精神错乱316

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

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: