精神病 353

精神病 353
雅克、拉康

This is no doubt what drove Ida Macalpine to raise the most unusual problem
of direct correspondences between the symbol and the symptom. The
apparatus of the symbol is so absent from the mental categories of the contemporary
psychoanalyst that the sole way such relations can be conceived is
through the intermediary of a fantasy. Furthermore, her entire argument
consists in relating the development of the delusion to a fantasmatic theme,
to an originary – original [originelle] according to the usual word today – pre
oedipal fixation, emphasizing that what sustains desire is essentially a theme
of procreation, but one that is pursued for its own sake, is asexual in form,
and only induces conditions of devirilization, of feminization, as a sort of a
posteriori consequence of the requirement in question. The subject is conceived
as born into the sole child-mother relation, prior to any constitution
of a triangular situation. This is when he would have seen a fantasy of desire
born within himself, a desire to equal the mother in her ability to create a
child.

无可置疑地,这是为什么艾达、马卡派恩会想要提出这个最不寻常的问题,象征与病征之间的直接对应。在当代精神分析的精神范畴里,象征的工具是如此的欠缺,以致于这些关系能够被构想的唯一的方法,就是通过幻想的中介。而且,她整个的论点在于将妄想症的发展,跟幻想的主题挂钩,跟原初的东西挂钩—依照今天original这个通常字词的使用。前伊狄浦斯阶段的固著,强调维持欲望的东西,基本上是一个生殖的主题,但这是一个为了自身的缘故被追求的主题。形式上跟性无关。它仅是诱导出除掉生命力的各种情况,作为一种受到质疑的要求的由因推果的结果。主体被构想作为是诞生进入孩子-母亲的关系,早先于三角情境的任何结构。这就是当他本来会看见一种欲望的幻想,在他内部诞生,这种欲望相当等于是拥有创造一个小孩的能力的母亲。

This is Mrs. Macalpine’s entire argument, which I have no reason to pursue
here in all the richness of its detail, since it is within your reach in the
substantial preface and postface to the English edition of Schreber’s text she
has done. It is important to see that this construction is connected with a
certain reorientation of the entire analytic dialectic which tends to make the
imaginary economy of fantasy, the various fantasmatic reorganizations, disorganizations,
restructurations, and destructurations, the hub of all comprehensive
progress as well as of all therapeutic progress. The schema that is
currently so widely accepted, frustration-aggressiveness-regression, is at the
base of everything in this delusion that Mrs. Macalpine thinks she can explain.

这是马卡派恩女士的整个的论点。我没有理由在此追寻它丰富的细节。因为你们在英文版的许瑞伯的文本,她所写的的长篇序言与后跋就可找得到。重要的是要看出,这个建构跟整个的精神分析的辩证法的某种重新定向息息相关。整个的精神分析辩证法倾向于形成幻想的想像的经济,各种的幻想的重新组织,瓦解,重新建构,以及解构,各种全面性的进展以及各种治疗的进展的枢纽。目前如此广泛被接受的基模,挫折-侵凌-倒退的基模,作为这个妄想症的一切的基础,马卡派恩认为他能够解释。

She goes a long way in this direction. There is, she says, a decline, a twilight
of the world, and at one point a quasi-confusional disorder of the apprehensions
of reality, only because the world has to be recreated.5 She thus
introduces, at the most profound stage of the mental confusion, a sort of
teleology. The entire myth was only constructed because it is the only way
for the subject Schreber to satisfy himself in his imaginary requirement of
childbirth.

她朝这个方向前进。她说,有一种衰微,世界的黄昏。在某个时刻,会有一种类似精神病的混乱,对于现实界的理解。仅是因为这个世界必须重新被建造。她因此介绍,在精神病最深刻的阶段,一种的目的论。整个的神话被建构,仅是因为这是唯一的方式,让许瑞伯这位主体满意于他诞生小孩的想象的要求。

Ida Macalpine’s point of view can no doubt enable us to understand the
putting into play, the imaginary impregnation, of the subject to be reborn –
I’m copying here one of Schreber’s themes which is, as you know, the picturing.
4′

艾达、马卡派恩的观点,无可置疑,让我们能够理解即将重新诞生的主体的运作,想像的孕育。我在此抄袭许瑞伯的一个主题,众所周知,那是「绘图」。

But from such a point of view, in which only imaginary fantasies are involved,
what enables us to understand the prevalence that Freud gives to the function
of the father?

但是从这样一个观点,仅有想像的幻想被牵涉到,是什么让我们能够理解弗洛依德为什么强调父亲的功能?

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: