精神分析家的知识171

精神分析家的知识171

雅克、拉康

 

If there were a relationship that could be articulated on the sexual plane, if there were a relationship that could be articulated in the speaking being, should it be stated – this is the question – about all of those of the same sex to all of those of the other. This is obviously the idea that suggests to us, at the point that we are at in the reference to what I called the animal model: the aptitude of each one on one side to be true for all the others of the other. You see then that the statement is promulgated in the form, the significant semantic form of the universal. To replace, in what I said „each one‟ by „anyone whatsoever‟ or by „anyone one at all‟ – anyone at all who from one of these sides – we would be completely in the order of what suggests what might be called – you should recognise in this conditional something that is an echo of my Discourse that MIGHT not be a semblance – well then by replacing „each one‟ by „any one at all‟, you would be right into this indetermination of the fact that it is chosen in each „all‟ to respond to all the others

 

假如在性的层次有某个关系能够被表达,假如在言说的生命有某件东西能够被表达,它应该这样被陈述:关于所有那些相同的性,针对他者的所有那些人们—这是个问题。这显而易见是跟我们建议的观念,在我们所处的那个点,当提到我所谓的动物的模式:在一边的每一个的性向,对于另外一边的所有其余的性向是真实的。你们因此看出,这个陈述在这个形式被宣告,普遍性的意义的语意的形式。为了替换,在我所谓的,每一个被任何一个替换,或被任何所有的任何一个替换—从这些边的其中一个替换—我们将会完全处于暗示可能会被称呼的这个秩序—你们应该在这个条件里,体认出某件「可能不是类似物的辞说」的回声—确实用所有中的任何一个替换每一个,你们将会实在地进入这个事实的不确定:它在所有中的每一个被选中,为了回应所有其他的人们。

 

This „each one‟ that I used first has all the same this effect of reminding you that after all, as I might say, the effective relationship does not fail to evoke the horizon of the „one to one‟, that „to each his/her own‟.

 

这个我起初使用的每一个仍然拥有这个影响,提醒你们,毕竟,我不妨说,这个影响的关系一定会召唤这个一对一的视阔,对于他或她自己的每一个。

 

This, this bi-univocal correspondence, echoes what we know, namely, that it is essential to presentify

number. Let us note the following, which is that we cannot from the start eliminate the existence of these two dimensions and that one can even say that the animal model is precisely what the animistic phantasy suggests. If we did not have this animal model, even if the choice is to encounter, bi-univocal coupling is what appears to us, namely, that there are two animals who copulate together, well then, we would not have this essential dimension which is very precisely that the encounter is unique. It is not by chance that it is from this, from this alone, that there is fomented the animistic model: let us call this the encounter of soul to soul. Anyone who knows the condition of the speaking being (75) has no reason to be surprised that the encounter, starting from this foundation, will precisely have to be repeated qua unique. There is here no need to bring into play any dimension of virtue. It is the very necessity of what in the case of the speaking being happens as unique: it is the fact that it is repeated.

 

这个双边-单一声音的对应,回响我们所知道的东西。换句话说,让数目当下化是必要的。让我们注意以下,我们无法从一开始就减少这两个维度的存在。我们甚至能够说,动物的模式确实是万物神性论的幻见暗示的东西。假如我们没有这个动物的模式,即使选择想要邂逅,双边-单一声音的配对,是呈现给我们的东西。换句话说,有两个动物交配在一块。呵呵,我们将不会拥有这个基本的维度,确实这些邂逅的独特的。这并非是偶然,仅是从这个遭遇,动物的模式被激发起来:让我们称这个为灵魂跟灵魂的这个邂逅。任何知道言说的生命的情况的人,并没有理由惊奇,这种邂逅,从这个基础开始,确实将必须被重复,作为独特性。在此并没有需要运作品德的任何维度。在言说的生命的情况,所发生的东西作为独特性,是有必要的。这就是它被重复的事实。

 

This indeed is why that it is not from the animal model that there is sustained and there is fomented the phantasy that I called animistic. Namely, that it is a phantasy that is there to say, language does not exist, which is obviously not without interest in the analytic field.

 

这确实是为什么我所谓的万物神性论被维持与被激发,并不是从动物模式。换句话说,有一个幻间在那里要说出,语言并不存在,在精神分析的场域,这显然会引起興趣。

 

What gives us the illusion of the sexual relationship in the speaking being, is everything that materializes the universal in a behaviour which is effectively of a herd kind in the relationship between the sexes. I already underlined that in the sexual quest or hunt, as you wish, the boys encourage one another and that for the girls, they like to take it up as long as it is to their advantage. This is an ethological remark that I am making, for my part, but which settles nothing, because it is enough to reflect on it to see in it a rather equivocal turn- about that will not be able to be sustained for long. To be more insistent here and to stick to the most basic experience – I mean the one that is really at ground level – analytic experience, I will remind you that the Imaginary which is the one that we reconstitute in the animal model – that we reconstitute according to our own ideas of course, because it is clear that we can only reconstruct it by observation.

 

是什么给予我们这个幻见:言说的生命会有性的关系?那就是让普遍性物质化的一切东西,在有效地属于动物群体的行为里,处于两性之间的关系。我已经强调,在性的寻求与寻找当中,男生们互相鼓励去寻求与寻找女生。他们喜欢这种寻求与寻找,只要对他们有益。就我而言,这是我正在表达的一种原生动物学的论调。但是并没有解答任何问题。因为我们只有反思一下,我们就会在里面看出颇为暧昧的转变,关于那个,它将无法维持很久。在此更加地坚持,坚持最为基本的经验—我指的确实是地面层次的经验—精神分析的经验。我将提醒你们,这个想象界,我们以动物的模式重新建构的想象界—我们重新建构,当然是依照我们自己的观念,因为显而易见地,我们仅能凭借观察来重新建构。

 

4.11.71 I 72

But on the other hand we have an experience of the Imaginary, an experience which is not an easy one, but that psychoanalysis has allowed us to extend. And, to say things crudely, it would not be difficult for me to make myself understood that if I put forward – I am going to call this crudely right away, it is cruel it must be said – well then, good God, that in every sexual encounter, if there is one thing that psychoanalysis allows to put forward, it is indeed some profile or other of another presence for which the popular term of partouze [group sex] is not absolutely ruled out. This reference has nothing decisive in itself, because after all one could take on a serious air and say that here precisely is the stigmata of anomaly, as if the normal – in two words – could be situated somewhere. It is certain that in putting forward this term, the one that I have just pinpointed with this vulgar name, I was certainly not seeking to make vibrate in you the erotic lyre. And that if simply it has a little wake-up value, this at least gives you this dimension, not the one that may here have an echo of Eros, but simply the pure dimension of awakening. I am certainly not here to amuse you about this!

 

但是在另一方面,我们拥有想象界的经验,这个经验并不是容易的经验。但是精神分析已经让我们能够延伸。简言之,我将不会有困难来让我自己被人理解,假如我提出—我将马上简陋地称呼这个—这是残酷的,它必须被说—呵呵,我的天,在每个性的邂逅,假如有某件东西,精神分析让我们能够提出,那确实是另外一种存在的某种轮廓,「群体性交」的这个流行俗语,并没有绝对被排除来描述这个存在。这个指称本身并没有决定性,因为毕竟我们能够摆出严肃的姿态,然后说,在此可能就是不正常的标志,好像这个正常这两个字能够被定位在某个别的地方。的确,当我提出这个术语时,我刚刚用这个粗俗的名字来强调它,我确实并不是在尝试让这个色情的抒情曲引起你们的共鸣。假如它仅具有稍微唤醒的价值,至少它给予你们这个维度,不是在此可能具有性爱迴响的这个维度,而仅是唤醒的这个纯粹的维度,我在此确实并没有取悦你们这个!

 

Let us now try to open up what is involved in the kinship of the universal with our affair, namely, the

statement by which objects ought to be divided into two „alls‟ of an opposite equivalence. I have just made you sense that there is no need to require the equinumericity of individuals and I would add that I believed I could sustain what I had to put forward simply from the bi-univocity of coupling. These are what would be, if it were possible, two Universals defined by the simple establishment of the possibility of a relationship of one to the other or of the other to one. The so-called relationship has absolutely nothing to do with what is commonly (76) called sexual relationships. We have a whole pile of relationships to these relationships. And as regards these relationships, we have also some little relationships. This occupies our terrestrial life…at the level at which I am placing it, it is a matter of grounding this relationship in universals: how the universal „Man‟ is related to the universal „Woman‟?

 

让我们现在尝试打开在我们的情爱事件的普遍性的亲属牵涉的东西。换句话说,凭借这个陈述,各种的客体应该被分开成为两个相对等量的「全部」。我刚刚让你们感觉到,并没有需要去要求各个个人都平等。我补充说,我相信我能够维持我必须提出的东西,仅是从配对的双边-单一的声音。假如可能的话,这些将是属于一个针对另外一个,或另外一个针对一个的关系,这个所谓的关系跟通俗所谓的性关系,绝对没有丝毫的关系。跟通俗的这些性关系,我们有一大堆的关系。关于这些关系,我们也有一些小小的关系。这佔据了我们在世间的生活。处在我正在放置它的这个层次,问题是要作为普遍性的这个关系的基础。这个普遍性的「人」如何跟普遍性的「女人」发生关系?

 

This is the question which is imposed on us from the fact that language very precisely requires that it should be through this that it is grounded. If there were not language, well then, there would be no question either. We would not have to bring the universal into play.

 

这个问题被赋加在我们身上,根据这个事实:语言确实要求,通过这个,它应该是它作为基础的东西。假如没有语言存在,呵呵,也将不会有问题存在。我们将不需要运作这个普遍性。

 

This relationship, to be specific, makes the Other absolutely foreign to what might here be purely and

simply secondant. It is what perhaps this evening, will force me to emphasise the O by which I mark this Other as empty, with something supplementary, an „H‟, the „Hautre‟ which would perhaps not be a bad way of letting there be understood the dimension of „Hun‟ which may come into play here, or for us to notice that, for example, all the philosophical lucubrations we have did not emerge by chance from someone called Socrates who was manifestly hysterical, I mean clinically. Anyway we have the report of his manifestations of a cataleptic order. If this person called Socrates was able to sustain a discourse which not for nothing is at the origin of the discourse of science, it is very precisely for having brought, as I define it, to the place of the semblance, the subject. And this, he was able to do very precisely because of this dimension which for him presentified the „Hautreas such, namely, this hatred for his wife, to call her by her name. This person, was his wife to the point that she „s’affemait’ to such a point, that he, it was necessary at the moment of his death for him to ask her politely to withdraw to leave to this aforesaid death all its political signification. This is simply an indicative dimension concerning the point where there lies the question that we are in the process of raising.

 

明确地说,这个关系让大他者绝对外来于在此可能纯粹是第二性的东西。或许是今天晚上,我将不得不强调这个大他者O,。根据它,我标示这个大他者,作为是空洞,具有某件补充的东西,一个H,Hautre,这或许并不是一个不好的方式来让可能在此运作的Hun的维度被人理解。或是让我们注意到,譬如,我们所拥有的所有的哲学的润滑并不是偶然地出现,从名叫苏格拉底的这个人,他显而易见是歇斯底里的。我是指临床方面。无论如何,我们拥有他癫痫病的证明的报告。假如被称为苏格拉底的这个人,能够维持一种处于科学的辞说的起源的辞说,这并非毫无意义。依照我的定义,确实因为他将主体带到带到类似物的这个位置。他能做到这个,确实是因为对他而言,呈现Hautre的本质的这个维度,也就是对他妻子的痛恨,我们直接说出她的名称。这个人,他的妻子,她甚至,在苏格拉底死亡的这个时刻,有需要委婉地要求她讳避,为了让苏格拉底的死亡,才具有政治的意涵。这仅是一种指示的维度,关于我们正在提出的这个问题关键所在地点。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

Tags:

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: