精神病 212

精神病 212

People are currently engaging in a very curious operation, which consists
in overcoming certain difficulties presented by certain frontier domains into
which the question of the use of the signifier as such has to be introduced,
precisely by means of the notion of communication which we’ve discussed on
occasion. And the reason I’ve placed the article by Tomkins in this issue of
the journal you’ve all become somewhat familiar with is to give you an example
of the naive way the notion of communication can be used.2 You will see that
this can be taken a very long way, which people haven’t failed to do.

人们目前正在从事非常耐人寻味的运作。这种运作在于克服有某种边界领域呈现的某些困难。能指自身的使用的问题必须被介绍，确实凭借著我们有时讨论过的沟通的观念。我曾经将Tomkins的这篇文章放置在杂志的这期。这个杂志，你们大家都非常熟悉。就是要给予你们一个例子，对于沟通的观念能够被使用的天真的方式。你们将会看出，沟通的这个观念能够深入发展，人们曾经做到。

There are people who will claim that the various orders of internal secretion
inside an organism send one another messages in the form, for instance,
of hormones that notify the ovaries that everything’s going well, or on the
contrary that there’s a bit of a problem somewhere. Is this a legitimate use of
the notions of communication and message? Why not, if a message is simply
of the order of what takes place when we project a light beam, whether invisible or not, onto a photoelectric cell? This can be taken a very long way. If,
on sweeping the sky with the beam of a spotlight, we see something appear
in the middle, it may be taken as the sky’s response. This produces its own
criticism. But this is still to take things too lightly.

有些人们将会宣称, 有机体里面的内部排泄的各种秩序，互相传送讯息，譬如，以荷尔蒙的形式，通知卵巢，每样事情进行顺利，或是相反地，在某个地方有点毛病。难道这就是合理地使用沟通与讯息的观念吗？有何不可呢？假如讯息仅是属于发生的事情的秩序，当我们投射一个光束进入影像电子的细胞，无论是可见或不可见。这能够非常深入地发挥。当我们用探照灯的光束横扫天空，假如我们看见某件东西出现在中央，它可以被认为是天空的回应。这产生它自己的批评。但是这依旧是将事情看得太轻松。

When may one really speak of communication? You are going to tell me
that it’s obvious – there has to be a response. This is defensible, it’s a question
of definition. Shall we say that there is communication whenever a response
is registered? But what’s a response? There’s only one way defining it, which
is to say that it’s when something returns to the starting point. This is the
schema for feedback. Every return of something that, having been registered
somewhere, thereby triggers an operation of regulation, constitutes a response.
And this is where communication begins, with self-regulation.

什么时候我们确实谈论沟通？你们将会告诉我，这沟通的显而易见的—沟通必须要有回应。这是能够自圆其说，那是定义的问题。我们难道会说，每当有回应被铭记时，沟通就存在。但是回应是什么？确实有一个方法来定义它。也就是说，那就是某件东西回到起始点。这就是回馈的基模。某件东西的每次回归，当它已经被铭记在某个地方，因此触发规则的运作，形成一种回应。这就是沟通开始的地方，具有自我的规范。

But notwithstanding this, are we now at the level of the function of the
signifier? I don’t think so. In a thermoelectric machine supported by feedback
the signifier is not employed. Why not? Isolating the signifier as such
requires something else which, like any dialectical distinction in the first
instance presents itself in a paradoxical manner. There is appropriate use of
the signifier whenever, at the level of the receiver, what is important is not
the effect of the content of the message, nor the triggering in the organ of a
given reaction due to the appearance of a hormone, but this – that at the
message’s point of arrival one makes a note of it.

但是尽管这样，我们现在难道是处于能指的功能的层次？我认为并不是。在由回馈所支持的热电效应机器，能指并没有被运用的。为什么没有被运用到？将能指的自身孤立起来，要求某件其它的东西。就像任何辩证法的第一个例子的区别一样，这个某件其它的东西以悖论的方式呈现它自己。能指会适当地被使用到，每当在接收者的层次，重要的并不是讯息内容的影响，也不是由于荷尔蒙的出现，某个特定的反应的器官的触动。而是这个，在讯息的到达点，我们注意到它。

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

精神病 210

精神病 210

2
Experience proves it – the more the signifier signifies nothing, the more
indestructible it is.

经验证明它，能指越是什么都不意指，它越是无法被毁灭。

They go off in a foolish direction, those who make fun of what one may
call the power of words, by demonstrating, which is always easy, the contra
dictions into which one falls with the play of a given concept, those who mock
nominalism, as it’s called, in a given philosophy.

它们朝着愚蠢的方向爆发，有些人嘲弄我们所谓的文字的力量，总是轻率地证明，我们掉入的悖论，玩弄一个特定的观念。有些人嘲弄唯名论，顾名思义，那是在特定的哲学里。

It’s of course easy to criticize what may be arbitrary or fleeting in the use
of a notion like that of society, for instance. It’s not so very long ago that this
word was invented, and it’s amusing to see what dead ends result in the real
from the notion that the society is responsible for what happens to the individual
– a notion the requirement for which was ultimately expressed in socialist
constructions. There is in effect something radically arbitrary in the emergence
of the notion of society – I’m not saying of the city. Recall that for our
friend Cicero in the above work the nation is, as it were, only the goddess of
the population – it presides over births. As a matter of fact the modern idea
of the nation is not even on the horizon of classical thought, and it is not
merely the fortunes of a word that demonstrate this to us.

当然，要批评是很容易，批评那些任意或瞬间的东西，当我们使用一个观念，譬如像是社会的观念。不久以前，这个字被杜撰。耐人寻味的是看见怎样的僵局造成真实界，根据这个观念：社会要替个人身上发生的事情负责—对于这样的观念的要求，最后在社会主义的建造里被表达。实际上，社会的这个观念的出现，具有某件任意性的东西。我并不是谈论城市。请你们回忆一下：对于我们的朋友西塞录，在以上的著作，所谓的国家仅是众多的人口的女神—它主持诞生的事情。实际上，现代对于国家的观念甚至并不是在古典思想的视阔。这不光光是文字的戏弄就能跟我们证明这些。

None of these things is self-evident. One is free to conclude from this that
doubt can be cast on the notion of society. But it’s precisely insofar as we are
able to cast doubt upon it that it’s a signifier. It’s also for this reason that it
has entered our social reality like the prow of a ship, like a ploughshare.

那些事情没有一样是自明的。我们可根据这个自由地作结论：对于社会的观念投以怀疑。但是这确实是因为我们能够对社会的观念投以怀疑。也因为这个理由，它已经进入我们的社会的现实界，像是的船之舵，像是耕犁。

When one speaks of the subjective, and even when here we call it into
question, the illusion always remains in our minds that the subjective is the
opposite of the objective, that it’s on the side of the speaker, and finds itself,
by virtue of this very fact, on the side of illusions – it either distorts or
restricts the objective. The dimension elided until now in the understanding
of Freudianism is that the subjective isn’t on the side of the speaker. It’s
something we encounter in the real.

当我们谈论到主体性，甚至当我们质疑它，在我们的心里，这个幻觉总是存在，主观性总是客体性的相反。主体性就是言说者的这一边，并且找到它自己。凭借这个事实，在幻觉的这一边。它要就是扭曲，要不就是限制客体性。这个向度闪烁不定，直到现在，在弗洛依德学派的理解是，主体性并不是在言说的这一边。主体性是我们在真实界邂逅的某件东西。

精神病 211
The real in question is no doubt not to be taken in the sense in which we
normally understand it, which implies objectivity, a confusion constantly being
made in analytic writings. The subjective appears in the real insofar as it
implies that we have opposite us a subject capable of using the signifier, the
play of signifiers. And capable of using it like us – not to signify something
but precisely to deceive us over what there is to signify. This is to use the
fact that the signifier is something other than meaning in order to present a
deceptive signifier. This is so essential that it is strictly speaking the first step
of modern physics. The Cartesian discussion of the deceptive god is a step
that is impossible to avoid for any foundation of physics in the sense in which
we understand the term

受到质疑的真实界，无可置疑地，不应该认为是这个意义，我们正常理解它的意义。暗示客体性的意义。在精神分析的著作里，这一种混淆不断地产生。主体性出现在实在界，因为暗示着：在我们的对立面，我们拥有一个能够使用能指的主体，使用能指遊戏的主体。能够像我们这样使用它—不是意指某件东西，而是确实地欺骗我们，对于所要意指的东西。那就是要使用这个事实：能指是某件绝非是意义的东西，为了要呈现一个欺骗性的能指。这是如此的重要，以致于严格地说，它是现代物理学的第一步。笛卡尔对于欺骗的神的讨论，是不可能避免的一步，为了要建立物理学的基础，根据我们理解这个术语的意义。

The subjective is for us that which distinguishes the field of science in
which psychoanalysis is grounded from the entire field of physics. It’s the
instance of subjectivity as present in the real that is the essential source of the
fact that we are saying something new when we single out, for example, these
series of apparently natural phenomena that we call neuroses or psychoses.
Do the psychoses form a series of natural phenomena? Do they fall within
a field of natural explanation? What I’m calling natural is the field of science
in which there is no one who uses the signifier to signify.

对于我们而言，主体性是区别科学的领域跟物理学的整个领域不同的地方。而精神分析学的基础却是在科学的领域。存在于真实界的主体性例子，是这个事实的重要来源。我们正在言是某件新东西的这个事实，譬如，当我们挑选出这一系列的显见的自然的现象。我们称之为神经症或精神病的现象。他们会掉落到自然解释的领域里面吗？我所谓的自然的解释，指的是科学的领域，在那里，没有人使用能指来意涵。

Please remember these definitions, because I’m only giving them to you
after having carefully decanted them.

请你们记住这些定义，因为我仅是给予你们这些定义，当我们已经仔细地让它们流露出来。

I think they are suited, in particular, to contributing the greatest clarity on
the subject of final causes. The idea of final cause is repugnant to science in
its present form, but science constantly makes use of it in a camouflaged way,
in the notion of a return to a state of equilibrium, for instance. If by final
cause one simply understands a cause that acts in advance, which tends towards
something out ahead, it’s absolutely ineliminable from scientific thought, and
there is just as much final cause in Einstein’s equations as in Aristotle. The
difference is precisely this – there is no one who uses this signifier to signify
anything – unless it’s this, which is that there is a universe.

我认为这些定义是合适的，特别是对于作为最后的原因的主体，具有豁然澄清。最后的原因的这个观念令目前这种状态的科学感到厌恶。但是科学不断地使用它，以轮廓的方式。譬如，用回转到平衡状态的观念。假如凭借最后的原因，我们仅是理解一个预先行动的原因。它倾向于朝向前头的东西。它绝对无法从科学的思想减少出来。在爱因斯坦的方程式，跟在亚里斯多德一样，最后的原因的同样地多。差异确实这个：没有人用这个能指来意指任何东西—除非是这个，有一个宇宙存在。

I was reading in Mr. [. . .] how amazed he was at the existence of the
element water – how well this shows the care that the Creator has taken with
order and, with our pleasure, for if water were not this element that is so
wonderfully fluid, heavy, and solid, we wouldn’t see little boats sailing so
beautifully on the sea. This is written and it would be a mistake to think that
the author is an idiot. It’s just that he was still a captive of the atmosphere of
a time when nature was made for speaking. We overlook this because of a
kind of purification that has taken place in our causal requirements. But this
alleged naivety was natural for people for whom everything that presents
itself with a signifying nature is made for signifying something.

我正在阅读某先生的著作，他对于作为元素的水非常惊奇。这显示创造主是多么的细心来处理这个秩序，及我们的欢乐。因为假如水不是如此奇妙地流动，沉重，而成为具体的这个元素，我们无法明白小船隻如何在海上航行得如此漂亮。这些东西被写出，假如我们认为，这位作者是痴人说梦话，那我们就错误了。那仅是因为他依旧是他所处的时代的气氛的俘奴。在那个时代，自然的形成是作为言说之用。我们忽略这个，因为我们对于因果律的要求，曾经发生某种的肃清作用。但是这种宣称的天真，对于那些人是很自然的。对于那些人，每样东西都呈现它自身，用意指的特性。每样东西都是为了意指某件东西而形成。

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

精神病 207

The signifies as such, signifies nothing
能指自身并没意指著什么
THE NOTION OF STRUCTURE
结构的观念
SUBJECTIVITY IN THE REAL
实在界的主体性
HOW TO LOCATE THE BEGINNING OF A DELUSION
如何找出幻觉开始的位置
THE BETWEEN-I’S
在我与主体之间

Ad usum annum aratianis, incredibile e$t, nisi diligenter attenderis, quanta opera
machinata natura sit.

How many marvels there are concealed by the function of language, if you
want to pay diligent attention to it! You know that this is what we are striving
towards here. You won’t be astonished, therefore, that I should offer you
this sentence from Cicero as an epigraph, since it is on this theme that this
term we are going to return to the study of the Freudian structures of the
psychoses.

有多少的惊奇隐藏在语言的功能里，假如你们想要勤奋地注意它。你们知道，这是我们正在奋斗朝向这里的地方。因此，你们将不会大吃一惊，对于我竟然提供你们这个句子，从西塞录引述过来作为后记。因为我们将要将这个术语回归到弗洛依德学派对于精神病的结构的研究。

Effectively, it’s a question of what Freud left behind concerning the structures
of the psychoses, this being why we call them Freudian.

有效地，问题是弗洛依德留下怎样的东西，关于精神病的结构。这就是为什么我们称呼它们为弗洛依德学派的原因。

1
The notion of structure by itself deserves our attention. Given the manner in
which we efficaciously apply it in analysis, it implies a number of coordinates,
and the very notion of coordinate is part of it. A structure is in the first place
a group of elements forming a covariant set.

结构的观念本身就应该值得我们关注。假如考虑到这个方式，我们有效地将它应用到精神分析的方式。它暗示著许多的座标。座标的这个观念是它的一部分。结构首先是一组元素组成一个共同变数的集合。

I said a set, I didn’t say a totality. As a matter of fact, the notion of structure
is analytic. A structure is always established by referring something coherent
to something else, which is complementary to it. But the notion of totality
only comes into it if we are dealing with a closed relation with a correspondent,
where the structures are interdependent. On the other hand it is possible
to have an open relation, which we shall call a relation of supplementarity.
For those who have gone in for structural analyses the ideal has always appeared
to be to find what links the two, the closed and the open, to discover circularity
on the side of the open.

我说「集合」，我并没有说「整体」。事实上，结构的这个观念是精神分析。结构总是被建立，凭借将某件一贯的东西。指涉到某件跟它互补的其它东西。但是整体的这个观念，仅是当我们正在处理跟一个对应者的封闭的关系时，它才存在。在那里，各种结构是互相依靠的。在另一方面，它们可能拥有一个开放的关系，我们不妨称之为辅助的关系。对于那些喜欢结构的各种分析的人们，理想总是出现，为了能够找到联接这两者的东西，封闭的关系与开放的关系，为了在开放的这边，发现循环迴圈。

I think that you’re well enough oriented to understand that the notion of
structure is by itself already a manifestation of the signifier. The little I’ve
just indicated about its dynamics, about what it implies, points you towards
the notion of signifier. To be interested in structure is to be unable to neglect
the signifier. In structural analysis, as in the analysis of the relationship between
signifier and signified, we discover relations between groups founded on sets
that, whether open or closed, essentially comprise reciprocal references. In
the analysis of the relationship between signifier and signified we have learned
to stress synchrony and diachrony, and this reappears in a structural analysis.

我认为，你们具有充分条件来理解，结构的这个观念本身已经是能指的展现。关于能指的生命动力，我刚刚指示的一些东西，关于能指暗示的东西，引导你们朝向能指的观念。对于结构感到興趣，就是无法忽略能指。在结构的精神分析，如同在能指与所指之间的关系的分析，我们发现以集合作为基础的各个组群之间的关系。无论开放或是封闭，它基本上是由互惠的指涉所组成。在能指与所指之间的关系的分析，我们已经学习到要强调同时性与历时性。在结构的分析里，同时性与历时性会重复出现。

In the end, if we observe them closely, the notion of structure and that of
signifier appear inseparable. In fact, when we analyze a structure it’s always
at least ideally a question of the signifier. What satisfies us the most in a
structural analysis is an uncovering, that is as radical as possible, of the signifier.

最后，假如我们仔细观察，结构的观念与能指的观念似乎无法分开。事实上，当我们分析结构时，它总是能指的问题，至少在理想上。在结构的分析里，最让我们感到满意的东西是能指的揭露，那既是强烈，也是可能。

We situate ourselves in a field that is distinct from the field of the natural
sciences and that, as you know, it isn’t enough to call the field of the human
sciences. Where are we to draw the dividing line? How closely do we have to
approximate to the ideals of the sciences of nature such as they have developed
for us – for instance, physics as we know it? To what extent are we
unable to avoid differentiating ourselves from them? Well then, it’s in relation
to these definitions of the signifier and of structure that the appropriate
boundary can be drawn.

我们定位我们自己的位置，跟自然科学的领域的位置不同。众所周知，仅是称为人文科学的领域并不足够。我们应该如何划出这个分界线呢？对于自然科学的理想，我们必须靠近得多密切，自然科学替我们发展出来的理想。譬如，众所周知的物理。我们无法避免跟它们划清界限到什么程度？呵呵，就是跟能指与结构的这些定义的关系，适当的边界能够被划出。

In physics we have adopted the law that we proceed from the idea that in
nature nobody uses the signifier to signify. This is what distinguishes our
physics from mystical physics and even from the physics of antiquity, which
had nothing mystical about it, but which didn’t adopt this strict requirement.
It has become a fundamental law for us, one required of every utterance
within the order of the natural sciences, that there is nobody who uses the
signifier.

在物理学，我们曾经採用这个法则：在自然界，没有人使用能指来意指理念，我们赖以前进的理念。这就是我们的物理学与神秘主义的物理学不同的地方。甚至跟古代的物理学。它对于自然丝毫没有神秘的东西。但是它并没有採用这个严格的要求。对于我们，没有人使用能指来意涵，已经成为一个基本的法则，对于每个表达要求的法则，在自然科学的秩序之内。

The signifier is nevertheless there in nature, and if we weren’t looking for
the signifier, we shouldn’t find anything there at all. To extract a natural law
is to extract a meaningless formula. The less it signifies anything, the happier
we are. This is why we’re perfectly happy with the achievements of Einstei-
nian physics. You would be wrong to think that those little equations of
Einstein’s that express the relationship of inertial mass to a constant plus
some exponents have the slightest meaning. They are pure signifiers. And
this is why thanks to him we hold the world in the palm of our hand.

可是，能指在自然那里。假如我们没有正在寻找能指，我们在那里将会什么东西都没找到。将自然法则抽离出来，等于是抽离出一个无意义的公式。能指越是没有意指任何东西，我们越是快乐。这就是为什么我们非常感到快乐，对爱因斯坦的物理学的各项成就感到快乐。假如你们认为，爱因斯坦的那些精简的方程式，表惯性质量跟一个常数加某些的指数的关系的这个方程式，拥有丝毫的意义，那么你们就错误了。它们纯粹是各种能指。这就是为什么幸赖爱因斯坦，我们才将世界掌握于我们的手中。

The idea that the signifier signifies something, that there is someone who
uses this signifier to signify something, is called the Signature rerum. This is
the tide of a work by Jakob Boehme.1 It means that God is present in natural
phenomena and speaks to us in his language.

能指意涵著某件东西的这个观念，有某个使用这个能指来意涵某件东西的这个观念，被称之为万物签章Signature rerum 。这就是Jakob Boeme所写的一本著作的讯息。它意味著，上帝存在于自然的现象里，并且用他的语言跟我们言说。

209
You must nevertheless not think that our physics implies the elimination
of all meaning. There is a meaning at the limit, but there is nobody to signify
it. In physics the mere existence of a signifying system implies, at the very
least, the meaning that there is an Utmvelt. Physics implies the minimal conjunction
of the two signifiers, one and all – that all things are one or that the
one is all things

可是，你一定不要认为，我们的物理学暗示着减少所有的意义。在极限有一个意义，但是没有人能意指它。在物理学，意指的系统的存在本身至少就暗示着这个意义：有一种生态环境存在。物理学暗示着两个能指，「一」及「全部万物」的最小量的联系。万物是一，或一是万物。

You would be wrong to think that these signifiers belonging to science,
however simple they are, are given or that any form of empiricism would
enable one to abstract them. No empirical theory is able to account for the
existence of even the first whole numbers. Despite Mr. Jung’s best efforts to
convince us of the contrary, history, observation, and ethnography show us
that at a certain level of the signifier in a given culture, community, or tribe
of people, it’s an accomplishment to get access to the number five, for instance.
One can clearly distinguish on the banks of the Orinoco between a tribe that
has learned to signify the number four and not beyond, and one for which
the number five opens up surprising possibilities, consistent moreover with
the entire signifying system into which the tribe is inserted.

假如你们认为，这些属于科学的能指，无论它们多么简单，都是任何实验主义的形式，让我们能够将它们抽离出来的讯息，那你们就错误了。再多的实验主义的理论，都无法解释即使是最初的整数的存在。尽管荣格先生殚精力尽地说服我们，解释是可能的，历史，观察与种族学都告诉我们，在某个特定的文化，社区或部落种族的某个层次，譬如，要接近五这个数字都是一项成就。在Orinoco河的堤岸，我们能够清楚地区别一个部落，他们已经学习到用四这个数字来意指，再多就没了。这不同另一个部落，五的这个数字展开令人惊奇的各种可能性。而且，跟这个部落被插进的整个的意指化的系统前后一贯。

This isn’t a joke. It’s to be taken literally. The extraordinary effect the
number three had when it arrived in a certain Amazon tribe has been recorded
by people who knew what they were talking about. Uttering a series of whole
numbers isn’t self evident. It’s altogether conceivable, and experience shows
that this is so, that beyond a certain limit in this series things get mixed up
and one no longer sees anything but a confused multitude. Experience also
shows that since the number one necessarily implies its maximum effect, it’s
not the number one whose origin we are able, in acquiring the signifier, to
understand clearly.

这并不是一个笑话。它应该被实质地看待。三这个数字具有的特殊的影响，当它到达某个亚马逊的部落，曾经被记录下来，由那些知道他们究竟在谈论些什么的人们记录下来。表达一系列的整数并不是不证而明。它完全能够被构想，我们根据经验却知道，情况并非是如此。在这个系列，超过某个极限，事情就会混淆。我们不再看出任何东西，而是混沌一团。我们根据经验也知道，因为「一」这个数字必然会暗示着它的最大量的影响，当我们获得能指时，「一」这个数字的起源，我们并无法清楚地理解。

These considerations appear to contradict my remarks to you about the
fact that any system of language includes, or covers, the totality of possible
meanings. This isn’t so, for that didn’t mean that every system of language
exhausts the possibilities of the signifier, which is quite different. The proof
of this is the fact that, for example, the language of an Australian tribe may
express a given number by a crescent moon.

这些考虑似乎与我跟你们的谈论互相牴触，关于这个事实：语言的任何系统包括，或涵盖各种可能意义的整体性。情况并非是如此。因为那并不意味着，语言的每一个系统穷尽这个能指的各种可能性。这个能指是完全不同的。有关这个的证据是这个事实：譬如，澳洲部落的种族的语言可能根据一个弯月来表达一个特定的数字。

These remarks may appear to you to be way off the mark. It’s essential
however to take them up again at the beginning of our topic for this year.
Our starting point, the point we keep coming back to, since we shall always
be at the starting point, is that every real signifier is, as such, a signifier that
signifies nothing.

对于你们而言，这些谈论有点离题。可是，在今年我们的主题的开始，重新探讨它们是非常重要的。我们的起始点，我们持续地回到这个点。因为我们将总是处于起始点：每个真实的能指的自身，都是意指空无的一个能指。

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

精神病 204

204
There is Wahrnehmung, perception, first of all. This is a primordial, primary
position which remains hypothetical since in a way none of it comes to
light in the subject. Then there is Bewusstsein, consciousness.

Consciousness and memory as such are mutually exclusive. This is a point
on which Freud never varied. It always seemed to him that pure memory,
qua inscription and acquisition by the subject of a new means of reacting,
should remain completely immanent to the mechanism and bring no apprehension
of the subject by himself into play.

首先，会有一个感知。这是一个原初的，最初的立场。这个立场始终是假设，以某种方式，在主体身上，没有一样会启蒙。然后，会有意识存在。意识与记忆的本身是互相排除的。这是弗洛依德从来没有变更的观点。他总是觉得，主体作为反应的新的媒体，他的纯粹的记忆作为铭记及习得，应该保持是机制的完整的内在性，主体本身的理解，并无法去理解它。

The Wahrnehmung stage is there to show that something simple must be
presupposed at the origin of memory, conceived as consisting of a plurality
of registers. The first registration of perceptions, which is also inaccessible to
consciousness, is arranged according to associations by simultaneity. Here
we have the original requirement of a primitive installation of simultaneity.

这种「感知」的阶段在那里，是为了显示：某件简单的东西必须被预先假定，在记忆的起源，被构想为由各种铭记的多重性所组成。各种感知的最初铭记，也无法被意识接近。它被安排，根据同时性的联想。在此，我们拥有原初的要求，对于同时性的原始安置。

This is what I showed you last year in our probative exercises concerning
symbols.4 Things became interesting, you’ll remember, when we established
the structure of groups of three. Putting these groups of three together effectively
establishes a relationship of simultaneity between them. Simultaneity
is the birth of the signifier and, equally, its existence is a synchronic coexistence.
Saussure emphasizes this point.

这是我去年跟你们显示的东西，在我们的证实关于各种象征的真实的运用。事情变得耐人寻味。你们将记得，当我们建立三个一组的团体的结构时。将三个一组的团体聚集一块，有效地建立它们之间的同时性的关系。同时性就是所指的诞生。同样地，它的存在是一种同时性的共同存在。索绪尔强调这点。

Unbewusstsein is of the order of conceptual memories. The notion of causal
relation as such appears here for the first time. This is the moment at which
the signifier, once constituted, is secondarily arranged according to something
else, which is the appearance of the signified.

无意识属于观念的记忆的秩序。因果关系本身的观念，在此第一次出现。这就是能指，一旦被形成，被次级安排的时刻，依照某件其它的东西。那就是所指的出现。

It’s only subsequently that the Vorbezvusstsein, the third mode of rearrangement,
comes into play. It’s from this preconscious that investments will become
conscious, according to certain precise rules. This second thought conscious-
ness is in all likelihood linked to the hallucinatory experience of word representations,
5 the emission of words. The most radical example of this is verbal
hallucination, connected with the paranoid mechanism by which we auditivate
word representations. The appearance of consciousness which is linked
to this would otherwise always be without any link to memory.

重新安排的第三模式的运作，是随后才来。从前意识那里，各种的投注才会被意识到，依照某些明确的规则。这次级的思想的意识很有可能是跟文字再现，文字发出的表象的幻觉经验息息相关。最明显的例子是文辞的幻觉，跟妄想症的心理机制息息相关。凭借这种心理机制，我们聆听到文字的再现表象。意识的出现跟这个有关，否则它将不会跟记忆有任何关联。

In everything that follows, Freud shows that the phenomenon of Verdrdngung
consists in the loss of something of the order of a signifying expression
at the moment of passage from one stage of development to another. The
signifier recorded at one of these stages doesn’t cross over into the next, with
the mode of retroactive regrouping required by any new phase of signifier meaning
organization that the subject enters.

在随后的每样东西，弗洛依德显示，「潜抑」的现象由于某件东西的丧失组成。这个东西属于能指化表达的秩序，当它从发展的一个阶段，通过到另外一个阶段。被记录在其中的一个阶段的能指，并没有跨越进入另外一个阶段。这个模式是由于主体进入的能指与意义的组织的新的部分，要求反动地重新组成团体。

This is where any explanation of the existence of repression has to begin.
The notion of inscription in a signifier that dominates the registration is essential
to the theory of memory insofar as it’s at the basis of Freud’s first investigation
of the phenomenon of the unconscious.
21 March 1956

这就是潜抑的存在的解释开始的地方。在支配铭记的能指，铭记的观念是记忆理论的基本。因为它作为弗洛依的最初的研究无意识的现象的基础。

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

精神病 203

精神病 203

 

3

I would like to finish by pointing out to you those texts by Freud that justify

what I said to you last night.

 

我想要跟你们指出弗洛依德的那些文本，作为结束。昨天晚上，我用那些文本来证实我所说的内容。

 

My own work is to understand what Freud did. Consequently, to interpret

even what is implicit in Freud is legitimate in my eyes. I say this to tell you

that I’m not backing away from my responsibilities in asking you to refer to

what certain texts have powerfully expressed.

 

我自己的研究是想要理解弗洛依德做些什么。结果，依我之见，即使是解释弗洛依德暗示的东西，都是合情合理的。我说这个，是为了告诉你们，我没有逃避我的责任，当我要求你们参照某些文本强烈表达的东西。

 

Refer to those years, around 1896, when as Freud himself tells us he was

assembling his doctrine – he took a long time to state what he had to say. He

stresses the time of latency, which always lasted three to four years, between

the composition of his major works and their publication. The Traumdeutung

was written three or four years prior to its publication. The same goes for

The Psychopatkology of Everyday Life and the Dora case.

 

请你们参照大约1896年的那些岁月。那时，当弗洛依德告诉我们，他正在整合他的理论信条，他花费很久时间陈述他必须说的话。他强调潜在的这个时间，这个时间延续三到五年，在写作他的主要著作及出版之间。「梦的解析」写了三到四年后，才出版。「日常生活的精神分析学」及「朵拉」的个案，情况也是一样。

 

One can observe that the twofold structuring of the signifier and signified

doesn’t appear after the event. As early as Letter 46, for example, Freud

states that he is beginning to see the stages of the subject’s development

appear in his experience, how to construct them, and also to show its relationship

to the existence of the unconscious and its mechanisms. One is struck

by seeing him employ the term Ubersetzung to designate a given stage of the

subject’s experiences, according as it’s translated or not. Translated – what

does that mean? It’s a question of what happens at levels defined by the

subject’s age – from one to four years of age, then from four to eight years of

age, then the prepubertal period, and finally the period of maturity.2

 

我们能够观察到，能指与所指的双重结构，在这个事件之后，并没有出现。譬如，早在第46封信，弗洛依德陈述著：他正渐渐看出主体发展的各个阶段出现在他的精神分析经验里，如何去建构它们，也如何去显示它跟无意识的存在及其机制结构的关系。我们印象深刻地看见他运用「无意识」这个术语，来指明主体经验的一个特定阶段，依照它有没有被翻译而定。「被翻译」—那是什么意思？问题是在主体的年龄被定义的层次，到底发生什么事？从一岁到四岁的年纪，然后从四岁到八岁的年纪。然后是前青春期时期，最后是成熟的时期。

 

It’s interesting to note the stress Freud places on the signifier. Bedeutung

can’t be translated as specifying the signifier in relation to the signified. Likewise,

in Letter 52, I’ve already pointed out that he says this -I am working

on the assumption that our psychic mechanism has come into being by a process of

stratification: the material present in the form of memory traces being subjected

from time to time to a rearrangement in accordance with fresh circumstances – to

a retranscription. Thus what is essentially new about my theory is the thesis that

memory is present not once but several times over, that it is laid down in various

kinds of indications}

 

耐人寻味的是，我们注意到弗洛依德给予能指的这个强调。「意识」无法被翻译作为指明这个能指跟所指的关系。同样地，在第52封信，我已经指出，他说到这个：「我正在研究这个假设：我们的心理机制凭借阶层化的过程，已经存在。以记忆痕迹的形式呈现的材料，有时候隶属于重新安排，以适应新的情况—隶属于重新铭记。因此，关于我的理论，基本的新奇之处在于这个假设：记忆不是立刻呈现，而是重复好几次出现。记忆用各色各样的指示被铭记。

 

I’m pointing out to you the kinship between what is said here and the

schema I gave a commentary on for you the other day. Freud emphasizes

that these different stages are characterized by the plurality of mnemic

inscriptions.

 

我正在跟你们指出这个关系，在此所说的东西，跟前天我跟你们给予评论的基模之间的关系。弗洛依德强调，这些不同的阶段的特性是记忆铭记的多重性。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

 

精神病 201

精神病 201
雅克、拉康

In masculine hysteria the situation is certainly much more complex. To the
extent that in man the oedipal realization is better structured, the hysteric’s
question has less chance of arising. But if it’s raised, what is it? Here there is
the same dissymmetry as in the Oedipus complex – hysterics, whether men
or women, ask themselves the same question. The question of the male hysteric
also concerns the feminine position.

在男性的歇斯底里症，这个情境更加地复杂。甚至，在人身上，伊狄浦斯情结的实现的结构还更加精致。歇斯底里的问题则是比较不可能产生。但是万一被产生，那是什么？在此，如同在伊狄浦斯情结，同样存在著不均称。无论是男人或是女人，歇斯底里症者都询问自己这个问题。男性的歇斯底里症者的问题，也跟女性的立场息息相关。

The question of the subject whom I mentioned last time revolved around
a fantasy of pregnancy. Is this sufficient to exhaust the question? It has long
been known that fantasmatic anatomical fragmentation is a hysterical phenomenon.
This fantasmatic anatomy has a structural character – neither
paralysis nor anesthesia occurs according to the pathways and topography of
the nerve branches. Nothing in neural anatomy corresponds to anything
whatsoever that occurs in hysterical symptoms. It’s always a question of an
imaginary anatomy.

我上次提到的主体的问题，环绕着怀孕的幻想打转。那难道就已经穷尽这个问题吗？长久以来，人们就知道，幻见在解剖的片断化是歇斯底里的现象。幻见的解剖具有结构的特性。依照神经的肢脉的途径与地形，既没有发生麻痹，也没有麻醉。在神经的生理解剖，没有一样东西对应于任何发生在歇斯底里病症。问题总是想象界的解剖。

Can we now spell out the factor common to the feminine position and the
masculine question in hysteria – a factor that is no doubt situated at the
symbolic level, but perhaps isn’t entirely reducible to it? It concerns a ques
tion of procreation. Paternity, like maternity, has a problematic essence –
these are terms that are not situated purely and simply at the level of experience.

我们现在能够说出，歇斯底里症的女性立场与男性立场共通的这个因素。无可置疑地，这个因素被定位在象征层次，但是或许这个因素并无法完全还原到象征层次。它跟生殖的问题息息相关。父亲，跟母亲一样，本质上问题重重。这些都是一些术语，并不纯粹而简单地被定位在精神分析的领域。

Recently I was discussing problems, raised long ago, about the couvade
with one of my students and he reminded me of the light ethnographers have
recently managed to throw on this problem. Facts of experience obtained
from an investigation carried out on some Central American tribe, because
this is where it appears clearly, effectively enable the resolution of certain
questions that have arisen over the meaning of this phenomenon. It is now
possible to see here that the function of the father and of what he contributes
to the creation of the new individual is called into question. The couvade is
located at the level of a question concerning masculine procreation.

最近，我正在讨论很久以前被提出的问题，关于「怀孕同理心」，我的一位学生提出的。他提醒我，种族学家最近成功地对于这个问题有所启蒙。一项从事研究中美洲的部落，所获得的经验的各种事实，因为这是它清楚出现的地方。这个研究有效地能够解决某些的问题，有关这个现象的意义产生的问题。现在，我们可能在此看出，父亲的功能，及父亲贡献给新生婴儿的创造的功能，受到质疑。「怀孕同理心」被定位在问题的层次，关于男性的生殖。

In this vein perhaps it won’t strike you as artificial if I elaborate in the
following way.

从这个脉络，假如我用以下的方式建构，你们或许不会觉得太过矫揉造作。

The symbolic provides a form into which the subject is inserted at the level
of his being. It’s on the basis of the signifier that the subject recognizes himself
as being this or that. The chain of signifiers has a fundamental explanatory
value, and the very notion of causality is nothing else.

象征界提供一种主体被插入的形式，在他生命实存的层次。根据这个能指的基础，主体体认出他自己，作为是这个或是那个。能指的锁链拥有基本的解释的价值。因果关系的这个观念不是别的，就是这个。

202
There is nevertheless one thing that evades the symbolic tapestry, it’s procreation
in its essential root – that one being is born from another. In the
symbolic order procreation is covered by the order instituted by this succession
between beings. But nothing in the symbolic explains the fact of their
individuation, the fact that beings come from beings. The entire symbolism
declares that creatures don’t engender creatures, that a creature is unthinkable
without a fundamental creation. In the symbolic nothing explains creation.

可是，有一件事情，象征界的织布没有纳入。那就是生殖道本质的根源—一个生物从另外一个生物产生。在象征界的秩序，生殖由生物之间的延续所创始的秩序所涵盖。但是在象征界，没有一样东西解释它们自己个体化的这个事实。生物来自于生物的这个事实。整个的象征主义宣布，生物并没有产生生物。假如没有基本的创造，生物是匪夷所思的。在象征界，没有一样东西解释创造。

Nor does anything explain why some beings must die for others to be born.
There is an essential relationship between sexual reproduction and the
appearance of death, the biologists say, and if this is true then it shows that
they, too, mull over the same question. The question of what links two beings
in the appearance of life only arises for a subject when he or she is in the
symbolic, realized as a man or as a woman, but so long as an accident has
prevented him or her from acceding to it. This may just as easily occur to
anyone by virtue of his or her biographical accidents.

也没有一样东西解释，为什么某些人必须死亡，为了让其他人诞生。生物学家说，有一个基本的关系，存在于性的繁殖与死亡的出现之间。假如这是真实的，那么，它显示：生物学家也在思考相同的这个问题。在生命的出现，是什么让两个生物彼此关联的这个问题会产生，当一个主体处于象征界，无论是男性或女性，被实践作为男性或女性。但是只要有意外阻止他或她，无法接纳这个角色。任何人都很容易会发生这样的事，由于他或她在生物结构的意外。

Freud raises these same issues in the background of Beyond the Pleasure
Principle. Just as life reproduces itself, so it’s forced to repeat the same cycle,
rejoining the common aim of death. For Freud this reflects his experience.
Each neurosis reproduces a particular cycle in the order of the signifier on
the basis of the question that man’s relationship to the signifier as such raises.
There is, in effect, something radically unassimilable to the signifier. It’s
quite simply the subject’s singular existence. Why is he here? Where has he
come from? What is he doing here? Why is he going to disappear? The sig
nifier is incapable of providing him with the answer, for the good reason that
it places him beyond death. The signifier already considers him dead, by
nature it immortalizes him.

根据「超越快乐原则」的背景，弗洛依德提出相同的问题。正如生命繁殖它自己，生命也被迫重复相同的迴圈，重新加入死亡的共同目标。对于弗洛依德，这反映出他的精神分析经验。每位神经症者繁殖一个特别的迴圈，在能指的秩序上，根据这个问题的基础，人跟能指本身的关系产生的问题。实际上，有某件东西，能指绝对无法接纳。那就是主体的独异性的存在。为什么主体存在这里？他来自于何处？他在此正在做什么？他为什么会消失？这个能指无法供应给他一个解答。理由很清楚：能指将他放置在超越死亡之外。能指已经认为他是死了。在天性上，能指让他成为永生。

As such, the question of death is another mode of the neurotic creation of
the question – its obsessional mode. I indicated this last night, and I’ll leave
it to one side today because we are dealing with the psychoses this year and
not with the obsessional neuroses. The considerations about structure I’m
proposing to you here are still a prelude to the problem raised by the psychotic.

作为这样的永生，死亡的问题是另外一个神经症创造问题的模式，它的妄想症的模式。我昨天晚上指示这点。今天，我将它放置一边，因为今年我们正在处理的是精神病，而不是妄想症的神经症者。关于我正在此跟你们建议的结构的考虑，依旧仅是精神病者引起的难题的开端而已。

If I’m particularly interested in the question raised in hysteria, it’s
because at issue is the way in which it’s distinct from the mechanism of psy-
chosis, especially that of President Schreber, where the question of procreation,
of feminine procreation in particular, is also sketched out.

假如我对歇斯底里症引起的问题，特别感到興趣，那是因为引起争议的是这个方式，神经症跟精神病的心理机制迴然不同。特别是跟许瑞伯庭长的心理机制。在那里，生殖的问题，特别是女性的生殖，也被描绘出来。

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

203

精神病 199

精神病 199

 

2

Consider the paradox that results from certain functional interweavings between

the two planes of the symbolic and the imaginary.

 

请你们考虑一下因为某些功能的交织而形成的悖论，处于象征界与想象界的两个层面之间的交织。

 

On the one hand, it seems that the symbolic is what yields us the entire

world system. It’s because man has words that he has knowledge of things..

And the number of things he has knowledge of corresponds to the number

of things he is able to name. This is not in doubt. On the other hand, there

is no doubt either that the imaginary relation is linked to ethology, to animal

psychology. The sexual relation implies capture by the other’s image. In other

words, one of these domains appears to be open to the neutrality of the order

of human knowledge, the other seems to be the very domain of the erotization of the object. This is what initially manifests itself to us.

 

在一方面，似乎象征界是替我们产生整个的世界的系统的东西。那是因为人类拥有文字，他才拥有对事物的知识。他拥有事物知识的多寡，对应于他能够命名的事物的多寡。这是无可置疑的。在另一方面，也是无可置疑的是，想象界的功能跟动物学，动物心理学息息相关。性的关系暗示着受到它者的意象所补获。换句话说，其中的一个领域似乎是开放给予人类知识的秩序的中立。它者似乎就是客体的性化的领域。在就是最初展自己给予我们的东西。

 

200

 

Now, the bringing about of the sexual position in the human being is linked,

Freud tells us – and experience tells us – to the trial of traversing a fundamentally

symbolized relationship, that of the Oedipus complex, which includes

a position that alienates the subject, that makes him desire an other’s object

and possess it through the proxy of an other. We therefore find ourselves

here in a position structured within the very duality of the signifier and the

signified. It is insofar as the function of man and woman is symbolized, it is

insofar as it’s literally uprooted from the domain of the imaginary and situated

in the domain of the symbolic, that any normal, completed sexual position

is realized. Genital realization is submitted to symbolization as an essential

requirement – that the man be virilized, that the woman truly accept her

feminine function.

 

现在，弗洛依德告诉我们，精神分析经验告诉我们，在人类身上，性的立场的发生跟这种考验息息相关，跟从基本上是象征化的关系亲历过的考验息息相关。也就是伊狄浦斯情结的考验息息相关。伊狄浦斯情结包括让主体异化的立场，让主体渴望它者的客体，并且通过跟它者的接近，拥有这个客体。我们因此发现我们自己在此处于这个结构的立场，在能指与所指的双重性里面的立场。因为男人与女人的功能被象征化，因为它实质上从想象界被连根拔起，并且被定位在象征界的领域，任何正常，完整的性的立场才会被实现。性器官的实现被递交给象征化，作为是基本的要求：男人应该发泄精力，女人应该接受她的女性的功能。

 

Conversely, no less paradoxically, it’s in the order of the imaginary that we

find the relation of identification on the basis of which the object is realized

as an object of competition. The domain of knowledge is fundamentally inserted

into the primitive paranoid dialectic of identification with the counterpart.

The initial opening of identification with the other, that is, with an object,

starts from here. An object is isolated, neutralized, and as such particularly

erotized. This is what makes an infinitely greater number of objects enter the

field of human desire than enter animal experience.

 

相反地，同样悖论的是，在想象界的秩序，我们发现认同的关系。根据这个认同的关系，客体被实现，作为是競争夺的客体。知识的领域基本上被插入于，跟相对者的认同的原初的妄想的辩证法。跟它者的认同的最初的开放，也就是说，跟客体的认同，就从这里开始。一个客体被孤立起来，被中立化，它的本身被性化。这就是为什么有无限量的客体进入人类欲望的领域，远超过动物的经验。

 

In this interweaving of the imaginary and the symbolic lies the source of

the essential function that the ego plays in the structuring of neurosis.

When Dora finds herself wondering, What is a woman?, she is attempting

to symbolize the female organ as such. Her identification with the man, bearer

of the penis, is for her on this occasion a means of .approaching this definition

that escapes her. She literally uses the penis as an imaginary instrument for

apprehending what she hasn’t succeeded in symbolizing.

 

这神经症的结构里，自我扮演的基本的功能的来源，就位于想象界与象征界的这种交织。当朵拉发现她自己想要知道，「女人是什么？」她企图将女性器官本身象征化。她对男人的认同，作为阳具的拥有者，对她而言，在这个场合，作为工具来接近她无法理解的这个定义。她实质上使用阳具，作为是想象界的工具，用来理解她成功地予以象征化的东西。

 

There are many more women hysterics than men hysterics – this is a fact

of clinical experience – because the path to the woman’s symbolic realization

is more complicated. Becoming a woman and wondering what a woman is

are two essentially different things. I would go even further – it’s because

one doesn’t become one that one wonders and, up to a point, to wonder is

the contrary of becoming one. The metaphysics of the woman’s position is

the detour imposed on her subjective realization. Her position is essentially

problematic, and up to a certain point it’s unassimilable. But once the woman

is locked into hysteria it must also be said that her position presents an unusual

stability by virtue of its structural simplicity – the simpler a structure is, the

fewer the points of rupture it displays. When her question takes shape in the

form of hysteria it’s very easy for the woman to raise it by taking the shortest

path, namely identification with the father.

 

女性的歇斯底里症者比男性的歇斯底里症者的人数较多。这是临床经验的事实。因为到达象征的实现的途径更加复杂。成为女人与想要知道女人是什么，是两个本质上差异的事情。我甚至会更加深入—那是因为女人没有成为女人，她才会想要知道。而到某个时候，想要知道女人是什么，就是跟成为女人背道而驰。女人立场的形上学，就是赋加在她的主体的实现的迂回途径。女人的立场基本上是问题重重。直到某个时刻，这个立场是无法被吸纳。但是一旦女人陷入歇斯底里症，我们也必须说，她的立场呈现一种不寻常的稳定，凭借它的结构的单纯。结构越是单纯，它展现的断裂点就越少。当她的问题以歇斯底里的形式成形时，女人很容易将它提出，採取最短的途径。换言之，认同父亲。

 

雄伯译

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

https://springhero.wordpress.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

精神病 198

精神病 198
雅克、拉康
Jacques Lacan

What is this dissymmetry due to? To the primary love relation with the
mother, you will say, but Freud was a long way away from this point at the
time he was beginning to put order into the facts that he was observing in
experience. He mentions, among other things, the anatomical component,
which means that for the woman the two sexes are identical. But is this the
reason for the dissymmetry?

这个不均称是由于什么原因？由于跟母亲的原初的爱的关系。你们将会说，但是弗洛依德跟这个观点大相迳庭。当他正在开始替他在精神分析经验观察到的那些事实整理头绪时。其中，他提到解剖学的成分。那意味着，对于女人，这两种性别的一致的。但是难道这就是不均称的理由？

The detailed studies that Freud did on this subject are closely argued. I
shall name some of them – “Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical
Distinction between the Sexes,” “Female Sexuality,” “The Dissolution of the
Oedipus Complex.” What do they bring out, if it isn’t that the reason for the
dissymmetry is located essentially at the symbolic level, that it’s due to the
signifier?

弗洛依德对于这个议题所做的细节的研究，受到密切的争议。我将提出其中一些争议。「两性之间的解剖学的区别，导致心理的结果」，「女性的性」，「伊狄浦斯情结的解决」，「他们所揭露的，难道不就是，因为不均称基本上被定位在象征的层次，难道不是因为这个能指？」

I should say that strictly speaking there is no symbolization of woman’s
sex1 as such. In any case, the symbolization isn’t the same, it doesn’t have
the same source or the same mode of access as the symbolization of man’s
sex.1 And this is because the imaginary only furnishes an absence where elsewhere
there is a highly prevalent symbol.

我应该说，严格地说，并没有女性本身的象征化。无论如何，这种象征化并不相同。它并没有相同的来源，或相同的接近模式，如同男性的象征化。这是因为想象界仅是供应一种缺席，在这个缺席的它方，存在着非常盛行的象征。

It’s the prevalence of the phallic Gestalt that in bringing about the oedipal
complex forces the woman to take a detour via identification with the father
and therefore for a while to follow the same paths as the boy. The woman’s
access to the oedipal complex, her imaginary identification, is accomplished
via the father, exactly as in the boy’s case, by virtue of the prevalence of the
imaginary form of the phallus, but insofar as this form is itself taken as the
symbolic element central to the Oedipus complex.

当伊狄浦斯情结被触发时，阳具的格式塔学派的盛行，女人被迫採取迂回方式，凭借对父亲的认同。因此，有一阵子，女人被迫遵循跟男孩一样的途径。女人接近伊狄浦斯情结，接近她想象的认同，如同男孩的情况，是经由父亲伴随而来。凭借阳具的想象的形式的盛行。但是因为这种形式本身被认为是伊狄浦斯情结的象征元素的中心。

If for the girl as much as for the boy the castration complex assumes a
pivotal value in bringing about the Oedipus complex; it does so precisely as
a function of the father, because the phallus is a symbol to which there is no
correspondent, no equivalent. It’s a matter of a dissymmetry in the signifier.
This signifying dissymmetry determines the paths down which the Oedipus
complex will pass. The two paths make them both pass down the same trail
– the trail of castration.

假如对于女孩，如同对于男孩一样，阉割情结假定具有轴心的价值，当伊狄浦斯情结被触发时。它这样做，确实是作为父亲的一种功能，因为阳具是没有对应物，没有相等物的象征。在能指，这是不均称的事情。这个能指化的不均称决定了伊狄浦斯情结将会通过的这些途径。这两个途径让男女两性通过相同的小径—阉割的小径。

The experience of the Oedipus complex is evidence of the predominance
of the signifier in the ways open to subjective realization, since the girl’s
assumption of her own situation is in no way unthinkable on the imaginary
plane. All the ingredients are there for the girl to have direct experience of
the feminine position, symmetrical to the realization of the masculine position.

伊狄浦斯情结的经验是能指的盛行的证据，以各种开放给予主体的实现的方式。因为女孩对她自己的情境的假定，在想象界的层次是不可思议的。所有存在那里的成分，都是要让女孩直接经验到女性的立场，跟男性的立场的实现相均称。

There would be no obstacle if this realization were to be brought about
in the order of lived experience, of ego sympathy, of sensations. And yet,
experience shows a striking difference – one of the sexes is required to take
the image of the other sex as the basis of its identification. That things are so
can’t be considered a pure quirk of nature. This fact can only be interpreted
from the perspective in which it’s the symbolic organization that regulates
everything.

假如这种实现是在生活经历的经验的秩序被导致，在自我同期，在各种感知的秩序被导致，那就不会有阻碍。可是，精神分析经验显示一种强烈的差异。两性的强烈的差异被要求将异性的形象看待作为认同的基础。事情是如此发展，并无法被认为是纯粹的天性的倾向。这个事实仅能够从这个观点来解释：象征界的组织规范一切。

199
Where there is no symbolic material, there is an obstacle, a defect, in the
way of bringing about the identification that is essential for the subject’s sexuality
to be realized. This defect comes from the fact that on one point the
symbolic lacks the material – for it does require material. The female sex is
characterized by an absence, a void, a hole, which means that it happens to
be less desirable than is the male sex for what he has that is provocative, and
that an essential dissymmetry appears. If all this could be grasped within the
order of a dialectic of drives, we would not see why such a detour, such an
anomaly, would be necessary.

在没有象征的材料的地方，，会有一种阻碍，一种缺陷，阻挡这个基本的认同，为了让主体的性别被实现。这个缺陷来自这个事实：在某个时刻，象征欠缺材料—因为它确实要求材料。女性的性的特色是缺席，空无，空洞。那意味着，比起男性的性，女性的性巧好并没有那么被渴望，因为男性拥有的东西具有挑衅性。这就出现一种基本的不均称。假如所有这一切能够被理解，在冲动的辩证法的秩序之内。我们不明白，为什么需要有这样的迂回，这样的异常。

This remark is nowhere near adequate for us concerning the matter at
hand, namely the function of the ego in male and female hysterics. The question
isn’t simply linked to the material, to the trappings of the signifier, but
to the subject’s relationship with the signifier as a whole, with what the signifier
is capable of answering to.

对于我们而言，这样的论述根本就不够充分，关于手边正在处理的事情，也就是，在男性与女性的歇斯狄里症，自我的功能是什么。这个问题并不仅是跟材料息息相关，跟能指的各种陷阱息息相关，而且跟主体与能指作为整体的关系息息相关，跟能指所能够回应的东西息息相关。

When I spoke about beings of language last night it was intended to have
an impact upon my audience. Beings of language aren’t organized beings,
but there is no doubt that they are beings, that they stamp their form upon
man. The comparison I made with fossils was therefore quite appropriate up
to a point. It nevertheless remains true that they don’t have any substantial
existence in themselves.

昨天晚上，当我谈论到作为语言的结构，我的用意是要影响我的听众。作为语言的结构，并不是组织有条理的结构。但是无可置疑地，他们是结构，它们它他们的形式铭印在人身上。我用化石作为比较，直到这点，因此相当恰当。可是，问题仍然存在：作为语言的结构本身并没有拥有任何的实质的存在。

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

精神病 197

精神病 197
The hysteric’s question (II): What is a woman? 175
歇斯底里症的问题（II）：女人是什么

This is illustrated by the way in which I have always spoken to you about
hysteria, to which Freud has given illumination of the highest kind in the
case of Dora.

说明这个的方式，我总是跟你们谈论到，关于歇斯底里症。弗洛依的在朵拉的个案，曾经给予较高种类的启蒙。

Who is Dora? She is someone who is trapped in a very clear symptomatic
state, with the qualification that Freud, by his own admission, makes a mistake
over the object of Dora’s desire in that he himself is too centered on the
question of the object, that is, in that he doesn’t bring out the fundamental
subjective duality implicated in it. He asks himself what Dora desires, before
asking himself who desires in Dora.

朵拉是谁？她深陷于显然是病症的状态，具有这种资格，弗洛依德自己承认，他犯了一个错误，对于朵拉欲望的客体。换句话说，因为他没有揭露出牵涉在里面的基本的主体的双重性。他询问自己，朵拉欲望什么，然后才询问自己，在朵拉，是谁在欲望。

And in the end Freud realizes that in
this quartet – Dora, her father, Herr and Frau K. – Frau K. is the object
that really interests Dora, in so far as she is identified with Herr K. The
question of where Dora’s ego is located is thus resolved – Herr K. is Dora’s
ego. The function filled by the specular image in the schema of the mirror
stage, where the subject situates his sense so as to recognize himself, where
for the first time he situates his ego, this external point of imaginary identification,
is, for Dora, placed in Herr K. It is insofar as she is Herr K. that all
her symptoms adopt their definitive sense.

最后，弗洛依德体会到，朵拉，她的父亲，高赫尔，及高弗洛，这个四人一组让朵拉确实感到興趣。因为他认同高赫尔。朵拉的自我位在哪里的这个问题因此被解答：高赫尔是朵拉的自我。由魅影形象在镜子阶段的这个基模填补的功能，在那里主体定位他的感知，为了体认出他自己，在那里，第一次，他定位他的自我，想象界认同的外在点。对于朵拉，魅影形象填补的功能被放置在高赫尔身上。因为她就是高赫尔，所有她的病征都採有他们的明确的意义。

Dora’s aphonia occurs during Herr K.’s absences, which Freud explains
quite nicely – she no longer needs to talk since he is no longer present, only
writing remains. This leaves us a bit perplexed, nevertheless. If she has dried
up, it’s in fact because the mode of objectification hasn’t been raised anywhere
else. The aphonia arises because Dora is left directly in the presence
of Frau K. Everything she has heard about Frau K.’s relations with her
father revolves around fellatio, and here there is something infinitely more
significant for understanding the appearance of the oral symptoms.
Dora’s identification with Herr K. is what holds this situation together up
until the neurotic decompensation. While she may complain about the situation,
this is still part of the situation, for it is insofar as she is identified with
Herr K. that she complains.

朵拉的声音丧失的征状，发生在高赫尔不在场的情况。弗洛依德相当巧妙地解释—她不再需要谈话，因为高赫尔不再在现场。她仅剩下要书写。可是，这让我们稍微有点困惑。假如她变得沉默，事实上，那是因为客体化的模式并没有在别的地方被提出。朵拉失去声音的发生，是因为她直接被留置在高弗洛的面前。她曾听过关于高弗洛跟她的父亲关系的一切事情，都环绕着口交打转。在此，有某件东西确实是更加的重要，对于理解口腔病症的出现。朵拉认同高赫尔，就是让这个情境汇集一块的原因。直到神经症的瓦解。虽然她抱怨这个情境，这依旧是情境的部分，因为她认同于高赫尔，她才抱怨。

What is Dora saying through her neurosis? What is the woman-hysteric
saying? Her question is this – What is it to be a woman?

通过她的神经症，朵拉正在说些什么？女性的神经症者正在说什么？她的问题是这个：「成为女人是个什么样子？」

This leads us further into the dialectic of the imaginary and the symbolic
in the Oedipus complex.

这让我们进一步深入在伊底浦斯情结的想象界与象征界的辩证法。

What in fact characterizes the Freudian understanding of the phenomena
is that it always shows the structural planes of the symptom, despite the
outburst of enthusiasm by psychoanalysts for the imaginary phenomena stirred
up in analytic experience.

事实上，表现弗洛依德对这些现象的理解的特色就是，尽管精神分析在精神分析经验里，激发出来的想象界的现象，表现热情洋溢，它显示病症的结构的各个层面。

Concerning the Oedipus complex there has been no shortage of well-meaning
people to stress the analogies and symmetries along the paths that the boy
and girl have to follow – and Freud himself pointed out many common features. However, he never stopped insisting on the essential dissymmetry of Oedipus in the two sexes.

关于伊底浦斯情结，有数不尽的善意的人们强调这些类比与均称，沿着男孩与女孩必须遵照的途径。弗洛依德自己指出许多共同的特征，可是，他总是不停地坚持：伊狄浦斯情结在男女两性里，具有基本的不均称。

精神病 195

The hysteric’s question (II): What is a woman?
歇斯底里症的问题（II）：女人是什么？
DORA AND THE FEMININE ORGAN
朵拉与女性的器官
THE SIGNIFYING DISYMMETRY
能指化的不均称
THE SYMBOLIC AND PROCREATION
象征界与生殖
FREUD AND THE SIGNIFIER
弗洛伊德与能指

What was the meaning of my lecture last night on the training of analysts? It
was that it is essential to carefully distinguish between symbolism properly
so-called, that is, symbolism as structured in language, that in which we
understand one another here, and natural symbolism. I have summed this up
in the expression, To read coffee grounds is not to read hieroglyphics.

我昨天晚上探讨精神分析家的训练的演讲，有什么意义？重要的是要仔细区别恰如其名的象征主义。也就是说，象征主义作为语言里的结构，在里面，我们互相理解在此的彼此，以及自然的象征主义。我曾经用这个表达作为总结：阅读咖啡店场域，就是不要阅读象形文字。

For the audience that it was, it was necessary to bring the difference between
signifier and signified to life a bit. I gave examples, some of them humorous,
I gave the schema, and I went on to some applications. I reminded them that
analysts’ practice makes them fascinated by highly seductive imaginary forms,
by die imaginary meaning of the subjective world, whereas what one needs
to know – this is what interested Freud – is what organizes this world and
enables it to be displaced. I pointed out that the dynamics of phenomena in
the analytic field are linked to the duality that results from the distinction
between the signifier and the signified.

对于当时的听众，有必要将能指与所指之间的差异稍微鲜活起来。我举一些例子，有些事耐人寻味的例子。我给出这个基模，我继续将它们运用。我提醒他们，精神分析的实践让他们著迷于非常具有诱拐性的想象的形式。主体的世界的想象的意义。但是我们所需要知道的是—这是弗洛依德感到興趣的东西—是什么组织这个世界，以及是什么让这个世界被替换。我指出，在精神分析的领域，各种现象的动力学，跟这个双重性息息相关。因为区别能指与所指而造成的双重性。

It’s no accident that it was a Jungian who brought in the term symbol. At
the heart of the Jungian myth the symbol is effectively thought of as a flower
that rises up from the depths, a blossoming of what lies in the depths of man
qua typical. The question is whether this is what a symbol is, or whether on
the contrary it’s something that envelops and forms what my interlocutor
nicely called creation.

「象征」这个术语是荣格带进来的，这并非是偶然。在荣格的神话原型的核心，象征有效地被认为是从深处展现出来的花朵。潜藏在作为典型的人的深处的东西的花朵盛开。问题是，是否这就是象征的本质的东西，或是否相反地，它是某件涵盖而且形成我的对谈者微妙地所谓的创造。

The second part of my lecture concerned the consequences in analysis of
forgetting the signifier-signified structuration. And there I was only able to
give an indication of the way in which the theory of the ego currently being
promoted in New York circles completely changes the perspective from which
the analytic phenomena have to be approached, and that it is party to the
same effacement. This effectively ends up placing the ego-to-ego relation in
the foreground. And a simple inspection of Freud’s articles between 1922
and 1924 shows that the ego is nothing like what it’s currently made out to
be in analytic usage.

我演讲的第二部分关注于精神分析的各种结果，当它忘记能指与所指定结构组织。在那里，我仅能够给予指示这个方式，自我的理论目前在纽约的精神分析圈子被鼓吹的方式。自我分析的理论改变了精神分析的现象必须被探究的面向。它遭受到相同的抹除。这有效地结束，将自我与自我的关系放置在前景。对于弗洛依德在1922年与1924年之间的文章，作一简单的检视，我们就会发现到：为了让精神分析能够使用，自我根本就不是目前被理解的样子。

1
If what is called strengthening the ego exists, it can only be the accentuation
of the fantasy relation that is always correlative of the ego, especially in the
case of the neurotic with a typical structure. As far as the latter is concerned,
the strengthening of the ego moves in exactly the opposite direction from
that of the dissolution, not only of symptoms, which are strictly speaking
within their own meaningfulness but may when the occasion arises be mobilized,
but also of the structure itself.

假如所谓的强化的自我确实存在，那仅会上幻见关系的强调。那种幻见关系总是自我的相互关系，特别是在具有典型结构的神经症的个案。就后者而言，自我的强化恰恰是朝相反的方向，移动进来，跟解决的方向相反，不仅是病征的解决，严格来说，那是在病征自己的意义里面，但是但时机来临时，它们被动员起来，而且也是在结构本身的方向。

What is the sense of what Freud contributed with his new topography
when he stressed the imaginary nature of the ego’s function? It’s precisely
the structure of neurosis.

当弗洛依德用他的新的地形学，强调自我的功能具有想象的特性，他所贡献之物的意义是什么？那确实就是神经症的结构。

Freud relates the ego to the object’s fantasmatic character. When he writes
that the ego has the privilege of reality using, of reality testing, that it’s the
ego that indicates reality for the subject, the context leaves no doubt – the
ego is here as an illusion, what Freud called the ego ideal. Its function, which
is not that of objectivity but that of illusion, is fundamentally narcissistic,
and it’s on the basis of this function that the subject gives something its
connotation of reality.

弗洛依德将自我跟客体的幻见的特性连接一块。当他写到：自我具有使用现实界，测试现实界的特权。那个自我指示著现实界给予主体—这段内文请楚地显示—自我在此是一种幻觉，弗洛依德所谓的自我理想。自我理想的功能并不是客观性的功能，而是幻觉的功能。它基本上是自恋。根据这个功能的基础，主体给予某件东西，给它在现实界的外延意义。

From this topography there arises what in typical neuroses is the place of
the ego. The ego in its imaginary structuration is for the subject like one of
its elements. In the same way that Aristotle declared that one must not say,
Man thinks, nor, The soul thinks, but, Man thinks with his soul, we shall say
that the neurotic asks his neurotic question, his secret and muzzled question,
with his ego.

从这个地形学，也产生在典型的神经症的自我的位置。对于主体而言，自我在它的想象界的结构，就像是它自己的元素。同样地，亚里斯多德宣告说，我们一定不要说「人在思维」，也一定不要说「灵魂在思维」。而是要说「人用他的灵魂在思维」。我们将会说：「神经症询用他的自我，问他的神经症的问题，他的秘密，以及被闷住的问题。

The Freudian topography of the ego shows us how a hysteric, or an obsessional,
uses his or her ego in order to raise the question, that is, precisely in
order not to raise it. The structure of a neurosis is essentially a question, and
indeed this is why for a long time it was for us purely and simply a question.
The neurotic is in a position of symmetry, he is the question that we ask
ourselves, and it’s indeed because it affects us just as much as him that we
have the greatest repugnance to formulating it more precisely.

弗洛依德的自我地形学跟我们显示：一位歇斯底里症者，或一位妄想症者，使用他或她的自我，为了提出这个问题。换句话说，确实是为了不要提出这个问题。神经症的结构基本上是一个问题。这确实是为什么有长久的时间，对于我们而言，神经症的结构纯粹仅是一个问题。神经症者处于均称的位置，他是我们询问自己的问题。确实是因为这个问题影响我们，如同影响他，我们强烈地不愿更加明确地诠释它。

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