Sosie 01

Sosie 01
The Seminar of Jacques Lcan
拉康研讨班
Book II:The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Techniques of Psychonalaysis
第二册:自我:弗洛依德理论与精神分析的技术
XXI Sosie
第21章 双重人
T H E H U S B A N D . T H E W I F E A N D T H E G O D
丈夫、妻子与上帝
T H E W O M A N . O B J ECT O F E X C H A N G E
女人,交换的客体
M E . W H O K I C K S Y O U OUT ‘
我,谁踢你出去
T H E S P L I TT I N G S [DEDOUBLEMENTS] O F
T H E O B S E S S I O N AL
妄想症患者的分裂

Who’s read Amphitryon?
Today we will be concerned with the ego. We are approaching the question
of the ego from another angle than the one we adopted last year. Last year, we
dealt with it in connection with the phenomenon of transference. This year, we
are trying to understand it in relation to the symbolic order.
今天,我们将会关心自我。我们从另外一个角度接近这个问题,不同意我们去年採取的角度。去年,我们处理它,关于移情的现象。今年,我们正在尝试了解它,有关符号象征的秩序。

Man lives, in the midst of a world of language, in which that phenomenon
called speech occurs. We believe that analysis takes place in this environment.

人生活在语言的世界里。话语的现象就发生在那里。我们相信,精神分析发生在这个环境。

If we don’t situate this environment clearly in relation to other environments,
which also exist, the real environment, the environment of imaginary mirages,
one obliges analysis to deviate either towards interventions bearing on the real
– a trap one falls into but rarely – or, on the contrary, by placing in our opinion
an unwarranted emphasis on the imaginary. By following this thread of
Ariadne we are brought today to Moliere’s play, Amphitryon.

假如我们并没有清楚地定位这个环境,跟其他环境的关系,这个实在界的环境,它也存在,它是想象的幻景的环境,我们会强迫精神分析偏离,不是朝向跟实在界有关的介入—我们掉入这个陷阱,虽然次数不多—或是,相反地,凭借根我们的看法,毫无保证帝强调想象界。由于追随阿瑞达尼丁的迷宫线索,我们今天被引导来到莫里哀的戏剧,安菲特莱恩。

1
I made an allusion to Amphitryon in the presence of our visitor, Moreno, when I
said to him that it must surely be the case that our wives cheat on us with God
from time to time. It is one of those lapidary formulae which one can use in the
course of a joust. It deserves a little closer examination.

一、
在我们的访客,摩瑞诺的面前,我提到安菲特瑞恩,当晚跟他说,情况确实是,我们的妻子有时利用上帝欺骗我们。那是宝贵的金玉良言,在夫妻的争吵中,我们能够使用。它应该值得让我们更加仔细检视。

Surely you must see that the function of the father is only as crucial as it is
within the whole of analytic theory because it is to be found on several levels.
We have already been able to see, taking the Wolfman, what distinguishes the
symbolic father, what I call the name of the father, from the imaginary father, the rival of the real father, in so far as he is endowed, poor man, with all sorts of layers, just like everybody else. Well then, this distinction warrants being taken up on the level of the couple.

的确,你们一定看出,父亲的功用仅是当它在精神分析的整体理论里,才会重要。因为它能够在好几个层次被发现。以「狼人」为例,我们已经能够看出,区别符号界的父亲,我所谓父亲之名,跟想象界的父亲,对实在界父亲的敌人,他们的不同之处。因为这位可怜的人,他被赋予各种层面,就像其他每个人一样。呵呵,这个区别在夫妻的层次,保证可以探究一番。

In truth, fine minds, solid minds – you meet up with some like that,
punctuating history – have already been stirred up by the relations between
marriage and love. These things are in general treated in a playful, racy, cynical style. There’s a good old French tradition of that, and that may well be the best way of dealing with it, in any case, as far as the practical side of everyday life is concerned. But one of the more serious thinkers can be observed to have one day come upon marriage and love, and not taken them lightly.

事实上,美好的心灵,坚强的心灵—你们会邂逅一些像那样的心灵在历史上不时出现—他们已经是受到婚姻与爱情之间的关系的干扰。这些事情一般是用遊戏,淫荡,嘲讽的风格来处理。有一个很好的古老法国传统,那很有可能是最好的方法来处理它,无论如何,就日常生活的实际层面而言。但是,我们能够观察到,有一位更加严肃的思想家,有一天,他邂逅婚姻与爱情,而且认真看待它们。

I highly recommend you read Proudhon – he had a solid mind, and you
rediscover in him the assured emphasis of the Church Fathers. He had thought, at a little distance, about the human condition, and tried to get close to
something far more tenacious as well as far more fragile than one thinks,
namely fidelity. He arrived at this question – what can be the motive for fidelity,
apart from having given one’s word? But often one gives one’s word lightly.

我高度推荐你们阅读普鲁东—他的心灵非常坚强,你们在他身上重现发现教会父亲的这个确实的强调。他保持一点距离,来思维人类的情境,并且尝试靠近比我们认为,某件更加是持久,以及更加脆弱的东西。换句话说,忠诚。他到达这个问题—除了曾经给予承诺,忠诚的动机会是什么?但是往往我们给予承诺时,并不是很真心。

And if it weren’t given in such a manner, it is probable that it would be given far
more infrequently, which would noticeably hold up the flow of things, good
and worthy, in human society.

若非承诺是这种方式给予,很有可能,它被给予的次数不会那么多。显而易见地,在人类的社会里,那将会支持事情的变卦,美好而值得的事情。

As we have remarked, that doesn’t prevent it from being given and from
bearing all its fruits. When it is broken, not only does everyone get upset, and
indignant, but it has consequences, whether we like it or not. That is precisely
one of the things which we are taught by analysis, and by the exploration of this unconscious in which speech continues to propagate its waves and its
destinies. How can one justify this speech, so impudently engaged in, and
properly speaking, as no serious mind has ever doubted, untenable?

如同我们曾经谈论过,那并不会阻止承诺无法被给予,及无法产生所有它的结果。当承诺被打破,每个人不但感到懊恼及愤怒,而且它具有各种结果,无论我们喜欢它与否。那确实是我们被精神分析教导的东西之一。凭借对于无意识的探究,在那里,话语继续传播它的波浪及它的命运。我们如何能够证明这个话语的合理?当如此不谨慎地被从事的话语,适当地说,认真的心灵从来没有怀疑,这个话语是难以自圆其说。

Let us try to overcome the romantic illusion, that it is perfect love, the ideal
value which each of the partners acquires for the other, which upholds human
commitment. Proudhon, whose every thought runs counter to romantic
illusions, tries, in a style which might at first pass for mystical, to give fidelity its
due within marriage. And he finds the solution in something which can only be
recognised as a symbolic pact.

让我们尝试克服这个浪漫的幻想,它是每位伴侣要求对方的完美的爱情,理想的价值。它支持人类的奉献。普鲁东的每个思想,跟浪漫的幻想互相辉映。他尝试给予忠诚在婚姻里应得的地位,这种风格起初被认为是神秘的。他找到这个解答,在某件仅能够被体认出来,作为符号象征的盟约。

Let us look at it from the woman’s perspective. The love the wife gives her
spouse is not directed at the individual, not even an idealised one – that’s the
danger of what is called life in common, idealisation isn’t tenable – but at a
being beyond. The love which constitutes the bond of marriage, the love which
properly speaking is sacred, flows from the woman towards what Proudhon
calls, all men. Similarly, through the woman, it is all women which the fidelity of
the husband is directed towards.

让我们从女人的角度来观看它。妻子给予她的配偶的爱,并不是朝向个人,甚至不是朝向一个理想化的个人—那是所谓的共同生活的危险,理想化是无法自圆其说—而是目标朝着一个超越的生命实存。形成婚姻的契约的爱情,适当来说,这个爱情是神圣的,它从这个女人流向普鲁东所谓的所有的人。同样地,这个女人,丈夫的忠诚是朝向所有的女人。

This may seem paradoxical, But in Proudhon all isn’t aIle, it isn’t a ,
quantity. it is a universal function. It is the universal man. the universal
woman. the symbol. the embodiment of the partner of the human couple.

这看起来或许是悖论,但是普鲁东的「所有」,并不是全部。它并不是一个数量,它是一个普遍性的功用。这个普遍性的男人,这个普遍性的女人,这个符号象征,人类夫妻的伴侣的化身。

So the pact of speech goes far beyond the individual relation and its
imaginary’ vicissitudes – there’s no need to look very deep into experience to
grasp it. But there is a conflict between this symbolic pact and the imaginary
relations which proliferate spontaneously within every libidinal relation. all
the more so when what intervenes belongs to the order of Verliebtheit.

所以,话语的盟约远超过个人的关系,及它的想象的命运变化—我们没有必要深入到精神分析经验,才会理解它。但是,有一种冲突,处于符号象征于想象的关系之间。后者自动自发地在每个力比多的关系里扩散。当所介入的东西属于「迷恋」的秩序时,它更加是如此。

This conflict subtends. one might say. the great majority of the conflicts in that
milieu within which the vicissitude of the bourgeois destiny is unravelled. Since it occurs within the humanist perspective of the realisation of the ego. and as a consequence within the alienation proper to the ego. All one needs do is observe to see that this conflict exists. but in order to understand the reason for it,one must go further. Our reference-point will be the anthropological data brought forward- by ‘Levi-Strauss.

我们不妨说,这个冲突跟在那个环境里的大多数的冲突相对立。在那个环境里,布尔乔亚的命运的变迁被解散开了。因为它发生在自我的实现的人道主义的观点里面,结果,是在自我本体的异化范围里面。我们所需要的做的是观察,以便看出,这种冲突存在,但是为了了解它的这个理由,我们必须更加深入。我们的指涉点将是由列文、史特劳斯所提出的人类学的资料。

You now that the elementary structures are naturally the most complicated.
and that those which are said to be complex. in the milieu we live in. ostensibly
appear to be the most simple. We think ourselves to be free in our conjugal
choice. anyone can marry anyone else. this is a profound illusion. despite it being inscribed in law. In practice. the choice is guided by preferential elements which. although veiled. are nonetheless essential. The interest of so-called elementary structures is to show us the structure of these preferential elements in all their complexities.
你们现在知道,这些「基本的」结构自然是最复杂。而在我们生活的环境,那些据说是复杂的那些结构,很夸张地看起来是最简单。我们认为我们自己是自由的,在我们的婚姻选择里,「任何人都能够跟任何其他人结婚」。这是一个深刻的幻觉,尽管它被铭记在法律里。实际上,选择受到偏爱的因素的引导,虽然这些因素被遮蔽,它们仍然是基本的。所谓的基本的结构就是要跟我们显示,这些偏爱的因素的结构,在所有这些复杂性里。

Now. Levi-Strauss shows that. in the structure of the alliance. the woman.
who defines the cultural order as against the natural order. is the exchange
object. just as speech. which is in effect the original object of exchange. is.
Whatever,the goods. the qualities and the statuses which are transmitted along the matrilineal line. Whatever the authorities with which a so-called matriarchal order is invested. the symbolic order. in its initial operation. is
androcentric. That’s a fact.

现在,列文、史特劳斯显示:在结盟的结构,女人定义文化秩序,对照于自然秩序,这个女人是这个交换的客体,正如话语是交换客体。实际上,话语是最原初的交换的客体。无论这些货物是什么,这些特质与这些地位被传递,沿着母系的系谱。无论所谓的母系秩序被投注的权威是什么,这个符号象征秩序,在它的最初的运作,是男性为中心的。那是一个事实。

It is a fact which. of course. hasn’t failed to receive all manner of correctives
in the course of history. but for all that it remains no less fundamental. and in
particular allows us to understand the dissymmetrical position of the woman in
the bonds of love. and especially in their most pre-eminentiy socialised form.
namely the conjugal bond.

当然,在历史的过程,这一个事实一定曾经接受各色各样的修正。但是尽管那样,它始终是同样的基本。特别是,它让我们能够理解,在爱情的契约里,女人的不均称的立场。特别是在他们最显著的社会化的形式,换句话说,婚姻的契约。

If these things were seen on their level. and with some rigour. many
phantoms would be dispelled just like that.

假如这些事情根据这个层次,严谨地来看待,许多的魅影将会像那样烟消云散。

The modem idea of marriage as a pact of mutual consent is certainly a
novelty,introduced within the framework of a religion of salvation.,which
gives pride of place to the individual soul. It covers over and masks the original
structure. the primarily sacred nature of marriage. This institution exists today
in a compacted form.,some features of which are so solid and so tenacious that social revolutions are not about to make its pre-eminence and signification disappear. But at the same time, some features of the institution have in
history, been erased.

婚姻的现代观念,作为是互相同意的盟约,确实是新奇,在救赎的宗教的架构里被介绍。这种救赎的宗教给予这个个人的灵魂,一个尊荣的地位。他涵盖并且遮蔽这个原先的结构,婚姻的原初的神圣的特性。这个体制今天以一种精鍊的方式存在,它的某些特征是如此的坚固,如此的牢靠,以致于社会革命,都没有打算要让它的优先地位及意义消失。但是同时地,历史中的体制的某些特征已经被抹除。

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: