弗洛伊德的技术性著作 5

弗洛伊德的技术性著作 5
1953—1954

Jacques Lacan
雅克 拉康
Introduction to the commentaries on Freud’s Papers on Technique
弗洛伊德的技术性著作的评论的导言

THE SEMINAR
CONFUSION IN ANALYSIS
HISTORY IS NOT THE PAST
THEORIES OF THE EGO
研讨班
精神分析的混淆
历史并非过去
自我的理论

3
All this may appear to you at the moment to be a little abstract, and I want to do my best to tell you something a bit more concrete, to bring you into this discussion.

所有这一切目前你们可能觉得稍微抽象。我想要尽我力量告诉你们某件更加具体的东西,引导你们进入这个讨论。

I am going to remind you quickly of Freud’s seminal experience which I mentioned earlier on, since in fact that is what was partly the object of our lectures of last term, totally centred as they were on the notion that the complete reconstitution of the subject’s history is the element that is essential, constitutive and structural for analytic progress.

我将要很快提醒你们,有关我早先提到的弗洛依德的种子经验。因为事实上,那是我们上个学期的演讲的部分的目标,虽然它们完全集中于这个观念:主体的历史的完整的重新建构,是基本的因素,对于精神分析的进步,具有组成与结构。

I believe that I have demonstrated that that is where Freud started from. What is at issue for him is the understanding of an individual case. That is what gives each of the five great case-histories their value. The three that we have already looked at, pondered over and worked on together in previous years show you just that. Freud’s progress, the discoveries he made, lies in the way he considers the singularity of a case.

我相信,我曾经证明,那是弗洛依德开始的地方。对于他,具有争议的东西,就是个人个案的理解。那是为什么五个个案历史,都各具价值。前几年,我们一块观看,沉思与研究过的三个,跟你们显示就是那样。弗洛依德的进步,他所做的发现,都在于他考虑到个案的独特性。

Consider it in its singularity, what does that mean? That means essentially that, for him, the interest, the essence, the basis, the dimension proper to analysis is the réintégration by the subject of his history right up to the furthermost perceptible limits, that is to say into a dimension that goes well beyond the limits of the individual. To lay the foundations, deduce it, demonstrate it employing a thousand subtleties in Freud’s texts, is what we have accomplished together over the last few years.

考虑到个案具有它的独特性,那是什么意思?那基本上意味着,对于他,精神分析的本体的興趣,本质,基础,与维度,就是由个案的历史的主体重新融合,到尽可能被知觉的程度。换句话说,进入这个维度,完全超越个人的限制的维度。过去几年来,我们一块所完成的东西,就是替它奠下基础,推论它,证明它,使用弗洛伊德文本的上千个微妙细节。

What reveals this dimension is the accent that Freud puts in each case on those points that it is essential to overcome by means of the technique and which are what I will call the bearings [situations] of the history. Does this amount to placing the accent on the past, as it may appear at first sight? I showed you that it is not as simple as that. History is not the past. History is the past in so far as it is historicised in the present – historicised in the present because it was lived in the past.

启示这个维度的东西,就是弗洛依德对于每个个案的强调,针对凭借技术必须要克服的那些要点。它们就是我所谓的历史的关联。这相当等于是将强调放在过去,因为乍然一看,它是那个样子。我跟你们显示,并不是那样简单。历史并不是过去。仅有当它在现在被当成历史时,历史才会是过去—它在现在被当成历史,因为它在过去被经历。

The path of restitution of the subject’s history takes the form of a quest for the restitution of the past. We should consider this restitution as the butt to be aimed at by the recourses of technique.

主体的历史重建的途径,採取的形式是追寻过去的重建。我们应该考虑这个重建,当著是凭借着技术,要瞄准的靶心。

Throughout Freud’s works, in which, as I have told you, technical suggestions are to be found at every turn, you will discover that the restitution of the past retained its prominent position in his preoccupations right to the end. That is why the very questions which are opened up by Freud’s discovery are raised by this restitution of the past, and they turn out to be none other than the questions which up to now have been avoided, skirted round, in analysis I mean, namely those which bear on the function of time in the realisation of the human subject.

我曾经告诉过你们,在弗洛依德的全部著作里,技术的暗示随时能够被发现。你们将会发现,在他的专注研究,对于过去的重建保留它的杰出地位,一直到最后。那就是为什么弗洛依德发现所展开的那些问题,由对过去的这个重建所提出。它们结果证明实实在在就是迄今一直被避免,被绕过的问题。我指的是在精神分析。换句话说,在人的主体的实现,跟时间的功能有关的那些问题。

When we return to the origin of the Freudian experience – when I say origin, I do not mean historical origin but point-source – one realises that this is what has always kept analysis alive, despite the profoundly different garbs it has been given. Again and again, Freud emphasises the restitution of the past, even when, with the conception of the three agencies – you will see that one can even talk of four -‘he gives a considerable extension to the structural point of view, favouring thereby a certain orientation which will increasingly focus on the analytic relation in the present, on the here and now of the session, between the four walls of analysis.

当我们回到弗洛依德经验的起源—当我说起源,我并不是指历史的起源,而是指来源的起源—我们体会到,这就是为什么精神分析会蓬勃发展,尽管它被给予的装扮五花八门。一再地,弗洛依德强调过去的重建,使用三个代理者的观念—你们将会看见,我们甚至能够谈到四个代理者—他广泛地延伸到结构的观点,因此偏爱某个定向。这个定向将会越来越专注于目前的精神分析的关系,专注于分析时刻的现在与当下,处于精神分析的四周的墙壁之间。

To back up what I am telling you, all I need do is cite an article he published in 1934, Konstruktioneninder Analyse, in which what is at issue, again and as ever, is the reconstruction of the subject’s history.6 You won’t find a more characteristic instance of the persistence of this point of view in all of Freud’s work. In this article, it is something like a final insistence on this pivotal theme. We have here something like the distilled essence, the point, the last word on what has been at stake all along, in a work as central as the Wolfman – what value does the subject’s reconstructed past have?

为了支持我正在告诉你们的东西,我所需要做的事是,引述他在1934年出版的文章,「精神分析导论」。在那里,受到争议的东西,再一次像以前一样,就是重建主体的历史。在弗洛依德的所有的著作里,你们将会发现,最具特性的例子,就是坚持这个观点。我们在此拥有某件像是被过滤的本质的东西,像是要点,像是对于始终岌岌可危的东西的最终断语,在像「狼人」这样的中心著作—主体的重建的过去具有怎样的价值?

One could say that Freud touches there – though one senses it in many other places in his corpus – on a notion that was emerging in the course of our discussions last term, and which is roughly the following – the fact that the subject relives, comes to remember, in the intuitive sense of the word, the formative events of his existence, is not in itself so very important. What matters is what he reconstructs of it.

我们能够说,弗洛依德在那里碰触到一个观念—虽然我们在他的著作的许多其他地方感觉到—在上个学期,我们讨论的过程,这个观念逐渐出现。内容大约如下—主体重新经历,逐渐记得他的生命实存的成长事件,用这个字词的直觉意义而言,这个事实在它的本身并没有如此重要。重要的是他重新建构它。

On this point, there are some striking turns of phrase. After all, Freud writes, Trâume, dreams, sind auch erinnern, are also a way of remembering.7 He even goes so far as to say that screen-memories themselves are, after all, an adequate representative of what is at issue.8 To be sure, in their manifest form as memories, they certainly are not, but if we work on them sufficiently they render up to us the equivalent of what we are looking for.

针对这点,有一些引人注目的词语的转换。毕竟,弗洛依德写到,梦也是一种记忆的方式。他甚至夸张地说:屏蔽-记忆的本身,毕竟都是充分地代表受到争议的东西。的确,在它们作为像记忆的明显形式,它们确实不是。但是,假如我们充分地研究它们,它们将会提供给予我们,那些我们正在寻找的东西的相等的东西。

Can you see where this is all leading to?” It leads, within Freud’s own conception, to an idea that what is involved is a reading, a qualified and skilled
translation of the cryptogram representing what the subject is conscious of at the moment – what am I going to say now? of himself? no, not only of himself -of himself and of everything else, that is to say of the whole of his system.

你们能够看出这一切将导致什么吗?在弗洛依德自己的观念里面,它导致一个观念:所牵涉到的东西,是一种阅读,一种胜任而灵巧的翻译,对于代表主体在当时意识的东西的密码的翻译。我现在要告诉你们什么?关于他自己?不,不仅关于他自己,不仅关于他自己与一切其他东西,也就是说,他的整个系统的一切其他东西。

As I told you just a moment ago, the restitution of the subject’s wholeness appears in the guise of a restoration of the past. But the stress is always placed more on the side of reconstruction than on that of reliving, in the sense we have grown used to calling affective. The precise reliving – that the subject remembers something as truly belonging to him, as having truly been lived through, with which he communicates, and which he adopts – we have the most explicit indication in Freud’s writings that that is not what is essential. What is essential is reconstruction, the term he employs right up until the end.

如同我刚才告诉过你们,主体的完整性的重建,以恢复过去的伪装出现。但是,强调总是被放置在重建的这边,而不是在重新经历的这边。就我们已经习惯于所谓「情感」的意义而言。准确地重新经历—主体记起某件东西,作为确实属于他的东西,作为确实曾经被经历过的东西,他跟它们沟通,他採用它们—在弗洛依德的著作里,我们获得最明确的指示:那并不是关键的东西。关键的东西是重新建构,他使用这个术语,一直到最后。

There is something truly remarkable here, which would be paradoxical if we gained access to it without having an awareness of the meaning it may take on in the register of speech, which I am trying here to highlight as being necessary to the understanding of our experience. I would say – when all is said and done, it is less a matter of remembering than of rewriting history.

在此,有某件东西确实引人注意。那个东西将会是个悖论,假如我们获得接近它,却并不知道它在言说的铭记里,可能具有的意义。我在此正在尝试强调这个言说,作为是理解我们的经验的必要性。我不妨说—当一切都说都做了,重要的事情并不是记忆,而是重新改写历史。

I tell you what there is in Freud. That doesn’t imply that he was right; but this thread is continuous, permanently subjacent to his thought’s development. He never abandoned something which can only be put in the way I’ve found of saying it – rewriting history – a formula which allows one to put in perspective the various directions that he gives apropos of little details in the narratives within analysis.

我告诉你们在弗洛依德里的这些东西。那并没有暗示着,他是正确的。但是这个脉络是继续,永久地隶属于他的思想的发展。他从来没有放弃只要能够放置我刚刚发现论述它的方式—重新改写历史–这一个公式让我们能够宏观他给予的各个方向,关于在精神分析内部的叙述的各种微小细节。

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: