精神病 282

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

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: