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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: