如何言说真理 8

如何言说真理 8

雅克慎论拉康

The Apocalypse of Speech
言说启示录

When will this train arrive at the station? When will speech arrive at its destination? We find ourselves once more (we have never left) in the train that is taking Freud from Ragusa to Herzegovina. We now understand that the speech addressed by Freud to his traveling companion is just as “true” as it is “false,” just as revealing as repressive: “Truth is introduced along with [speech], and so is the lie…. Speech is in its essence ambiguous” (1988a, 228-229/254).

什么时候火车将到达火车站?什么时候言说将到达它的目的地? 我们再次发现我们自己在火车上(我们从未离开),这班火车正载着弗洛依德从瑞格马,到赫齐加维那。我们现在理解,弗洛依德对他的同车乘客所对谈的言说,,同样真实,也同样虚假,如同又是启示,又是潜抑。「真理跟言说一起被介绍,如同谎言跟言说一起被介绍。言说在它的本质上是模糊暧昧」(1988a,228-229/254)。

Speaking of this and that, instead of uttering the “veridical,” fateful speech that would have placed him before his own nothingness (before his own desire), Freud misspeaks himself at the very moment he tries to speak the truth. Exactly who did paint the frescoes of the Apocalypse? The word is quite literally missing, (1975b, 295), and other words crowd into its place. The “sword of speech” remains fixed in his interlocutor, in the alter ego who inhibits him to the same extent that Freud uses him as a handy shield to avoid his own death. In short, Freud calls on the other “to bear witness” (1988a, 50/60-61); he leaves it to him to speak the true word of his desire (“But of course, you know, that painter … the one who did the famous frescoes at Orvieto . . .”), in return for which, Lacan comments, he resists the revelation of his desire, resists it through the mediation of the imaginary “ego” in which he alienates his speech, through which he speaks. Resistance, Lacan repeats after Freud, is a resistance of the ego (let us add: as it is incarnated in an alter ego; cf. 1966, 374), and it “makes itself felt in the guise of transference” (1988a, 46/57), when speech, as if possessed and hypnotized (1988a, 56/67-68; 1966, 377-378), swings entirely toward the other:

当弗洛依德言说这个与那个,而不是表达「跟现实吻合」的致命的言说。那种言说本来会将他放置在他自己的空无面前(在他自己的欲望面前)。弗洛依德错误地言说他自己,就在他尝试言说真理的时刻。当时确实是谁在绘画启示录的壁画?这个真理的字实质上是失落,(1975b,295),其他的字蜂拥而来取代它。「言说的剑」始终固定在他的对谈者那里,在驻居他身上的他-我。弗洛依德甚至使用他,作为现成的甲胄,避免他自己的死亡。总之,弗洛依德召唤他者,作为「见证」(1988a,50/60-61);他将他自己的死亡,留个他者言说他的欲望的这个真实的话语。(但是当然,你们知道,那位画家、、、在奥维图画那个著名的壁画的那个人、、、),拉康评论说,为了回报这个,他抗拒他的欲望的启示,抗拒它,通过想像的自我的中介。在想像的自我那里,他让他的言说异化,他通过这个言说在言说。拉康跟随弗洛依德重复强调,抗拒就是自我的抗拒(让我们补充:如同在一个他-我那里,自我的抗拒被具体化身;1966,374)。抗拒让它自己被感觉,伪装成移情)(1988a,46/57)当言说摇摆,完全朝向他者,好像被著魔与被催眠(1988a,56/67-68;1966,377-378)。

It is insofar as the confession of being doesn’t come to term that speech runs entirely along the slope by which it hooks on to the other. . .. Resistance is produced at the moment when the speech of revelation is not said, when… the subject can no longer get himself out of it. He hooks on to the other because what is pressing towards speech cannot attain it. . . . If speech then functions as mediation, it is on account of its revelation not having been accomplished. . . . For resistance, in fact, is embodied in the system of the ego and the other. . .. But it emanates from somewhere else, namely, from the subject’s impotence to end up in the domain in which his truth is realized [1988a, 48-50/59-61].

因为生命实存的告白并不妥协,言说完全沿着斜坡进行,在斜坡上,言说挂住他者、、、抗拒被产生,当启示的言说没有被说出、、、当主体不再能够让自己挣脱它。主体挂住他者,因为正在逼迫朝向言说的东西,无法获得它、、、假如言说因此充当中介,那是因为它的启示从来没有被完成、、、事实上,抗拒被具体表现,在自我与他者的系统里。但是它从某个其他地方被散发出来,换句话说,从主体的无能在这个领域,作为终结,在那里,真理被实践(1988a,48-50/59-612)。

And yet, from another angle, Freud’s error really does reveal “the deepest secret of his being,” the forgetting on which the null and mortal point of his desire must necessarily founder. Desire— which is nothing, or “being” as non-being—arises only in speech where the subject speaks himself while abolishing himself (that is also to say, while killing himself) as “real.” Lacan states this more specifically in the last sessions of the first seminar, once more taking up Kojeve’s directions for the distinction between the real and the true: “Before speech, no-thing neither is nor is not [rien n’est, ni n’est pas]. … Truth hollows out its way into the real, thanks to the dimension of speech. There is neither true nor false prior to speech. . . . Symmetrically, the hole, the gap of being as such, is hollowed out in the real” (1988a, 228-229/254; translation modified). A bit farther on, with respect to desire in Freud, he says, “The repressed desire made manifest in the dream is identified with this register [injto which I am trying to get you to enter—what is waiting to be revealed is being. . . . Depending on the way one envisions it, this hole in the real is called being or nothingness. This being and this nothingness are essentially linked to the phenomenon of speech” (1988a, 270-271/297).

可是,从另外一个角度,弗洛依德的错误确实启示「生命实存的最深的秘密」,这个遗忘。在遗忘的这一点,他的欲望的徒劳与有限点必然会崩塌。欲望—作为空无或作为非-存在的「存在」的,仅有在主体言说他自己的言说里产生,当他废除他自己,作为「实在界」,(换句话说,杀死他自己)。拉康更加明确地陈述这个,在第一研讨班的最后几节课。他再次採取科耶夫的方向,朝向实在界与真实界的区别:「在言说之前,空无既非存在,也非不存在。)由于言说的维度,真理掏空它的途径,进入实在界。在言说之前,既没有真实,也没有虚假、、、均称地,这个空洞,生命实存作为自身的空隙,在实在界被掏空」(1988a,228/229/254)。稍微深入,关于在弗洛依德的欲望,拉康说:「在梦里被展现的潜抑的欲望,被认同于这个铭记,我正在邀请你们进入的铭记—正在等待被启示的东西是生命实存。依靠我们拟想它的途径,实在界的这个空洞被称为生命实存或空无。这个生命实存与这个空无基本上跟言说的现象息息相关(1988a,270-271/297)

In other words, speech is the manifestation of desire as being-nothing, just as it is truth in opposition to reality. This is precisely why Lacan, speaking of the forgetting of “Signorelli,” said that “the man who, in the act of speaking, breaks the bread of truth with his counterpart, shares the lie.” Speech is simultaneously true and false—false in regard to the reality that it annuls, and all the more true in regard to the nothing that it evokes. Freud’s “error”—the error he formulates in speaking to his traveling companion—is thus more “true” than any adequacy to the thing to be expressed, and this is what Lacan calls by a very strong name: the revelation of unconscious desire. In fact, shortly after having described resistance as the “hooking” of speech onto the imaginary alter ego, he continues:

换句话说,言说是欲望的展示,作为生命实存-空无,正如它是真理与现实作为对立。这确实是为什么拉康,言说”Signorelli” 的这个遗忘时,他说:「正在言说时的这个人,分享真理的面包,给他的同伴,分享这个谎言。」言说同时既是真实,又是虚假—关于它宣告无效的现实,它是虚假。关于它召唤的这个空无,它是更加地真实。弗洛依德的「错误」–他跟他的同车乘客言说时诠释的这个错误,因此更加地「真实」,比起应该被表达的物象的胜任。这就是为什么拉康用一个强烈的名字称呼:「无意识的欲望的启示」。事实上,他将抗拒描述为言说「挂住」想像界的他-我时,他继续说:

But there is another side to speech—revelation. Revelation and not expression—the unconscious is not expressed, except by deformation, Entstel-lungy distortion, transportation. This summer I wrote The Function and Field of Speech and Language, intentionally without using the term ‘expression’, because the whole of Freud’s work unfolds in the dimension of revelation, and not of expression. Revelation is the ultimate source of what we are searching for in the analytic experience [1988a, 48-49/59].27

言说有另外的一面—启示。启示而且不是表达—无意识没有被表达,除了凭借畸形转变。扭曲,运转。今年夏天,我写「言说与语言的功能与领域」,特意不使用「表达」这个术语,因为整个的弗洛依德的著作,展开于启示的维度,而不是表达的维度。在精神分析的经验里,启示是我们正在寻求的东西的最后根源(1988a,48-49/59)。

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: