Archive for December, 2013

精神病 153

December 19, 2013

精神病 153

2
Schreber’s discourse has a different structure, to be sure. Schreber notes at
the beginning of one of his chapters, very amusingly – They say Pm paranoid.
As it happens, people at that time were still sufficiently bound to Kraepelin’s
first classification to describe him as paranoid, whereas his symptoms went
much further than this. But in calling him paraphrenic Freud went further
still, since paraphrenia was the name he suggested for dementia praecox, Bleuler’s
schizophrenia.2

许瑞伯的辞说拥有不同的结构。的确,许瑞伯在他的第一章节的开始,非常有趣地就注意到:他们说我是妄想狂。恰巧地,在当时的人们,依旧跟克拉培林的最初的精神病分类学息息相关,这种分类学将他描述为妄想症,而他的症状却是比这个妄想症更加深入。但是当弗洛依德称他为精神分裂症时,他是更加地深入,因为精神分裂症是他建议的名称,给予布鲁勒的精神疯狂的疾病。

Coming back to Schreber, They say Pm paranoid, and they say that paranoiacs
are people who refer everything to themselves. In this case they are mistaken,
its not I who refer everything to myself, ifs he who refers everything to me, ifs
this God who speaks nonstop inside me, through his various agents and extensions.
It is he who has the unfortunate habit, whatever I experience, of immediately pointing
out tome that something is meant for me, or even that something comes from
me. I can’t play an aria from The Magic Flute – Schreber is a musician –
without having him who speaks immediately attribute the corresponding feelings to
me, but I don’t have them myself.3 You can also see President Schreber become
highly indignant at the fact that the voice should intervene to tell him that
what he is in the process of saying concerns him. Of course, we are in a play
of mirages, but this is no ordinary mirage, this Other considered as radically
foreign, as errant, who intervenes so as to cause a convergence to the second
degree upon the subject, an intentionalization of the external world, which
the subject himself, insofar as he asserts himself as / , vigorously repels.

当回到许瑞伯时,「他们说,我是妄想症者,他们说,妄想症者是将每样事情都跟他们自己牵扯一块的人们。在这种情况,他们错了。并不是是我将每样事情跟我自己牵涉一块,而是他将每件事情,跟我牵扯一块。是这位上帝不停地跟我言说,通过各色各样的代理者与延伸。是上帝具有这个不幸的习惯,无论我经验到什么事情,他都立刻跟我指出,某件事情就是为了我而发生,或甚至某件事情来自于我。我每次用「魔笛」来演奏独唱的歌–许瑞伯是一位音乐家—我就遭遇跟我言说的上帝,立即将这个对应的感觉,归属于我。但是我自己并没有拥有这些感觉。」你们也能够看出,许瑞伯庭长变得暴跳如雷,对于这个事实:这个声音竟然介入进来告诉他,在言说的过程,他关心到他的生命的本质。当然,我们处于幻想的海市蜃楼当中,但是这并不是普通的幻想的海市蜃楼。这位大他者被认为是完全是外来的,作为狂乱者,他介入进来,为了在主体身上引起第二次的汇集,引起外部世界成为个人意图。主体自己严格地排斥这种个人意图,因为他主张自己作为这个「我」。

2 Freud mentions Schreber’s paraphrenic traits, but retains the diagnosis of paranoia.
See SE 12:78. 3 See Mem, 262-63.
136 The psychoses

We talk about hallucinations. Do we absolutely have the right to do so?
They are not presented to us as such when we hear them recounted. According
to the commonly received notion, which treats them as a false perception,
we’re dealing with something that emerges in the external world and forces
itself on one as a perception, a disorder, a rupture in the text of the real. In
other words, the hallucination is located in the real. The prior question is
whether a verbal hallucination doesn’t require a certain preliminary analysis
that questions the very legitimacy of this definition.

我们谈论到幻觉。我们绝对有这个权利这样做吗?幻觉并没有按照实际的样子呈现给于我们,当我们听见幻觉被叙述。依照这个共同被接纳的观念,这个观念对待他,作为是一种虚假的感觉。我们正在处理某件在外部的世界出现的东西,这个东西强迫地赋加在一个人身上,作为一种感觉,一种疾病,一种在实在界的文本的断裂。换句话说,幻觉并不是被放置在实在界的位置。先决的问题是:文辞的幻觉是否要求某种的初步的精神分析?这个初步的精神质疑这个定义是否合理。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

On the signifier in the real and the bellowing-miracle 133

December 18, 2013

On the signifier in the real and the bellowing-miracle 133

论实在界的能指与吹号的奇迹

 

A certain mental breathing space seems indispensable to modern man, one

in which his independence not only of any master but also of any god is

affirmed, a space for his irreducible autonomy as individual, as individual

existence. Here there is indeed something that merits a point-by-point comparison

with a delusional discourse. It’s one itself. It plays a part in the modern

individual’s presence in the world and in his relations with his counterparts.

Surely, if I asked you to put this autonomy into words, to calculate the exact

share of indefeasible freedom in the current state of affairs, and even should

you answer, the rights of man, or the right to happiness, or a thousand other

things, we wouldn’t get very far before realizing that for each of us this is an

intimate, personal discourse which is a long way from coinciding with the

discourse of one’s neighbor on any point whatsoever. In a word, the existence

of a permanent discourse of freedom in the modern individual seems to me

indisputable.

 

对于现代人,某种的精神上的呼吸空间似乎无可免除。在这个呼吸空间,他不但独立于任何主任,而且独立于任何的神,这个独立被肯定。他作为个人的无可化减的自主权的空间,作为个人的生命实存。在此,确实有某件东西获得点对点的比较,跟一个妄想到辞说。那是一个本身。它在现代的个人的生存于世界,扮演一个角色,在他跟他的同样的人物的关系。的确,假如我要求你们用文字表达这个自主权,计算在目前的事物的状态,无法抹灭的自由的分享。甚至万你们回答,「人的权利,或快乐的权利,或上千个其他的事情,我们不久就会体会到,对于我们每个人,这是一个亲密的个人的辞说,跟我们邻居的辞说,无论在哪一点,无根本不相吻合。总之,我觉得,在现代的个人,自由的永恒的辞说的存在,是无可争议。

 

151

Now, how can this discourse be matched up not only with the other’s

discourse but with his conduct as well, assuming that he tends to base it on

this discourse at all? There is a truly discouraging problem here. And the

facts show that there is invariably not just a coming to terms with what everyone

effectively contributes, but actually resigned abandonment to reality. In

the same way, our delusional Schreber, after having believed himself the sole

survivor of the twilight of the world, resigns himself to acknowledging the

permanent existence of external reality. He can barely explain why this reality

is there, but he has to recognize that the real is indeed still there, that

nothing has perceptibly altered. This for him is the strangest thing of all,

since there is here an order of certainty inferior to what his delusional experience

gives him, but he resigns himself to it.

 

现在,这个辞说如何能够跟另外一个人的辞说相配合,而且跟他的行为相配合?假如他倾向于将它根本就是建立在这个辞说的基础上。在此,有一个确实是令人泄气的难题。这些事实显示:一成不变地,不仅有一种妥协,跟每个人有效地贡献的东西,而是对现实界会有顺风的放弃。同样地,我们的妄想症的许瑞伯,在他相信自己是世界的暮光地带的唯一馀生者,他听天由命地承认外在的现实的永恒的存在。他勉强能够解释为什么这个现实界在那里,但是他必须体认出,这个实在界确实在那里,没有一样东西在感官方面曾经改变。对他而言,这是一切最奇怪的事实。因为在此,有一个确定性的秩序,较劣于他的妄想的经验给予他的东西,但是他自己顺服于它。

 

To be sure, we ourselves place much less confidence in the discourse of

freedom, but as soon as it’s a matter of acting, in the name of freedom in

particular, our attitude towards what in reality we have to endure, or towards

the impossibility of our acting together to further this freedom, has entirely

the character of resigned abandonment, of a renunciation of what is nevertheless

an essential part of our internal discourse, namely that we have not

only certain indefeasible rights but that these rights are founded on certain

primary freedoms, which can be demanded for any human being in our culture.

There is something ridiculous in the effort of psychologists to reduce thought

to an incipient action, or to an elided or represented action, and to seek its

origins in what would put man permanently at the level of the experience of

an elementary real, of a real of objects that would be his own. It’s far too

obvious that for each of us thought is a thing of little value which we could

call vain mental rumination – but why belittle it?

 

的确,我们自己比较不信任自由的这个辞说,但是一旦是行为的问题时,特别是以自由的名义时,我们对待现实界我们必须忍受的东西的态度,或是对待我们一起行动的不可能,为了加强这个自由,我们的态度完全具2有顺服放弃的特性,具有放弃我们的内在辞说的基本部分的东西,换句话说,我们不但拥有某些的无可分离的权利,而且这些权利以某些的原初的自由作为基础。这些原初的权利能够被要求,对于在我们的文化里的任何人类。对于心理学家的这些努力,将思想化减为一个不成熟的行动,或是被删除或被代表的行动,以及寻求它的起源,在人类被永久地处于基本实在界的经验的层次,属于他自己的各种客体的实在界,这些努力具有某件荒谬的东西。太显而易见的是,对于我们每个人,思想是一件无多大价值的东西,我们称之为徒劳的精神反芻但是为什么轻视它?

 

134 The psychoses

 

We are constantly raising problems closely related to these notions of internal

freedom and of the manifestation of something enclosed within oneself.

This point of view comes to a dead end very quickly, given that every type

of living reality immersed in the spirit of the modern world’s cultural arena

is essentially going round in circles. This is why one always comes back to

the restricted, hesitant character of one’s personal actions, and one only begins

to think the problem is confused when one actually takes things in hand qua

thinker, which is not everyone’s fate. We all remain at the level of an insoluble

contradiction between a discourse that is at a certain level always necessary

and a reality to which, both in principle and in a way proved by

experience, we fail to adjust.

 

我们不断地提出被、跟内部自由的这些观念息息相关的问题,以及被封闭在我们自身之内的某件东西的证明的问题。这个观点很快地就遇到僵局,假如考虑到,沉浸于现代世界的文化的斗技场的精神的每种的生活的现实,基本上是环绕着圈子打转。这就是为什么我们总是回到我们个人的行动,会有这个被限制的,犹豫的特性。我们仅是开始认为,这个问题受到混淆,当我们确实以思想家的姿态来处理事情。这并非是每个人的命运。我们都始终保持着无法解决的悖论的层次,处于辞说与现实之间的悖论。辞说在某个层次上总是必须的,而现实则是我们无法适应,虽然在原则上,及某方面,现实都由经验获得证实。

 

152

 

Moreover, don’t we see that analytic experience is deeply bound up with

this discursive double of the subject, his discordant and ridiculous ego? The

ego of every modern man?

 

而且,难道我们没有看出,精神分析的经验,跟主体的这个辞说的双重性紧密相连; 他的不协调与荒谬的自我?每个现代人的自我?

 

Isn’t it clear that analytic experience began with the fact that ultimately

nobody feels at ease in the current state of interhuman relations in our culture?

Nobody who has had to face even the smallest request for advice, however

elementary, that encroaches on principles feels he is being honest. It’s

not simply because we are too ignorant of the subjects’ lives that we are

unable to tell them whether they would do better to marry or not in such and

such circumstances and will, if we’re honest, tend to be reticent – it’s because

the very meaning of marriage is for each of us a question that remains open,

and open in such a way that, as to its application in a particular case, we don’t

feel ourselves to be in a position to give the answer -when called upon to

become directors of conscience. This attitude, the pertinence of which can

be experienced by anyone who doesn’t abandon himself for the sake of

becoming a somebody and who doesn’t set himself up as a moralist or as

omniscient, is also the first condition to be demanded of what can be called a

psychotherapist – psychotherapeutics will have taught him the risks of taking

such perilous initiatives.

 

这难道不是显而易见,精神分析的经验起源于这个事实:在我们的文化的人际之间的目前的状态,最后是,没有人感到自在?曾经面对即使是最微不足道的劝告的要求,无论是多么基本的要求,一旦侵犯到原则,没有会感觉自己能够坦诚以对?这不仅是因为我们对于这些主体的生活过于无知,以致于我们不能够告诉他们,在某某情况下,他们最好结婚或不结婚。假如我们坦诚以对,我们倾向于保持沉默。因为婚姻的意义对于我们每个人而言,是个没有明确答案的问题。如此的没有明确答案,以致于婚姻在特别情况的应用时,我们并不觉得有立场来给予答案,当我们被要求成为良心的指导者。这个态度的合适,能够被任何成为重要人物而犹能自我把持的人经验到,或任何不将自己视为是道学家,或视为是无所不通的人经验到。这个态度也是对于所谓的心理治疗师的首要的要求。心理治疗学将会教导他,採取如此危险的创议会冒着危险。

 

Analysis began precisely by refusing to take sides within the sphere of

common discourse, with its profound rifts as to the essence of mores and the

status of the individual in our society, precisely by avoiding this sphere. It

limits itself to a different discourse, one that is inscribed in the very suffering

of the being we have before us and is already articulated in something – his

symptoms and his structure – that escapes him, in so far as obsessional neurosis,

for instance, doesn’t simply consist of symptoms but is also a structure.

 

精神分析开始时,确实拒绝在共同的辞说的领域之内有所偏袒,因为在我们的社会,习俗的本质与个人的地位,具有它深刻的差距。精神分析确实避免这个领域。精神分析限制自己于一个不同的辞说。这个辞说被铭记于在我们面前生命个体的痛苦,并且被表达在某件他无法理解的事情上他的症状与他的结构譬如,神经症并不仅是症状,它也是是结构。

 

On the signifier in the real and the bellowing-miracle 135

 

Psychoanalysis never places itself at the level of the discourse of freedom,

even though this discourse may always be present, constant within each of

us, with our contradictions and dissonances, this discourse that is personal

and yet common, and always, whether imperceptibly or not, delusional. Psychoanalysis

is otherwise directed at the effect of discourse within the subject.

 

精神分析从来没有将它自己放置在自由的辞说的层次,即使这个辞说总是存在那里,在我们每个人内部,它经常存在那里。由于我们的悖论与不协调,这个属于个人可是又是共同的辞说,它总是妄想,无论不知不觉与否。精神分析则是以不同方式被引导,朝向主体内部的辞说的影响。

 

Henceforth, isn’t the experience of a case like Schreber – or of any other

patient who could give us as extensive an account of discursive structure – of

such a nature as to enable us to get a bit closer to the problem of what the

ego really signifies? The ego isn’t reducible to a function of synthesis. It’s

indissolubly linked to this sort of mortmain, of a necessary and unbearable

enigmatic element, that is partially constituted by the discourse of the real

man we are dealing with in our experience, this foreign discourse within

everyone’s heart in so far as one thinks of oneself as an autonomous individual.

 

因此,像许瑞伯这样的个案的经验或任何其他的病人能够给予我们同样广泛的描述辞说的结构它难道不是属于这样的性质,以致于它让我们能够稍微更加靠近这个问题:自我确实意味着什么?自我并无法被化减成为是综合的功能。自我跟这种的创伤紧密相连,跟这种必要性与无法承受的谜团一般的因素紧密相连。它们部分是由我们在精神分析经验正在处理的这个真实的人都辞说所形成。由每个人内心的外来的辞说所形成,当我们认为我们自己是具有自主权的个人。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

 

 

精神病 X 第十章

December 17, 2013

精神病 X 第十章

 

论实在界的能指与吹号的奇迹

On the signifier in the real and

the bellowing-miracle

 

1

We must constanlyy ask ourselves why we’re so attached to the question of

delusion.

 

我们必须不断地询问我们自己,为什么我们跟妄想的这个问题如此相连?

 

To understand why, one need only recall the formula that is sometimes

used, carelessly, regarding the way analysis works, namely that our leverage

point is the healthy part of the ego. Is there no clearer example of the contrast

in existence between a healthy part and an insane part of the ego than the

delusions classically referred to as partial? Is there no more striking example

of this than the work of this President Schreber who offers us such a sensitive,

engaging, tolerant exposition of his conception of the world and experiences,

and who doesn’t exhibit any less assertively the inadmissible mode

of his hallucinatory experiences? Now, who is not aware – this is I would say

psychiatry’s main fact – that no amount of leverage on the healthy part of the

ego would enable us to gain an inch of ground over the manifestly insane

part?

 

为了理解为什么,我们只要回忆一下这个经常但是粗心地被使用的公式,,关于精神分析运作的方式。换句话说,我们的平衡点是自我的健康的部分。除了传统上被提到作为部分的妄想,难道没有更清楚的对照的例子,存在于自我的健康与疯狂的部分之间?关于这点,难道没有更显著的例子,除了许瑞伯庭长的著作?他提供我们如此敏锐,迷人。容忍的表达,有关他对于世界与经验的观念。他同样主张地展示他的幻觉的经验的无法被承认的模式。现在,有谁不知道我不妨说,这是精神疾病的主要事实无论再多的平衡作用,自我的健康部分都无法让我们稍微获得胜利,胜过明显是疯狂的部分?

 

149

Psychiatry’s main fact, by means of which the beginner is initiated into the

very existence of madness as such, leads to the abandonment of all hope of a

cure by such an approach. Moreover, this is how things had always been

 

before the arrival of psychoanalysis, whatever more or less mysterious force

had been appealed to – affectivity, imagination, coenaesthesia – to explain

this resistance to reducing through reason a delusion that nevertheless presents

itself as fully articulated and in appearance accessible to the laws of

coherent discourse. Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, gives a curious

endorsement to the psychotic’s delusion because it legitimates it in the same

sphere as the one in which analytic experience normally operates and because

it rediscovers in his discourse what it usually discovers as the discourse of the

unconscious. But it still doesn’t contribute any success to the experience.

This discourse, which has emerged in the ego, shows itself – as articulated

as it may be, and it could even be said to be in large part inverted, bracketed

by Verneinung – to be irreducible, unmanageable, incurable.

 

精神分裂症的主要事实,凭借这个事实,开始者被引导进入疯狂本身的生命实存,导致放弃凭借这样的方法的所有的治疗的希望。而且,这是在精神分析的到来之前,事情总是这样的状况。无论人们诉诸于怎样的神秘的力量情感,想像,身体的知觉来解释这种抗拒,抗拒通过理性来还原妄想,妄想仍然呈现它自己,作为是充分被表达,而且外表上,让一贯性的辞说的法则得以接近。在另一方面,精神分析给予一个耐人寻味的背书,对于精神病的妄想,因为这个背书让妄想合理化,在这个相同的领域,跟精神分析正常运转的这个领域。因为它在他的辞说里,重新发现它通常发现是无意识的辞说。但是它依旧没有促成精神分析经验的成功。在自我身上出现的这个辞说显示它自己,无法被还原,无法被处理,无法被治疗,尽管它怎样地被表达。它甚至于能够被说是,大部分被倒转,被否认Verneinung」括弧。

 

In short, it could be said that the psychotic is a martyr of the unconscious,

giving this term martyr its meaning, which is to be a witness. It’s an open

testimony. The neurotic is also a witness to the existence of the unconscious,

he gives a closed testimony that has to be deciphered. The psychotic, in the

sense in which he is in a first approximation an open witness, seems arrested,

immobilized, in a position that leaves him incapable of authentically restoring

the sense of what he witnesses and sharing it in the discourse of others.

 

总之,它能够被说是,精神病是无意识的烈士,用烈士这个术语来给予它意义,作为见证人的意义。这是一个开放性的证词。神经症者也是一个见证者,对于无意识的存在。他给出一个必须被诠释的封闭的证词。精神病者的意义是,最初接近时,他是一位开放性的见证者,似乎被挡住,无法动弹,所处的立场让他无法真诚地恢复他所见证的东西的意义,并且无法在别人的辞说里分享这个意义。

 

I shall try to get you to sense the difference there is between open and

closed discourse on the basis of a homology, and you will see that in the

normal world of discourse there is a certain dissymmetry that already adumbrates

the dissymmetry at issue in the opposition between neurosis and psychosis.

We live in a society in which slavery isn’t recognized. It’s nevertheless clear

to any sociologist or philosopher that it has in no way been abolished. This

has even become the object of some fairly well-known claims. It’s also clear

that while bondage hasn’t been abolished, one might say it has been generalized.

The relationship of those known as the exploiters, in relation to the

economy as a whole, is no less a relationship of bondage than that of the

average man. Thus the master-slave duality is generalized within each participant

in our society.

 

我将尝试根据同质性,让你们理解这个差异,存在于开放性与封闭性的辞说之间的差异。你们将会看出,在辞说的正常的世界,有某种的不均称,已经描绘出受到争议的这种不均称,在神经症者与精神病者之间的对立。我们生活于一个奴隶并没有被体认的社会。可是,对于任何的社会学家,或哲学家,他们仍然心知肚明,奴隶根本就没有被废除。奴隶甚至已经变成是某些非常著名的宣称的对象。也是显而易见的是,虽然奴隶的枷锁没有被废除,我们不妨说,它仅是被普遍化。那些恶名昭彰的剥削者,跟整体经济的关系,这种关系跟一般人一样,同样是奴隶枷锁的关系。因此,主人与奴隶的双重性,在我们的社会里,被普遍化到每个参与者身上。

 

150

The deep-seated bondage of consciousness in this unhappy state of affairs

is to be attributed to the discourse that provoked this profound social transformation.

We can call this discourse the message of brotherhood. It concerns

something new which didn’t just appear in th world with Christianity,

since Stoicism, for instance, had already laid the ground for it. In short,

behind this generalized bondage there is a secret discourse, a message of

liberation, which in a way subsists in a state of repression.

 

在这种不快乐的事务的状态,意识的这个根深蒂固的奴隶枷锁,应该被归属于这个辞说,触发这个深深的社会的转变的辞说。我们称这种辞说为博爱的讯息。它关心到某件并没有出现在基督教的世界的新的东西。譬如,从斯多葛禁欲学派已经替奴隶枷锁奠下这个这个基础。总之,在这个普遍化的奴隶枷锁的背后,有一个秘密的辞说,解放自由的讯息,以某种的方式,存在于潜抑当中。

 

Does the same thing hold for what we can call the patent discourse of

freedom? No, it doesn’t. Some time ago an imbalance was observed between

the pure and simple fact of revolt and the capacity of social action to transform.

I would even say that the entire modern revolution was founded on

this distinction and on the notion that the discourse of freedom was, by definition,

not only ineffectual but also profoundly alienated from its aim and

object, that everything probative that is linked to it is properly speaking the

enemy of all progress towards freedom, to the extent that freedom can have

a tendency to animate any continual movement in society. Nonetheless, this

discourse of freedom is articulated deep within us all as representing a certain

right of the individual to autonomy.

 

对于我们所谓的拥有专利的自由的辞说,情况难道不也适用?不,它并没有同样适用。不久之前,有一种不平衡被观察到,在反叛的这个纯粹而单纯的事实,与社会的转变的行动的能力之间的不平衡。我甚至要说,整个的现代的革命,就是以这个不平衡的区别作为基础,以自由的辞说作为基础。自由的这个辞说,在定义上,不但不切实际,而且也跟它的目标与目的深刻地异化。每样跟自由有关的具有证据力的东西,适当来说,都是朝向自由的各种进展的敌人。甚至于,自由会有一种倾向:增强社会的任何连续性的运动。可是,自由的这个辞说,在我们大家都内心深处被表达,代表个人拥有某种自主的权利。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

 

拉康:精神病 第十章

December 16, 2013

X 第十章

论实在界的能指与吹号的奇迹
On the signifier in the real and
the bellowing-miracle

PSYCHIATRY’S MAIN FACT
精神科医生的主要事实
THE DISCOURSE OF FREEDOM
自由的辞说
THE PEACE OF THE EVENING
夜晚的宁静
SUBJECTIVE TOPOLOGY
主体的拓扑学

Some thought I went a bit swiftly last time in mentioning President Schreber’s
reflections on divine omnipotence and omniscience and appearing to
endorse their appropriateness.

有些人们认为,我上次进行得有点太快,当我提到许瑞伯庭长对于神性的无所不能与无所不知的反思,而且我似乎替它们的正当性背书。

I was simply observing that this man, for whom the entire experience of
God is discourse, was wondering about what there is to be found at the junction
of the symbol and the real, that is, about what introduces the symbolic
opposition into the real. Perhaps I ought to have gone on to add how remarkable
it is that this was precisely what caught the patient’s attention – that
within the register of his experience it seemed to him difficult to see how God
could foresee what numbers would be drawn in a lottery.

我仅是观察到,这个人,上帝的整个的经验对他而言,是个辞说。他想要知道会有什么能够被发现,在象征界与实在界的交会。也就是说,关于是什么介绍象征的对立进入实在界。或许,我本来应该继续补充说,这是多么的杰出,这确实吸引病人注意的东西。在他的经验的铭记里面,他似乎很困难看出,上帝如何预先看见在摸彩卷将会被抽出的数字。

This remark doesn’t of course exclude the criticisms that such an objection
might lead to for anyone who should find himself inclined to respond. Someone
pointed out to me for example that numbers are distinguishable by their
spatial coordinates and that, when the problem of the principle of individuation
is raised, distinguishing between individuals is based on nothing different.
As far as I was concerned, I took notice of the subject’s sensitivity, in his
reasoning part, to the difference there is between language as symbolic and
his own permanent internal dialogue – or more exactly this oscillation in
which a discourse that the subject experiences as foreign and as revealing a
presence to him itself asks the questions and itself gives the answers.

当然,这些谈论并没有排除这样的反对可能导致的这些批评,对于任何发现自己倾向于回应的人。譬如,某个人跟我指出,各种数字能够被区别出来,根据它们在空间的座标。当个体化的原则的难题被提出时,区别每个个人,并没有根据什么差异的东西。就我而言,我注意到主体的敏感,在他推理的部分。他对于语言作为象征,以及他自己的永恒的内部的1对话之间,存在的差异,颇为敏感。或更确实地说,他对于这种摇摆颇为敏感。主体摇摆地经验到的辞说,作为是外来物,以及作为对他启示一种生命实存,这个摇摆本身询问这些问题,并且给予这些回答。

It was a belief in God for which he was totally unprepared that engendered
in him the experience he conveys. It was for him a question of discerning
what order of reality could account for this presence extending over a part of
the universe – not all of it, since the divine power has no knowledge of man.
Nothing of his interior, of his feeling for life, of his life itself, is comprehensible
to God, who only gathers it up once everything has been transformed
into infinite note-taking.!

他心里完全没有准备的是对上帝的信仰。这种信仰在他身上产生他传达的经验。对于他,这个问题是要觉察出,现实界的什么秩序,能够解释这种延伸到宇宙的部分的存在。根本就没有。因为神性的力量并没有关于人类的知识。他的内部,他对生命的感觉,他对生命的本身,没有一样东西能够让上帝理解。上帝仅是将它聚集一块,一旦每样东西已经被转变成为永恒的笔记。

1 l.e.ylhewriting-dozun-system.
130
On the signifier in the real and the bellowing-miracle 131

Now, a deeply reasoning character like Schreber, confronted by an experience
which for him has all the characteristics of a reality and in which he
can discern the full weight of the undeniable presence of a god of language,
pauses, to evoke the limits of his power, before an example that concerns a
human, artificial handling of language. It concerns a future contingent, in
relation to which there is a real issue of human freedom and, by the same
token, of what God can’t foresee.

现在,像许瑞伯这样喜欢深刻推理的人物,当他面临一种对他而言具有现实界的所有特性的经验,在这个经验里,他能够觉察语言的神性的无可否认的存在的重量。他停顿下来,为了召唤他的力量的极限,在关系到人类,人为地处理语言的例子之前。这个例子关系到未来的偶然性。相对于这个未来的偶然性,存在着一个人类自由的真正议题,同时也存在着上帝无法预先看见什么的议题。

What is of interest to us is that Schreber distinguishes between two spheres
of language use, which are extremely different for him. This distinction can
only have value for us within the perspective that admits the radically primary
nature of the symbolic opposition between plus and minus, insofar as
these are distinguished by nothing other than their opposition, though they
must have material support. They nevertheless evade all real coordinates apart
from the law of their equiprobability.

我们感到興趣的是,许瑞伯区别语言用途的两个领域,它们对他而言是极端不同。这个区别对于我们具有价值,仅有这个观点之内。这个观点容许加与减之间象征的对立,具有强烈原初的特性。因为这些对立能够被区别出来,凭借的实实在在就是它们的对立,虽然它们必须要有材料的支撑。它们仍然闪避所有实在界的座标,除了它们的机率相等的法则。

As soon as we introduce a game of symbolic alternation, we must effectively
assume that nothing differentiates the real efficiency of one element
from that of another. It isn’t the result of a law of experience but of an a
priori law that we have to have equal chances of selecting a plus or a minus.
The game will not be considered correct unless it meets the criterion that the
likelihood of outcomes be equal. In this sphere we can say that, at least at the
nosological level of apprehending the term, here the symbolic yields an a
priori law and introduces a type of operation that lies outside anything we
could arrive at by inference from facts in the real.

当我们介绍象征轮换的遊戏。我们必须有效地假设:没有一样东西能够区别一个元素的有效性跟另外一个元素的有效性。这并不是经验的法则的结果,而是因果推理的法则的结果。我们必须拥有相等的机率来选择加或减。这个遊戏将不会被认为是正确的,除非它符合这个标准,各种结果的可能性是相等的。在这个领域,我们能够说,至少在理论这个术语的疾病分类学的层次。在此,象征产生一种因果推理的法则,并且介绍一种外在于任何我们能够获得的任何东西的运作,从在实在界的各种事实的推论。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:精神病144

December 16, 2013

144

 

This character with whom Schreber is involved in a twofold relation, a

dialogue and an erotic relationship which are distinct and yet never disjoined,

is also characterized by the fact that he has absolutely no understanding of

anything that is specifically human. This feature is often quite touching in

Schreber’s hands. Of the questions that God asks him so as to incite him to

give the response implied by the questioning itself, which Schreber never

allows himself to give, he says – These really are stupid traps that I am offered.

 

许瑞伯以双重关系,一种对话,一种性爱关系,跟这个人物扯上关联。这些关系是清楚的,可是从来没有被分离。它的特征就是这个事实:他绝对不了解任何明确是人类的东西。这个特征在许瑞伯的手里,往往相当感人。关于上帝问他的问题,为了激发他给出回答,由询问的本身暗示的回答,许瑞伯从来没有让他自己给出的回答,他说:这些确实我被提供的愚蠢的陷阱。」

 

Schreber even elaborates all sorts of quite agreeably rationalized remarks about

the dimensions of certainty, and offers an explanation. How can one successfully

conceive of a God such that he understands absolutely nothing about

human needs? How can one be so stupid as to believe, for example, that if

I cease for an instant to think of anything, I will have become a complete

idiot, have even fallen into nothingness? Yet this is what God does, taking

advantage of this to withdraw. Whenever this occurs, I apply myself to

some intelligent occupation and manifest my presence. For God, despite his

thousand-fold experiences, to be capable of believing this, he really must be

ineducable.

 

许瑞伯甚至建构各色各样的相当讨人喜欢的理性的谈论,关于确定性的这个维度,并且提供解释。我们如何能够成功地构想一位对人类的需要完全不了解到上帝?譬如,我们如何能够如此愚蠢地相信,假如我稍微停下来思索一下,我将会发现自己愚不可及,甚至将会已经掉入空无当中?可是,这是上帝的所作所为,利用这点来隐退。每当这种情况发生,我从事于某种的聪明的工作,来证明我的存在。对于上帝,尽管他成千的经验,为了能够相信这点,他确实必须无法接受教育。

 

Schreber elaborates on this point in ways that are far from being stupid.

He hypothesizes and argues in ways that wouldn’t be out of place in a properly

theological discussion. God being perfect and imperfectible, the very

notion of progress through acquired experience is altogether unthinkable.

Schreber does find this argument a bit sophistical nevertheless, since this

irreducible perfection is completely cut off from things human. Contrary to

the god who probes loins and hearts, Schreber’s god knows things only on

their surface, he sees only what he sees.11 As to what is inside he doesn’t

understand a thing, but since everything is written down somewhere, on little

cards, by what is called the writing-down system, he will ultimately, at the

end of this totalization, nevertheless be totally informed.

 

许瑞伯建构这点,用一点也不愚蠢的方式。他假设,并且主张,用的方式在合宜的神学的讨论,将不会不会时宜。上帝是完美的,而且完美得无以复加。通过获得的经验而进步的这个观念,完全不可思议。可是,许瑞伯确实发现这个主张有点容易误导,因为这个无法教育的完美,跟人类的事情完全隔绝。跟探索性爱与心的神相反,许瑞伯的神仅是凭借表面知道事情,他仅看见他所看见的东西。关于里面的东西,他根本就不知道。但是因为每样事情在某个地方被书写下来,写在小小的卡片上,用所谓的记录系统,可是,他最后将会完全地被告知,在这个整体性的结束时。

 

128 The psychoses

 

Moreover, Schreber explains very weU how it stands to reason that God

cannot have access to things as contingent and childish as the existence of

steam engines and locomotives. But all this having been recorded in the form

of discourse by the souls ascending towards blessedness, God collects it together

and thereby still has some idea of what happens on Earth in terms of minor

inventions, from the game of diabolo to the atomic bomb. This is a very nice

system, and one gets the impression that it was discovered through an

extraordinarily innocent development, through the working out of significant

consequences, in a harmonious and continuous unfolding through its various

phases, whose motor is the subject’s disturbed relationship to something that

affects the total functioning of language, the symbolic order, and discourse.

 

而且,许瑞伯清楚地解释: 这是不明而喻的,上帝无法接近偶然而幼稚的事情,诸如蒸汽机与火车引擎的存在。但是所有这一切都被记录,以辞说的形式,由升华朝向幸福的各个灵魂来记录。上帝将它收集在一块,因此依旧有点观念,对于地球上发生的事情,各种的次要发明,诸如魔鬼辣椒,原子弹。这是非常好的系统,我们获得这个印象:它被发现,经过一段特别无知的发展,通过意义的各种结果,通过它的各色各样的词语的和谐与连续性的开展。这些词语的动力就是,主体受到困扰的关系,跟某件影响语言,象征秩序,与辞说的整体的功能的东西。

 

I can’t discuss all the richness there is here. There is for example a discussion,

which is extraordinarily brilliant, of God’s relationship to games of

chance.l2 Can God foresee what number will get drawn in a lottery? It’s not

a silly question, and it would be good if the people here who have a strong

belief in God asked themselves the same question. The order of omniscience

that is presupposed by being able to guess which little piece of paper gets

drawn from a huge ball presents considerable difficulties. From the point of

view of the real, the only difference between the pieces of paper in this balanced

mass is a symbolic difference. It therefore has to be supposed that God

enters the discourse. It’s an extension of the theory of the symbolic, the imaginary,

and the real.                      

 

在此的各种丰富内容,我无法一一讨论。譬如,有一个关于上帝跟机率遊戏的关系的讨论,特别的精彩。上帝能够预先看见从摸彩卷会抽出什么数字吗?那并不是愚蠢的问题。假如在此的人们对上帝有坚定的信仰,他问自己这个问题,这是不错的。这个预先被假定的无所不知的秩序,上帝能够猜测哪张小纸条会从大球箱里被抽出,这呈现相当地困难。从实在界的观点,在这个平衡的球箱里的小纸条之间的仅有的这个差异,是象征的差异。因此,我们必须假定:上帝进入这个辞说。那是象征界,想象界,与实在界的理论的延伸。

 

145

There is one thing that this implies, which is that God’s intentions are

unclear. There is nothing more fascinating than to see how the delusional

voice that has emerged from an indisputably original experience involves in

this subject a sort of burning of language that manifests itself in the respect

with which he upholds omniscience and good intentions as being essential to

the Divinity. But he can’t fail to see, particularly at the beginning of his

delusion when these painful phenomena come at him from all sorts of harmful

characters, that God has despite everything allowed it all to happen. This

God practices the absolutely inadmissible politics of half-measures, of halftormenting,

in respect of which Schreber lets slip the word perfidie.1* In the

end one has to suppose that there is a fundamental disturbance in the univer-

sal order. As the voices say – Remember that all that is worldizing implies a self

contradiction.” There is beauty here that I don’t need to highlight for you.

 

这暗示着一件事情,上帝的意图并不明朗。最令人著迷的事情,是看出妄想症者的声音从无可争议的原初的经验出现,在这位主体身上,牵涉到一种证明它自己的语言的激情。他用这个语言的激情来支持上帝的无所不知与良好意图,那对于神性是非常重要的。但是他一定会看出,特别是在这个妄想的开始,当这些令人痛苦的现象,从各色各样的有害的人物来攻击他,尽管这一切,上帝曾经让它发生。这位上帝表现的是,绝对无法被容许的半是考量,半是折磨的策略。对于这一点,许瑞伯不经意地讲出perfidie这个字。最后,我们必须假设,在普遍性的秩序,会有用有一个基本的混乱。当这些声音说:「请你们记住,世界的末日本身就是一个悖论。

在此有一种我需要跟你们强调的美丽。

 

We shall stop for today on this analysis of the structure of the divine person.

The next move will consist in analyzing the relation between the entire

fantasmagoria and the real itself. With the symbolic register, the imaginary

register, and the real register, we shall break new ground which will enable

us to uncover, I hope, the nature of what is at issue in the delusional interlocution.

 

/ February 1956.

 

今天我们将对这个神性的人的结构的分析,告一段落。下一个动作,我们将分析整个幻想与实在界本身的这个关系,使用象征界的铭记,想象界的铭记,与实在界的铭记,我们将突破新的场域。我希望,这个新的场域将会让我们能够揭发在妄想症的对话里,受到争议的特性。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

On nonsense and the structure of God 125

December 15, 2013

On nonsense and the structure of God 125

论无意义与上帝的结构

 

141

In his text one finds a quotation from the sixth edition of Kraepelin that

he has plucked out by his own devices, which causes him to laugh at what

Kraepelin marks as being a strange thing, that the delusionas experience

carries a great capacity to convince.

 

在他的文本,我们发现一个从第六版的Kraepelin,引用的引言,他用他自己的策略,截取过来。这个引用让他哈哈大笑,对于Kraepelin标示为是奇怪的东西。这位幻觉者的经验具有很强烈的说服力。

 

Beware, says Schreber, this is not right at all. Here it is obvious that I am not

the delusional the doctors say I am, because I am quite capable of reducing things

not only to what people say, but even to common sense. Thus I happen to hear the

noise of a train or chain-steamer, which makes a great deal of noise, and the things

I think register themselves in the regular intervals between these monotonous noises,

just as one modulates the thoughts that chum over inside one’s head upon these

noises that we are familiar with from being in a railway carriage. But I can

discriminate things very well, and the voices I hear are something different again

-you fail to give sufficient weight and meaning to this.9

 

许瑞伯说,请你们注意,这根本就不对劲。在此,显而易见地,我并不是妄想症者,医生说我是。因为我相当能够将各种事情还原成为人们所说的样子,而是还原成为普通常识。因此,我偶然听见火车或蒸汽引擎的声音,它发出许多的噪音。我认为这些事情铭记它们自己,在这些单调的噪音之间的规律的间隔,正如我们调节我们脑袋里混杂的各种思想,对于我们耳熟能详的噪音,因为我们身处火车厢内。但是我能够清楚地区别事情,而且,我听见的各种声音,是某件不同的东西你们没有给予这个充分的重量与意义?

 

This Schreberian analysis provides us with an opportunity to criticize from

within certain genetic theories about interpretation or hallucination. And there

are many other examples in the text.

 

这个许瑞伯的精神分析提供我们一个用来批评的机会,在某些关于解释或幻觉的起源理论。在文本里,有许多其他的例子。

 

What is this God, then, who has revealed himself to him? First, he is

presence. And his mode of presence is the speaking mode.

First, a remark. I don’t need to go very far to find testimony that will show the importance of the providential function for the idea subjects have of the

Divinity. I’m not saying that this is the best way of approaching the thing

from the theological point of view, but nevertheless, opening half by chance

a book that attempts to speak of the gods of Epicurus, I read these very nicely

written lines – Ever since people have believed in gods, they have been convinced

that they control human affairs, that these two aspects of faith are connected. Faith

. . .is born of the many-times repeated observation that the majority of our actions

do not achieve their aim, there necessarily remains a margin between our best conceived

plans and their accomplishment, and thus we remain in uncertainty, the

mother of hope and fear.10

 

那么,这个上帝是什么?他曾经显示他自己给他?首先,他是存在的。而且,他的存在的模式是言说的模式。首先,一个谈论,我不必费大力气,就会发现显示奇迹的功能的这个证词,对于主体拥有的关于神性的观念。我并不是说,从神学的观点,这是最好的方法来接近这件事情。可是,我偶然地翻阅一本谈论伊壁鸠鲁谈论终神的书。我阅读到写得非常清楚的这几行: 自从人们信仰众神以来,他们就一直相信,众神控制人类的事物,信仰的这两个层面息息相关。信仰诞生于多次被重复的观察,我们大多数的行动并没有完成它们的目标,必然始终存在着一个边缘,在我们即使是构想得最好的计划,与完成它们之间。因此,我们始终保留在不确定当中,希望与害怕的起源。

142

 

The text is by Father Festugifere, a very fine author and extremely knowledgeable

about Ancient Greece. Doubtless the slightly apologetic style of this

introduction dedicated to the persistence of belief in gods is a bit distorted

by its subject matter, that is, by the fact that Epicurianism was constructed

around the issue of the presence of the gods in human affairs, since one can’t

but be astonished by the partiality of reducing the divine hypothesis to a

providential function, that is, to the requirement that we be recompensed for

our good intentions – when they’re nice good things happen to them. But

anyway, it’s significant.

 

Festugifere神父的这个文本,他是一位优秀的作者,对于古希腊的知识颇为渊博。无可置疑地,专注于探究对众神的信仰的坚持的这个导言,具有稍微谦抑的风格,由于它的主体的材料而稍微受到扭曲。也就是说,受到这个事实的扭曲:伊壁鸠鲁学派的建构,环绕众神存在于人类事务的问题。因为我们不得不叹为观止,对于将神性的假设还原成为奇迹的功能的这个部分。换句话说,还原成为这个要求:我们应该被给予补偿,因为我们良好的意图当它们是发生在他们身上的美好的事情。但是无论如何,这是重要的。

 

9 See Mem, 309 & n.113; cf. Mem, 236-37.

10 Andrl Festugfere, Epicurus and his Gods, 51.

126 The psychoses

 

All the more so because there is no trace of it in Schreber, whose delusion

is in large part theological and whose partner is divine. To be sure, noting an

absence is less decisive than noting a presence, and the fact that something

isn’t there is always, in the analysis of phenomena, subject to caution. If we

had more details on President Schreber’s delusion, perhaps this would be

contradicted. On the other hand, taking note of an absence is extraordinarily

important for localizing a structure. I therefore point out to you that, whether

theologically valid or not, the notion of providence, of an agency that rewards,

so essential to the functioning of the unconscious, and which protrudes into

consciousness, leaves no trace in Schreber. And consequently, let’s say, to be

brief, that it isn’t certain that this divine erotomania is to be immediately

inscribed in the register of the superego.

 

这更加地重要,因为在许瑞伯身上,并没有它的痕迹。他的妄想大部分是神学的,他的伴侣是神。的确,欠缺的注意并不像存在的注意那样具有决定性。某件东西不在那里的这个事实,在各种现象的分析时,总是必须小心翼翼。假如我们对于许瑞伯庭长的妄想拥有更多的细节,

或许,我们将能反驳这点。在另一方面,对于欠缺的注意,特别地重要,为了要找出一种结构。我因此跟你们指出,无论神学上能够成立,神性的这个观念,给予酬报的代理者,对于无意识的发挥功能是如此的重要,它闯进意识里,在许瑞伯身上并没有留下痕迹。结果,我们不妨简短地说,这个神性的色情狂应该立刻被铭记在超我的铭记里,这并不确定。

 

So, here is this God, then. We already know it’s he who is always talking,

who is forever talking without saying anything. This is so much so that Schreber

dedicates many pages to considering what it might mean, that there is this

God who talks without saying anything and who nevertheless never stops

talking.

 

所以,这位上帝在此。我们已经知道,上帝总是在言说。上帝总是在言说,却有没有说出任何事情。情况是这样,以致许瑞伯将好几页专注于考虑那可能是什么用意,这位言说的上帝,却没有说出任何事情,这位永远没有停止言说的上帝。

 

143

 

This troublesome function can’t for one second be separated from the mode

of presence that is God’s. But Schreber’s relationships with him are far from

being limited to this, and I would now like to emphasize the fundamental

and ambiguous relation Schreber has with his God, and which is situated in

the same dimension as the one in which he is there, chattering away incessantly.

In a way, this relation is present from the beginning, even before God has

unveiled himself, at a time when the delusion is borne by characters like

Flechsig, and initially by Flechsig himself, his first therapist. The German

expression that, following Freud, I shall emphasize expresses for the subject

his essential mode of relationship with his fundamental interlocutor.

 

 

 

这个引起麻烦的功能,丝毫不能跟属于上帝的功能的存在模式区隔。但是许瑞伯跟上帝的关系,根本就不限制在这个之内。我现在想要强调,许瑞伯跟他的上帝的这个基本而暧昧的关系。它被定位在他在那里喋喋不休的这个上帝的相同的维度。在某方面,这个关系从一开始就存在,即使在上帝已经显露自己之前,当妄想症者由类似弗雷西格的各种人物所诞生的时候。最初,是有弗雷西格自己,他首次对治疗师所诞生。这个德语的表达,当我遵循弗洛依德时,我将强调,它替主体表达他的基本的关系的模式,跟他的基本的对谈者。

 

 It establishes a continuity between the initial and the final interlocutors of the delusion,

in which we can recognize that there is something in common between

Flechsig, the tested souls, the realms of God with their various meanings,

posterior and anterior, upper and lower, and, finally, the ultimate god to

whom everything appears to be reduced at the end, when Schreber has placed

himself in a position of megalomania. Whether it be at the beginning of the

delusion, when, as Freud emphasizes, his imminent rape, a threat to his

virility, is at issue, or whether it be at the end, when an effusion of voluptuousness

is established in which God is supposed to find even greater satisfaction

than our subject, it’s a matter of this, the greatest of atrocities, that he’s

going to be forsaken.

 

它建立一种连续性,在妄想症者的最初与最后的对谈者之间。在那里,我们能够体认出,有某件共同的东西,在弗雷西格,被考验的各个灵魂,上帝的各个领域,跟他们的各色各样的意义之间,后面与前面,上面与下面,最后,跟最终的神,每样东西最后似乎都被还原成为这位最终的神。当许瑞伯将他自己放置于妄想狂的立场。无论是在妄想的开始,如同弗洛依德强调的,他的逼近的强暴受到争论,对于他的生命精力是一种威胁。或无论在妄下的结束,当淫猥瀰漫被建立,在那里,上帝被认为找到甚至是更大的满足,比起我们的主体。就是这个事情,最大的残酷,他将必须被遗忘。

 

On nonsense and the structure of God 127

 

The translation of this liegen la$$en, laisser en plan, is not too bad, because

it has connotations of feminine sentiments. In Gorman it’s much less emphatic

and it’s also much broader, it’s to let lie. Throughout the entire Schreberian

delusion the threat of this being forsaken returns like a musical theme, like

the unbroken thread one finds running through a literary or historical theme.

Right at the outset this forms part of the sinister intentions of the persecuting

violators and has to be avoided at all cost.

 

这个liegen la$$en, laisser en plan的翻译还不错,因为它具有女性情感的内涵。在德文,它比较不那么被强调,而且意义更宽广,那就是听任让」let lie。在整个的许瑞伯的妄想里,这个被遗忘」的威胁,就像音乐的主题回来,就像没有断裂的线索,我们发现一直流传着文学与历史的主题。就在一开始,这个被遗忘」形成迫害的违背者的那些古怪的意图的部分,并且不计任何代价,都必须被避免。

 

One cannot escape the impression that the subject’s global relationship with the whole of the phenomena to which he is prey consists in this essentially ambivalent relation –

whatever the painful, weighty, troublesome, unbearable, character of these

phenomena, maintaining his relationship with them constitutes a necessity

the rupture of which would have been absolutely intolerable to him. When

this rupture is realized, that is, whenever he loses contact with God – whom

he has relations with on two levels, an auditory one and another, more mysterious

one, that of his presence, which is linked to what he calls the blessedness

of the partners,’ and his partner’s blessedness even more than his own –

whenever the relationship is interrupted, whenever the withdrawal of the

divine presence occurs, all sorts of variously intolerable internal phenomena of tearing apart, of pain, break out.

 

我们无法逃避这个印象:主体跟他成为猎物的整个的这些现象,具有全球性的关系。这个关系在于这个基本上是爱恨交加的关系,无论这些现象具有多么令人痛苦,沉重,引起麻烦,不可承受的特性。维持跟这些现象的关系,构成一种必要性。这种必要性的断裂,对他而言,本来会是绝对无法承受的。当这个断裂被实现时,也就是说,每当他丧失跟上帝的接触时他跟上帝的关系具有两个层次:一个是听觉的层次,另外一个是更加神秘的层次,他的存在的层次。他的存在跟他所谓的伴侣们的幸福息息相关,他的伴侣们的幸福,远胜于他自己的幸福。每当这个关系被中断,每当神性的隐退发生,各色各样的不可承受的现象,诸如撕裂,痛苦的现象就爆发出来。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

On nonsense and the structure of God 123

December 14, 2013

On nonsense and the structure of God 123
论无意义与上帝的结构

What is the connection in this discourse between the subject who speaks
in these voices and the subject who reports these things to us as meaningful?
This is extremely complex.

在以这些声音言说的主体,与报导这些事情,作为有意义的主体之间的这个辞说,它们的关联是什么?这是极端复杂的问题。

I began this demonstration last time by insisting on the significant nature
of the suspension of sense produced by the fact that the voices never complete
their sentences.

上次,我开始这个证明,凭借坚持由声音从来没有完成这个句子的这个事实,所产生的意义的悬着的这个重要的特性。

There is here a specific procedure by which meaning is evoked, which
undoubtedly reserves for us the possibility of conceiving this meaning as a
structure, the one I stressed with respect to that patient who, when she heard
someone say, Sow! to her, whispered between her teeth, I’ve just been to the
butcher’s – namely the allusive voice, the subject’s indirect aim. We have
already managed to get a bit of an idea here of a structure that is very close
to the schema we give for the relationships between the subject who speaks
concretely, who sustains the discourse, and the unconscious subject who is
literally present, in this hallucinatory discourse. He’s present, alluded to –
one can’t say in a beyond, since the Other is lacking in delusion – but on this
side, in a sort of internal beyond.

在此有一个明确的程序,凭借这个程序,意义被召唤。无可置疑地,这个程序给我们保留构想这个意义作为结构的可能性。我强调的这个结构,关于这位病人,当她听见某个人对她说,「猪!」,她嘴唇间低声地说:「我刚刚去过屠夫的店」,也就是说,这个暗示的声音,主体的间接的目标。在此,我们已经成功地获得一点有关结构的概念,这个结构非常靠近我们给予的这个基模,为了探究具体言说的主体,维持这个辞说的主体,与在这个幻觉的辞说中,实质上出现在场地无意识主体,它们之间的关系的基模。他出现在现场,我们不能说,被提到处于一种超越的状态。因为大他者在幻觉中是欠缺的。但是在这边,以一种内部的超越。

It would not be impossible to pursue this demonstration further. But this
would be to introduce schemas too quickly, perhaps, which, if we want to
proceed rigorously, might appear preconceived in relation to the data. In the
content of a delusion there are sufficient data that are of easier access so that
we can proceed differently and take our time.

假如我们想要更深入追寻这种证明,这并非是不可能。但是这将会是过于快速地介绍各种基模。或许,假如我们想要严谨地前进,这些基模可能看起来是预先被构型,关于这些资料。在幻觉的内容,有充分的资料很容易被获得,所以我们以不同方式前进,慢慢来。

As a matter of fact, taking one’s time is a part of that attitude of good faith
which I maintain is necessary if we are to make any progress on the structure
of delusion. Bracketing it at the outset as psychiatric is the source of the state
of incomprehension in which people have always remained until now. It’s
assumed at the outset to be an abnormal phenomenon that is involved and,
as such, one is condemned not to understand it. One defends oneself against
it, one defends oneself thus against its seduction, so tangible in President
Schreber, who naively asks the psychiatrist, Aren’t you sometimes afraid of
going mad? But the fact is that this is absolutely true. One of the better masters
I have known had a good sense of where listening to these characters who
rave on at you all day with such odd things might lead him.

事实上,慢慢来是良好信心的那个态度的部分。我认为这种态度是必要的,假如我们想要从事任何的进展,关于幻觉的结构。从一开始,就将它括弧起来,作为是精神分裂,就是我们无法理解的状态的来源。人们始终保持在这种不理解的状态,直到现在。从一开始,就假定它是一种被牵涉到的不正常的现象,而且作为这样一种现象,我们注定是无法理解它。我们自我防卫,对抗它。我们因此自我防卫,对抗它的诱拐,在许瑞伯庭长,这种诱拐是如此的具体。他天真地问精神科医生:「你有时难道不是很害怕会发疯?」但是事实上,这绝对是真实的。我曾经认识过一位更杰出的大师,他理智清楚知道,倾听这些人物整天因为琐碎事情,对着你咆哮,很可能会导致发疯。

140

Don’t we analysts know that the normal subject is essentially someone who
is placed in the position of not taking the greater part of his internal discourse
seriously? Observe the number of things in normal subjects, including yourselves,
that it’s truly your fundamental occupation not to take seriously. The
principal difference between you and the insane is perhaps nothing other
than this. And this is why for many, even without their acknowledging it,
the insane embody what we would be led to if we began to take things seriously.
So let us> without too great a fear, take our subject seriously, our President
Schreber, and since we are unable at the outset to penetrate into either the
aim, articulations, or ends of this singular Unsinn, let’s try to use certain
questions to explore as much of it as we can, where we aren’t rudderless.

我们精神分析难道不知道,正常的主体基本上是被放置在这个立场:不讲他的内部的辞说严肃地看待?请你们观察正常主体的各式各有的事情,包括你们自己,不要严肃地看待,确实是你们的基本工作。在你们与疯子之间的差异,或许实实在在就是这个。这就是为什么,对于许多人们,即使他们并不承认它,疯子具体表现我们将会被导致的状态,假如我们开始严肃地看待事情。所以,让我们不用太过于害怕,严肃地看待我们的主体,我们的许瑞伯庭长。因为我们不能够从一开始,就彻底看透这个目标,表达,或这个独特的「无意义」的各种目的。让我们尝试使用某个问题,来尽可能探究它,在那里,我们没有舵可操控。

3
First, is there an interlocutor?
Yes, there is, and he’s fundamentally unique. This Einheit [oneness] is
very amusing when you think about, if we think of this text on “Logos” by
Heidegger I have translated, which is going to be published in the first issue
of our new journal, La Psychanalyse, and which identifies the logos with Heraclitus’s
En [One].6 And in fact we shall see that Schreber’s delusion is in its
own way a mode of relationship between the subject and language as a whole.

首先,有一位对谈者吗?
有的,有一位,他基本上是独特的。这个「一」非常有趣,当你们想到,假如我们想到这个文本,海德格论「洛可思Logos」的文本,我曾经翻译过。它将会出版在我们新的杂志「精神分析」的第一期。这篇文本将洛可思logos 认同为赫拉克利图斯的「一」。事实上,我们将会看出,许瑞伯的幻觉,就它的自己的方式而言,是主体与作为整体的语言之间的关系。

What Schreber expresses shows us both the unity he feels there is in him
who maintains this continuous discourse before which he feels himself to be
alienated, and a plurality in the modes and in the secondary agents that he
attributes to the various parts. But the unity is very fundamental, dominating,
and he calls it God. We are at home here. If he says it’s God, the man
has his reasons. Why deny him the use of a term whose universal importance
we are aware of? For some this has even been one of the proofs of his existence.
We well know how difficult it is to grasp what the precise content of
this is for the majority of our contemporaries, so why should we more especially
withhold belief from a delusional when he speaks of God?

许瑞伯所表达的东西,跟我们显示,他感觉在他身上存在的一致性,与模式与次要代理者的多重性。前者主张这种连续性的辞说,在这个辞说之前,他感觉自己是被异化。后者,他归属于这各式各样的部分。但是一致性是非常基本的,具支配力,他称它为上帝。我们在此非常自在。假如他说它是上帝,这个人拥有他的理性。为什么不准许他使用一个我们大家都知道的术语呢?对于某些人们,这曾经就是上帝存在的其中一个证据。我们清楚知道,我们多么困难来理解这个上帝的确实内涵是什么,对于我们当代的大多数人们。所以,为什么我们竟然要特别地不让妄想症者保有信仰,当他谈论到上帝?

What’s striking is that Schreber is a disciple of the Aufklarung, he’s even
one of its last representatives, he spent his childhood in a family where religion
was not an issue. He lists his reading – all this is valid proof for him of
the seriousness of what he experiences.7 After all, he doesn’t enter into a
discussion of whether he has made a mistake or not. He says, This is how it
is. It‘s a fact of which I have the most direct proofs, this can only be God, if the
word is to have any meaning. I had never taken this word seriously before, and at
the moment at which I experienced these things, I experienced God. The experience
is not the guarantee of God, ifs God who is the guarantee of my experience. I am
speaking to you of God. I must have got it from somewhere, and as I didn’t get if
from the baggage of my childhood prejudices, my experience is true.9 He’s very
clever here. Not only is he on the whole a good witness, but he commits no
theological mistakes. Moreover, he’s well informed, I would even say he’s a
good classical psychiatrist.

引人注意的是,许瑞伯是启蒙运动Aufklarung的学生,他甚至是它的最后的代表人物之一。他度过他的童年,在宗教并未受到争议的家庭里。他列出他的读物。所有这些读物,对他而言,确实证明他严肃地看待他所经验过的事情。毕竟,他并没有从事讨论,他是否曾犯过错误。他说:「这就是它的实际样子。这是我拥有最直接证据的一个事实;这仅能就是上帝,假如真理这个字要具有意义的话。我以前从来没有严肃地看待真理这个字,而在为经验这些事情的这个时刻,我经验到上帝。这个经验并不是上帝的保证,上帝才是我的经验的保证。我正在跟你们谈论到上帝。我一定曾从某个地方获得它。因为我并不是从我童年的偏见的包裹里获得它,我的经验是真实的。」他在此非常精明。他不但大体上是很好的见证者,而且他没有犯下神学到错误。而且,他清楚地知道,我甚至要说,他是一位很好的古典精神科医生

6 “Logos (Heraclitus Fragment B 50).” 7 Mem, 63-64 &n.36. 8 See Mem, 78-80.
雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:精神病 137

December 14, 2013

精神病 137

We must not, under the pretext that the subject is deluded, proceed from

the idea that his system is in conflict. There is no doubt that it is without

application, that’s one of the distinctive signs of delusion. In what is communicated

within society it’s absurd, as they say, and even extremely disturbing.

 

在主体处于幻觉的藉口之下,我们一定不要从他的系统是冲突的这个观念前进。无可置疑,它的系统没有被运用,那是幻觉的显著的迹象之一。在社会之内被沟通的东西,那是荒谬的,而且是极端令人困扰的,如同人们所说。

 

A psychiatrist’s first reaction to a subject who starts raving at him is

to find it unpleasant. He’s disturbed at hearing a gentleman make statements

that are both peremptory and contrary to what one is accustomed to regarding

as the normal order of causality, and his first concern in the interview is

to get the little pegs back into the little holes, as Peguy would say in his late

works when speaking of the experience he had taken upon himself, about

these people who, when the great catastrophe declares itself, want to retain

the same relationship with things as beforehand. Proceed in an orderly manner,

Sir! they say to the patient, and the chapters are already done.

 

对于主体对他咆哮,精神科医生的第一个反应,是感觉很不愉快。他深感困扰,当他听到一位绅士发表既跋扈,又违背我们的惯常认为是因果关系的正常秩序,他对这个对谈到首要关心,是要让小小的圆塞,放进小小的洞里。如同培盖在他的晚期著作常说的,当他谈论到他曾经承担的经验,关于这些人们,当大难临头时,还想要保持跟物象的相同的关系,像以前一样。先生,请有条有理地继续讲!」他们对病人说,这些章节已经结束。

 

Like all discourse a delusion is to be judged first of all as a field of meaning

that has organized a certain signifier, so that the first rules of a good interview,

and of a good investigation of the psychoses, might be to let him speak

for as long as possible. One forms an opinion afterwards. I’m not suggesting

that in an observation it should always be like this, and clinicians have on the

whole approached things fairly well. But the notion of an elementary phenomenon,

the distinctions between hallucinations, between disorders of

attention, perception, and the various levels within the order of faculties,

have certainly contributed to obscuring our relationship to the delusional.

As for Schreber, he was free to speak for the good reason that no one ever

said anything to him, and he had all the time in the world to write his big

book for us. ,

 

像所有的辞说,幻觉应该被判断,首先是当著曾经组织某个能指的意义的领域,这样好的对谈到前几个规则,对于精神病的完美研究的前几个规则,可能就是要让他尽可能谈论得久一点。我们后来形成一个意见。我并不是正在建议,在观察中,它应该总是像这样。临床医生大体上都进展得颇为顺利。但是一个初级现象的观念,幻觉之间的区别,注意力,感知,与不同层次的认知能力的混乱的之间区别,确是已经促成我们跟幻觉者的关系的模糊。至于许瑞伯,他自由地谈论,理由很充分,没有曾经跟他说任何事情,在世界里,他始终必须为我们写下他的伟大的书。

 

2

We saw last time that Schreber introduces distinctions into his concert of

voices in that they are the work of these various entities he calls the realms

of God.

 

我们上次看见,许瑞伯介绍这些区别,进入他的各种声音的音乐会,因为它们是这些各色各样的实体的运作,他称为是上帝的领域。

 

This plurality of agents of discourse alone raises a serious problem, since

the subject nevertheless doesn’t think of it as being autonomous. There are

some quite beautiful bits in this text that describe these voices and give us a

sense of their relationship with the divine essence. We shouldn’t allow our-selves to slide from there into saying that they emanate from it, because then

we would be making the construction. We must follow the subject’s own

language, and he doesn’t mention emanation.

 

光是辞说的各种代理者的多重性,就引起一个严重的问题,因为主体仍然是并不认为它,作为是自主性。在这个文本里,有一些相当美丽的片段,描述这些声音,而且给予我们一直它们跟神性的本质相关的意义。我们不应该让我们自己从那里,就顺溜地说,那些声音从它那里散发出。因为这样我们将是在从事建设。我们必须遵照主体自己的语言,而他并没有提到散发出来。

138

 

In the copy I had in my possession there were traces in the margin of

annotations by a person who must have considered himself very erudite, because

he had written down a number of explanations opposite Schreber’s term emanation.

This person had no doubt heard of Plotinus, but this is one of those

cases of hasty understanding one has to guard against. I don’t think anything

like a Plotinian emanation is involved here.2

 

在我拥有的这个抄本,有一个人一定认为他自己很博学地注释,在注释的边缘,有些痕迹。因为他写下许多的解释,在许瑞伯的散发」的这个术语的对面。这个人无可置疑地听过普洛提拿,但是这是匆促理解的其中一个情况,我们必须小心提防。我并不认为像普洛提拿的散发,在此会有什么牵扯。

 

In the passage I read out,3 the noise the discourse makes – the subject

insists upon this – is spoken so softly that he calls it whispering. But this

discourse is always present, uninterrupted. The subject can, as he says, drown

it out with his actions and his own words, but it’s always ready to recommence

at the same noise level.

 

在我朗读的这段,辞说发出的声音主体坚持这点,如此轻柔地被说出,他称它为喃喃细语。但是这个辞说总是出现,没有被中断。如他所说的,这个主体能够淹没它,用他的行动与他自己的文字。

 

2 In Plotinus’s theory as expounded in The Etmeads Intelligence “emanates”

from the One, and Soul “emanates19 from Intelligence. 3 Mem, 308-12.

 

注释2 在普洛提拿的理论,依照The Etmeads 的解释,智慧从这个一」发出,而灵魂则是从智慧发出。

 

122 The psychoses

 

As a working hypothesis, as they say these days, we can accept that it’s not

impossible that this discourse is verbalized by the subject. This is accepting

a lot, perhaps too much, but let’s leave that to one side for the moment. In

any case, this discourse is related to what we suppose is the continuous discourse

which memorizes each subject’s conduct for him at every moment and

is a sort of understudy to his life. Not only are we obliged to accept this

hypothesis because of what we have just been taking to be the structure and

fabric of the unconscious, but it’s what immediate experience allows us to

grasp.

 

作为一个运作的假设,依照这些日子人们所说,我们能够接受,这并非不可能,这个辞说由主体给予文辞表达。这是过分接受,太过分,但是让我们暂时将它放置一旁。无论如何,这个辞说跟我们认为是连续性的辞说息息相关。这个连续性辞说记忆在每个时刻每个主体对他的行为,那是对他的生命的替身演员。我们不但不得不接受这个假设,因为我们刚刚认为是无意识的结构与组织的东西,而且那时当下的经验让我们能够理解的东西。

 

Someone recounted to me, not very long ago, that they had had the following

experience. The threat of being about to be run over by a car had suddenly

surprised this person who, as everything indicates, possessed the

necessary movements for getting out of the way. The phrase brain damage

leapt into his head, uttered mentally, as it were. No one can say that this

verbalization is an operation that forms part of the chain of reflexes for avoiding

a shock that might lead to the said brain damage. On the contrary it’s

slightly removed from the situation, quite apart from the fact that it presupposes

all sorts of determinants in the subject that make brain damage something

particularly significant for him. Here you can see this latent discourse

appear which is always ready to emerge and which intervenes at a level of its

own, to a different score from the music of the subject’s total conduct.

 

不久以前,某个人跟我描述,他们曾经经历以下的经验。即将被汽车辗过的这个威胁,让这个人突然受到惊吓,依照每样东西指示的,他採取必要的动作来避开危险。脑部损害」的这个词语突然跃入他的脑部,进行所谓的精神的表达。没有人能够说,这种文辞表达是因为避免惊吓而形成的反射动作的锁链的部分。因为惊吓可能导致所谓的脑部的损害。相反地,它跟这个情况稍微有所区隔,完全不同于这个事实:它预先假定在主体身上的各种决定因素,让脑部损害成为某件对他说特别重要的事情。在此,你们能够看出这个潜在的辞说出现。这个潜在的辞说总是准备出现,并且在属于它自己的层次,介入到跟主体的行为的音乐完全不同的乐谱。

 

This discourse which is presented to the subject Schreber at the period of

the illness he’s describing has a dominant characteristic of Unsinn. But this

Unsinn is not entirely simple. The subject who is writing and confiding in us

depicts himself as undergoing this discourse, but the subject who speaks –

and the two are not unrelated, otherwise we wouldn’t be characterizing him

as mad – says some things very clearly, such as what I’ve already quoted to

you, Alter Unsinn hebt sich auf! All nonsense is annulled, rises, is transposed!4

This is what President Schreber tells us he has heard in the register of the

allocution made to him by his permanent interlocutor.

 

在他描述的发病的时期,呈现给主体许瑞伯的这个辞说,具有无意义Unsinn的支配性的特性。但是这个无意义Unsinn 并不完全是单纯的。写作而且信任我们的这位主体,描述他自己作为经历这个辞说,但是言说的主体,却非常清楚地说出某些事情,譬如我已经跟你们引述的,所有的无意义被取消,升起,被调换这两者并没有互相关联,否则我们不会将他标示为疯狂的特征,这是许瑞伯庭中告诉我们的东西,他曾经听到,在他的永恒的对谈者对他所作的表达的铭记里。

 

139

This Aufheben is a very rich word indeed. It’s the sign of implication, of a

search, of a recourse proper to this Unsinn, which is far from being, as Kant

says in his analysis of negative magnitudes,5 a pure and simple absence, a

privation of sense. This Unsinn is very positive and organized, it consists of

interlocking contradictions, and, of course, the entire sense of our subject’s

delusion is located here, which makes his novel so enthralling. This Unsinn

is what is an obstacle, is composite, continues, and is articulated in the delu-

sion. Negation here is not a privation, and we shall see what it has value in

relation to.

 

这个Aufheben 确实是一个非常丰富的字词。它是暗示的迹象,寻找到迹象,诉诸于这个无意义的本体的迹象。这个无意义根本不是生命实存,如同康德在他分析负面的广度时所说的,负面广度是一个纯粹而单纯的缺席,意义被剥夺的状态。这个无意义是非常正面,而且被组织。它由互相交织的各种悖论组成。当然,我们的主体的幻觉的整个意义被定位在这里,这让他的小说如此地令人著迷。这个无意义是在幻觉里,一种阻碍,组成,继续,而且被表达的东西。在此的负面,并不是被剥夺。我们将看出,它拥有的价值跟什么相关。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

 

 

On nonsense and the structure of God

December 13, 2013

On nonsense and the structure of God
论无意义与上帝的结构
PRINCIPLES OF THE ANALYSIS OF DELUSION
幻觉的精神分析的原则
DELUSIONAL INTERLOCUTION
幻觉的对话
BEING FORSAKEN
被遗弃
DIALOGUE AND VOLUPTUOUSNESS
对话与淫猥
GOD’S POLITICS
上帝的政治学

Regarding an expression Schreber uses, namely that voices tell him that they
lack something, I remarked that such expressions don’t appear out of the
blue,1 that they are born over the course of a language’s history, and at a level
of creation sufficiently elevated for this to have taken place within a circle
interested in questions of language. These expressions appear to flow quite
naturally from the given arrangement of signifiers, but their appearance at a
given moment is historically verifiable.

关于许瑞伯使用的表达,也就是,各种声音告诉他,它们欠缺某件东西。我的评论是,诸如其类的表达并不突然出现,它们是经过语言的历史的过程才诞生。而且是在充分被升华的创造的层次,为了让这个表达发生,在对于语言感到興趣的圈子里。这些表达似乎相当自然地流动,从各种能指的某个特定的安排,但是它们的出现在某个特定的时刻,在历史上是可以验证的。

I was saying, then, that le mot me manque, the ward escapes me, an expression
that seems so natural to us, is recorded in Somaize as having issued from
the coteries of the pricieuses. It was considered so remarkable at the time that
he recorded its appearance, attributing it to Saint-Amant. I’ve collected nearly
a hundred of these expressions – C’est la plus naturelle des femmes, She’s the
most natural of women; // est brouilU avec Untel, He’s fallen out with So-and so;
// a le sens droit, He is a good judge; Tour de visage, The outline of the
face;

因此,我正在说,le mot me manque, the ward escapes me,对于我们似乎是如此自然的表达,它被记载着叟梅兹的字典,因为它从he pricieuses. 的圈子发出。当时它被认为是如此杰出,所有他记录它的出现,将它归功于圣阿曼特。我曾经收集几乎有一百多个这些表达词语。譬如,C’est la plus naturelle des femmes,她是最自然的女人。// est brouilU avec Untel,他跟某某先生争吵。// a le sens droit,他是一位好法官。Tour de visage, 脸孔的轮廓。

Tour d’esprit, Turn of mind, personal style; Je me connais un peuengens,
I’m quite a good judge of people; Jauer a coup stir, To play with no chance of
losing; // agit sansfagans, He acts without ceremony or in an offhand way; //
m’a fait milk amities, He was effusively friendly; Cela est assez de man gatit,
That is quite to my taste; // n’entre dans aucun ditail, He doesn’t go into
details; // s*est embarqui en une mauvaise affaire, He has embarked upon a bit
of bad business; // pausse les gens a bout, He drives people mad; Sacrifier ses
amis, To sacrifice one’s friends; Cela est fart, That is a bit much; Faire des
avances, To make approaches or advances to someone; Faire figure dans le
mande, To cut a figure in the world. These expressions, which seem quite
natural to us and have become standard, are recorded in Somaize and also in
Berry’s rhetoric of 1663 as having been created in the circle of the Pricieuses.

Tour d’esprit,心意的改变,个人的风格;Je me connais un peuengens,我有识人之明。
Jauer a coup stir,稳赢不输;agit sansfagans,他行为不拘礼数,率性而为;m’a fait milk amities,他对人热情友善;Cela est assez de man gatit,那完全合我的品味。n’entre dans aucun ditail,他没有谈论细节;s*est embarqui en une mauvaise affaire, 他从事不法生意。/ pausse les gens a bout,他让人们愤怒欲狂;Sacrifier ses amis, 牺牲朋友;Cela est fart, 那稍微过分;Faire des
avances,接近或讨好某人;Faire figure dans le mande, 在社会上出人头地。这些表达,我们觉得似乎很自然,已经变成标准用法,被记录在叟梅兹的字典,以及在1663年的贝瑞修饰学,因为它们都是在the Pricieuses.的社交圈被创造的。

This tells you to what extent one must avoid the illusion that language is
modeled on a simple and direct apprehension of the real. They all presuppose
a lengthy elaboration, the implications, the reductions, of the real, what we
might call metaphysical progress. That people act in a certain way with certain
signifiers involves all sorts of presuppositions. Le mot me manque, for
example, presupposes first of all that the word exists.

这告诉你们,我们必须在某个程度上避免这个幻觉:语言的模式是凭借简单而直接的理解实在界。它们都预先假设对于实在界的一种冗长的建构,各种暗示,简化,我们可以称之为形上学的进步。人们以某种方式行为,具有某些的能指牵涉到各色各样的预先假设。譬如,Le mot me manque, 首先预先假设这个字词的存在。

118 The psychoses

1
Today we shall take up our subject again according to the methodic principles
we have laid down. To press on a little bit further into President Schreber’s
delusion we shall proceed by taking up his document again. Besides,
we haven’t got anything else.

今天,我们将再次探讨我们的主体,依照我们已经奠下的方法论的原则。为了稍微更加深入探究许瑞伯庭长的幻觉,我们将凭借再次从事他的文件来进行。除外,我们别无凭借。

I pointed out that the document was composed by Schreber at a period
sufficiently late in his psychosis for him to be able to put his delusion into
words. In this respect I have some reservations, legitimate ones, since something
that we may suppose is more primitive, prior, originary, escapes us –
the lived experience, the famous ineffable and incommunicable lived experience
of psychosis in its primary or fertile period.

我指出,这个文件由许瑞伯写作,在他的精神病相当晚的时期,为了让他能够将他的幻觉用文字表达。在这方面,我有些保留,合理的保留,因为我们可能认为的东西,更加原初,更加先前,更加原创,我们无法理解。那就是,生活经历过的经验,精神病在它的原初或蓬勃的时期,著名的无法言喻及无法沟通的生活经历过的经验。

We are at liberty to be fascinated by this and to think that we have lost the
best part. To deplore the fact that one has lost the best part is in general a
way of neglecting what one has at hand, which is perhaps worth taking into
consideration.

我们倾向于对这个经验感到著迷,并且认为,我们已经丧失了最佳的部分。哀叹我们已经丧失最佳的部分的这个事实,一般来说,就是忽视我们手边的事情的方式。这或许值得考虑一下。

Why should a terminal state be any less instructive than an initial state?
It’s not certain that this terminal state represents a drop in value if we accept
the principle that in unconscious matters the relation of the subject to the
symbolic is fundamental.

为什么末期的状态竟然会比起早期的状态,较不具有启发性?这个末期状态代表价值的降低,这并不尽然,假如我们接受这个原则:在无意识的事情,主体跟象征界的关系是最基本的。

This principle requires that we abandon the idea, implicit in many systems,
that what the subject puts into words is an improper and always distorted
enunciation of a lived experience that would be some irreducible reality.
This is the hypothesis at the bottom of Blondel’s La Conscience morbide, a
good reference point I occasionally use with you. There is, according to Blondel,
something so original and irreducible in the lived experience of the delusional
subject that when he expresses himself he gives us something that can
only be misleading. All we can do is renounce any idea of ever penetrating
this impenetrable lived experience. The same psychological presupposition,
implicit in what might be called the thought of our times, is indicated in the
customary, and incorrect, use of the word intelleciualizaiion. There is, for an
entire species of modern intellectual, something irreducible that intelligence
is by definition bound to miss. Bergson did much to establish this dangerous
prejudice.

这个原则要求,我们应该放弃这个观念,在许多系统暗示的观念: 主体用文字表达的东西,是不适当,而且总是被扭曲的经历过的经验的表达。这种经验将是某种无法还原的现实界。这是布兰德尔的La Conscience morbide 作为基础的假设,我有时跟你们使用的很好的参考。依照步兰德尔,在幻觉的主体的经历过的经验,有某件如此原创性而且无法还原的东西。当他表达他自己时,他给予我们某件有时仅是误导的东西。我们所能够做到,就是放弃任何的想法:想要彻底理解这个无法理解的生活过得经验的想法。相同的心理学的预先假设,在所谓我们这个时代的思想里暗示出来,它习惯但是不正确地使用「知识化」这个字词来指示。对于现代的所有的知识份子,有某件无法还原的东西,那是智慧在定义上必然会错过的东西。柏格森贡献颇大,为了证实这个危险的偏见。

119
On nonsense and the structure of God

One of two things has to be true. Either a delusion is in no way part of our
own personal domain as analysts and has nothing to do with the unconscious,
or it’s dependent upon the unconscious such as we – we’ve been through this
together – have thought we could elaborate it over recent years.

两件事情,其中一件必须是真实。要就是幻觉根本就不是我们作为精神分析家的个人的领域,跟无意识根本就没有关系。要不就是,它依靠无意识,譬如,像我们最近几年来,曾经认为,我们能够建构它—我们曾经一起完成它。

The unconscious is fundamentally structured, woven, chained, meshed,
by language. And not only does the signifier play as big a role there as the
signified does, but it plays the fundamental role. In fact, what characterizes
language is the system of signifiers as such. The complex play between signifier
and signified raises questions that we are skirting since we aren’t doing
a course in linguistics here, but you have a good enough idea of it now to
know that the relationship between signifier and signified is far from being,
as they say in set theory, one-to-one.

无意识基本上被语言所结构,被编织,被锁链,被网住。不但是能指跟所指一样,都扮演同样重要的角色。而且它扮演基本的角色。事实上,表现语言的特征的东西,是各种能指作为本身的系统。在能指与所指之间的复杂的运作产生我们正在闪避的问题。因为我们在此并不是在从事语言学的课程,但是你们现在充分地理解它,能够知道,能指与所指之间的关系根本不是一对一的关系,如同人们在集合理论所说的。
119

The signified is not the things in their raw state, already there, given in an
order open to meaning. Meaning is human discourse insofar as it always refers
to another meaning. M. Saussure in his famous courses on linguistics produces
a diagram with one flux that is the meaning and another that is the
discourse, what we hear. This diagram illustrates that the cutting up of a
sentence into its different elements already involves a certain degree of arbitrariness.
These units called words undoubtedly exist, but when one looks at
them closely they are not so unitary. This is of no concern here.

所指并不是在它们原始状态的物象,已经存在那里,开放各种意义的秩序给给予。意义是人类的辞说,因为它总是提到另外一个意义。索绪尔在他的著名的语言学教程里,产生一个图表,我所所听见的东西,其中一个流动是意义,另外一个流动是辞说。这个图表说明,一个句子被切割成为它的差异的元素,已经牵涉到某个程度的任意性。被称为文字的这些单元,无可置疑是存在的,但是当我们仔细观看它们时,它们并不是如此的单一性。我们在此并不是对这个感到关心。

Well then, M. de Saussure thinks that what enables the signifier to be cut up is a certain
correlation between the signifier and the signified. Obviously, for it to be
possible to cut the two of them up together there must be a pause.
This diagram is questionable. It’s in fact clear that in the diachronic sense,
across time, shifts occurs, and that at any given moment the evolving system
of human meanings is being displaced and modifies the content of the signifiers,
which adopt different usages. I hope I have made you feel this with the
examples I gave you before. Underneath the same signifiers there have been
over the course of time these shifts which prove that no one-to-one correspondence
between the two systems can be established.

呵呵,索绪尔认为,让能指能够被切割的东西,是能指与所指之间的某种互相关联。显而易见地,为了让能指与所指一块被切割成为可能,必须要有一个停顿。这个图表是有问题的。实际上非常明显,从历时性的意义而言,跨越时间,各种转变会发生。而且在某个特定的时刻,人类的意义的演变的系统一直正在被替换,并且修正各种所能的内容,因为它们採用不同的用法。我希望,我已经使用先前给予你们的例子,让你们感觉到这个。在那些相同的能指底下,过去那些时间来,已经有这些转变证明,在这两个系统之间,并无法建立一对一的对应关系。

136

A system of signifiers, a language, has certain characteristics that specify
the syllables, the usage of words, die locutions into which they are grouped,
and this conditions what happens in the unconscious, down to its most original
fabric. If the unconscious is as Freud depicts it, a pun can in itself be the
linchpin that supports a symptom, a pun that doesn’t exist in a related language.
This is not to say that symptoms are always based on puns, but that
they are always based on the existence of signifiers as such, on a complex relationship of totality to totality, or more exactly of entire system to entire
system, of universe of signifiers to universe of signifiers.

各种能指点系统,也就是语言,它拥有某些的特征指明音节,字词的使用,它们被聚集的各种表述。这制约了在无意识发生的状况,一直到它最原初的组织。假如无意识如同弗洛依德所描述它的,一个双关语的本身有时就是支持一种征状的支柱。这一种双关语并不是存在于相关的语言里。这并不是要说,征状总是以双关语作为基础。而是说,它们总是以各种能指的本身的存在作为基础,以整体性对整体性的复杂的关系作为基础,或是更加明确地,以整个系统对整个系统,能指的宇宙对能指的宇宙的复杂关系作为基础

This is so clearly Freud’s doctrine that there is no other meaning to give
to his term overdetermination, or to his necessary requirement that for a symptom
to occur there must be at least a duality, at least two conflicts at work,
one current and one old. Without this fundamental duality of signifier and
signified no psychoanalytic determinism is conceivable. The material linked
to the old conflict is preserved in the unconscious as a potential signifier, as
a virtual signifier, and then captured in the signified of the current conflict
and used by it as language, that is, as a symptom.

这显而易见是弗洛依德的信条,他的术语「过分决定」,没有别的意义,就是我们给予的这个意义,或他的必要的要求: 为了让征状发生,至少必须要有一个双重性,至少要有两个冲突在运作,一个是目前的冲突,另一个是旧的冲突。假如没有能指与所指定这个基本的双重性,我们无法构想任何的精神分析的决定。被保存在无意识的跟旧的冲突相连的材料,是一个潜在的能指,作为一个虚拟的能指,然后,被捕捉在目前冲突的所指里,被它使用作为语言,换句话说,作为征状。

120 The psychoses

Henceforth, when we explore delusions with the idea that they can be
understood in the register of psychoanalysis, in the order of the Freudian
discovery, according to the mode of thought that regarding symptoms it makes
possible, you readily see that there is no reason to reject the explanation
Schreber gives of his world system as being the effect of a purely verbal
compromise, as a secondary elaboration of the terminal state, even if the
testimony he provides is, undoubtedly, not always beyond criticism.

因此,当我们探索幻觉,心里想着,在精神分析的铭记,幻觉能够被理解,在弗洛依德的发现的秩序,依照思想的模式,关于它使之可能的征状,你们很快会看出,我们没有理由拒绝许瑞伯给予的解释,对于他的世界的系统,作为是纯粹是文辞妥协的影响,作为是末期状况的次要的建构,即使他提供的证词,无可置疑地,未必是无懈可击。

We are well aware that as he progresses the paranoiac retroactively rethinks
his past and discovers, even in his very early years, the origin of the persecutions
of which he has been the object. He can have the greatest difficulty
in situating an event, and one clearly senses his tendency through a play of
mirrors to project it into a past that itself becomes rather indeterminate – a
past of eternal recurrence, as Schreber writes. But this isn’t what is essential.
A document as extensive as President Schreber’s retains all its value provided
we suppose a continuous and profound solidarity between the signifying elements
from the beginning to the end of the delusion. In short, the final organization
of the delusion enables us to grasp the primary elements that were
at work – in any case it is legitimate to look for them.

我们清楚知道,当他前进时,这位妄想症者反动地重新思维他的过去,并且发现,即使在他的相当早年时期,他一直就是这个早年时期的迫害的起源的对象。他有时遭遇极大的困难,来定位一个事件。我们清楚地看出他的倾向,通过各种镜像的运作,将它反映到它自身变得相当不确定的过去。永恒再现的过去,如同许瑞伯所写的。但是,基本的东西并不是这个。许瑞伯庭长的文件非常广泛,它包留所有它的价值,只要我们认为,从幻觉的开始到结束,在各种能指化的元素之间,具有连续与深奥的凝聚。总之,幻觉的最后的组织让我们能够理解当时运作的原初的元素—无论如何,我们很有理由寻找它们。

It’s in this respect that analysis of the delusion provides us with the subject’s
fundamental relationship to the register in which all the manifestations
of the unconscious are organized and unfold. Perhaps it will even explain to
us, if not the ultimate mechanism of psychosis, at least the subjective relationship
to the symbolic order it contains. Perhaps we shall be able to understand
how over the course of the evolution of the psychosis, from the time of
its origin to its final stage, assuming that there is a final stage in psychosis,
the subject is situated in relation to the whole symbolic, original order – an
environment distinct from the real environment and from the imaginary
dimension, with which man is always involved, and which is constitutive of
human reality.

在这方面,幻觉的精神分析提供我们有关主体跟这个铭记的基本关系。在这个铭记里,无意识的所有的证明被组织及开展。或许,它甚至可以跟我们解释,虽然并不是精神病的最后的机械结构,至少是主体跟它包含的象征秩序的关系。或许,我们将能够理解,主体被定位在跟整个的象征,原初的秩序的关系,在精神病的演化的过程,从它的起源,到它的最后的阶段,假定精神病有一个最后阶段的话。这种象征,原初的秩序的环境,不同于实在界的环境与想象界的维度。人类总是牵涉到这种环境,而且这种环境形成人类的现实界。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康:精神病125

December 12, 2013

4

This is what the subject tells us in a retrospective addition to his Memoirs.

He metaphorically refers the slowing down of sentences over the years to the

vast distance to which the rays of God have withdrawn. Not only is there a

slowing down but also a delay, a suspension, an adjournment. It’s highly

significant for us that the very phenomenology under which the seamless web

of the accompanying discourse presents itself changes and evolves over the

years, and that the very full sense at the beginning subsequently empties

itself of its sense. Moreover, the voices also make extremely curious commentaries,

like this for instance – All nonsense cancels itself out.15

 

这就是主体告诉我们的东西,当他回顾地补充他的回忆录时。他隐喻地将过去几年的句子的缓慢,跟上帝的光辉隐退到遥远距离,扯上关系。这些句子不但变得缓慢,而且耽误,悬置,中断。对于我们,这个意义重大,伴随句子而来的辞说呈现它自己,作为没有空隙的网络,所形成的影响,会随着岁月的过去而改变与进化。在开始时,具有完整的意义,随后会掏空它的意义。而且,那些声音也会形成极端奇怪的评注,譬如,像这个句子:一切的无意义取消它自己。」

 

The structure of what happens is worth noting. Let me give you an example.

He hears – Lacking now is. . . and then the sentence is interrupted, he hears

nothing more. We only have his word for it, but for him this sentence has

15the implicit meaning of – Lacking now is the leading thought.16 In an interrupted

sentence, as such always subtly articulated grammatically, meaning is

present in two ways – as anticipated on the one hand, since it’s a question of

its suspension, and as repeated on the other, since he invariably refers it to

an impression of having already heard it.

 

发生的情况的结构值得注意。让我们给予你们一个例子。他听到欠缺现在是、、、」,然后句子就被中断,他再没有听到什么。我们仅是相信他的话,但是对于他而言,这个句子拥有这个暗示的意涵:欠缺现在是主要的思想」。在一个被中断的句子,它的本身总是在文法方面,就微妙地被表的,意义以两种方式呈现:一方面,意义被预期,因为它的悬置的问题;另一方面,意义被重复,因为他一成不变地将意义认为是已经听见它的表达。

 

114 The psychoses

 

When one enters into the analysis of language, it’s important also to take

some interest in the history of language. Language isn’t as natural a thing as

all that, and the expressions that appear to us to be self-evident can be ranked

according to whether they are more or less grounded.

 

当我们进入语音的分析,同样重要的是,要对语言的历史感到一些興趣。语言并不是像那样的自然的东西。我们觉得是自明的各种表达,有时会根据它们是否有根据,而被分类。

 

The voices that preoccupy Schreber with their continuous discourse are

psychologists. A major part of what they recount concerns the conception of

souls, the psychology of the human being. They contribute catalogues of registers

of thought, the thoughts of all thoughts, of assertion, of reflection, of

fear, they point them out, articulate them as such, and say which are regular.

 

让许瑞伯专注著迷的那些声音,具有它们的连续性的辞说。这些声音是心理学家。大部分他们所叙述的内容,都跟灵魂的观念有关,那是人类的心理学。他们贡献思想铭记的分类,各种思想的思想,主张的思想,反思的思想,恐惧的思想,心理学家将它们指出来,依照它们本身,表达它们,并且说出哪些思想是正规的思想。

 

130

They also have their conception of patterns,17 they are at the forefront of

behaviorism. Just as on the other side of the Atlantic people are attempting

to explain the normal way to offer a bunch of flowers to a young girl, so too

they have precise ideas on the manner in which man and woman should make

advances to one another and, even, go to bed together. Schreber is nonplussed

by it – This is how it is, he says, though I have never seen it myself The

text itself is reduced to rote learning or refrains that sometimes strike us as

just a little embarrassing.

 

他们也拥有他们的句型的观念。他们是行为主义的先驱。正如在大西洋的另外一边,人们正在企图解释给予年轻女孩一束花的这个正常的方式,他们也拥有明确的各种观念,对于男人与女人应该如何献殷勤,甚至如何一起上床的方式。许瑞伯对此颇感困惑。他说,情况就是这样,虽然我自己从来没有看见它。」这个文本本身被简化成为记忆学习,或叠句,我们有时感到印象深刻,因为有点令人尴尬不已。

 

Concerning the interrupted sentence, Lacking now is . . ., I remember

something that had struck me when I was reading M. Somaize, who around

1660-1670 wrote a Dictionnaire des pricieuses.18 To be sure, the Pricieuses are

ridiculous, but the so-called movement of the Pricieuses is an element at least

as important for the history of the language, of thought, of mores, as our dear

surrealism which, as we know, doesn’t amount to nothing – surely if a movement

of people who handled symbols and signs in a strange way around 1920

had not occurred, we would not have the same style of poster.

 

关于被中断的句子,欠缺现在是、、、」,我记得某件让我印象深刻的东西,当我阅读叟梅兹。在大约1660年至1670年间,她写了一本字典描述」。的确,Pricieuses 这个字是荒谬的,但是Pricieuses 的这个所谓的行动至少是同样重要的一个因素,对于语言的历史,思想的历史,习俗的历史,跟我们亲爱的超现实主义是同样的重要。据我们所知,超现象主义并不等于空无的确,假如大约1920年,人们用奇怪的方式来处理象征及符号的行动,假如他们的行动当时并没有发生,我们本来不会拥有相同风格的海报。

 

The movement of the Pricieuses is much more important than one thinks from the point of

view of language. Obviously, there is everything that this genius of a character

called Moli&re recounted, but on this subject he has probably been

made to say a bit more than he wanted to.19 You have no idea how many

locutions that seem perfectly natural to us today date from then. Somaize

notes for example that it’s the poet Saint-Amant who was the first to say Le

mot me manque.20 If today no one calls an armchair les commoditSs de la conversation,

it’s by pure chance – there are things that succeed and others that

don’t. These expressions that have passed into the language thus have originated

in a form of conversation in salons where people were trying to introduce

a more refined language.

 

从语言的观点而言,Pricieuses 的行动比我们认为的还要重要。显而易见地,有位名叫莫里哀的人物的天才叙述的一切,但是对于这个主体,他可能被迫说出稍微超出他想说的话。你们并不知道,我们今天耳熟能详的表达词语,有多少是从那时开始。叟梅兹注意到,譬如,诗人,圣阿曼是第一位说出Le mot me manque.」。即使今天没有人会称靠背摇椅为les commoditSs de la conversation, 那纯粹是偶然。有些东西传续下来,还有些则没有。这些已经进入语言的表达词语,因此起源于在文化沙龙的对话的形式。在那里,人们尝试介绍一种更加精炼的语言。

 

The symbolic sentence 115

 

The state of a language can be characterized as much by what is absent as

by what is present. In the dialogue with the famous miracled birds you find

funny things like this – they are told something like breathlessness and they

hear twilight.21 It’s all pretty interesting – who among you has not heard

amnesty and armistice commonly confused in language that is not especially

uneducated? If I asked each of you in turn what you understand by superstition,

for example, I’m sure that we would get a fair idea of the confusion that

is possible in your minds on the subject of a word in current usage – after a

while superstructure would end up appearing. Similarly, epiphenomena has a

quite special meaning in medicine – Laennec calls epiphenomena phenomena

such as fever that are common to all illnesses.

 

语言的这个状态同样能够由欠缺的东西来表现特质,如同由存在的东西。在跟著名的那些奇迹的鸟群对话时,你们发现诸如其类的好笑的事情:他们被告上某件像是没有呼吸」的东西,他们听见暮光地带」。这都耐人寻味你们当中,有谁不曾听过免罪日amnesty 跟休战日armistice? 它们通常会被混淆使用,而且不仅是没有文盲份子。譬如,假如我询问你们每一位,你们对迷信」这个字的理解内容,我确定,我们将会获得相当混淆的观念,对于目前这一个字的用法,你们脑海可能会混淆。有一段时间,超级结构」结果将会出现。同样地,epiphenomena这个字在医学方面,拥有一个相当特别的意义。Laennec epiphenomena 为现象,譬如各种疾病相同普遍的发高烧。

 

The origin of the word superstition is given by Cicero in his De natwra deo- 131

rum, which you would do well to read.22 You can for example judge how far

we are from, and also how close we are to, the problems that the classical

authors raised about the nature of the gods. The superstitiosi were people who

would pray and make sacrifices all day long so that their descendants would

survive them. Superstition was the monopolizing of devotion by people in

the pursuit of a goal that they regarded as essential. This tells us a great deal

about the conception these people had of the notion, so important in all primitive

cultures, of the continuity of one’s line of descent. This reference could,

perhaps, also give us the best hold on the true definition to give of superstition,

which consists in extracting one part of the text of conduct at the expense of

others. This tells us how it’s related to everything that is compartmentalized,

methodically displaced, in the mechanism of neurosis.

 

西塞录在他的De natwra deo- rum里,给予迷信者」这个字的起源。你们最好读一读。譬如,你们能够判断我们跟那些难题距离有多远,或距离多么靠近,关于众神的特性,古典的作者们提出的难题。迷信者」是整天祈祷跟祭拜的人们,这样他们的子孙才会比他们活得更长久。迷信是那些人们的虔诚的专有权利,当他们追求他们认为是至关紧要的目标。这让我们获知良多,对人们拥有的这个观念的观念。迷信一词在所有的原始文化,我们祖先的脉络的连续性,是如此的重要。或许,这个指称也让我们最能够理解给予迷信一词的定义。它在一从行为的文本抽取一部分,而牺牲其他部分。这告诉我们,迷信一词如何跟神经症者被区隔化的一切东西相关,因为它在方法部分被错置。

 

What is important is to understand what one is saying. And in order to

understand what one is saying it’s important to see its lining, its other side,

its resonances, its significant superimpositions. Whatever they may be – and

we can include every misconstrual – there is no element of chance. Whoever

reflects upon the organism of language must know as much as possible and

construct as complete a catalogue as possible, not only concerning a word but

also a turn of phrase or a locution. Language entirely operates within ambiguity,

and most of the time you know absolutely nothing about what you are

saying. In your most ordinary conversations language has a purely fictional

character, you give the other the feeling that you are always there, that is to

say, that you are capable of producing the expected response, which bears no

relation to anything whatsoever that is susceptible to being pursued any further.

Nine-tenths of discourses that have effectively taken place are completely

fictional in this respect.

 

重要的是要理解一个人正在说什么。为了理解一个人正在说什么,重要的是看出它的脉络,它的另外一边,它的迴响,它的意义上的超级赋加。不管它们是什么我们能够包括每个错误的建构并没有偶然存在的因素。无论是谁反思语言的有机组织,他必须尽可能知道,并且建构尽可能完整的目录,不但是关于一个字词,而且也关于词语或表达的转变。语言完全在模糊暧昧中运作。大多数时刻,你对于你正在说的东西,一无所知。在你们最寻常的对话里,语言拥有纯粹是幻想的特性,你们给另外一个这种感觉:你总是在那里。换句话说,你能够产生这个被期望的回应,这个回应跟很容易被更深入追寻的任何东西,没有关系。从这个角度来看,曾经有效地发生的十分之九的各种辞说,其实完全是幻想。

 

This primordial fact is necessary to whoever wants to penetrate the economy

of President Schreber and understand what this nonsense means that he

himself locates within his relations with his imaginary interlocutors. This is

why I invite you to make a closer examination of the evolution of the verbal

phenomena in President Schreber’s history, so as to be able later to link them

to the libidinal displacements.

25 January 1956

 

这个原初的事实是必要的,对于任何想要彻底理解许瑞伯庭长的生命活动,并且理解,他自己定位他跟他的想象的对话者的关系之内的这个无意义,意味着什么?这就是为什么我邀请你们对于在许瑞伯的历史,这些文辞的现象的进展,作一个更加仔细的检查。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com