自闭症与童年精神错乱 03

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

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: