精神病 356

精神病 356

Doesn’t this kind of declaration give you cause to wonder, when we know
that the putting into play of the signifier in the symptom has no link with
anything of the order of a tendency? You would really have to have the oddest
idea of natural symbolization to believe that a ring is the natural symbolization
of the female sexual organ.


You are all familiar with the theme of the Ring of Hans Carvel, a fine story
from the Middle Ages of which La Fontaine made a tale and which Balzac
used again in his Comes drolatiques. This fellow, who is colorfully depicted
and is sometimes said to be a priest, dreams that he has a ring on his finger
and on waking finds that he has his finger inside the vagina of his companion.
To put this in a way that dots the is and crosses the ts – how could the
experience of penetrating this orifice, since it is an orifice that is in question,
resemble in any way at all that of putting on a ring, if one didn’t already
know in advance what a ring is?

你们对于「汉斯、卡维尔」的主题都耳熟能详,这是中世纪的美好故事,拉、丰田创作一个故事,巴尔扎克再次使用者他的Comes drolatiques. 这个人生动地被描述,有时据说是一位僧侣。他梦想他的手指上拥有一个戒指。当他清醒时,他发现,他的手指在他的伴侣的阴户里。让我们描述一下细节:贯穿这个阴穴的经验,跟戴上戒指,如何有任何方式类似?因为受到质疑的是这个阴穴,假如我们不是已经事先知道戒指是什么?

A ring isn’t an object one encounters in nature. If there is anything in the
order of penetration that resembles the more or less tight-fitting penetration
of a finger inside a ring, it is certainly not – I appeal, as Marie-Antoinette
used to say, not to all mothers, but to all those who have ever put their finger
in a certain place – it’s certainly not penetrating this place which is, my God,
more like a mollusk than anything else. If something in nature is designed to
suggest certain of the properties of a ring [anneau] to us, it is restricted to
what language has dedicated the term anus to, which in Latin is spelt with
one n, and which in their modesty ancient dictionaries designated as the ring
that can be found behind.


But to confuse one with the other on the basis of the fact that it may be a
question of natural symbolization, one must really have had in the order of
these cogitative perceptions. . . . Freud himself must have really despaired
of you not to have taught you the difference between the two, and regarded
you as irredeemable little idiots.


Mr. Jones’s lucubration is designed to show us that a ring is introduced
into a dream, indeed a dream that culminates in a sexual action, only because
we thereby signify something primitive. Cultural connotations frighten him
and this is where he is mistaken. He doesn’t imagine that the ring already
exists as a signifier, independently of its connotations, that it’s already one of
the essential signifiers by which man in his presence in the world is capable
of crystallizing many things other than marriage. A ring isn’t a hole with
something around it, as Mr. Jones seems to think, in the manner of these
people who think that to make macaroni one takes a hole and surrounds it
with flour. A ring above all has a signifying value.



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: