精神错乱313

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

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: