Less than nothing 02

Less than nothing 02
少甚于无

Slavoj Zizek
斯拉夫、齐泽克

CHAPTER 8 第八章

THE CUNNING OF REASON
理性的狡狯

Where then do we stand with regard to Absolute Knowing? When, in his writings
around the Rapport de Rome, Lacan himself defines the conclusion of a treatment as the position of Hegelian Absolute Knowing, how are we to read this together with Lacan’s insistence on human finitude, on the irreducible future antérieur that pertains to the process of symbolization (every conclusion involves a gesture of precipitation; it never occurs “now,” but in a now viewed backwards)?

关于绝对知识,我们的立场因此在哪里?拉康在他环绕「罗马迴响」的著作里,他自己定义治疗的结论,作为是黑格尔的绝对知识的立场。我们应该如何阅读这个,跟拉康对于人类有限性的坚持,及对于无法还原的「未来的早先存在」的坚持?后者归属于符号象征化的过程。(每个结论都牵涉突然发生的姿态。「现在」永远没有发生,而是一种回顾观看的现在。)

Take the following passage: “What is realized in my history is neither the past definite as what was, since it is no more, nor even the perfect of what has been in what I am, but the future anterior as what I will have been, given what I am in the process of becoming.”4 But the same goes for Hegel—when he adopts the position of the “end of history,” presenting us with a coherent narrative about the entirety of history, he does not simply look at the past from the present position; although he prohibits philosophy from speculation about the future and restricts it to comprehending what is the case, past and present, the position from which he enacts the final “reconciliation” has a futural dimension of its own, that of a “future perfect” from which the present itself is seen from a minimal distance, in its accomplished form:

请看以下的段落:「在我的历史所被实现的东西,既不是明确的过去,作为过去的实存,因为它现在不再存在。甚至也不是直到现在的完成,在我目前的样子。而是未来的预先存在,作为我将会形成的样子,假如考虑到我目前的样子,正处于生成的过程当中。」但是相同的东西也适用于黑格尔—当他採取「历史的终结」的这个立场,他呈现给予我们一致性的描述,关于历史的整体性,他并不仅仅从现在的立场观看过去,虽然他禁止哲学不要去沉思未来,并且限制哲学用以理解实际的情况,过去跟现在。从这个立场,他拟定这个最后的「协商」。这个立场就具有属于它自己的未来的维度,「未来完成式」的维度。从那里,目前本身被看见,从一个小量的距离,在它被完成的形式。

It is a present that raises itself, it is essentially reconciled, brought to consummation through the negation of its immediacy, consummated in universality, but in a consummation that is not yet achieved, and which must therefore be grasped as future—a now of the present that has consummation before its eyes; but because the community is posited now in the order of time, the consummation is distinguished from this “now” and is
posited as future.5

这一个现在提升它自己,它基本上被协调,通过它的当下性,被带到极致,在普遍性中被达到极致,但是处于一种尚未被完成的极致。它因此必须被理解作为未来。这一种目前的现在,在它的眼前获得极致。但是因为这个社会现在以时间的秩序被提出,这个极致被区别出来,跟这个「现在」,并且被提出作为未来。

This “future perfect” is that of accomplished symbolization, which is why, in his
Rapport de Rome, Lacan systematically identifies the conclusion of the analytic treatment with Hegelian “Absolute Knowing”: the aim of the treatment is to achieve the same “future perfect” of accomplished symbolization. Each day’s edition of Le Monde, the most prestigious (and proverbially haughty) French daily newspaper, appears in the early afternoon of the previous day (for example, the issue for July 4 is on sale around 3 p.m. on July 3), as if the editors wanted to signal a simultaneous move of precipitation and delay:

这个「未来完成」是被完成的符号象征的未来完成。那就是为什么在他的「罗马的迴响」,拉康系统地辨认精神分析治疗的结论,跟黑格尔的「绝对知识」的差异。知疗的目标是要获得这个相同符号象征化的「未来完成」。Le Monde 的每天都版本,最具有威望的法国日报(在当地颇有名声),它在前一天的下午就出现,(譬如,七月四日的这期,在七月三日的下午三点左右,就开始销售),好像编辑想要预示突然发生与拖延的同时性动作:

they write from eternity, observing events from a point later than that of other daily newspapers caught up in immediate “live” reporting; however, simultaneously, they are able to see the present itself from its immediate future (i.e., in its true potential, not only the way it appears in its chaotic immediacy)—so, you can learn already in the afternoon of July 3 how things look from the perspective of July 4. No wonder Le Monde is accused of arrogance: this coincidence of delay and precipitation effectively betrays its pretense to
standing for a kind of “Absolute Knowing,” in contrast to its rivals which merely report fleeting opinions.

他们从永恒书写,从后来的一个时刻观察事情,这个时刻晚于其他的日报,因为它们套陷于当下的「现场」报导。可是,同时地,他们能够看见这个目前的本身,从它的当下的未来(譬如,在它真实的潜力,不但是它出现的方式,处于它的过时的当下性)–所以,你们已经能够获知,在七月三日的下午。拖延与突然发生的巧合,有效地泄露出它的伪装代表一种「绝对知识」,对照于它的競争对手,它们仅是报导暂时的意见。

So when, in his Rapport de Rome, Lacan refers to Absolute Knowing, we should look closely at how he conceives this identification of the analyst with the Hegelian master, and not succumb to the temptation of quickly retranslating Absolute Knowing into the accomplished symbolization.

所以,在「罗马迴响」,拉康提到绝对知识,我们应该仔细观看,他如何构想精神分析家的认同黑格尔的主人,并且不屈服于这个诱惑:将绝对知识快速地重新翻译成为完成的符号象征化。

For Lacan, the analyst stands for the Hegelian master, the embodiment of Absolute Knowing, insofar as he renounces all forcing (forçage) of reality
and, fully aware that the actual is already in itself rational, adopts the stance of a passive observer who does not intervene directly in the content, but merely manipulates the scene so that the content destroys itself, when confronted with its own inconsistencies.

对于拉康,精神分析家代表黑格尔的主人,绝对知识的化身,因为他放弃现实界的强力,并且充分知道,这个现实界本身已经是理性的,而採用一个被动的观察者的态度。这位观察者并没有在内容直接介入,尔仅是操控这个场景,这样内容会毁灭它自己。当它面临它自己的不一贯性。

This is how one should read Lacan’s indication that Hegel’s work is “precisely what we need to confer a meaning on so‐called analytic neutrality other than that the analyst is simply in a stupor”6—it is this neutrality which keeps the analyst “on the path of non‐action.”7

这是我们应该阅读拉康的指示:黑格尔的研究确实我们所需要的,给予一种意义,给所谓的精神分析的中立性。而不是精神分析家仅是处于麻痹的状态—就是这种中立性,保持精神分析家处于没有行动的途径。

The Hegelian wager is that the best way to destroy an enemy is to leave the field free for him to deploy his potential, so that his success will be his failure, since the lack of any external obstacle will confront him with the absolutely inherent obstacle of the inconsistency of his own position:

黑格尔的赌注是,毁灭敌人最好的办法是将战场留给他充分运用他的潜力。这样,他的成功将会是他的失败,因为任何外在阻碍的欠缺,将会让他面临这个绝对的本质上的阻碍,他自己的立场的不一贯性的阻碍。

Cunning is something other than trickery. The most open activity is the greatest
cunning (the other must be taken in its truth). In other words, with his openness, a man exposes the other in himself, he makes him appear as he is in and for himself, and thereby does away with himself. Cunning is the great art of inducing others to be as they are in and for themselves, and to bring this out to the light of consciousness. Although others are in the right, they do not know how to defend it by means of speech. Muteness is bad, mean cunning. Consequently, a true master [Meister] is at bottom only he who can provoke the other to transform himself through his act.8

狡狯是某件不仅是诡计。「最公开的活动就是最伟大的狡狯」(他者必须在它的真理被看待)。换句话说,用他的公开,人暴露他身上的他者,他让他者出现,因他者在他里面,及作为他,因此废除他自己。狡狯是这个伟大的艺术,将其余的人,化减成为他们原来的本质及作为他们自己。为了显露这个给意识知道。虽然其余的人是正确的,他们并不知道如何凭借言说防卫它。沉默是糟糕的,意味着狡狯。结果,一位真正的主人骨子里仅是这种人,他能够「提供他者,为了转变他自己,经由他的行动」。

The wager of the Hegelian Cunning of Reason thus involves not so much a trust in the power of Reason (we can take it easy and withdraw—Reason will ensure that the good side wins out), as a trust in the power of “unreason” in every determinate agent which, left to itself, will destroy itself: “If reason is as cunning as Hegel said it was, it will do its job without your help.”9 The Cunning of Reason thus in no way involves a faith in a secret guiding hand guaranteeing that all the apparent contingency of unreason will somehow contribute to the harmony of the Totality of Reason; if anything, it involves a trust in un‐Reason, the certainty that, no matter how well‐planned things are, somehow they will go wrong. This is what Lacan meant by his statement that “a letter always reaches its
destination”: there is no repression without the return of the repressed, every
totality‐of‐meaning is always disturbed by its symptom.

黑格尔的理性的狡狯的赌注因此牵涉到的,并不是信任理性的力量(我们能够轻松对待并且撤退—理性将会保证,善的这边将会赢),而是信任「非理性」的力量,在每个决定性的代理者。当听任自自主时,它会毁灭它自己。假如理想是像黑格尔所说的那样狡狯,它将会尽它的职责,而不需要你的帮助。理性的狡狯因此丝毫没有牵涉到信任一隻秘密的导引的手。这隻手保证,非理性的所有的表面的偶然性,将会用某种方法促成理性的完整性的和谐。无论如何,它牵涉到对非理性的信任。这个确定性,无论事情多么机关算尽,它们不知为何就是会出错。这就是拉康的意思,当他陈述:「一封信总是会抵达它的目的地」。每有压抑,必有受压抑者的回来。意义的每个整体性总是会受到它的病征扰乱。

So what about the obvious counter‐argument that this reference to Hegel is
operative only in the early Lacan, for whom the goal of the psychoanalytic cure is the complete symbolization (“symbolic realization”) of symptoms, and no longer for the Lacan who becomes aware of the “barred” big Other? For the Lacan of the 1950s, focused on the symbolic, the success of the analytic treatment relies on the liberating power of “symbolic realization,” of listening to and assuming the “I, truth” which “speaks” in and through the unconscious symptoms. In a Hegelian mode, Lacan asserts the link, identity even, between language and death: in language, immediate reality is mortified or idealized in its notional sublation, and insofar as the symbolic order is sustained by death drive “beyond the
pleasure‐principle,” one has to “subjectivize one’s own death,” to recognize in it the only master to be obeyed, and thereby to get rid of all other master figures.10

所以,这个明显的相反的论点是什么?提到黑格尔仅是在早期拉康运作。对于早期拉康,精神分析的治疗的目标是将病征完整地符号象征化(符号象征的实现),现在不再适用中期拉康,他已经知道「被画杠的大他者」。对于1950年代的拉康,由于专注于这个符号界,精神分析治疗的成功依靠著「符号象征的实现」的解放力量,倾听并且担负起「我作为言说的真理,在无意识的病征并且通过病征。以黑格尔的模式,拉康主张这个连接,甚至是认同,在语言与死亡之间。在语言,当下的现实界,被羞辱或是理想化,在它的观念上的钩消。因为符号象征的秩序是凭借死亡冲动来维持,超越快乐原则,我们必须将自己的死亡主体化,为了在它里面体认这位应该被服从的唯一的主人,因此废除所有其他的主人的人物。

The late Lacan, now focused on the Real, introduces the irreducible tension between the symbolic and the real of death: “It is possible that all language is made [to enable us] not to think death which, effectively, is the least thinkable thing.”11 Far from being the operator of death, language is here conceived as a defense against—a screen protecting us from—the confrontation with death.12 Since this tension is irreducible, the goal of analysis is no longer Lacan’s version of Hegelian Absolute Knowing, namely the ideal of a total symbolization in which the subject gets rid of its imaginary ego; it is now its very opposite (as deployed in the seminar on The Ethics of Psychoanalysis)—the subject’s heroic “forcing”
of the symbolic prohibition, his or her confrontation with the “Black Sun” of the Real Thing.

晚期拉康现在专注于实在界,介绍这个无法化减的紧张,处于符号界与死亡的实在界之间。「很有可能,所有的语言都是人为,为了让我们能够不要想到死亡。实际上,死亡是最没有被想到的东西。」语言根本就不是死亡的运作者,语言在此被构想成为一种防卫—一种保护我们的帘幕—免于跟死亡面对。因为这个紧张的无可化减,精神分析的目标不再是拉康对于黑格尔的绝对知识的看法。换句话说,在整体的符号象征化的理想,主体废除它的想象的自我。现在,它恰恰相反(依照在精神分析的伦理学研讨班的运作)–主体的英雄式的强力突破符号象征的禁忌,自己去跟实在界的物象的「黑太阳」面对。

Lacan’s idea of the end or goal of the analytic treatment passes through three main phases which vaguely fit the triad of symbolic, Real, and imaginary: first, the symbolization of the symptoms; then, the violent encounter with the Real; finally, the modest amelioration of our daily psychic economy. Lacan’s limitation is clearly discernible in how, in his last decades, he tends to oscillate between two poles which are both “worse,” as Stalin would have put it. Sometimes (exemplarily in his reading of Antigone), he conceives of the ethical act as a kind of “forcing,” a violent act of transgression which cuts into imaginary and symbolic semblances and makes the subject confront the terrifying Real in
its blinding destructive power—such traumatic encounters, such penetrations into the forbidden or damned domain, in Antigone, are called ate, and can only be sustained for a brief moment.

拉康的精神分析的治疗的目的或目标的观念,经历三个阶段。这三个阶段大约相对应于符号界,实在界,想象界的三角座。首先,病征的符号象征化,然后,跟实在界的猛烈遭遇,最后,日常的心灵的活动的谦卑的缓和。拉康的极限清楚地被觉察出来,在他的晚期的几十年,他如何倾向于摇摆于都是糟糕的两极之间。如同史达林本来会这样表达它。有时,(他阅读安提戈尼,可作为典范),他构想伦理的行动,作为某种的强力突破。一种侵凌性的猛烈行动,切入想象界与符号界的真理类似物,并且让主体面对这个可怕的实在界,由于它具有令人盲目的毁灭的力量—这种创伤的遭遇,如此的贯穿进入该诅咒的领域的禁地,在安提戈尼,它们被称为是「高傲ate」。它仅能够被维持简短的时间。

These authentic moments are rare; one can only survive them if one soon returns to the safe domain of semblances—truth is too painful to be sustained for more than a passing moment. At other times (especially in his ruminations about the symptom towards the end of his life), Lacan adopts the opposite (but effectively complementary) attitude of wisdom: the analyst never knows what will happen when he pushes analysis too far and dissolves the analysand’s symptoms too radically—one can get more than one expected, a local interpretive intervention into a particular symptomal formation can destabilize the subject’s entire symbolic economy and bring about a catastrophic disintegration of his world.

这些真诚的时刻是罕见的。我们仅有马上回到真理类似物的安全领域,我们才能存活那些时刻。真理是太令人痛苦,无法被维持超过短暂的时刻。在其他时刻(特别是在他反芻思考有关朝向他的生命的结束的病征),拉康採用智慧的相反的态度(但是实际上互补):精神分析家永远不知道将会发生什么事情,当他将精神分析过分推进,并且过分强烈地瓦解分析者的病征—我们能够获得超过我们所期望的,一个局部的解释的介入,进入特别的病征的形成,能够除掉主体的整个的符号象征活动,并且导致他的世界的灾难式的瓦解。

The analyst should thus remain modest and respect appearances without taking them too seriously; they are ultimately all we have, all that stands between us and the catastrophe. It is easy to see how these two stances complement each other: they rely on a (rather Heideggerian) image of human life as a continuous dwelling in “inauthentic” semblances, interrupted from time to time by violent encounters with the Real. (What this entire field encompassing the two stances excludes is the Christian “work of love,” the patient work of continuous fidelity to the encounter with the Real.) This modest approach of merely “making life a little bit easier,” of diminishing suffering and pain, forgetting about capitalized Truth, makes the late Lacan almost a Rortyan, and clearly reverses his earlier fidelity to the biblical prescription:

精神分析因此应该始终要表现谦卑而尊敬的外表,而不要过分认真看待。他们最后就是我们所拥有的,处于为民与灾难之间的一切。我们很容易看出,这两个态度如何互相补充:它们依靠人类生活的意象(相当海德格模式),作为是连续地驻居于「非真诚」的真理类似物。有时被跟实在界的遭遇打断。(涵盖这两个态度的这整个的领域所排除的东西,是基督教的「爱的工作」,连续地忠诚于实在界的遭遇的耐心的工作。)这种谦卑的方法仅是让生活成为稍微舒适一点,减少受难与痛苦,忘记已经被大写化的真理,让晚期拉康几乎成为罗帝的自由主义者,很清楚地倒转他早期的忠实于圣经的指令。

But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is
thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear for clothing?” For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Matthew 6:30–4)

但是假如上帝如此地装扮这个领域的草地,这个领域今天欣欣向荣,明天就被抛进火炉,他将不是也会这样装扮你?你们的信仰,何其渺小也!请不要因此忧虑地说:「我们将吃什么?」或「我们将喝什么?」或「我们将穿什么衣服?」因为世俗之人渴望地所有这些东西。为了你们的天堂,天父知道,你们需要所有这一切。但是假如你们首先寻求上帝的天国跟他的正义,所有这一切将增加到你们身上。所以,请不要忧虑明天,因为明天将会照顾它自己。每一天都有属于它自己的充分的麻烦。(圣经马修篇 6:30-4)

Lacan often refers to these lines in order to denigrate healing as the primary goal of psychoanalytic treatment: health comes par surcroît—in addition or in excess, and by itself, as an unintended bonus. Insofar as health concerns the organism and its homeostasis, not Truth, its status is pathological in the Kantian sense, so that Lacan’s motto can also be expressed in terms of focusing on ethical duty and ignoring utilitarian concerns: do your duty, and happiness and the Good will take care of themselves. There are many variations of this attitude, best rendered by the saying “Take care of the pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves,” which should be inverted into:

拉康时常提到这几行,为了贬低疗效,作为精神分析治疗的最初目标:健康自会来临—增加或是过度,并且本身作为一种并非意图的红利。因为健康关心这个有机体及它的新陈代谢的平衡,而真理没有这样的关系。在康德的解释,真理的地位是受到经验染污的。所以拉康的箴言也能够被表达,用集中于伦理的责任,及忽略功利主义的关系。假如你们尽到你们的职责,快乐跟善会照顾它们自己。关于这个态度还有许多不同说法,最淋漓尽致的是这个格言:「假如你们照顾小钱,大钱会照顾它们自己」,这句格言应该被倒转成为:

Take care of the sounds (signifiers), and the sense (signified) will take care of itself. Lacan aims at the heroic stance of “Take care of the truth, and the healing will take care of itself”: confront the Truth, risk everything, ignore the consequences, and health will come par surcroît … In short: confront the Real, and reality will take care of itself. Do not compromise your desire, and your needs and demands will be provided for.

假如你们照顾这些声音(能指),那么意义(所指)将会照顾它自己。拉康目标是这个英雄式的态度:「假如你们照顾真理,那么疗效会照顾它自己」。假如你们面对真理,冒一切的危险,忽略那些结果,健康自会照顾它自己。假如你们不要妥协你们的欲望,你们的需求与要求将会充足无虞。

There is, however, a fundamental ambiguity which pertains to this attitude: does it mean that one should ignore health and focus on the essential, on the patient’s articulation and assumption of the Truth of his or her desire, or does it mean, in a more refined way, that psychic health is “essentially a by‐product”? In the latter case, health remains the true goal of the treatment, the point is simply that it is counter‐productive, self‐destructive even, to make it a direct goal—one should work on other things and count on health emerging as a by‐product. But if this is the case, should we not also invert the motto accordingly: take care of the pathological reality, and the Real will take care of itself? Be modest, try to help the patient by easing his suffering, and the Truth will emerge by itself?

可是,有一个基本的模糊暧昧,跟这个态度有关:它难道不是意味着,我们应该忽略健康并且专注于这个基本的真理,在病人的表达跟假设是他自己的真理?或是它难道不是意味着,以更加精炼的方式,心灵的健康「基本上是副产品」?就后者的情况而言,健康始终是治疗的真实的目标。重点仅是:这个违逆生产性,自我毁灭性,甚至将它当成一个直接的目标—我们应该从事其他事情,并且依靠健康出现作为副产品。但是假如情况是这样,我们难道不是因此也应该倒转这个箴言:假如你们照顾病态的现实界,实在界自豪会照顾它自己?假如你们谦卑,尝试帮助病人,凭借减轻他的痛苦,那么真理自然会出现?

Furthermore, this biblical formula can also be considered a denial of the
unconscious: “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you”—by whom? By God, who will do the work behind the scenes, in the same way He “clothes the grass of the field.”13 Lacan’s thesis that “God is unconscious” is endowed here with a new meaning: do your duty, and God will be the mole, the agent of that subterranean unconscious “weaving of the spirit” which will create the conditions for my act to succeed. In other words, does Lacan himself not rely here on some kind of Cunning of Reason which will help the patient achieve health without directly looking for it?

而且,这个圣经的公式也能够被认为是对无意识的一种否认:「假如你们首先寻求上帝的天国及他的正义,那么所有这些东西将会增加到你们身上。」–由谁来增加呢?由上帝,他会从事幕后的这个工作,就像他装扮这个领域的草地。拉康的「上帝是无意识」的主题,在这里被赋予一种新的意义:假如你们尽到你们的职责,上的将会是这个幕后推手。潜在的无意识的代理者,灵魂的编织者。他将会创造这些条件,让我的行动成功。换句话说,拉康他自己在此难道不是依靠某种理想的狡狯。这个理性的狡狯将会帮助病人完成健康,而没有直接照顾体?

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: