其他人。」一个大写的「他」,上帝本身,被倒转成为「他爱我」,如同在所有色情狂。显而易见,弗洛伊德正在指示: 作为防卫对抗同性恋倾向的最后结果,无法被了解,由于符号象征的工具的深度倒转并没有出现。

Everything may therefore appear to revolve around defence. It must
undoubtedly be very intense indeed to propel the subject into trials that extend
to nothing less than the derealization, not only of the external world in general,
but of the very people around him, even those he is closest to, including
the other as such. This necessitates an entire delusional reconstruction, fol- 351
lowing which the subject gradually resituates, though in a profoundly disturbed
way, a world in which he is able to recognize himself, in an equally
disturbed way, as destined – at a time projected into the uncertainty of the
future, at a date that is indeterminate but that certainly cannot be delayed –
to become the subject par excellence of a divine miracle, that is, to be the
support and feminine receptacle of the recreation of all humanity. Schreber’s
delusion in its final state presents with all the megalomaniacal characteristics
of delusions of redemption in their most highly developed form.

每样东西似乎都绕着防卫旋转。无可置疑,那一定是非常强烈,确实是为了推动主体进入那些考验。那些考验延伸到实实在在就是这个除掉现实化,不但是一般外在世界的除现实化,甚至他靠近的那些外在世界,包括他者的本身。这让整个的谵妄动重建成为必要。遵照著这个重建,主体慢慢地重新定位他能够体认出他自己的世界,虽然是以非常受到困扰的方式。以一个同样受到困扰的方式,作为被注定的世界,在一段被投射到未来的不确定当中,处于一个不确定的日期,但是确实是无法被拖延的日期—为了成为一个神圣奇迹的这个优秀主体。换句话说,成为所有人类的创造的支持及女性的容器。苏瑞伯的谵妄,在它的最后的状态,呈现救赎的谵妄的夸大狂的各种特征,处于高度发展的形式。

How do we account for the intensity of the defense? Freud’s explanation
looks like it is contained entirely within the reference to narcissism. The
defence against the homosexual tendency begins with a narcissism under threat.
The megalomania represents that by which the narcissistic fear expresses itself.
The ego’s enlargement to the dimensions of the world is a fact of libidinal
economy which is apparently located entirely on the imaginary level. Making
himself the supreme being’s love object, the subject can henceforth abandon
that which, of all that he was going to save, initially seemed most precious to
him – namely the mark of his virility.

我们如何解释这种防卫的强度?弗洛伊德的解释看起来像是:它完全被包容在自恋的这个指称。对抗同性恋的倾向的这个防卫,开始于一种受到威胁的自恋。夸大狂代表,凭借着夸大狂,自恋的恐惧表达它自己,自我的括大到世界的各种维度,是力比多的活动力的事实。它显而易见完全被定位在想象的层次。让他自己成为崇高的爱的客体,主体因此能够放弃最初对他是珍贵的东西,在他将要拯救的所有的东西当中,换句话说,他的生命活力的标记。

But ultimately, and I stress this, the pivot, the point of convergence of the
libidinal dialectic that the mechanism and development of neurosis refer to
in Freud, is the theme of castration. It’s castration that conditions the narcissistic
fear. To accept castration the subject must pay as elevated a price as
this reworking of the whole of reality.

但是最后,我强调这点,这个枢纽,力比多辩证法的汇集的这个点。在弗洛伊德,神经症的机械结构及发展会提到它。那是阉割的主题,阉割制约了自恋的恐惧。为了接受阉割,主体必须付出同样高昂的代价,如同整个现实界的这个重建。

Freud stuck by this prevalence. In the material, explanatory order of
Freudian theory, from beginning to end, this is an invariable, a prevalent
invariable. He never subordinated or even relativized its place in the theoretical
conditioning of the subjective interplay in which the history of any psychoanalytic
phenomenon whatsoever is inscribed. It was around Freud, within
the analytic community, that one wanted to give it symmetrical or equivalent
things. But in his work the phallic object occupies the central place in libidinal
economy, in both man and woman.

弗洛伊德坚守这种的盛行。 在材料方面,弗洛伊德理论的解释性秩序,从头到尾,这是一个不变的东西,一个盛行的不变。他从来没有将它的位置隶属化,或相对化,在主体化的互相运作的理论制约。在这个互相运作里,任何精神分析现象的历史被铭记。就是环绕着弗洛伊德,在精神分析的社会里,我们想要给予它一些均称及相等的东西。但是在他的著作里,阳具的客体佔据这个中央的位置,在力比多的活动力,在男人与女人身上。

This is an altogether essential fact, characteristic of all the theorizing given
and maintained by Freud – whatever reworking he brought to his theorizing,
throughout all the phases of the schematization he was able to give of psychic
life, the prevalence of the phallic center was never modified.

这是一个非常基本的事实,表现出所有的理论化指称的特征,并且由弗洛伊德主张。他带给他的理论化的重新建构,在他能够给予的基模化的各个部分里面,关于心理的生活,这个阳具中心的盛行从来没有被修正。

If there is some truth in Mrs. Macalpine’s remarks – and this is however
352 the only thing that she doesn’t really make evident – it’s that, effectively, in
Schreber castration is never an issue. The Latin term that is used in German,
eviratio – Entmannung, means in the text transformation, with all that this
word conveys of transition, into a woman – it’s not castration at all.2 This
doesn’t matter, Freud’s analysis makes the entire dynamics of the subject
Schreber revolve around the theme of castration, of the loss of the phallic
object.

假如在马克派恩女士的谈论里,有某个真理—可是,这是她并没有真正让它明显化的唯一的东西。那就是,有效地,在苏瑞伯,阉割从来没有受到质疑。在德文里被使用的这个拉丁术语,eviratio—Entmannung,在文本里意味着转变成为女人,以及所有这个字词传递的转变的东西。这根本不是阉割。这并不重要,弗洛伊德的精神分析让苏瑞伯这个主体的整个动力活动,环绕着阉割的主题旋转,环绕着阳具客体的损失的主题。

We must remark that despite certain weaknesses in his argument, which
are due to the use of terms that only have their place in the imaginary dialectic
of narcissism, the virile object is the essential element at play in the conflict.
It alone enables us to make sense of and to understand the different
stages of the delusion’s evolution, its phases, and its final construction. Furthermore,
we may note in passing all sorts of subtleties that have not been
developed or completely explored.

我们必须谈论,他的主张尽管有某些的弱点,那是由于术语的使用,仅是在自恋的想象的辩证,获得地位,这个生命力的客体是这个基本的元素,在冲突中运作。光是它就让我们能够理解并且了解谵妄的进化的不同阶段,它的各个部分,以及它的最后的建构。而且,我们可能顺便注意到各种从来没有被发展或完整被探索的细微差异。

Freud shows us for example that projection
alone cannot explain delusion, that it is not a matter of a mirror image
of the subject’s feeling, but that it is indispensable to determine stages in it
and, at a certain moment as it were, a loss of the tendency, which ages. Over
the course of the year I have greatly insisted upon the fact that what has been
repressed within reappears without, re-emerges in the background – and not
in a simple structure but in a position that is, as it were, internal, which
makes the subject himself, who in the present case happens to be the agent
of persecution, ambiguous, problematic. He is initially only the representative
of another subject who not only permits but undoubtedly acts, in the
final analysis. In short, the otherness of the other is spread out. It’s one of
the problems to which as a matter of fact Freud does lead us, but he stops
there.

譬如,弗洛伊德跟我们显示:光是投射作用并无法解释谵妄,这并不是主体的感觉到镜子意象的问题,而是这是不可免除的,要决定在它里面的各个阶段,所谓的在某个时刻,这种倾向的丧失,它会成熟。在这年的期间,我曾经强烈地坚持这个事实:在里面被压抑的,会重新出现在外面,在背景里重新出现。不是在单一的结构,而是在一个所谓的内部的立场,它会使得主体的本身成为模糊暧昧,问题棘手。在目前的情况,这个主体本身恰巧会是迫害的代理人。他最初仅是另外一个主体的代表。这个主体不但包容,而且无可置疑地行动,在最后。总之,这个他者的异他性被广散开来。那是其中一个难题,事实上,弗洛伊德确实引导我们到那里。但是他适可而止。

自闭症与童年精神错乱 02

August 25, 2012

自闭症与童年精神错乱02
Autism and Childhood Psychosis 21

Lacan always insisted on the notion of the psychotic phenomenon as a production, a view taken already by Freud since the beginnings of psychoanalysis and the best example of which is Freud’s analysis of President Schreber’s psychotic productions.

拉康总是坚持精神错乱的现象作为产物的观念,这一个观点已经被弗洛伊德採纳,自从精神分析的开始。最好的例子是弗洛伊德对于苏瑞伯首席法官这个精神错乱的产物的分析。

A clinic of production, as opposed to a clinic of the deficit, necessarily requires a structural approach and a positive explanation for clinical phenomena which, in turn, is indispensable for any therapeutic intervention. A clinic of the deficit is content with verifying the presence of malfunction or disorder, and not interested in the order which exists, since psychosis is one of the possible organizations of the speaking being, including the cases in which the subject does not actually speak (catatonia, autistic mutism). Even in such cases the subject is subjected to language and, for instance, the absence of verbal productions is interpreted by those around the subject as a refusal to speak, rather than as an absolute inability to speak.

产物的临床,相对于这个缺陷的临床,必然会要求一种结构性的研究方法,及正面的解释,对于临床的各种现象。轮过来,对于任何治疗的介入,是无可免除的。缺陷的临床满足于证实功能不良或疾病的存在,并且对于存在的秩序不感興趣,因为精神错乱是作为言说主体的可能组织之一,包括这些情况,主体并没有实际在言说的情况(僵硬姿态,自闭症的沉默)。甚至在诸如其乐的情 ,主体还是隶属于语言,文辞产物的欠缺被环绕主体四周的那些人,解释为拒绝言说,而不是作为绝对没有言说的能力。

The following are the diagnostic categories generally accepted in the Freudian field, although there is no unanimity as to exact definitions:

以下是一些诊断的范畴,在弗洛伊德的领域普遍被接受,虽然关于确实的定义,并没有一致共识。

1. Paranoia, whose existence as one of the psychoses of childhood is maintained, contrary to the opinion of non-psychoanalytic psychiatry. Les structures de la psychose, by Rosine and Robert Lefort (1988), contains a full account of the treatment of Robert, the Wolf Child, and a detailed comparison of Robert’s and President Schreber’s clinical presentations, which has led the authors to assert the structural identity of both cases. Paranoiac psychosis manifests clinically through delusional formations and hallucinations which are the spontaneous attempts at recovery on the part of the patient, an attempt to reconstruct a world that has collapsed and where it has become impossible to live.

1、偏执狂的存在,作为儿童精神错乱的之一,是成立的,跟非精神分析的精神分裂学的意见相反。由罗欣尼与罗伯特、雷弗特所写的「精神错乱的结构」,包括充分的描述,关于罗伯特德治疗「狼孩」。详细地比较罗伯特与苏瑞伯首席法官的临床记载,引导作者们主张两个个案的结构的相同性。偏执狂的精神错乱的临床显示,通过谵妄的形成及各种幻觉。它们病人这方面自动自发的企图寻求康复。企图想要重建一个已经崩溃的世界。在这个世界,他已经变得不可能生存。

2. Schizophrenia, which manifests itself through fragmentary delusional formations and hallucinations; incoherence of speech and thought; blunted or bizarre affective responses and catatonic behaviour, all of which represent the subject’s attempts to deal with a collapse of the representation of the body, or inability to construct that representation in a relation with the small other, i(o), the body thus becoming a place almost impossible to inhabit.

2、精神分裂症展示它自己,通过片断的谵妄动形成与各种幻觉。言说与思想的不一致,迟钝或古怪的情感的反应,及身体僵化的行为。所有这一些代表主体的企图,想要处理身体的再现符号的崩溃。或是没有能力建造那个再现符号,跟这个小他者(io)的关系,身体因此变成一个几乎不可能居住地位置。

3. Melancholia, which has not received much attention but which appears during childhood, characterized by delusional feelings of worthlessness, insomnia or hypersomnia, poor appetite, failure to thrive, suicidal ideation and actions, and apathy (which may be interrupted by manic episodes). These phenomena represent an identification with the real lack in the Other, that is, the absence of the desire of the Other which remains as an unsymbolized nothingness, the locus of the suicidal identification. There remains an open question whether melancholia can be considered as a structure in its own right, or whether it is a variant of paranoia – and, in some cases, perhaps, of schizophrenia.

3、忧郁症,并没有受到许多的注意,但是在童年期间会出现,特色是谵妄的无价值感,失眠,或是严重失眠,食欲不佳,无法成功,自杀的念头及行动,冷漠(这些可能会被狂乱的发作中断)。这些现象代表一种认同大他者的这个欠缺。换句话说,大他者的欲望的欠缺。这个大他者始终是作为一种没有被符号象征的空无,自杀认同的轨迹。这始终是一个开放的问题,忧郁症是否能够被认为是一种具有自己价值的结构,或是这是一种偏执狂的变种—在某些的个案,或许是精神分裂症的变种。

4. Autism, for which Leo Kanner’s (1973) original description of 1943 remains valid, characterized by inability to relate socially, aloneness, the failure to assume an anticipatory posture, the profound disturbance of language, the presence of excellent rote memory in many cases, echolalia and delayed echolalia, literal-ness and the mechanical repetition of pronouns, with onset within the first thirty months after birth. Such clinical features suggest an absence of the Other as the locus of the representation of both the world and the body. There is no unanimity as to the specificity of autism: whether it constitutes a structure in its own right, separate from the psychoses; or whether it is a variation and the earliest clinical version of schizophrenia. Current research by Lacanians who work with autistic and psychotic children deals with this question and the related issue of the evolution of the autistic subject, that is, what becomes of the autistic child when he/she enters adulthood.

1、 自闭症,李奥、康纳在1943年,对它的原先描述始终是有效。它的特征是没有能力跟社会联系,孤单,没有办法负起一种期望的姿态,语言深深受到困扰,优秀的背诵记忆,在许多情况存在,机械地重复他人语言或拖延重复他人语言,对于一些代名词实质认定及机械重复,在出生后前三十个月内开始。诸如其类的临床特征暗示大他者的欠缺,作为世界及身体的符号再现的轨迹。并没有一致共识,关于自闭症的明确内涵:它是否构成一种具有本身价值的结构,跟精神错乱分隔开来。或是它是否是一种变种及精神分裂症的早期临床变种。目前拉康派探讨自闭症及精神错乱儿童的研究,处理这个问题,及自闭症主体的进化的相关问题。换句话说,自闭症儿童的遭遇,他/她何时进入成年。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

自闭症与儿童精错乱

August 25, 2012

Autism and Childhood Psychosis
自闭症与童年的精神错乱

Specific references to autism and the psychoses of childhood in Lacan’s written works and seminars are scarce. Yet his theses on the structure of psychosis (see foreclosure; psychosis), have enlightened the clinical approach to those conditions and generated a wealth of research, theoretical developments and debate among psychoanalysts of the Lacanian orientation who work with children.

明确的提到自闭症与童年的精神错乱,在拉康的文字著作及研讨班,是很少的。可是,他对于精神错乱的结构的论文曾经启蒙探究那些情况的临床方法,并且产生许多的研究,理论的发展与辩论,在研究儿童的拉康派的精神分析家。

The topic is, however, of relevance for the theory and practice of all Lacanian analysts, as the psychoanalytic field is one, and interest in particular clinical or conceptual problems should not be understood as being the domain of only ‘specialized’ forms of psychoanalysis. Whether autistic, psychotic or neurotic, it is as a subject that the child (or the adult, for that matter) enters the psychoanalytic experience.

可是,这个议题跟所有的拉康派的精神分析家的理论与实践都息息相关,如同精神分析的领域。对它的興趣,特别是临床或是观念的问题,不应该被了解,仅是当著述精神分析的「专业」形式的领域。无论是自闭症,精神错乱,或是神经症,儿童(就那个情况,是成人),进入精神分析的经验,是作为一个主体。

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the child works in this experience as a subject in his/her own right and in the full sense of the term; this is so despite the fact that the psychotic or autistic subject is outside discourse (hors discours) and cannot therefore be considered to be a ‘subject of the unconscious’ constituted by the operations of alienation and separation. It is still the aim of the psychoanalytic experience that the psychotic or autistic subject establish a ‘workable’ link with discourse.

在拉康的精神分析,儿童在这个经验里,充当是主体,拥有他/她自己的权利,就那个术语的完整意义而言。这是如此,尽管这个事实: 精神错乱或是自闭症的主体,外在于辞说之外,并且因此无法被认为是一个「无意识的主体」,由异化与分离的各种运作所组成。这依旧是精神分析经验的目标,精神错乱或是自闭症的主体应该建立一个跟辞说「可运作的」的关联。

Within Lacan’s works, the main references that have inspired the psychoanalysts who work with psychotic and autistic children (leaving aside for the moment the distinction between the two terms) are:
• The doctoral thesis on paranoia (1932).
• The article on the family published in the Encyclopédie française (1938).
• The commentaries on the cases of Dick (treated by Melanie Klein; Klein 1930) and Robert (treated by Rosine Lefort; Lefort and Lefort 1988). Both are part of the 1953-54 seminar, or Seminar I.

在拉康的著作里,曾经启发精神分析家的主要的指称如下,他们研究精神错乱及自闭症儿童(暂时将这两个术语的区别搁置):
1、 对于偏执狂的博士论文 (1932)
2、 论家庭的文章,发表于法国百科全书(1938)
3、 有关个案的评论,对于笛克(梅兰妮、克莱恩所治疗:克莱恩,1930年)及罗伯特(由罗欣尼所治疗:雷弗特1988年)。两个个案都是1953-54的研讨班的部分,或是第一研讨班。

雄伯说
罗伯特的个案,就是双臂大黑天翻译一半的「狼孩」,请参照。

• The seminar on the psychoses of 1955-56.
• The now ‘classical’ 1959 paper on the treatment of psychosis included in the English-language selection of the Écrits (1977).
• The intervention at the conference on childhood psychosis organized by Maud Mannoni (1968).
• The note on the child addressed to Jenny Aubry (1969).
• The revision of the concept of the Name-of-the-Father and the function of the symptom developed in the seminars of 1974-75 (R.S.I.) and 1975-76 (Le Sinthome).
• The 1975 Geneva lecture on the symptom.

4、1955-1956 年的精神错乱的研讨班。
5、1959年的论精神错乱的治疗,现在已成经典,在精神分析论文集的英文版收入(1977年)
6、对于儿童精神错乱的会议的介入,这个会议由莫德、曼诺尼主办(1968年)
7、跟珍妮、奥布瑞演讲的儿童观察(1968年)
8、1974-75年的(R.S.I)及1975年-76(圣庄),以「父亲之名」的观念的订正,及发展的病征的功用。
9、 1975年,在日内瓦演讲病正。

Diagnosis
The first question that faces the practitioners in the field, both of practical and conceptual significance, is that of diagnosis which, from a Lacanian perspective is necessarily structural.
In his seminar on the psychoses, Lacan speaks of ‘the structure of the psychotic phenomenon’: the observable phenomena are moments of the structure, rather than epiphenomena.
From a clinical perspective, ‘observable’ phenomena are not perceived unless the clinician’s conceptual mapping is prepared to admit them; and this requires structural hypotheses.

诊断
在这个领域实践者面临的第一个问题,兼具实践与观念的重要性,那就是诊断的问题。从拉康派的观点,它必然是结构的问题。

在他论精神错乱的研讨班,拉康谈论精神错乱的现象的结构:可观察到现象是结构的时刻,而不是次要现象。

从临床观点,「可观察的」现象没有被感觉,除非临床医生的观念的描绘准备要承认它们,而这需要结构的假设。

In the Lacanian orientation, childhood and adult psychoses are identical from the viewpoint of their structure; this position contrasts with the view adopted by the authors of current psychiatric classifications. In making of psychosis a developmental disorder, what the psychiatric orientation represented by the D5M-IV causes is, in the first place, to consider the psychotic phenomenon as a deficit, rather than a production; and secondly, to define the deficits of the patient in terms of developmental norms external to the structure of the subject as such.

依拉康派的研究方向,儿童与成人的精神错乱是一致的,从他们的结构的观点。这个立场可跟目前的精神分裂疾病的分类的作者们所採用的观点互相对照。他们将精神错乱解释为成长发展的疾病,精神分裂疾病的研究方向,由D5M-IV列举的目标所代表。它首先要将精神错乱的现象,作为一种缺陷,而不是一种产物。其次,他们定义病人的缺陷,用成长发展的标准,外在于主体本身的结构。

Diagnosis is thus established on the basis of what the subject has not achieved developmentally and his/her deviation from norms which combine medical and educational criteria, adaptation to conventional social demands being the central point of reference. This is a questionable criterion for clinical phenomenology, since the emphasis is placed on what is absent and not on what is phenomenologically observable, which is a production.

诊断因此被建立,根据主体在成长发展没有达成的东西。他/她偏离这个标准,这些标准联接医学与教育的标准,对于传统的社会要求的适应,成为指称的重点。这是一个受到质疑的标准,对于临床的现象学。因为强调被放置在所欠缺的东西,而不是在现象上可观察的东西。这是一种产物。

精神分析的行动 31

August 23, 2012

精神分析的行动 31

Psychoanalytic Act

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar7: Wednesday 24 January 1968

我觉得,因为我提到这个事实:我觉得是引起这场听众的动机,由于他们出现,让我觉得荣幸。就是这一面展开你们面前所发生的事情。我甚至没有发现,就精神分析家而言,没有出席这里,在我正在谈论有关这个行动的时刻—换句话说,那不仅是任何的辞说—即使它们被给予,信任及资讯丰富的笔记,有某件东西相当具有说服力,非常重要。它很有理由在于我铭记抗拒这个术语的地方。

我打算要求两三人,跟我提出一两个问题,给予作为进入这个封闭的研讨班的一个模式。这将不是一件坏事情。我也知道这种冰冻的影响,因为这个人数众多而造成。可是,我建议,它应该被证实,除了一些例外,对于2月28日,被准许的那些人的研讨班的规定,那些人将会送给我一个文字的问题。我觉得,这个文字的问题似乎是在正确的脉络,关于我正在尝试带给你们,那些将会接收到2月28日的小小的邀请卡。

这仍然是我的责任,要到处强调这个某个东西,为了稍微提升我们,即使今天这并不是属于我习惯採用的这个权威ex cathedra 的秩序。啊! 我们仍然必须注意,这个差距,依旧处于这个行动与这个作为之间,那是岌岌可危的地方。这是迫切的时刻,环绕这个时刻,人们曾经绞尽脑筋,经过好几个世纪,从那少数的曾曾祖父,他们必然是刚在凯撒的时代。你们并不知道这个程度,你们被牵连到事情的程度,仅有历史手册让你们想到,那些事情是属于过去。

即使人们绞尽他们的脑筋—请观看黑格尔—关于这个差异,处于主人与奴隶之间的差异,你们能够给予这个,作为随你们高兴的具有弹性的理解。假如你们仔细地观看它,牵涉到的实实在在就是这个差距,处于行动与作为之间的差距。我们将要给予它们不同的具体内涵,比起形成这个行动的主体稍微复杂一点。发号司令的未必,也并独特是主体—这就是令人困扰的地方。皮尔斯、杰尼环绕着它建构一整套的心理学。那并不意味着,他的方向很糟糕。相反地,光是他的各种分析就相当基本。这些分析并不容许许多能够被了解。因为在这个事实之外,在埃及的墙壁浮雕所代表的东西,换句话说,一个领航水手,在普列页或某个地方,有一位主导者,有些人曾经—这并没有解释很多,因为在确实有主人的地方,对于那些人们时间悠闲的那些人—有些人必须处理这个行动,那些人必须处理这个作为。所以有各种的作为。这是我们能够开始了解,这个作为如何拥有更大的机会,比起任何其他机会,让我们能够接近享乐,尽管它的徒劳的特性,我正在谈论到有关精神分析。

仔细地观看这个作为,在我想要强调的特征。没有需要说,这是纯粹言说的一种作为。这是某件几年来我曾经一再地提醒,为了尝试看到它的功用,在言说与语言的领域。所没有被注意的是,因为这是纯粹言说的一种作为,它靠近成为一种行动,跟普通的作为比较起来。而且,我们能够表达它,凭借行动的这个能指。假如我们非常仔细地观看事情,换句话说,什么确实是这个基本的规则的意义。那确实是,直到尽可能高深的那个时刻,会有些的指示:主体应该从它那里缺席。

这个工作,主体的作为就是要听任这个能指从事它的运作。这个行动中是一种设计,但是它并不是这个能指的行动。行动中的能指拥有这个外延意义。能指的这个召唤,我们能够用某种的铭记称呼,处于力量状态。但是知道我们的医生早先想要被提醒的东西,在那些强调结构的医生。那里有太多的医生准备侃侃而谈这个人。生命实存实如此地丰沛充裕,以致于我们尝试在它的确是对轨迹补捉我们自己,在这个根本就不是逻辑的逻辑里。关于这个逻辑,我们无法以任何方式,任何权利,放置空洞的这个迹象。要建构这个逻辑,并不那么容易,你们在此看出,它的结果是什么。让我们说,让一位分析家提出这些术语,想这个人的术语,是某件过分的事情,至少对于我的耳朵。但是假如他想要让他自己安心,让他观察到,我想要定义这个逻辑,稍微有点像那个尽可能靠近文法的东西。那会让你们大吃一惊,我希望。所以,亚里斯多德,相当镇定地,呵呵,有何不可?

我们必须尝试改善。我跟你们指出,假如亚里斯多德的这个逻辑始终没有被中断,几世纪以来,直到现在。那是因为有些反对被提出,关于它成为一个逻辑,如人们所说。这个逻辑并没有注意到,它正在从事文法。我非常崇拜大学的那些教授,他们知道亚里斯多德并没有注意到某件东西。他是有始以来最伟大的自然主义者。你们依旧能够充新阅读他的「动物的历史」。它依旧自圆其说。它真是神奇。这是生物学被採取得最伟大的一步。倒不是因为从此就没有进步。在逻辑也是,被採取的步骤确实是从文法开始。那依旧是某件东西,我们能够绞尽脑筋关于它,甚至我们已经替它增加某些非常实用智慧的东西,譬如说,数量词。它们仅有一个不方便。那就是,它们无法被翻译成为语言。我并不是说,这没有将这个问题更新,对于这个问题,我採取某种武断的立场,一个标签,一个旗帜,一个口号:元语言并不存在。你们能够充分想象,我也感到焦虑,假如或许会一个元语言。无论如何,让我们开始,从没有元语言开始。那将不会是一件坏事情。它让我们避免错误地相信,有一个元语言。

这并不确定,某件东西无法被翻译成为语言,这个东西没有遭受痛苦,因为一个相当有效的欠缺。无论如何,遵照我的谈论,带领我们来到数量词的这个问题。它显而易见地将会成为一件提出某些问题的事情。这些问题将会跟所被牵涉的东西有关,所将要发生的东西,在应该知道的主体的这个被划槓的$ 的角落。它曾经被从这个地图被移除。我们将必须润色的是,关于在这个地位能指导可利用性,它将会引导我们到达文法与逻辑的结合处。这是—我仅是正在谈论它,关于这点,为了提醒注意—非常确实地,凭借这点,我们总是航行,我这个时代的追随者所谓的逻辑,带有分歧意见的同情,一种有弹性的逻辑。我并不完全同意这个术语。弹性并不是我们能够希望的最好的东西,作为一种测量的标准。

在逻辑与文法之间的结合处,或许也是某件东西,将会让我们採取某些更进一步的步骤。无论如何,我结束时想要说的是,对于精神分析家,我越是召唤越好,为了沉思这个立场的特别处,发生在他们身上的立场,必须佔有一个角落的立场,这个角落完全不同于他们被要求的这个角落,即使他们被禁止行动。仍然是从行动的这个观点开始,他们必须专注他们的沉思于他们的功用。

这并不是没有意义,要获得它是如此的困难。在精神分析家的这个立场,凭借功用,假如这个基模让它充分地具体化,为了不要在它里面有攻击性被看到。某件东西将会作为掩护。我们将会在某个地方尝试解释「地毯的意象」,或是在、、、随你们高兴。有某种的方式让精神分析家专注他自己,品赏某件结束的东西,在作为掩护的立场。他们随他们高兴称呼,他们称它为倾听,他们称它为诊所。你们无法想象所有那些模棱两可的字词,在这个场合被发现的字词。因为我询问我自己,以任何方式,什么东西能够,什么能够让强调点被放置在相当明确的东西,关于精神分析经验的这个品味。这确实是无法被接近,到任何的逻辑的操控。以这个的名义,我不敢说到孤独的享乐,忧郁的快感,以这个名义,我不敢让我自己说,所有的理论都是属于同等的价值。尤其重要的是,你们一定不要跟他们的任何一个牵连在一块,无论我们表达事情,用本能,行为,开始起源,拉康的拓扑图形。所有这一切,我们应该发现我们自己跟这种讨论保持同等距离。所有这一切,基本上是一种忧郁的享乐。

这个中心的层面,既是波浪式前进,又是逆波浪式前进。它是某将内在于精神分析的经验。确实就是这个,有效地,你们将会看到它被意象化,它展现它自己在一个展示台。它未必就是最容易的点,来赢得一种辩证法的效果。这是基本的要点,环绕这个要点,会有这个演出,啊,克劳塞维兹所描述的作为不均称,处于攻击与防卫之间。

Seminar 8: Wednesday 31 January1968

雅克、拉康并没有出席这次研讨班。

参加这次讨论的人们有:C Melman, G Michaud, J Qury, P Lemoine, F
Tosquelles, J Rudrauf. X

Audouard Roublef, E Lemoine,T Abdoucheli1, C Conte, J Ayme, M Noyes,L melese, C Dorgeuille, F guattari, J Nassif 及其他人。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tv
http: // springhero.wordpress.com

精神分析的行动 30

August 23, 2012

精神分析的行动 30

Psychoanalytic Act

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

Seminar7: Wednesday 24 January 1968

在此,我们处于被阉割主体$的这点,它定位在精神分析行动明确被牵涉的东西。因为环绕它,精神分析家的抗拒被悬置。在这个结构里,精神分析家的抗拒根据这个事实展示。这个事实是完全建构精神分析关系—他拒绝行动的这个事实。事实上,在精神分析的功用所牵涉的东西的地位,它是相对原创性。每个精神分析家都知道它。最后,这个的结果是甚至被那些人知道,那些还没有探讨它的领域的人。精神分析家是这位被整个领域环绕的人。他时常被病人召唤,为了以行动的术语介入。不仅它有时会被召唤来偏袒一边,为了在病人这边,关于一个密切的关系,或是任何其他的人。甚至是为了执行这种行动。这种行动确实是在于凭借官方的认同而介入,或是相反地,给予劝告。这确实是精神分析结构留下空白的地方。

确实是因为这个理由,我放上相同的斜线—我正在说,为了给予一个意象,因为当然在那个线条所发生的事情 (斜角线)并没有权利被称为斜角线,正如在其他线条所发生的事情。只要将这个四方块倒转过来就足够了,将它形成水平或垂直的线条,但是因为想象的理由,这是更加方便,以这种方式代表它。能们一定不要被它所欺骗。即使移情的斜角线不见得比异化更加斜角。或是在我所谓的真理的运作。假如有些斜角线,那是凭借这个公式。确实是因为这个行动始终是空白,它也是这个在另外一个方向能够被移情佔据的空白。换句话说,在精神分析者的作为的过程,凭借朝向它的地平线移动,这个幻景,到达的这个点,在那里,我已经充分地定义这个会合点。因为它被应该知道$的主体定义。在开始,精神分析者挑选他的人员,并且背上行囊,前去会合应该知道的主体,在这个相会处。

光是这样就容许这个仔细的禁止,精神分析家赋加在他自己身上的禁止,关于这个行动。换句话说,假如他没有赋加它在他自己身上,他将仅是一个欺骗者。因为他原则上知道在应该知道的主体的精神分析,什么事情将会成为。这是因为精神分析是这个技艺,如同我们拥有关于它的这个原初的经验,或许是某件仅是出现在历史的东西,从某个时刻,作为一个极端有限种类的轶事,极端特别的实践的案例。它们偶然地展开一个完全不同种类的行动关系,处于人类之间。尽管这样,这将是它的特权。我相信上次我给予你们足够的指示,关于这个事实:在历史的过程,主体跟这个行动的关系已经被修改。那甚至并不是所能够被找到的东西,在道德或是社会学的手册,它们有效地给予我们一个观念:什么是有效地被牵涉到行动的关系,在我们的时代。譬如,这是显而易地不但是你们必须记住黑格尔的事情,以教授谈论有关他的事情,为了让你们能够测量所被牵涉的东西的重要性,在他所代表,用关于行动的激烈转弯的术语。

现在,我不知道在这个转捩点,我应该做什么。劝告你们阅读某件东西,总是如此危险,因为每样东西都依靠这个程度,我们先前曾经相当被清理的程度。我觉得很困难,没有充分地被清理,为了能够定位一本书,为了给予一种意义,一种份量,给予我刚刚陈述的。一本小书出现,我相信有一次我看见作者在这个研讨班,他送那本书给我,因为这个,它被安德鲁、格拉斯曼称为是Discours de la guerre。

这是一本书,或许能够给予你们这个维度,在某个层次,在某个领域,对于从某件东西产生的东西,那个东西既是典范,又是相当完整,如同战争的关系是某件每个人无缘无故谈论的事情。但是关于战争对于战争的辞说的影响。这一种影响并非没有意义,如同你们将会看出,从阅读这本书。换句话说,这本书对应某种看待黑格尔的辞说的方式,因为它是一种对战争的辞说。在这个辞说当中,我们清楚地看出,对于技术师的这边,在士兵的这边,有多少的限制。因此,沿着士兵的这个辞说,在此,再一次我们将是错误的,假如我们轻视士兵,从他知道如何维持一个辞说时开始。这很少会发生,但是当它发生了,这仍然是引人注意的。这是相当更加有效,比起精神分析家的辞说。

克劳塞维兹的辞说跟黑格尔的辞说息息相关,并且提供它的相对之物给它。它能够给予它们了解我能够贡献什么,沿着这条有关关系的脉络。这个关系使它能够被人相信。在我们的时代,在战争的辞说之外,还有一个辞说能够被人接受。这或许也可能解释黑格尔与克劳塞维兹之间的某种差距,在论战争的辞说的层次。换句话说,克劳塞维兹并不知道这个小客体。但是假如偶然地,这个小客体让我们能够稍微更加清楚地透视克劳塞维兹所介绍的某件东西,作为这个基本的不均称,处于战争的两边之间。换句话说,会有这个绝对的多样性。这个不均称被发现统辖整个的遊戏,处于攻击与防卫之间,即使克劳塞维兹并不确实就是这个人,继续谈论有关这个攻击的需要性的这个人。这仅是一个指示。

以某种的方式,我正在填补某些的欠缺,以我正在表述的东西作为基础,关于精神分析的行动,总之,让我们能够恢复有关是什么形成这个行动的座标,对于我们正在尝试要展开的今年的途径。

你们因此看出,有好几个欠缺。首先,某件东西应该被视为是当然。换句话说,以一个被建立的逻辑的结构,作为我们的描绘,在某件相当特权的东西,精神分析。因为它形成这个连接,处于一种行动与一种作为之间。假如我们没有建立这个逻辑的结构,用运作中的生动的各各部分。那些被留置作为僵化,我们无法找到我们的关系,在精神分析的运作。它因此是某件原初的东西,某件不仅是重要,对于我们实践的本身,而且为了解释在它的周遭所被产生的东西的各种悖论。换句话说,它如何能够促成某些的选择性误认,特别是对于那些从事它的人。这些误认对应于这些僵化或被悬置的部分,在岌岌可危的这个运作当中。

那已经给予两个方面。第三方面同样地令人興奋,就是这个某件东西,在上次的我的辞说的结束,我给予一个太过于迅速,太过诱人的一种指示,为了快速表达某件东西,关于这个东西,一种迴响来到我这里。这是我无法认同的迴响,它相当有趣,因为它曾经来自我拥有能够使用的声音之一。那是某个人,我不再记得是谁。我不再知道是谁跟我重复它。他今天跟我说,确定地,那这是一个切、格瓦纳Che Guevara 的研讨班。关于应该知道的主体,因为在左边底端的这个被划槓的主体$, 我曾经说过,或许这个结束的东西—至少这个模式跟我们提出这个问题—这个终结,这个倾覆,这个翻跟斗。它的本身是正常的结束,对于这个行动所被牵涉的东西。因为好像有某件东西,这个精神分析跟我们显示,从开头的这个,这并不是一个任何人能够说他是完全主人的行动。这并不是某件能够撕开我们脱离我们所有的确定性,从每件我们曾经学习,基本上是根据我们自己的经验,根据我们所知道,关于历史及上千的其他事情。每个行动,不仅是精神分析的行动都给这个人承诺希望,将这个创议当著是我指明的结果,在这个小客体。这并不是某件让耳膜震破它们的轨道。这几乎是不值得的,因为这样,去相信这是一个切、格瓦纳Che Guevara 的研讨班。以前曾经有过其他的研讨班。我并不是处于弥补这个悲剧毒过程,为了让它闪耀。岌岌可危的或许是别的东西。

岌岌可危的是某件东西,显而易见地,更加是在我们的范围之内。假如我们将它带回到我们必须知道,关于行动的这个逻辑的结构,为了真实地构想在精神分析的这个有限的领域,所正在发生的东西。

就在这里,有些问题能够被说明,在那些属于我们的学派的人当中。我们被认为能够将我正在陈述的东西代替它,全部沿着一个建构.它的不同的阶段的必要性,他们曾经能够遵照。让他们带给我,某件像是证词的东西,凭借梅尔曼医生的仲介,最迟是下个星期三。这个证词是,他们能够将这个转捩点稍微更深入推进,这些活生生的东西,这些链条,这些门,使用这个仪器的方式,因为它跟它们有关。

我的意思是,我正在从这个会议期望的东西,我抱歉,在那里的大多数的那些人,将会发现他们自己预先被排除在外。有某些的问题跟我证明,至少至的我今年我曾经经历的时刻,关于这个行动所被牵涉的东西。人们能够质疑他们自己,关于某件东西。建议一个解释,及对这个解释的反对。「假如你们以这种方式解释事情,这是它的意涵。」或是「这是跟我们精神分析经验的某个要点互相牴触。」总之,为了显示:直到我正在被了解到某个时刻。这是将会用来作为下一个不对外开放的研讨班(2月28日),因为将会被邀请的这些仅有的人们,我的学派的那些人,他们曾经出席这第一次的会议。这是一个刻意避开的行动。它特别是一个行动,并不要刻意避开。譬如,恰巧的是,我能够要求某个人,为什么一个特别的精神分析家,他非常知道,我正在教导什么。我询问,为什么他不在这里,确实是今年,从事我正在陈述,关于这个行动。你们将会说,人们会记笔记。顺便地,我想要指出,最好的记笔记,不要抽烟。抽烟并不是这样一个好的讯号,关于倾听我正在言说的东西。我并不赞同抽烟、、、

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com