Archive for February, 2014

精神病 286

February 28, 2014

精神病 286
雅克、拉康

2
The notion of Verwerfung indicates that there must already have been something
in the relation to the signifier previously lacking here in the initial introduction
to fundamental signifiers.

「弃绝」的这个观念指示著:当时一定有某件跟能指的关系的东西,在最初介绍到基本的能指时,已经就是欠缺。

This is, quite clearly, an absence undiscoverable by experimental research.
There is no way of grasping something that lacks at the time it lacks. In the
case of President Schreber this would have been the absence of the primordial
male signifier to which for years he was able to appear to be equal – he looked
as if he, like everyone else, were upholding his role as a man and of being
somebody. Virility does signify something for him, since it’s equally the object
of his very lively protestations at the time the delusion erupts, which initially
presents itself in the form of a question over his sex, an interpellation [appel]
that comes to him from outside, as in the fantasy – how nice it would be to be
a woman undergoing intercourse. The delusion’s development expresses the
fact that for him there is no other way of realizing himself, of affirming himself
as sexual, than through admitting he is a woman, transformed into a
woman. This is the axis of the delusion. For there are two planes to distinguish.

显然易见,这是一种抗拒被实验的研究发现的缺席。我们不可能在它欠缺的时刻,理解某件欠缺的东西。在许瑞伯庭长的个案,这本来是原初的男性能指的缺席。好几年来,他能够出现,为了胜任这个原初的男性能指。他看起来好像,他跟每个其他的人一样,正在支撑他作为男人及出人头地的角色。对他而言,生命精力确实意味着某件东西。因为在幻觉发作时,它同样是他生动的抗议的客体。这个客体最初呈现,以质疑性别的形式。从外面来的他这里的质问,如同在幻见里:「假如能够成为经历性交的女人,那该是多么美好!」这个幻觉的发展表达这个事实:对于他而言,没有其他方法可以实现他自己,肯定他自己,作为是性,除了凭借承认他是一位女人,被转变成为女人。这就是幻觉的轴心。因为有两个层次要区别。

On the one hand, the course of the delusion reveals the need to reconstruct
the cosmos, the world’s entire organization, around the fact that there is a
man who can only be the wife of a universal god. On the other hand, let’s
not forget that in his common discourse up to the critical period of his existence
this man appeared to know just like everyone else that he was a man,
and what he somewhere calls his manly honor cries out aloud when he happens
suddenly to be aroused a bit too strongly by the enigma of the absolute
Other entering into play, which emerges with the first signs of the delusion.
In short, we are led here to the distinction that is the thread running through
everything we have until now deduced from the very structuration of the
analytic situation – namely, what I have called the little other and the absolute
Other.

在一方面,幻觉的过程显示重建这个宇宙的需要,重建世界的整个的组织的需要。根据的事实是,仅有一个男人能成为普世的神的妻子。另一方面,让我们不要忘记,直到他存在的严重时期,在他的共同的辞说里,这个人似乎就像每个其人的人一样知道,他是个男人。他在某个地方称之为男子汉气概的东西,大声呐喊出来。突然地,进入运作的绝对大他者的谜团非常强烈地让他感到激动。总之,我们在此被引导到这个区别。这个区别穿梭迄今我们推论出来的每样事情的脉络,根据精神分析情境的结构。换句话说,我所谓的小他者与绝对的大他者。

The former, the other with a small o, is the imaginary other, the otherness
in a mirror image, which makes us dependent upon the form of our counterpart.
The latter, the absolute Other; is the one we address ourselves to beyond
this counterpart, the one we are forced to admit beyond the relation of mirage,
the one who accepts or is refused opposite us,5 the one who will on occasion
deceive us, the one of whom we will never know whether he is deceiving us,
the one to whom we always address ourselves. His existence is such that the
fact of addressing ourselves to him, of sharing something like language with
5 . . . celui qui accepte ouquise refuse en face de nous . . .him, is more important than anything that may be placed at stake between him and us.

前者,有一个小写字母o的小他者,在想象界的小他者,在镜子意象里的小他者。它让我们依赖我们的替身的形式。后者,这位绝对的大他者,是我们对谈的这位,超越这个替身。我们被迫要承认的替身,超于幻景的关系。在我们对面,接受或被拒绝的大他者。有时,他会欺骗我们,我们永远不知道他是否正在欺骗我们的这位大他者。我们总是跟他对谈的这位大他者。他的存在是如此真实,以致我们跟他对谈的这个事实,跟他分享像语言这样的东西的事实,是最紧要的事情,胜过于任何他与我们之间的岌岌可危的事情。

Misrecognizing the distinction between these two others in analysis, where
it’s present throughout, lies at the origin of all the false problems, and in
particular of the one that appears now that the primacy of the object relation
is being emphasized.

在精神分析里,这两个他者无所不在,误认这两个他者的区别,就是所有的虚假的问题的起源。特别是,客体关系的原初性正在被强调,出现的这个他者。

Indeed, there is an obvious discrepancy between the Freudian position
according to which the newborn, on entering the world, is in a so-called
autoerotic relation, that is, a relation in which the object doesn’t exist, and
the clinical observation that from the beginning of life we undoubtedly have
every indication that all sorts of objects exist for the newborn. The solution
to this difficulty can only be found by distinguishing between the imaginary
other insofar as he is structurally the originary form of the field in which a
multiplicity of objects is structured for the human newborn, and the absolute
Other, the Other with a big O, which is surely what Freud was driving at –
and which analysts have subsequently neglected – when speaking of the nonexistence,
originally, of any Other.

的确,有一个明显的差异,在弗洛依德的立场,与临床的观察之间。依照这个弗洛依德的立场,新生婴孩一进入这个世界,就处于所谓的自动性欲的关系,也就是,客体并不存在其中的关系,而依照临床观察,从生命的开始,我们无可置疑地,获得充分的指示:对于婴孩,各种的客体都存在。对于这个困难的解决,仅能凭借区别想象的他者与绝对的大他者,才能够被找到。想象的他者,结构上,对于新生的婴孩而言,是客体的多重性被建构的领域的最初的形式。而带有大写O的大他者,确实是弗洛依德要探究的东西,当他谈论到任何大者原初的不存在,而精神分析随后却忽略他。

There is a good reason for this, which is that this Other lies entirely within
itself, Freud says, but at the same time entirely outside itself.
The ecstatic relation to the Other is an issue that didn’t arise yesterday,
but because it has been left in the background for several centuries it’s worth
our while, for we analysts who are constantly dealing with it, to reexamine
it.

这种忽略理由充分。弗洛依德说,这位大他者完全位于它自身之内,但是又同时完全在它自身之外。跟大他者的这种狂喜的关系,并不是昨天才出现的问题。而是因为好几世纪意料,这个关系一直就存在于背景那里,它值得我们探究。因为我们精神分析家正在不断地处理它,为了重新检视它。

In the Middle Ages a distinction was drawn between what was called the
physical theory and the ecstatic theory of love. This is the way the question
of the subject’s relation to the absolute Other was raised. Let’s say that in
order to understand the psychoses we have to make the love relation with the
Other qua radically Other, and the mirror situation, everything of the order
of the imaginary, animus and antnta, which is located according to the sexes
at one or other of the places, overlap in our little schema.

在中世纪,在所谓的爱的生理的理论与狂喜的理论之间,有个区别。那就是主体跟绝对的大他者的关系的问题被提出的方式。我们不妨这样说,为了要理解精神病,我们必须让跟大他者的爱的关系,作为强烈的大他者。让镜子的情境,每样属于想象界的秩序的东西,阿尼玛斯与阿尼玛,在我们的小基模里互相重叠,因为阿尼玛斯与阿尼玛的位置,是依照在这些位置的某个性别而定。

Where does the difference between someone who is psychotic and someone
who isn’t come from? It comes from the fact that for the psychotic a love
relation that abolishes him as subject is possible insofar as it allows a radical
heterogeneity of the Other. But this love is also a dead love.

某位精神病的人,与某个并不是精神病的人,他们的这个差异来自哪里?这个差异来自这个事实:对于精神病,爱的关系是可能的,尽管爱的关系会让他丧失。因为爱的关系容许大他者具有强烈的多样性。但是这种爱也是致命的爱。

It may seem to you that it’s a curious and unusual detour to resort to a
medieval theory of love in order to introduce the question of psychosis. It is,
however, impossible to conceive the nature of madness otherwise.
Think about, sociologically, the forms of enamoration, of falling in love, attested in culture.

你们可能觉得,为了介绍精神病的问题,诉诸于中世纪的爱的理论,是奇怪而且不寻常的迂回。可是,要用其他方式来构想疯狂的这个特质是不可能的。请你们从社会的角度,想想看,在文化展现的,迷恋的各种形式,恋爱的各种形式,

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

精神病 285

February 27, 2014

精神病 285
雅克、拉康

Many clinicians have shown an interest in the psychotic’s prior history.

许多的临床医生对精神病人的先前历史感到興趣。

Helene Deutsch has emphasized a certain as t/that appears to mark the first
stages of development in those who at some moment sink into psychosis.
They never enter the game of signifiers, except through a kind of external
imitation.4 The non-integration of the subject into the register of the signifier
indicates the direction from which the question of the preconditions of psychosis
arises – which is undoubtedly soluble only through analytic investigation.

海伦娜、杜西曾经强调,对于在某个时刻,曾经陷入精神病的那些人们,标示发展的早期阶段,有某个「好像」。他们从来进入能指的遊戏,除了经由某种的外在的模仿。主体没有融入能指的铭记,指示著这个方向。精神病的先前情况的问题,就朝这个方向产生。 无可置疑地,仅有经由精神分析的研究,这个问题才能够被解决。

It sometimes happens that we take prepsychotics into analysis, and we
know what that produces – it produces psychotics. The question of the contraindications
of analysis would not arise if we didn’t all recall some particular
case in our practice, or in the practice of our colleagues, where a full-blown
psychosis – a hallucinatory psychosis, I‘m not speaking of a precipitated
schizophrenia – is triggered during the first analytic sessions in which things
heat up a bit, at which point the poor analyst rapidly becomes the transmitter
who makes known to the analysand [analyst] what he must do and must not
do.

有时恰巧地,我们接受精神病前期的个案分析。我们知道那会产生什么,那会产生精神病。假如在我们的执业,或同事的执业里,有些特殊的个案,我们宣告放弃的话,精神分析的悖论的问题就不会发生。在那些个案,精神病已经完全成形。在精神分析的前几堂,由于事情蕴酿起来,一种妄想症的精神病-会被触发–我并不是谈论突发性的精神分裂—那时,可怜的精神分析家马上会变成传递者,让他必须怎么做及什么不能做,让分析者知道。

Aren’t we here touching on what in our very own experience, without our
having to look any further, lies at the heart of the reasons for the onset of
psychosis? It’s one of the most difficult things that can be proposed to a man,
with which his being in the world doesn’t confront him all that often – it’s
what is called speaking out [frendre la parole), I mean speaking out one’s own
speech, which is quite the opposite of saying yes, yes to the speech of one’s
neighbor. This isn’t necessarily put into words. The clinic shows that, provided
one knows how to discern it at very different levels, it is at precisely
this moment that psychosis breaks out.

我们难道不是碰触到,不必深入寻找,就在我们自己的经验里,引发精神病开始的原因的问题的核心?我们对于一个人建议的最困难的一件事情,并没有人如此经常地让他面临他活在世间的这种的生命实存。所谓的大声说出,我的意思是,说出自己的言说。那个说「是的」完全相反,对于我们的邻居的言谈说「是的」完全相反。这未必是用文字来表达。临床显示:只要我们知道如何在不同的层次觉察,确实就是在这个时刻,精神病会发作。

It’s sometimes a question of a tiny spot of speaking out, whereas previously
the subject had been living in his cocoon like a moth-worm. This is the form
that Clerambault characterized very well under the name of the mental automatism
of old maids. I’m thinking of the marvelous richness characteristic of
his style – how could Cterambault have failed to dwell on the facts? There
was really no reason to pick out these unfortunate beings, forgotten by everybody,
whose existence he describes so well and in whom, at the slightest
provocation, mental automatism emerges from this discourse that had always
remained latent and unexpressed in them.

有时,问题是大声说出的一小点,而先前主体一直就像蚕蛾一样生活在蚕茧里。这就是克列蓝伯清楚地定性,命名为「老仆人的精神病自动机制」。我正想到的,是他的风格的特色是多么千变万化。克列蓝伯对于这些事实,怎会不详加叙述?对于不幸的人们,他们被众人遗弃,我们确实没有理由挑剔。他清楚地描述他们的存在,稍加刺激一下,精神病的自动机制就在他们身上出现。因为这个辞说总是潜伏在他们身上,没有表达出来而已。

If we allow that the failing [dtfaillance] of the subject on encountering real
speech locates his entry, his sliding, into the critical phenomenon, the inaugural
phase, of psychosis, then we can begin to see how this comes to link up
with what we have already expounded.

假如我们承认,主体遭遇的真实的言说时的发作,让他的进入或陷入精神病,当作是严重的现象,当作精神病的开始的时期,那么我们就能够开始看出,这跟我们已经说明过的东西,如何产生关联。

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

精神病 282

February 26, 2014

精神病 282
雅克、拉康

Freud wasn’t unaware of what hieroglyphic writing really is. He was in
love with everything touching on the culture of ancient Egypt. Very often he
would make reference to the style, to the signifying structure, of hieroglyphs
and to the sometimes contradictory, superimposed, way of thinking of the
beliefs of the ancient Egyptians. And he readily refers to this to give, for
example, an image expressive of a certain way in which contradictory concepts
coexist in neurotics.

弗洛依德并不知道,象形文字的书写确实是什么。他热爱跟古代埃及文化有关的东西。经常,他会提到象形文字的这种风格,提到能指意涵的结构,提到古代埃及人的信仰,有时具有悖论与赋加的思维方式。譬如,他快速地提到,在神经症身上,悖论的观念共同存在的表达某种方式的意象,

At the end of this passage he evokes the language of symptoms and speaks
of the specificity of the signifying structuration in the different forms of neuroses
and psychoses. Then suddenly, in a striking summary, he compares the
three great neuropsychoses. For instance, he says, what a hysteric expresses by
vomiting an obsessional will express by painstaking protective measures against
infection, while a paraphrenic mil be led to complaints or suspicions that he is
being poisoned. These are all of them different representations of the patients wish
to become pregnant which have been repressed into the unconscious, or of his defensive
reaction against that wish.1

在这个段落的结尾,他召唤病征的语言,并且谈论,神经症与精神病的不同形式,会有能指意涵结构的明细。然后,突然地,用引人注意的结论,他比较三个严重的神经症精神病。他说:「譬如,歇斯底里症者藉由呕吐表达的东西,妄想症者会凭借奋力对抗感染的保护措施来表达。而精神分裂症者将会被引导成为抱怨与怀疑,说他正在被下毒。这些都是病人愿望怀孕的差异的再现表象。这些差异的再现表象被潜抑成为无意识,或是病人对抗那个怀孕愿望的防卫性反应。

That was to set us going.
那是要让我们继续下去。

1
Let’s return to our subject.

让我们回到我们的主体。

We’re not far away from it with the theme of procreation, which lies at the
heart of the symptomatology in the Schreber case. But even today we shall
not get there immediately.

用生殖的主题,我们距离它不远。在许瑞伯的个案,生殖位于病征的核心。但是即使在今天,我们也不会立即就到达那里。

I would like, from yet another angle, and concerning what you heard on
Monday evening from our friend Serge Leclaire, to raise once again the issue
of what I call the ultimate signifier in neurosis.

我想要从另外一个角度,关于你们在星期一晚上,从我们的朋友索基、雷拉尔那里听到的东西。他再次提出这个问题,我所谓的神经症的最后的能指。

Even though it’s essentially a signifier, it of course isn’t a signifier without
meaning. I stress this fact that it doesn’t depend on meaning but is the source
of meaning.

即使它基本上是一个能指,它当然并不是没有意义的能指。我强调这个事实:这个能指并没有依靠意义,它就是意义的来源。

The two sides, male and female, of sexuality are not given data, are nothing
that could be deduced from experience. How could the individual situate
himself within sexuality if he didn’t already possess the system of signifiers,
insofar as it institutes the space that enables him to see, at a distance, as an
enigmatic object, the thing that is the most difficult of access, namely his
own death? This is no more difficult of access, if you think about it, if you
think precisely of the long dialectical process necessary for an individual to
accomplish it and of the extent to which our experience consists of too much
and too little in one’s access to the male and female poles – a reality that may
make us wonder whether it’s so much as graspable outside the signifiers that
isolate it.

男性与女性是性的两边,它们没有给予资料。从经验里,没有一样东西能够被推论出来。假如这个个人没有已经拥有能指的系统,他如何在性别里定位他自己?。因为性别定位让他能够看见的空间,以某个距离,作为是谜团的客体,这个最困难探究的物象。也就是,他自己的死亡。假如你思考到死亡,假如你确实思考到,当我们探究男性与女性的两极时,为了让个人完成性别定位所需的这个漫长的辩证过程,假如你思考到,我们的经验或多或少程度就是由死亡组成,这个物象并没有那么难以探究。这个现实界让我们想要知道,在将死亡孤立出来的那些能指的外面,死亡是否是可以理解的。

The notion we have of reality as that around which the setbacks and obstacles
of neurosis revolve must not deflect us from remarking that the reality
with which we are concerned is upheld, woven through, constituted, by a
tress of signifiers. We have to bring out the point of view, the plane, the
particular dimension, of the human being’s relationship to the signifier if we
are to know even what we are saying when for example we say that in psychosis
something becomes lacking in the subject’s relation to reality. As a
matter of fact it’s a question of a reality structured by the presence of a particular
signifier that is inherited, traditional, transmitted – but how? Of course,
by virtue of the fact that all around the subject people speak.

我们对现实界的观念,作为神经症的挫折与阻碍环绕的现实界。这个观念一定不要让我们闪避这种谈论:跟我们息息相关的现实界被支撑,被彻底编织,被组成,被一束的能指。我们必须揭示人类跟能指的关系的这个观点,这个层面,这个特殊的维度。假如我们想要知道,甚至我们正在说什么。譬如,我们说,在精神病,主体跟现实界的关系,有某件东西变成欠缺。事实上,问题是,现实界是由特殊的能指的存在作为结构。这个能指的是继承而来,是传统,是被传递的。但是,怎样传递?当然,凭借着这个事实:人们谈论,都环绕着这个主体。

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

精神病 283
雅克、拉康

If we now admit as a fact of common experience that not to have undergone
the trial of Oedipus, not to have seen its conflicts and its dead ends open
before one, and not to have resolved it, leaves the subject with a certain.
defect, in a certain state of inability to bring about the correct distance that
is called human reality, this is because we hold that reality implies the subject’s
integration into a particular play of signifiers. Here I’m only formulating
what everyone admits, in a kind of implicit way, in analytic experience.

假如我们现在承认作为共同经验的事实,不曾经历伊狄浦斯的考验,不曾看见伊狄浦斯的冲突及其僵局展开在面前,不曾解决这个僵局,会让主体具有某种的缺点,处于某种的无能的状态,没有能力导致这个正确的距离,所谓人的现实界的距离。这是因为我们相信,现实界暗示着主体被融合进入能指的特殊运作里。在此,我仅是说明在精神分析经验里,每个人所承认的东西,用暗示的方式。

We have indicated in passing that what characterizes the hysterical position
is a question that refers precisely to the two signifying poles of male and
female. The hysteric addresses it with all his being – how can one be either
male or female? – which implies that the hysteric nevertheless has reference
to it. The question is this – what is it that the entire structure of the hysteric,
with his fundamental identification with the individual of the sex opposite to
his own by which his own sex is questioned, is introduced into, suspended
from, and preserved in? The hysterical manner of questioning, either… or
. . . , contrasts with the obsessional^ response, negation, neither. . . nor…,
neither male nor female. This negation comes about against a background of
mortal experience and of hiding his being from the question, which is a way
of remaining suspended from it. The obsessional is precisely neither one nor
the other – one may also say that he is both at once.

我们已经顺便指示,表现歇斯底里症特性的东西,是确实提到男性与女性的两个能指化的两极的问题。歇斯底里症者用他所有的生命实存去处理它:「要就是男性,要不就是女性,这如何可能呢?这暗示着,歇斯底里症者仍然提到它。问题是这样:「由于他基本上认同于跟他自己性别相反的异性个人,他自己的性别受到这个质疑。歇斯底里的整个的结构,被介绍成为什么,被什么悬挂著,被保存在什么里面?」歇斯底里症的质疑的方式,「要就是男性,要不就是女性」,跟妄想症者的回应,「既不是男性,也不是女性」的否定的回应相对比。这个否定的发生,是以道德的经验,以及隐藏他的生命实存不受质疑,作为背景。这是对这个问题悬置不论的方式。妄想症者确实既不是男性,也不是女性。我们也可以说,他同时是男性,也同时是女性。

I shall move on, since that was only intended to situate what happens in
the psychotic, who contrasts with the position of each of the subjects of the
two great neuroses.

我将继续前进,因为那时唯一被打算要定位精神病者发生的事情。他跟两种严重的神经症的每一个主体的立场作为对照。

In my talk on Freud a fortnight ago I spoke of language insofar as it’s
inhabited by the subject who to a greater or lesser extent speaks out in Ian
guage with all his being, that is, in part unknowingly. How can one fail to
see in the phenomenology of psychosis that everything from beginning to end
stems from a particular relationship between the subject and this language
that has suddenly been thrust into the foreground, that speaks all by itself,
out loud, in its noise and furor, as well as in its neutrality? If the neurotic
inhabits language, the psychotic is inhabited, possessed, by language.

两个星期前,在我探讨弗洛依德的演讲里,我谈论到语言。因为语言被主体所驻居。这个主体或多或少都用语言,用他所有的生命实存,大声地说出。也就是说,有部分,他自己不知不觉。我们如何会看不出来,在精神病的现象学里,从头到尾,每样东西都是起源于主体与这个语言之间的特殊的关系。这个语言突然地被投掷进到前景,语言自个儿言说起来,大声地,喧哗而激动,而又保持中立。假如神经症者驻居在语言里,精神病者则是被语言驻居,被语言著魔。

What comes to the foreground reveals that the subject is subjected to a
trial, to the problem of some fault concerning the permanent discourse that
supports the everyday, the miscellany, of human experience. Something
detaches itself from the permanent monologue and appears as some kind of
music for several voices. It’s worthwhile dwelling on its structure so as to ask
ourselves why it’s made in this way.

来到前景的东西显示:主体被隶属于一种考验,隶属于某种缺点的难题,关于支持寻常日子,生活杂事,人类经验的辞说。某件东西将它自己跟这个永久的独白隔离开来,并且出现作为好几种声音的某种的音乐。它的结构值得详述,为了询问我们自己,为什么以这种方式被形成。

This is, at the level of the phenomena, something that immediately gives
us the impression of being structured. Don’t forget that the very notion of
structure is borrowed from language. To misrecognize this, to reduce it to a
mechanism, is as conclusive as it is ironic. What is it that Clframbault has
isolated under the name of the elementary phenomena of psychosis – the
repeated, contradicted, commanded thoughts – if it’s not this discourse that
is augmented, recapitulated in antitheses? But on the pretext that there is an
entirely formal structuration here – and Clcrambault is absolutely right to
insist upon this – the conclusion he draws is that we are dealing with simple
mechanical phenomena. This is totally inadequate. It’s much more promising
to think of it in terms of the internal structure of language.

在这些现象的层次,这是某件立即给予我们这个印象的东西,作为被结构的印象的东西。请你们不要忘记,结构的这个观念,是从语言借用而来。误认这个,将它简化成为一种心理机制,是武断结论,也是反讽。克列蓝伯根据精神病的基本的现象的名义,将什么孤立出来?重复,悖论,被命令的各种思想。这难道不就是在反面被增强,被总结的辞说?但是根据的藉口是,在此有完整的正式的结构。克列蓝伯是绝对正确的,当他坚持这一点:他获得的结论是,我们正在处理简单的机制的现象。这是完全难以自圆其说。假如我们用语言的内部结构来看待它,还比较有展望。

The merit of Cl&ambault is to have shown its ideationally neutral nature,
which in his language means that it’s in total discord with the subject’s mental
state, that no mechanism of the affects adequately explains it, and which
in ours means that it’s structural. The weakness of the etiological or pathogenic
deduction is of little concern to us in comparison with what he stresses,
namely that the nucleus of psychosis has to be linked to a relationship between
the subject and the signifier in its most formal dimension, in its dimension as
a pure signifier, and that everything constructed around this consists only of
affective reactions to the primary phenomenon, the relationship to the signifier.

克列蓝伯的优点是,曾经显示它在理念方面的中立的特质。在他的语言里,这意味着,这跟主体的精神状态完全不协凋。用情感的心理机制根本就不足够解释它。在我们的语言里,这意味着,它是结构性。我们关心的,并不是病源学或病理学推论的弱点,而是他所强调的东西。也就是说,精神病的核心,必须跟主体与能指处于最正常维度的关系息息相关,作为跟纯粹能指的维度的关系息息相关。环绕这里被建构的每样东西,仅是由情感对于原初的现象的反应所形成,也就是,跟能指的关系。

The subject’s relation of exteriority to the signifier is so striking that all
clinicians have emphasized it in one way or another. The syndrome of influence
still leaves some things vague, but the syndrome of action from without,
as naive as it appears, does underline the essential dimension of the phenomenon,
the psychotic’s exteriority in relation to the entire apparatus of language.
Hence the question arises whether the psychotic has really entered
language.

主体跟能指的关系的外在性,是如此引人注意,以致于所有临床医生都用某种的方式强调它。影响的综合症状依旧留下某些东西不很明朗。但是从外部的行动的综合症状,虽然表面很纯真,确实是强调这个现象的基本维度,精神病的外在性,跟语言的整个的工具的关系。因此,会产生这个问题:精神病是否确实曾经进入语言。

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

精神病 277

February 26, 2014

精神病 277
雅克、拉康
XX
第二十章
THE ENVIRONS OF THE HOLE
空洞的环境
The appeal, the allusion
诉诸寓意
THE ONSET OF PSYCHOSIS
精神病的开始
SPEAKING OUT
大声说出来
THE MADNESS OF LOVE
爱的疯狂
THE EVOLUTION OF DELUSION
幻觉的进化

If we reflect that the means of representation in dreams are principally visual images
and not words, we shall see that it is even more appropriate to compare dreams
with a system of writing than with a language. In fact the interpretation of dreams
is completely analogous to the decipherment of an ancient pictographic script such
as Egyptian hieroglyphs. In both cases there are certain elements which are not
intended to be interpreted (or read, as the case may be) but are only designed to
serve as “determinatives,” that is to establish the meaning of some other element*

假如我们反思一下,梦的再现表象的工具主要是视觉意象,而不是文字。我们将会看出,假如我们将梦比喻为写作的系统,而不是比喻为语言,将是更加贴切。事实上,梦的解析完全类同于古代的图形文字的诠释,譬如埃及的象形文字。在两种情况,都有某些并没有打算被解析,或看情况,并没有打算被阅读的元素。而是它们被设计,仅是为了充当「限定功能」,也就是,要建立某个其他的元素的意义。

The ambiguity of various elements of dreams finds a parallel in these ancient systems
of writing; and so too does the omission of various relations which have in
both cases to be supplied from the context. If this conception of the method of
representation in dreams has not yet been followed up, this, as will be readily
understood, must be ascribed to the fact that psychoanalysts are entirely ignorant
of the attitude and knowledge with which a philologist would approach such a
problem as that presented by dreams.1

梦的各种元素的模糊暧昧,在这些古代的书写系统,找到一个对比。各种关系的省略,也是一样。在两种情况,它们都必须从文本来供应。假如梦的再现表象的方法的这个观念,还没有被追寻的话,我们迅速会理解到,它们必须被归咎于这个事实:精神分析家对于这种态度与知识,完全无知,语言学家就是以这样的态度与知识,来探究像梦所呈现的这样的问题。

1 Sigmund Freud, “The Claims of Psycho-Analysis to Scientific Interest,” SE
13:177.
— 弗洛依德「精神分析宣称具有科学的興趣」

This passage is clear enough. The apparent flagrant contradiction that you
can draw from it on the basis of Freud’s remark that dreams are expressed in
images rather than otherwise is restored and resituated as soon as he shows
the sort of images in question – namely, images that occur in writing, that is
not even for their literal sense since there is a number of them that will not
be there to be read, but simply to contribute an exponent without which this
would remain enigmatic.

这个段落非常清楚。你们从它那里获得明显的强烈悖论,根据弗洛依德的谈论:梦被表达,是用意象,而不是其他东西。这个强烈悖论被恢复,而且重新定位,当他显示受到质疑的这种意象。换句话说,在书写里发生的意象。那甚至不是为了它们的实质意涵,因为有很多这样的意象存在那里,并不是要被阅读。而仅是为贡献一直指数。假如没有这个指数,这个意象将会始终是个谜团。

The other day I wrote some Chinese characters on the board. I could just
as easily have written some ancient hieroglyphs – the first person pronoun,
for example, which is drawn as two little signs that have a phonetic value and
may be accompanied by a more or less fleshed-out image which is there to
give the other signs their sense. But the other signs are no less autographic
than the little fellow2 and have to be read in a phonetic register.

前天,我在黑板上写了几个中文字。我本来也可以轻易地书写几个古代的象形文字。譬如,第一人称的代名词,被书写作为两个具有语音价值的小符号。并且伴随着一个相当充实的意象。那个意象在那里,是为了给予其他的符号它们的意义。但是其他的符号跟这个小人形符号,同样都是书法,并且必须用语音的铭记来阅读。

The comparison with hieroglyphs is rendered all the more valid and certain
by the fact that it’s dispersed throughout The Traumdeutung and that Freud
returns to it constantly.

跟象形文字的这个比喻,更加能自圆其说,而且更加确定,由于这个事实:它散布在「梦的解析」的内容里,弗洛依德不断地回到那里。

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

精神病 276

February 25, 2014

精神病 276
雅克、拉康

But for us, workers, scholars, doctors, technicians, what direction does
this return to the truth of Freud indicate?

但是对于我们,研究员,学者,医生,技术人员,回归到弗洛依德的这个真理,指示著什么方向?

It is the direction of a positive study whose methods and forms are given
to us in this sphere of the so-called human sciences, which concerns the order
of language, linguistics. Psychoanalysis should be the science of language
inhabited by the subject. From the Freudian point of view man is the subject
captured and tortured by language.

这就是积极研究的方向,它的方法与形式被给予,在所谓的人文科学的领域里。这个领域关注语言的秩序,也就是语言学。精神分析应该是主体所驻居的语言的科学。从弗洛依德的观点,人是被语言补获与折磨的主体。

Psychoanalysis introduces us to a psychology, to be sure, but which one?
Psychology properly so-called is effectively a science of perfectly well-defined
objects. But, undoubtedly, by virtue of the significant resonances of the word,
we slide into confusing it with something that refers to the soul. One thinks
that everyone has his own psychology. One would be better off, in this second
usage, to give it the name it could be given. Let’s make no mistake – psychoanalysis
isn’t an egology. From the Freudian perspective of man’s relationship
to language, this ego isn’t at all unitary, synthetic. It’s decomposed,
rendered complex in various agencies – the ego, the superego, the id. It
would certainly be inappropriate to make each of these terms a little subject
in its own right, which is a crude myth that makes no advance, illuminates
nothing.

的确,精神分析跟我们介绍心理学,但是哪一种心理学?恰如其分的所谓的心理学,实质上是定义非常清楚的客体的科学。凭借字词的意义的回响,我们逐渐陷入跟提到灵魂的某件东西的混淆。我们认为,每个人都拥有他自己的心理学。在这个次级的用法,我们最好给予心理学它恰如其分应该被给予的名称。让我们不要犯这个错误,精神分析并不是自我心理学。从弗洛依德对于人与语言的关系的观点,这个自我根本不是单一性,或综合。由于有各种代理者,自我,超我,本我,它被瓦解,变得复杂。我们确实是不适当对,假如我们让这些术语的每一个,成为各自自圆其说的小主体。这种小主体是简陋的神话,没有进步,没有启示任何东西。

Freud could not have been in any doubt about the dangers confronting his
work. When, in 1938, he took up his pen for his final preface to Moses and
Monotheism he added a very curious note -1 do not share, he says, the opinion
of my contemporary Bernard Shaw, who claims that man would be capable of
achieving something only if he could live to be three hundred years old. I do not
believe this prolongation of life would have any advantages unless, as the translation
goes, the conditions of the future were totally transformed. There you have
the sad nature of these translations. In German, this has quite a different
sense – many other thing would have to be profoundly altered, at the base, at the
root, in the determinations of life.12

对于他的研究所面临的各种危险,弗洛依德当时不可能有任何怀疑。在1938年,当他拿起笔替「摩西与一神教」写最后的跋言,他补充一个非常耐人寻味的注释:「我并没有赞同我当代作家萧伯纳的意见,」他说,「萧伯纳宣称,只要人能够活到三百岁,人就能够完成某件东西。我并不相信人的寿命的延长会有什么优点,除非未来的情况完全改观,翻译是这样说的。」在那里,你们拥有这些翻译的可悲的特性。在德文,这具有不同的意义:「许多的其他东西将必须彻底地被改变,从基础改变,从根改变,为了决定人生是什么。」

This note by Freud written when he was old, continuing to pursue his
meditation before leaving his message to decompose, to me appears to echo
the terms in which the chorus accompanies the final steps of Oedipus towards
the little wood of Colonus. Accompanied by the wisdom of the people, he
meditates upon the desires that bring man to pursue shadows, he indicates
that it’s his having strayed that makes him unable even to know where the
woods are. I’m astonished that nobody – except for someone who rendered
this into Latin reasonably well – has ever managed to translate properly the
mi phunat that the chorus then utters.13 It’s reduced to the value of a verse
that says it’s better not to have been born, whereas the sense is absolutely clear
– the only way to overcome all this business of logos, the only way to be rid
of it all, would be not to have been born like this. This is the very sense accompanying
the gesture of the old Freud, when he rejected with his hand any
wish that his life be prolonged.

弗洛依德老年时写的这个注释,当他继续追寻他的沉思,以免他的讯息瓦解消失。对我而言,这个注释迴响这些术语,合唱队伴随着伊狄浦斯的最后的脚步,朝向科伦纳斯的小树林。伊狄浦斯由这些人们的智慧伴随着,他沉思引导人追寻阴间幽魂的各种欲望。他指示著,由于自己曾经迷失,他才会甚至不能够知道,他的树林在哪里。我甚感奇怪,没有人曾经成功地正确翻译合唱队当时表达的这个me phunai,除了有某个人,将这个字合情合理地翻译成拉丁文。这个字被诠释成为一首诗的的价值,内容是说:「人最好当初就不该出生。」这个意涵绝对是清楚的:要克服理性的所有这一切的唯一方法,要摆脱理性的一切掌控的唯一方法,就是像这样,人当初就不应该出生。这个意涵伴随着老年的弗洛依德的身影。当他用他的手,排斥让他寿命延长的任何愿望。

It’s true that somewhere in his work on the Witz, in other words on the
quip, he indicates a reply – Much better not to have been born – unfortunately,
this happens barely once in two hundred thousand.”

的确,在他研究「论机智语」的某个地方,也就是研究「笑话」的某个地方,他指示著一个回答:「人最好当初就不应该出生—不幸地,这样的事情两千年,难得一次。」

I give you this reply.

我给予你们这个回答。

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

精神病 274

February 24, 2014

精神病 274
雅克、拉康

There is a twofold alienation in the movement of Freudian theory.

弗洛依德理论的运动,有一个双重的异化。

There is the other as imaginary. It’s here in the imaginary relation with the
other that traditional Selbst-Beimisstsein or self-consciousness is instituted.
There is no way that the unity of the subject can be brought about in this
direction. The ego isn’t even the place, the indication, the rallying point, the
organizing center of the subject. It’s profoundly dissymmetrical to it. Although
it is in this sense that he is going to begin by getting one to understand the
Freudian dialectic – 1 can in no way expect to attain my accomplishment and
my unity from the recognition of an other who is caught up with me in a
relation of mirage.

有一个他者作为想像界。就在跟他者的想像的关系这里,传统的自我意识被形成。主体的一致性,不可能朝这个方式被导致。自我甚至并不是主体的这个位置,这个指示,这个召集点,这个组织的中心。自我跟主体的这个中心是相当不均称的。虽然他将从这个意义开始,凭借获得我的成绩及我的一致性,从一个他者的体认。这个他者跟我们陷溺一块,处于一种幻景的关系。

There is also the other who speaks from my place, apparently, this other
who is within me. This is an other of a totally different nature from the other,
my counterpart.

也有另一位他者从我的位置言谈。显而易见,这位他者是在我之内。这个跟他者完全不同特性的者,我的替身。

That’s what Freud contributes.

这就是弗洛依德贡献的东西。

If this still required confirmation, we would only have to observe the way
in which the technique of the transference is prepared. Everything is designed
to avoid the relation of ego to ego, the imaginary relation that could be established
with the analyst. The subject isn’t face to face with the analyst. Everything
is designed to efface the entire dual, counterpart-to-counterpart relation.

假如这依旧需要证实,我们只必须观察这个方式就够了。以这种方式,移情的技术被准备。每样东西被设计来避免自我跟自我的关系,能够被建立的跟精神分析家想像的关系。主体跟精神分析家并没有面对面。每样东西被设计要抹除完整的双重性,替身跟替身的关系。

On the other hand, analytic technique derives from the necessity for an
ear, an other, a listener. The analysis of a subject can only be brought about
with an analyst. This is a reminder to us that the unconscious is essentially
speech, speech of the other, and can only be recognized when the other sends
it back to you.

在另一方面,精神分析的技术来自于他者的耳朵的倾听的必要,倾听者的必要。仅有跟精神分析家,主体的精神分析才能够被导致。这跟我们提醒,无意识基本上是言说,他者的言说。仅有当他者回馈给你时,无意识才能够被体认。

Before I finish I would still like to speak about what Freud added towards
the end of his life, when he had already left his troop of followers behind him
a long time before. I’m unable to doubt for one instant, merely from the
evidence of the style and tone of Freud’s dialogue with all around him, that
he had a profound notion of their radical inadequacy, of their total incomprehension.

在我结束之前,我依旧想要谈论弗洛依德在他生命的晚年补充的东西。他在很久以前,就已经让他的一大群的追随者遥不可及。光是从弗洛依德跟他周遭的所有人们的对谈的风格与语调,我就不能有丝毫的怀疑:他对追随者的力有不贷,对于他们的茫然不能理解,心知肚明。

There is a period in Freud’s work, between 1920 and 1924, when
he quite simply broke off. He knew that he didn’t have very long to live – he
died at 83 years of age, in 1939 – and he went straight to the heart of the
problem, namely the compulsion to repeat [automatism de repetition].

在弗洛依德的研究,有一段时期,在1920年跟1924年之间。他完全中断来往。他知道他在生之日无多。他在1939年,八十三岁的年纪逝世。他直接探究到难题的核心。也就是说,他探究到重复的冲动。

This notion of repetition is so perplexing for us that one tries to reduce it
to a repetition of needs. If on the contrary we read Freud we see that the
compulsion to repeat was based, as it always had been from the beginning of
his entire theory of memory, on the question raised for him by the insistence
of speech which returns in the subject until it has said its final word, speech
that must return, despite the resistance of the ego which is a defense, that is,
the adherence to the imaginary misconstrual of identification with the other.
Repetition is fundamentally the insistence of speech.

我们对于重复的这个观念,并没有那么困惑,以致于我们尝试要将它简化成为是需求的重复。
相反地,假如我们阅读弗洛依德,我们看出,重复的冲动的基础上由于言说的坚持,对他提出的问题。如同在完整的记忆理论的开始时被提出的。在主体身上,言说的坚持会回转,直到它道出它最后的断言。言说必须回转,尽管作为防卫的自我的坚持。换句话说,对于他者的认同的想像的错误的建构的坚持。重复基本上是言说的坚持。

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

精神病 273

February 24, 2014

精神病 273
雅克、拉康

The main, unique reference of contemporary analytic theory and practice,
namely the famous so-called pregenital stages of the libido which are thought
to date from the beginning of Freud’s work, date from 1915. “On Narcissism”
dates from 1914.

当代精神分析理论与实践的主要与独特的参照,也就是,著名的所谓的生命力比多的性器官前期的阶段。这些阶段被认为是弗洛依德研究的开始的时期。从1915年开始的时期,「论自恋」是从1914年开始的时期。

There can be no mistaking Freud’s intentions in emphasizing the theory
of the ego. It was a question of avoiding two traps. The first is dualism. There
is a kind of mania in some analysts which consists in turning the unconscious
into another ego, a bad ego, a double, a symmetrical counterpart to the ego
– whereas the theory of the ego in Freud is on the contrary designed to show
that what we call our ego is a certain image we have of ourselves, which gives
us a mirage, of totality no doubt. These leading mirages don’t at all orientate
the subject in the direction of so-called profound – an adjective I personally
don’t care for – self-knowledge. The ego’s function is explicitly designated
in Freud as analogous in every way to what in the theory of writing is called
a determinative.

弗洛依德强调自我的理论的意图,是无庸置疑的。问题是要避免两个陷阱。第一个陷阱是双重主义。在某些的精神分析家,有一种偏执狂,想要将无意识转变成为另外一个自我,一个不好的自我,一个双重者,一个自我的均称的替身。相反地,弗洛依德的自我的理论,被设计来显示:我们所谓的自我,是我们对于自己拥有的某种形象。这个形象给予我们一种幻景,无可置疑是完整性的幻景。这些主要的幻景,根本就没有将主体定向于所谓的深入的自我理解。我个人并不喜欢深入这个形容词。在弗洛依德,自我的功能明确地被设计,作为完全类似写作理论所谓的限定词。

Not all forms of writing are alphabetic. Some are ideophonetic and contain
determinatives. In Chinese a thing like this means something more or less just,
but if you add this, which is a determinative, it becomes to govern. And if
instead of putting in this determinative you put in a different one it means
illness. The determinative emphasizes in a particular way, inserts into a class
of meanings, something that already has its phonetic individuality as a signifier.

并不是所有的写作都是按照字母排列。有些写作是拟态词,还有些是限定词。在中文,像这样的东西意指著某件相当公正的东西,但是你也可补充说,那就是限定词,因为它变成「统辖」。假如你不用限定词来表达,你用另外一种方式来表达,那就意味着「生病」。这个限定词用特别的方式强调,插入各种意义的类别。某件已经拥有它的语音的个人性的东西,作为一个能指。

Well then, for Freud the ego is precisely a sort of determinative whereby
certain of the subject’s elements are associated with a special function that
appears on the horizon of his theory at that moment, namely aggressiveness,
considered as characteristic of the imaginary relationship with the other in
which the ego constitutes itself through successive and superimposed identifications.
Its variable value, its value as a sign, essentially distinguishes it
from the entity of the organism as a whole. And, indeed, this is the other
trap that Freud was avoiding.

呵呵,对于弗洛依德,自我确实是一种限定词。凭借这个限定词,某些的主体的元素跟一个特别的功能联系一块。在当时,这个特别的功能出现在他的理论的未来展望。也就是,侵凌性被认为是跟他者的想像的关系的特性。在那儿,自我形成它自己,凭借连续性与赋加的认同。它的变数的价值,它作为讯息的价值,基本上区别它,跟作为整体的有机体的实体不同。的确,这就是弗洛依德当时避免的另外一个陷阱。

As a matter of fact, even as Freud rallies the personality that speaks in the
unconscious around a center, he wanted to avoid the mirage of the famous
total personality that hasn’t failed to regain the upper hand throughout the
entire American school which continues to relish the term, promoting the
restoration of the primacy of the ego. This is a complete misrecognition of Freud’s teaching.

事实上,即使当弗洛依德召集在无意识言谈的这个人格环绕一个中心,他想要避免著名的「完整人格」,因为它必然会重新掌控,在整个的美国学派。美国学派继续珍爱这个术语,提倡自我的原初性的恢复。这是完全地误识弗洛依德的教导。

The total personality is precisely what Freud intends to
characterize as fundamentally foreign to the function of the ego as it has been
regarded by psychologists until now.

完整人格,确实是弗洛依德打算将特性,定位是基本上外在于自我的功能。因为迄今,心理学家一直这样看待它。

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

精神病 272

February 24, 2014

精神病 272
雅克、拉康

3
Freud’s originality, which disconcerts our sentiment but alone enables the
effect of his work to be understood, is his recourse to the letter. This is the
spice in Freud’s discovery and in analytic practice. If some of this hadn’t
fundamentally remained, there would have been nothing left of psychoanalysis
a long time ago. Everything stems from here. Who is this other who
speaks in the subject, of whom the subject is neither the master nor the
counterpart, who is the other who speaks in him? Everything is here.

弗洛依德的原创性,让我们的情感甚为狼狈,但是光是他的原创性就让他的研究的影响能够被理解。那就是他诉诸于这个信件的讯息。这就是弗洛依德发现,以及在精神分析实践的香料。假如其中的这一些当时基本上没有保存下来,精神分析老早以前恐怕就灰飞烟灭了。每样东西都是从这里开始。在主体身上言谈的这个他者是谁?他者的这个主体既不是主人,也不是替身。在他身上言谈的这个他者是谁?每样东西都在这里。

It’s not enough to say that it’s his desire, for his desire is libido, which,
let’s not forget, above all means whim [lubie], unbounded desire, due to the
fact that he speaks. If there were no signifiers to support this rupture, these
fragmentations, displacements, transmutations, perversions, this insulation
of human desire, the latter would have none of these characteristics that make
up the substance of the signifying material provided by analysis.

光是说这个他者是他的欲望,并不足够。因为他的欲望是生命力比多。让我们不要忘记,尤其重要的是,这个生命力比多意味着幻想,没有约束的欲望。由于他在言谈的这个事实。假如每有能指支持这个断裂,这些片断,替换,转换,变态,人类欲望的这个绝缘,后者将不会有任何的这些特性,由精神分析供应的能指化材料的物质,就是由这些特性形成。

Nor is it enough to say that this other is in some way our counterpart, on
the pretext that he speaks the same language as what we may call common
discourse, which is thought to be rational and which, as it happens, sometimes
is. For in this discourse of the other what I take to be me is no longer
a subject but an object. It’s a function of mirage, in which the subject refinds
himself only as misrecognition and negation.

光是说这位他者是我们的某种的替身,也不足够。藉口是,这位他者言谈相同的语言,跟我们所谓的共同的辞说相同的语言。这个共同的辞说并认为是理性的,有时,恰巧就是理性的辞说。因为在他者的这个辞说里,我认为是我的东西,不再是一位主体,而是一个客体。这是幻景的功能,在这个幻景里,主体重新发现他自己,仅是作为误认与否定。

It’s on this basis that the theory of the ego is best understood.
根据这个基础,自我的理论最能够被理解。

Freud produced it in a number of stages, and one would be wrong to think
that it must date from Das Es.10 Perhaps you’ve already heard mention of the
famous Freudian topography. I fear that you’ve heard only too much mention
of it, since the way it’s interpreted goes in a sense contrary to Freud’s
reason for introducing it. It was in 1914, with his major article “On Narcissism,”
which is prior to this topography that has now come to the foreground,
that Freud constructed a theory of the ego.

弗洛依德分成许多阶段来创作它。假如我们认为,它一定是从「自我与本我」开始,那我们就错误了。或许,你们已经听过有人提到著名的弗洛依德的测绘学。我担心,你们对于它过分地耳熟能详,因为测绘学被解释的方式,在某种意义上,跟弗洛依德介绍它的理由背道而驰。在1914年,早先于目前受人嘱目的这个测绘学之前,有一篇他主要的文章「论自恋」,弗洛依德就建构自我的理论。

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

精神病 273
雅克、拉康

精神病 270

February 23, 2014

精神病 270
雅克、拉康

M. Emil Ludwig wrote a book against Freud, almost defamatory in its
unfairness, in which he evokes the impression of delusional alienation that
one is supposed to get from reading him.81 should almost say that I prefer
such a testimony to the wearing down of the angles, to the softening, reductive
smoothing out being brought about by analytic literature claiming to
follow Freud. The incomprehension, the refusal, the shock displayed by Emil
Ludwig – whether he’s being honest or acting in bad faith doesn’t matter to
us much – is greater testimony than the disintegration of Freud’s work that
is being achieved in the decadence analysis is sliding into.

阿米尔、鲁维格写了一本书反对弗洛依德,内容偏颇,近乎诋毁。其中,他引述妄想症的异化的印象,我们从阅读他应该会获得的印象。我几乎要说,我宁可要这样一篇证词,而不是抹除各种棱角,而不要那种软趴趴的,简化的平顺,由宣称是追随精神分析的文献所导致的平顺。阿米尔、鲁维格展示的不理解,拒绝与惊吓—无论他坦率以告,或刻意卖弄,对于我们而言并不重要—其实是更佳的证词,比起将弗洛依德的研究的拆解,所犯的错误。因为那些弗洛依德的研究是在颓废的精神分析里完成的。

How has it been possible to omit the fundamental role of the structure of
the signifier? Of course, we understand why. What is expressed within the
apparatus and the play of signifiers is something that comes from the bowels
of the subject, which can be called his desire. As soon as this desire is caught
up in the signifier it’s a signified desire. And thus we are all fascinated by the
meaning of this desire. And we forget, despite Freud’s reminders, the apparatus
of the signifier.

能指的结构的基本的角色被省略,这如何的是可能的?当然,我们理解为什么。在能指的工具与运作里面被表达的东西,是某件来自主体的内脏的东西。这个东西能够被称之为欲望。当这个欲望被陷溺于能指身上,那是一个所指的欲望。因此,我们对于这个欲望的意义都感到著迷。尽管弗洛依德的诸般提醒,我们忘记能指的这个工具。

精神病 270
Freud emphasizes, however, that the elaboration of the dream is what makes
the dream the leading model of symptom formation. Now, this elaboration
bears a strong resemblance to a logical and grammatical analysis, just slightly
more erudite than what we did at school. This register is the normal level of
Freudian work. It’s the very register that makes linguistics the most advanced
of the human sciences, provided one is simply prepared to acknowledge that
what is distinctive about positive science, modern science, isn’t quantification
but mathematization and specifically combinatory, that is to say linguistic,
mathematization which includes series and iteration.

可是,弗洛依德强调,梦的建构是让梦成为病征形成的主要模式。现在,这个建构跟逻辑与文法的分析强烈地酷似。比起我们在学校从事的逻辑与文法的分析稍微还有渊博些。这种铭记是弗洛依德的研究的正常的层次。就是这个铭记,让语言学成为最先进的人文科学。只要我们心里有准备要承认,关键积极的科学显著的地方,并不是在数量化,而是数学化。也就是明确的结合的语言学的数学化,它包括系列与重复的运算。

This is what stands out in Freud’s work. Without it nothing of what he
subsequently develops is so much as thinkable.

这就是弗洛依德的研究显著的地方。假如没有这个东西,他随后发展的东西,没有一样是可思议的。

I’m not alone in saying this. We have recently published the first volume
of the journal in which we inaugurate our attempt to renew the Freudian
inspiration, and you can read there that at the bottom of the Freudian mechanisms
one rediscovers these old figures of rhetoric which over time have
come to lose their sense for us but which for centuries elicited a prodigious
degree of interest. Rhetoric, or the art of oration, was a science and not just
an art. We now wonder, as if at an enigma, why these exercises could have
captivated whole groups of men for such a long time. If this is an anomaly
it’s analogous to the existence of psychoanalysts, and it’s perhaps the same
anomaly that’s involved in man’s relationships to language, returning over
the course of history, recurrently, with different ramifications and now presenting
itself to us from a scientific angle in Freud’s discovery. Freud
encountered it in his medical practice when he came upon this field in which
the mechanisms of language can be seen to dominate and organize the construction
of certain so-called neurotic disorders, unbeknown to the subject,
outside his conscious ego.

不仅是我一人这样说。我们最近出版杂志的第一册。在这个杂志里,我们开始我们的企图,要更新弗洛依德的启发。你们从那里能够阅读到,在弗洛依德的心理机制的基础,我们重新发现这些修饰学的古老比喻。对于我们而言,这些古老的修饰学的比喻,随着时间过去,已经逐渐丧失它们的意义。但是,几世纪以来,仍然有许多人们对它们感到强烈興趣。修饰学,或雄辩的艺术,是一门科学,而不仅是艺术。我们现在想要知道,好像针对一个谜团,为什么长久的这段时间以来,这些修饰学的运用,竟然能够让整个团体的人们那么著迷。假如这是不正常的,它类似精神分析家的存在。或许这是相同的不正常,牵涉到人跟语言的关系。随着历史的发展,反复地回转,带着不同的分差发展。现在则是呈现它自己给我们,从科学的角度,在弗洛依德的发现里。弗洛依德在他医学的实践里,遭遇到它。当他偶然进入这个领域,在那里,语言的机制结构,能够被看待,作为统辖并组织某些所谓的神经症疾病的建构。主体对于这种疾病并不知道,因为它处于他意识的自我外面。

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

精神病 269

February 23, 2014

精神病 269
雅克、拉康
As a matter of fact, nobody was taken in by it. Psychoanalysis does in fact
manifest something of the positive spirit of science qua explanatory. Psychoanalysis
is as far removed as is possible from any form of intuitionism. It has
nothing to do with this hasty, short-circuited understanding that so simplifies
and limits its significance. To put it back into its proper perspective, one
only has to open Freud’s work and see-the place that a particular dimension,
which has never been really emphasized, has there. The value of this for
opposing the current evolution of analysis can now be recognized, named,
and orientated towards a real reform of analytic studies.

事实上,没有人被它所欺骗。精神分析事实上确实展现某件作为解释的科学的积极精神的东西。精神分析尽可能远离直觉主义的形式。它跟这种匆促,短暂流通的理解没有丝毫关系。因为匆促的短暂理解简化而且限制精神分析的重要性。为了恰如其分地看待它,我们所以做的就是打开弗洛依德的著作,然后看出一个特别的维度拥有的位置。这个维度以前从来没有确实强调过。作为精神分析的目前进展相对立的这个维度的价值,现在能够被体认,被命名,被取向,朝著精神分析的研究的确实的改革。

I shall light my lantern and I’ll tell you what this is in a way that attempts
to be both rapid and striking.

我将点亮我的灯笼。我将用企图又快速又耸动的方式告诉你们这是什么。

Open The Interpretation of Dreams, You will find nothing there resembling
this graphology of children’s drawings that has ended up becoming the paradigm
of analytic interpretation, none of these ascending and descending
manifestations of the waking dream. If there is anything this resembles, it’s
deciphering. And the dimension in question is that of the signifier. Take any
of Freud’s dreams and you will see that a word, such as Autodidasker, predominates.

请你们打开「梦的解析」。你们将会发现,那里没有一样东西类似儿童绘画的图象学。这种图象学曾经结果成为精神分析的解析典范。其中没有一样东西对于清醒时刻的梦的展示有所提升与减损。假如有任何它所类似的东西,那就是诠释。受到质疑的这个维度,是能指的维度。假如你们拿弗洛依德的任何一个梦来诠释,你们将会看出,譬如,像Autodidasker这样的字就可充斥一切。

6 This is a neologism. From here we get Lasker, plus a number of
other memories. The very form of the word is absolutely essential where
interpretation is concerned. An initial interpretation, an orientation or a
dichotomy, will direct us towards Lassalle. Here one discovers Alex, Freud’s
brother, through the intermediary of another, purely phonetic and verbal
transformation. Freud finds in his recollection a novel by Zola in which a
character by the name of Sandoz appears. In the way Freud reconstructs it,
Zola constructed Sandoz out of Aloz, the anonym of his name, by replacing
Aloz the beginning of Alexander, by the third syllable sand. Thus, just as it
was possible to make Sandoz from Zola, so Alex is included in the Lasker that
Freud dreamed as the last part of the word Autodidasker.

这是一个新杜撰的字。从这里,我们得到Lasker这个字。外加许多其他的记忆。就梦的解析而言,这个字的形式绝对是必要的。最初的解析,一种定向,或一种二分法,将会引导我们朝向Lassalle。在此,我们发现亚力克,他是弗洛依德的弟弟,经由另外一个字的中介,纯粹是语音与文词的转换。弗洛依德在他的回忆里找到一本左拉写的小说。在这部小说里,一位名叫桑豆兹Sandoz的人物出现。以弗洛依德建构它的方式,左拉用他的名字的笔名 Aloz这个字,来建构桑豆兹Sandoz。他用第三音节sand,来取代Aloz,作为Alexander这个字的开始。因此,正如有可能用左拉Zola这个人,来建构桑豆兹Sandoz,阿力克Alex这个字也被包含在拉斯科Lasker这个字里。弗洛依德梦见这个Lasker,作为Autodidasker这个字的最后部分。

I’m telling you what Freud did. I’m telling you how his method proceeds.
And, as a matter of fact, one only has to open any page of the book, The
Traumdeutung, to find an equivalent. I could have taken any other dream, the
one for example where he speaks of jokes that have been made on his name,
or the one that features a swimming bladder.7 You will always find a sequence
of homonyms or metonyms, of onomastic constructions that are absolutely
essential to an understanding of the dream and without which it dissipates,
vanishes.

我正在告诉你们弗洛依的做些什么。我正在告诉你们他的方法如何进行。事实上,我们只要打开「梦的解析」这本书的任何一页, 我们就会找到一个相等语。我还可以拿任何其它一个梦为例,譬如,在一个梦里,他谈论到人家对他的名字所开的玩笑。或是以一个正在游泳的胆囊作为特色的笑话。你们总是会发现一系列的同音异词或是换喻,一系列的专有名词的建构。它们是必要的,为了理解这个梦。假如没有它们,梦会散开消失。

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