Ethic 257

Ethic 257
The Ethics of Psychoanalysia
精神分析学的伦理学

Jacques lacan
雅克、拉康

XX
The articulations of the play
戏剧的表达

I would like to try today to talk about Antigone, the play written by Sophocles
in 441 B.C., and in particular about the economy of the play.

今天我想要尝试谈了安提贡尼,纪元前441世纪,索福克利图斯写的这个戏剧。特别是关于戏剧的经济活力。

With the category of the beautiful, Kant says that only the example –
which doesn’t mean the object – is capable of assuring its transmission insofar
as this is both possible and demanded. Now, from every point of view,
this text deserves to play such a role for us.

使用美丽的范畴,康德说,仅有这个例子并没有意味著,客体能够确定它的传递,因为它既是可能,又是被要求。现在,从每个观点,这个文本应该跟我们扮演一个角色。

As you in any case know, I am reopening the question of the function of
the beautiful in relation to that which we have been considering as the aim of
desire. In a word, it may be that something new on the subject of the function
of desire may come to light here. That is the point we have reached.

无论如何,众所周知,我正在重新展开美的功用的这个问题,相关于我们一直在考虑到,作为欲望的目标。总之,那可能是,某件新的东西,对于欲望的功用的主题,在此会有所启发。这就是我们已经到达的这点。

It is only a single point on our path. Don’t be astonished at how long that
path is, Plato says somewhere in the Phaedrus, which is itself a dialogue on
the beautiful: Don’t be astonished if the detour is such a long one, for it is a
necessary detour.

这仅是我们的途径的一个点。你们不要惊讶,那个途径会有多久。柏拉图在「费德拉斯」的某个地方说过,它本身是讨论美的对话。你们不要惊讶,假如这个迂迴如此漫长,因为这是一个必须的迂迴。

Today we need to make progress in our commentary on Antigone.
Read this truly admirable text. It is an unimaginable highpoint, a work of
overwhelming rigor, whose only equivalent in Sophocles’s work is his final
work, Oedipus at Colonus, which was written in 401.

今天,我们需要进展,在我们对于安提贡尼的评论。请阅读这个确实让人赞赏的文本。这是一个难以想象的高潮,一部磅礴充沛的作品。在索福克利图斯的作品,唯一能够匹敌的是他后的作品「伊狄浦斯在科伦那斯」,写于401年。

I will now attempt to analyze this text with you so as to make you appreciate
its extraordinary stature.

我现在将企图跟你们分析这个文本,为了要让你们赏识它的特别的形态。

I
As I said last time then, we have Antigone, we have something going on, we
have the Chorus.

如我上次所说,我们谈论安提贡尼,我们谈论某件正在进行的东西。我们谈论合唱队。

On the other hand, as far as the nature of tragedy is concerned, I quoted
the end of Aristotle’s sentence on pity and fear effecting the catharsis of the
emotions, that famous catharsis the true meaning of which we will try to
grasp at the end. Strangely enough, Goethe saw the function of this fear and
pity in the action itself. That is, the action would provide us with a model of
the balance between fear and pity. That is certainly not what Aristotle says;
what he says is as inaccessible to us as a closed road on account of the curious
fate that has left us with so little material to confirm what he says in his text,
because so much of it has been lost down through the centuries.

在另一方面,就悲剧的特性而言,我引述亚里斯多德讨论同情与恐惧的句子的结局,造成情感的心灵净化的结果。那个著名的心灵净化的真实的意义,我们最后将尝试理解。奇特的是,歌德看到恐惧与同情的这个功用,在行动的本身。换句话说,行动将会提供我们恐惧与同情的一个平衡点模式。那确实并不是亚里斯多德所说的。他所说的内容是我们无法接近,作为一条封闭的道路,因为这个耐人寻味的命运,曾经留给我们如此少的材料,为了要肯定他在他的文本所说的话。因为经历许多世纪下来,如此多的部分已经丧失。

I will tell you one thing right away. Please note, and this is my first point,
that at first glance, of the two protagonists, Creon and Antigone, neither one
seems to feel fear or pity. If you doubt that, it is because you haven’t read
Antigone, and since we are going to read the play together, I hope to point it
out to you in the text.

我将立即告诉你们一件事情。请注意,这是我的第一点。乍然一看,两位主角,克瑞恩与安提贡尼,没有一位似乎感觉恐惧与同情。假如你们怀疑这点,你是因为你们还没有阅读「安提贡尼」。因为我们将一块阅读这个戏本,我希望在文本里跟你们指出它。

My second point is that it is not “seems,” but it is “certain” that at least
one of the protagonists right through to the end feels neither fear nor pity,
and that is Antigone. That is why, among other things, she is the real hero.
Creon, on the other hand, is moved by fear toward the end, and if it isn’t the
cause of his ruin, it is certainly the sign of it.

我的第二点是,它并不是「似乎」,而是「确定」。至少两位主角的其中一位从头到尾,既不感到恐惧,也不感到同情。那就是安提贡尼。那就是为什么,在众多事情当作,她是真实的英雄。在另一方面,将近结局时,克瑞恩受到恐惧的感动。即使那并不是他的灭亡的原因,它确实是它的迹象。

Let us now take up the question from the beginning.

让我们从开头探讨这个问题。

It’s not even that Creon says the play’s opening words. As composed by
Sophocles, the play begins by introducing us to Antigone in her dialogue with
Ismene; and she affirms her position and her reasons from the opening lines.
Creon isn’t even there as a foil. He only appears later. He is nevertheless
essential for our demonstration.

这甚至不是因为克瑞恩说出戏剧开场白。由索福克利图斯写作,这部戏剧开始时,跟我们介绍安提贡尼,以她跟艾斯民的对话。她肯定她的立场与她的理由,从开头的几行。克瑞恩在那里甚至仅是一个陪衬人物。他仅是后来才出现。可是对于我们的展示,他是举足轻重。

Creon exists to illustrate a function that we have shown is inherent in the
structure of the ethic of tragedy, which is also that of psychoanalysis; he seeks
the good. Something that after all is his role. The leader is he who leads the
community. He exists to promote the good of all.

克瑞恩存在为了解释我们曾经显示的一个功用。在悲剧的伦理学的结构,这个功用是重要的。那也是精神分析的功用。他寻求善行。毕竟,这个东西是他的角色。他是引导社会的领导者。他存在是为了提升一切的善行。

What does his fault consist of? Aristotle tells us, using a term that he
affirms falls directly within the province of tragic action, αμαρτία. We have
some trouble translating that word. “Error,” we say, and in order to relate it
to ethics, we interpret it as “error of judgment.” But perhaps it isn’t as simple
as that.

他的缺点由什么组成?亚里斯多德告诉我们,使用一个他肯定的术语,这个术语被涵盖在悲剧的行动αμαρτία.的范围里。我们遭遇一些麻烦,翻译那个字词。「错误」,我们说,为了将它跟伦理学连接一块,我们解释它,作为是「判断的错误」。但是或许,这并不那么单纯。

As I told you last time, almost a century separates the period of the creation
of great tragedies from their interpretation by philosophical thought. Minerva,
as Hegel has already said, takes flight at twilight. I’m not too sure, but I
think we should remember this formula, which has been so often evoked, to
recall that there is after all some distance between the teachings embodied in
tragic rites as such and their subsequent interpretation in the form of an
ethics, which with Aristotle is a science of happiness.

如同我上次告诉你们,伟大悲剧的创作的时期,跟哲学的思想的解释分开,几乎有一个世纪。如同黑格尔已经说过,明诺瓦在天将破晓时起飞。我并不太确定,但是我认为我们应该记住这个公式。这个公式曾经经常被引用,为了提醒,毕竟,有某个距离存在于悲剧仪式具体表现的教导,与它们随后的解释之间,后者以伦理学的形式,对于亚里斯多德,伦理学是一门快乐的智慧。

Nevertheless, it is true that we do note the following. And I would not
have any difficulty finding αμαρτία in others of Sophocles’s tragethes: it exists,
it is affirmed. The terms άμαρτάνειν and αμαρτήματα are to be found in
Creon’s own speeches, when at the end he succumbs to the blows of fate. But αμαρτία does not appear at the level of the true hero, but at the level of
Creon.

可是,我们确实注意到以下。我将不会遭遇任何困难,在索福克利斯的其他悲剧发现 αμαρτία 。它存在,它被肯定。άμαρτάνειν 与 αμαρτήματα 的这些术语能够被发现,在克瑞恩的言说里。当最后,他屈服于命运的打击。但是αμαρτία并没有出现在这位真实英雄的层次,而是出现在克瑞恩的层次。

His error of judgment (and we come closer to it here than that thought
which is fond of wisdom ever has) is to want to promote the good of all – and
I don’t mean the Supreme Good, for let us not forget that 441 B.C. is very
early, and our friend Plato hadn’t yet created the mirage of that Supreme
Good – to promote the good of all as the law without limits, the sovereign
law, the law that goes beyond or crosses the limit. He doesn’t even notice
that he has crossed that famous limit about which one assumes enough has
been said when one says that Antigone defends it and that it takes the form
of the unwritten laws of the Δίκη. One thinks one has said enough when one
interprets it as the Justice or the Doctrine of the gods, but one hasn’t, in fact,
said very much. And there is no doubt that Creon in his innocence crosses
over into another sphere.

他的判断的错误(在此,比起以往,我们比较靠近喜爱智慧的这个思想),就是想要提升一切的善行。我的意思并不是崇高的善,因为让我们不要忘记,在纪元前441年是非常早期,我们的朋友柏拉图还没有创造那个崇高的善的幻想。提升一切中的善,作为没有限制的法则,这个统治性的法则,超越或跨越这个限制的法则。他甚至没有注意到,他已经跨越这个著名的限制。关于这个限制,我们认为我们已经说得足够,当我们说安提贡尼防卫它,它形成这个Δίκη 的不成文法则。我们认为我们已经说得足够,当我们解释它,作为是众神的信条的正义。但是事实上我们没有说的很多。无可置疑的地,克瑞恩纯然无知地跨越进入另外一个领域。

Note that his language is in perfect conformity with that which Kant calls
the Begriff or concept of the good. It is the language of practical reason. His
refusal to allow a sepulcre for Polynices, who is an enemy and a traitor to his
country, is founded on the fact that one cannot at the same time honor those
who have defended their country and those who have attacked it. From a
Kantian point of view, it is a maxim that can be given as a rule of reason with
a universal validity. Thus, before the ethical progression that from Aristotle
to Kant leads us to make clear the identity of law and reason, doesn’t the
spectacle of tragedy reveal to us in anticipation the first objection? The good
cannot reign over all without an excess emerging whose fatal consequences
are revealed to us in tragedy.

请注意,他的语言完全地和谐,跟康德所谓的善的观念。这是一个实践理性的语言。他拒绝给予波利尼西斯死后埋葬。因为他是他的国家的敌人与背叛者。这种拒绝的基础是这个理由:我们无法同时尊敬那些为捍卫他们国家的人,与曾经攻击他们国家的人们。从康德的观点,这些一个能够被给予作为理性规则的公理,具有普遍性的正确性。因此,在伦理的进展之前,从亚里斯多德到康德,这种伦理的进展引导我们澄清法则与理想的认同。悲剧的这个景象难道不是跟我们显示,预期首先的反对?这个善统治一切,必然会有过度出现。这个过度的结果在悲剧中跟我们显示出来。

What then is this famous sphere that we must not cross into? We are told
that it is the place where the unwritten laws, the will or, better yet, the Δίκη
of the gods rules. But we no longer have any idea what the gods are. Let us
not forget that we have lived for a long time under Christian law, and in
order to recall what the gods are, we have to engage in a little ethnography.
If you read the Phaedrus I was talking about just now, which is a reflection
on the nature of love, you will see that we have changed the very axis of the
words that designate it.

那么,我们一定不要跨越进入的这个著名的领域是什么?我们被告诉,那是不成文法则统治的地方,这个意志,或更贴切地说,众神的这个Δίκη 统治的地方。但是我们不再知道众神是什么。让我们不要忘记,我们曾经长久生活在基督教的法则之下。为了回想众神在哪儿,我们必须稍微探讨一下民族学。假如你们阅读我刚才谈论到的「费德拉斯」,这是对于爱的特性的省思。你们将会看出,我们曾经改变指明它的那些字词的轴心。

What is this love? Is it that which, as a result of the fluctuations of the
whole Christian adventure, we have come to call sublime love? Is it, in effect,
very close, although it was reached by other paths? Is it desire? Is it that
which some people believe I identify with a certain central sphere, namely,
some natural evil in man? Is it that which Creon somewhere calls anarchy?
In any case, you will see that the way in which the lovers in the Phaedrus act
in relation to love varies according to the “epopteia” in which they have participated.
“Epopteia” here means initiation in the sense that the term has in
antiquity; it designates very detailed ceremonies in the course of which certain phenomena occur. One comes upon these down through the centuries –
and down to the present time, if one is willing to go to other regions of the
globe – in the form of trances or phenomena of possession in which a divine
being manifests itself through the mouth of someone who is, so to speak,
willing to cooperate.

这个爱是什么?它难道不是由于整个基督教的冒险的摇摆,我们渐渐称为崇高的爱?事实上,它难道不是非常靠近,虽然是凭借其他的途径到达?它是欲望吗?它难道不是某些人相信的东西吗?我认同某种的中央的领域。换句话说,人身上的某种自然的邪恶?它难道不是克瑞恩在某个地方称为是无法无天的地方?无论如何,你们将会看出,在「费德拉斯」,情人的行动跟爱相关的方式,会依照这个”epopteia” 而有差异。他们曾经参与那里。”Epopteia” 在此的意思意味着创始,这个术语在古代具有的意义。它指明非常详细的典礼。在这个典礼的过程,某些现象出现。几个世纪以降,一直到现在,我们遭遇到这些。假如我们愿意去到地球的其他地区—以狂喜的形式或是著魔的现象。在那里,神性的存在展现它自己,通过某人的嘴巴。换句话说,某个愿意合作的人。

Thus Plato tells us that those who have undergone an initiation to Zeus do
not react in love in the same way as those who were initiated to Ares. Just
replace those names with those who in a given province of Brazil stand for a
spirit of the earth or war or of a sovereign being. It is not our intention to
engage in exoticism here, but that is what is involved.

因此,柏拉图告诉我们,曾经经历创始仪式进入宙斯神殿那些人,并没有以爱作为反应,如同那些被创始仪式进入阿瑞斯神殿的那些人。请你们用在巴西的某个省份代表大地或战争,或统治者的精神的那些人,来取代那些名字。在此从事驱魔,并不是我们的意图,但是那是所被牵涉的东西。

In other words, this whole sphere is only really accessible to us from the
outside, from the point of view of science and of objectification. For us Christians,
who have been educated by Christianity, it doesn’t belong to the text
in which the question is raised. We Christians have erased the whole sphere
of the gods. And we are, in fact, interested here in that which we have replaced
it with as illuminated by psychoanalysis. In this sphere, where is the limit?
A limit that has no doubt been there from the beginning, but which doubtless
remains isolated and leaves its skeleton in this sphere that we Christians have
abandoned. That is the question I am asking here.

换句话说,这整个领域仅是我们确实可以从外面接近的东西,从智慧与客观化的观点。对于我们基督教徒,他们曾经受过基督教的教育。它并不属于这个问题被提出的文本。我们基督徒曾经抹除众神的这个领域。事实上,我们在此感到興趣的是,我们曾经用来取代它的东西,作为是有精神分析所启蒙。在这个领域,这个限制在哪里?无可置疑地,这一个限制从开头就一直在那里。但是无可置疑地,它始终是孤立,并且留下它的骨架在这个领域,我们基督徒曾经放弃的领域。那就是我在此正在询问的问题。

The limit involved, the limit that it is essential to situate if a certain phenomenon
is to emerge through reflection, is something I have called the phenomenon
of the beautiful, it is something I have begun to define as the limit
of the second death.

被牵涉到的这个限制,是某件我曾经称为是美丽的现象。假如某个现象将要通过这个省思出现,定位这个限制是很重要的。美丽的现象这个东西,我曾经开始定义它,作为是二次死亡的限制。

I first brought this to your attention in connection with Sade as something
that sought to pursue nature to the very principle of its creative power, which
regulates the alternation of corruption and generation. Beyond that order,
which it is no longer easy for us to think of and assume in the form of knowledge
– and that is taken to be a reference point in the development of Christian
thought – Sade tells us that there is something else, that a form of
transgression is possible, and he calls it “crime.”

我首先提醒你们注意,关于萨德,作为是某件尝试寻求自然,到达它的创造性力量的原则。这个原则规范腐败与生产的轮替。在那个秩序之外,我们不再容易地用知识的形式认为与假定。那被认为是一个指称点,在基督教的思想的发展。萨德告诉我们,还有某件其他东西。一种逾越的形式是可能的,他称它为「犯罪」。

As I indicated, the form of the crime may only be a ridiculous fantasm,
but what is in question is that which the thought points to. The crime is said
to be that which doesn’t respect the natural order. And Sade’s thought goes
as far as forging the strangely extravagant notion that through crime man is
given the power to liberate nature from its own laws. For its own laws are
chains. What one has to sweep aside in order to force nature to start again
from zero, so to speak, is the reproduction of forms against which nature’s
both harmonious and contradictory possibilities are stifled in an impasse of
conflicting forces. That is the aim of Sadean crime. It isn’t for nothing that
crime is one boundary of our exploration of desire or that it is on the basis of
a crime that Freud attempted to reconstruct the genealogy of the law. The
frontiers represented by “starting from zero,” ex nihilo, is, as I indicated at
the beginning of my comments this year, the place where a strictly atheist
thought necessarily situates itself. A strictly atheist thought adopts no other
perspective than that of “creationism.”

如同我指示,犯罪的这个形式可能仅是一种荒谬的幻见,但是受到置疑的问题是,思想指向的东西。犯罪据说是并没有尊敬自然秩序的东西。萨德的思想甚至铸造这个奢侈得怪异的观念,凭借犯罪,人被给予这个力量,将自然从它自己的天性解放出来。因为它自己的法则就是锁链。我们所必需横扫一旁的东西,为了强迫自然再次从零开始1,换句话说,那是形式的复制。对抗这些形式的复制,自然的既和谐与矛盾的可能性,被闷住在各种冲突力量的僵局里。那是萨德的犯罪的目标。这并非是没有意义,犯罪是我们的欲望的探索的边界。或者说,根据犯罪的基础,弗洛依德企图重新建构法律的系谱学。如同我从今年我的评论的开始所指示的,由「从零度开始」ex nihilo所代表的边界。严格的无神论思想必须定位自己在那里。严格的无神论思想採用的观点不是别的,就是「创造主义」的观点。

Moreover, nothing demonstrates better that Sadean thought is situated at
that limit than the fundamental fantasm one finds in Sade, a fantasm that is
illustrated in a thousand or more exhausting images that he gives us of the
manifestations of human desire. The fantasm involved is that of eternal suffering.

而且,比起在萨德我们发现的这个基本的幻见,没有一样东西更能证明:萨德的思想被定位在这个限制。萨德的这个幻见被举例说明,用他给予我们的上千个数不尽的意象,关于人类欲望的展示。被牵涉的幻见识永恒的痛苦的幻见。

In the typical Sadean scenario, suffering doesn’t lead the victim to the
point where he is dismembered and destroyed. It seems rather that the object
of all the torture is to retain the capacity of being an indestructible support.
Analysis shows clearly that the subject separates out a double of himself who
is made inaccessible to destruction, so as to make it support what, borrowing
a term from the realm of aesthetics, one cannot help calling the play of pain.
For the space in question is the same as that in which aesthetic phenomena
disport themselves, a space of freedom. And the conjunction between the
play of pain and the phenomena of beauty is to be found there, though it is
never emphasized, for it is as if some taboo or other prevented it, as if some
prohibition were there, which is related to the difficulty we are familiar with
in our patients of admitting something that properly speaking belongs to the
realm of fantasm.

在这个典型的萨德的剧本,痛苦并没有引导受害者到达他被肢解与毁灭的这个点。相反地,似乎所有的折磨的这个客体应该保留这个能力,成为是无可毁灭的支持。精神分析清楚地显示,主体将自己的双重人分开。这个自己是无法让毁灭靠近的。为了让它支持我们忍不住要称为是痛苦的遊戏,从美学的领域借用的术语。因为受到置疑的这个空间是相同的,跟美学现象嬉戏的空间,自由的空间。痛苦的遊戏与美丽的现象之间的关联,能够在那里被找到。虽然它从来没有被强调。因为好像某种的禁忌阻挡它,好像某种的禁止在那里,它跟我们在病人身上耳熟能详的困难息息相关,他们很困难承认某件东西,适当来说,是属于幻见的领域。

I will point it out to you in Sade’s texts, where it is so obvious that one
fails to see it. The victims are always adorned not only with all kinds of
beauty, but also with grace, which is beauty’s finest flower. How does one
explain this necessity, if not by the fact that we need to find it hidden, though
imminent, however we approach the phenomenon, in the moving presentation
of the victim or also in every form of beauty that is too obvious, too
present, so that it leaves man speechless at the prospect of the image that is
silhouetted behind it and threatens it. But what precisely is the threat, since
it isn’t the threat of destruction?

我将跟你们指出,在萨德的文本,显而易见地,我们没有看出它。受害者总是被装饰各种的美丽,而且优雅。那是美丽的最精致的花朵。我们如何解释这个必要?难道不是凭借这个事实? 我们需要发现它被隐藏,虽然是即将出现在受害者的感人的呈现,无论我们用什么方式接近这个现象。美丽的每个形式是过于明显,过于存在,它让人哑口无言,想到在它背后呈现轮廓及威胁它的这个意象。但是因为这并不是毁灭的威胁,这个威胁确实是什么?

The whole question is so crucial that I intend to have you go over the
passages of Kant’s Critique of Judgment that are concerned with the nature of
beauty; they are extraordinarily precise. I will leave them aside for the moment
except to note the following: the forms that are at work in knowledge, Kant
tells us, are interested in the phenomenon of beauty, though the object itself
is not involved. I take it you see the analogy with the Sadean fantasm, since
the object there is no more than the power to support a form of suffering,
which is in itself nothing else but the signifier of a limit. Suffering is conceived
of as a stasis which affirms that that which is cannot return to the void
from which it emerged.

整个的问题是如此重要,以致我打算让你们温习一下康德的「判断的批判」的这些段落,它们跟美丽的特性息息相关。它们是特别的确实。我暂时将它们放置一旁,除了注意以下:在知识里运作的那些形式。康德告诉我们,这些形式并不是对美丽的现象感到興趣,虽然客体本身并没有牵涉在内。我相信,你们看到跟萨德的幻见的这个类似。因为在那里的客体仅仅就是这个力量要支持痛苦的形式。痛苦的本身不是别的,而是限制的能指。痛苦被构想作为一种停滞的状态,肯定存在的东西,无法回到它原先从那里出现的空无

Here one encounters the limit that Christianity has erected in the place of
all the other gods, a limit that takes the form of the exemplary image which attracts to itself all the threads of our desire, the image of the crucifixion. If
we dare, not so much look it in the face – given that mystics have been staring
at it for centuries, we can only hope that it has been observed closely – but
speak about it directly, which is much more difficult, shall we say that what
is involved there is something that we might call the apotheosis of sadism?
And by that I mean the divinization of everything that remains in this sphere,
namely, of the limit in which a being remains in a state of suffering, otherwise
he can only do so by means of a concept that moreover represents the disqualification
of all concepts, that is, the concept of ex nihiôo.

在此,我们遭遇基督教竖立的这种限制,来代替所有其他的众神。这一个限制採取的是典范意象的形式。这个意象将我们欲望的所有线索吸引到它自己,耶稣钉上十字架的意象。假如我们胆敢,不是正面直视它,假如考虑到,神秘主义一直凝视它好几世纪了,我们仅能希望,它曾经仔细地被观察。但是直接地谈论到它。那会更加的困难。我们将会说,在那里所被牵涉的东西,是某件我们可能称为萨德主义的升华吗?我说这话的意思是,保留在这个领域的每样东西都神圣化。换句话说,限制的神圣化。在那里,人的存在始终是痛苦的状态。否则他仅能这样做,凭借一种观念。而且,这种观念代表所有的观念都除掉资格,从空无中创造ex nihilo的观念。

Suffice it for me to remind you of what you as analysts encounter directly,
in other words the extent to which the fantasm that guides feminine desire –
from the reveries of pure young virgins to the couplings fantasized by middleaged
matrons—may be literally poisoned by the favored image of Christ on
the cross. Need I go further and add that in connection with that image
Christianity has been crucifying man in holiness for centuries? In holiness.
For some time now we have discovered that administrators are saints. Can’t
one turn that around and say that saints are administrators, administrators of
the access to desire, for Christianity’s influence over man takes place at the
level of the collectivity? Those gods who are dead in Christian hearts are
pursued throughout the world by Christian missionaries. The central image
of Christian divinity absorbs all other images of desire in man with significant
consequences. From an historical point of view, we have perhaps reached the
edge of this. It is what in the language of administration is referred to as the
cultural problems of underdeveloped countries.

我仅能够这样提醒你们,作为精神分析家,你们直接遭遇的东西,换句话说,幻见引导女性的欲望的程度。从纯洁的处女地狂想,到中年的熟女幻想的配对—实质上是受到耶稣基督被钉在十字架的受到喜爱的意象所毒害。我需要更深入地补充说吗?关于耶稣基督的那个意象,基督教一直将人钉在神圣的十字架,有好几世纪了。钉在神圣的十字架。现在有段时间,我们曾经发现,那些实践者是圣人。我们难道不能将那个倒转过来,并且说:圣人就是那些实践者?接近欲望的实践者?因为基督教对于人的影响发生在集体化的层次。在基督徒心里,世界各地的基督教的传教士,就是在追求死去的那些众神。基督教的神性的中心的意象,吸引人们身上的欲望的所有其他的意象,具有重要的结果。从历史的观点,我们或许到达这个边缘。用实践的语言,被提到作为是未开发中的国家的文化的问题。

I am not as a result going to promise you a surprise here, whether it be a
good one or a bad one. You will come upon it, as Antigone says, soon enough.
Let us go back to Antigone.

结果,我并没有要在此给予你们一种惊奇,无论它是好或是不好的惊奇。不久,你们将会遇到它,如同安提贡尼所说。让我们回头谈论安提贡尼。
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: